Overview
****PLEASE DO NOT USE GENERATIVE AI SOFTWARE. IT IS CHECKED THOROUGHLY****
ASSIGNMENT: Please respond to the 6 classmate’s discussion posts below:
Jacob Crawford:
When I was reading Hochschild, the part on feeling rules was pretty interesting to me. The author explains that our emotions aren’t just random or personal but shaped by social expectations. For example, she says people can be told they are “too angry” or “not angry enough,” or even that they are feeling the “wrong” emotion altogether (Hochschild, 2003, p. 310). These rules don’t just float around either. Other people reinforce them by calling us out, asking why we feel a certain way, or even making fun of us when our feelings don’t match what’s expected (Hochschild, 2003, p. 309).
My question is how feeling rules differ across cultures, social classes, or genders, and why do they hold so much power over us that we feel guilty or ashamed when we “mis-feel”? I think I have a general understanding. Hochschild says they reflect broader social memberships, so rules aren’t universal (Hochschild, 2003, p. 310). What I’m struggling with is why these rules sink in so deeply that even when nobody else says anything, we still feel like we did something wrong inside. Like the guilty consciences.
My guess is that these rules become so internalized through socialization that they almost feel like common sense. It’s like an inner voice reminding us of what’s “appropriate.” I’d like to hear what others think about how this plays out differently for men and women, or across different social groups, since Hochschild suggests that these rules aren’t the same for everyone (Hochschild, 2003, pp. 310–311).
Reference
Hochschild, A. R. (2003). Working on feeling. In S. Appelrouth & L. D. Edles (Eds.), Sociological theory in the contemporary era: Text and readings(pp. 303–312). Pine Forge Press.
Mairead Fennelly:
One concept that stood out for me in Hochschild's theory of emotional labor is that it builds directly on Goffman's dramaturgical model but adds an extra psychological layer. While Goffman stressed the fact that in their daily lives, people perform roles-frontstage versus backstage behavior-Hochschild goes one step further into a nuanced examination of the management of feelings that support those performances. As she puts it, "what is sold is a smile," especially in jobs like flight attendants or customer service (Appelrouth & Edles, 2007, p. 296). In these cases, not only is the body put to work, but so are inner emotions. This goes beyond surface acting (faking a feeling) into deep acting, changing how one actually feels inside to meet professional expectations. That distinction really struck me. Whereas Goffman gave us the metaphor of theater, Hochschild shows us the emotional cost of staying in character.
My question is, how sustainable is emotional labor over time? Hochschild points out that as the workers keep altering or suppressing their feelings to fit industrial demands, "emotive disdissonance" may result in a divide between felt emotion and displayed emotion (p. 300). Such tension reminded me of Goffman's view that people risk losing their feeling of authenticity once the whole performance becomes all-consuming. Hochschild adds however that this particular dissonance is at times structured and sold in the marketplace-it is part of the job. So, when companies manage the emotional expression of employees (for instance: they must be friendly at all times), do they commodify identity? What is the fate of the self when emotional labor turns into just another routine?
Also, I wonder about the variations of emotional labor among social classes and genders. For instance, Hochschild stresses that women tend to be required to provide more emotional labor, particularly in service industries that are typically “pink-collar.” So does it become another way to stratify people by class and gender concerning real emotion and the mask of it? How could it interfere with Goffman’s construct of performance when the stakes are not distributed equally?
Garrett Boggs:
Hochschild argues that once emotions are standardized and sold in the workplace, they take on the qualities of a commodity (p. 312). What caught my attention here is the idea that feelings, which we usually think of as deeply personal, can actually be bought and sold like products. A clear example is the way that Chic-Fil-A workers are required to put on a smile and state "my pleasure" at work. Their friendliness isn’t just about who they are as people; it’s explicitly part of the corpirates brand, measured by supervisors, and tied to whether they keep their job. That turns something as personal as kindness into a marketable skill. Hochschild also notes that deep acting can blur the line between what we really feel and what we try to feel, which makes me wonder how this process changes not just what others see, but how workers understand their own emotions.
So my question is: when kindness or warmth is required by the job, does it change the meaning of those emotions for the worker themselves? Does being paid to feel a certain way make it harder to separate genuine care from care that’s performed as part of labor? Also, does that perception by others make it harder to decipher whether or not somone is being genuine with their emotions?
Michael Almand:
I think what Hochschild meant about emotion and feelings was very insightful. She said that feeling was really a precursor to action. It is an internal behavior that prepares us to act externally. Our emotions and actions must align with societal norms and values, this alignment is feeling rulesand are kind of dictated by society. Like at a funeral you are supposed to feel sad, or you are supposed to feel happy if you get a pay raise or a promotion at work. Framing rules are, like the name suggests, a frame or meaning of the situation. Framing rules provide the basis for the appropriate emotion to be displayed. When used in combination this is called emotional work Framing is important because. how a situation is framed. will determine our emotional response.
On page 311, the story of the graduate that a girl was not super excited to graduate but she paid her parents with not just surface acting but deep acting—trying to feel. She took the owed feeling to heart and changed her emotional state. So, I think I surface acting is when you suppress how you are feeling and display emotions appropriate for the situation and deep acting is when you actually try to feel the appropriate emotion for the situation. Is what Hochschild is theorizing is that emotion is not just personal, private feelings, it is society driven and managed and commodified for a return?
Ansley Carter:
One concept that stuck out to me during this week’s reading was Hochschild concept of commodification of feeling. Hochschild describes this process as “demands for emotion management are shaped by both class and gender relations such that middle-class workers and women are more susceptible to the commodification of their emotive experiences” (Appelrouth and Edles, 2007, pg. 299). Throughout this process, emotions are experiences that become part of the job. They can be bought and sold throughout the labor market. For example, an employee is required to act with ‘customer service’ and remain polite and friendly while on the job, despite their true feelings.
The part I am still struggling with is how the relates to Goffman’s concept of frontstage and backstage? Goffman describes the frontstage as places where we act out roles for others, and backstage as a place where we can drop the mask. However, Hochschild seems to suggest that these concepts overlap, the mask we wear on the frontstage can begin to affect our inner feelings as well. I am interested in how these concepts relate and overlap but I’m not sure if I am on the right track yet.
References
Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2007). Sociological theory in the contemporary era: Text and readings. Pine Forge Press.
Callie Elrod:
Commodification of Feeling was an interesting topic to me. Hochschild explains that in jobs that require customer service, emotions become part of the labor process. The author writes that Hochschild’s study found that people would handle negative emotions by “manufacturing feelings” (pg. 298 right column, 4th paragraph). This means their emotions are no longer private but shaped, specifically for profit.
I think I understand that commodification of feeling goes further than Goffman’s notion of impression management. Goffman would say that it is just a form of “acting” that is chosen for a specific situation. Hochschild suggests that this act is not just for the individual but is used as a capitalistic resource. What I am struggling with is whether Hochschild’s concept builds on Goffman’s dramaturgical model or fundamentally breaks from it. Is commodification of feeling simply a more institutionalized, economic extension of impression management, or is it a qualitatively different process that turns emotions into corporate property?
I would say that Hochchild’s argument is a sub- section of Goffman’s impression management. Commodification of feeling is more specific than just turning on and off certain emotions.
Appelrouth, Scott, and Laura Desfor Edles. Sociological Theory in the Contemporary Era: Text and Readings. 3rd ed., SAGE Publications, 2016.
ChatGPT. ChatGPT, 24 Sept. 2025, OpenAI.