In this blog post, we will examine how social norms are interpreted in everyday life and how they are constructed through interactions between actors.
The question of how social order is possible has long been a topic of sociology. However, sociology has mainly focused on elucidating the dynamics of macro-level social order, such as social structures, states, classes, gender, and culture, which are considered to exist objectively. In an effort to establish universal causal laws of social order based on the natural sciences, sociology has transformed into a huge abstract theoretical system divorced from the actors of everyday life. Furthermore, under the name of empirical science, the mainstream methodology of sociology has become the rigorous measurement of variables that explain social order and the verification of the relationships between these variables.
In this process, social order came to be regarded as something that exists objectively, like an object, independent of the actors who live their daily lives. As a result, the actors who constitute and perform social order in everyday life have become blurred in the field of sociology.
However, this does not mean that there has been no movement within sociology to explore this issue. Symbolic interactionism is a representative example. This theory focuses on specific actors who recognize each other’s roles in a given situation and interact with each other. Although each situation requires specific norms, actors are not merely passive followers of these norms. Actors interpret norms and act based on their interpretations, thereby making the norms themselves negotiable. Social order emerges through the interaction between these actors. Even in situations where it is unclear what norms are required, social order is created through the interaction of actors who seek to define the situation.
While symbolic interaction theory focuses on the “emergent” nature of social order that cannot be reduced to norms themselves, theatrical analysis goes one step further and pays attention to the expectations required by the situation, that is, the various strategies used to implement norms. The idea that actors control information in order to create an impression of themselves and convey it to others is at the heart of the theatrical analysis proposed by sociologist E. Goffman.
Performers standing on stage in front of an audience generally create an impression that they are embodying the norms required by the situation. In most situations, rather than making their own subjective definitions of the situation into common definitions, actors recognize the norms required by the situation itself and consciously control their own definitions of the situation in consideration of these norms. What is ultimately maintained in this process is the social order on stage. For example, even in public places that appear disorderly at first glance, people who do not know each other maintain social order by practicing the norm of anonymity in order to avoid infringing on each other’s privacy, even though they are aware of each other’s presence.
The actors on the stage of everyday life are “merchants of morality.” This is different from the traditional sociological view of humans as religious beings who internalize and strive to realize the ideal values of society. Merchants of morality are performers and audience members who present the impressions they have managed to others in order to be recognized, while at the same time recognizing the impressions managed by others.
Depending on the situation, the role of the performer may be central, or the role of the audience may be central, or sometimes both roles may be required at the same time. Situations may not be clearly distinguished and may overlap. The key is the mutual exchange of “reciprocal recognition.”
Performances have boundaries that separate the stage from the audience, and those outside these boundaries are considered “outsiders.” If an outsider suddenly intrudes into a performance that was not prepared for them, both the performers and the audience will have difficulty managing their impressions. For a performance to be successful, the stage setting, props, costumes, and acting skills of the performers must be coordinated, thereby drawing the audience into the performance and creating a sense of unity.
The most common criticism of theatrical analysis is that it views actors as overly cynical performers. This criticism has been particularly strong among functionalists, who assume that traditional human beings strive to realize internalized values. In response, Goffman emphasizes that everyday life takes place not only on stage but also behind the scenes. The backstage is a space that is assumed to be invisible to the audience, where another self exists alongside the self that is presented to others. Here, secret or private words and actions are possible. Actors in everyday life usually move between the front and back stages. Since this transition does not only take place in physical space, a clear “sign” must be provided to the audience to avoid confusion.
