Rituelle Spiele mit Beziehungen

Abstract

Zusammenfassung: Erving Goffmans Arbeit ist einerseits als eine von Durkheim beeinflusste explikation der Interaktionsordnung, andererseits als eine ironistische Abkehr vom Ordnungsdenken thematisiert worden. daraus resultiert eine Spannung, die goffman produktiv nutzte, aber niemals aufzulösen versuchte. Anstatt ihn als Kartografen der alltäglichen Ordnung zu sehen, passt es daher besser, ihn als Spieler mit unterschiedlichen Perspektiven zum alltäglichen Spiel mit Ordnungen zu bezeichnen. So liegt der durkheim'sche Aspekt nicht in der Ordnung, sondern in der betonung von Ritualen, aus denen er rituelle Spiele macht, während normen im Anschluss an goffmans ironistischen Aspekt als rituelle beziehungszeichen verstanden werden können, mit denen in Interaktionen gespielt wird. Schlüsselwörter: goffman · normen · durkheim · Pragmatismus · Ironie Ritual games of relationship negotiation. Goffman's norms between the interaction order and ironist opennessAbstract: On the one hand, erving goffman's work has been perceived as an explication of the interaction order indebted to durkheim. On the other hand however, it is known as an ironist rejection of order. goffman made use of this ambivalence without ever attempting to resolve it. Instead of looking at goffman as a cartographer of the order of everyday life's order, he can be seen as someone who plays with different perspectives about the everyday game with order. Thus, his durkheimian part is not order, but ritual, which he transforms into ritual play; norms are then ritual games with relationships. Jeux rituels avec les relations. Les normes de Goffman entre ordre de l'interaction et distanciation ironiqueRésumé: le travail d'erving goffman a été discuté d'une part comme une explication de l'ordre de l'interaction influencée par Durkheim, d'autre part comme une prise de distance ironique avec berlin

Little Dramas of Discomposure: On Doing Face‐Work with Disaligning Actions

“…Far from being a game of interaction rules to be kept, I follow Goffman's lead in viewing interaction rules as playthings (1967; cp. Dellwing ): They are not set‐in‐stone expectations, but quite situational, shifting and fluctuating “looking‐glass” expectations, continuously calibrated toward one another. In a café, a group of friends sits, joking, ripping one another: another member is newer in the group, and surrounded by the others, she makes fun of some of the others—immediately followed by a widening of the eyes, a short moment of hesitation until the others laugh, at which point she laughs with them.…”

A Guide to Training Your Own Horses: The Flaneur Appproach and Erving Goffman's Uninhibited Research Practices in Sociology

“…This way, Goffman shows how small actions in everyday life are dramatizations, shows of meaning (theater metaphor); how these meanings are played out against one another (game metaphor); how they become ritualized, not just in actions‐as‐meanings, but in dances of negotiation; and how these ritual dramatizations can be seen as a language of everyday life (cf. Dellwing ).…”

Moving Armies of Stop Signs

“…Also, there is no need to involve agents of official social control, and to do so already communicates a breach of the relationship (cf. Dellwing 2010). Legal support is a never fully secure resource that has to be actively sought and then has to actively coalesce; it is not an objective frame either.…”