Overview
****PLEASE DO NOT USE GENERATIVE AI SOFTWARE. IT IS CHECKED THOROUGHLY****
ASSIGNMENT: Please respond to the 6 classmate’s discussion post below:
Michael Almand:
I really found Goffman very insightful. I like how he said that he is not a theorist but instead an empiricist. I can see how observation in the sociology field is important. I think what Goffman is saying is that there is no true self and that we are actors and our social setting determines the role we play. I play the role of a professional while at work. I play a different role when I am playing guitar and drinking beer with my buddies. I play yet a different role with my family. Goffman says that the role we are playing signals others how to interact with us. It's a social dance and we are choreographers. With Asylums, Goffman relates to places like prisons, mental institutions, and such as a total institution. In these total institutions our roles are stripped away or mortified and the only role left is one that the institution chooses. I work almost daily with these types of institutions except they are called psychiatric residential treatment facilities. We just call them PRTFs. Everything he says is true. The old self or roles are stripped away and the only new role that a resident can play is that of compliant resident or they can act out. This is sometimes misdiagnosed, just like he says. The resident wants to have some control over themselves so they act out. My question is ," What did Goffman mean when he called total institutions the "forcing houses for changing persons" each a natural experiment on what can be done to self?
Rylie White:
Goffman's theory of the mortification of self is defined as, "killing off the multiple selves possessed prior to one's entrance into the total institution and replacing them with one totalizing identity over which the person exercises little, if any, control" (page 283, 4th paragraph). I think a perfect example of this is what my best friend's dad experienced when he decided to become a monk and live in a monastery in a remote island in Greece. Upon joining the monastery (the institution in this example) he had to fast spiritually, physically, and mentally (killing off the prior version of himself) before moving to this monastery to live a holy life. When I first read about Goffman's ideas on the mortification of self I was reminded of the term ego death, but I believe that it is simpler than what Goffman is talking about here. He adds the mortification of self aims "to construct a self radically different from the one that entered the establishment" (page 283, 4th paragraph). One example that is given in the textbook is when prisoners become institutionalized. What I pictured as Goffman explained this scenario is people all wearing the same uniform, they are called by their numbers and not their names, and they eat the same food every single day. In doing these same exact repetitive tasks every single day, I think I would lose my sanity. I would do almost anything to escape the painful reality in which my life as a prisoner was like. Goffman notes "the failure to cooperate with institutional demands that is expressed in each case is a normal attempt to preserve control over one's self" (page 283, 5th paragraph). My question is, how does the mortification of self directly relate to symbolic interactionism? Is it because when we are broken down and lose our identity, our new form of self is just socially assigned to us?
Ansley Carter:
Goffman developed some interesting concepts in his writing of Asylums (1961). One concept that really stuck out to me was his idea of total institutions. Goffman described total institutions as “places of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the winder society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed formally administered round of like” (Appelrouth and Edles, 2007, pg. 233). In other words, Goffman believes total institutions are places where all spheres of life are being regulated, such as food intake, sleep, social life, etc.
My question for this week is how do total institutions result in the mortification of self? Goffman writes “to one degree or another, inhabitants are stripped of freedoms and resources to manage their self-presentation that are normally provided by social arrangements” (Appelrouth and Edles, 2007, pg. 283). However, where I’m still struggling is if this process completely strips away any individuality the person may have, is it permeant or temporary? Is this a temporary “killing of self” that only happens in total institutions, or do we experience it in other spheres of life?
Reference
Coleman, J. S. (1988/2016). Social capital in the creation of human capital. In S. Appelrouth & L. D. Edles (Eds.), Sociological theory in the contemporary era: Text and readings (3rd ed., pp. 223–233). SAGE Publications.
Haley Ruth:
One thing I need help understanding is how Goffman sees the role of secondary adjustments in relation to the broader structure of total institutions. I understand that secondary adjustments are the small acts inmates perform to preserve fragments of selfhood, things like bending rules, hiding possessions, or creating private rituals. Goffman even describes them as “evidence that he is still his own man,” which makes sense to me as a way of resisting complete institutional control.
What I am still working to understand is whether Goffman sees these adjustments as ultimately reinforcing the institution (by giving inmates just enough freedom to cope) or undermining it (by showing cracks in its total control). On the one hand, these small freedoms could help institutions function more smoothly because they let inmates vent pressure. On the other hand, they seem to show that the mortification of self is never fully successful, which makes me wonder if Goffman thought institutions could ever truly erase individuality. This question also matters for how we understand mortification of self, because if secondary adjustments persist then maybe mortification is never complete, which complicates Goffman’s image of total institutions as all-encompassing.
Michael Bailey:
I think that Goffman wanted to get a grasp on how people can construct their realities through interactions. Goffman wanted to explain that life in itself is malleable to the wield of each individual. While there are institutions in place, there are still ways for people deviate from that. Institutions like prisons and asylums strip away the individual identity of people through the process of mortification of self. I do see what he says about being careful about not being too attached and being too detached from a group. It's a fine balance to walk when it comes to having an identity within a society that's all about groups and institutions. Everyone plays a role and different people have different functions within society depending on their occupations. With prisons or asylums, the warden, the administration, or the staff make the rules and the patients follow the rules. There is small forms of resistance that patients or prisoners do to maintain a bit of their own identity, their sense of self. It's a battle between social order and power, and autonomy.
Calea Law:
Goffman talks about total institutions like asylums, prisons, and even the military, places where basically every part of daily life is organized by the institution. His idea of the mortification of self, where a person’s previous roles and freedoms are stripped away when they enter is what made me want to dive deeper into his work, as my future career could possbily be focused on individuals in prisons. The text reads on page 283, "Here is the life of the prison inmate or military recruit: shaven head...endless degradation, and complete loss of privacy..." It shows how much of our “self” depends on routines and choices we usually take for granted.
But Goffman also points out that people don’t just passively accept this loss of identity. They create what he calls the underlife, hidden practices that let them hold onto some individuality. Related to that are secondary adjustments, smallworkarounds people use to claim independence, like finding ways to bend the rules or keeping personal items they’re not supposed to, (how some women do makeup while in prison/keep contraband). I like how this shows that even in veryrestrictive environments, people still look for ways to feel human and maintain a sense of self.
What I’m unsure about is whether these small acts actually count as resistance. Do they help people protect who they are, or are they still defined by the same system they’re pushing against? Can someone in a total institution ever build a self that’s fully their own?