Goffman's frame analysis and modern micro-sociological paradigms

VERHOEVEN, J. C. (1982) Erving Goffman's Frame Analysis in relation to modern micro-sociological paradigms. Invited paper presented in the Symposium 'Revisions and Relations among modern micro-sociological paradigms' of the 10th World Congress of Sociology, Mexico City., 1982

Few contemporary sociologists are as creative as Erving Goffman. One product of this creativity is frame analysis (Goffman, 1974), a method that is both admired and neglected. Comparing Goffman's approach to other paradigms seems not only to be a negation of the creativity of this writer, but is strongly disliked by Goffman (1981b) when such comparisons have nothing but labelling as their purpose. It is not the function of this paper to place frame analysis in one or another theoretical pigeon-hole. Frame analysis is a sociological approach in its own right. Nevertheless, Goffman accepts different standpoints of symbolic interaction (G.H. Mead), ethnomethodology and phenomenological sociology (A. Schutz) even when he denies others. I intend here to present the differences and similarities between Goffman's frame analysis on the one hand, and Blumer's symbolic interaction, Schutz's phenomenological sociology,and Garfinkel' s ethnomethodology on the other hand in function of three questions. (1) What are the presuppositions in relation to reality, knowledge, man and society used in the four paradigms? (2) What is the object of sociology? (3) What are the methodological principles? Moreover, I want to show that in spite of different accents, the frame analysis approach can already be found in the earlier work of Goffman.

Letters in High Energy Physics, 2024

Introduction: This reflection article is the result of a documentary research, carried out in the subjects of research I and II, within the Universidad popular del Cesar, this work had the purpose of studying the main contributions of the microsocial sociological currents, such as symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology, to contemporary research. Objectives: To interpret the main contributions of micro-social sociological currents, such as symbolic interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology, within the framework of contemporary sociological research. Methods: The methodology employed in this text is framed within the parameters of the interpretative paradigm and uses the hermeneutic method to understand and interpret the arguments proposed by the micro-social authors. Results: The general results indicate that, firstly, Symbolic Interactionism has identified how individuals create and modify meanings through interaction, which is fundamental to the study of the construction of identities and social roles. Secondly, the contribution of Phenomenology to the analysis of subjective experience is highlighted, which allows us to understand how people give meaning to their everyday experiences. Finally, Ethnomethodology highlights its role in understanding how social norms are maintained and negotiated in everyday life, thus contributing to the study of the implicit social order. These three sociological streams offer both theoretical and methodological arguments for approaching contemporary research. Conclusions: Microsocial currents have enriched sociological analysis by focusing on individual and everyday interactions. They have been fundamental to the study of the construction of social reality from the actors' perspective, and have provided qualitative methodologies that complement macro-social approaches.

VERHOEVEN, J. C. (1993) "An Interview with Erving Goffman." Research on Language and Social Interaction. 26 (3) pp. 317-348, 1993

In this interview Goffman refuses to be labeled to belong to a special theoretical approach of sociology and compares his position with some theoretical streams in sociology. He links his position with the experiences of scholars trained in the late 40s at the University of Chicago, and looks back at teachers and books that were influential for his further development as a sociologist. An important part of the interview is dedicated to a reflection on his book Frame Analysis. This leads the interview to a reflection of the interviewee on the individual and society. After this theme Goffman offers his opinion on social reality that might receive another meaning because society frames this reality. The analysis is linked with the Western world, and more particularly the American society. Goffman describes his relation with the work of Weber, Durkheim, and Parsons and calls himself a positivist. He explains his opinion on objective and subjective experience, tells how he is doing his research, and the problems he meets according to some critics. He considers his work as more inductive, and he contends that he does not start from or create a big theory. He explains what he sees as a value-free approach in sociology, and describes the opposition between quantitative and qualitative research in American Sociology. At the end he offers his vision on Symbolic Interactionism, the position of G.H. Mead, J. Dewey, H. Blumer, and social pragmatism in relation to the development of Symbolic Interactionism.

Sociologija, 2011

The micro-macro or agency-structure question is indisputably one of the most important theoretical issues within the human and social sciences. The main purpose of this paper is to carefully explore, fruitfully overview and comprehensively critique the contemporary sociological literature on micro (agency) and macro (structure), from a reflexive-dialectical standpoint. This particular standpoint strategically emphasizes both the circularity and the relative autonomy of structures vis à vis actors, or of institutions vis à vis individuals. In this analytic context, it is critically discussed the varied notion of a middle position on the ongoing theoretical debate between positivism and constructivism, as well as the epistemologically beneficial role that meta-theoretical reflexivity and the internal conversation can potentially play in this debate. In specific, the internal conversation (Margaret Archer) gives a reflexive-dialectical impetus to the micro-macro relationship, while embracing a needed analytical dualism (not necessarily an ontological one). KEY WORDS sociology, social theory, epistemology, critical realism, reflexivity APSTRAKT Pitanje odnosa mikro-makro ili dejstvenosti i strukture bez sumnje je jedno od najvažnijih teorijskih pitanja u humanističkim i društvenim naukama. Ovaj rad ima za prvenstveni cilj da u širokom zahvatu pregleda, brižljivo razmotri i detaljno kritički preispita savremenu sociološku literaturu o mikronivou (odnosno, dejstvenosti) i makronivou (odnosno, strukturi), sa jednog refleksivno-dijalektičkog stanovišta. Ovo stanovište strateški naglašava kako cirkularnost tako i relativnu autonomiju struktura u odnosu na aktere, ili pak institucija u odnosu na pojedince. U ovom analitičkim kontekstu, kritički se razmatra ideja o srednjoj poziciji u tekućoj teorijskoj debati između pozitivizma i konstruktivizma, kao i epistemološki blagotvorna uloga koju metateorijska refleksivnost i unutrašnji razgovor mogu igrati u toj debati. Konkretno, unutrašnji razgovor (Margaret Arčer) pruža refleksivnodijalektički podstrek odnosu mikro i makro, dok istovremeno zastupa neophodni analitički (ne nužno i ontološki) dualizam. KLJUČNE REČI sociologija, društvena teorija, epistemologija, kritički realizam, refleksivnost ----1 [email protected] 2 [email protected]

Russian Law Journal , 2022

Sociological schools of thought provide essential theoretical frameworks for understanding the complexity of human societies. Each stream offers a different lens through which to examine the cultural, economic, political and historical aspects that shape individual and collective experiences. This paper aims to interpret the macro-social sociological currents, highlighting their characteristics, theories and most relevant representatives. It seeks to provide a comprehensive and reflective vision of these currents in order to understand their impact on sociology. The methodology employed in this text is framed within the parameters of the interpretative paradigm and uses the hermeneutic method to understand and interpret the arguments proposed by positivist, functionalist, Marxist and structuralist theorists. In the findings and discussion, the principles of positivism and its influence on sociology were identified, Marxism was critically analysed in relation to capitalism, structuralism was examined for its focus on social structures and symbolic analysis, and functionalism was explored in terms of integration, stability and social functions. As conclusions it can be stated that the classical or macro-social sociological currents offer a detailed perspective on how each theory contributes to the advancement of knowledge in contemporary and current sociology.

1996

This paper argues in favor of the use of open and loose Sociocultural Theory frameworks. It is proposed that frameworks act as a support to midrange empirical and theoretical work. Frameworks should then become an indispensable part of social inquiry. In addition, it is argued that in order to progress in this area, one has to sooner or later address the challenge of looking in an interdisciplinary way at the lived event. The lived event is referred to here as the sociocultural micro-dynamics. This is considered to be a central element for frameworks. The micro-dynamics is looked at from an interdisciplinary standpoint using research from the disciplines of sociology, sociocultural psychology, cognitive psychology and the philosophy of mind. This allows formulation of what will be referred to as the three micro-dynamics hypothesis. This hypothesis states that a sociocultural agent (whether individual or group) dealing with an event in a situated context can shift between one of three complementary dynamic modes: the Dispositional, the Relational and the Emergent . This hypothesis can then be scaled up and expressed as an element of a sociocultural framework that allows revisiting different sociocultural domains with an enriched sociocultural perspective. This is illustrated in the socioeconomic domain where the notion of embedded-ness can be revisited with an enriched ontology. This ontology looks at the way in which agency and intentionality enter relational generative mechanisms by means of emergence processes. There is then a general asynchronism in the sociocultural dynamics with some agents acting with past relational structures and others using new ones or imagining future ones. In all cases there is a level of uncertainty both on the continued relevance of past structures and the usefulness of future orientated ones. Paper presented at the seminar : Theorizing Social Inquiry: Contemporary Debates. University of Edinburgh, Department of Social Sciences. 6th May 2016.

Human Studies, 1992

2013