As the name implies, the central principle of this analysis form revolves around the concept of drama. In this case, life can be seen as a stage where individuals act out their roles. The public performances they engage in, which are actions that take place in front of or have an impact on other people, are the key drivers of meaning. Therefore, meaning is derived from these actions. While dramaturgical analysis is commonly employed to explain highly visible performances like organizational rituals, it can also be employed to comprehend more private performances such as the fulfillment of parental duties.
The analysis encompasses both the action and the resulting meaning or messages of the action. Dramaturgical analysis can examine either the actual display or the components of the display. This approach views social behavior through the lens of theater, with individuals as actors and social interactions as dramatic performances. It is considered one of the most extensive theories for understanding collective behaviors.
Despite the existence of various perspectives on dramaturgical analysis, there is a lack of a single comprehensive text summarizing and exemplifying generally accepted views. Dramaturgical Analysis of Social Interaction serves as a valuable resource in fulfilling this role, offering an excellent overview of this approach. Therefore, it is essential reading for researchers studying collective behavior. Additionally, this paper aims to shed light on the process in which social movements collectively build and express power.
Drawing from both dramaturgy and field research of various movements, this article shows how social movements are dramas that regularly aim to challenge or uphold interpretations of power dynamics. The article identifies and explains four dramatic techniques associated with these communicative processes: scripting, staging, performing, and interpreting. It is proposed that the success of movements partially relies on activists effectively utilizing these techniques and navigating unexpected challenges and tensions.
The paper concludes by discussing the theoretical and empirical implications of dramaturgical analysis in social interaction. This analysis is based on the assumption that social acts are consciously or unconsciously staged, resembling enactments in the theater. Theater plays often highlight elements of ordinary social life to offer a fresh perspective on social interaction. Consequently, concepts used in theater production can be employed in analyzing the intended social behavior. The main concepts involved in dramaturgical analysis are centered around the stage or action area (Hare and Blumberg 1988). This area can be divided into backstage and stage. Backstage refers to where actors prepare for their roles and produce special effects to influence the audience. On the other hand, the stage is where the action occurs, observed by the audience. Even when only two individuals are involved in an interaction, they take turns being the audience for each other.
When one person is speaking, the other person is listening. In the role of audience, an actor plays a crucial part by providing consensual reality, cueing, social reinforcement, and continuous observation (Sarbin in Allen and Scheibe 1982). Within any action area, there might be offstage areas where the people who have organized the activity (producers), as well as those who have rehearsed the actors (directors) and are providing cues, remain hidden from the audience. Furthermore, there may be an individual or a group who originated the idea or wrote the script for the performance (playwright).
This is not an exhaustive list as there may also be individuals who serve the audience. The significance of the event unites all the participants. It has been referred to as the definition of the situation, the frame, and the illusion. In the evolution of social interaction, reaching a consensus on a feasible idea that aligns with the overall meaning is the initial stage. The second stage entails organizing an action space by either finding or creating it and supplying resources like props, costumes, and other essential equipment.
During the third phase, actors are recruited and trained for their roles in the actable idea’s development, which may overlap with the second phase. This is followed by the fourth phase, the enactment period when the play is performed. After the performance, in the final phase, the actors and audience assess new meanings for themselves, others, and the situation. The actable ideas that serve as the foundation for social dramas can be either broadly or narrowly consequential.
On one end of the spectrum is a tangible concept presented as an image, a set of evocative words, a physical object, or an event, such as the ghetto or a bacchanalia. An image carries within it a plan of action, similar to a symbol in a dream that combines real-life experiences. In a small informal or therapy group, an image often serves as a guiding force for interaction. The tangible concept may take the form of a more intricate theme (including a sense of direction, an emotional atmosphere, and a minimal set of roles to be performed) or a plot (with a detailed scenario, defined roles, and guidance on the stages necessary for the group to achieve its objective).
At one end of the continuum, the idea can be fully developed like a script for a play, including roles for each cast member and stage directions. Scripts are commonly found in organizations, particularly those involving equipment. Expanding on Burke’s perspective (1968), Duncan (1968) emphasizes the significance of symbols, particularly in relation to authority. MacCannell and MacCannell (1982) go further to suggest that the study of signs and symbols had become so crucial by the late 1900s that they proposed a semiotic interpretation of modern culture as an approach to understanding the time of the sign.
According to Brissett and Edgley (1990), they expand on the factors derived from Goffman’s (1959) work that pertain to how individuals present themselves to others. These factors encompass role distance, which occurs when an individual is fully aware of their role and has the option to alter it or abandon it entirely; ecstasy, which involves temporarily stepping outside of ordinary life; and remedial work, which involves attempting to reinterpret an action to make it acceptable rather than offensive. 2.
Various academic fields contribute to the analysis of dramaturgy. Sociologists within the symbolic interaction tradition utilize a role playing focus (see Goffman 1959). Another approach, introduced by philosopher-linguist Burke (1968), centers on act analysis. Anthropologists primarily utilize a third approach, analyzing the function of social dramas enacted by society members to resolve conflicts (Turner 1974), symbolize rites of passage, or commemorate significant historical events.
Role and script are fundamental concepts in drama. They are also important in the fields of psychology, political science, philosophy, linguistics, psychotherapy, narrative analysis, and qualitative analysis. These fields also address similar relationships that can be applied to the dramaturgical perspective. In The Theatre in Life (1927), Evreinoff observes that the comparison between life and theater has been recognized since at least the sixteenth century, as acknowledged by Shakespeare and others.
The dramaturgical perspective was not widely used until it was popularized by Goffman in the 1960s. However, the 1930-35 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by Seligman and Johnson, does not include an entry on the dramaturgical perspective. Instead, there is an entry for drama, which focuses on theatrical activities. In the 1968 International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by Sills, Burke’s entry on dramatism presents his pentad of five terms: act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose.
In their work, Burke and Brissett and Edgley discuss the connection between sets of concepts in ratios, such as the scene-act ratio. This ratio suggests that the attitudes and behaviors implicit in a scene or situation will become explicit through action. Burke specifically mentions his influence from Mead (1938) and places his work within the symbolic interaction tradition. Meanwhile, Brissett and Edgley define dramaturgy as the study of how individuals create meaning in their lives through their interactions with others. They also highlight how meaning can be recreated through re-enaction, emphasizing its connection to enaction.
Moreno established psychodrama as a form of group therapy by incorporating re-enactment, recognizing that each subsequent experience offers freedom from the previous one (Hare and Hare 1996). Warner, in the 1992 Encyclopedia of Sociology edited by Borgatta and Borgatta, describes dramaturgy’s unique insight as recognizing that daily social interactions involve performances, where individuals present themselves to others (Warner, 1992). Brissett and Edgley (1990) also highlight the influence of Goffman and the symbolic interaction tradition of Mead and the Chicago School.
4. Brissett and Edgley (1990) highlight several methodological issues regarding dramaturgy. Some critics argue that dramaturgy lacks the characteristics of a formal theory and is considered a pedestrian and nonsystematic form of inquiry. Brissett and Edgley acknowledge this view but emphasize that dramaturgy is connected to other social theories, such as symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, existential sociology, interpersonal psychology, and other humanistic models in the social sciences. Another criticism is that dramaturgy does not generate universal statements regarding human behavior.
According to Brissett and Edgley, studying situational behavior in Western culture is considered an artifact. However, they acknowledge that comprehending how people interact in this society is significant. They highlight that the expressive behavior of individuals has been extensively documented in anthropological literature. Criticism has been directed towards the methodology of dramaturgy, particularly Goffman’s interpretation. It is claimed that there is no defined and systematic approach to testing hypotheses about the world.
Brissett and Edgley argue that there is nothing extraordinary about conducting dramaturgy. They state that being attuned to the expressive aspect of behavior does not require any unique approach or observational abilities. However, they emphasize the importance of displaying an unsettling and dedicated focus on observing people’s actions. One criticism against dramaturgy is its neglect of the influence of larger social entities, such as institutions, on human behavior. Brissett and Edgley counter this by asserting that there is undoubtedly a restriction on individuals’ interaction contexts due to structural arrangements.
Instead of dwelling on limitations, dramaturgy focuses on people’s actions within available contexts. The concept of role explains people’s connections to each other and the structures they identify with. Critics argue that theater is not real life, but Brissett and Edgely state that life is not separate from theater, but rather similar to it. 5. Future Directions for Theory and Research
A way to start analyzing social interaction is by using the dramaturgical perspective to explain the stage, the different actors present on and off the stage, the audience, and the overall significance of the event (also known as the definition of the situation). By focusing on each actor individually, their roles and how they express themselves (in formal and informal ways) can be described using insights from other disciplines within the social sciences and humanities. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of group dynamics and encompasses all aspects of social behavior.
