Search results

Preface -- Introduction -- Part I: Goffman and the interaction order. Goffman style: outsider on the inside -- The interaction order is in the balance: the dynamic relation between ritualisation, vulnerability, and working consensus -- Part II. Frame and framing. Frame analysis and frame analysis -- The development of Goffman's interactional and situational frame concept -- Continuities and cracks in Goffman's frame analysis -- Part III. Framing social media, online chess, and power. A new interaction order?- framing interaction in social media -- Frame disputes in online chess and chat interaction -- Interactional power- influencing others by framing social interaction -- Part IV. Conclusions. Concluding remarks -- Epilogue: framed boundlessness- action and everyday life in Las Vegas -- Complete bibliography: Erving Goffman's writings -- References -- Index.

This book is about Erving Goffman's frame analysis as it, on the one hand, was presented in his 1974 book Frame Analysis and, on the other, was actually conducted in a number of preceding substantial analyses of different aspects of social interaction such as face-work, impression management, fun in games, behavior in public places and stigmatization. There was, in other words, a frame analytic continuity in Goffman's work. In an article published after his death in 1982, Goffman also maintained that he throughout his career had been studying the same object: the interaction order. In this book, the author states that Goffman also applied an overarching perspective on social interaction: the dynamic relation between ritualization, vulnerability and working consensus. However, there were also cracks in Goffman´s work and one is shown here with reference to the leading question in Frame Analysis – what is it that's going on here? While framed on a "microsocial" level, that question ties in with "the interaction order" and frame analysis as a method. If, however, it is framed on a societal level, it mirrors metareflective and metasocial manifestations of changes and unrest in the interaction order that, in some ways, herald the emphasis on contingency, uncertainty and risk in later sociology. Through analyses of social media as a possible new interaction order – where frame disputes are frequent – and of interactional power, the applicability of Goffman's frame analysis is illustrated. As such, this book will appeal to scholars and students of social theory, classical sociology and social interaction.

Bokanmeldelse av Anders Persson

Tunisia speeds past Israel's ailing democracy, even before COVID-19. Netanyahu has 'anti-democratic tendencies.' Hungary and Poland protect civil liberties better: How the big three democracy indexes assess Israel.

Die EU hält trotz rasanter Veränderungen im palästinensisch-israelischen Konflikt und im gesamten Nahen Osten an einer Zwei-Staaten-Lösung fest. Dieses hatten die Staaten der Europäischen Gemeinschaft in den 1970er Jahren gemeinsam als wegweisendes Konzept für einen gerechten Frieden im Nahen Osten entwickelt. Heute steht die Nahostpolitik der EU am Rande der Bedeutungslosigkeit. Zudem fällt es den Mitgliedstaaten immer schwerer, sich auf eine gemeinsame Position zu verständigen. Doch jene, die das Festhalten an der Zwei-Staaten-Lösung kritisieren, haben keine alternativen Konzepte für einen Frieden im Nahen Osten. Die EU tut daher gut daran, mit ihrem neuen Konzept der Konfliktfestigkeit (resilience) das als richtig Erkannte nicht über Bord zu werfen.

When the EUGS was released in 2016, it was immediately noted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seemed to have been downgraded as compared to its previous status in the 2003 European Security Strategy. Very little has since been said by top EU officials on the EUGS in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which begs the question of what – if anything – the global strategy with its focus on resilience, means for the EU's involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? This article applies the resilience approach on three cases studies within the conflict: EU resilience in the wake of Donald Trump, EU resilience in preserving the two-state solution, and EU resilience for Gaza. It finds clear evidence that the EU is applying, whether consciously or not, the resilience approach in all three cases, and has already been doing so for a long time in the latter two cases. The article concludes that EU resilience is a sensible strategy at a time of low expectations given the challenges the EU is facing from within the Union, from the US, and from the region.