Goffman examines society through persons face-to-face interactions I everyday life. An of import point of his theory is how persons present themselves in mundane life, when they come to reach with others. This contact signals the activation of the ritual mechanism. Those mechanisms are being activated automatically each clip we are coming to interaction with others. They consist societal values and show all the expected reactions, which persons should hold in different state of affairss. The ground why these mechanisms are activated automatically is because we have embodied them during the period of socialisation and through imitation. Consequently, those mechanisms give us the possibility to understand and anticipate how we must respond in different interactions, every bit good as to predate and protect ourselves from possible minutes of shame and embarrassment. If we do non happen a manner to pull off those minutes when they occur, can take in the prostration of interaction ( Goffman, 1959: 12 ) .
The chief intent of persons is to pull strings the feelings that others form about them ( impression direction ) . Persons, when they are moving on the phase, employ unconsciously different “ forepart ” ( agencies of look ) . The “ front ” is comprised from two parts: the “ scene ” which is the scene in which persons moving and the “ personal forepart ” which concerns the natural features and specific agencies of look of each person. Furthermore, Goffman divide “ personal forepart ” into “ visual aspect ” and “ mode ” . “ Appearance ” is the external features and “ mode ” is the agencies of looks, like the linguistic communication, the organic structure, face looks, which persons adopt during their public presentation ( Goffman, 1953, :22-24 ) . In add-on, persons use symbols to expose their places and the function they aim to play ( Goffman, Dec. 1951: 294 ) .
Forby there is the “ wing ” , where persons make their dry run for their public presentation. Namely, which features of themselves, they will cover in order to pull strings their perceivers. Parallel, merely when they are on the wing, can be their existent egos, whereon they have to undertake with their existent feelings, which have no relation to the feelings they project on the phase. Nevertheless, Goffman notes that the formation of a function is being strongly affected by the personality, the experience, and the civilization of each person ( Swingewood, 2000: 176 ) .
How academic professors maintain their dominant place in the schoolroom.
The academic professor ‘s forepart is his category and what this category includes is the “ scene ” . His public presentation takes topographic point while he is learning. Of class the professor must hold a certain manner of vesture, for case he can non look in the schoolroom have oning a athletics outfit. Besides, he must speak and act in a manner which will impute him prestige. For case, the professor will non utilize slang linguistic communication during his instruction, on the contrary, he will a sophisticated vocabulary. Furthermore, harmonizing to Goffman, first feeling is of critical importance. Therefore, in his first talk, he must pay attending to his first feeling, because this will organize the relation of domination between the professor and the pupils ( Goffman, 1959: 12 ) . Even if he becomes more indulgent with his pupils over the old ages, he should try continually to prolong his authorization ( impression direction ) .
On the other manus, when the professor ends up entirely in the schoolroom ( wing ) he can be his existent ego. Coincidentally at this point he can fix himself for the instruction ( public presentation ) and he can seek to restrict things which could cut down his pole public presentation. On the whole, professor possesses a position, which cipher can name in inquiry, irrespective of the function he adopts. This is go oning because he has enfranchisements of his capacity, which is his grade, which is recognizable from the society ( Goffman, 1951: 297 ) . In other words, there can be doubt about his efficiency at work but non for his capacity as a professor.
Bourdieu ‘s theory.
Bourdieu in contrast with Goffman considers society from a distant point of view. He is non centre on persons ‘ interaction but he combines them with societal constructions. He deems that sociologists should get the better of the continuity of the contrast between objectivism and subjectivism. We should detect society as a whole including both, constructions and histrions. Thereby, he creates a theory based on a scheme, which constitutes from three chief parts: the field, the capital, and the habitus. Each portion is straight connected with the others and maps parallel.
The first portion is the field. William claude dukenfields are the societal constructions, the assorted domains of life. While Fieldss exert influence to each other, there are independent plenty ( comparative autonomous ) in order to be able to analyze them. Each field has its ain clear boundaries, logic and domain of values, with witch people must be obeyed. Peoples in order to be able to come in a field, should hold certain resources harmonizing to the demands of each field ( Wacquant, 2008: 269 ) . Those resources are the capitals, which are unequal distributed in the society ( Swartz, 2002: 655 ) . Peoples, who have more capitals, have more opportunities to win in different Fieldss ( Bourdieu, 1986: 241 ) . This is why Bourdieu appreciation Fieldss as spheres in which people struggle invariably. Those who have a large portion of capital, battle to keep their domination and those who have limited capitals, attempt for their benefits to invert the domination of the former. Thus field is ne’er inactive. It is traveling, altering, germinating.
On the 2nd portion of the triadic scheme is capital. Capitals are the agencies of resources which enable people to get benefits. Power is in each field different. Bourdieu divides Capital in four classs: economic, cultural, societal and symbols. Economic Capital is consisted by money. This capital is really of import because every capital can be converted to economic capital. Peoples, who have mostly the economic capital, can easier get the other three capitals. Then is the Culture Capital, which is consisted by three signifiers:
The Embodied State concerns the stimulation which people get from their environment during their upbringing and socialisation. Peoples receive them unconsciousness or passive-coercive via their households, their civilization or traditions. However this does non intend that they get them outright. On the contrary, people embodied them over the old ages harmonizing to their habitus. Besides in this province, people form their cultivation. People ‘s cultivation derives, apart from the stimulation of the environment, besides from the sum of clip and attempt they consumed to derive it ( Bourdieu, 1986: 244-245 ) .
The other signifier is the Objectified State, which concerns the ownership of points ( for case pictures ) . Those points have great cultural-aesthetic value but besides economic value. In which manner people will valid them, it is related with their habitus ( Bourdieu, 1986: 245-246 ) .
The 3rd signifier of Cultural Capital is the Institutionalized State. This province embraces the official paperss, that is, they have institutional acknowledgment. Those enfranchisements denote the degree of instruction of each individual ( Bourdieu, 1986: 246-247 ) .
Furthermore, there is the Social Capital. Social Capital is people ‘s connexions which they have or get within societal webs. Those connexions are either positive or negative. In other words, can assist people or can do their lives hard.
Finally, it is the Symbolic Capital, which has to make with the symbols of power. Peoples who possess the symbolic authorization can rule in one or more Fieldss. Those who have it are in the place to make up one’s mind what is good and what is bad and exercise it via acknowledgment and blessing and disapproval. Recognition of what people are making is gratifying for them. For, people through acknowledgment are going established. Symbolic authorization can be large in a field while can be mild or little in others. Besides symbolic power is hierarchal. It is a circle of alternations of power. Therefore there is a changeless battle for the acquisition of power but it is go oning unconsciously.
The 3rd portion of the scheme is Habitus. Habitus is our history, the heritage of cultural capital. Namely it is embodied of our experiences. The creative activity of societal groups is based on people ‘s common experiences, hence habitus is individual ‘s beliefs and temperaments. Furthermore, habitus is the societal constructions in which individuals shape their beliefs and ways of thought ( for case instruction ) . In existent life habitus and field come ever together as a whole ( Wacquant, 2008: 269 ) . On the one, habitus affects people ‘s opportunities of success or failure in different Fieldss ( Bourdieu, 1986: 241 ) . However, people through new experiences, which are non coming from the household, can organize a secondary capital in the habitus, which is rather lasting and reinforced. This new habitus is going bit by bit their 2nd nature.
Analyzing academicians through the constructs of Field, Capital and Habitus.
Academicians ‘ field in which they operate is higher instruction. To be able to be in this field, they spent excessively much clip and attempt in order to get this cognition, that is their cultivation ( cultural capital-embodied province ) . Evidence that clasp this cognition is their sheepskin ( cultural capital-institutionalized province ) . Besides their connexions, that had been either academic or political, played an of import function in taking up this place ( societal capital ) . On the other, depending on the degree of the University attended and depending on their public presentation, they had similar chances to happen work. The place of each university is non the same. For, there is a rank of hierarchy. Hierarchy it is similarly in the places of academic professors. Therefore there is strong competition among them. Their chief intent is to submit to the highest places and travel to the most commissioned universities ( symbolic capital ) . To be able to make so, they must invariably enrich their resources ( capital ) . However, the academic professors have some common experiences that affiliate them to the same group and let them to come in in this field, higher instruction ( habitus ) . But this does non intend that these experiences were the same embodied-in all. That they are professors, do non intend that all derived from the same socio-economic category. Simply they were able to get the necessary makings and to encompass these experiences in order to come in specific field. Namely, they managed to do 2nd nature another habitus.
Sing faculty members through two different attacks, Goffman ‘s and Bourieu ‘s, I have come to believe that battle for domination is an of import portion of both theories. In Goffman this battle exist through the direction feeling, while in Bourdieu exist in the whole three scheme ( field, capital, habitus ) .