The importance of understanding social interaction is not a recent phenomenon, but only until recently have humans had the technology to explain why social interaction works. Cross-culturally, form of communication and interaction in a social setting differ. Even the simple forms of body language can have entirely new meaning in a different environment. Erving Goffman and manyothers philosophers in the realm of linguistic anthropology made an observation that human present themselves differently in everyday life, and they chose to do so in their social environments. The same event occurs in the film of the three architects. Even though, they are simply working a possibly rougtine job, they still find themselves caught up in an act. With the help of research from thepioneers of social interactive study, the architects acting positions and their stage is revealed through mannerisms, appearences, and setting. The errors they make are unconvered through Grices four maxims.
One of the pioneers of improvisation in real life, Irving Goffman once posited that, “everyone is always and everywhere, more or less consciously playing a role. It is in these roles that weknow each other” (Goffman 19). As Goffman proposes, everyone is at one time or another performing a role. In everyplace, they can choose to act a certain way and play a certain role. Using the architect video as an example, one can find the uses of Goffman’s principles of interaction as a way to explain the performers’ social positions and the environments in which they perform. Through the lenses ofmannerism, appearances, and setting, it is much easier to understand the complexities of human social behavior and the corresponding interaction.
It is though Goffman’s principle of mannerism that the architects give away which roles they are playing in their particular scenario. By observing the mannerisms of the actors, their acting parts are revealed as well. Julie for instance, shows inthe video that she is not as involved and more estranged from the conversation. There are several reasons for this. Throughout the video, it appears that she is not seated. She is standing. The main dialogue is between Goerge and Mark who are sitting and at their desks and facing eachother throughout the discussion. She only adds information intermittently showing that she is not only physicallyisolated from the project, but also isolated from a social persective. For instance, because she is standing, she only throws in her input very infrequently and often is talked over by the other two men.
J: [hhh no janitors closet is over there
G: [(no we jus’ moved it over
J: hh [wee had it (W’t)G: [Remember we :: we had it
As elicited from the above example, most of the times Julie speaks, she is interrupted by either Goerge or Mark. Both of the men add nearly the same information Julie adds, but they always say it at the same time. They also speak with more volume almost drowning her out of the conversation altogether. Though bothmen do not do this intentionally, it provides evidence that Julie’s position is one of estrangement Both her physical position and her verbal contributions reaveal this isolation. However, George also reveals his acting position through his mannerisms. He does so by being subservient to Mark.
G: hhh, I think .. I think …. do you have any problem with ….hhh and you’ve
And you’ve never had aproblem with this in the past...expanding this
M: Yes (2) hhh no!!!
G: Well (W’t)
G: hhh (.)Yeah I know I know
M: you chastise me for doing that to GIS this morning
G: no : no :
In the example, it appears that...
Leer documento completo
Regístrate para leer el documento completo.