In society, people work together to fulfill a variety of tasks and responsibilities, attributed to them both by their own life and the others around them. To understand how society functions and how internal and external factors influence it, philosophers and sociologists have attempted to analyze social trends and tendencies on different scales. Some have tried to give thought to larger economic and sociological trends, while others, like Goffman, attempted to see it on a personal level instead. To gain further understanding of Goffman’s writing and concepts, I have attempted to analyze and describe an occurrence of my life from his performance perspective. The most recent social interaction I’ve had was connected with going shopping and buying groceries. During the course of my shopping trip, I have assumed the social role of a customer inside a setting of the store. As other customers around me, I have understood the end here to a set of social concepts that are connected with being a customer in a store i.E. Chosen and take the products I desire and bought them using money in the process of a transaction. Other customers have behaved in a similar manner while fulfilling their roles and the cashier. Oh, serving me at the store also recognized our roles as buyers. The cashier’s displayed a front while conversing with the customers, assuming a friendly exterior and displaying common courtesy which was in turn reciprocated. I have in a similar fashion also taken up a list of specific behaviors and phrases that I am expected to see in order to complete the transaction. As a front, I have engaged in friendly conversation, greeting the cashier and thanking them for their service giving polite phrases. As Goffman pointedly notes, “the expressiveness of the individual (and therefore his capacity to give impressions) appears to involve two radically different kinds of sign activity: the expression that he gives, and the expression that he gives off.”, Meaning that interpreting the words and actions of another is always a part of and a necessity of social life (Goffman, 2007). I have implicitly attempted to manage the impression I give off, appearing thankful and humble. Outside of the scope of the particular interaction, I thought that the cashiers were talking too loudly and familiarly with the customers and among themselves. The setting of the store restricted my ability to express some of my thoughts and set the atmosphere to a more formal one. The inherent impression a store has on me and the way I interact, emphasizes the need to be quick, efficient, and respectful. Overall, I think that Goffman’s understanding of social interactions is interesting and accurately captures the oftentimes performative nature of real-world encounters. The man describes them as a type of theatrics, a show that people naturally put on for the sake of making sense of the world around them and creating proper order among themselves. I feel that Goffman’s insistence that people put on masks for the sake of appearing in a certain light in a particular setting is also spot-on, as there is a variety of social norms people have come to respect and uphold. By analyzing how people interact within specific systems, what parts of the performance tend to be the main focus, one can get closer to understanding and explaining the nature of social interaction.
Foucault and changes in power
Foucault, as one of the many defining philosophers of the modern age, was concerned with the notion of power. During the course of society’s development power has shifted and adjusted in accordance with bold, the society and the people in power’s needs. In the feudal age, power was dispensed harshly and used as a measure of punishment for those that disobeyed the law. The nature of power was public, and bore a performative nature, serving to both discipline people and disincentivize further disobedience. Such acts as public hangings and executions were used to display to people that power had to be obeyed. That the punishment for disobeying those in control would be harsh in a primarily physical fashion. Foucault felt that the structure and purposes of punishment have changed significantly in recent years, as society has come to democracy as a primary method of organization. Punishments no longer use the public approach instead being internalized and adapted into the norm of everyday life. Corrective and punishment facilities are incorporated into the social life, in the form of prisons and correctional facilities. While such other philosophers as Weber see the process of applying power as repressive and coercive, Foucault describes it as something formulating the human “soul”. By Weber’s definition, power restricts an abilioty of one group to reach it’s goals while uplifting the other, being a tool for whose in the positions of influence to affect the ones below. For Foucault, however, the influence of power is different, more formative in its relation to the people it concerns. Power can be used to shape one’s character into a suitable form. In his mind, the structures of power create a certain persona in an individual, cultivate a personality suitable for control and influence from power structures. Means of control such as timetables, laws, rules are restrictions created as a way to grow a particular type of person that will be inclined to act in a way beneficial to the authority. There is a variety of ways that power inclines people to be cultivated in a particular way, and Foucault notes at least three of such: hierarchical observation, normalization, and examination. I feel that focus quotes in relation to the nature of power most aptly describe his dispositions on the topic. For example, the notion that “Disciplinary power, on the other hand, is exercised through its invisibility; at the same time it imposes on those whom it subjects a principle of compulsory visibility. In discipline, it is the subjects who have to be seen. Their visibility assures the hold of the power that is exercised over them. It is this fact of being constantly seen, of being able to always be seen, that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection” (Foucault, 2020). This quote can be used to understand and explain both the man’s stance on the role of power and its particular relationship with the individual.
Hierarchical observation
Foucault explains that observation architecture and design can be used to restrict behavior and force people to act in a particular way (Foucault, 1975, p. 170). Spaces are constructed in a way that allows those in power, more control, and influence (Foucault, 1975, p. 172). Ideas behind the construction influence both the design and the organization of architectural creations reflecting the needs and desires of the creator. Fortresses of old were created to protect from external threats and allow observation of the outside from within as a means of providing protection. In the recent trends, however, spaces are made more internally available as the members of the community must be observed by those in power. Open spaces giving access to a person’s vision and their movement allows for better visibility and therefore better control. In order to enforce a particular type of behavior from a person, constant observation of their actions. Means of observation and control are used as a way of coercion, influencing the way a particular community is managed and organized (Foucault, 1975, p. 170). A military camp can be used as a poignant example of hierarchical observation in society. The premises of this space are visible to the people in power, making it easy to manage and control the actions of each individual.
Normalization
Normalization is another process Foucault takes interest in, defining it as a process of making individuals more uniform through acts of control and punishment. By either approving or disapproving of a particular set of actions, behaviors, and thoughts, the structures of power cultivate a normalized audience in the community. There are five steps to normalization, as the philosopher points out, the first being the “micro penalty”. Actions that defy the proper rules and orders are harshly punished, no matter their severity or insignificance. The prospect of punishment makes people more likely to adhere to the rules and regulations set by the structures of power. The second point is the punishment of “non-observance”, which is used to enforce conformity and overarching standards. Punishment is seen as both a positive and negative force in this context, used to train and punish individuals, as well as to incentivize the desired types of behavior. The last effort to achieve conformity is differentiating people in accordance with their skill, creating a particular hierarchy. Those around each individual constantly judge and evaluate their behavior, leading to a formation of a particular mindset. As the philosopher puts it: “The judges of normality are present everywhere. We are in the society of the teacher-judge, the doctor-judge, the educator-judge, the social worker-judge; it is on them that the universal reign of the normative is based; and each individual, wherever he may find himself, subjects to it his body, his gestures, his behavior, his aptitudes, his achievements” (Foucault, 2020, p. 304). The effort is used to give individuals a reason to improve their skills and become more uniform in their capabilities.
Examination
Examination constitutes a combination of the two above principles, serving to further control and conform each individual person. Compared to the monarchy of the previous generations, the people in the positions of power are made less public and visible, transparent even, to the general public, while their subjects are becoming more visible to the systems in place. Identification and registration services, documentation put in place in every country all serve to create and cultivate particular kinds of persons, and also define them within the norms of society. The evaluations and measurements put in place the way to define redefine and adjust the norms of society in accordance with the general trends displayed by the majority as well as the needs of the systems in power.
Panopticon
The concept of the panopticon best describes the ways in which power relations work in Foucault. Panopticon describes the space where a wide variety of people are organized along the sightline of a single tower where an observer can document or witness their behavior. Similar to the literal organization of the panopticon power. Works in a way that allows it to document the actions and behaviors of each individual exhibiting control. The structures of power themselves are often invisible and are used as a way to incentivize particular types of behavior. Surveillance becomes internalized as people come to believe they’re being watched all the time. Meaning that their behaviors are adjusted accordingly. A mass of individuals being placed under control is not able to directly interact or see the observer who is placed on a step above them. In this instance, power is both absolute and not readily identifiable. As one cannot tell how the watchman looks from the distance. Under such a system, there is no need for direct threats of physical violence or punishment, as each person individually understands that they’re being watched and therefore is discouraged from breaking the established rules.
References
Goffman, E. (2007). The presentation of self in everyday life. Academic Internet Publishers Incorporated.
Foucault, M. (2020). Discipline and Punish: the birth of the prison. Penguin Books.