Handling the Discontinuous Aspects of Continuous Social Relationships: Toward Research on the...

Stuart J. Sigman

Communication Theory

One: Two

May 1991

Pages: 106-127

Handling the Discontinuous Aspects of Continuous Social Relationships: Toward Research on the Persistence of Social Forms

This essay describes selected features of the behavioral construction of long-term relationships. A distinction is advanced between the life history o i a social relationship and the interactional co-presence of the relationship partners. The logics of relationship-based behavior and interaction-based behavior are thus contrasted. Some social relationships are defined by their communities as continuous, that is, as extending beyond the moments when the partners are in face-to-face interaction with each other. Three spatiotemporal frameworks, in which devicesfor constructing the continuity of social relationships in anticipation of, during, or subsequent to periods of physical and interactional non-co-presence, are discussed. The implications of this perspective for the study of strategic communication and of the continuity of other social forms are noted.

[Slymbols . . . serve as semiotic connectives among the levels m d parts of a system of action and between that system and its significant environment. We have been neglecting the role of symbols in establishing connexity between the different levels of a narrative structure.

(Turner, 1980, p. 145)

This essay is intended to point to a phenomenon associated with social relationships whose natural history extends across numerous interactions and over a considerable period of time. The concern is with the repetitive creation, recre- ation, and presentation of dyadic and group affiliations, inore specifically, with the continuity that structures and defines these social re1 ationships. As will be argued below, units of multiple-channel behavior are used by relationship members in establishing and signalling their sense of the continuity of their relationships and the attendant sentiments.

Accounting for the relative persistence or continuity of social forms (such as social relationships) is a classic sociological concern. Simmel (1898a) writes: “The fact referred to by the phrase ‘immortality of the group’ is of the greatest importance. . . . [Tlhe life of the group has no . . . a priori fixed time limit, and its forms are really arranged as though they were to last forever . . . ” (p. 671). More recently, Giddens (1984) suggests that the concern for continuity should be phrased as follows: “The fundamental question of social theory . . . is to explicate how the limitations of individual ‘presence’ ;ire transcended by the ‘stretching’ of social relations across time and space” (p. 3 5). Such “stretching” is made possible by patterned information flow (Birdwhistell, 1970; Eco, 1973;

106

Discontinuous Aspects of Social Relationships

Sigman, 1987), the regulated production and display of meaningful forms in diverse spatial and temporal contexts. From this view, communication is continuous not simply because all behavior in the presence of others is potentially informative (cf. Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson’s [ 19671 notion that “one can- not not communicate”) but in the more potent sociological or systems sense that behavioral units transcend specific face-to-face engagements and any particular individual performer, that they comprise a repertoire that is differentially ern- ployable across contexts, and thus are relatively enduring phenomena sui generis (cf. Durkheim, 1982).

By and large, social scientists recognize that the limits of human biology and mortality pose a number of serious problems for social-cultural systems. Chief among these problems is the apparent “need” for procedures that insure the orderly continuation of behavioral forms and institutions in the face of members’ incapacity, absence, or death (Radcliffe-Brown, 1965; Simmel, 1898a). Primary socialization, secondary socialization, and recruitment are three related methods by which the social-cultural heritage is passed (with whatever modifications) among generations, predictable persons are created, and vacant positions in the social structure are filled with capable persons. Yet, as Blumer’s (1969) articula- tion of symbolic interactionism warns, “stable and recurrent forms of joint action [such as relationships and institutions] d o not carry on automatically in their fixed form but have to be sustained by the meanings that people attach [through interaction and interpretation] to the type of situation in which the joint action reoccurs” (p. 59). In other words, the social-cultural fabric can be considered continuous, even though the constituent persons and interactional episodes are not; however, this continuity occurs only to the extent that members orient to and produce it.

To the extent that human relationships can be seen as social-cultural facts themselves, and not simply mediations and expressions of the partners’ individual cognitive and affective states (cf. Harre, Clarke & De Carlo, 1985), then the reality of any one such relationship imposes constraints and obligations on the partners’ behavior. From this perspective, relationship members are not only confronted by the agendas and intentions of their partners but also by more abstract (i.e., socioculturally general) demands. The social-cultural reality of relationships involves a “problem” for the co-members: reification of the relationship itself, maintenance of the particular form the reality of the relationship takes both for the partners and for other persons, and establishment of the continuity of the tangible existence of the relationship across space and time, that is, both when the co-members are in each other’s interactional presence and when they are absent from each other.

Berger and Luckmann (1966) point out that there is a need for conversational mechanisms to maintain social reality, moreover for such mechanisms to produce feelings of continuity in society members at a subjective and personal level. Similarly, Zerubavel(l979) writes that prior to departures relationship members “need to convey to one another that the interactional void which is to follow should be regarded only as a temporary suspension of the relationship, and by no means as its end” (pp. 39-40). Consistent with the argument above, if such

107


“needs” exist, they are most likely occasioned by, and their behavioral requirements satisfied by, the syntactic (syntagmatic) and semantic (paradigmatic) patterning of human relationships in particular social-cultural communities (cf. Goffman, 1971; HarrC, 1989; H a r d et al., 1985; Sigman, 1987). That is, these needs ought not be ascribed an individual-psychological existence or derivation independent of social-cultural process and structure. Relationship continuity - members’ sense of it and the forms it takes-is thus accomplished by the availability and employment of a repertoire of social-semiotic Tokens.

This perspective contrasts with one of the dominant thrusts of the relational communication literature. It can be suggested that most studies of communication and social relationships seem to confuse interactional and relational bound- aries, that is, respectively, the reality of relationships created by face-to-face interaction and the reality (if any) of relationship itself outside and apart from any particular interactional event. While there has recently been considerable attention paid to the communication behavior evident at particular stages of relationship development (e.g., initiation, transition to heightened intimacy, and termination), such research primarily views the behavior that relationship partners direct toward each other. Relationships are studied with reference to the seemingly discrete moments and behaviors of persons’ face-to-face engagements. As Owen (1987) observes, “a guiding assumption in relational communication research is that talk defines or formulates relationships and . . . in the personal day-to-day nature of relational interaction these definitions are worked through in conversations” (p. 124). Research operating within this framework is important because it dereifies and demystifies relationships, preferring to see them as social forms that require “negotiation,” “construction,” and/or “accomplishment.” Nevertheless, there is a danger in research that limits relationships to interaction or treats relationships and interaction as largely synonymous.

The present essay is founded on the assumption that relationships do not cease after the face-to-face events (conversations) engaged in by co-members are terminated. In a sense, relationships are ‘‘larger’’ than the physical presence or interactional accessibility of the participants. Social relationships can therefore be said to be continuous, or to be oriented to and produced as such by relationship partners.

This argument for the nonequivalence of interaction and relationship can be related to recent thinking about the organization of communication. Communi- cation behavior can be thought of as organized by, and functioning within, three grammatical systems or orders (cf. Goffman, 1983; Sigman, 1987). These orders-the semiotic, the interaction, and the social-govern the presence and/ or absence of particular behavior in particular contexts. Units of behavior may be produced and defined by only one, by two, or by all three orders simultane- ously. Yet, the logics (structural principles) of the three orders are distinct: “The interaction order provides a structure for face-to-face discourse; the social order for the social division of labor and responsibility [and associated identity formation]; and the semiotic order, the grammar of particular channels of communication” (Sigman, 1987, p. 61).

The present essay hypothesizes that, while much of the communication sus-

108


taining the social order activity of relationship construction is intertwined with the interaction order processes sustaining face-to-face engagement, there are ele- ments of the social order with regard to relationship construction that are not shared with the interaction order. Specifically, as argued above, social relationships do not necessarily cease to exist when the members cease being in each other’s physical and interactional co-presence. This latter condition refers to situations in which “there is manifested a decrease in the abundance of symptoms through which the conscious life of another is accessible to me” (Schutz & Luckmann, 1973, p. 69). The question is therefore raised: How is this continuity of social relationships across interactional hiatuses organized and maintained?

The answer that is drawn in this essay is relationship continuity constructional units, pieces of behavior that precede, occur during, and succeed moments of relationship members’ interactional nonengagement and serve to define the relationship as a continuous one despite the absence of face-to-face engagement. Relationship continuity constructional units can be thought of as a class of behaviors related to Goffman’s (1971) “tie-signs.’’ Tie-signs are “evidence about relationships, that is, about ties between persons, whether involving objects, acts, [or] expressions” (p. 194). Both relationship continuity constructional units and tie-signs are signals of relationship attachments. However, one obvious difference between the two is that the tie-signs of primary concern to Goffman are operable within moments of relationship members’ interactional co-presence, while the continuity units discussed here are devices to transcend the limitations of co-presence.’

The remainder of this essay is developed along the following lines: first, the various sociological conditions accounting for interactional hiatuses are discussed and, second, a functional categorization of relationship continuity constructional units is presented from the standpoint of three spatiotemporal frameworks.

Relationship Definitions and Interactional Non-Co-Presence Social relationships can be differentiated on the basis of the constraints they place on the non-co-present time of the members, that is, on the degree to which they require continuity constructional units and which kinds. Schutz and Luckmann (1 973), arguing from a phenomenological sociological perspective, suggest that social relationships are not continuous but rather that they are “repeatable” and “restorable.” This means that relations between persons “form not an unbroken course but rather a series” (p. 71).

Whether a relationship is treated as continuous or retrievable would seem to be a matter of social-cultural definitions and of the emotional attachments derived from these definitions that particular persons experience for their relationships. Zerubavel (1979) suggests, for example, that hospital physicians- at least in “our” culture (middle class, North America)- are expected to be accessible to their patients, so that after business hours there must be some accessibility mechanism. This is less the case for American public school teachers, whose time

109

Theory

away from classroom students is minimally defined by behavioral obligations to the latter.’ Husband-wife relationships are considered continuous, while the relationship the homemaker has with the mail carrier is usually considered only retrievable. Similarly, how “serious” a boyfriend and girlfriend are will be related to the demands and expectations for non-co-present time that can be placed on each partner. In this respect, it is noteworthy that persons who confuse relationship types (e.g., by treating a discontinuous relationship as if it were continuous, by taking it “too seriously”) are considered inappropriate and even pathological, as is perfectly evidenced in the film Fatal Attraction. Thus, the two categories can be applied differentially to social relationships; some social relationships are continuous, while others are only restorable.

In this manner, it can be seen that social relationships are defined by and organized around the related spatiotemporal features of interactional co-presence and interactional absence. Simmel (1898b) suggests that some such “differentia- tion” is needed in order to protect the unity and integrity of a particular sociological form: “Thus it is often remarked that friendship, love, and marriage need occasional interruptions in order to get a true realization of their meaning and intimacy (Festzgkezt), after reconciliation” (p. 47). Some social relationships are based only on the interactional presence of both parties, such as the relationship between a door-to-door salesperson and an individual home d ~ e l l e r . ~ Spouse relationships, on the other hand, place behavioral obligations on the partners during moments of interactional presence and absence, and, from this perspective, require the construction of some overarching relational continuity. Finally, some relationships are defined overwhelmingly by the atisence of interaction (a factory worker and a security guard). Interactional Non-co-presences Before pursuing specific behavioral tokens that serve as relationship continuity constructional units, it may be useful to describe briefly some of the conditions under which interactional absences occur. Briefly stated, interactional hiatuses in social relationships, that is, moments when members of social relationships are not available for face-to-face interaction, derive froin the sociological fact that each member’s other social identity obligations intrude on the relationship, or that the role obligations defined by the relationship itself provide a further obligation for the relationship members to assume additional identities and tasks apart from each other. An example of the former is participation in a volunteer firefighter’s association, which requires certain times for training, practice, and performance away from the target relationship otherwise being constructed as continuous. The latter explanation can be seen in such cases as when a wife becomes pregnant and at some point becomes a hospiral patient, or when a husband or wife assumes the role of “breadwinner” for the family and, in con- junction with the responsibilities of that identity, becomes a paid employee outside the home. This second category of interactional absences can be stated more generally: as part of a relationship’s division of labor, there may be obligations for temporary non-co-presences, as in the case of the parimer who is responsible for taking out the garbage on a nightly basis.

Tolerance for, and acceptance of, the relative patterning of face-to-face pres-


ences and absences can be considered indices of relational health, definition, and development by the community. Some relationships and relationship co-members seem to avoid non-co-present moments. Couples who are “always in each other’s presence” may be considered pathological, at least in Western society, especially beyond a certain level or stage of romantic i n v ~ l v e m e n t . ~

There are a number of dimensions for analyzing the non-co-presence of relationship members. These dimensions enable us (as both members and observers of relationships) to understand the particular continuity units used in transitions from and to co-present and non-co-present engagements, as well as to decipher the underlying logic of the relationship. Three of these dimensions are whether the absence is (1) anticipated or unanticipated; (2) rule governed or rule break- ing; and (3) temporary or permanent.

Anticipated absences are those that are repetitive, part of the “normal” functioning of the relationship, and ones for which some prior planning may be involved. Husbands and wives who are also workers outside the home find their relationships punctuated by a daily schedule imposed by their employers. These punctuations are predictable, and, as discussed below, may give rise to expected preabsence routines. This example contrasts with such absences as result from being taken hostage, falling ill and being hospitalized, or running off with the boss’s spouse, all of which are not regular occurrences and not events for which plans are routinely made. (It should be noted, however, that wills, certifications of power of attorney, and prenuptial agreements acknowledge the possibility of interactional inaccessibility to some degree and define obligations during the absence).

Second, interactional absences can be judged for the degree of social sanctioning, or rule governedness, behind them. While this dimension partially overlaps the preceding one, it is nevertheless worth noting separately for the circumstances that legitimate interactional hiatuses. Rule-governed absences may be those that belong to the everyday workings of the relationship and the external social pressures that may be placed on it (e.g., work outside the home), but not all acceptable absences or accounts of absences are of necessity anticipated. For example, emergency hospitalization and assumption of the “sick role” may legiti- mately remove certain pressures from a relationship partner without the resulting absence having been anticipated or planned (cf. Beuf, 1979; Parsons, 1966).

Finally, there is a temporal dimension to be considered when discussing presences and absences of relationship members. Although most of the interactional absences to be discussed in this article are temporary and of relatively short duration (e.g., those involving such activities as going to work, driving the children to school, taking out the garbage), the transition to some absences may include assumptions of relative longevity and even permanence. This permanent (or semipermanent) juncture between interactional presences is not necessarily associated with a relationship “termination,” although there may be some redefinition of the respective obligations of the members toward each other and the relationship concept. An example of this is that, as part of matriculation at college, it is expected that one will eventually graduate and leave. The quasi- permanent absences resulting from graduation can be “remedied” to some degree

111


through participation in reunions and alumni newsletters. Nevertheless, the relationship between a college and its alumni is defined overwhelmingly by a previous record of interactional presence and a contemporary assumption of absence. In this regard, campus “hangers on,” those persons who do not complete whatever obligations would lead to graduation and relationship redefinition (e.g., by finishing their dissertations), are usually considered persons not to be emulated.

It should be noted that the issue I am raising here may not, technically speaking, be one of physical separation, but rather one of unmediated interactional accessibility. Telecommunications media (including here telephoning, video con- ferencing, and computer-aided messaging) may not simply be devices that bridge physical absences the way a greeting card or letter does, but they may actually permit moments of relationship co-presence, a diminution of space-time distanc- ing altogether. Telephone calls and interactive telecomputing, for example, enable a kind of “real time” give and take, enabling persons to transcend the limits of space and time in ways that letters, telegrams, and the like do not approxi- mate. For the most part, this article does not examine the impact on relationships and relationship continuities of such telemediated interactional co-presence.

In brief, relationships can be seen to define and regulate various moments of interactional presence and absence among their members. These moments of absence may be anticipated or not, rule governed or not, and temporary or not.

Categories of Relationship Continuity Constructional Units An initial segmentation of the continuous stream of relationship construction is attempted in this section. Given the present focus on the distinction between units of behavior that organize face-to-face interactional events and those that organize interpersonal relationship more generally, it may be useful to isolate for consideration those moments in which relationships are apparently sustained despite a hiatus in interactional accessibility. The present discussion therefore divides relationship continuity constructional units into three categories from the standpoint of temporal placement vis-A-vis an interactional absence: (1) prospective units; (2) introspective units; and (3) retrospective units. Strictly speaking, this listing does not comprise a taxonomy, a set of mutuallly exclusive categories. Rather, it is best viewed as a framework for studying the temporal placement of behavior and how behavior units function in the building of relationship continuity. Prospective Units Prospective units are segments of behavior that precede physical separation on the part of the relationship co-members. These units define the meaning and duration of the impending separation and of the likely return. Farewells of varying degrees of expansiveness (e.g., “Bye,” “Don’t forget tat write,” “See you next time,” “Take care, have a good trip. I’ll be thinking of you. Call when you get back,”) constitute the lay category for prospective constructional units (cf. Goffman, 1971).

112


The closing of face-to-face interaction involves both the termination of one kind of social encounter (a co-present one) and the transition to and initiation of another (a non-co-present one). Kendon (1986), in summarizing and extending Goffman’s sociology of interaction, suggests that certain actor vulnerabilities surrounding transitions are handled by closing rituals:

To close a conversation, one party does not simply turn off his receivers, but an elaborate process of forewarning of closure is gone through, prior agreement to close is sought and entered into, and the closing ceremony itself is hedged about with expressions that mutually assure the participants that the severing of the communication channels that is about to take place does not imply that neither will be willing to re-open them in the future, should circumstances permit. (p. 34; emphasis added)

Such behavior, along with channel openings at the onset of an interactional episode, “serve[s] as means whereby the worthiness of the participants is given recognition” (Kendon 1986, p. 34). In other words, the import of the interactional cessation for the social relationship and for the members’ reciprocal respect for identity are embedded in “goodbyes.”

Terminations of interaction may establish agendas or programs for behavior subsequent to the closing (Scheflen, 1968; Sigman, 1983). Just as the formal closing of a small task group’s meeting may establish the date, time, structure, and content of the next meeting, so informal interaction among relationship members may contain some future projections. These projections establish, among other things, a schedule for the next co-presence, its time frame and definition of situation (e.g., what the circumstances of the return will be like), as well as expectations for the meaning and duration of the non-co-presence (especially that the physical separation will most likely to temporary). When parents tell their young children how to behave and to attend to their babysitter, and what the consequences of not so acting are, the parents are in effect establishing (or confirming) a set of interaction possibilities in the face of the impending absence. Such projections may also serve as reassurance that the absence, of whatever duration, is not anticipated as a permanent one, and certainly that the children owe various relationship obligations to the parents even during the absence and vis-A-vis others (such as the babysitter).

The following are additional examples of prospective units:

1. Overheard in a hospital waiting room: “Nurse, I’ll be home if Mr. Smith’s

2. Overheard on campus: “See you at the party tonight.” condition improves.”

It should be noted that not all agenda establishments occur declaratively. Such questions as, “Will you be at the party Saturday night?” “What will you do while I’m at the dentist’s office?” and “Are you going to the meeting next week?” all may serve to negotiate the parameters (meaning, duration, and likelihood) of physical separation and future face-to-face encounters.

The proffering of prospective units is associated with the relationship members’ moral accountability toward each other and toward the relationship. Con-

113


sider, for example, the case of a son who tells his parents that he is about to take the garbage out. Such an announcement may derive from a relationship rule for accountability: relationship members are held responsible for reports and knowledge of where they are and what they are doing, although the conditions for reporting such information may vary across members. In order to provide for this accountability during a momentary physical absence, relationship members prospectively define the absence. As noted by Zerubavel (1979), relationships define the accessibility of their members to each other. Thus, prospective continuity units serve to recognize that absent members may be “on call” and to structure activities for making them available.

Closely related to these projections onto the future is the relationship members’ employment of artifacts. Material objects will be discussed in greater detail under the section on introspective units, but since such objects may initially derive from moments preceding a separation, they may take on some properties of, and therefore be worthy of analysis as, prospective units as well. Material objects that provide a sense of continuity and of likelihood of return (i.e., return to interactional co-presence) function either as tokens or as spoors. A token, such as a wedding band or high school ring worn as a necklace charm, symbolizes the unity of the relationship and is often offered during some ceremony. A spoor, in contrast, can be defined as an object that is left behind and that indexes the prior physical presence of an individual in some location. Leaving one’s toothbrush in one’s lover’s bathroom, or one’s favorite coffee mug or sweater, establishes some claim on the latter’s territory, and some claim for future use of that territory.

As with all behavior, spoors are potentially ambiguous. This is because they project inconclusively the return of the individual. The first time that a spoor is left behind, and the overall strategy for doing this, are aprly described by Glum- our magazine:

A . . . significant bridge is built when we leave a little something personal behind at one another’s place. Whether it’s a favorite brand of mustard, a toothbrush or an extra shirt I think many women and men see cross-pollination of apartments as welcome progress in a relationship. It carries overtones of reassuring familiarity, domesticity and everyday life that quietly confirm a serious romance. . . . When many women sense some reluctance on their boyfriend’s part, they take it as a sign that he’s afraid of commitment. . . . If you decide to push ahead, tact is a good idea. It may be best to g.ive a little yell from the bathroom: “Mind if 1 leave my hairbrush next to yours?” If you sense a misfire, it’s not necessarily time for a heart-to-heart. You may just want to quieidy retrieve your personal effects. O n the other hand, you may decide he’s just too stiff and distant for your taste- and move your hairbrush elsewhere. (“Man’s Opinion,” 1984, p. 210)

It should be noted that spoors can be left by or on behalf #of a person, as when a householder buys a special bathrobe for one’s occasional evening guest.

There is a functional difference between tokens and spoors. For the most part, tokens are symbols whose communicative force is externally directed, that is, toward persons who witness or interact with one of the relationship members during the latter’s absence from his or her partner. In contrast, spoors tend to

114


have a more local or internal direction, that is, toward the co-member of the relationship itself.

Rosaldo (1982) provides an interesting contrast in the use and power of artifacts among the Ilongots of the Philippines:

[Rlegular appeal to an external (although not “supernatural”) constraint is used by Ilongots to secure agreements that they forge by tying knots in strings to count the days until encounter (getur). When such arrangements fail, blame will most likely fall, not on the individuals involved, but on the string itself. (p . 220)

In brief, prospective relationship continuity constructional units anticipate impending interactional separation and provide some semiotic bridge across the separation to some future reencountering. The following list summarizes the most salient functions of prospective units:

1 . to signal an impending interactional separation, either by acknowledging its

2. to establish a time frame (i.e., duration) for the separation; 3. to establish a definition for the separation, by announcing or negotiating the

assumed (preferred) definition of the relationship, that is, the meaning of the relationship for the partner, during the separation, and by announcing or negotiating those activities to be allowably and/ or expectedly engaged in during the separation;’ and/or

4. to define expectations for reentry, that is, that there will be a future interactional event and what the conditions for such nonseparation are (an agenda).

upcoming appearance or by creating the likelihood of an absence;

introspective Units Introspective units of relationship continuity occur contemporaneously with the cessation of physical presence and interactional contact. They can be seen as reminders to the relationship partners of their continuing obligations to behave with regard for the relationship, and/or as signals to other co-present individuals of the person’s other social identities and obligations to non-co-present persons; as such, they are also appropriately viewed as “partials” (Birdwhistell, 1970; Sigman, 1987) constituting the relationship’s continuity. In this regard, consider the following observations made by Tompkins and Cheney (1983):

The [teaching assistant] . . . said that upon arriving on campus, he or she “wanted to

identify with the department and the university.” When visiting his or her home state, the [assistant] is proud to wear a Purdue T-shirt. “Everyone has heard of Purdue even if they know nothing of our department. When I’m here I never wear Purdue T-shirts, but when I’m home, I wear them every day. 1 take pride in identifying with Purdue and the department.” (p. 139)

A related and perhaps more common introspective unit is a wedding band. Both the university apparel and a gold ring serve to identify the wearer as someone with relationship affiliations and obligations, even when the other “ends” (Goff-


man, 1971) are not sensorially present.6 For many socioeconomic and ethnic groups, wedding bands are worn by both partners, thus providing for a conjoint construction of the relationship continuity. Further, wedding bands, unlike the example of the Purdue clothing, begin their life history with the start of a relationship (or, more accurately one particular definition and stage of a relationship), and to the extent that they are “never” taken off, truly symbolize and embrace the continuity of the relationship.

Other physical objects, clothing as well as ornaments, serve as introspective continuity units. Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) observe: “[Pos- sessions] serve to give a tangible expression and thus a continued existence through signs to one’s relationships, experiences and viilues” (p. 189). But as Simmel (1898a) warns, there is a potential for the destructability of the target relationship because of the destructability of the material objectification: “Many a regiment has lost its coherence with the loss of its standard” (p. 675).

My observations of Italian-American teenagers in New York City indicate that males with possession of a car may dangle a garter from their rear-view mirrors, one that was previously worn by their girlfriends, fiancees, or wives. My undergraduate female students in Buffalo, New York reported that the marked placement of a hair bow is used to signal relationship affiliation and continuity: a bow worn as a decorative necklace indicates that one is “going steady,” whether the target male is present or not, while a bow (even the identical one) worn in one’s hair does not. The study of the social life of photographs, such as pictures of one’s family members placed on a book shelf or desk at one’s place of employment or in a grandparent’s “brag book,” demonstrates the power that iconic artifacts have in signalling for others the presence of relatiomhip obligations toward the persons depicted or portrayed (Messaris, n.d.).

It is important to note that affiliative artifacts may refer either to a specific social relationship (as in the case of a wedding band) or to a general group membership (homosexuals wearing one ring in their right ear or Catholics wearing a crucifix). In either case, artifacts construct the partial identity of a person through his or her affiliation with some target population of whatever size and construct the continuity of that affiliation.

Admittedly, introspective artifacts can be observed in use even when the relationship membership( s) and continuity have been terminated. The demise of a bowling league, or one’s withdrawal from membership in a league, does not necessarily preclude one from wearing the league jacket. In this case, the artifact takes on the status of a fossil or souvenir rather than of a continuity marker and may be recognized as such by others. Indeed, persons wearing artifacts from defunct relationships or memberships may be called upon I:O explain their present identities. It is not surprising, from this perspective, to fi.nd demands made for certain artifacts to be returned to their donors or be ‘‘retired” altogether when the relationship and/or one’s membership in it is terminated. A clear example of this is the return of whatever engagement presents had been exchanged (in middle-class America, a diamond ring for a woman and a watch for a man) when the engagement for relationship continuity (marriage) is ceased.

As described above, spoors are an important form of irelationship continuity

1 I6


constructor; they take on special significance as introspective units during interactional separations. While spoors may be planned for and/or left behind during the concluding moments of physical co-presence by the relationship members, and so in this sense take on properties of prospective units, they are also found in use during the moments of physical non-co-presence, and so act as introspective units. As introspective units, spoors serve as placeholders, that is, markers of someone’s previous physical presence in a location now solely occupied by this person’s relationship partner and proposals for the former’s likely return to co-presence. In this regard, spoors build a sense of continuity by bridging the relationship’s interaction history and future. However, certain spoors are de- signed to invoke a relationship’s development and past, and leave ambiguous (or unknown) its future; in this sense, they may not provide an adequate continuity construction, with adequacy defined from the participants’ standpoint .’ The remainders of one’s cologne on someone’s bedding, or one’s hair shavings in the sink, clearly reference past behavior but d o not necessarily establish upcoming courses of action. Hence, to expand upon Glamour magazine’s strategic recom- mendations cited above (“Man’s Opinion,” 1984), persons should leave behind something that is worthy of being retrieved (e.g., a silk necktie) or whose meaning rests on an assumption of additional subsequent face-to-face encounters (e.g., buying a coffee mug or second toothbrush to leave in one’s lover’s apartment) in order to insure the semantics of continuity.

T w o other aspects of introspective constructional units can be noted. First, there is the class of behaviors in which some mediated contact between relationship members is established to be briefly mentioned. The modern-day greeting card industry, and AT&T’s “reach out and touch someone” campaign for long- distance telephoning, are clear examples of the industrial base that is involved in engendering mediated contact between persons otherwise physically absent. Some of these cases (especially the use of cards, letters, and other mailed items) bear some similarity to the constructional artifacts already described in that a physical object exists and remains. Other cases (such as telephone calls and interactive computer mail) bear some similarity to the structural arrangements for interaction found under co-present circumstances.

Second, persons who are absent remind themselves of their relationship commitments and/or signal these reminders to others, thereby constructing the continuity of the relationship by behaviorally and cognitively orienting to that relationship. Such orientations involve decisions to engage or not engage in some particular behavior “because of’ or “on account of’ the existence and continuation of some prior relationship and/or to interpret some experience “in light of” the relationship continuity. While this orientation on the part of members reifies the relationship, that is, it takes it as a “given,” in doing so it also actively constructs the relationship and so dereifies it. Rakow’s (1986) ethnographic data seem to indicate that coffee-klatsching about husbands and children among neighbor women is a way to maintain the importance of the relationship with the former (husbands and children) in the face of their momentary absences. The following anecdote documents the power of relationships to “determine” the nature of one’s experiences during absences:

117

Communication Theorv

I observed that my tone of inner voice [in thinking “The lumpins’rc: in flower”] and the hinted smile of my facial muscles had formed that utterance for the woman I had left behind in Los

Angeles. . . . One component of our relationship was my reporting on experiences while away, my talking about them in the ways our particular relationship made appropriate. . . . Part of my loyalty to her was inspecting the world in ways that would make visible the kinds ofeventssheshould be told about. (Moerman, 1 9 8 8 , ~ . 113)

Note, however, that not all relationships perforce striicture one’s experiences during interactional absences. Winkin’s (1979) data o n foreign students in the United States demonstrate a pattern of behavioral “time out” before the students return to their native countries. Such time-out behavior represents an orientation on the part of the students to the retrievability of the relationship with their families and the homeland and a willingness to interrupt (albeit temporarily) the obligations to the homeland and its people while away in another country. During the period of separation, which is often prepared for years in advance by the students and their families, the students orient to the primacy of immediately co-present relationships over preexisting ones.

In sum, introspective units occur when persons engage in communication behavior, instrumental tasks, and social episodes that e.rist away from and beyond their relationships with particular others. Introspective units enable persons to construct the continuity of those relationships, ancl their loyalties to and obligations under the definitions of those relationships, by providing a set of tokens that signal to others and/or remind the partners themselves of the existence of those relationships. Introspective continuity constructional units engen- der the means for persons to orient to those relationships and thus to “keep them going.’’ Introspective units

1. identify the existence or prior relationships and obligations during moments of interactional absence from co- members;

2. define experiences during an absence as ones that are accountable to, and thus informed by, prior (and ongoing) relationship commitments; and/or

3. prepare the relationship co-members for the anticipated eventual return to interaction and the behavioral obligations that will be encountered therein.

Retrospective Units When persons jointly involved in some relationship reencounter each other after some period of absence (of whatever duration), the ensuing interaction provides them with opportunities to sustain that relationship and its history. Those constructional units that are employed retrospectively, thal: is, with regard for the previous and ongoing existence of the relationship a n d / o r the recent period of interactional non-co-presence, may be interwoven within the organizational fabric of greeting routines and access rituals (cf. Goffman, 1971; Kendon & Ferber, 1973; Schegloff, 1968). Nevertheless, they represent the participants’ production and contribution of behavior that serves not merely to ratify co-presence and interactional availability but also to confirm the participants as members of some conjointly experienced history.

118


The acknowledgment of the physical presence of persons and the treatment of those persons with regard to their sensorial potential for interaction are not acts that in and of themselves serve as retrospective behavior. If a person comes home after being away at work for an entire day, proceeds to introduce him- or herself to his or her significant other, asks for that person’s name in return, and so forth, then the person is not treating the relationship as having a history or the other person as having some stake in that relationship history. Such treatment brings with it no prior knowledge and defines the co-participant as someone with whom interaction and relationship must be started anew. Jurick (1977) defines the relevant membership category as follows: “Members are those present in the current setting whom other members can name, that is, identify and describe specifically, and whose presence in that setting is taken-for-granted’’ (p. 25). Relationship retrospection thus points to the powerful social obligations that are placed on cognition, in specific, on memory (for an examination of pathological cases, see Sacks, 1987). There may (must) be some “re-enactment’’ (Jurick, 1977) of the relationship and/or a willingness to partake of relational taken-for-granted information (Garfinkel, 1967), thereby serving to define the nature, duration, and history of the relationship.

Moerman’s (1988) ethnographic description of his return to a Thai village after several years’ absence demonstrates the negotiation between the native villagers and an accompanying district officer over whether the ethnographer would be viewed as a foreign economic consultant or a friend. For the villagers, relationship retrospection was accomplished by references to “the old stories” (p. 75) told by their fathers, “adverting to a history the villagers, but not [the district officer], share[d] with MM [the anthropologist], reporting what villagers and MM did together without any official orders, and phrasing the activity in terms of kinship and personal relationships” (p. 81) , and by references to ethnic rice preparations. Moerman suggests that the villagers invoke a concept similar to Schutz’s (1964) “life at home” (p. ill), in which each participant “has the chance to re-establish the we-relation if interrupted, and to continue as if no intermittance had occurred” (quoted in Moerman, 1988, p. 75) . Such data present the complexities of the phenomenology and interactivity of relationship continuity: the villagers and the anthropologist are not in a continuous relationship but rather the villagers assist in the constrtlction of the relationship as continuous by constituting the anthropologist as a person worthy of return.

This behavior can be seen to contrast yet interact with what various research- ers have examined as conversational “openings” and “greetings” (cf. Kendon & Ferber, 1973; Schegloff, 1968). Kendon and Ferber (1973), working from film of naturally occurring interactions, describe the various steps and behaviors comprising a greeting. They note that “which parts of the [greeting] programme are enacted is a function both of the situation that is prevailing, and also of the relationship that prevails between the greeters” (p. 661). Such considerations as on whose territority a greeting occurs, who travels the farthest distance to greet, and whether handshakes or hugs are exchanged may be associated with the participants’ social relationship.

In addition to the intermingling of greetings and retrospection, there are

119


routines that directly provide for the historical nature of .an encounter, by reenactment of the prior relationship and/or acknowledgmenc- of such a relationship history.

Relationship reenactment and continuity construction may occur through the employment of the following retrospective devices: the “reading of minutes”; “catching up”; invocation of taken-for-granted relationship knowledge; the reference to and employment of agendas; and the presentation and/or exchange of material items.

The reading of minutes refers to activity in which aspects of the immediately preceding period of physical and interactional co-presence are mentioned during interaction following the hiatus. Just as task groups and other organizational entities recapitulate accomplishments (in the broadest sense) of their prior meetings, in part as a way of establishing a continuity between work undertaken and yet to be undertaken, so relationships without a formal secretary to record “minutes” may nonetheless rehash to varying degrees of specificity what happened during their previous interaction. Sullivan’s (1989) ethnographic data on women attending home sales parties who are acquainted with each other indicate that an “ongoing experience may become one of a number of activities that one has done with one’s relatives, co-workers, neighbors, etc., and thus may develop as a resource to be drawn on in . . . constructing future interactional events”(p. 10).

A variation on the reading of minutes can be found -when individuals from one occasion of contact enter a second one and provide some behavioral link between the previous occasion and the current one. For example, after attending a party, some form of critique or review of it the following day may bridge the hiatus between the previously shared interaction experience and the current one. Such remarks as, and subsequent dialogue derived from, “I really enjoyed the concert last night” and “Wasn’t that party a drag?” can came to serve as bridges. (Note also the manner in which the occasion-“that party”- is formulated, that is, as one that requires co-participation for disambiguation of the anaphoric referent).

Use of such bridging units may be especially necessary (or useful) for relationships that combine several spheres of self, for example, professional and social, as evidenced by co-participation in a dinner party on Saturday night and work on Monday. Under such circumstances, the employment of retrospective units may signal that the relationship is stable in the face of contrasting contexts. This bridging behavior may be especially valuable when some conflicts or assaults to relationship continuity may have occurred during the first co-presence and resolidification of the relationship is necessary at a later meeting: for example, business partners needing to reconfirm their intentions and the relationship from which these derive after having wined, dined, and ingratiated themselves before a prospective client the previous evening. (Admittedly, signals of discontinuity may be desired at some times, as when a “closeted” homosexual male does not signal recognition of his previous evening’s partner when out with his family the next day. As Goffman (1971) notes: “The couple relation is exclusive and when new relations of this kind are formed by persons already paired, concealment of relationship formation is likely lest the betrayal be betrayed” [p. 2091.)

120


Recapitulating a previous encounter’s minutes may also prove cognitively and behaviorally useful for persons who did not attend a previous encounter (and for those who attended but have forgotten what transpired) but may nevertheless be held accountable for the information therein exchanged and for the continuity of that information and the group’s interaction. The reading of minutes thus takes on a conversational cueing function, that is, it serves to indicate that the group’s relationship has a history, that the current interaction business is not new, and that this business may be contingent upon previous interaction. The accountability that absent persons feel toward the information contained in previous interactional encounters, as well as the obligation felt by members who were present a t the encounter to inform the previously absent person of the goings-on, can be thought of as belonging to the general set of “reportability” requirements sustaining the relationship (Sigman, 1983, 1987). The reading of minutes specifically refers to the periods of co-present interaction, and represents a subset of a more general reportability that is concerned with information and experiences during both co-presences and absences.

Conversation subsequent to a reentry may also provide the relationship partners with opportunities to catch up on experiences that transpired during the period of physical absence. In and of itself, telling persons about events that may not bear directly on the relationship as currently constituted or on the activities of any one of the individual partners, does not serve as a retrospective constructor of the relationship. It might be argued, however, that catching up enables persons to acknowledge and learn about information regarding the period of non-co-presence that may become part of the background or taken-for-granted knowledge that will tacitly inform subsequent interaction. In this respect, the unit that is retrospective (in that it refers to information “in the past”) also has a prospective quality to it (in that it projects the likelihood of future interaction and the need to know what information can be taken as “given” for that subsequent interaction); catching up thus functions as a powerful continuity constructor by converging the past with the future.

In addition, retrospective information that is interactionally shared and created during reentry is partially imposed by, and thus may be consistent with, the reportability rules of the relationship. Each relationship has a slightly different configuration of reportability requirements, and each reportability requirement represents (or creates) an expectation for the partners to listen to certain amounts of reporting about what occurred during the physical separation: that is, a wife telling her husband about their baby’s first words, neighbors watching each other’s vacation slide/photo presentations, and the like. Moerman (1988) writes: “[Tlhe activity of ‘being friends’ requires showing that one monitors and takes an interest in the world of the other. In American middle-class culture. . . , it is proper for guests to notice, and hosts to acknowledge, changes in how the host’s home is furnished or decorated” (p. 23). Consider the following extract of a transcript from Craig and Tracy (1983):

K: Nah, it’s not worth it. I’m in to ((laughing)) practical-a lot of times/ B: Umm. (pause) Have you heard anything about your internship. Speaking of practical. =

121

Communicdrion Theory

K: =Urn:::. No 1 forgot to call about that. B: Urn hmm/((tone of mock reprimand)) And that was very bad you’ll have to call about

that today (p. 311)

In this dialogue, B reminds K of a previously shared topic (the internship) and indicates continuing concern for information about it.

Key here to our understanding of the role of the behavior as a continuity constructional unit is that the reportability requirements informing the process of catching up are generalized requirements that transcend particular moments of interaction (Sigman, 1987). As such, adherence to and invocation of reportability constraints become the informational embodiment of the process of keep- ing the relationship and its obligations continuous.

In addition to relying on their assumptions about reportability, relationship members employ relationship-specific background knowledge in their intrrac- tions with each other. This invocation of taken-for-granted information is not just the use of commonly held social-cultural knowledge but the use of knowledge known (or presumed) to be shared by the co-members either through previous tellings or mutual experiences. It can be argued that such behavior represents not only a move by participants to adhere to rules for conversational relevance but also a signal of awareness of relationship history, specifically, that the relationship has a history (Sigman, 1983, 1987). Some examples are

1. walking into a bar: Bartender: “How about the usual?” Customer: “I’ll have the usual.”

2. walking into a doctor’s office: Doctor: “What’s wrong?” Patient: “Same as last time.”

The use of such available and ongoing information serves to deemphasize the previous physical separation and to underscore the stability of the relationship and its substantive (knowledge-based) obligations in the face of such separation. This is consistent with Schutz’s (1964) description of “the homecomer . . . [who] expects to return to an environment of which . . . he thinks [he] still has intimate knowledge which he has just to take for granted in order to find his bearings” (p. 106). This behavior provides a tie between events that are otherwise separated in space and time; it bridges 3nteractional events that are not contiguous by emphasizing the continuity of information. Such behavior indicates the ever-presence and viability of the rela tionship’s storehouse of knowledge and so acts as a mechanism to sustain the social relationship itself through time.

Closely related to the reading of minutes, catchin:; up, and adherence to reportability and background knowledge, is the invoc-ation of an agenda for the current occasion that was established prior to the interactional hiatus (i.e., prospectively). Agendas may structure and provide content for the post-hiatus interactional event. The invocation of an agenda serves as a relationship con-

I22

Discontinuous Aspecrs of Social Relationships

structional unit by picking up where things last were in the relationship’s interactions and by indicating that the current occasion is not one of starting from scratch. Whether an agenda represents the continuation of previous interaction work, or moves in directions that are not directly contingent upon the earlier activity, it does constitute a device that had been established prior to the separation. In those cases where the agenda directly picks up on activity previously begun, then the relationship continuity is inherent. In those cases where it does not directly derive from previous activity, then it acts as a sanctioning device for making a transition to a different activity or topic (just as does “not to change the topic, but . . . ”).

Finally, the presentation and exchange of material artifacts, which demonstrate that some awareness or acknowledgment of the relationship occurred during the physical separation, may serve as a retrospective continuity activity (cf. Malinowski, 19221 1961; Mauss, 1967). For example, in this participant obser- vation in a peer support group: Ray brings some muffins he baked to the Satur- day meeting, saying, “I thought you guys would like something to go with that instant coffee.” In general, doing things for a relationship when not in the presence of one’s partner(s) - that is, orienting to it both cognitively and behaviorally, preparing for subsequent co-presence, and then demonstrating or displaying such an orientation during the co-presence (because material objects permit such a temporal continuity, they are ideal for these purposes)- serves to configure the relationship as a continuous one.8

In brief, retrospective constructional units prescribe the meaning of the previous interactional event and/or the previous interactional absence and enact a returning to a social entity that has a history of previous interaction and relationship definition. Although they may appear in the opening phases of an interaction and may be fitted into the structural constraints of greetings and access routines (compare “Hello, honey, I’m home” and “Hello, my name is Jim Smith”), retrospective units evidence an additional functional component: they contrast with the opening phase for persons coming into interactional presence and relationship possibility for the first time by indexing in various ways conjoint history. Retrospective units concern the meaning and duration of the “termination” activity during the most recent co-presence, of the preceding absence, and/or of the present reentry, and do so for one’s relationship partner(s) and for others in hearing and seeing distance. With regard to their general functions, retrospective units serve to

1. recognize the previous physical separation; 2. acknowledge previous moments of co-presence; 3 . establish (negotiate) the meaning of the physical separation; 4. establish (negotiate) the meaning of the previous co-presence; 5. provide a transition from noninteraction to interaction with someone with

whom there is an ongoing relationship; and/or 6. enable the participants to identify themselves as the same persons and partici-

pants of the ongoing relationship and the prior interaction or to indicate the ways in which they are different and have changed.

123


Summary and Implications This essay examines the process by which long-term relationships are behaviorally constructed. In specific, the article advances a distinction between the life history of a relationship and the interactional co-presence of the relationship partners. It is suggested that some social relationships may extend beyond any particular face-to-face interactional moment engaged in by the relationship members. This extension occurs both spatially and temporally, so that relationships in general can be considered continuous social accomplishments despite the dis- continuities of members’ face-to-face encounters. From thi:; perspective, relationships are not simply products of the individuals’ psychological states but rather represent a social-cultural reality and form that place certain demands on members.

The article focuses on the units that function to build relationship continuity. The three categories of behavior are defined by temporal reference:

1. prospective behavior occurs among relationship members in anticipation of an interactional hiatus;

2. introspective behavior occurs within the period of an interactional hiatus, during which the relationship members act in considerat ion of the relationship as an ongoing and intact entity; and

3 . retrospective behavior is produced subsequent to an interactional hiatus.

The three types of relationship continuity constructional units are said to enable persons to orient to, and so accomplish, the through-time reality of their relationships with targeted others.

The reasoning in this article can be extended in a number of directions and, it is hoped, can be productive of new lines of communication research. First, the logic of continuity as a behavioral accomplishment can tie extended to social- cultural forms other than interpersonal relationships. Organizational and institu- tional entities, for example, corporations and churches, depend on the coordi- nated activity of their members, yet they may not be redulible to the co-present activity of any member. How is the reality of an organization or institution “stretched” across space, time, and personnel?

A second research direction involves comparative analysis. As described above, not all social relationships within a particular social-cultural system are defined as continuous, o r as requiring continuity construction. Which relationships in a given community are considered continuous, and which ones are not? What differences, if any, are there in the types of continuiry constructional units that are appropriate for each continuous relationship within a community? Com- parative research can also be conducted across social-cultural systems and across historical periods. What are the implications of differing expectations for the definition and behavioral accomplishment of continuous relationships for cross- cultural and cross-generational communication?

Third, the strategic employment of continuity constructional units must be addressed by future research. The present essay describes a general logic of continuity, that is, the background expectations for continuity that persons bring

I24


t o relationships. Yet, at any given moment communicators may make decisions to withhold continuity constructional units that are otherwise appropriate and expected, or produce continuity constructional units that are otherwise deemed inappropriate and unexpected. That is, the structural logic discussed here may be used by communicators for various strategic ends (cf. Goffman, 1959; Sand- ers, 1987). The manner in which continuity constructional units are embedded in the ongoing flow of communication, and the strategic functions of these units, are worthy of attention.

Stuart J . Sigman, Ph.D. is associate professor, jointly appointed in the Department of Communication and Department of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, at the State Univer- sity of New York at Albany, Business 220, Albany, N Y 12222. Earlier versions of this article were presented to the International Communication Association, Montreal, May, 1987, and to the Semiotic Society of America, Cincinnati, November, 1988. The author would like to thank the following colleagues who spent time reading and/or discussing this essay: Donald Cushman; Rom Hard; Robert Sanders; and Tim Stephen.

Author

’ Goffman (1971) writes that some tie-signs-family pictures stored in an attic or a name tatoo on one’s arm-may refer to relationships that no longer exist; he thus limits his analysis to “tie-signs whose composition requires the ends [members] to be currently present” and “provide evidence of the current character of the relationship” (p. 195; emphasis in original).

I remember being told by public school teachers, who were enrolled in my graduate courses at West Virginia University, that they were not allowed to be seen in public bars, even during “off hours.” The chance of running into a student on the street outside the bar forced them to do their sociable drinking in the town down the road. It was not uncommon to find teacher groups from neighboring communities passing each other on the highway as they proceeded to drinking establishments that assured them some degree of anonymity. ’ Although there is a dyadic bias to these examples, the more general point is that relational connections with varying numbers of members may be subject to rules for interactional presences and absences. Note also that social relationships need not be symmetri- cal; the definition and behavioral composition of a relationship for one partner may not be equivalent to those for the other(s).

Of course, the issue here is not whether such relationships are indeed dysfunctional but rather what the social-cultural definitions for persons’ moments of presence and absence are.

Robert Sanders (personal communication) suggests that not all behavior during interactional terminations prospectively constructs relationship continuity. Informing one’s secretary, “I’ll be back by three o’clock” or “See you in the morning,” enables him or her to carry out a job function (e.g., alerting callers to the time of the boss’s eventual return) and does not necessarily imply relationship obligations and continuity between the boss and secretary during the absence. Such potential cases of ambiguity require that, in order to understand how behavior may be functioning in a given setting, analysts examine tran- scripts of verbal leave-taking along with ethnographic (contextual) data collected over an extended time period.

All meaningful behavior, including the material items noted above, is vulnerable to misappropriation, that is, to exploitation by nonaffiliated or nonrelevant parties. So, most university stores allow any customer to purchase clothing and insignias without producing identification. Conversely, many of my undergraduate females report removing engagement or wedding rings during employment interviews in order to permit denial of relationship attachments and (from the perspective of some employers) entanglements. The strategic manipulation of behavior does not invalidate the present argument but rather points to social-cultural actors’ creative abilities in the face of diverse situational demands. ’ “Design” does not mean intentional use but rather social-semiotic patterning.

Notes

125

Theory

’ Again, manipulation of the underlying logic of retrospective constructional units is possible. For example, one does not always know if the gift one’s partner offers upon return from an out-of-town trip is the result of multiple momenls of attention being paid to the relationship during the absence or simply represents the most convenient item from the airport souvenir shop (perhaps the first time during the absence in which there was orientation to the relationship).

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social constructioti ofreality. Garden City,

Beuf, A. H. (1979). Biting off the bracelet: A study of children i17 hospitals. Philadelphia:

Birdwhistell, R. L. (1 970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactronism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (Eds.). (1983). Conversatronal cohereizce: Form, structure, and

Csikszentmihalyi, M. , & Rochberg-Halton, E . (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic

Durkheim, E. (1982). The rules ofsociologica[ method. New York: Free Press. Eco, U. (1973). Social life as a sign system. In D. Robey (Ed.), Structuralism: An introduc-

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution ofsociety. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goffman, E. (1959) . The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY:

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Harper and Row. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociologrc<rl Review, 48, I- 17. Harre, R. (1989, March). Creating the self. Paper presented to the Temple University

Tenth Annual Conference on Discourse Analysis, Philadelphia. Harre, R., Clarke, D., & De Carlo, N . (1985). Motives and mecrianisms: An introduction

to the psychology of action. London: Methuen. Jurick, D. M. (1977). The enactment of returning: A naturalistic studv of talk. Communr-

cation Quarterly, 25(3), 21-29. Kendon, A. (1986). Erving Goifman’s approach to the study oj.face-to-face interaction.

Paper presented to the conferenLe, Erving Goffman: An 1nterc.isciplinary Appreciation, University of York, England.

Kendon, A., & Ferber, A. (1973). A description of some human greetings. In R. P. Michael & J. H. Crook (Eds.), Comparative ecology and behavior of primates (pp. 591-668). London: Academic Press.

Malinowski, B. (1961). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: Dutton. (Original published in 1922).

A man’s opinion: How a man feels when you leave your belongings a t his place. (1984, November). Glamour, p. 210.

Mauss, M. (1967). Thegift. New York: Norton. Messaris, P. (n.d.). Pictures in the home as components of the process ofsocial communica-

tion. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pennsylvania. Moerman, M . (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadel-

phia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Owen, W. F. (1987). Mutual interaction of discourse structures and relational pragmatics

in conversational influence attempts. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 5 2 ,

References NY: Doubleday-Anchor.

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Press.

strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

tion (pp. 57-72). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Doubleday- Anchor.

103-1 27. Parsons, T. (1966). The socia/system. New York: Free Press. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1965). Structure and function in primitive society. New York:

Rakow, L. F. (1986, November). The telephone and women’s talb: An ethnographic study.

Rosaldo, M. (1982). The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act

Sacks, 0. (1987). The man who mistook his wifefor a hat. New York: Harper and Row.

Free Press.

Paper presented to the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.

theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11,203-237.

126

Diwontinuous Aspects of Social Relationships

Sanders, R. E. (1987). Cognitive foundations of calculated speech. Albany: State Univer-

Scheflen, A. E. (1968). Human communication: Behavioral programs and their integration

Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist,

Schutz, A. (1964). The homecomer. In A. Brodersen (Ed.), Collected papers, Vol. I I : Studies in social theory (pp. 106-119). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Schutz, A, , & Luckmann, T . (1973). The structures of the life-world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Sigman, S. J . (1983). Some multiple constraints placed on conversational topics. In R. T. Craig & K . Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 174-195). Reverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sigman, S. J . (1987). A perspective on social communication. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Simmel, G. (1898a). The persistence of social groups. American Journal of Sociology, 3,

Simmel, G . (1898b). The persistence of social groups. 111. American Journal of Sociology,

Sullivan, S. J. (1 989). Structure and emergence. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1983). Account analysis of organizations: Decision making and identification. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communica- tion and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 123-146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

sity of New York Press.

in interaction. Behavioral Science, 13,44-55.

70,1075-1095.

662-698.

4, 35-50.

Turner, V. (1980). Social dramas and stories about them. Crztical Inquiry, 7, 141-168. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H . , & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communi-

cation. New York: Norton. Winkin, Y. (1979). Patterns of intercultural communication: An exploratory ethnographic

study of an American International House. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania.

Zerubavel, E. (1979). Patterns of time in hospital life: A sociological perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

I27

Handling the Discontinuous Aspects of Continuous Social Relationships: Toward Research on the...

Documents

Transcript of Handling the Discontinuous Aspects of Continuous Social Relationships: Toward Research on the...