non-age related questions
schwaja3@wfu.edu
Thu, 29 Feb 96 01:08:05 -0500
As Jon mentioned, we read Goffman's "Stigma and Social Identity" and Part III of
Lyman and Scott's Sociology of the Absurd.
As I was reading about Goffman's theatre analogy as a basis for
interaction I wondered why it is that we have the deisre to know things that are
hidden. We try to figure out what so-and-so really meant by his statement or
how a magic trick was done or why the sky is blue. We assume, according to
Goffman and the Game Model, that everyone has ulterior motives to further their
own purposes. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as someone's purpose could be
to raise money for a worthwhile cause. I was unclear as to whether Goffman
believed that we operate under this principle of deception or not. According to
the "social contract" we accept people's performances as long as they are
reasonably performed. Is this a subconscious act or are we constantly aware of
untruths? What about so-called naive persons. I should be able to answer the
first question from personal experience, but everything has gotten sort of
cloudy now that I have learned about all these theories regarding motives and
action in general.
My second question deals with the notion of stigmatization: Is a stigma
always a bad thing? Is it based upon appearance or action? By this I mean:
Goffman has defined stigma in this first chapter as "the disgrace itself" (2)
and "an attribute that is deeply dscrediting, but it should be seen that a
language of relationships, not attributes, is really needed" (3). First of all,
what does a "language of relationships" mean? Is it the activity of drug use,
the behavior after the drug use, the simple societal definition as "bad," or the
physical appearance of the drug use that causes the stigmatization associated
with drug use? Is it the fact that someone has a handicap that results in
stigmatization (if so why?) or something else? Is a stigma the same thing as a
"label?"
I guess that is enough to chew on right now.
jen