The goffman lectures

Heavy going at times in terms of academic language, The Goffman Lectures is essential reading for professional social scientists. But Van de Vate's pieces, in particular, clear enough cultural and linguistic barriers to engage curious general readers. Both writers relate Goffman's work to everyone from Shakespeare to Sartre to Eliza Doolittle to Dustin Hoffman's savant character in Rain Man. In simplest terms, Goffman believed that “the self” is socially constructed, an adaptable, chameleonic actor that is “real” only insofar as it embodies the social order. He expanded this basic view in seminal works like The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956), Stigma (1963) and, most important for these authors, Frame Analysis (1974), to which they devote half of these pages.

Jim

The most intellectually compelling aspect of the lectures occurs in Hood’s lectures on Frame Analysis. As Goffman relied on an interpretation of gamblers, Hood draws frequently on the condition of male (heterosexual) cross-dressers, a line of inquiry that, like Goffman’s account of Las Vegas, has never been presented as detailed research. Reading this material from decades past, prior to our moment of gender fluidity, we recognize the challenges of evading boundaries as well as reevaluations when those barriers are pulled down. These men, despite their cautious identity choices, would never have defined themselves as ‘‘queer,’’ even if today we might define them as precursors to those who, following Judith Butler, see their identity choices as being fundamentally performative. Our questioning of staid and solid gender identities owes much to Goffman’s analysis, even if today it is transmuted through a robust rejection of the biological. What might these young Tennesseans of 1974, exposed to Goffman’s frames, make of their queer offspring, now demanding to be they’s, not he’s or she’s? Goffman’s recognition that gender is drama came early, and Hood took this insight to lecture about men who created their identity as both fully closeted and fully ‘‘normal.’’ Hood and Van de Vate have provided a service in sharing how scholars attempted to bring Erving Goffman’s work to the lives of their students. Scholars are canonical not only because they are beloved in hushed libraries, but because they are taught in lively classrooms. The Goffman Lectures reminds us that the development of theory depends on the choices of pedagogy.

Gary A. Fine

Contemporary Sociology

The book is structured so that each section is authored by either Hood or Van de Vate, though each writes in the same dense academic style that makes heavy use of quotations and specialized language. They have produced an undeniably thorough primer for those getting into Goffman. That said, the work assumes the reader has some background in the study of sociology (enough to know what the dramaturgical perspective is, for example) and the way academic arguments are constructed.

Kirkus Review

The essays provide a vast variety of context for Goffman’s work, explaining not just why his ideas are sound, but also how he effectively delivered them—without a lot of technical jargon, and employing humor and real-world examples. They examine his methods as a notable “participant-observation” sociologist. Essays also place Goffman’s individual books in the context of his overall oeuvre so it is possible to chart the growth and metamorphosis of his ideas. Several are devoted to Goffman’s Frame Analysis, which the authors mark as his seminal work. Those who have read Goffman will find this book to be invaluable supplemental material for further considering his ideas, but not as useful as a substitution or primary source. Though Goffman’s work is quoted at length and his ideas are well summarized, a good deal of background knowledge is required to fully understand the lectures.

Clarion Review

Heavy going at times in terms of academic language, The Goffman Lectures is essential reading for professional social scientists. But Van de Vate's pieces, in particular, clear enough cultural and linguistic barriers to engage curious general readers. Both writers relate Goffman's work to everyone from Shakespeare to Sartre to Eliza Doolittle to Dustin Hoffman's savant character in Rain Man. In simplest terms, Goffman believed that “the self” is socially constructed, an adaptable, chameleonic actor that is “real” only insofar as it embodies the social order. He expanded this basic view in seminal works like The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956), Stigma (1963) and, most important for these authors, Frame Analysis (1974), to which they devote half of these pages.

Blueink review