TURNER■ STETS FIVE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN EMOTIONS Dramaturgical Theories Dramaturgical theories emphasize that individuals make dramatic presentations ind engage in strategic actions directed by a cultural script. Although the termi- nology varies among different theorists, the cultural script guiding action includes ideologies, norms and rules, logics, vocabularies, and implicit stocks of knowledge about which feelings should be experienced and expressed in episodes of face-to- face interaction. Actors present self in strategic ways, emitting the emotions that are dictated by emotion ideologies and rules. When necessary, actors draw upon the cultural vocabularies and logics that define how emotions should be expressed Individuals are, in essence, dramatic actors on a stage playing parts dictated by culture, and, like all theater, they are given some dramatic license in how they play roles, as long as they do not deviate too far from the emotional script provided by When individuals do break rules of feeling and display, they experience negative emotions, particularly embarrassment and shame( Goffman 1967, Scheff 1988), nd they become highly motivated to repair their breach of cultural prescriptions and proscriptions. To avoid breaches, individuals employ the appropriate emo. tional vocabularies and syntax( Gordon 1989, Rosenberg 1991)to convince both themselves and others that they are indeed abiding by feeling rules and display rules(Hochschild 1979, 1983). Persons also consciously manipulate facial expres- sions, forms of talk, and gestures to sustain an impression that feeling and display rules are being met. They also use physical props such as clothing or objects on the interpersonal stage to communicate to others that they are adhering to emotion ideologies and norms. Individuals are not, however, viewed as tightly programmed by culture. Instead, dramaturgical theories all emphasize that persons engage in a considerable amount use emotional displays to con others in confidence games of varying magnitude Goffman 1961, 1967). Another manipulative strategy is to use emotions to gain other resources in microeconomic exchanges. For example, in Clark's(1997)con eptualization of sympathy, individuals offer sympathy to others in exchange for nother valued emotional resource, such as gratitude. Clark also points out that actors manipulate emotional displays in games of micropolitics to gain power in an interaction. She argues that the offer of sympathy, for instance, is often used to establish superiority over those who receive sympathy. Virtually all emotions can be strategically used in this manner because individuals have the capacity for expressive control of their emotions, using the display of emotions on stage to gain resource advantages over others. As Goffman(1959, 1967)emphasized, however, when individuals cannot sustain expressive control and violate the cultural script, hey lose face and must make ritual apologies that reduce their prestige and power31 May 2006 17:32 AR ANRV280-SO32-02.tex XMLPublishSM(2004/02/24) P1: JRX 26 TURNER STETS FIVE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON HUMAN EMOTIONS Dramaturgical Theories Dramaturgical theories emphasize that individuals make dramatic presentations and engage in strategic actions directed by a cultural script. Although the termi￾nology varies among different theorists, the cultural script guiding action includes ideologies, norms and rules, logics, vocabularies, and implicit stocks of knowledge about which feelings should be experienced and expressed in episodes of face-to￾face interaction. Actors present self in strategic ways, emitting the emotions that are dictated by emotion ideologies and rules. When necessary, actors draw upon the cultural vocabularies and logics that define how emotions should be expressed. Individuals are, in essence, dramatic actors on a stage playing parts dictated by culture, and, like all theater, they are given some dramatic license in how they play roles, as long as they do not deviate too far from the emotional script provided by culture. When individuals do break rules of feeling and display, they experience negative emotions, particularly embarrassment and shame (Goffman 1967, Scheff 1988), and they become highly motivated to repair their breach of cultural prescriptions and proscriptions. To avoid breaches, individuals employ the appropriate emo￾tional vocabularies and syntax (Gordon 1989, Rosenberg 1991) to convince both themselves and others that they are indeed abiding by feeling rules and display rules (Hochschild 1979, 1983). Persons also consciously manipulate facial expres￾sions, forms of talk, and gestures to sustain an impression that feeling and display rules are being met. They also use physical props such as clothing or objects on the interpersonal stage to communicate to others that they are adhering to emotion ideologies and norms. Individuals are not, however, viewed as tightly programmed by culture. Instead, dramaturgical theories all emphasize that persons engage in a considerable amount of expressive manipulation along several fronts. One source of manipulation is to use emotional displays to con others in confidence games of varying magnitude (Goffman 1961, 1967). Another manipulative strategy is to use emotions to gain other resources in microeconomic exchanges. For example, in Clark’s (1997) con￾ceptualization of sympathy, individuals offer sympathy to others in exchange for another valued emotional resource, such as gratitude. Clark also points out that actors manipulate emotional displays in games of micropolitics to gain power in an interaction. She argues that the offer of sympathy, for instance, is often used to establish superiority over those who receive sympathy. Virtually all emotions can be strategically used in this manner because individuals have the capacity for expressive control of their emotions, using the display of emotions on stage to gain resource advantages over others. As Goffman (1959, 1967) emphasized, however, when individuals cannot sustain expressive control and violate the cultural script, they lose face and must make ritual apologies that reduce their prestige and power in an encounter. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2006.32:25-52. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by HARVARD UNIVERSITY on 11/14/07. For personal use only.