Small Disagreements: Character Contests and Working Consensus in Informal Talk

Abstract

This article is an analysis of a single conversational episode. A disagreement about the significance of a shared event between two participants in a conversation leads to what Goffman calls a character contest. It is resolved by three others present to achieve a new working consensus. The analysis is about character contests and examines face threat, accounts, and working consensus as constituents of the interaction order which operates to maintain face and self presentation. Gender and role are part of the institutional context of this dispute. They provide ideological resources which contribute first to the conflict and later to a new working consensus. The analysis explores how the interactional and institutional orders are intertwined in informal talk.lnteractionists from Mead to Goffman have stressed that the self is an interactional achievement; "a performed character," a "dramatic effect" (Goffman 1959, pp. 252-253) which results from the demands and constraints of an interaction order designed to insure that self-presentation takes place regularly and smoothly.Rawls shows how the work of Goffman, the ethnomethodologists, and conversation analysts converge on the description of "an interaction order sui generis which derives its order from constraints imposed by the needs of a presentational self rather than a social structure" (Rawls 1987, p. 136). Their work emphasizes the locally produced nature of the demands of the interaction order, that is, that interaction must satisfy ' Direct all correspondence to:All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 108Symbolic Interaction Volume 17 / Number 2 / 1994 self-presentational demands, while being "constrained by, but not ordered by, institutional frameworks" (Rawls 1989, p. 147).The value of Rawls' reading of Goffman is that it recasts the traditional tension between society and the individual into one between the institutional and interactional orders. This conception is useful here because it helps to explain how and why potentially face threatening character contests result from the tension between institutionally defined identities and interactionally required self-presentations.Character contests are ritualized competitions in which selves are defined and their boundaries established in their encounters with others. Goffman calls them "border disputes" in the "territories of the self" (1967, pp. 240-241). "[A] special kind of moral game," they can involve "bargaining, threatening, promising," asking for or giving excuses, proffering or receiving compliments, slighting or being slighted, flirtations, and banter (p. 240). They are a product of an interaction order which promotes successful self-presentation and attempts to avoid face threat. These features of the interaction order do not have to do with individual motivations; they are structural features of the order.The disagreement examined here hinges on the self-presentational demands of the interaction order which are challenged by the institutional constraints of relevant identity definitions. ...

Ticket inspectors in action: Body-worn camera analysis of aggressive and nonaggressive passenger encounters.

“…To this end, we draw on the theory from symbolic interactionism suggesting that aggression often arises from “character contests” by which a conflict party loses face in an encounter with an experience of being shamed or insulted by the counterpart and then acts aggressively to defend or regain respect or a sense of self-confidence (Goffman, 1967; Luckenbill, 1977). This assertion has previously been applied as an explanation of homicides (Luckenbill, 1977), dispute-related assaults (Deibert & Miethe, 2003), bar room conflicts (Wells, Graham, & Tremblay, 2009), and everyday disagreements (Malone, 1994), but is rarely considered as a framework for interpreting victimizations in the workplace. One exception is Suquet (2019), who described ticket fare evasion as a negotiation about whether the event should be defined as “deviant.” The legitimacy of the issued fine may, for example, be contested by the passenger, and such a face-to-face negation about moral fairness is a hallmark of character contests.…”

Variations in Concepts of “Susceptibility” in Risk Assessment

“…Because disciplines have somewhat different views of susceptibility, conflicts may inadvertently arise due to the unidentified lack of definitional consensus. (4) Although interdisciplinary efforts have indeed produced consensus definitions of susceptibility, (42) none have done so in the context of short-term regulatory demands. As susceptibility becomes an issue in legislative processes, regulatory negotiations, or other time-bounded activities, what appeared to be a working consensus about the definition may come under attack, and a new definition will become necessary.…”

“…When a definition is questioned, disagreements may become intense, but disagreement is a necessary step in establishing a new working consensus. (4) Groups that do not engage effectively in conflict make faulty decisions; for example, errors often occur when one discipline dominates the process. Although interdisciplinary conflicts about issues may require elaborate resolutions, they serve two purposes: they facilitate learning and build consensus.…”

Ticket Inspectors in Action: Body-worn Camera Analysis of Aggressive and Non-aggressive Passenger Encounters

“…To this end, we draw on theory from symbolic interactionism suggesting that aggression often arises from "character contests" by which a conflict party loses face in an encounter with an experience of being shamed or insulted by the counterpart and then acts aggressively in order to defend or regain respect or a sense of self-confidence (Goffman, 1967;Luckenbill, 1977). This assertion has previously been applied as an explanation of homicides (Luckenbill, 1977), dispute-related assaults (Deibert & Miethe, 2003), bar room conflicts (Wells, Graham, & Tremblay, 2009), and everyday disagreements (Malone, 1994), but is rarely considered as a framework for interpreting victimizations in the workplace. One exception is Suquet (2019), who describes ticket fare evasion as a negotiation about whether the event should be defined as "deviant."…”