2
Relating in public
Rudeness, civility and polite fictions

This chapter explores how social identities are performed and managed through interaction in public places, where participants encounter each other as strangers yet still significant objects, to whom their conduct must be oriented. Public places include the street, waiting areas, public transport and recreational facilities, where the rules are ambiguous and have to be negotiated in situ. Without the supportive frameworks of trust, familiarity, intimacy and routine, actors are rendered vulnerable to their identity claims being challenged or misread, to making unintended blunders and creating unwanted impressions. Yet often we find that audiences are supportive and accommodating, sharing a common motivation to uphold the immediate ‘definition of the situation’ and the wider semblance of the ‘interaction order’. We shall examine the mechanisms behind this, such as displays of tact, civility and ritualized observance of social norms, which show how even apparently ‘unfocused’ interaction (Goffman 1967) is actually governed by routine, predictability and rule-following behaviour.

The interaction order

The title of this chapter refers to one of Goffman’s books on the micro-processes of interaction, Relations in Public (1971). This, along with other titles such as Encounters (1961b), Behavior in Public Places (1963b) and Interaction Ritual (1967), serves as a catalogue of the forms of expressive behaviour – verbal speech, facial expressions, bodily gestures and demeanour – that can be observed in any situation, as an index of the underlying social structure. Goffman emphasized the patterning of rules, norms and values across situations that govern orderly conduct; these are ceremoniously observed and followed as pragmatic guiding principles for action.

The term ‘interaction order’ was coined by Goffman in his 1982 presidential address to the American Sociological Association, which was published as a journal article after his death (Goffman 1983a). Here, he argues that the interaction order constitutes a distinct domain of social life that can be studied in its own right, as a structure of moral and institutional order (Heritage & Clayman 2010: 8). While comprising a plethora of discrete, localized social settings, each of which unfolds as a self-contained drama, when put together, these constitute a broader, deeper pattern of social organization.

This realm encompasses a wide range of social interaction, from the ‘merely situated’, where events unfold that are incidental to the co-presence of the particular actors and could conceivably take place without them, to the ‘situated’, where actors come together to pursue a common purpose. Elsewhere, Goffman (1967) referred to these as ‘unfocused’ and ‘focused’ encounters, respectively. He also distinguished between levels of interaction, according to the situation’s format, collective organization and distribution of roles. At the first level, embodied individuals are merely ‘vehicular elements’ or ‘ambulatory units’, moving around social space and navigating a path around others (Goffman 1971). They follow a set of tacitly understood ‘traffic rules’ to protect their personal territories and avoid encroaching into others’ spaces. The second level involves ‘contact’ between interactants, such as the physical touching of bodies or eye contact and glancing. At the third level, there are conversational ‘encounters’ marked by ritual exchanges, where people come together ‘as ratified participants in a consciously shared, clearly interdependent undertaking’ (Goffman 1983a: 9). Fourthly, the ‘platform’ entails a scene staged before an audience, such as a meeting, a formal address or service transactions in occupational settings. Finally, the ‘celebrative social occasion’ demands that actors display deference towards some ‘jointly appreciated circumstances’ (Goffman 1983a: 11); these are highly ritualized and generate a collective mood of excitement.

Behaviour in public places can be located within the first, second and third of these levels. Goffman (1963b) suggests that conduct in such encounters, whether they be focused or unfocused, is nevertheless orderly as it is governed by ‘situational proprieties’: the rules, norms and expectations of how one ought to behave in order to demonstrate respect and courtesy to others. These ‘enabling conventions’ establish a backdrop of shared understandings and normative expectations, which serve as a pragmatic resource for action and which all participants can draw upon. Thus ‘orderly interaction [emerges as] … a process of normative consensus’ (Goffman 1983a: 7). Although these interaction arrangements are designed to withstand occasional violation, overall there is a collaborative effort to maintain the micro-structure’s stability.

Politeness and civility

Central to the maintenance of this tacit moral code is the notion of civility. This refers to the motivation behind rule-governed conduct, namely a respect for the principle of orderliness and a commitment to upholding that appearance. Civility entails an attitude of politeness: not merely as a superficial adherence to conventional etiquette, but as a display of shared morality, demonstrating one’s reliability and trustworthiness as a member of the group. Behaviourally, civility includes the practices of manners, observing situational proprieties and following appropriate decorum, all of which, Burns (1992) suggests, points to a concern with behaving predictably and co-operatively and avoiding embarrassment. Apart from keeping face ourselves, we try not to undermine others’ self-presentational claims or interfere with their lines of action.

Politeness is an art form: a set of skills that people learn to defend themselves against embarrassment, compromised dignity or interactional strain. Goffman (1967: 47–96) referred to the dramaturgical techniques of deference and demeanour. Deference is an attitude of respect towards those in higher-status positions; it is how we convey appreciation of the other or the ‘sacredness’ of their face. This might involve rituals of avoidance (such as servants avoiding eye contact with their employers) and rituals of presentation (compliments, invitations and minor services). Demeanour describes the means through which deference is communicated, such as facial expression, courteous language and appropriate dress. The appearance of a civilized order spreads a veneer of pleasantness over potentially frosty encounters, disguising any underlying tension. Spiers (1998: 32) suggests that politeness provides ‘the means for performing face-threatening acts whilst still maintaining each other’s face’.

Definition of the situation

The performance of civility in interaction is an example of an important concept in symbolic interactionism, the ‘definition of the situation’ (Thomas & Thomas 1928). This describes a stage of examination and deliberation that occurs between actors in a social situation as they strive to achieve a working consensus of what is going on. It results in a subjectively perceived reality, regardless of what may objectively be the case, which is meaningful to and has pragmatic consequences for those involved. Thomas and Thomas (1928: 575) famously said: ‘If men [sic] define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.’ Beyond the immediate setting, this has wider implications for the interaction order. Thomas (1923) suggested that social morality is not a matter of universal truth but rather one of social convention, specific to a local group or culture: an emergent set of rules or normative codes of conduct that is built up over time by a group’s successively agreed definitions of situations.

As a process of negotiation, the definition of the situation involves actors orienting themselves towards their common goals, the symbolic objects around them, the roles they should be playing, and the actions that accompany these. Hewitt (2007: 61) summarizes the concept as an ‘organization of perception in which people assemble objects, meanings, and others, and act toward them in a coherent, organized way’, while Ball (1972: 63) points to ‘the sum total of all recognized information, from the point-of-view of the actor, which is relevant to his locating himself [sic] and others, so that he can engage in self-determined lines of action and interaction’.

The function of this within the situation is to make it comprehensible, predictable and easy to participate in. Recalling Schütz’s (1972) phenomenology (see Chapter 1), actors draw upon shared stocks of background knowledge to interpret and make sense of situations together. This consists of normative assumptions and expectations based on previous occasions, such as role ‘typifications’ and ‘recipes’ of scripted action (Schütz 1972). Following these rules allows actors to assume the ‘natural attitude’ (Schütz 1972) of habit and routineness, proceeding with the situation as unremarkable ‘business as usual’. Ontologically, this state of unreflexive consciousness enables actors to ‘carry on being’ (Giddens 1984),...