Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.

by Erving Goffman
Review by: Murray S. Davis
Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 4, No. 6 (Nov., 1975), pp. 599-603
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2064021 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 04:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Contemporary Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:36:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEW

SYMPOSIUM

Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, by ERVINGGOFFMAN.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1974. 586 pp. $12.50 cloth.
MURRAYS. DAVIS
Universityof California,San Diego
Goffmanhas devoted most of his work to
underminingthe integrityof some accepted
social entities (like the individual) and the
legitimacy of others (like the total institution). Frame Analysis is no exception, except in thisbook Goffmanattemptsto undermine everyday reality itself, particularly
James' and Schutz' claim that it is the prime
reality,more fundamentalthan other realities
(like dreams or play). (One wonders what
Goffmanwill subtlysubvertnext. Watch out,
God!)
Goffmanbegins by dividingthe world into
an empirical part-a "strip"-which he definesas "any arbitraryslice or cut from the
stream of ongoing activity" (p. 10), and a
subjective part-a "frame"-which he definesas the "principlesof organizationwhich
govern events-at least social ones-and our
subjective involvementin them" (p. 10-11).
(In his later, concrete applications of frame
analysis, however, he is sometimes unclear
whether frames organize the individual experience of events, as he claims (p. 13), or
whetherthey determinethe actual social organization of the events themselves.) We
"frame" "strips" of activityby seeing them
as natural ("unguided events") or social
("guided doings")-the two fundamental
frames;or as fantasiedor faked-two of the
many instancesof secondaryframesGoffman
discusses.
Frame analysis seems to have two aspects,
which I will call the cellular and the concentric. The cellular aspect of frame analysis
involves describingthe membranearound an
activity-the spatial and temporalbracketsof
each particularframe.For instance,the theaterframe (which Goffmananalyzes in greater
detail than other frames) usually has a sharp
beginning and ending as well as a highly
definedspatial location. Cellular frameanalysis also involves distinguishing
the nucleus of
an activityfrom its surroundingcytoplasmthe innerofficialevents (the play itself) from

the outer spectacular occasion (going to the

theater). One of Goffman's most incisive
conceptual scalpels dissects framed strips of
activityinto"tracks"or "channels"-a "main"
or "story"line at the centerof the frameand
several subordinatelines "out of frame" (disattended,directional,overlaid, and concealed
lines).
The concentric (onion skin) aspect of
frame analysis involves discriminatingthe
various levels or "laminations" that frame a
strip of activity and specifying the ways
natural and social frames (basic) are transformed into other, less fundamentalframes.
One kind of frame transformationGoffman
calls "keying," which he defines as "the set
of conventionsby which a given activity,one
already meaningfulin termsof some primary
framework, is transformedinto something
patterned on this activitybut seen by the
participantsto be somethingquite else" (p.
43-44). We key a stripof activityby making
it into a movie, novel, radio drama, theatrical
play, cartoon, puppet show, etc. A second
kind of frame transformationGoffmancalls
"fabrication,"which he defines as "the intentional effortof one or more individuals
to manage activity so that a party of one
or more others will be induced to have a
false belief about what it is that is actually
going on" (p. 83). We fabricate "benign"
frames by indulging in leg-pulls, practical
jokes, psychologyexperiments,etc.; we fabricate "exploitative" frames by engaging in
espionage, con games, frame-ups,etc. Keyed
frames,in which all parties are aware of the
differfromfabricatedframes,
transformation,
in which some parties are not aware of the
transformation.
Since laminated frames are blown up out
of fundamentalframes("upkeying"), theyare
more vulnerableto deflation("downkeying").
Keyed frames are liable to fall when they
are based on ambiguity(someone is not certain which frame to apply), error (someone
thought a bank was being robbed but it
was only a filmingof a bank robbery), or
dispute (the police contend someone dies
of a heart attack-a natural frame-but the
detectivecontendshe was murdered-a social
frame). Fabricated frames are liable to fall
when the deceived discover that the frame
theythoughtorganizedtheiractivitynaturally

599

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:36:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

600

CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY: A JOURNALOF REVIEWS

was actually manufacturedby the deceivers ambiguities in his earlier work, particularly
artificially(someone findsout he was conned whether the dramaturgical perspective reout of his money). Since fabricatedframes veals that people spend most of their lives
are based on a differentialdistributionof actually "acting" or whether it merely proknowledge, they are more likely to break vides a vocabulary borrowed from theater
down and are more discreditingof theirsus- with which to describe unstaged aspects of
life. Goffman now asserts the former with
tainersthan keyed frames.
A collapsing frame has several conse- more confidenceand in more detail. He shows
quences. The collapse of the meaning of the how much of our talkingconsists of dramaframe may leave everyone disoriented.The tizing events that have happened to us. At
collapse of involvementin the frame may these points,at least, talk is similarto theater.
leave everyone either uninvolved (like a In dramatizingthese events, we do to ourbored audience at a bad play) or intensely selves what the playwrightdoes to his charinvolved with whoever or whateverdestroyed acters and the director does to his actors:
the frameand withtheirown lack of involve- withholdinformationto generatesuspense,rement and meaning. The latter,Goffmancalls hearse and replay, and even split ourselves
"negative experience-negative in the sense into several parts (e.g., through irony or
that it takes its character from what it is mocking) to reduce the responsibilityof our
not. . ." (p. 379). (In Goffman's model, present selves for what our past selves did
negative experience seems to be to normal or what our futureselves would like to doexperience as role distance is to role: the all this to gain audience appreciation for
individual can defineboth his experienceand ourselvesand sympathyfor our predicaments:
his self in termsof what theyare not.)
. . . what the individualspends most of his
Given the often greater intensityof exspoken momentsdoing is providingevidence
perience when it is negative,some peoplefor the fairnessor unfairnessof his current
particularlyentertainers-deliberatelymanipsituationand other grounds for sympathy,
approval, exoneration, understanding,or
ulate the deflationof frames to create this
And whathis listeners
amusement.
are primarintense, though negative, experience. Piranily obliged to do is to show some kind of
dello intentionallydisorientshis audience by
audienceappreciation.They are to be stirred
continually collapsing their theater frame
not to take action but to exhibitsigns that
(some of his characters discuss their own
theyhave been stirred.
acting or play at being membersof the audiFor what a speakerdoes usuallyis to preence). Many staged sportscontests,like telesent for his listenersa versionof what hapvised wrestlingor roller derby, intentionally pened to him. . . . Even if his purposeis to
involve theiraudience by continuallycollapspresentthe cold facts as he sees them,the
ing the game frame (some of the contestants
meanshe employsmay be intrinsically
theatrical, not because he necessarilyexaggeratesor
violate the rules outside of the referee'spurfollowsa script,but because he may have to
view of control), causing their audience to
engage in somethingthat is a dramatization
become attentiveless to the ruled actions than
-the use of such arts as he possesses to
to the infractions.Other people-particularly
reproducea scene, to replayit. He runs off
terroristsand counter-terrorists-deliberately a
tape of a past experience(p. 503-504).
manipulate the deflation of frames for the
more practical end of political disorienta- But whereas life is much like the stage, the
tion. Letter bombs (which destroy frame stage is not much like life. For in their
brackets as well as people) undermine the everyday lives people do not speak nearly
safety of the postal system,treason in high as well as characters on the stage, and the
places underminesfaith in the government, events they encounter are much more likely
agent provocateurs (by advocating extreme to be irrelevantand unconnected and much
unlawful activity) underminethe legitimacy less likelyto be critical and fateful(p. 557).
of revolutionarygroups.
Goffman's assertion that much of human
Before finishingwith his main concernlife consists of dramatizingbrings us to the
the nature of everydayreality-Goffman re- most eerie of his central themes-the disinturns to the topic that has preoccupied him tegration of the individual. Throughout his
since The Presentationof Self in Everyday works, Goffmandeepens the sociological enLife: the notion that we are all actors. In terprise;he is not content with the ordinary
fact, Goffman'ssecondarypurpose in writing sociological excavation of the individual
Frame Analysis seems to be to expand on which findsonly roles to be social, with the
his "dramaturgicalperspective"and to answer "true" self hidden beneath them. Goffman
some of the objections others have made to is much more "radical" than that. He be-

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:36:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEW SYMPOSIUM

601

lieves the so-called person behind the mask In short,everydaylife is not the fundamental
of a social role to be just as much a sociologi- realm, but only one among many realms,for
cal construct as the mask itself. Man is it is composed of bits and pieces of these
sociological almost (as we shall see) to the otherrealms-its distinctnessbeing only that,
core, not just to the skin. The person essen- unlike these other realms, we believe that it
tially is the ways he animates a character is fundamental.
for himself (p. 547), and the ways he
*
*
*
separates himselffromhis role (p. 573). The
Frame Analysisprovidesa good vehicle for
frame of the situation in which the role is
performedgoverns how the self of the per- discussing the thoughtmodel underlyingalmost all of Goffman's work. Goffman has
formeris glimpsed:
be- been called many thingsfromsymbolicinterSelf, then,is not an entityhalf-concealed
hind events, but a changeable formulafor actionist to Machiavellian dramaturgist.But
managingoneself duringthem. Just as the while his writingsdo reveal the influenceof
currentsituationprescribesthe officialguise all these schools, behind them he is, more
behindwhichwe will conceal ourselves,so it essentially,a social constructionist.
He is alprovidesfor where and how we will show ways tryingto point out the social constructhrough. . . (p. 573-574).
tion of the seemingly natural-the human
Goffmandissolves the individualinto process fabricationof what most people considerpre(while holding constant the social structure fabricated (the individual, the ritual order,
roles). As a social constructionand norms of the situationout of which the institutions,
individualis continuallycreated) in much the ist, he begins by separating his subject into
same way that Garfinkeldissolves the social its basic elementsand then shows how these
structure and norms of the situation into elements are socially transformed (conprocess (while holdingconstantthe individual structed) into something more elaborate.
who continuallycreates them). Only our cul- Furthermore,he believes we can understand
turalideas about the ongoingbiological person how most people "naturally" construct a
give continuityto the individual'sintermittent social entity (the ways someone learns the
characteristics,
each of which he socially gen- role of a doctor) by looking at how some
erates anew from one situation to the next. people deceitfullyconstructthis social entity
Just as the individual is composed of a (the ways someone impersonatesa doctor).
number of loosely integratedcharacters and Thus Goffmanoften studies how something
roles, as well as the ways he shows distance (like reality) is faked to determinehow it is
fromthem,so Goffman-ever the sociological normallyfashioned.Assuming that all social
cubist-concludes that everydayreality,too, units,from roles to realities,are constructed
is not of one piece but consists of many implies that they are essentiallyarbitrary-a
loosely integrated frames-traffic systems, furtherfeature of his work which unsettles
ritual systems,bodily manipulatorysystems, many of his readers.
But what upsets them even more is the
religioussystems,etc. Moreover,much of our
for
ordinary activity is modeled after various other side of Goffman'sconstructionism,
ideal realms, found in folk tales, novels, Goffman is also a social destructionist.If
somethingis made, it can easily be unmade
advertisements,
myths,bibles, etc.:
So everydaylife . . . often seems to be a (whereas it is much harderto denaturesomelaminatedadumbration
of a patternor model thing natural). After showing how elaborate
that is itselfa typification
of quite uncertain social entities are built up, Goffman shows
realm status.. . . Life may not be an imita- how theyare vulnerableto breakingdown, a
tion of art,but ordinaryconduct,in a sense, painful process. (Our self-claimscan be disis an imitation
of the proprieties,
a gestureat credited,resultingin our shame; our sense of
theexemplary
and theprimalrealization realitycan be deflated,resultingin our disforms,
of these ideals belongsmore to make-believe orientation.)Social constructionsare not only
thanto reality(p. 562).
able to collapse; they are likely to, for
Of course we do not see everydaylife this small failures have great repercussions. If
way. We see it as unified,and we see a per- we can generate a whole self and a whole
son's everyday behavior as a "direct" indi- realityfrom a few small elements,then our
cation of his inner state, of the doer's being, whole self and our whole reality can coland of nothingelse. But this unifieddirect- lapse should its few small supports be
ness, Goffman affirms,is merely the dis- destroyed.In Goffmanland,both the individtinguishingfeature of the frame of every- ual and the universeare highlyunstable: one
day life, not a featureof everydaylife itself. embarrassing incident, one misinvolvement

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:36:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

602

CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY: A JOURNALOF REVIEWS

can spread rapidly until one's whole self as

well as one's whole realityis broughtdown,
not only for the individualto whom it occurs
but also for everyoneconnected with him in
his vicinity.This repercussivemotifis prevalent throughoutGoffman's work. But note
that Goffmanfocuses only on negativerepercussions, not on positive ones. For instance,
he discusses how spreading embarrassment
destroys meaning but omits how spreading
charisma generatesmeaning. In this way he
makes the world even more desolate than it
actually is, thus expanding his personal
pessimisminto a universalprincipleof social
life.
Along side Goffman'sconstructionistsubjectivism,there runs a smaller positivistobjectiviststream-often concealed in footnotes
-which allows him an escape from the implicationsof the extremesubjectivistposition.
Goffman reveals his positivistside when he
asserts that beyond our socially constructed
world there is a real world impingingon it:

back from the brink of pansociologizingeverything.He is contentto have his cosmos and
doubt it too.
*

play
Since the means of self-presentation
so large a role in Goffman'sbooks, it is appropriate to say somethingabout Goffman's
own self-presentation.For a writer,self is
presentedthroughstyle.And Goffman'sstyle
is certainly unique. He has always written
to a differentdrummer from any other
sociologist. In his early work Goffman's
singular voice-which implied that behind
thosedead wordsa human being actuallylived
-was especially seductive to graduate students alternately bored and frightenedby
the insipid,impersonalstyle of most of their
mentors. So they are now greatlysaddened
by his writing's recent deterioration,much
discussed among Goffmanwatchersin hushed
and worriedtones. AlthoughGoffman'sideas
are as good as ever, stylisticdecline has set
in on the level of the sentence. Frame
to subordinateall sociologicalinterests Analysis (as well as Relations in Public) is
to this one-the issue of framedefinition-is a virtual thesaurus of stylistic gaffes and
dea bit much.It is a usefulmethodological
vice to assumethatsocial inquiryhas no con- gaucheries. If all the unnecessary "as to's,"
cern withwhat a physicalor biologicalevent "that's," "so as's," "in regard to's," and
mightbe "in itself,"but only interestin what other useless words and phrases were rethe membersof societymake of it. However, moved, the book would be 25% shorterwith
it is also necessaryto ask what the event no loss of substance and much gain in immakes societymake of it, and how it condi- pact. It is not clear why Goffman's style
tions social life in ways not appreciatedas has worsened. Perhaps its decay resultsfrom
such by participants
(p. 196n).
the well-known tendency of the successful
Outside the staged world there is an unstaged middle aged to thinktheirevery word worth
world in which "you need to findplaces for saying,perhaps fromthe loss of his previous
editor(s?) whose contributionto the appealcars to park and coats to be checked" (p. 1).
These positivistassumptions also appear in ing compressionof his earlier works has been
his earlierwork on self-presentation
where he unjustlyoverlooked. Perhaps he gets paid by
concludes that human beings must contain the word or (like most sociologists) has come
somethingnonsocial to animate their social to confuse obscuritywith profundity.Whatparts. Thus Goffmanseems to have encoun- ever the cause, let's hope the editingof Gofftered the same problem as Kant and other man's futurework becomes more disciplined.
Not that his style is entirelybad. There
moderate subjectivists:in Kant's case, where
to locate the noumena thatproduce the sensa- are still choice morselslike:
tionsour mind turnsintophenomena;in Goffsuch ceremonialization
of killing
Interestingly,
man's case, whereto locate the bio-psychologiis sometimescontrastedto the way in which
cal substrataof the performerwho performs
savages might behave, although I think it
our social charactersand where to locate the
would be hard to finda more savage practice
thanours-thatof bestowing
praiseupona man
bio-physical substrata of the world we turn
forholdinghimselfto thoseformsthatensure
into a social world of meaning. On these
an orderly,
styleto his execution
self-contained
metasociological assumptions,whatever cre(p. 355n).
ates socially or whateversomethingsocial is
In TV wrestling,the umpire'srulingis not
createdout of, cannot itselfbe social. Whether
merelyflouted,so that he must continuously
such nonsocial noumena are necessary on
come close to disqualifyingthe villian, but
other metasociological assumptions,whether
the umpirehimselfmay be directlyattackedwe can conceive of a person or a world even
a monstrousinfractionof framingrules-as
more sociological than Goffman dares to, I
thougha sentencewere to disregardits own
cannot say. But Goffman seems to draw
punctuationmarks(p. 417).

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:36:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEW SYMPOSIUM

603

able member of the sociologist's lexicon,

referringto a recognizablegenre in the field.
Goffmanattemptsin Frame Analysisto codify
this genre-or more accurately,to begin the
work of codificationby delineatingpart of the
basic conceptual framework.The attemptinvites assessmentof the genre: an identification of the present state of the art and a
laying out of the unfinishedbusiness.
Judgedfromthe perspectiveof otherkinds
of sociology, this genre has certain apparent
vulnerabilities.These include the question of
its ability to generate testable propositions
about its chosen subject matter;the difficulties
of transmitting
analytictechniquefrommaster
to novice; and an undevelopedset of methods
for implementingits epistemology.
These are serious questions. Some may
suspect that they are unanswerable,that they
representfundamentalflaws in this way of
doing sociology. I argue here that they are
fully answerable although in some cases not
yet answered in any very satisfactoryway.
I believe they point to unfinishedbusiness
*
*
*
ratherthan fundamentalflaws.
For all its problemsand prolixity,I recomBefore I address these questions, it is
mend this book strongly.No sociologistsince necessaryto take a closer look at thatpart of
Simmel has tied together so wide a range the unfinishedbusinesswhich Goffmanunderof apparentlydisconnectedevents and activi- takes in Frame Analysis. This is a more amties withina single framework-fromnatural bitious book than Goffman's earlier work.
disasters (mine cave-ins) to verbal disasters Where he was satisfiedbefore to illuminate
(puns). He has extendedthe sociological ap- some strip of social activity by doing his
proach to realms seemingly immune to so- kind of analysis,here he takes a step back to
ciological penetration (hypnosis, possession, consider the enterpriseitself.It is, Goffman
insanity,drunkenness,childishness). And he concedes, "another go at analyzing fraud,
has broughtaspects of human existencefrom deceit, con games, shows of various kinds,
the edge of awareness to the center of sci- and the like" but here "I am tryingto order
entificconcern. Most of all, he has dignified my thoughtson these topics, tryingto conour ordinary insights into everyday life so structa general statement."
that we need not forget them but can inThe general statementconsists of a set of
corporate them into an ongoing scientific relatedconceptsthatcan be used in analyzing
corpus, allowing us to integrateour thought how people organize their experience. The
and our life,our work and our leisure-allow- question has deep ontologicalrootsbut for its
ing us, in the words of Stendhal, "the joy of translationinto a sociological question, Goffhaving one's passion as part of one's pro- man credits William James. Abandon the
fession."
bewilderingissue of what realityis and substitutethe manageable question, "Under what
circumstancesdo we think things are real?"
By studying the conditions under which a
WILLIAM A. GAMSON
sense of realness is generated,one can isolate
Universityof Michigan, Ann Arbor
a fundamentalbut workable problem "having
If someone were to use the term "Goff- to do with the camera and not what it is the
manesque" to describe the work of a soci- camera takes picturesof."
ologist, most of us would readily understand
Goffman,then, is talkingabout the organwhat was meant. There would, no doubt, ization of experience-"something that an
be much fuzziness around the boundaries of individualactor can take into his mind"-and
this category, and we might well disagree not the organizationof society. He disclaims
about whetherwork near the edge was inside imperialisticdesigns on his colleagues' terrior out. Nevertheless,the term is a service- tory,grantingthe existence of a wide array

Unfortunatelythey come all too rarely.The

book is tedious to read-all 576 pages of
the paperback edition. The best way to
read Goffman I found is to plow through
him slowly, savoring his exquisite examples,
underliningthe "good parts." Rereading one's
underliningsbefore setting the book aside
allows one to appreciate his pearls and to
clarifyhis argumentwithoutbeing distracted
by the dross of his overly padded prose.
On the conceptual level, however,Goffmanis
still a master of the systematicand the interesting,whose combinationis no easy task.
Even on this level he sometimesstressessystem at the cost of interest,especially at the
beginning,but the ratio improvesas the book
continues. His most ingenious stylistictechnique is his reflexive asides in which he
applies frame analysis to the act of writing
books in general and his own book in particular, a technique carefully calculated to
induce the reader to have the "negative experience" he is discussing.

This content downloaded from 119.15.93.148 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 04:36:04 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions