Erving Goffman

Frame Analysis

This piece, especially the first chapter, is really upsetting to read. I guess it's just an example of a poor English composition; both in terms of ideas and sentences it is jumpy and disorganized, and its concepts are underdeveloped. Anyway, the first chapter is, not only being rather disorganized, probably totally irrelevant for the purpose of the prelim - though you should note that what is being talked about here is strictly limited to that of the analysis of experience as it is organized in individual's mind and not the analysis of social structure or organization. You should probably just skim through this part, my summary is also only on the second chapter.

The Primary Framework

When people make interpretations on what is going on around their world, they do so through the framework or schemata of interpretations they have that Goffman calls the primary framework. It is regarded as "primary" in the sense that its validity is taken for granted; its usefulness as a framework does not depend on the prior existence of some other forms of frameworks that in turn render it a valid means for interpretation.

The Natural and Social Frameworks

There are broadly two main types of primary frameworks: natural and social. Given that both of these function to help individuals interpret the world so that experiences around them seem to be understandable, then the difference between these two is how they accomplish that task for for the individuals. Natural frameworks identify occurrences as being in the domain of "purely physical" - under this framework people come to regard events as purely "natural" in the literal sense, with no social forces operating behind them. Social frameworks identify occurrences as being in the domain of social, under this framework people come to regard the events as occurring due to the will, aim, or controlling effort of other human beings. Also, social frameworks are founded upon the natural ones, and that indeed we often engage in social manipulation of the physical world.

In sum, the world around us is understandable due to these primary frameworks, and Goffman seems to assume that individuals are basically capable of making effective use of these frameworks. Thus he writes: "The elements and processes he assumes in his reading of the activity often are ones that the activity itself manifests - and why not, since social life itself is often organized as something that individuals will be able to understand and deal with" (p. 26). Actually I find this statement to be terribly underdeveloped, as it does not seem like a truism that the individuals are in fact capable of utilizing frameworks effectively. In fact, this weakness may be comparable to that of the weak point of the rational choice theory, which asserts that "under most circumstances more often than not people act rationally according to their goals".

Cosmology

The sum total of these individual frameworks members of a particular society share, that might be called the "framework of frameworks", come to form what Goffman regards as its belief system, cosmology, or culture, whichever you may call it.

How Primary Frameworks help up interpret the world

Goffman gives us five potential situations in which the concept of primary framework, along with its distinction into natural and social ones, might be helpful in interpreting the world as well perhaps think of research agendas.

1. Astounding events

We cannot tolerate the inexplicable, and whenever we see something that appears to be unexplained - be that UFO or whatever - we try to "force" that event so that it fits nicely into either of the natural or the social explanation. This is a good point - for instance, in the case of UFO we either frenetically search for the "scientific" explanation (a natural framework), or else attribute it to someone working up a mischief (social framework). The process of how we do it may be a good research agenda.

2. Cosmological interests

Not only some of the academic interests but those of the everyday concerns of laymen are founded on what Goffman regards as cosmological interests. That is, again, whenever we see something that is difficult to explain, such as the exhibition of stunts, how much explanation should be based on the natural part and how much on the social part?

3. Muffing

Temporary loss of physical control, as "flubs", "goofs", and "gaffes". Again, physical control of the body is sometimes attributed to natural framework and sometimes to social framework.

4. Fortuitousness

Some events in the world are explained to have happened purely accidentally - which in case no social responsibility is imputed, so fortuitousness is basically based on the natural framework. Together with the last concept of muffling, these two notions enable people to understand certain events that would be not be comprehended, by saying these events had been "mistakes" or "accidents".

5. Tension

Sometimes more than one framework applies to the same situation, leading to the "tension" situation. One example Goffman mentions is the childbirth, in which under natural framework there is nothing wrong with a male doctor inspecting the naked body of a patient but not quite so under the social framework.