8/13/2019 Gubrium - Grounding the Postmodern Self http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gubrium-grounding-the-postmodern-self 1/20 Grounding the Postmodern Self Author(s): Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein Reviewed work(s): Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 685-703 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121525 . Accessed: 02/04/2012 13:05 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.
Grounding the Postmodern SelfAuthor(s): Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. HolsteinReviewed work(s):Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 685-703Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121525 .
Accessed: 02/04/2012 13:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Blackwell Publishing and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
In postmoderndiscourse,self is displacedas a centralpresencein experienceand
reappropriateds yet another ersonal ignifier.Thispaperdescribeskeypostmodernviews, thenreframes ostmodernocabularyn termsof interpretive ractice. targuesthat the postmodern ramingof self is too abstract nd that a distinctlymoderndis-
course focused on the deprivatizationf interpretivectivitycan accountempiricallyfor featuresof postmodern presence."Comparative thnographic ndnarrativemate-
rialis offered n illustration.We concludeby suggestinghow self can be retrieved or
classicalsociologicalcommentary ndresearch.
The self has come on extraordinarilyhard times. Challenges are abstractand ontological,whose leading theme is the postmodern denial of self as a central presence in experience.The sharpturnfollows decades of more grounded critique thatpresented the self's trialsas
stemming from moral uncertainty, inequality and domination, organizations and the tech-
nical rationalization of everyday life, and their related "anonymizing" tendencies, all of
which have roots in classical social theory.'The most recent and serious challenge-the postmodemrn-is less concerned with con-
ditions of social organization, conveying instead the liquid, imaged "self" of electronic
media and consumerism.2 It denies the relevance of classical sociological commentariesthat directed us to processes of rationalization, modes of production and differentiation,and collective representation(but see Pfohl 1992). In the context of the postmodern, the
idea of the self as a centralpresence dissolves and is replaced by the radicalization of what
Derrida (1978) calls the "play of difference," whose objects are ontologically enlivened
and deadened by floating signifiers, eclipsing substantiality. In the condition of post-
modernity, the self is no longer a metanarrative,as Lyotard (1984) might put it, but one
term among others for representing experience. Moreover, the self is polysemic, that is,attached to, and articulatedwith, multiple systems of signs. While supportersof this view
see new possibilities for the expression of experience, detractorsconsider it a philosophi-cal smokescreen for the abdication of responsibility and gratuitous powerlessness (seeLash and Friedman 1992).
Has the self, whether traditionalor modem, disappeared from everyday life? If it has
not disappeared, s thereany sense in which self can be concretelydescribedusing
postmodernerms? n thispaper,we argue hatby groundinghe self in everydaynterpre-tive practicesof self-definition,we can see that self remains a substantialpresence or
thosewho depictexperiencen relation o it. Webeginby specifyinghow self is elided n
postmoderncontext, move on to considercontrastingpostmodern oncerns, and then
examineempiricallyhow self's presencemightbe conceptualizedo coincide in some
fashionwith postmodern ensibilities.Ouraim is to appreciatehese sensibilitieswhile
preserving he self forclassicalsociologicalconsideration.
THEPOSTMODERN SELF"
Postmodernismpplies o a variety f contemporaryiews. The version hatwe character-
ize is gleaned largely from the influentialwork of Jean Baudrillard,Jean-Francois
narratives vaporate,as do mastervocabularies.In theirabsence, the signaltermsofclassicalsocialtheory-like the self amongother erms uchas society,class, community,
value, attitude,sentiment,and reason-no longer applyin the sameway. Inpostmoder-nism, one necessarilywrites he termswithquotationmarks, f, indeed,it is stillpossibleto write themat all. How havethe termschanged o require his style of reference?We
turn o Lyotard's1984)ThePostmodernConditionor an answerbecause t notonlyis a
leadingstatement f postmodernonsciousness,butitalsooffersa basisforgroundinghe
ostensibly groundless.
Lyotard'sIntroduction escribes he postmodernand by implication he "self")as a
conditionof knowledgein highly developedsocieties, wherewe can no longersimply
speak, write,or refer to objects n the way we hadbeforethe late nineteenth entury p.xxiii). Wecan infer hatbefore his, words nprinciple eferredo thingsseparaterom he
words themselves. Of course,wordscouldincorrectly epresenthings,and in thatsense
transmute nowledge,butthe"thingness"f thingswas not so muchatstakeaswastheir
accuraterepresentation. orexample,one couldmisrepresentheself or incorrectlyead
otherselves, butthediscrepancy etweenrepresentationndrealitywas takenas a matter
categorically eparate rom self's presence.3
Accordingto Foucault(1973), this providedthe primaryempirical questionsof a
varietyof intellectual isciplines, romstudiesof thehistoryof self to thepsychologyand
sociology of self-organization nd self-presentationsee Dreyfusand Rabinow1982,
chap. 7). The disciplinesaimedto reliablyandvalidlydescribe the empiricalself in its
manifoldrelationshipswiththeconditionsaffectingexperience.In the Anglo-Americancontext, the social and behavioralciencesfavoreda scientificvocabulary f self, which
resonatedwith prevailing ndividualisticand reformistsentiments(Rorty 1992). That
uniquelyAmericanbrandof sociology,symbolic nteractionism,ocused its narrativen
anessentiallypresent elf, variouslyheorizingtas a solid, reflexive, abeled,performed,or situatedentity(StoneandFarberman 970;Reynolds1990).
Lyotard onsiders hehallmark f postmodernityo be a "breaking p"of theseepis-temologicalor grandbases of the disciplines (pp. 15 and 31-41). "Simplifying o the
extreme,"he writes p. xxiv),"Idefinepostmodern s incredulityowardmetanarratives."
Withrespect o the social andbehavioralciences as narratives f theself, we takehimto
mean that theoriesof self can no longerbe acceptedas principallyabout thething they
represent.The incredulity tems from the possibilitythat the theories are also about
lations,symbolic nteractionismonstitutes heobjectof its descriptions.A disciplinehastacit ontologicalrulesabouthowto proceed n "doing"or constitutinghe realityunderconsideration.What is postmodernbout his is theview thatsuchrulesconstitutewhatthe rules areabout,making herealgame-like n Wittgenstein's1958) sense.
Postmodernnarratives annotbe evaluated in terms of their truthvalue. Instead,
narratives-ordinary,grand,or otherwise-are appreciatedn relation o theirsituated
acceptabilitywithin"interpretiveommunities"Fish 1980).Thiscenters ssues of "truth"
squarelywithin andbetweenlanguagegames, not in the relationship etweennarrativeand the thingsnarrative stensibly eferences. npostmodernism, hingsbecomemattersof narrative ompetence, nvention,andaesthetics.
Is "self" in postmodern ontext, hen, anarbitrary, upforgrabs" Sica 1993, p. 17),
"anything oes" entity (Gergen1991,p. 7; Featherstone, 992, p. 266), a perpetual con
game"(Berman1992)?Lyotarduggestsotherwise, mplying hat hepostmodernelf is,
first, a conditionof knowledge.It is a "self"necessarilyreferencedn quotationmarksbecause the natureof our knowledgeof self is markedlychangedfrom its substantialmodem form. Self no longersimplyreferencesan entity,a presenceorpresences.It is
possible to speakof the diversityof self in bothmodem andpostmodern iscourse,butmodemdiversity s substantialwhilepostmoderns constitutive,nsubstantial. either heold fashioned dea of a coreself northe morerecentnotionof a nonpathological,multiple,andperformativeelf can representts postmodernondition.
Second, in thisconditionof knowledge, he word"self" becomesa discursivehorizonfor presence, a "floating,"but socially organizedsignifier, flexibly yet systematicallyconstituting elf accordingo alternative ocabularies.Tospeakof thepostmodernelf isto set a discursiveand experiential tage (or stages), as it were, upon which further
references,exchanges,repairs,andresistancesareplayedout. UsingtheWittgensteinianterminology hatLyotard avors, he self is a languagegamewhose leadingconstitutiverulespecifiesa central ocation n experience oritself. Anotherversionof the rule
mightspecify multiple ocations,butnonetheless ocations n experience.Third,postmodernensibilities ounterposeelf and nature.As a floating ignifier,self
does not naturally epresentany particular hingor domainof experience.If it signifi-cantlyrepresents nythingnpractice,t is of cultural,notpurelynatural, ignificance.We
might say that in some cultural ontexts,self centrallyrepresents xperiencewhile inothers it only marginallydoes, drawing n each case on a shared,working anguageof
representation.
FROM HYPERREALITYO PRAGMATICS
Still, thepostmodernelf, accordingo Lyotard1984, p. 15)does"notamount o much."
Nonetheless,it remainsanobjectof discussion,something hatpostmodernistsontinueto describeand debate. Therearetwo importantronieshere.One is thatpostmodernists
wantto erasepresencebecause here s no warrantor it, yet theytell us whatthat ackofpresence s like. This, of course,requires resenceoratleast somesemblance f substan-
tiality. There needs to be somethingessentiallymodern about the postmodernor the
postmoderno be aboutanything ther hanan instantaneouswirl into itself or no-thing.Second, as irasciblyreluctantas postmodernists re to be categorizedas pre- or post-anything, they do bringintellectualre)sourceswith them to theirprojects.While they
resistthe idea of "source," he irony s thatmodern heoreticaldifferences-from struc-
turalismand criticaltheoryto hermeneutics-are carried nto descriptionsof the post-modemcondition.Forexample,whatpostmodernistDenzin(1988, 1991, 1992)conveysabout self and experiencereflectshis deep involvement n the symbolic interactionist
traditionand discourse(see, for instance,Lindesmith,StraussandDenzin 1988).This
contrastswith the postmodern ision of, say, Baudrillard1983, 1988), whosepointof
departurence was modemcritical heory see Baudrillard 981).Old-fashioned,modem
(re)sourcesworkto articulatehepostmoderno that here s modem theoretical iversityin reportsof the postmodern ondition.
It is useful to thinkof thesetwo ironies n relation o imagined,empirical ites, that s,
the postmodern ontext thereis no substantial"it"to liken. Forexample, Baudrillard
locatesthepostmodern ondition n what he aptlyterms"hyperreality."Weusethisas a
pointof contrast or whatwe believe to be a moregrounded ite, namely,the concrete
locationsfor self-constitutionuggestedby Lyotard's erm"pragmatics."FirstconsiderBaudrillard'syperreality.Baudrillardwrites of the postmodernondi-
tion in parallel o electronic,notprintmedia. The printmedia arelinear,"wordy," nd
relativelyslow. They presentourselves, others,and the world in termsof before, now,andafter.A grand hemeof the modemthusundergirdshe writtenmedia: ime s ordered
sequentially nddivided ntoperiods; pace s allocatedwithin ime so thatwe peruseone
news location,another,andthen another.
According o Baudrillardsee Kellner1989), electronicmedia,especiallytelevision,
changesthis. Through elevision,we aretaken nstantly o distantanddisparate laces.
advertisementor cotton fabric,sung in the mood and phrasesof existential onging,flashes nto the fantasticglitzanddizzyingpasticheof football'shalftimeactivities,which
soonwhizzesintoan adforthecoolnessandmasculinity f lightbeerand fast cars.And f
that isn't enough, the viewer can increasethe speed and collapse space by "channel
surfing"via remotecontrol.
Thesiteconveysthehyperreal.Reality,or modem timeandspace,are "cranked p" o
the pointwherethe orderand bordersnormallyassociatedwith themno longerapply.
Substantiality ecomesa matter f imagesas simulations upplant he actual.Presence s
thrown o the sidelinesof a literallymindlessproject.Significancesareso flattened hat
signs cease to haveany reference o things, becominga playfulsite of signs-signs of
othersignsand othersignsof signs.The siteoffersthe GulfWar o the American ublic n
theshapeof a mediasimulation r videogame-sheer eventswith no center Baudrillard
1991a, 1991b).As Kellner 1992, p. 147)describes t, television s a site of "purenoise,""ablackholewhere all meaningandmessagesare absorbedn thewhirlpoolandkaleido-
scopeof radical emiurgy, f the incessantdissemination f imagesand nformationo the
pointof total saturation."
Self hardlymatters n thissite. It is nowhereandeverywhereat the sametime,totallyabstracted,apidly littingbeforeus in myriadversionswithoutreferenceoexperience. t
is struttedabout on news programs, n sound bites from talkingheads. We hear its
in languagegameslocated ndiverse nstitutionalettings,"Weknowtoday hat he limits
the institutionmposeson potential anguage moves' are neverestablishedonce andforall (even if they have been formallydefined)" p. 17). WhatLyotardapparently as in
mind s the ideaof languagegames inked o institutions s thelocationof rationalizednd
routinized,butnotdetermined iscursiveofferings,akin to Bourdieu's1977)conceptof
habitus(also see BourdieuandWacquant 992, especiallypp. 113-158).
The choiceof institutional ractice s theempirical iteforpostmodernanguage amesof
theself relates o a complexchange n theideaof privacy.For half a century, ociologistsand socialcommentatorsavedebatedheimportancef privacy ncontemporaryife (seeParsons1971, Parsonsand Bales 1955, Riesman1950, Sennett1974, Skolnick1973).
Initiallythe argumentwas that the mostauthenticaspectsof our selves and lives wererevealed, f notproduced,within he cloistered onfinesof thehousehold, amily,orclose
community.Dissenters,however,argued hat ife is increasingly onducted n thepublicrealm. Some wentso far as to say thatthe traditionalanctuary f privacy-the home-
was being"invaded" yother nstitutions.As Lasch 1977)wrote nHaven na Heartless
World,"thefamilyis besieged,"with the home's traditionalunctionsof nurturancend
socializationdisplaced o publicarenas.
The debatesuggeststhat the most intimatedetailsof self andfamilyareincreasinglymattersof public documentation,public record, and public definition(Gubriumand
Holstein1990;HolsteinandGubrium 994a),aparadox f anexplosionof deprivatizationand simultaneousdesire for privacy.Whatis consideredreal or genuineis, more and
more, descriptivelydeprivatized, hat is, interpretedwithinorganized,publiccircum-
stances. At the same time, privacyand authenticity till are arguably he bedrockof
Contraryo the inclination f postmodernistso see a radicalbreakbetweenmodemand
postmodern xperience,we viewthepostmodernelf as not so totallynew.Rather,elf's
socialandintellectual onditioning ver theyearshasdislodged t fromtraditionalnalyt-ic andexperientialmoorings.Whilesome wouldsay that hisself hasceased to existas a
significant ategoryof contemporaryife, we contend hat t is theself's voicingthathas
hospitals,schools for theemotionallydisturbed,o aftercare rograms, elf-improvementcourses, supportgroups,counseling, and welfareagencies, the self remainsa central
categoryfor attaching ubjectivemeaningto experience cf. Weber1947, p. 88).While electronicmediapresentdiverse vocabularies f self, themediaofferfew clues
as to how the flux of experience s embodied n relationto self. However,a focus on
personsunderstand,epresent, ndmanage heirrealities-provides a pointof departure.For severalyears, we have been documenting mpirically he everydayprocessesthat
the postmodernnto a constructionisterspective n social forms. The constructionismsdistinctivein being less concernedwith the largescale rhetoricof self or other social
naturally-occurringrticulationssee Gubrium1993a;Holstein andGubrium1994b).Ourapproach laimsa middlegroundbetweenmodernism ndpostmodernismn that
we recognizethe constitutive luidityandmultiplicity f social forms,including he self,that is associatedwith postmodernity, et we tie this diversityto socially organizedvariabilityn thecircumstancesf selfproduction.Theapproach apitalizeson a theoreti-
cal minimalism nformedby ethnomethodology.4ather hanelaborately heorizing he
relationshipbetweenorganizations,nterpretive ractice,and the characterizationf self
fromthe topdown, we document rom he bottomup participants'wn"theorywork"or
practicalreasoning Garfinkel1967)aboutself in the variedsettingswherethisoccurs.5We have studied self production monga spectrumof lay andprofessionalpersons:
using diverse interpretive esources.Some settingsoffer highly crystallizedresources,centeredon officialunderstandingsf the nature,structure,anddevelopmentof selves,such as treatment hilosophies roundedn behavioral rinciples rpsychoanalyticocab-ularies. Othersettingsoffera bareminimum, heirinterpretiveesources imitedto the
accumulating,day-to-day ontributionsf participants,uch as a pastweek's storiesofself-actualization haredby members f a supportgroup.
We refer to these interpretiveesourcesas "localcultures,"collectiverepresentationswrit small (Durkheim1961; Gubrium1988, 1989; Gubriumand Holstein 1993). The
concept s a way of beingsensitive o thepracticaldelimitations f metanarrativesculturewrit large)while keepingthe radically elativizing mpulsesof ethnomethodologyrom
dissolvingall meaning nto constitutivemoments Pollner1991). Beinglocal, culture snot so totalizedas to completely ix participant's ractical easoning,butneither s it so
ongoinglycontextualized s to be reconstitutedrom the groundup on each interpretiveoccasion.
RECASTING OSTMODERNVOCABULARYN TERMSOF PRACTICE
Postmodernistsegularly efer o the decenterednessf experience,polysemy, heplayof
difference,and theperpetualpresent. t is a highlyabstractvocabulary sed to describehow the postmodern onditiondiffers rom, say, the modernor traditional.How mightthese termsrelateto interpretiveracticewhere self is concerned?
In the followingsections,we present thnographicndnarrativematerialromstudiesof interpretive ractice hatdemonstratesow an ostensiblyfloating postmodernelf is
empiricallygrounded.The settings ormalize he commonplace.Likeother formalset-
tings, they offer standardized nswers o questionsof self and mediateinterpretation
accordingto highly textualizedprocesses(cf. Smith 1987, 1990). While we focus onsome specializedinstitutionalites, we realizethatquestionsof self also arisein other
settings, such as withinhouseholdsor in friendshipgroups.As informantsmake abun-
dantlyclear in the form of accountsof "at homethoughts" ndof "friendlydiscussions"
among peers, considerationsn institutionalites reflectand refract,as well as interact
with, discussions at home, among riends,andelsewhere.
Gergen 1991)notesthatunderlyinghe"centered"modemself is anauthentic resencethat s knowable,where"theveryconceptof personal ssences is [not]thrownntodoubt"
(p. 7). Whether he authentic elf is castromantically nddefined ntermsof feelingsand
moralfiber,or has a rationalist onehighlightingreason, choice, andpredictability,he
self is nonetheless"present"centered)n experience.How does this authentic,centered elf takepostmodern ormandbecomeseemingly
decentered o the diversediscourses f a deprivatizedworld?A comparativethnographyof twofamily counselingprogramshowsoneway in which theauthenticelves of familymembers, n particularheircompetenceor incompetence, s constitutively mbedded n
contrasting rganizationalmagesof home life (Gubrium1992). Inpractice,self's pres-ence is articulatedhrough he organizations' espectivesign systems, making he self
polysemic.Thetwo
programs,ocated n different
acilities,share heview that
healinghe
familycures the person, linkingthe self to local culturesof domesticity.In one facility-an
outpatientcounselingcenter called WestsideHouse6-domestic order is understoodn
termsof powerandhierarchy.Anything amilymemberspresent n therapys taken o bea possible sign of authority. nformedprimarilyby the idea that domestic order(ordisorder,as the case mightbe) is a systemof authority elationships,he healthyhouse-
hold consists of clearhierarchicalines of decision-making,parentsor adults n charge,
preferably athers at the head, and childrendutiful. An unambiguous,gender-flavored
hierarchy ontributes ystemically o each and every family member'scompetenceand
domesticwell-being. Cross-cuttingines of authoritypromptdomesticdisorder, ausing
problemssuch as depression,addiction,andtruancy,which in turn ncreasesdomestic
To illustratehow authenticitys realized n this interpretiveontext,considerhow the
postureandseatingarrangementf familymembers-read as a systemof signs-serve to
embody authorityand cast a motherand her sons as particular ypes of persons.In a
meeting of family counselorsreviewinga videotapeof the mother and sons' therapysession, participants re toldthat hemother s divorcedanddepressed,andthather twin
sons arerepeatedlydisruptiveat school, "outof control,"so to speak. In the followingextract rom theproceedings,notehow,in thecounselors' alk,thesons'statusastroubled
youth is embodiedin mundane igns and interpretedn relationto the prevailingocal
cultureof domesticorder.Justbefore hevideotapeof thetherapy ession is played,Leila
Korson,thecounseling nternandformer choolteacherwho is presentinghecase to theothercounselors,summarizes he so-calledfamily situation.As they play the tape, the
counselors(GaryNelson, NancyCantor,TammyHorton,and DonnaReddick) urn to
the monitor,where they expect to "see"the familysituation.The counselors istenas
Korson,on tape, inquires f theboyshow it feels to grow up as twins. Nelson thenasks
Korsonto put the tape on pauseand identifythe personson the monitor.As Korson
proceeds,she commentson theseatingarrangement,esignatingpostureas a clue to the
"problemn this home."
KORSON: This one twin [Johnny]was kindaquietat first.I couldn'tget him to say
anything.Later n the session, he moved over here[pointsto his current
seating position]and then he started o talk more, like he was the bossaroundhome. I thinkhe's the dominantone [twin].Look at the way he's
sitting.[Johnny itsupright nd forward n his chair.]He's likethat all the
time, even when he wassittingover here[points o the seat attheright,outof camerarange].
CANTOR: Now he's in thepower eat andhe feels morecomfortablepause]more ikehimself.
HORTON: Yeah,like he feels at home.
REDDICK: The mother, o me, is giving mixedmessagesto the boys aboutliving athome and
goingto the father
[wholives
nearby].She tells them if
theydon'tbehave, heycan ustgetoutof the house andgo to their ather.Thenshe tells themthattheybetterbehave or they'll turnoutjustlike him.
HORTON: [Pointing o themonitor s she restartshetape]Yeah[pause]and ustlookat thatkid[Johnny].Lookat howhe sits at theedgeof thechair pause] ikehe'sgoingtojumpalloverMom f shedares o cross him.Just ook athimIt'swrittenalloverhim. That ookhe'sgivingher.MyGod, it's ust tellingher [mother]hathe'sin charge.Andhe knows it. If she crosseshim, he'll
just marchoverto Dad and live there.CANTOR: Andwouldyoulook at theotherone [twin].He'swatchinghisbrother eal
close-like, waitingto see whatto do. And would ya look at Mom [Allwatch the monitor or a few seconds]Look at how she looks downat thefloor all thetime, likeshe'sbeing steppedon whenJohnny etsgoing. Youcan see whata badscene it is. That'snota very healthyhome. No wonder
those boys aredelinquent.
Counselorsview andpointto the monitoras if theywereactuallywitnessingdomesticorderand thecompetenceof familymembers efore heirveryeyes. Withcomments uchas "LookatMom","Just ookathim,"and"That'snot a veryhealthyhome," hespeakerssoundas if theyareobserving he household's ocial orderand,at thesametime, howthetwinsas persons igure n. Mundaneignsareused toconcretelyand ocallyreferenceandconstitute he abstract, n thiscase, "nota veryhealthyhome"and"delinquency."ohn-
ny's dysfunctionally ominant elf is mediatedaccordingly,ts authenticitymbodied nobservable"evidence," n locally-understooderms.
In thecomparison amilycounselingprogram,ocated n an inpatientreatmententercalled FairviewHospital,a contrastingultureof domesticorderprevails.Evidenceagainis presented n the course of practicalreasoning n relationto mundane igns. While
Fairviewconsiders tself therapeuticallyclectic, theoverridingmageof domesticorderis a configuration f emotionalbonds. Domesticdisorder, t is said, stemsfromuncom-
municated eelings. Anythingthat blocks the expressionof feelings or hindersactive
listening pellstrouble.Power s at theheartof troubles, helocal nemesisof communica-
tion. As staff members ay andfamilymembers oon learn,"power rips" uin hefamilyandare the source of most socialandpersonal lls.
Accordingto Fairviewstaff, the healthyhousehold s like a democracyof emotions.
Eachandeveryfamilymember r significant therhas feelings. No one is without hem,not even the youngest child or a seemingly insignificantmember of the household.
Feelings-especially love-are thebedrock f domesticorder.A household n which t is
possibleto express feelingsandwhose membersactivelylisten to each other s a healthyhome, where individual elf-esteemdemocraticallyntegrates he membership.
A democracyof emotions is very abstract,not somethingreadilyobserved. As at
WestsideHouse,a systemof signslinkstheabstractwith the mundane.AtFairview,ignsof domesticordercan be seen in the same wordsand gesturesas at Westside.Seating,
posture,and verbalization resignificant.At Fairview,however,seatingrefersmore to
beingseated thanto theseatingarrangementf familymembers.Sittingdown is thoughtto be more conduciveto communicationnd the receptionof feelingsthanstandingup.The father who sits down while describinghis unrulyson's behavior s morelikely to
conveyauthenticeelingsandbe trulyheard han hefatherwho standsupand ntimidates
listeners. Posture, for example, sitting back, reflects communicativereceptivity.Themotherwhonotonlysitsdowntocommunicate, utsitsback n herchair, s seen asbetter
equipped o empatheticallyistentoherdaughter's nxiouscomplaints bouta boyfriend's
drinking han the motherwho sits at the edge of her chairand appears eady o cut her
daughteroff at any moment.Verbalizations read in terms of voice modulation.Those
whospeak n aninvitingandcalm toneof voiceandwho, inturn,show evidenceof being
prepared o "actively isten,"facilitate he expressionof feelings.While thesignsof domesticorderanddisorder resimilar, heymeandifferenthings n
the contextof thetwoprograms, ndthustheunderstandingf authenticitys polysemic.At Westside,staff interpret parentwho duringa therapy ession seats him- or herself
prominentlyn theroom,presents onfidently, ndspeaksforcefully,asbeing nauthorityat home, as it is locallybelievedparents houldbe. As a rule,parents,especially athers,counseled at Westside do not presentin this way, which typicallyserves to explaindomestictroubles. Or fathersmightoverpresent,whichsignalsdomination ndpossibleabusiveness.At Fairview, taff would view such fathers as intimidating ndthwartingeffective communication.The two programs'ocal culturesof domesticorder, n effect,
provideresources orinterpretingignsrelating o self andcompetence noppositeways.How do the brief extract,the interactions,and their organizational mbeddedness
conveya kind of postmodernelf?Itis evident hat he modern deaof authenticitys still
intact.In bothsettings, participantsearch or thecore or essentialmeaningof conduct:
what behavior"actually"means;whatsomeone"genuinely"eels;howsomeone"really"is. At Westside,counselorsperuseseatingarrangement, osture,andverbalizationor
clues to the "presence" f authority,which in its properdomestic distributionignifiesorder.At Fairview, he search argets hecontrasting uthenticity f feelings.Feelingsat
Fairviewarepresentat the core of experience,even whilepowerandauthoritymaymake
it appearotherwise.
But what is presentandcentered n local understandings variableanddecentered n
interpretive ractice.Whilesomething ike Gergen'sso-called romanticist elf is viewedas authenticat Fairview,a morerationalist elf embodiesauthenticity t Westside.The
contrastunderscoreself's polysemiccharacter.What s more,there s extensive vidence
in each setting that what is consideredauthentic n the othersettingis thought o be
damaging o the self and domesticorder:Westside ounselors how littlepatience or the
expressionof feelings;Fairview herapistswallow in it, denigrating xpressions f powerand authority.
Inasmuch as the two settings conduct family, not individual, therapy, individual selves
are further embedded in the systems of interpersonal relations treated on the premises.While selves still make sense in the facilities, their dynamics are caught up in the family
systems undergoing therapy, further decentering self and multiplying its "authentic"
meanings.
Difference and Presentness
Postmodernists also write of the play of difference and collapse time into a perpetual
present. The question is how "playful" is difference? Can it be likened to the alleged
swirling, dizzying signifiers and significances of MTV, where a perpetual present dis-
places any concrete sense of the past or future?How might an authentic, centeredself with
a past, present, and future reveal itself in these terms and yet be grounded in interpretive
practice?Consider first how the meaning of self is diversely constructed in involuntarycommit-
ment proceedings where the hospitalization of persons thought to be mentally ill isreviewed. The proceedings orient to standardized criteria which stipulate that the candi-
date patient should be hospitalized only if he or she- is a danger to self or others, or is
gravely disabled, that is, unable to provide the basic necessities of life (see Holstein
1993).
Proceedings typically provoke multiple reality claims as discourse coalesces around
competing professional understandingsand vocabularies of functional ability, potential for
havoc, and dangerousness. At firstglance, the situated constructions of self clearly sug-
gest the "overabundance of meaning" (Denzin 1991, p. 8) that "saturates"(Gergen 1991)the postmodern self. Typically, divergent self characterizations are posited for the candi-
date patient. For example, in Arlene Bluman's commitment hearing (Holstein 1987), a
psychiatrist initially characterizes Bluman as a "schizophrenic, disorganized type." In the
psychiatrist's words:
Arleneis often quitedelusional.... Herrealityorientations very poor.She has
difficulty eparatingantasy romreality.Shedisplaysaninsidiousreduction n exter-nalattachments, elationships-a pathologicalndifference r apathy hat nfringesonherabilityto functionsocially.
Following testimony from the candidatepatient, the District Attorney (DA) arguing forBluman's commitment appeals to the presiding judge to hospitalize Bluman because ofher inability to function and her recurrent social impairment:
[Bluman]has a repeatedhistoryof failure n noninstitutionalettings.There s abun-dantevidence that she has troublekeepingherselftogetherwhenshe's released. Shehastroublemanaginghermoney.She hastroublewith almosteverything-interactingwithothers,gettingalongwithpeople,takinghermedications.She simply sn'tready
to resumea normal ife at thispoint .. She is a verysick womanwho needs a lot ofcare.
Bluman's Public Defender (PD) responds, claiming that Bluman is capable of manag-ing life in the community, offering her own characterization of the candidate patient:
My client has a place to. ive. It's everythinga womanneeds. The landlord,a Mr.
Dietrich,has agreed o renthera roomwith a kitchen ... He lives in the building
andsays he'll look in on herfromtimeto time. Arlene has some problems,but she'sawareof themnow.Shejustneedsa littlehelp.This womanwill notbe much rouble.
How much troublecan a woman like her be? She won't cause anyoneany harm.
Lookingafter a womanin that situationwon't requirevery much ... Miss Bluman
can managevery well withhim [thelandlord]helpingtake care of her.
The judge rejects the PD's plea skeptically, offering his own assessment of Bluman:
It seems that Arlene mightbe takencare of all right. But that's what worriesme.
Wouldwe be doingtheright hingby placingthis woman n the careof some strangeman? ... I don't feel good abouta womanliving alone in this kindof arrangement
.... This makes me very uneasy.A woman s veryvulnerable. 'm concerned bout
her safety. I'm concerned hat his may not be the most proper hingto do.
And the PD responds:
We haveno reason o believethatanything mproper t all wouldhappen.Justbecause
she's a womandoesn'tmeanshe has to be protected romeverymalethat'soutthere
....What his womanneeds s justa littlehelpto get by. Should we distrust nyonewho offers to help?
The judge answers "No," and reiterates his worry that Bluman's vulnerabilities as a
woman raise the risk of her being exploited:
We're alkingabuta woman'sbest nteresthere.A woman's.And I've gotto make hat
the basis for my decision.Ms. Bluman'snot well yet, and even if she were, I don't
know as I'd recommendher ivingin a placelike this. It's importanthat herewould
be someonetherethatcouldtake care of her.I'm sure he would, but that'smy worry.
Thathe would takecare of
her,if
youknow what whatI
mean'.
Borrowing from poststructuralist formulations (e.g., Derrida 1973, 1976, 1978), a
postmodernist might characterizethis exchange as a process of free-floating signification.
Meaning, the postmodernist would argue, is not produced in a stable, referential relation
between subject and object, but within the intertextualplay of signifiers (Best and Kellner
1991). The meaning of a thing or concept, such as Bluman's character, is "necessarily and
essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other
concepts by the systematic play of difference" (Derrida 1973, p. 140). Characterizations
of Bluman's self continuously and infinitely shift in a swirl of ungrounded signification.
This "play" of meaning, however, is serious business and can be seen as contextually
structured when examined in terms of interpretive practice. While ontologically naive,
participants systematically characterize self in ways that belie the postmodem swirl.
Interpretive practice reveals a structure o the play of difference. While the self remains an
emergent descriptive project-an "artful"congeries of qualities and traits, as Garfinkel
(1967) might put it-characterizations are parsimoniously formulated (Sacks and Scheg-
loff 1979), tending to revolve arounda limited number of well-known, locally-sanctioned
categories or typifications. Using a particularcategory implies a constellation of ancillary
features commonly associated with the category, such as the "grandfatherly gentleman"
implying harmlessness. The applicationof a categorical description thus provides a work-
ing narrative rule for ascribing other characteristics, attributes, and motives (Sacks 1972).
In the first extract from the commitment hearing, the psychiatrist characterizesBluman
in technical, behavioral terms. Bluman's self is composed from psychic elements, disor-ders, pathologies, and states of well-being, articulated in professional psychiatric dis-
course. Her schizophrenic self is real in the same terms. While not directly contesting this
characterization in the other extracts, the two attorneys and the judge employ contrasting
vocabularies, which are themselves professionally grounded in concerns for communityorder and protection from the havoc associated with mental illness (Holstein 1993). Their
characterizations of Bluman orient to how well she might be able to carry on in the
community as well as to her vulnerability. Their descriptive vocabulary of self reflects
these orientations. The PD argues for release, using a discourse of manageability. Bluman
is easy to control and contain. The minimal assistance of a kindly landlord is all that is
necessary to make community living viable for the "harmless" Ms Bluman. However, the
language of vulnerability is resurrected by the judge, referring to a well-intentioned
"stranger"(the landlord) who, the judge argues, actually might be a sexual predator.
The preceding exchangeis
repletewith difference: alternate vocabularies cast and recast
the practical reality of Bluman's personality. Yet, the flow of interpretation is socially
organized, reined in by the hearing's communicative agendas, which in turn are linked
with speakers' professional concerns. The PD stresses the connection between gender-a
seemingly straightforwardattributeof self-and manageability, seeking to articulatehow
easily managed Bluman would be and, in the process, rhetorically invoking "what every-
body knows" about femininity. Thejudge constructs Bluman's vulnerabilityby playing off
of a different constellation of implied meanings for gender, associating being female with
helplessness and sexual susceptibility. The competing versions of what it means to be
female rise and fall in the give-and-take of the exchange, but the shifts in meaning are
neither arbitrary nor capricious. They are tied to local, organizationally-circumscribeddiscourses that play on distinct cultural configurations.
Analogously, the use of the personal past, present, and future to define constituents of
self is also locally grounded, making life history a present-time enactment. This, too, is
evident in the commitment hearings, where the various participants formulate personalhistories according to distinctive interpretiveagendas. Lives are narrativelyconstructed,
made coherent and meaningful, through the "biographical work" that links experiencesinto circumstantially compelling life courses (Gubrium, Holstein and Buckholdt 1994).
The process is artful, a complement to the play of difference, but it is locally informed and
organized.To illustrate, consider how candidate patient Andre Wilson's life course is revealed in
the competing scenarios offered by the psychiatrist who testifies regarding Wilson's
mental condition and the judge who decides to have Wilson hospitalized. While the
psychiatrist and judge agree on the need to hospitalize Wilson, they articulate Wilson's
life history quite differently.First, the psychiatristoffers his version of Wilson's past and a
prediction for Wilson's future:
My diagnosis:Mr.Wilson s a schizophrenic,hronicundifferentiatedype .... Mr.Wilsonhas beenhospitalizedntheMetropolitan ityareaseventimesin the last five
years. His record ndicates hat as long as ten years ago, he's shown symptomsof
deteriorating ealityorientation.He is severelydelusional. We have noted delusional
claimsfor tenyears.He hasreportednstanceswherehe thoughthe was a memberof
thepoliceforce,times whenhe claimedhe was a doctorwhohada cureforcancer,and
he has claimedthatpeopleon thehospital taff havebeenstealinghisbelongingswhile
he's been at Metro[thementalhospital].Thishistoryof delusionsand mentaldeterio-
ration ndicatespsychosis,thathe's severelydisturbed. t's likelyhe'll get worse f he
is not hospitalized.
Following other testimony, the judge orders Wilson's hospitalization, offering the fol-
lowing rationale:
I tendto agreethatMr.Wilson hasproblems hatmake it difficult orhim to managehis affairs.Squanderingisdisabilitychecks is nota good habit. I'm also troubled ythe historyof encounterswiththepolice. He doesn'tseem to be able to getalongwith
othersvery well. [Turnso Wilson]Mr. Wilson, you probablywon't like this, butI
thinkyou aregoingto endupinjail if we don'tget you some morehelp.You'vegoneoff yourmedicationsn thepastandyou don't seem to listen to anyonewho tries to
helpwithyourmeds.It seems theonly waywe canget thingsunder ontrol s tohave
the hospital ook out for you for a little while longer.
As Foucault (1975) might put it, a psychiatric "gaze" focuses the doctor's descriptionon Wilson's mental status, which is expressed in terms of symptoms, psychoses, and
delusions. Wilson's biography is marked by repeated psychological breakdowns and
encounters with psychiatric professionals. The pattern of past delusional behavior is
projected into the future, culminating in the prognosis of worsening illness. Contrastingly,the judge constructs Wilson's life history in terms of custodial concerns, relating to the
candidate patient's past ability to take care of himself or others' inability to deal with him.
Wilson's past is not so much a psychiatric history, as a series of community management
problems.Both trajectories warranthospitalization, according to their speakers, but are conveyed
in terms of speakers' circumstantially relevant vocabularies. While the contours of Wil-
son's personal past (and future) are assembled in the present, and in that sense exhibit
postmodern "presentness," the respective time lines are taken by participants as real
features ofperceivedly
distinctchronological
realms. Thepresent provides interpretiveresources for constructions of Wilson's relevant life course, while biographical work
sustains and concretizes the causal andjustificatory reality of Wilson's conduct over time.
CONCLUSION
Decenteredness, polysemy, difference, and presentness are a ubiquitous terminology of
postmodern texts. The vocabulary is increasingly subject to fast, loose, and overly ab-
stract application.7 Against this tendency, we have argued for an appreciation of the
postmodern critique of self, but grounded in interpretivepractice. The complex change in
the social conditioning of self that we have called "deprivatization" shapes practice, so
that the self emerges empirically in fluid, "postmodern"form. As the preceding materials
show, this self is decentered; it is mediated by diverse local cultures, competing dis-
courses, and the gambits of practicalreasoning. Variationin interpretivepracticeprovides
for self's multivalent and polysemic reality. This does not mean that self is a floatingsignifier akin to the postmodern radicalization of Derrida's play of difference (cf. Norris
1990). If self floats, its does so within the bounds of its social and descriptive organiza-tion.
Grounding the self in this way offers both theoretical and methodological guidelines for
research, as well as a particulardisciplinary orientation. First, before we too hastily cross
"the postmoderndivide"(Borgmann1992), it is importanto considerhow, with the
appropriatemodifications,hemodem,analyticnarratives f classicalsociological heorycan addressa postmodern onditionof self. We haveargued hatthis canbe donewhen
interpretive ractices foregroundeds a modeof production.Tying he"real"o interpre-tivepracticeavoids hepostmodernilemmaof criticizingwhat s substantialrpresentn
experiencefrom a groundlessposition. It avoids the ultimateirony of attempting oresearchno thing(nothing)atall.
Second,at thesametime, we mustnotturnawayfrom heseminal heoreticalhallengeof postmodernism,whichmaintainshat herealitiesof sociallife areconstitutivelyiedtotheirworkingdiscourses. If we modifyWeber's 1947) classic concernwithrationaliza-tion so that it is attuned o practiceandsensitive to localculture,we see rationality s adiscursiveprocesssuffusing verydayife. Acknowledginghis, theoristsof self shouldatleastinitiallyeschew totalizedmetasociologicalormulations nd attend o thedescriptiveorganizationof the ordinary ituationsand vocabularieshat fuel self's embodiments.
Beginningwith"mundane eason"Pollner1987),we can makevariousandcomplicatedembodiments f self visible from hebottomupand feature heircontemporarybiquity.8Third,we need notassumea priori hata universalistic riterionof authenticitys the
final test of self knowledge. As we have shown, authenticitycontinues,directlyor
indirectly, o be an indigenous oncernacross situations.Participantsakeaccountof itslocal understandingsnd nterpretations,ooking orthe"true,"he"genuine,"he"real."
Authenticitys thusa member's riterion,not an analyticstandard.
Fourth, nasmuchas self's postmodernorm s shornof presence, t is bereftof respon-sibility. It has no occasion to be moral, powerful, or powerless. Grounding elf in
interpretive ractice,however,ties moralityandpoliticsto local understandings,ondi-
tions, andresources.Responsibilitys concretelysituated n, andoriented o, local ac-
countability tructuresGubrium 993b;Holstein1993), frameworkswithinwhichactorsand actions are defined or define themselves in circumstantiallyelevantterms withreference o situatedvalues. This providesbothspaceand motivation oragonisticand
resistivemicropolitics f thesortadumbrated,ut notfullydevelopedby,say,Foucault r
Lyotard see Best andKellner1991).Linked o local culture,the self is bothresponsiveandresponsible o the practical ontingenciesandmoralitiesof choice andaction.
Finally, heorientation o interpretive racticepoints n twomethodological irections.
First,researchmustattend o the ineluctablyocal. The varieddomainsof everyday ifeharborseparateanddistinctunderstandingsf the natureof self andcriteriaof authen-
ticity, local culturesof self. The emergenceof myriadorganizationswhose businessincludesdefining he self has beenasignificant ecentdevelopment.Related onstructionsof self's organization,workingsensesof self's relation o collective life, andordinaryviews of how self develops over time, are situated resourcesfor depictingself and
informing oursesof action oward t. Withinandbetweenorganizationswe findaddition-al circumstanceshat further pecifyand localize self's shapeandsubstance.Even so-callednationalor internationalerspectives relocallymediatedas theyareconjuredup,
invoked, and communicativelyinked to mattersof immediateconcernto participants.At the same time, local culture s not set in stone, which suggestsa second meth-
odologicaldirection.Culturedoes notgovern heself's constitution;ts elementsarepartandparcelof interpretive ractice.Practical easoning rticulateshesubstantivelementsof whatlocal culture s otherwise aken o be about.Practice s bothaboutcultureand is
the use of culture o indicateandproducepractitioners'oncreteconcerns.Procedurally,
the grounding of the postmodern self is made visible in the documentation of culture as,
and in, interpretive ractice.9Ultimately, the postmodern challenge to the self extends to the very disciplines that
theorize and research it, casting doubt on their privileged status as sciences. As noted
earlier, the position we have taken settles on a middle ground; our project is a kind of
constitutive and critical empiricism, focused on social and discursive practices. The
perspective is classically concerned with the significant, representative objects of our
collective experience-the self among them-but is decidedly attuned to the objects'
ontological status in everyday life. The approach recognizes the need to adjust concep-
tually and methodologically as disciplines to both emerging challenges and traditional
footings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank our colleague Gale Miller and the Quarterly's anonymous reviewers for theirhelpful comments.
NOTES
1. See, forexample,Mills'(1951)discussionof themanipulationndsellingof self, Riesman's
(1950) depictionof the inner-and other-directedelf, Goffman's 1959) presented elf, Berger,
Bergerand Kellner's 1973) homelessmind,andBellah, Madsen, Sullivan,SwidlerandTipton's(1985) self thatis lived for itself andthrough thers,all of which leadus, classically, o Gergen's
(1991) view of the saturated elf. Equally mportant re commentariesderivingfromfeminist,
gay/lesbian, cultural, nteractionist, ritical,psychiatric,andpoliticaleconomicperspectives.2. For discussion of postmodernismnd its relationto social theory,see Alexander 1991),
Antonio (1991), Bauman 1988), Best and Kellner(1991), Bogard(1990), Katovichand Reese
(1992), Rosenau(1992), Seidman 1991), and SeidmanandWagner 1992).3. See Ichheiser's 1970) work,especiallyhis bookAppearances ndRealities or anexample
of this genre.4. Ethnomethodology nd relatedversionsof constructionismsee Garfinkel1967, Heritage
1984, Holstein and Gubrium1994b, Holsteinand Miller 1993, Pollner1987, Gubrium1993a,Silvermanand Gubrium1994)havecritiquedmodernism's haracteristicallyverlytheorizedad-
umbrations f the empirical.Still, for the most part,ethnomethodologists ave seldomexplicitly
engaged postmodern oncerns.
5. Giddens's 1984, 1992)conceptof structurationriesthis from thetopdown and heresult s
an overly neatand idealizeddepiction.See SilvermanandGubrium1994).6. The namesof personsandorganizations ave been fictionalizedhroughout.7. Rosenau's 1992) characterizationf postmodernisms eitheraffirmative r skepticalwould
suggest that it is the skepticalswho areoverlyabstract n the use of this vocabulary.t mightbe
same distinctionin mind and similarlysituates his approach,calling it "radicallymodern,"not
(skeptically)postmodern.8. Analysts mightalso considerotherchallengesposed by thepostmodern, ncludingquestions
addressing ess discursive ssues likeself's ultimatelyemotional see Denzin 1993)or impulsive
properties see Turner1976)and theircircumstantialonditioning, or example.9. For furtherdiscussionof the relationbetweeninterpretive ractice, ocal culture,andinter-
. 1993a. "Fora CautiousNaturalism."p.89-101 inReconsidering ocialConstructionism,editedby JamesA. Holsteinand Gale Miller.Hawthorne,NY: Aldine de Gruyter.. 1993b.Speakingof Life:Horizonsof Meaning or NursingHomeResidents.Hawthorne,NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Gubrium,JaberF. andJamesA. Holstein. 1990. What s Family?MountainView,CA:Mayfield.
Holstein, James A. 1987. "ProducingGender Effects on InvoluntaryMental Hospitalization."Social Problems34: 141-155.
. 1993. Court-Orderednsanity: nterpretive ractice and InvoluntaryCommitment.Haw-
thorne,NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Holstein,JamesA. and JaberF. Gubrium.1994a."Constructing amily:DescriptivePractice nd
DomesticOrder."Pp. 232-50 in Constructinghe Social, editedby JohnKitsuse& The-odore Sarbin.London:Sage.. 1994b. "Phenomenology, thnomethodology,nd Interpretive ractice."Pp. 262-72 inHandbookof QualitativeResearch,edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln.
Kellner,Douglas. 1988."Postmodernisms SocialTheory:SomeProblems ndChallenges." heory,Culture,and Society 5: 239-270.
- . 1989.Jean Baudrillard: romMarxism o PostmodernismndBeyond.Cambridge: olity.1992. "PopularCultureand the Construction f Postmoderndentities."Pp. 141-177 in
ModernityandIdentity,editedby Scott Lash andJonathan riedman.Oxford,UK:Black-
well.Lasch, Christopher.1977. Haven n a Heartless World.New York:Basic.
Lash, Scott. 1990. Sociology of Postmodernism. ondon:Routledge.Lash, Scott and JonathanFriedman, ds. 1992. Modernityand Identity.Oxford,UK:Blackwell.
Lemert,Charles. 1991. "The End of Ideology,Really."SociologicalTheory9: 164-172.
Lindesmith,Alfred R., Anselm L. Straussand Norman Denzin. 1988. Social Psychology.En-
