Erving Goffman's On Face-Work

Erving Goffman is widely regarded as the father of dramaturgy in the sociological context, meaning his application of the theatrical aspect to informal sociological analysis was revolutionary to the field. The definition of dramaturgy in the sociological sphere can be simplistically defined as individuals playing a role in social situations to adhere to the societally determined role. To expand on this, Goffman places emphases less on how these roles or rituals have come to be performed and received in such ways but more towards the maintenance of social order via a subconscious removal of self to commit to the established role. A precursor to the role of dramaturgy is face; a concept which is recognised by Goffman in his piece On Face-Work

These ideas are all methods of preserving a social order that are unspoken but always taught through parenting and social interaction. The significance of dramaturgy is not seen until one actively goes against the role or in some circumstances fails to adhere to the role for any reason; at this point of failure we see the other people in such scenarios behave in a few ways. We can see the other participants ignore the incident to allow the person to regain composure or save face; change the tone of the interaction typically to play the incident off as an intentional joke; or correct the person on their failure. These reactions showcase that these interactions reinforce the social order as we can recognise a failed dramaturgy and a proper interaction amongst a group. This ability to recognise and differentiate between between proper and improper interactions alludes to the fact that the impact of interaction is so profound that we have defined social order via these interactions. This emergence of social order and establishment of the role then leads one to become more advanced at dissociating the self from the

This idea is called ethnomethodology and takes the research aspect from ethnology in order to uncover the methods of understanding the world and ones place in it; in essence, how does the formation of social order differ between societies? Ethnomethodology was revolutionary in that this was the first theology to acknowledge that no sociological concepts should be assumed universal. Garfinkel’s ideas lean more towards the individualisation of social interaction, however this does not undermine the significance of social interaction in determining social order. A simplistic description of a core belief held by Garfinkel is “mutual intelligibility (or sensemaking) in all situations from ordinary conversation through work...” (Anne Warfield Rawls, 2008); to expand upon this, the mutual common sense and logic held by members in social interactions is what leads to the emergence of social order. The mutual logic idea is key in understanding that interactions are defined by the participants as successful or unsuccessful; this idea is similar to Goffman’s key thoughts but they differ in that Garfinkel portrays the mutual intelligibility as the determining factor in the expectations of the interaction