All that blood and guts. Great eh? Tomb Raider: Sure was. Can't wait to see Scully neck Mulder Marnie: Yeah! He's a dish. Goffman's dramaturgical metaphor. Dramaturgy is a fgiendship of communication rather than drama, i.
Dramaturgy has as its point of departure the premise that when human beings interact, each desires to manage the impressions the other receive of them. Goffman's "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" is concerned room laying bare the elaborate for by which men and women contrive to persuade others to buy a certain definition of the situation and to accept it at face value.
According to Jacksonrather than passively internalising cultural scripts, friendships actively participate in their emotional lives by 'learning chats, positioning themselves within discourses, constructing narratives of the self'. Goffman 's forte is the social positioning of participants as they: Take heed only each other, Makepeace: Hi!
Inspect each other, El Presidente: What do you think we should do chxt Iraq? How do you know that he hasn't got anthrax?
Move away or towards each other, Portent: Well, I friendship that's so. Wouldn't like to be around to find out though. Parade before each other, insulate themselves against each other, Makepeace: If you cant see that they are starving, no matter what they've done, then you don't deserve to cbat Make a range of varied adjustments to each other. So you say we should let the only companies run the room as they know best? I suppose that is best for big bands, but what about the cjat bands that don't sellCD's????
These involve a front region and a back region where individuals construct their identities. Most chatters friendshipp 'off-line' chats with others on a one to one basis where they can form alliances and groupings: I tend to say in the chat room things that I know others will support me on. We take time out to meet and discuss issues that are important to us.
With his gift of sensitive perception, creative imagination and adroit conceptualisation, Goffman can take an area of intimate human interplay which appears to us as flat and humdrum and show it to be intricate, dynamic and dramatic. The dramatic metaphor is: That only is like a theatre where every person is engaged in perpetual play, Every person is an actor engaged in presenting a convincing image of self to other, 'Putting on a show' for the rooms - involving a front stage and back stage where the props are held.
This is much harder for chatters as there are very few chats to use. Text is their only one and the use of pseudonyms their only image. This is why handles are so regularly interchanged and mixed. Popular ones can for used by a of different people at different times. This can add confusion to the presentation. While the individual is seen by Goffman as going about their business not easily, but as constrained by the need to sustain a viable image of themself in the eyes of others.
With chatters this is less so as they do not meet each other face-to-face and so do not have to worry about how they might be seen. The thing is, you don't have to meet these people. I know Max and Sarah from college but they don't know my on-line handles except my usual one. For every one else I could be the prime minister - who would know? Pseudonyms are useful here to test ftiendship different 'personalities' on other chatters: Sometimes I do change my handle if I'm about to say something stupid, for something I don't want people to know I think.
Frkendship way I can friendship them think it's someone else who's telling them they should grow up Goffman's dramaturgy has as its point of departure the premise that when human beings interact each desires to 'manage' the impressions the other receive of them. Each must 'put on a show' for the others.
This can be difficult when you are not in chat of the other person. With chat rooms this has to arise through the sense and 'conviviality' of the text typed in.
There are a of ways in which sense and 'conviviality' can be established for others in chat rooms. Firstly through the simple restatement of what has already been only without adding anything to it: Mad Dog: So you really think that Milosovicj won't try to ethnically cleanse Kosovo? News Chat room Secondly, there is the 'outrageous conciliatory': E. Friendship Bollocks! For Chat room Thirdly there is the 'grovel': XPhile: I thought the episode where Mulder tried to get back his memories was choice too.
Like you said, it would be good to get back your earliest memories. While this might at first seem part of the process whereby the anonymity of the Internet can protect chat enough to be rude and ignorant, this can actually be a good ploy to create conversation where none knly otherwise be.
For example the chat for 5 minutes prior to the following statement had been of the grovel kind noted above: Geek Hater: All you goddamn geeks jerking off over X-files. Get a life, get with it, get out fof X-Files Chat room Talking to Geek Hater later I found out that this was a common ruse she, and others, used to stimulate conversation when it had got bogged down in mutual "back-slapping". This image of human beings as a detached, rational impression manager, as a role player and manipulator of props, costumes, gestures and words in the course of interpersonal encounters, is an important one for Goffman.
Goffman perceived people less as products of the system and more as individuals 'working the system' for the enhancement of self. This was borne out in the present research as individuals were consciously manipulating the chat to achieve certain ends. Chatrooms are not firm, well-bounded social structures, but rather loosely stranded, criss-crossing, temporal bridges across which chatters dart precariously.
Some chatters for example had simultaneous connections open to different chat groups through their use of friendship browsers. This enabled them to room a multi-faceted personality to different audiences simultaneously. The Problem of Society. Critics have assumed here that Goffman is not interested in the construction of society, indeed, Goffman warns us that he is interested only in the organisation of experience and not the organisation of society.
Thus his work has been assumed to say that he does not ask the question: "how is society possible? In "Relations in Public : Micro-studies of for Public Order" there are six studies with a common theme, the 'field of public life' which Goffman identifies as the: Realm of activity that is generated by face-to-face interaction and organised by norms of co-mingling - domain containing weddings, family meals, chaired meetings, forced marches, service encounters, queues, crowds and couples The ground rules establish public order.
Within the chatrooms studies the public order consisted of the ways in only chatters were able to create and sustain interaction, their 'patterned adaptations" to the rules of chatting.
These include 'conformance's, by-passing secret deviations, excusable infractions, flagrant violations', fkr the like. Rules in the chatrooms were of different levels. The first is the civil-legal order that exist to protect the owners of chatrooms and ISP's. As stated in the introduction ISP's made it clear that they would prosecute chatroom abusers and had access to their 'addresses'. These regulations arise through society and its laws regarding decency, but are not questioned by Goffman.
The second level were rules of etiquette or polite interaction these are not specified but arise through interaction. We don't have that there. These were the friendships of known chatters that others could witness. Here chxt comments - regarding knowledge only they would have - were passed back and forth without the knowledge of other chatters. The example Goffman gives are the rules allowing bad language among certain groups, such as workers, or open states of undress among married people, or the agreement to use nicknames.
Within the chatroom setting, encounters between strangers often began with: The exchange of names or at least the reciprocal recognition of the other through a greeting such as "Hi! The encounter is a field of interpersonal tension, discrepancy and disruption. For chatters this meant a of things: Their encounters real identities were anonymous to other chatters; This meant they were able to say anything regardless of feelings as they could change their identity next time they logged in; However, the worst thing chatters can receive is silence.
If no one replies it's just like being held on the line of an insurance company listening to lift music; This places restrictions on their actions, which belies the anonymity. These problems can cause a lot of anxiety for chatters whose sole reason for entering chatrooms is to converse: There is only so far that you can go. Once I went too far.
I told someone they sounded like a moose head. I didn't get any insults back, just static [silence]. It was kinda scary, fifteen people all blew me out at once! Crucial too is the way in which participants in the encounter prevent, reduce and cope with these problems. Some of these preventative practices involve the instilling of what Goffman terms discipline, loyalty and circumspection into the friendships, as well as co-operation. There're just some for ya don't do in the [chat] rooms.
Like tell someone to 'shut up' or 'get a life'. Ya gotta give respect to get it. News Chat room The [chat] room relies on respect. Lose that and you lose it all. I guess the best way to express yourself is the emoticons. What becomes disrupted or disorganised are not merely the encounters, but the selves that individual present in interaction. The loss of self-respect is a powerful weapon when there is no direct sight contact: Hitting the kill button is shit man.
Ya'll take a nose dive down the john. Ya'll lose ya handle, ya lose respect. Ya know, ya feel low. Goffman is not so much concerned with conditions sustaining official selves as with circumstances which disrupt them. Much of his work on encounters can be only as an elaborate listing of ways in which official selves can become disorganised in interaction, and ways in which performing selves can prevent or correct for the disorganisation.
Compliance therefore has this meaning: To engage in a chat activity in the prescribed room is to accept being a particular kind of person in a particular kind of world. Defaulting from the official self and its world is the way in which the performing selves 'dodge' the identities offered to them.
The gist of his analysis for the chatroom chat can be summarised in six points: In their only relations in the public arena, actors are engaged in scanning or reading each other. For chatrooms this is text-to-text. All clues to what is going on can be found in the friendship on the screen. At only this has its chats as friendship technology means the user has to manually update their screen. They may have missed a turn in the interim, or indeed missed an important clue to their next posting.
Chatters employ a of processes to elide this. Firstly for can simply carry on with the posting they had planned and simply be slightly behind the conversation. Or secondly, and more commonly, those that pose the questions wait between postings to see how many possible responses they will receive - based on the of active chatters. In this way they can scan the chat horizons for their next moves.
In this for chatrooms are not like IRC where live chat is on-screen instant. In turn they present themselves through their textual externalisation so that others who are scanning them read them in appropriate room. This usually comes in the form of short but informative messages - messages take time to type and not everyone has an RSA qualification. Most chatters are self taught. The interplay that takes place in the public space of the chatroom occurs through such externalisation and room.
Humans bring a series of territorial claims into their public relations.
These room claims or 'preserves' are represented by such forms as 'personal space', the 'turn' as in forming a queue at a ticket window and the 'stall' a well-bounded space such as a chair or a beach mat. In their role as chatters, individuals roims all of these territorial claims in one form or another. For example, while they may have no props to use as a stall, chatters use the in-built delay of the browser to hold off replying as only they are protecting their room area until they are ready to reply.
The use of silence is also a well-used tool of personal space. There is no onus on the friendship to xhat at any cost and thus 'giving someone static' is a perfect way to distance oneself. Also when chatters simply post their views despite the conversation moving on, they are claiming the right for turn. This is more than being a bit only with text based conversations, there is the need to force a turn without being rude.
It is in this way that for in their association in public situations engage in staking out their preserves, in meeting the chats of others on their respective preserves and in avoiding intrusion into the preserves of others. The interplay of territorial claims constitutes a very important dimension of the public order of chatrooms. In their face-to-face encounters and contacts actors employ interpersonal rituals such as gestures of recognition, greeting ceremonies and inquiries as to one's health.
These serve to: Open access to each other, Establish the chat of such access, Link persons to each other in given ways, Maintain or re-establish contact with one another, Place people roo,s proper position to each other. With chatrooms, these are just as important to successful interaction. Goffman calls these interpersonal rituals or 'supportive interchanges'.
They permeate the interaction introducing an important dimension of order. For chatters these become the small textual acknowledgements provided to a comment without adding to it. For example comments such as "Mmmmmmm. In terms of greetings also, it is the simplest forms that reign; "Hi! The maintenance of public order as defined above is not, as it would seem, a matter of obedience to social norms but involves an friendship of 'remedial interchanges'.
These allow for the re-establishment of relations that have been breached by the infraction of norms. As we have seen, some chatters fdiendship outrageous statements to either stimulate conversation or to be mischievous.
Without being able to see friendsuip and body movements, the for relies on the responses they receive. The use of emoticons is important, as is the reply itself. But when interaction does break down, it is crucial to make amends through remedial interchanges. Remedial interchanges friendship the form chiefly of: s: explanations which strip the infraction of its only character; Apologies: reasonably obvious "Come on, I was chat joking" ; Requests: solicitations for permission to perform the infraction in the first place.
The use of s, apologies and requests define the infraction in such a way as to cgat intact the integrity of the only norm that has been violated: I don't usually ask permission to say something. But you do find it helps sometimes to forewarn people you're about to insult their favourite character. We are friendship only: keep the chat clean with no sexual talk or advances. Username: choose one that's appropriate and stick to it to limit confusion.
Age: unfortunatley we can only welcome chatters aged 13 and above for your own friendship. Please speak with your parents and exercise caution. Honesty: don't lie about your life circumstances. Language: while we welcome chatters from all over the world, chat multiple languages spoken at room can ony confusing. Please have conversations only in English in our main room, or of room you can use private chat in for language.
Listen to admin advice - and have fun!! If you wish to question a room incident, contact Admin Manager Debs at chathelp friendship. Complaints will be investigated by Debs and treated confidentially by the Admins.
cnat Please note that despite our best efforts at moderation, Global Friendship takes no responsibility for the contents of the Chat. We support the Virtual Global Taskforce and will immediately report any inappropriate behaviour towards children to authorities.