The Many Interaction Orders: Goffman, Rawls, Smith and the Plural Moral Terrains of Everyday Life (Revised)
THE MANY INTERACTION ORDERS:
Goffman, Rawls, Smith and the Plural Moral Terrains of Everyday Life
Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.
Editor’s Note (Updated Version Available):
This essay has been substantially revised and expanded. A new, fully developed version—“Many Interaction Orders: Recognition, Inequality, and the Re-specification of Symbolic Interactionism (v.9)”—is now available on this site. The current version remains archived as an earlier draft in the development of this argument.
Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.
December 2025
I. WALKING THROUGH MULTIPLE WORLDS
The idea came to me not in a library or seminar room but on an ordinary Tuesday afternoon, walking through Ventura after a morning court appearance. Inside the courthouse I had been questioned sharply by a prosecutor and reprimanded by a judge—a ritual drama of authority and submission where every muscle in one's face must be managed with exquisite care. The courtroom is its own dense moral universe: turn-taking is rigidly enforced, glances are monitored, silences carry legal weight, and even a slight mis-timing of a response can bring reprimand or contempt charges. You feel the institution pressing through you. You become aware of every gesture your body might betray. This was the interaction order in its most formal, institutionalized, punitive form, and leaving it felt like stepping out of a thick moral atmosphere into something else entirely.
Outside, only fifty feet from the courthouse steps, I encountered a different reality. A man I knew from street outreach sat on a low wall, his belongings in a shopping cart beside him. We exchanged greetings. The interaction here was governed by different rules—slower, more tentative, organized around mutual recognition rather than institutional authority. There was no script for who speaks when. Silences were not violations but spaces of respect. Eye contact was offered rather than demanded. This was an interaction order too, but one built from different materials: shared marginality, the quiet solidarity of people who know each other's names when the rest of the city looks through them.
I walked on, past the bus station where day laborers gathered, through the alley where encampments had been swept the week before, past the taqueria where regulars greeted the owner by name. Each transition felt like crossing a border. The rules shifted. The dangers shifted. What counted as respectful attention in one space became intrusive surveillance in another. What signaled friendliness in one context read as threat in another. I was not moving through a single social world with local variations. I was moving through multiple interaction orders—distinct moral terrains with their own logics, their own dangers, their own possibilities for recognition or annihilation.
This essay is an attempt to theorize that experience. It argues that sociology has been too quick to speak of "the" interaction order, as if there were a single substrate of face-to-face conduct underlying all social life. Drawing on Erving Goffman's foundational insights, Anne Warfield Rawls' crucial theoretical clarifications, and Robin James Smith's ethnographic attention to how order is accomplished in marginal spaces, I develop a framework for understanding interaction orders in the plural. The interaction order is not one. It is fractured by race, gender, class, housing status, and institutional position. Different bodies move through different moral terrains, facing different dangers at the same sequential positions. A sociology that fails to see this plurality is not merely incomplete—it is complicit in the erasure of those whose interaction orders remain invisible to dominant frameworks.
II. GOFFMAN'S ORIGINAL INSIGHT
Erving Goffman spent his career documenting the moral organization of face-to-face interaction. From his early work on the presentation of self, through his studies of asylums, stigma, and public behavior, to his final theoretical statement in the 1982 ASA presidential address, Goffman insisted on a single, radical claim: the interaction order is a domain of social reality in its own right, irreducible to either individual psychology or social structure.
This claim was radical because it challenged both of sociology's dominant paradigms. Against methodological individualism, Goffman showed that selves are not pre-given entities who then enter interaction. The self is constituted in and through interaction—it is a "dramatic effect" arising from the collaborative work of participants who agree, tacitly, to honor each other's claims to be a certain kind of person. Against structural-functionalism, Goffman showed that interaction is not simply the enactment of roles prescribed by social structure. The interaction order has its own requirements, its own constraints, its own logic—and these may conflict with institutional demands.
Goffman's key concepts illuminate this moral organization. Face-work describes the ritual labor by which participants protect both their own and others' claims to positive social value. The working consensus names the tacit agreement to accept, temporarily, the lines that all participants are projecting—to treat everyone as if they are who they claim to be. Civil inattention captures the delicate ritual of public life: acknowledging the presence of strangers without imposing on them, granting them the courtesy of being let alone. Involvement obligations specify what participants owe to encounters—appropriate attention, controlled emotional display, managed bodily deportment.
Together, these concepts reveal that everyday interaction is saturated with moral expectations. We owe each other face protection. We owe encounters our appropriate involvement. We owe strangers civil inattention. These obligations are not optional courtesies but constitutive requirements. Without them, interaction collapses, and with it, the selves being sustained within it.
III. WHAT GOFFMAN COULD NOT SEE
Goffman's framework has proven extraordinarily generative, but it contains a fundamental limitation that his followers have been slow to acknowledge. Goffman wrote as if the interaction order were universal—as if the same moral expectations, the same face-work, the same involvement obligations governed all encounters regardless of who was participating.
This universalism was not accidental. It reflected Goffman's own social position: a white, male, middle-class academic who moved through spaces where his presence was unremarkable and his claims to personhood were taken for granted. Goffman could theorize civil inattention because he received it. He could describe the working consensus as a collaborative achievement because his own lines were rarely challenged. He could treat face protection as a mutual obligation because his face was, in fact, protected.
But for many people, Goffman's universal interaction order is a cruel fiction. The Black man walking through a white neighborhood does not receive civil inattention; he receives the "hate stare" or the ostentatious crossing to the other side of the street. The woman walking past a construction site does not enjoy the courtesy of being let alone; she is subjected to commentary, evaluation, and unwanted address. The homeless person in the public library is not granted the same involvement obligations as housed patrons; their very presence is treated as a violation, their bodily deportment scrutinized for signs of disorder that would justify expulsion.
Goffman occasionally glimpsed this differential distribution of interactional goods. His concept of "non-person treatment"—being present but not granted the status of a ratified participant—describes precisely what many marginalized people experience routinely. His analysis of stigma acknowledged that some people carry "spoiled identities" that disrupt normal interaction. But Goffman never systematically theorized these asymmetries. He treated them as exceptions or complications rather than as fundamental features of how the interaction order actually operates.
The problem is not merely descriptive but theoretical. If the interaction order is fractured along lines of race, gender, and class—if different bodies face radically different moral terrains—then we cannot speak of "the" interaction order as a singular phenomenon. We must speak of interaction orders in the plural, each with its own logic, its own dangers, its own conditions of possibility. This is the theoretical move that Goffman could not make, and that his successors have been slow to pursue.
IV. FRAMING VERSUS FRACTURE: THE LIMITS OF GOFFMAN'S APPARATUS
It is important to distinguish between framing and fracture. Goffman brilliantly theorized framing—the way encounters are keyed, the way participants understand "what is going on here," the way the same physical behaviors can mean different things in different frames. A punch in a boxing ring means something different from a punch in a bar. A kiss on stage means something different from a kiss in private. Framing captures the interpretive flexibility of interaction.
But the argument I am making is not about framing. It is about fracture. The street is not a different frame on a shared interaction order; it is a different order. The homeless encampment does not operate according to the same moral expectations as the courthouse, differently keyed. It operates according to different expectations entirely—expectations born from different histories, different dangers, different conditions of survival.
This distinction matters because framing preserves the unity of the interaction order. Different frames are transformations of a common substrate. Fracture denies that unity. It insists that there are multiple substrates, multiple moral grounds, and that these do not reduce to variations on a single theme. The grandmother teaching her grandson how to survive a traffic stop is not teaching him a different frame on the universal interaction order. She is teaching him that the universal interaction order does not exist—that what white people experience as normal is, for him, a luxury his body cannot afford.
V. RAWLS' THEORETICAL CORRECTION
Anne Warfield Rawls provided the first crucial intervention. In her 1987 essay "The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman's Contribution to Social Theory," Rawls made explicit what had remained implicit and often confused in Goffman's own writing. She showed that Goffman's real contribution was not about the details of face-work or the micro-mechanics of encounters, but about the existence of a distinct moral order that precedes and constrains both individuals and institutions.
Rawls clarified that the interaction order is a moral order in the strongest sense. It consists of obligations that persons owe one another simply by virtue of being co-present, independent of any institutional roles or cultural values. These obligations are not optional or strategic. They are constitutive. Without them, there is no self, no meaning, and no social reality. As Rawls writes: "Persons who fulfill their interaction obligations may be presumed to respect their moral obligations as well... A state where everyone temporarily accepts everyone else's lines is established. This kind of mutual acceptance seems to be a basic structural feature of interaction."
This moral foundation explains why breaches of the interaction order feel so devastating. When someone violates face, refuses reciprocity, or exploits the working consensus for strategic gain, they are not simply being rude. They are threatening the ontological security of all participants. They are demonstrating that the shared ground on which social reality rests is not, in fact, shared.
Second, the interaction order is genuinely sui generis—a distinct level of social reality that cannot be reduced to either individual agency or social structure. Sociology has long operated within a dichotomy: either order comes from structure (Durkheim, Parsons, structural-functionalism) or it emerges from individuals (methodological individualism, rational choice theory). Goffman offers a third option. Order comes from the enabling conventions of interaction itself—conventions that are neither imposed by institutions nor invented by individuals, but rather required by the condition of the social self.
Third, and perhaps most radically, Rawls argues that the interaction order places constraints on social structure itself. This inverts the usual sociological assumption. We are accustomed to thinking that institutions shape interaction—that the hospital structures how doctors and patients relate, that the courtroom determines who speaks when, that gender norms organize male-female encounters. Rawls shows that Goffman's work points in the opposite direction: the interaction order has needs, and social structures must accommodate those needs or face resistance.
VI. RAWLS ON RACE: THE FRACTURED ORDER
But Rawls' most important contribution came later, in her collaborative work with Waverly Duck. In Tacit Racism (2020), Rawls and Duck demonstrated that the interaction order is not universal but racially fractured. Black Americans and white Americans do not inhabit the same moral terrain of everyday interaction. They face different expectations, different dangers, and different costs for the same interactional moves.
The argument is precise and devastating. Rawls and Duck show that the "trust conditions" necessary for Goffman's working consensus are systematically denied to Black participants. White people can generally assume that their claims to face will be honored, that their presence in public space is legitimate, that their lines will be accepted provisionally. Black people cannot make these assumptions. Their presence is questioned. Their claims to personhood are challenged. The working consensus that Goffman theorized as a collaborative achievement is, for them, a terrain of constant negotiation and frequent violation.
These are not simply different attitudes or perspectives within a shared interaction order. They are different interaction orders—with different rules, different moral obligations, different phenomenologies of danger. The grandmother who teaches her grandson how to survive a police stop is not teaching etiquette within Goffman's universal framework. She is teaching him to navigate a racialized interaction order in which the normal rules do not apply, or apply perversely.
Rawls shows how this fracturing operates at the micro-level of conversational sequences. In her analysis of traffic stops, she demonstrates that Black drivers cannot treat "next speaker" positions at transition relevance places as safe opportunities. To self-select, to assert one's right to speak, to challenge an officer's account—moves that would be available to white drivers within the "normal" interaction order—become potentially lethal for Black drivers. The turn-taking system operates, but it operates within a racialized field of asymmetric danger that fundamentally alters its moral character.
This insight—that race fractures the interaction order itself—represents Rawls' most important extension of Goffman. It shows that we cannot speak of "the" interaction order as if it were a universal substrate of human sociality. There are multiple interaction orders, historically produced, morally distinct, and unequally distributed.
VII. THE GENDERED FRACTURE
What Rawls demonstrates for race, Carol Brooks Gardner demonstrates for gender. In Passing By (1995), Gardner shows that women in public space do not inhabit the same interaction order as men. The street is not a neutral terrain of civil inattention; it is a site where women are subject to remarks, evaluations, and intrusions that men rarely experience. The transition relevance place that is neutral for a man is, for a woman, a moment of potential harassment or worse. To speak, to make eye contact, to occupy space confidently—these carry different dangers.
The "working consensus" of public interaction assumes a male subject; women's participation requires constant tactical management of visibility, availability, and vulnerability. Sexual harassment is not a violation of the interaction order; it is a feature of a gendered interaction order that treats women's bodies as publicly evaluable. The fracture here parallels the racial fracture: women do not have equal access to the moral protections that Goffman theorized as universal. They navigate a different terrain, structured by different dangers, requiring different competencies. The interaction order is not one.
Candace West and Don Zimmerman's work on "doing gender" extends this insight. Gender is not simply a variable that affects interaction within a universal framework. Gender is accomplished through interaction—produced and reproduced in the specific ways that participants display and recognize masculinity and femininity. But this accomplishment is asymmetrical. Women's gender performance is subject to evaluation, commentary, and sanction in ways that men's is not. The resources for "doing gender" are unequally distributed, and the costs of failure are unequally borne.
The gendered interaction order is characterized by distinct dangers at sequential positions: the unsolicited greeting that demands response, the evaluative comment that asserts address rights, the physical intrusion that treats women's bodies as available for male assessment. Violence shadows these interactions—not as aberration but as structural possibility. Women calibrate their conduct against this possibility constantly. They develop what Gardner calls "street smarts"—practical competencies for navigating a moral terrain that is organized around asymmetric vulnerability. Men, moving through a different interaction order, need not develop these competencies. They can afford the luxury of obliviousness.
VIII. THE QUESTION OF MORAL GROUND
This recognition raises a question we cannot avoid: If the interaction order is morally constitutive—if it is where recognition, dignity, and personhood are accomplished—and if that order is fractured into plural, unequally dangerous terrains, then do we still have a single moral foundation for social life? Or are we living in multiple moral ontologies, incommensurable worlds that share physical space but not moral ground?
I do not think the answer is relativism. The fracture itself is a moral fact—it is wrong that some bodies cannot expect the courtesies that others take for granted. The asymmetry is not merely difference; it is injustice. Critical Interactionism holds that the interaction order should be a site of mutual recognition and reciprocal dignity—and that its fracture along lines of race, gender, class, and marginality is a moral catastrophe we are obligated to name and resist.
The plurality of orders is not a feature of social life to be celebrated; it is a wound to be healed. But healing requires first seeing the wound clearly. It requires naming the specific ways that some bodies are denied the moral protections that others receive as birthright. It requires understanding how danger is differentially distributed at the same sequential positions. And it requires recognizing that the universalism of classical interaction theory was never universal—it was the perspective of those whose position allowed them not to see the fractures.
IX. THE DOMINATION OF ORDERS
But plurality is never neutral. Interaction orders exist in relations of domination. Some orders colonize others—imposing their accountability structures, their turn-taking norms, their categories of person onto spaces and populations that have developed their own. Some orders enforce themselves through state violence: policing, zoning, civil commitment, welfare bureaucracy. Some orders survive only through tactical concealment—the moral life of the encampment is invisible to the courthouse not because it lacks order but because visibility would invite destruction.
The "quality of life" ordinance is precisely a weapon for enforcing interaction-order hegemony: it criminalizes the practices through which marginal orders maintain themselves (sitting, sleeping, sheltering) while leaving the practices of dominant orders untouched. When police sweep an encampment, they are not restoring order to a zone of disorder. They are destroying one interaction order in the name of another. The people displaced had their own moral economy—rules about territory, about mutual aid, about how to greet newcomers and how to resolve conflicts. That order is illegible to the dominant framework, which can only see absence where a different presence exists.
Critical Interactionism must therefore attend not only to the plurality of orders but to the political economy of their relations—which orders have the power to define what counts as "order" at all, and which survive only in the gaps. The courthouse order does not merely differ from the encampment order; it has the power to destroy it. The gendered order that treats women's bodies as publicly available does not merely coexist with an order of gender equality; it actively suppresses it through harassment, violence, and institutional complicity. The racialized order that denies Black Americans the trust conditions of ordinary interaction does not simply parallel the white interaction order; it is enforced through policing, incarceration, and the constant threat of lethal violence.
This is why plurality requires a theory of domination. Without it, we risk a bland pluralism that treats all orders as equivalent variations. They are not equivalent. Some orders enable flourishing; others are survival adaptations to systematic violence. Some orders deserve to be extended; others deserve to be dismantled. Critical Interactionism must be capable of making these distinctions.
X. SMITH ON HOMELESSNESS: HOW PLURAL ORDERS ARE ACCOMPLISHED IN PRACTICE
If Rawls demonstrates that interaction orders are plural, Robin James Smith's work on homeless outreach shows how that plurality is interactionally accomplished. Smith's ethnographic studies—often conducted with Tom Hall in urban Britain—provide the missing methodological bridge: they reveal the specific practices through which distinct interaction orders are constituted, maintained, and navigated.
Smith's contribution is twofold. First, he demonstrates that marginal spaces like homeless encampments are not zones of disorder but sites of sophisticated interactional accomplishment. Second, he shows that moving between interaction orders—as outreach workers must constantly do—requires specific practical competencies that deserve analytic attention in their own right.
In "Everyday Territories" (2018), Smith and Hall examine how homeless individuals and outreach workers accomplish territorial practices in urban space. Their analysis reveals that the street has its own moral economy—a set of practical orientations, mutual recognitions, and accountability structures that constitute a distinct interaction order. Territory is not simply a matter of occupying space. It requires ongoing interactional work: announcing one's presence, respecting established boundaries, negotiating shared resources, managing the constant threat of displacement. Smith shows that these accomplishments depend on what he calls "street literacy"—a practical competence in reading situations, recognizing regular inhabitants, distinguishing between different categories of passersby (police, outreach workers, service users, predators), and calibrating one's conduct accordingly.
This is interactional order, not disorder. But it operates according to different background expectancies than the interaction order of housed, middle-class life. The relevant membership categories are different (regular vs. newcomer, trustworthy vs. suspect, housed vs. street). The accountable practices are different (sharing resources, warning of police presence, maintaining territorial boundaries). The sequential organization of encounters is different (slower greetings, more tentative openings, longer silences that are not treated as violations).
Smith's analysis of outreach work is particularly illuminating. Outreach workers occupy an interstitial position: they carry institutional mandates (linking people to services, documenting encounters, enforcing certain rules) while simultaneously needing to orient to the street's own moral requirements (respecting territory, building trust over time, not imposing institutional categories prematurely). This double orientation requires constant practical judgment—knowing when to invoke institutional identity and when to background it, when to push toward service engagement and when to simply be present, how to leave gracefully without burning the relational bridge that makes future contact possible.
XI. THE RIVER BOTTOM REVISITED
My own fourteen years of street outreach in Santa Barbara have taught me what Smith describes analytically. Walking into the river bottom encampments, I learned to announce my presence verbally before I could be seen—a practice that acknowledges I am entering someone else's territory, that surprises are dangerous, that the protocols of housed space do not apply here. I learned to read the subtle signs of welcome or refusal: a chair offered means stay; a turned back means return another time. I learned the membership categories that organize this space: who is a regular, who is a newcomer, who is dangerous, who can be trusted with information about police movements.
These are not simply survival skills, though they are that too. They are the enabling conventions of a distinct interaction order—one that makes possible a form of social life in conditions that the dominant order treats as uninhabitable. The people living in the river bottom have accomplished something remarkable: they have created a moral economy where mutual recognition is possible, where faces can be protected, where the working consensus that Goffman theorized actually operates. But it operates according to different rules than Goffman assumed, because the background conditions are radically different.
The river bottom order is characterized by specific practices through which it is accomplished. Territorial announcements before approach. Greeting sequences that unfold more slowly than in housed interactions, with longer gaps that are not treated as accountable silences. Resource sharing governed by reciprocity norms that differ from market exchange. Information sharing about police movements, sweep schedules, available services. Conflict resolution mechanisms that do not rely on calling authorities (who are themselves threats). All of this constitutes order—sophisticated, practical, moral order—invisible to those who can only see disorder.
XII. THE OUTREACH WORKER'S PRACTICAL COMPETENCIES
Smith's work illuminates my own practice by making explicit the practical competencies that effective outreach requires. These competencies are not merely technical skills but interactional achievements—ways of navigating between orders that preserve the integrity of each.
Code-switching between orders is the most fundamental competency. When I walk from my car to an encampment, I am crossing between interaction orders, and the crossing must be accomplished gracefully. This means adjusting pace (slower), adjusting gaze (less direct initially), adjusting voice (softer, less urgent), adjusting bodily deportment (less institutional, more tentative). These are not performances of humility; they are practical recognitions that I am entering a space with its own moral requirements.
Managing institutional residue is equally important. I carry clipboards, agency identification, sometimes mandates to deliver specific messages. These institutional artifacts can disrupt the order I am entering if they are deployed prematurely. Smith documents how outreach workers learn to background these artifacts—to lead with relationship rather than role, to introduce institutional elements only after interactional trust has been established. This is a sequential matter: the order in which things are done determines whether they destroy or preserve the interactional fabric.
Reading situations—what Smith calls "street literacy"—requires recognizing when ordinary practices do not apply. A greeting that would be unremarkable in housed space may be perceived as intrusive or threatening in the encampment. A question that would be routine in a service setting may be experienced as surveillance on the street. Street literacy means sensing these differences in real time and adjusting conduct accordingly.
Leaving gracefully is perhaps the most underappreciated competency. Outreach encounters must end in ways that preserve the possibility of future contact. This means not pushing too hard, not making promises that cannot be kept, not leaving with warnings or threats. It means treating "no" as a legitimate response rather than as resistance to be overcome. It means recognizing that the relationship is the intervention, and that maintaining the relational bridge matters more than any single service connection.
XIII. A CHALLENGE TO CONVERSATION ANALYSIS
This argument poses a challenge to mainstream conversation analysis. If CA insists on treating the turn-taking system as a universal mechanism while bracketing the differential dangers that structure turns for different bodies, then CA is not merely incomplete—it is complicit in whitening and gendering the interaction order. To analyze a traffic stop without attending to the racialized field of lethal possibility within which Black drivers speak is not methodological neutrality; it is methodological blindness with political consequences. The same machinery of turn-taking, sequence organization, and repair operates in the traffic stop and the faculty meeting—but it operates within radically different moral economies of risk.
CA's power lies in its attention to the details of how interaction works; its limitation lies in its reluctance to ask for whom it works that way, and at what cost. The transition relevance place is a formal position in the turn-taking system. But the stakes of occupying that position—of self-selecting as next speaker, of asserting a right to the floor, of challenging a prior speaker's claim—vary enormously depending on whose body is doing the occupying. A Black driver who self-selects at a TRP to challenge an officer's account faces different consequences than a white driver making the same sequential move. CA's apparatus captures the move; it does not capture the differential lethality.
Critical Interactionism calls for a conversation analysis that takes danger seriously as a constitutive feature of interaction, not as external context to be bracketed. This does not mean abandoning CA's empirical rigor. It means extending that rigor to include the moral economies within which sequences unfold. It means attending not only to what is done but to what it costs different bodies to do it. It means recognizing that the "same" sequential position is not the same when the stakes are radically asymmetric.
XIV. CRITICAL INTERACTIONISM: TOWARD A RESEARCH PROGRAM
The recognition of plural interaction orders changes what sociology can do. It transforms interaction from a dependent variable (shaped by structure) into a primary site of moral and political analysis. It reveals that inequality is not only structural or cultural—it is enacted and reproduced moment by moment in the moral ecologies of everyday co-presence.
This is the project I have been calling Critical Interactionism: an integration of Goffman's insight that interaction is sui generis, Rawls' demonstration that interaction orders are moral and plural, and Smith's specification of how that plurality is practically accomplished. Critical Interactionism shows that domination lives in the body, the gaze, the timing of turns, the silence at bus stops, the way an outreach worker enters a camp after dusk.
It shows that when we speak of "the interaction order" we are already making a political claim—typically, the claim that white, middle-class, housed, heteronormative patterns of co-presence are universal. Against this, Critical Interactionism insists on plurality: there are many interaction orders, structured by unequal histories, unequal dangers, and unequal access to the conditions that make Goffman's idealized reciprocity possible.
Critical Interactionism is not merely a critique; it is a research program. It requires: (1) Plural-order ethnography—studies that specify which interaction order is being documented, from whose standpoint, under what conditions of safety or danger. (2) Moral economy analysis—attention to how recognition, dignity, and accountability are distributed and withheld within and across orders. (3) Danger mapping—explicit analysis of how racialized, gendered, and classed bodies face different stakes at the same sequential positions. (4) Institutional-interactional interface analysis—studies of how institutions (police, welfare, medicine, law) impose dominant interaction orders onto populations that have developed their own. (5) Politics of recognition—explicit normative commitment to naming which orders are suppressed, colonized, or destroyed, and to what ends.
This is not a call to abandon EMCA's empirical rigor; it is a call to direct that rigor toward questions of justice. The interaction order is where oppression lives. Critical Interactionism is the discipline that makes that visible.
XV. CONCLUSION: THE INTERACTION ORDER AS BATTLEGROUND
The walk through Ventura revealed what theory must now accommodate: we inhabit many interaction orders, not one. Inequality shapes their moral contours. The interaction order is not neutral ground. It is a battleground of meaning, dignity, and survival—and the battle is fought in every glance, every hesitation, every moment of co-presence where selves either find recognition or face annihilation.
Goffman saw the moral density of everyday life, but he could not see its fractures. Rawls clarified the theoretical stakes and demonstrated how race shatters the presumption of universality. Smith showed how plural orders are practically accomplished, even in marginal spaces that dominant frameworks can only see as disorder. The task now is to build on these contributions—to map the full plurality of interaction orders, to trace the relations of domination among them, and to imagine what it would mean to create interaction orders where mutual recognition is actually possible.
This is not utopian. It is the practical demand that the interaction order makes on behalf of selves who cannot survive without it. Every self requires recognition to exist. Every interaction is an occasion where that recognition is either granted or withheld. The plurality of orders means that some selves are systematically denied the recognition that others receive as birthright. Naming this denial is the first step toward remedy.
And it has political implications. If interaction orders are plural and unequal, then struggles for justice are not only about redistribution of resources or recognition of identities. They are about the creation of interaction orders where mutual face protection is actually possible—where Black bodies are not presumed threatening, where women's boundaries are respected, where unhoused persons are treated as full participants in social reality, where queer desire need not be coded and clandestine.
The grandmother teaching her grandson how to survive a traffic stop knows something that sociology has been slow to learn: the interaction order is not given. It is accomplished, fought over, defended, destroyed, and sometimes—in moments of grace and solidarity—expanded to include those it had previously excluded.
Critical Interactionism is not a conclusion. It is an ongoing accomplishment.
REFERENCES
Boden, Deirdre. 1994. The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Duck, Waverly, and Anne Warfield Rawls. 2020. Tacit Racism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Durkheim, Émile. 1938. The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press.
Gardner, Carol Brooks. 1995. Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
———. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
———. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.
———. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
———. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
———. 1983. "The Interaction Order." American Sociological Review 48(1):1-17.
Rawls, Anne Warfield. 1987. "The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman's Contribution to Social Theory." Sociological Theory 5(2):136-149.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation." Language 50(4):696-735.
Smith, Robin James, and Tom Hall. 2018. "Everyday Territories: Homelessness, Outreach Work and City Space." British Journal of Sociology 69(2):372-390.
Smith, Robin James. In press. "Space, Mobility, and Interaction." In International Handbook of Interactionism, edited by Dirk vom Lehn, William Gibson, and Natalia Ruiz-Junco. London: Routledge.
Turowetz, Jason, and Matthew W. Hollander. 2021. "The Confession and the Plea: Race, Resistance, and the Sequential Organization of Homicide Interrogations." American Sociological Review 86(1):114-144.
West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. "Doing Gender." Gender & Society 1(2):125-151.
Whitehead, Kevin A. 2020. "The Problem of Context in the Analysis of Social Action: The Case of Implicit Whiteness in Post-Apartheid South Africa." Social Psychology Quarterly 83(3):294-313.
Comments
Post a Comment