Enactment or Performance? A Non-dualist Reading of Goffman
This paper contributes to the sociomateriality research orientation with a critical examination of two concepts – enactment and performance – that have been associated with the notion of performativity. While a preference for the term enactment has been e
- PDF / 177,995 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 69 Downloads / 177 Views
(&)
, Kai Riemer, and Sebastian Boell
The University of Sydney Business School, Sydney, Australia {ella.hafermalz,kai.riemer, sebastian.boell}@sydney.edu.au
Abstract. This paper contributes to the sociomateriality research orientation with a critical examination of two concepts – enactment and performance – that have been associated with the notion of performativity. While a preference for the term enactment has been expressed in influential IS literature, we argue that sociomateriality will benefit from an engagement with the body of research that focuses on Goffman’s notion of performance. We provide a critique of Mol’s reading of Goffman’s notions of “persona” and “mask”. We then show how a careful non-dualist reading of his work reveals his opus as relevant and useful for sociomateriality, because his notion of performance affords locating technology in differing roles within a performance. In doing so, we argue that Goffman’s work, largely overlooked within this stream of research so far, contributes important concepts and terminology for making sociomateriality actionable for IS. Keywords: Sociomateriality performativity theorizing information systems (IS) performance Goffman enactment hermeneutic reading
1 Introduction Sociomateriality has predominantly been grounded in a performative, non-dualist ontology [1–5]. Such an ontology holds that reality does not exist independently of action but rather is brought into being and sustained through material-discursive practices [6, 7]. This understanding challenges our often taken-for-granted dualist understanding, which holds that reality is “objective and out there”, existing independently of the models by which we know and represent it (in the mind) [8]. While performativity is often mentioned in sociomateriality research [1, 5, 9], the vocabularies and histories involved in this approach are sometimes slippery and present us with particular choices and challenges. In this paper we examine two terms that are associated with performativity: enactment and performance. We locate in the performativity literature a suspicion against the term performance and a preference for the term enactment [1, 10]. Intrigued by this preference we conduct a critical hermeneutic reading of this discussion. Our analysis reveals that the preference for the term enactment may inadvertently conceal a body of literature on performance that is of relevance to sociomaterial theorizing: the work of sociologist Erving Goffman [11]. © IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016 Published by Springer International Publishing AG 2016. All Rights Reserved L. Introna et al. (Eds.): IS&O 2016, IFIP AICT 489, pp. 167–181, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-49733-4_10
168
E. Hafermalz et al.
Consequently, we come to reconsider the relationship between the two terms. We argue that while boundaries, materialities and agencies are enacted, these can productively be understood as effects of sociomaterial performance. We thus demonstrate that a sociomaterial reading of Gof
Data Loading...
