FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 1 May 1981 47 FIVE KEY CONCEPTS OF THE DRAMATURGICAL PERSPECTIVE Marianne Hopper, St Edward's University BACKGROUND The dramaturgical and of being on-stage. perspective is one of the theoretic Perinbanayagam agrees that al orientations of social psycho social reality is not simply like logy. From the early 1900's, sym drama, but that it is dram~ (1974 bolic interactionism has been a 533).- Hence, social realitY can prominent theory in the United best be studied in dramatic terms. States. Dramaturgy is usually Brisset & Edgley (1975 7) sum traced to the literary critic, marize the dramaturgic perspec Burke, who set forth the dramatis tive: tic pentad of five key terms: act, 1 I t studies meaningful behavior. scene, agent, agency, and pur Meaning is problematic, arising pose. In the dramatistic approach in and through interaction. the most significant term is act. 2 One's sense of individuality is Human behavior is more analyz established, not reflected in inter able by theories of action than action. by theories of knowledge. Burke 3 Socialization is a process that stressed the symbol-using property furnishes resources for situational of humans, and establised the cen variation, rather than mechanisms trality of the question of human for cultural uniformity. motivation in dramatism (1969a). 4 Classical determinism is reject Burke distinguishes between ed; the method is prospective action and sheer motion. Human rather than retrospect i ve. relations in terms of action could 5 I t is situationally and cultural be called dramatistic (1968 448). ly relativistic. Human interaction is best analyz 6 Situations are defined interac ed in terms of drama. People tionally, not mentalistically. reach human satisfaction by relat 7 The human is fundamentally a ing to one another as if they communicator. were actors playing drqmatic 8 Interaction and situation, not roles. individuals, are the motive base. • Goffman (1959) used the perspec 9 Humans are consciously ration tive of theatrical performance to alizing, not consciously rational. consider the wayan individual presents self and actions to THE CONCEPT OF MEANING others, and the way the indivi Meaning is built up through dual can guide and control the day-to-day interaction with other impressions which others develop. people. 1) Meaning is not given; He described many behaviors that it is not an inherent characteris individuals may project or sup tic of the actor's world. It is not press while sustaining a perform stable and dependable. Instead, ance before others. Goffman pre meaning is constantly problematic. sents the theatrical perspective as 2) Meaning -is created by people, a valuable sensitizing device and the meaning of any object is which enables one to detect pat continually being re-established terns that might otherwise be miss by behavior toward that object. A ed. Cri tics assert that actors do person builds up meaning through not constantly focus on how they day-to-day activity with -others~ are being regarded by others. 3) Meaning emerges from the -be~ The dramaturgical perspective havioral consensus among actors. helps the sociologist avoid assum I t arises from at least two actors ing many things that lay persons responding in a similar manner to take for granted. But some social people and objects in their env.ir actors do regard certain life situ onment. Meaning is vitally linked ations in theatrical terms. The re to behavior and to interaction. searcher's task is to determine to • Dramaturgists empha-sLze the in what extent social actors are con stability of meaning. The social-Iy scious of doing a performance, constructed world is precarious FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 1 May 1981 48 (Berger 1963 138). Human meaning 71). Berger says that individuals is arbitrary, fragile, and ficti constantly remake their own bio tious (Becker 1975 62). For Mead, graphies byWorking together the meaning is established when a bits and pieces of completed gesture indicates to an actor and action, and thus create the mean to the other, the subsequent be ing of their own life. havior of the actor (Strauss 1964 163). Meaning is not an idea, as THE KEY CONCEPT OF SELF traditionally conceived, but is Dramaturgists use the term self implicit in the relation among the rather than personality to avoid various phases of social action. assumptions inherent in personal Stone ( 1962 88) interprets Mead i ty theory. They refer te> the self as saying that meaning is only simply as the meaning of the hum established when the response an organism (Brisset -e,--Edgley elicited by a symbol is the same m5 3). The self is not stable, for both the sender and the re but tenuous and problematic. It cei ve-r, a I though the responses is not inherent in the individual, can never be identical. Therefore, nor an artifact carried from one meaning must be a variable. situation to another. Selves are Stone suggests the concept of outcomes of human interaction. identification as the guarantee The self IS established by- the against non-sense. This term sub actions of the individual and by sumes two processes: identification the responsive actions of others. ..2f., and wi th. Stone .. feels that What one does estabIishes who one taking the role of the other is is, and not vice versa. As Burke only one variant,and that identi put it, doing is being. fication wi th one another cannot According to dramaturgists, the be made without identifications of self is situationally specific. Dif one another. Such identificati'oM ferent situations occasion the are factili-tated by appearance, establishment of different selves. and are accomplished non-verbal The self is established in terms ly. Appearance and discourse are of resources and audiences avail dialectical processes in social able in the immediate situation. transactions, but appearance is Individuality is a shared, inter more basic to the process of con acti ve phenomenon. A person's structing meaning. self emerges and is maintained Becker links meaning to verbal through a process of consensua I process: " •• if· we bungle the ver validation. Dramaturgists avoid bal context for action, if we de construing one's self and one's liver the wrong lines at the society as separate entities. wrong time, we frustrate the possi Mead's influence is apparent in bility of meaningful action and this fusion' of self and society, unquestioned motivation." (1975 and it helps to put the dramatur 62) GCtf'fman , more than any other gical views in persective. dramaturgist has carefully detai ,~ Goffman argues·: that the very ed those qualities of players and structure of the self. appears in performances which infuse social terms of 'the way' one arranges to life with meaning (1974 4). He present it to others. T heperfor accepts Schutz' definition of mean mance self is seen as a type of ing: We speak of provinces of image, usually creditable, that meaning and not of sub-universes the individual tries to induce because it is the meaning of our others to hold of- her/him (Goffman experiences, and not the onto- 1959 252). logical structure of the objects • Becker (1975) sees the self as a wh·ich const i tute rea Ii ty (Schutz system of language and ideas ·that 1962 230) • What a person does is in a constant state of modifica actually has little meaning - until tion as an ind·ividual interacts the individual actively makes with others. Since the self is pri autobiographical use of already mari 11' a linguistic device, an in completed actions (Travisano 1975 fallible self is one with complete FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Vol ume 9, No 1 May 1981 49'~
control over words and verbal ex (1965) describe the interaction' be pression. Becker stresses the ex tween the dy:ing patient', the' hos pressions one gi ves, as opposed pital staff," and certain o·thers. t6 those one gives off. Stone, on In this situation, the patien't's the other han'a-;-TS,concerned with awareness is seen as ah extremely expressions one gives off, since important element in infH::aerici,ng he sees, the self as' residing in the' nature of the interaction • the meaning of one's appearance. • The: episode is the basic unit of Like Mead, he finds' the me'aning interaction, and the res~lting of appearance in the responses human development is the, product that appearances generate. Stone of successive outcomes of inte'r is concerned wtth two such· re action. Foote emphasizes th'e uncer sponses, which he calls programs: tarr1ty of everyou'tc0!!le of,social 1), responses made about the wear interaction, and. stresses the e~ er of cl'othing by others who ploratory",' formulative, and crea review clothing; and' 2) responses ti ve a$pects ." He asserts ~ha t: "' •• made by the wearer of clothing at the' conclusion of any' epi'sode about himself ·(Stone 1962 92). of interactipn, the, position of the Dramaturgists see the creation participants vis-a-vis each other of self as a very tenuous affair is always' and n:ecessari Iy diffet wh ich is threatened by the pre ent from what it was at its com- sence of others in the social. situa mencement." \(Foote1975 27).' , tion. "We have no idea what In stressing face~to-face inter w·ords are going to spout forth action, Goffman defines interaction from another's self system." (Beck as ttthe reciprocl:d influence of er 1975 58) Foote sees development lnd'ividuals· upon' one another's occurring. as the cumulative pro actions when i'n one another's im duct of successive outcomes of var mediate 'physic'al preserice:" (1959 ious situations. As a, person devel 15') People acquir~ information ops, successive episodes of inter about one another to interact. action cOr::ldition one, another. • The outcome of interaction is Through experience, one accumu different, and not necessarily pre latesan enlarging choice of rou d'ictable from the sum of theindi tines and an enlarging repertoire. vidual parts (McCall & Simmons Travisano ,(1975)· remarks on 1966) • Strauss demands th.a.'t 'we changes .' in the self that occur·in recognize tlie, tremendous complex a lifetime. ·If .there were·. no carry ity" of interaction. He describes -over, between situations, how t'ace-to-face interaction as a f.luid could such long range changes be moving, i;-ldeterminate process, m.,eaningfully discussed? and' indicates that ,during its cou'rse, participa!"ts take s~~ces THE CONCEPT OF INTERACTION sive stances toward each other • The symbolic interactionist's em (Strauss 1959 55). According to phasis on interaction is i-nfluen Becker, individuals"must be very tial in the dramaturgical perspec skilled perrormers to emerge from tive, and the dramaturgist's view 'a'~ interaction better than they of life is largely a result of en tered it. . He sees a crea t'"i ve, their intense focus on the inter but threaten i ng aspect' in every active process. This focus can be interaction. The 'process is com seen in dramaturgical research plex, and much can. go wrong. ventures where the guiding ques Scheff has set out a series of tionis: "What difference does this proposi'tions ~howing' th'~ ':~elation factor make in interaction?'" Klapp between 'the" power and auttlorhity (1969) traces th,e' interactive "con of' interactants in assess'ing, r~ sequences of the vast, accumula sponsibility. He cbuches his 'pFo tion of impersonal objective know positions in ..terms~ of the resourc~s ledge, the modernization process, available in' the· fnteracti,pn., 'n mobility, ,and the decIi ne in i den th~ relation between professional tification ritual and identification interrogator, such as a lawyer, ceremony. GI·aser and Strauss and a lay' client, greater shared FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 1 May 1981 50 awareness that the situation is way the individual has acted, is one of negotiation gives the client acting, and will further act. more control over the definition of Stone refers to these aspects of the situation. A more explicit the individual as attitudes. For agenda also increases the client's Stone, the self has four compo control in defining the situation. nents: 1) identity, 2) value, 3) The party who resp,onds has rela mood, and 4) attitude. All four tively more power than the party are situationally relevant. who' offers, and that one who re Klapp (1969) also sees orie's sponds by making counter offers identity as indicating that one is has relatively more power than situated in social, terms. Identity one who simply limits the re depends on symbol ic reference sponse to acceptance or rejection. points which enable a person to F i naII y, the more direct the ques remember who s/he is. Klapp's tions and the responses, the more thesis is that in modern society, power- the interrogator has to de the too-rapid and indiscriminate fine the situation (Scheff 1968 16). sweeping away of symbols results in a loss of identity. THE C PT OF IDENTITY Travisano does not see a loss When r"ikson r-e-introduced the of identity in modern society, but term identity to the social sci stresses the pervasiveness of iden ences, it was rapidly accepted. tity change. Alteration and conver Strauss gave the concept of iden sion are defined as different tity its primary focus, 'although kinds of identity change. Conver he did, not define the term, say sion involves a radical reorganiza ing that it was chosen because tion of identity and a change the ambiguity and diffuseness of from' one universe of discourse to its reference would allow less con another. Alternations involve the strictive exploration of new per usual changes in life, in which spectives. Those using the concept one identity seems to grow natur generally agree that it answers ally out of another. These the question: "Who am 11" Most changes cause little disruption in writ ply that identity estab the' individual's life and such lishes what and where the person linked identities may be referred is in social terms. to as identity sequences (TriBvi "Or:-ae's i ity is established sano 1975 93). There are ,t.wo dis when others him as a social tinct ways in which identities can <:t by assign·,ng him the same be pervasive: 1) They can be rele words of identity that he appro vant in many situations; and 2) priates 'for himself or announces. they can be central to inter I t is in the co~ncidence of place action. Since the centrality of an ments and announcements that identity concerns the number of 'identity becomes a meanlng of the si.tuations, it can dominate basic, self •• " (Stone 1962 93). Identity general, and independent iden- is not a substitute for the term tities (Travisano '1975 99). self; rather, when one has iden tity, one is sl tutated. Stone feels THE CONCEPT OF MOTIVATION that identity tells what the par Traditional schemes envIsion ties to an interaction are. How motivation as internal or external ever, if the transactions pers'ist, forces that propel an individual merely establishing identities is into action. This implies a pas not enough to guarantee meaning sive person, and is highly determ ful d'iscourse. In interpersonal re inistic·. Mi Its (1940 904) reacted lations, the mood of the partici against "the inferential conception pants must ~established, and of motives as subjective 'springs' upon entering structural rela of action •• " tions, the values of participants • Dramaturgists wholeheartedly em must be established. Finally there brace Dewey· s declaration: "I n is the matter of the individual's truth man acts anyway; he can't activation, as affecte'd by the 'help acting. In every fundamental FREE INQUlRY tn CreatiVe Soc-io'iogy Volume 9, No 1 .May 1981 5r· sense', it is false: that a man self. Finally, though, vocabu,laries requires a motive to ma·ke him do of. motive, may "be.,very~· stable' in something. I t is absurd to .ask folk societies, in modern secuJar what ind'uces a man to activLty u'rban societies they ·are' highly generally speaking." (Dewey 1922 problematic. Varying and compet...;. 119) Thus; the, dramaturgists ,shift ingi"vocabularies of.' motives" may their attention from the origins: o·f operate coter.nlinously, and· the activity to its directions,. That appropriate' s"ituations may not be the dramaturgical perspective em clearly. marked. One meets the phasizes motivation is notsurpris existence" of competlng, ·vocabu~ ing in, light 'of Bu~ke's basic laries/' of motive' ,with. mixed" :m6t theme of human motivati.on. Burke ives 'and motivational conf-t icts'. did .not see motives as biological • Foote (1951) feels that analysis or psychological forces, but con of" motives in terms of lang·ua,ge sidered them the basic forms,: of leaves ·a '. hiatus between' words thought through wh ich humans." ex and acts, and a mystery as· ·to perience their world. ·Thus,.·a just how': - language- mo·tivates·. He basic link was established' be feels that the concept' ,of identifi tween motives and language. cation fills this gap as a~process Burke established three categories of naming. Every actor ·must cate of, motivation. He developed the gorize other actors in order to grammar of motives by look·jngat interact with them. Categories .-ap~ the various. types of motivational plied to other actors' immediately terms. He considered the symbol indicate the motives "to be imputed i'sm of motives concerned wi"i"ht'he to them., Identities give stability modes of expression in the fine and' predictability ·to one's .own arts. Finally, 'he descr-ibed the behavior as~ long as they .are ,re rbetor'ic of .motives involving' the tained. The establishment of. one":s basic s.trategies that: i.ndividuals own identity is. vital, sin-ce the use in manipulating one another •. identities of others ·--;i,rivolved in This category' has b.een of the interaction is 'dependent on one's most interest to .social scientists. own. Only full commitment to Mills s.tates· that moti'ves· a.re one's own ident.itypermits a full words (1940 905);. Motives are,: the picture of motivation. terms th,rough, which the interpre • Strauss 1959 45) points out that tation of oonduct :by social actors the _·motives imputed may be quite proceeds. According to Mills, incorrect, . yet actlon will be' 'or:'" one's attention is directed outside ganized' on the basis of this impu onese'lf until one's acts are some tation.'; Strauss also says. that how frustrated or questioned.' In assigning reason:s for act's, di,ffers these .question situations, aware depending on oAe' 5; perspect~ve, ness of self· ahd motive arises. an'd what :often -'happens is that These motives are not 'seen as one imputes to other's behavior denoting any elements within the what might be' one's own reason-s individual,. but stand fo~anti for acting~ 'This imp1ies :·that cipated situational consequences "agreement among a group of of the questioned conduct. people concerning th·e,. motives of Mi lis sees motives as consen another person m.erel'y -tells 'us suaI, Slnce they appea I . to o.thers spmeth'ing about the commontermin~ involved in one~ s act, and thus ology with ,which they oper."ate." are strategies :of action. Often, Strauss 1959 49) Motive imp'uta'tfo"n for a, social 'action to take place, and motive· avow'al are, 'not radical others must agree,whether im ly different acts, -'·but.differ only plicitly or explicitly. Such acts in whether the motive.s ar·e ass.ign will often be 'abandohed if no ed to oneself or to others.. The reason can be···f.ound that is accep only motives' one can att'ribute. to table to others. Mills also feels onese-lf or toother;s 'are those' tha·t that motives are learned, since one u'nderstands. .On"e uses the they are i mpu ted by others even vocabu~aries' 'of motive that one before they are avowed by the has' "~earned to ·use. Con,tact 'w.ith FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 1 May 1981 52 new groups may resu I tin acqu i r & Edgley eds Life as Theatre: ing anew vocabulary of motives Dramaturgic Sourcebk. Chicago which is available for future, use. Aldine .' Perinbanayagam suggests that .Glaser B, A Strauss 1965 Awar"e the primary group is an inter ness of Dying. Chicago Aldine mediary between the gene,.a I i zed •Goffman E 1959 Presentation of other and the self, as a transmit Self in Everyday Life. Garden ter of motives (1975512). Thus, Ci ty Doubleday the primary group draws its voca 1967 I nteraction Ritual. bularies of motive from the gener -G-a-r-d-e-n-C-i-ty- Ooub Ieday alized other, and ,p~ovides them ___--~-'974 Frame Analysis. NY to an 'emerging self. ,He sees it Harper Row as an obligation of the primary .Klapp 0 1969 Collective Search group to validate and support mot for Identity. NY Holt Rin~hart i ves of its members when they \\'inston face 'a crisis. Vocabularies of mot .Lindesmith A, A Strauss 1956 Soc ive serve to guide actions, as well ial Psychology. NY Holt Rinehar"t as to justify them (Perinbanaya Winston gam 19;77). .McCall G, J Simmons 1966 Identi • On admission to a, mental hospi ties and Interactions: Examination tal, whether a woman presents of Human Association in Everyday herself for psychiatric treatment Life. NY Free Press to begin with, or is r"eferred from .Mead G 1962 Mind, Self, & Soci a serv.ice where she assumed that ety. Chica,go U Press she was physically ill, depends .Mills C 1940 Situated actions & on whether sh'e possesses a psychi vocabularies of motive. Amer Socio atric vocabulary of motives. Work logical Rev 5 904-913 ing class women 'are less Iikely .Perinbanayagam R 1974 Definition to use such vocabularies of of ,the situation: analysis of ethno~ motives than middle and upper methodological & dramaturgical class women (8art1968). view. Sociological Qtrly 15 521-541 1975 Significance of REFERENCES others, Schutz, Mead, Cooley. Soci .Bart P 1968 Social structure & ological Otrly 15500-521 vocabularies of discomfort,: What 1977 Structure of happened to female hysteria? J Motives~ Symbo.1 i c I nteraction 1 Health, Social Behavior 9 188-193 104-120 •Becker E 1975 Self as locus of •Scheff T 1968 Negotiatirlg reality: J istic causal.lty. Brisset Edg Notes, power in assessmt responsi ley eds Life as Theatre: A Drama bility. Social Problems 16 3-17 turgic Sourcebk. Chicago Aldine .Schutz A 1962 Collected Papers. P ·1963 Invitation to Soci Vol 1. The Hague Nijhoff ology: A Humanistic Perspective. •Stone G 1962 Appearance & the City Doubleday self. A Rose ed. Human Behavior .Brissett 0, C Edgley 1975 Life as & Social Processes. Boston Hough Theatre: A Dramaturgical .. Source ton Mifflin book. Chicago Aldine .Strauss A 1959 Mirrors &, Masks: .Burke K 1968 Dramatism. I nternat Search for Identity. Glencoe Encyc of Social Sciences. 7 445....452 Illinois Free Press 1969a Grammar of Motives. 1964 GH Mead on Social California U Press Psychology. Chicago U Press 1969b Rhetoric of motives. • Travisano R 1975 Alternation and California U Press conversion as qualitatively differ..... • Dewey J 1922 Human Nature & ent transformation. Brissett Conduct. NY Hoi t Edgley eds. Life as Theatre: • Foote N 1951 Identification as Dramaturgic Sourcebk. Chicago basis for theory of motivation. Aldine ~mer Sociological Rev 16 14-21 1975 Concept, method, study human development. Brisset