On situational disruptions

Interpersonal conflicts have long intrigued social science researchers, both with their disruptive consequences on human relations and their roles in maintaining social structures. People come together and negotiate a consensus of “what is it that’s going on here?” to make meaningful exchanges with each other (Goffman 1986), from mundane greetings with neighbors to energized political moments like protests. Concerning how people achieve such shared definitions in everyday life, Goffman claims social actors maintain a “veneer of consensus” by suppressing individual desires when they proceed in face-to-face communication (1959). This deft, crafty, and conflict-aversive image of social performers becomes a recurring theme in sociological research, inspiring generations of interactional and dramaturgical scholarship to understand how people manage interactional order smoothly in different social contexts. In the same vein, Professor Sam Berstler recently shared her research on the Goffmanian face-management and integrity commitment at CFCP, offering a philosophical account of why people resist demands even in grave danger or with a huge cost. Thus, we can learn from how people manage their collective understanding in situations to unpack the epistemological, moral, and pragmatical dimensions of interpersonal conflicts.

Oftentimes, scholars treat interactional disruptions as undesirable and problematic. Indeed, verbal disagreements, misunderstanding social roles in performances, or even moments of discomfort are seen as detrimental to the shared definition of social interactions. Researchers examine the strategies and practices people use to avoid disruptions, hoping to delineate the systematic yet implicit ways that guide our colorful social life. Nevertheless, just like a coin has two sides, disruptions can be purposeful and meaningful as well. Imagine you were in a meeting and would like to pitch an exciting yet unconventional idea in front of your seniors, but doing so may potentially challenge their authority, if not damage your status as a team player. To mitigate potential conflicts, we might say phrases like “It is just a wild idea…” or “Let’s think outside the box for a bit…” to gesture both a break from the discussion topic and the interactional routine. Sometimes, people engage in deliberate acts of derailment to redefine or steer the situation in other directions. Doing so does not necessarily contribute to an interactional breakdown, as we often sprinkle these situational disruptions in daily encounters. Then, how do people read these disruptions not as morally malicious or relationally destructive but generative in group interactions?

Tavory and Fine (2020) published an interesting article on this issue. They differentiate two dimensions of disruptions: disruption-of and disruption-for. While the former indicates those conflicts that lead to the fragmentation of social ties, the latter are those that “potentially give rise to new, deeper modes of intersubjectivity and social coordination (2020, p.367).” Some disruptions are intentionally orchestrated and performed to coordinate new lines of action or foster novel social relations. For example, when two flirtatious individuals tried to get rid of the limbo of “situationship” and transform themselves into romantic partners, one could “disrupt” the moment and seek clarification by confessing their feelings towards one another. This rupture is intrinsically inter-situational. That confession can lead to a new future between two lovers or forestall any potential interactions due to failed relational reciprocity, among many other possibilities. In that sense, a situational disruption transcends from one instance of interactions and redefines the mutual future commitments (or lack thereof) of involved actors. Situational disruptions are not unique to intimate settings like romantic life or small group meetings. People can retroactively mediate conflicts by revising earlier talks or using humor to make clever remarks while disrupting ongoing understanding. In other words, the rhythm of social life is imbricated with disruptions that provide meaningful guidance to different interactional junctures. Acknowledging the generative dimension of disruption-for prevents us from flattening successful social encounters to a sole accomplishment of careful situational alignments.

Likewise, I record how moments of public-spiritedness can erupt in seemingly apolitical situations in my research on Asian immigrant communities. A peaceful communal gathering may suddenly become a heated debate on contemporary politics. These disruptions may seem trivial, or at most, threatening communal harmony. Yet, these disruptions, once mitigated, slowly turn participants into politically conscious actors. They gradually invest time in incorporating politics into daily civic life, linking communal affairs to public concerns that are otherwise hidden in private conversations. Given the global trend of polarization and politicization in everyday discourses, this phenomenon should be unsurprising to many keen observers. With the proliferation of everyday political discussion, the conceptual argument of disruption-for helps us go beyond the traditional narrative of interpersonal conflicts. Disruptions are not inherently discouraged or incompatible with our ideal social life. Sometimes, they are part of what makes a situation special, providing meaning for us to move onward. In the interdisciplinary spirit of CFCP, we should recognize and examine the moral and sociological consequences when people creatively disrupt situational definitions for new interactional possibilities.