Introduction
Erving Goffman’s theories revolve around the concept of face, line, and face-work in social interactions. According to Goffman, the ‘face’ refers to the social value a person claims for themselves in a given situation (Raab). ‘Line’ is the pattern of verbal and non-verbal acts a person uses to express their view of a situation and their evaluation of the participants, especially themselves. ‘Face-work’ is the effort one puts into maintaining their face or managing the face of others. This involves avoiding and managing threats to face, which Goffman calls ‘face-threatening acts.’
Goffman’s Concepts of Face, Line, and Face-Work
In Elijah Anderson’s study “The Code of the Street”, the social situation of inner-city communities, particularly African-American ones, was explored. The ‘code’ is a set of informal rules governing interpersonal, and public behavior, particularly violence. The code’s primary function is to regulate the use of violence and maintain face in a community where the police and the state have limited authority.
Application of Goffman’s Ideas to Anderson’s Study
Applying Goffman’s concepts to Anderson’s study, the ‘line’ being presented by individuals living by the code is one of toughness, respect, and readiness to resort to violence if necessary. This is a form of ‘defensive face-work’ where individuals often present a tough exterior to avoid threats to their face. The face they aim to present is one that commands respect and fear to avoid being perceived as weak or an easy target in a community where violence is a common way of resolving disputes.
The ‘face-work’ in this context often involves actions and gestures that signify toughness and readiness for violence. This could mean adopting a certain style of dress, a certain way of walking, talking, and even behaving in certain ways to assert dominance and command respect. For example, ‘dissing’ or disrespecting someone publicly is a direct challenge to their face, and the person disrespected must respond appropriately to maintain their face. Failure to do so leads to ‘face loss,’ which can have serious consequences in such communities.
Techniques of Face-Work in Anderson’s Study
Another aspect of face-work in this context is ‘protective face-work,’ where individuals go out of their way to avoid confrontations that might lead to violence. Protective face-work employs several tactics. One of them is the use of indirect and non-confrontational language. This can mean using polite, diplomatic language or intentionally avoiding contentious topics. The aim is to communicate without causing offense or escalating tensions. For instance, instead of directly accusing someone, a person might use a more general statement that doesn’t point fingers.
Another tactic is avoiding eye contact. In many cultures, direct eye contact is often seen as a challenge or a sign of hostility. By avoiding eye contact, individuals can send a clear signal that they are not looking for confrontation. This can help to de-escalate potentially volatile situations.
Challenges of Face-Work in Anderson’s Social Setting
The unique challenge of face-work in the social setting described by Anderson is maintaining a balance between presenting a tough face to deter potential threats and avoiding unnecessary confrontations that could escalate to violence. This requires a keen understanding of the code and the ability to read and respond to subtle cues in others’ behavior. It also requires the ability to control one’s emotions and reactions, as any sign of weakness or fear could lead to a loss of face.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Goffman’s concepts of face, line, and face-work provide a useful framework for understanding the social dynamics in the communities described by Anderson. The code of the street can be seen as a set of rules for face work, guiding individuals on how to present their line and maintain their face in a potentially hostile social environment.
Work Cited
Raab, Jürgen. Erving Goffman: From the Perspective of the New Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge, 2019.