Credibility, Agency, and the Interaction Order

Abstract

There are two ways of reading Goffman—as a theorist of trust and ritual accommodation, that is, as a theorist of the interaction order, or as a theorist of deception. I suggest a way of making these two readings compatible, by arguing that Goffman was interested in what I call the “production of credibility.” Credibility is the quality of being believable, and this quality is integral to both trust and deception. Viewed in this way, Goffman explored the ways in which people make their actions convincing to other people. Although Goffman's analysis of the interaction order did not need a theory of the self, his work actually contains two quite different theories of the self: one linked to role analysis, one to his analysis of mental illness. I argue for the latter at the expense of the former. I conclude that Goffman both initiated substantive work about the interaction order and contributed to a synthesis of a theory of the interaction order and a theory of the self.

Reclothing the Emperor: The Swimming Pool as a Negotiated Order

“…This is broadly similar to Goffman's (1959) distinction between sincere and cynical performances, whereby an actor may have more or less belief in the part that he or she is playing. Issues of trust, accommodation, and orderliness sit alongside ideas of deception and secrecy in his work (Manning 2000). The swimming pool moves back and forth between these definitions of reality, as rules are adhered to or challenged, and thus social order is negotiated.…”

'Datafied' reading

“…Theoretically and methodologically, we build on Erving Goffman's work, in particular his conceptualization of frame analysis. Manning [27] has characterized Goffman as a theorist of credibility: frame analysis can be seen as a method of understanding the circumstances that make experiences feel real. Credibility encompasses two themes central to Goffman's work: trust and deception.…”

“…Credibility encompasses two themes central to Goffman's work: trust and deception. Manning [27] notes that much of Goffman's writing shows that the methods for fostering trust are the same as those used for deception.…”

Labeling in Interactional Practice: Applying Labeling Theory to Interactions and Interactional Analysis to Labeling

“…In addition to this work on framing, Goffman had also explored the issue of labeling in his work (, ); yet he never made explicit the connections between these earlier writings and his later writings on the interaction order, particularly his writings on framing and forms of interaction (Goffman , , ). As Manning () points out “Goffman's social theory can be further developed by linking his analysis of the interaction order to the theory of the self” (294). In the above analysis of the tutoring session between Joan and LaShawnda, I am arguing for the important role of framing in the making of selves through the process of labeling in interactional practice.…”