dramaturgy....goffman....etc. etc.

This week in the reading I read all about his views on human interaction and how all our interactions are pretty much comparable to the theatre....I don't like theatre that much so right off the bat I was a bit sceptical. Even after doing my group presentation on dramaturgy today I'm still not completely sure what I think of the whole dramaturgy theory...

Come to think of it I'm not all that sure I'd even call it a theory - he may not have called it a theory either, I can't remember. I would call it similar to the musings of a grade 7 student, I say that because his theory sounds similar to a few thoughts my friend (who was in grade 7) had one day. He came up to me and said "you know what? I reckon life is a bit like a car ride...you know? You kinda have your ups and downs cause you go up and down hills and then you go through some forest which is dark and you're not sure if you will ever get out but then you end up at the end and you finish the car ride and that's it...." To which I replied something along the lines of "yeah cool man...let's go and get something to eat". And I feel like if Goffman were telling me his theory on dramaturgy I'd tell him something similar.  

That aside, I do see that some of his musings are worth a bit more of a look. His concept of maintaining expressive control was one that I see happening ALL of the time with people - myself included. Today I was walking along as normal when I stumbled...so what did I do? I just kept on walking as if nothing had happened. fool. 
Keeping this to 285 words is so hard...that's now 309. and once again I didn't say a great deal. 

It's pretty hard to make a witty subject post about 'symbolic interactionalism', I think this will do for now

Wow...Courier New doesn't look new at all...whereas 'Symbolic Interactionism' looks new (in the sense I've never seen the words put together before) and also sounds new (in the sense I've never heard the words said together before) but in actual fact, is not all that new itself either. Looking no further than B Roberts' "Symbolic Interactionism 2: Developments" I have discovered that there is a fair bit to this concept and the power of the combination of the two words (once again being 'symbolic' and 'interactionalism') put together is not only enlightening but also introduces some fairly normal understandings of everyday social interactions (see what I did there?). 

But what is talked about within the reading isn’t particularly ground breaking stuff. What seems to be more ground breaking is the seamless way he manages to turn simple concepts of symbols of meaning into minefields of theoretical nonsense aimed to frustrate anyone who doesn’t have 6 hours to re-read sentences over and over again to only realise you weren’t actually paying attention the last 6 times you read it. 

So yes, it has been something that I imagine most people have thought about – context plays a large role within social interaction and what is considered normal within our society. Further reading has helped me to consolidate much of what was in the reading to find that there are 3 main points within symbolic interactionism that I have summaries into:

People place meaning on objects/people/things etc. according to how much they value these things/objects/people. The value one places on such objects/people/things is the result of their interaction within a society or social context. This reinforces itself and thus continues the great circle of life…or at least the symbolic interactionism circle of life. I didn’t really comment much on the subject…I think they should have somehow incorporated the Lion King into it.