Mod 5 reply
The minimum length for each of your replies to classmates in order to earn any credit is 150 words.
INDYAH:
When I was getting ready to go on the date, I decided to wear a nice sundress even though I typically wear a t-shirt and jeans most days. I also put on makeup and jewelry, even though those are not things that I normally wear. This part of the date is related to Goffman’s concept of self-presentation. In Goffman’s dramaturgical model, he proposes that social interactions are like a theater production, heavily staged (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 340). Within this model, “Goffman implies that there is an element of calculation in most self-presentations.” This means that people may try to control how others view them, even if it is in a subtle way. In my example, I am presenting myself as someone who regularly spends time on my appearance and style, when behind the scenes, I do not spend much time on it at all.
When I went to the date, I did not know what to expect, but from observing his behaviors and the things that he would say, I became more comfortable and gathered that the date would go well. He was a gentleman and very kind. We also had a lot in common. This is related to a theory utilized by Becker called grounded theory, where conclusions are drawn from observation (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 302). I went into the date with no expectations, but after observing my date’s behaviors and words, I was able to conclude that it would be a good experience.
The date started at a restaurant and ended at a karaoke bar. The entire night, I did not touch a door. Conversation flowed easily between the both of us. I listened to him speak about a lot of things and laughed at his jokes. He even paid for the entire date. We rarely spoke to anyone else besides each other, and we remained close throughout the night. This part of the date relates to two concepts. The first concept is Becker’s version of exchange theory. Garner and Hancock (2014) state that “within this framework, individuals and groups are seen as generally cognizant of both their interests and their options for engaging in the exchanges” (p. 303). This means that people know their desired outcome and have different ways that they can try to achieve it. In this case, the way that we engaged in conversation was mutual. We gave each other undivided attention. He even paid for my meal, and in exchange I listened to him intently. It could even be said that the motivation behind his actions, such as opening doors and paying for the date, was for me to be more comfortable and secure, which I displayed in my interactions listed.
The second concept related to this part of the date is Goffman’s concept of team performances. This concept stems from Goffman’s dramaturgical model in which he proposes that social interactions are like a theater production. According to Goffman, teams “refer to any set of individuals who co-operate in staging a single routine” (Goffman, 1959 as cited in garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 343). In this concept, two or more people work together in a scripted manner, playing off of the other’s role to have a certain impression on the audience. As a team in my example, I played a meeker role, allowing him to be more assertive. Although I typically open my own doors, pay for my own meals, speak more than I listen, and only laugh when I find something funny, these things were put aside for the sake of the team. This interaction impressed upon those around us that we may have been a couple. Additionally, Goffman speaks about the consequences of someone “giving the show away” (p.345). If the team is not on the same page, it will ruin the impression, as they are dependent on the other members. In this example, if I were to insist a split bill or engage in conversation with other men in the area, it would ruin the “performance.” He may no longer take on his assertive role, and we would no longer be viewed as a couple.
As the date went on, I became more comfortable physically. My body was almost always turned towards him. Throughout the night, I would touch his arm if the conversation called for it, or he might rest his hand on my waist as we are walking. We laughed all night, so I could tell we were enjoying each other’s company. This part of the date relates to two concepts by Goffman. This first is the importance of face-to-face interactions. Goffman argues that face-to-face interactions allow for others to understand our intentions through nonverbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions (Goffman 1982, as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 354). In this example, we were feeding off of each other’s body language. It communicated that we enjoyed being around one another. The second concept is Goffman’s idea of personal territoriality. Goffman believes that bringing our bodies with us to social interactions makes us vulnerable to unwanted physical interactions, such as robbery, assault, sexual molestation, and more (Goffman, 1982 as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 355). However, we assume these risks going into any face-to-face interaction. After observing the situation’s safety, we may view the other person as unthreatening. This is what happened in my scenario. After speaking with my date and determining that he is not a physical threat to me, I became more comfortable with him physically.
After the restaurant, we went to the karaoke bar. At the karaoke bar, we decided to play a game of pool. I did not know how to play, but he was pretty good at it. He showed me how to play, and we decided to make a bet. Whoever won the game would buy our drinks. I ended up winning, and he bought us each a drink. This part of the date relates to Goffman’s concept of frames. Frames are the way that we view situations. While Goffman believes that different individuals’ frames can be similar due to socialization, they typically vary due to a difference in perspective (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 350). While individuals can be experiencing the same situation, their differing perspectives will prevent them from experiencing it the same way (Goffman, 1974 as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 351). In the situation listed above, my date lost the pool game. From his perspective, he lost a game that he knew how to play to someone who did not know how to play. This happened while he was on a date and probably trying to impress me. In this situation, it is expected for someone’s pride to be hurt or for them to be embarrassed. However, Goffman states that “in many cases some of those who who are committed to differing points of view and focus may still be willing to acknowledge that theirs is not the official or ‘real’ one” (Goffman, 1974 as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 351). My date has been playing pool for a while, and I just learned that night. I picked the game up fast and beat him. His pride may have been hurt, but he was able to recognize that his perspective was not the only one, and that I may have just been excited to have successfully learned something new that day. When considering that, he decided to keep a good attitude despite losing the game.
Our next activity was to sing karaoke. I noticed that when I have an excessive amount of alcohol in my system, I am more confident, so before going up, I took two shots of liquor to shake off the anxiety and gain the courage to sing in front of everyone. I did this even though I was already feeling the effects of the drinks we had earlier in the night, and my date was not drinking anymore. This part of the date relates to Becker’s idea that deviant behavior precedes deviant motivation (Becker, 1963 as cited in garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 304). Becker believes that deviant activity begins with “vague impulses and desires,” such as curiosity about the effects of the substance. Once experienced, people can begin to develop deviant motives over time, such as using the substance to escape reality. In this case, my deviant motive was to use an excessive amount of alcohol in an inappropriate situation) to cure my social anxiety. My deviant behavior of drinking excessively in an inappropriate situation may have been a pattern that I picked up when drinking socially in the past. I could have noticed how greater amounts of alcohol made me feel more confident. Therefore, I decided to drink an excessive amount before going up to sing karaoke.
The night ended shortly after. I Ubered home, and went straight to bed. I initially did not want to go on the date. I have had bad experiences with first dates in the past, because I hate surface level conversations, and I felt like this would be the same. Your encouragement along with the stories that you told me about him made me more comfortable to try again. I was able to discuss deeper things with him based on the information you gave me. It also seemed like a good idea because you already know and like him. We can all hang out together at times. I would love to go out with him again. This closing thought about the date relates to Becker’s stages of using marihuana for pleasure, more specifically, learning to enjoy the effects. Becker stresses the importance of enjoying the experience of a high in becoming a marihuana user (Becker, 1963 as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 309). When the initial experience fails to produce an enjoyable effect, the feeling can be redefined when trying again in a different context. This new context typically includes interactions with others who help by reassuring the novice user throughout the experience, turning their unpleasant experience into a pleasant one. While this is not exactly like the situation that I listed, it is similar. My previous experiences with first dates have been bad due to surface level conversations. However, by my friend encouraging me and giving me stories that would help me spark up deeper conversations, I was able to take an unpleasant characteristic of first dates (conversation) and turn it into a pleasant one. Then, like the path taken in Becker’s concept, I am looking forward to doing it again.
This thought also relates to Becker’s rational choice theory. Garner & Hancock (2014) explain that people try to make the best decisions for themselves and those that they care about. In this context, “their choice criteria include…solidarity with a group such as…peers…” (p. 303). My choice to go on a date with a guy that I met through a mutual friend was made with my friends in mind. I figured that going on this date would be better than finding a stranger who my friend may not like, or who may not have a good relationship with my friend group. Since my friend already knows and likes this guy that she is setting me up with, dating him might increase solidarity within my friend group.
References
Garner, R. & Hancock, B. H. (2014). Social theory a reader: Continuity and confrontation (3rd ed.). University of Toronto Press.
ANA:
When I was getting ready to go on the date, I decided to wear a nice sundress even though I typically wear a t-shirt and jeans most days. I also put on makeup and jewelry, even though those are not things that I normally wear. This part of the date is related to Goffman’s concept of self-presentation. In Goffman’s dramaturgical model, he proposes that social interactions are like a theater production, heavily staged (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 340). Within this model, “Goffman implies that there is an element of calculation in most self-presentations.” This means that people may try to control how others view them, even if it is in a subtle way. In my example, I am presenting myself as someone who regularly spends time on my appearance and style, when behind the scenes, I do not spend much time on it at all.
When I went to the date, I did not know what to expect, but from observing his behaviors and the things that he would say, I became more comfortable and gathered that the date would go well. He was a gentleman and very kind. We also had a lot in common. This is related to a theory utilized by Becker called grounded theory, where conclusions are drawn from observation (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 302). I went into the date with no expectations, but after observing my date’s behaviors and words, I was able to conclude that it would be a good experience.
The date started at a restaurant and ended at a karaoke bar. The entire night, I did not touch a door. Conversation flowed easily between the both of us. I listened to him speak about a lot of things and laughed at his jokes. He even paid for the entire date. We rarely spoke to anyone else besides each other, and we remained close throughout the night. This part of the date relates to two concepts. The first concept is Becker’s version of exchange theory. Garner and Hancock (2014) state that “within this framework, individuals and groups are seen as generally cognizant of both their interests and their options for engaging in the exchanges” (p. 303). This means that people know their desired outcome and have different ways that they can try to achieve it. In this case, the way that we engaged in conversation was mutual. We gave each other undivided attention. He even paid for my meal, and in exchange I listened to him intently. It could even be said that the motivation behind his actions, such as opening doors and paying for the date, was for me to be more comfortable and secure, which I displayed in my interactions listed.
The second concept related to this part of the date is Goffman’s concept of team performances. This concept stems from Goffman’s dramaturgical model in which he proposes that social interactions are like a theater production. According to Goffman, teams “refer to any set of individuals who co-operate in staging a single routine” (Goffman, 1959 as cited in garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 343). In this concept, two or more people work together in a scripted manner, playing off of the other’s role to have a certain impression on the audience. As a team in my example, I played a meeker role, allowing him to be more assertive. Although I typically open my own doors, pay for my own meals, speak more than I listen, and only laugh when I find something funny, these things were put aside for the sake of the team. This interaction impressed upon those around us that we may have been a couple. Additionally, Goffman speaks about the consequences of someone “giving the show away” (p.345). If the team is not on the same page, it will ruin the impression, as they are dependent on the other members. In this example, if I were to insist a split bill or engage in conversation with other men in the area, it would ruin the “performance.” He may no longer take on his assertive role, and we would no longer be viewed as a couple.
As the date went on, I became more comfortable physically. My body was almost always turned towards him. Throughout the night, I would touch his arm if the conversation called for it, or he might rest his hand on my waist as we are walking. We laughed all night, so I could tell we were enjoying each other’s company. This part of the date relates to two concepts by Goffman. This first is the importance of face-to-face interactions. Goffman argues that face-to-face interactions allow for others to understand our intentions through nonverbal cues, such as body language and facial expressions (Goffman 1982, as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 354). In this example, we were feeding off of each other’s body language. It communicated that we enjoyed being around one another. The second concept is Goffman’s idea of personal territoriality. Goffman believes that bringing our bodies with us to social interactions makes us vulnerable to unwanted physical interactions, such as robbery, assault, sexual molestation, and more (Goffman, 1982 as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 355). However, we assume these risks going into any face-to-face interaction. After observing the situation’s safety, we may view the other person as unthreatening. This is what happened in my scenario. After speaking with my date and determining that he is not a physical threat to me, I became more comfortable with him physically.
After the restaurant, we went to the karaoke bar. At the karaoke bar, we decided to play a game of pool. I did not know how to play, but he was pretty good at it. He showed me how to play, and we decided to make a bet. Whoever won the game would buy our drinks. I ended up winning, and he bought us each a drink. This part of the date relates to Goffman’s concept of frames. Frames are the way that we view situations. While Goffman believes that different individuals’ frames can be similar due to socialization, they typically vary due to a difference in perspective (Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 350). While individuals can be experiencing the same situation, their differing perspectives will prevent them from experiencing it the same way (Goffman, 1974 as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 351). In the situation listed above, my date lost the pool game. From his perspective, he lost a game that he knew how to play to someone who did not know how to play. This happened while he was on a date and probably trying to impress me. In this situation, it is expected for someone’s pride to be hurt or for them to be embarrassed. However, Goffman states that “in many cases some of those who who are committed to differing points of view and focus may still be willing to acknowledge that theirs is not the official or ‘real’ one” (Goffman, 1974 as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 351). My date has been playing pool for a while, and I just learned that night. I picked the game up fast and beat him. His pride may have been hurt, but he was able to recognize that his perspective was not the only one, and that I may have just been excited to have successfully learned something new that day. When considering that, he decided to keep a good attitude despite losing the game.
Our next activity was to sing karaoke. I noticed that when I have an excessive amount of alcohol in my system, I am more confident, so before going up, I took two shots of liquor to shake off the anxiety and gain the courage to sing in front of everyone. I did this even though I was already feeling the effects of the drinks we had earlier in the night, and my date was not drinking anymore. This part of the date relates to Becker’s idea that deviant behavior precedes deviant motivation (Becker, 1963 as cited in garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 304). Becker believes that deviant activity begins with “vague impulses and desires,” such as curiosity about the effects of the substance. Once experienced, people can begin to develop deviant motives over time, such as using the substance to escape reality. In this case, my deviant motive was to use an excessive amount of alcohol in an inappropriate situation) to cure my social anxiety. My deviant behavior of drinking excessively in an inappropriate situation may have been a pattern that I picked up when drinking socially in the past. I could have noticed how greater amounts of alcohol made me feel more confident. Therefore, I decided to drink an excessive amount before going up to sing karaoke.
The night ended shortly after. I Ubered home, and went straight to bed. I initially did not want to go on the date. I have had bad experiences with first dates in the past, because I hate surface level conversations, and I felt like this would be the same. Your encouragement along with the stories that you told me about him made me more comfortable to try again. I was able to discuss deeper things with him based on the information you gave me. It also seemed like a good idea because you already know and like him. We can all hang out together at times. I would love to go out with him again. This closing thought about the date relates to Becker’s stages of using marihuana for pleasure, more specifically, learning to enjoy the effects. Becker stresses the importance of enjoying the experience of a high in becoming a marihuana user (Becker, 1963 as cited in Garner & Hancock, 2014, p. 309). When the initial experience fails to produce an enjoyable effect, the feeling can be redefined when trying again in a different context. This new context typically includes interactions with others who help by reassuring the novice user throughout the experience, turning their unpleasant experience into a pleasant one. While this is not exactly like the situation that I listed, it is similar. My previous experiences with first dates have been bad due to surface level conversations. However, by my friend encouraging me and giving me stories that would help me spark up deeper conversations, I was able to take an unpleasant characteristic of first dates (conversation) and turn it into a pleasant one. Then, like the path taken in Becker’s concept, I am looking forward to doing it again.
This thought also relates to Becker’s rational choice theory. Garner & Hancock (2014) explain that people try to make the best decisions for themselves and those that they care about. In this context, “their choice criteria include…solidarity with a group such as…peers…” (p. 303). My choice to go on a date with a guy that I met through a mutual friend was made with my friends in mind. I figured that going on this date would be better than finding a stranger who my friend may not like, or who may not have a good relationship with my friend group. Since my friend already knows and likes this guy that she is setting me up with, dating him might increase solidarity within my friend group.
References
Garner, R. & Hancock, B. H. (2014). Social theory a reader: Continuity and confrontation (3rd ed.). University of Toronto Press.
