...another Goffman quote, this from the end of the introduction:
"There are lots of good grounds for doubting the kind of analysis to be presented. I would do so myself if it weren't my own."
And here's a new word for me:
"It is too bookish, too general, too removed from fieldwork to have a good chance of being anything more than another mentalistic adumbration."
I'm going to go look this word up. Nobody took me up on my offer of a Snickers bar to a punny answer to the question "What's a mobile journalist?" (although I had a couple of verbal half-tries ... but they had to be posted in the form of comments to my blog).
So ... I'll try again. Smartees to the first person who posts the correct definition of "adumbration" on my blog.
Showing posts with label Goffman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Goffman. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Taming of the Dragon
In a previous post, I likened our class in Communication Theory to a dragon in need of slaying. That may have been because I was faced with a paper due this coming week and the focus of the paper kept disappearing on me ... the dragon breathed fire and smoke which obscured his scaly body.
Thanks to fellow Fellow, Sandra Martinez, who calmly rode to my rescue and helped me see that I had too many swords that I kept tripping over, that particular dragon is well on its way to being slain.
In the meantime, I've been reading the intro by one of the theorists ... and have found a writer with a sense of humor! Erving Goffman wrote a book (Frame Analysis) back in 1974 about how we each see things differently.
Yeah, I know. There's nothing new under the sun and how did he get away with writing a whole book about that? In any case, he begins:
"There is a venerable tradition in philosophy that argues that what the reader assumes to be real is but a shadow, and that by attending to what the writer says about [whatever subject -- he lists several], the veil can be lifted. That sort of line, of course, gives as much a role to the writer and his writings as is possible to imagine and for that reason is pathetic. (What can better push a book that the claim it will change what the reader thinks is going on?)"
And a bit further down:
"All the world is not a stage -- certainly the theater isn't entirely. (Whether you organize a theater or an aircraft factory, you need to find places for cars to park and coats to be checked, and these had better be real places, which, incidentally, had better carry real insurance against theft.)"
So excuse me while I go curl up with a different dragon and have a bit of a giggle.
Thanks to fellow Fellow, Sandra Martinez, who calmly rode to my rescue and helped me see that I had too many swords that I kept tripping over, that particular dragon is well on its way to being slain.
In the meantime, I've been reading the intro by one of the theorists ... and have found a writer with a sense of humor! Erving Goffman wrote a book (Frame Analysis) back in 1974 about how we each see things differently.
Yeah, I know. There's nothing new under the sun and how did he get away with writing a whole book about that? In any case, he begins:
"There is a venerable tradition in philosophy that argues that what the reader assumes to be real is but a shadow, and that by attending to what the writer says about [whatever subject -- he lists several], the veil can be lifted. That sort of line, of course, gives as much a role to the writer and his writings as is possible to imagine and for that reason is pathetic. (What can better push a book that the claim it will change what the reader thinks is going on?)"
And a bit further down:
"All the world is not a stage -- certainly the theater isn't entirely. (Whether you organize a theater or an aircraft factory, you need to find places for cars to park and coats to be checked, and these had better be real places, which, incidentally, had better carry real insurance against theft.)"
So excuse me while I go curl up with a different dragon and have a bit of a giggle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)