Deference and Demeanor
Sociology focuses on the relevance of any action to the group, but often overlooks the relevance of any action to the self, relegating that to the field of psychology. This is an oversight, because a person's actions within a group are always driven by self-interest: a person must consider himself to be part of the group, and his actions are to establish and maintain himself in the context of the group.
Thus considered, there is an ongoing struggle of any person in a group between the actions they take in service to themselves (demeanor) and the degree to which they will self-deprecate in service to the group (deference) - always with the understanding that service to group is on the condition that belonging to the group is of value to the self.
He notes that the data on which his conclusions are drawn comes from the observational study of patients in a mental hospital - those "who have been locked up for spectacularly failing" to maintain a socially acceptable balance between self and society.
The "rules" of social conduct do not consider what is best for the individual, but what is suitable or just in the context of a group. To belong to the group, a person must abdicate self-interest to the degree that is necessary for the welfare and interests of the group. Infraction of these rules may result in mind and temporary social sanctions, or they may result in expulsion of the individual from the group.
It is not always the group that decides to expel an individual, but there are often instances in which an individual decides to separate himself from the group because belonging to the group is anathematic to his self-interest. While departure from a group is often given attention, the same decision is made by individuals when choosing whether to join a group in the first place. And given the number of groups in modern society, an individual chooses to avoid groups far more often than he chooses to join them. Exile or abdication garners more interest because it happens to be more dramatic.
The rules of conduct in any group tend to fall into two categories: the obligation to engage in and the expectation to refrain from certain behaviors. In general, obligations tend to me more explicit than expectations: the ritual of inclusion often makes it quite clear to an individual what he must do to be considered a part of the group, whereas expectations often remain unspoken and are often quite poorly defined.
Rules of conduct are often regarded as burdensome or irksome, generally because they are contrary to the inclinations and interests of the individual. If a person is inclined to behave in a certain manner out of self-interest, there is no need for the group to tell him this behavior is necessary - he'll do it anyway, regardless of whether he is a member of the group.
While some rules have functional bases - one can clearly explain why a rule must be followed and suggest what the consequences would be if it were ignored - others do not. These rules are imposed "just because" and the lack of a reason makes them even more bothersome to the individual. A group with many "just because" rituals and few sensible ones is likely to unattractive to new members, and prone to disintegration as existing members find the rules of the group too burdensome considering the benefits of membership.
There are certain members of a group whose role is to maintain the rules - to ensure compliance and to augment/amend the explicit rules themselves. They are committed to the maintenance of the group and its image. The rank and file of the group are only committed to the rules of the group insofar as they value being identified as members of the group. Aside of considering the economic aspects, the acceptance of obligations for functional benefit, the individual member of a group must determine the degree to which membership in the group is reconciled with their self-image.
Where an individual willfully violates the rules of a group, and maintains that his violation is rightful, this entails risks:
- The violator risks his acceptance and continued membership within the group - if the rule is upheld, his membership is void.
- The regulator risks his credibility and authority - if he is unable to enforce the rules, he is not functional in his role.
- The group itself risks its legitimacy - if others within the ranks of the groups also question the validity of the rule.
It is possible for this challenge to result in the evolution of the group, in which an "old" rule is repealed or revised to permit the behavior of the violator. It is also possible for this challenge to result in the dissolution of the group and the discrediting of its authority.
Where an individual concedes to the rules of a group, it is often done in a compartmentalized fashion: their compliance is because of their role in the group, not in their identity as a person. A female patient may retain her dignity even after engaging in behavior that would be shameful except because she is in the role of a patient interacting with a doctor, not as a woman interacting with a man.
In most social encounters, the rules are symmetrical - each party is obligated to the other in the same manner as the other is obligated to it. But there are often encounters in which the rules are asymmetrical. A patient is expected to obey a doctor's commands, but the doctor is not expected to obey the commands of his patients.
Goffman then uses the terms "substantive" and "ceremonial" to distinguish between rules that have an objective and functional purpose and those that do not - the "just because" rules that are often implicit in a relationship. In general, substantive rules are taken far more seriously than ceremonial ones - the violation of a ceremonial rule seldom has significant functional consequences.
Deference
Deference occurs in social situations, in which one person shows appreciation for another. This appreciation may be a neutral acknowledgement (saying "hello" to someone in passing), it may communicate status (the lower-ranked official salutes first), or it may communicate respect (a person steps aside to allow another to pass).
There's a brief mention of instances in which deference is shown to a thing rather than a person - a sailor salutes the quarterdeck on boarding a ship, or a Catholic genuflects toward an altar. These are ritual rather than social gestures, except inasmuch as the act may be witnessed by others.
The witness of others is also a factor in deference between people. To the bystander, a person who gives deference appropriately earns esteem. To some degree, the person to whom they deferred is assumed to be worthy of their respect - but unless they are familiar with both parties and the nature of their relationship, this association is vague and weak.
Most rituals have symbolic meaning that extends or even replaces their functional objective. The act of saluting originated when armored soldiers lifted their visors so they might be recognized, but continued long after the use of such helmets was discontinued.
Understanding deference rituals requires an understanding of the people and the situation. It speaks to the character of the individual who performs the ritual and the character of the recipient as show by his reaction.
Deference is given to people of status, and it is often misinterpreted to be the creator of status. There are men who, out of vanity, wish others to defer to them - but the choice to give deference is up to others. Those who have earned respect have no need to demand it.
There's a passage from a book on etiquette about giving commands to subordinates - that it should be done "in a reserved manner." It is unnecessary to be dramatic when one's rank is well established. The effective master often gives commands as if making a request, using "please" and "thank you" when speaking to subordinates, because he is comfortably in command and does not expect his authority to be questioned.
However, there is also deference given to a role separate from that due to an individual, and people may give ceremonial deference to a reprehensible person when they are in a role where deference is expected. Hence the phrase "we salute the office, not the man" is used when ritual deference must be given to an officer who is personally repugnant.
Deference still exists in egalitarian societies, but it tends to be a symmetrical deference in which each party shows appreciation of the other with no distinction of rank. In such societies, there is an exchange of deference, and the ritual tends to be far shorter than is seen in societies in which there is greater focus on social status.
There are also instances in which deference is asymmetrical: a teacher may call students by their first names, but the students always address the teacher as "mister." (EN: in American society, this seems to have disintegrated in the last twenty to thirty years.)
Some degree of deference is shown even to strangers whose role has not been declared. In such instances, an individual is giving the stranger the benefit of the doubt.
Deference tends to be overdone in most societies - to mistakenly give someone more deference than they deserve is a lesser error that to mistakenly give them less. However, in egalitarian societies, excessive deference is considered a kind of dishonesty.
Being attentive to the advice of an expert is a form of deference that is common, and even rank-intensive societies have rituals in which a person of higher status must defer to a person of lower status due to the exigencies of their encounter.
The granting and acceptance of deference also set the tone for the encounter that follows: a person who has deferred to another is expected to continue to do so.
Because there are many roles an individual plays in society, there may be instances in which two individuals find their roles reversed in differing situations: in one situation A must defer to B and in another situation B must defer to A. This is the reason one must consider the circumstances, not merely the individuals, in understanding deference.
Where deference is used to make another person feel welcome in an exchange, there are instances in which it is used as a method of distancing - generally to re-establish a more formal line with someone who has been to casual or intimate. To continue to call someone "mister" when permission has been granted to use an informal nickname is to rebuke them from being too casual or too forward in the relationship.
As an aside, the author notes a general correspondence between class and personal distance: the higher the rank of a person, the more physical distance is given to them. He mentions a study of the distance between chairs at dining tables: among the lower classes, chairs are so close that diners literally rub elbows during the mean; among middle classes, the space is greater to avoid bodily contact; and among the higher classes, people generally dine at a significant physical distance from one another.
There is a "touch system" that exists in most societies. That is, people are permitted to touch other people in certain ways, as defined by their relationship. In some instances, one is expected to refrain from touching another person at all. In others, varying degrees of touch are permitted: a handshake or a hug may be appropriate or inappropriate given the relationship of the individuals.
He follows this with a consideration of privacy, and the general acceptance that those of higher status are to be given more privacy. An officer may enter the enlisted mess at his leisure, but an enlisted man must knock and ask permission to enter the officer's mess. Doctors are allowed to ask personally intrusive questions about patients, but the patient is not to inquire about the doctor's private life.
There is mention of patients in a mental institutions whose chief offenses were the inappropriate invasion of privacy: the woman who would handle the contents of other peoples' shopping bags in a grocery, another who would get into other peoples' cars to ask for a life, or another who would casually walk into peoples' homes. In extreme cases, the mere refusal to respect distance and privacy rituals is significant enough to be considered a mental dysfunction.
There is a consideration of presentation rituals, whether a person is presenting himself or presenting another party. These fall into four categories:
- Salutation - The act of greeting someone or being greeted by them, generally at the onset of an interaction - it may or may not be appropriate for one party to salute another, and the form of salutation communicates status and deference
- Invitation - Inviting someone to participate in an event is another form of deference, though more typically an act that indicates belonging to a group. One must sometime invite someone to a social event, such as a party or dinner, as a matter of deference to their role.
- Compliment - Praising someone is another form of deference, demonstrating that you have noticed or are aware of some change and expressing approval or admiration.
- Services - Doing things for others is another form of deference. It may be as simple as holding a door for someone to pass or it may involve doing certain tasks to accommodate them.
The term "social obligation" is often used as an indication of deference. Any social obligation is something that one must do, out of deference to the role of another person. There are obligations to give deference, obligations to receive it, and obligations to return it.
There are even rituals that indicate who may correct whom in the instance of social misconduct: the boss may chide his subordinates in front of the entire group when they show up late for a meeting, but subordinates are not permitted to chide their boss if he turns up late.
Demeanor
The author means "demeanor" as a general term for those things that are done to convey status: deportment, dress, and bearing. The status that is communicated by demeanor may be high or low - what is important is that it is accurate.
Demeanor is learned behavior. A person may be instructed in how to dress and how to behave, or he may learn it by observing and imitating the fashion and mannerisms of others, consciously or unconsciously. A person may also be coached by others to the proper mannerisms for acceptance in a group. Once learned, the aspects of demeanor are practiced unconsciously in most instances.
Demeanor is often used diagnostically - when a person claims to be something, people examine his demeanor to confirm it. They have clear ideas and expectations about the way that a middle-class person, a doctor, a professor, or any other culturally defined type is supposed to behave, speak, and attire himself. The assessment of demeanor is especially critical on the part of those who consider themselves to be members of the class.
There is also relational demeanor, the way that a person of type A is expected to behave toward of those of type B. While sergeants are permitted to interact casually with one another, they are expected to be more formal in their interaction with officers, and more stern in their interaction with the lower ranks.
An interesting aside about this: observe the behavior of a man and his barber. Before the service begins, the barber is subordinate to the customer - but during the service, the customer submits to the orders of his barber. There are instances in which "voluntary submission" is functionally beneficial.
There is also situational demeanor. The author describes significant differences in the dinner-table behavior of patients in two different wards, one of which was rather rigid in its middle-class etiquette and the other entirely swinish.
While there is a general preference for accuracy in demeanor, to not pretend to be above one's actual station, there is also the tendency of people to elevate their demeanor - to "dress up" and adopt the manners of a better social class. This generally occurs only in societies where there is social mobility, in which a person is auditioning for acceptance in a higher rank of the social order.
(EN: It is also a matter of discretion to adopt the demeanor of the people in majority in a given situation so as not to stand out. One may "dress up" to go to a restaurant that is a bit expensive by one's normal standards, but one may also "dress down" when one expects to be encountering the lower classes in their environs.)
Deference and Demeanor
The author mentions that defense may be seen as a part of demeanor - that acting or speaking in a manner that shows deference to others is often part of demeanor. Though in some instances it may be arguable: to refrain from shouting in a public place is to demonstrate self-control and poise, but also to avoid encroaching on the right of others to be undisturbed. (EN: It's a difficult case to make with behaviors that are meant to avoid giving offense.)
There's a brief mention of conflicts between the two, such as the citizens of western democracies meeting with government officials of eastern emirates - while they are expected to prostrate themselves in deference to the emperor, their demeanor as individuals does not permit this level of deference to anyone. But in most cases, certainly within a single culture, deference and demeanor are complementary and conflicts are unusual.
It's also noted that the demeanor of one person also considers the deference of others: the person to whom others show deference is expected to act in a manner that justifies their deference, and appreciation of due deference is part of the rule of demeanor.
There's a brief aside about the ritual of declining deference: where a person is expected to decline a favor or deference. This often occurs where there is a gradual change in social norms. For example, it was one expected that a man would rise when a lady enters the room - and for a time, it was expected that a man would begin to rise and the lady would indicate through gesture or speech that she did not wish him to defer to her. He would still initiate the gesture because he would be regarded as clumsy for not doing so, even knowing it would be refused.
(EN: There are still social situations in which this can be difficult to sort out - a person is expected to decline an invitation or a gift so as not to seem entitled or greedy, but the other person is expected to offer a second time, upon which it will be accepted. It can be quite confusing as to whether a refusal should be immediately accepted or disregarded, though in general a second refusal is meant to be accepted.)
There are instances in which a person will adopt a demeanor in order to gain the deference of others - to be exaggerated in presenting his credentials (or present false credentials) in order to gain preferential treatment. (EN: As an example, I recall a colleague who refused to dress comfortably for travel because he expected that presenting himself as a business traveler got him better treatment from the airline clerks.)
In certain societies, behaving in an exaggerated manner to demand deference is regarded as pompous and swinish, greedy for recognition. It is generally accepted as proper when there is a functional or social need for one's credentials to be established: a physician is acting appropriately in introducing himself as "doctor" when visiting a hospital, but not when making a restaurant reservation.
In the same vein, assisting another person by presenting credentials on their behalf is sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate. It is generally better to be introduced than to introduce oneself, as the former shows humility - but there are instance sin which presenting another person's credentials is considered inappropriate (when they are not functionally necessary, or when the original party is attempting to conceal or downplay his rank).
Ceremonial Profanations
The manner in which deference is expressed is a culturally-defined ceremony. These ceremonies are generally maintained, though the author mentions a few instances in which they may fail to be used: when a person's status is not recognized by others, or where others do not understand how to perform the expected ceremony, such as occurs when people of different cultures interact.
Some ceremonies are quite subtle and are performed almost unconsciously, whereas others are grand rituals in which the participants are obsequious in demonstrating that they are performing the proper rituals. The announcement of guests at a formal gala is one such instance in which a great deal of effort is made in obviously standing on ceremony.
There's an aside about the mockery of social ceremonies among people who are familiar with one another - two doctors rather exaggeratedly calling one another "doctor" or being overly dramatic when offering someone a chair are instances in which the social rituals are being mocked. Again, this generally occurs only among equals, in private, and in situations where the ceremonies are entirely unnecessary.
The same sort of mockery is often practiced when a person has seemed to be overly insistent on deference - a situation in which an inferior is comically obsequious and punctilious as to suggest that the person whom he is "honoring" by means of performing the ceremonies has been inappropriately insistent upon them.
Then, there are instances in which profanation is itself a form of ceremony: there are any number of gestures, actions, and verbal insults that are socially define methods of showing contempt and disrespect for another person, which may be practiced covertly (to make a rude gesture behind someone's back) or overtly (to confront they with a gesture of disrespect).
In general, a little disrespect is expected from individuals of lower ranks - and an individual is expected to tolerate it within certain limits before reacting to put the person of the lower rank firmly back "in his place."
Finally, there is the act of self-profanation, when a person disparages his own status. To some degree, self-deprecation is a sign of humility and good humor, but it can also be taken too far, to the point that it is insulting to the class or role rather than the individual.