Public and Private Faces in Web Spaces – How Goffman’S Work Can Be Used to Think About Purchasing Medicine Online
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
How Goffman’s work can be used to think about purchasing medicine online Public and private faces in web spaces – How Goffman’s work can be used to think about purchasing medicine online. Lisa Sugiura Abstract Medicines and drugs are subject to national, state or federal regulation. The misuse, illegal consumption and purchase of drugs and medicines is not a new phenomenon, but it is one which the Web may enable or magnify, opening up as it does access to online information and purchasing. People can use the Web to discuss buying medicines online and provide new opportunities to avoid stigmatisation and manage their illnesses and medicine purchasing in a private or backstage spaces. This paper discusses how Erving Goffman’s analyses of social behaviour and interaction are useful for understanding digital interactions and can be fruitfully applied to the specific problem of understanding the act of buying medicines online. Goffman’s connections to symbolic interactionism, and the development of his ideas regarding dramaturgy and interaction as performance, as well as his concepts of the presentation of self and stigma are investigated to show how these ideas are pertinent for scholars interested in studying the Web and digital communication. The paper also draws on recent studies which have applied Goffman’s concepts to the digital realm before proceeding to propose how Goffman’s ideas can be used to understand new health behaviours, such as the purchasing of prescription medicines via the Web, via the presentation and discussion of initial findings of a study concerning the observation of online forums. Introduction This is synonymous with mail ordering and how we reflexively see ourselves, or across jurisdictional boundaries, with the as Mead put it: Despite writing in an era that predated Web functioning like the catalogues of ‘one does respond to that which he many of the digital communication tech- yesteryear. addresses to another and where that nologies that have become important to response of his own becomes a part of his us, Erving Goffman’s analyses of social Goffman’s contributions conduct, where he not only hears himself behaviour and interaction are useful but responds to himself ’ (Mead 1934: for understanding digital phenomena. Goffman’s work is often located with 139). This paper reviews Goffman’s contribu- symbolic interactionism although he tions, notably in relation to dramaturgy, might not have aligned himself with Goffman used these ideas to examine performance and presentation of self this approach1. Symbolic interactionism mundane and everyday social inter- to argue that his ideas are salient for focuses attention on patterns of commu- actions such as walking on the street scholars interested in studying the nication and interpretation between and getting in a lift. He was especially Web and digital communication about individuals and suggests that society interested in understanding behaviour health related matters. This paper and individuals are created out of social that occurred in public places and draws on recent work which has applied interactions. It is an approach which ‘regulation’, that is how people handle or Goffman’s ideas to the digital field and posits that social interaction is mediated manage themselves in face-to-face inter- goes on to suggest how, in my own by symbols – such as language – which actions with others. Goffman developed work, his concepts can be used to shed enable individuals to interpret each the idea of dramaturgy – using the light on new health behaviours such other’s meaning and actions. Linked with metaphor of drama to understand as the online purchasing of medicines. the work of key theorists George Herbert these interactions. He suggested that Mead and Charles Cooley writing at the presence of others – the audience - Keywords: turn of the last century, symbolic interac- allows individuals to adjust and perfect Medicine, Web, Goffman, Health, tionism focuses on our perception of how their behaviour, a technique he termed Behaviour others (society) see us (Cooley 1902: 17) ‘impression management’ (Goffman, 1 Thomas J. Scheff, a student of Goffman, claims that for the majority of his career, Goffman was a symbolic interactionist, following in the tradition of Cooley. Scheff asserts that up until 1974 (and- Goff Lisa Sugiura man’s work on frame analysis) the only sustained theoretical structure in Goffman’s work followed Web Science PhD Student Cooley’s supposition of the looking-glass self. Just as Cooley had assumed shared awareness in in- Faculty of Health Sciences teractions, Goffman also placed such importance on common comprehension with positive or nega- University of Southampton tive states of consequence. However, Goffman studied the management of embarrassment or shame (Goffman, 1959). Working Papers in Health Sciences 1: 4 Summer ISSN 2051-6266 / 20130019 1 How Goffman’s work can be used to think about purchasing medicine online How Goffman’s work can be used to think about purchasing medicine online 1959:17, 59). Through empirical studies, He defined stigma as ‘the situation of the trading where buying and selling shares be understood as a digital space where but I have found some here at ___.’ 2 far less careful about how they present notably his work in psychiatric hospitals, individual who is disqualified from full takes place in virtual space such that “the identities can be made and remade. While and perform. For example some forum Goffman showed how behaviours and social acceptance’ (Wright, 1960). This interacting parties meet in time rather distinctions between public and private ‘Hi new here and like many of you i found members discuss how to purchase actions are expected and conform to might occur in relation to a visible stigma than in a place” (Knorr Cetina, 2009:79). online spaces are virtual rather than this site when i searched for syndol. Glad ‘banned’ medicines: conventions or behavioural rules that such as a scar or functional disability, or physical there are often clear boundaries i did as it looks likely that i will receive my apply in particular spaces. Goffman was because the individual failed to conform In addition, Goffman’s ideas have been (firewalls and restricted password access) tablets like some of you already have! “Do you mind me asking where you order especially interested in how different to social norms. Goffman showed applied to mobile phone communication. and codes of conduct which demarcate Please keep me informed about the results them from? Because they’ve just banned types of setting shaped performances. how stigmatized persons struggled to Rettie (2009) used ideas about presenta- digital spaces. you get.’ then (sic) in the EU and I can’t get hold of He delineated ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage reconcile gaps between their perceived tion and etiquette to understand the any anywhere! I really need some.” regions for interactions: the front or reality and the identity expected by the technology behind SMS (text) and email My research examines web forums to see In public spaces individuals are expected stage was a place where the performance social group. messaging, showing that like face to face how people interact and communicate to ‘fit in,’ and not attract undue attention. can anyone advise....... was public and seen by many and interactions these were governed by about buying prescription medicines (i.e. This includes not being drawn in to i have been taking reductil for 3 weeks now ‘backstage’ was where access was more Goffman’s ideas, perhaps in part because normative expectations. In a similar vein therapeutic pharmaceuticals rather than strangers’ conversations (Goffman, and lost 1 stone and am feeling a lot (sic) controlled and limited (1959:113). of his accessible and popularist writing earlier work by Spitzberg (2006) about supplements). While many medicines 1971). However, the Web allows users to more confident and happy in myself...... These ideas about staging have proved style, have been very influential within computer mediated communication drew are subject to national, state or federal intrude upon other’s communication as however.......i went to re order the tablets especially useful for thinking about healthcare research. Examples of how on the dramaturgical perspective offered regulation the Web may be used to bypass posts and messages may be ‘overheard’ online from where i purched (sic) them b4 healthcare for example in understanding his ideas have been used include Leary by Ring and colleagues (Ring, Braginsky, & these restrictions, opening up access to by stumbling upon them via links and as i have ran out only to be told that they public and visible areas such as waiting et al. (1994) who discussed the role of Brajinsky, 1966; Ring, Brajinsky, Levine, & online information about medicines and web searches. The normal etiquette is not are no longer available in the Eu. I am very rooms and clinics, and less accessible self-presentational motives in health-rel- Braginsky, 1967; Ring & Wallston, 1968) opportunities for purchasing. Online always followed as users may interject, as unhappy about this and have tried lots of areas such as operating theatres (Fox, evant behaviours, identifying several which sought to understand perfor- purchasing can be ‘impersonal’ – buying in this response to a forum post about uk websites to try and buy them but are 1997, Pope, 2002). Goffman also used patterns of behaviour that increase the mances and scripts in the digital space. medicines may be done without needing buying medicines on the Web: having no luck. these ideas of dramaturgy to alert us to risk of illness and injury which arise from Elsewhere Adkins and Nasarczyk (2009) to consult a health practitioner or therefore please if anyone can help or scripts - patterns that structure talk and people’s concerns with how they are examined asynchronous interactions on prescriber and may circumvent national ‘Nobody should buy drugs off the internet.