printBehavioral Setting as a Basis for Interaction Order (the case of homelessness research)
Malkov M.D.
MA in Sociol., guest lecturer, postgraduate student, research intern at the International Laboratory for Social Integration Research, HSE University, Moscow, Russia mmalkov@hse.ru
The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at HSE University.
Malkov M.D. Behavioral Setting as a Basis for Interaction Order (the case of homelessness research). Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2026. No 2. P. 62-73
We problematize the foundations of a special type of social order – the interaction order – as conceptualized by sociologist Erving Goffman. The interaction oreder that unfolds in a social situation of physical co-presence may have different foundations: it may be self-sustaining, autonomous and separate from other orders, grounded in the cognitive resources of the participants in the interaction, or provided by the “behavioral setting” in which the interaction takes place. Despite importance and relevance of all three components, we propose to draw on Bruno Latour’s arguments to conceptualize the behavioral setting as a material setting that coordinates and guides the “situational” in interaction and argue that it is the behavioral setting that grounds the interaction order. We propose to place this theoretical discussion in the context of homelessness research that focuses on interactions with people without homes in public spaces. Through these studies, which problematize the boundary between the private and the public, it becomes possible to trace the key role of behavioral settings, which are, in Goffman’s terms, not “merely situated,” but include the situation itself in their framework, guiding and coordinating the order of the “situational” in interaction. The proposed interpretation of the foundation of the interaction order, as localized within a behavioral setting, shifts the theoretical focus of interaction studies toward materiality. At the empirical level, it enables a critical evaluation of those homelessness assistance initiatives that fail to take into account the significance of the behavioral environments within which interactions with homeless individuals take place.
Boccagni P., Duyvendak J. W. (2021) Homemaking in the Public: On the Scales and Stakes of Framing, Feeling, and Claiming Extra – Domestic Space as “Home”. Sociology Compass. Vol. 15. No. 6: 1–14. DOI: 10.1111/soc4.12886.
Busch-Geertsema V. et al. (2010) Defining and Measuring Homelessness. In: Homelessness Research in Europe: Festschrift for Bill Edgar and Joe Doherty. Ed. by E. O’Sullivan, V. Busch-Geertsema, D. Quilgars, N. Pleace. Brussels: 19–39.
Caronia L., Mortari L. (2015) The Agency of Things: How Spaces and Artefacts Organize the Moral Order of an Intensive Care Unit. Social Semiotics. Vol. 25. No. 4: 401–422. DOI: 10.1080/10350330.2015.1059576.
Edgar B. (2012) The ETHOS Definition and Classification of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion. European Journal of Homelessness. No. 2: 219–225.
Goffman E. (2000) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Moscow: KANON-press-C, Kuchkovo Pole. (In Russ.)
Gofman E. (2014) The Interaction Order. Sociologiya vlasti [Sociology of Power]. No. 1: 163–199. (In Russ.)
Herring C. (2021) Complaint-Oriented “Services”: Shelters as Tools for Criminalizing Homelessness. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 693. No. 1: 264–283. DOI: 10.1177/0002716221996703.
Höjdestrand T. (2009) Needed by Nobody: Homelessness and Humanness in Post-Socialist Russia. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Iakhno L. V. (2024) Public Space for the Homeless: The Image of Kursky Railway Station in Moscow. Puti Rossii [Russia’s Directions]. Vol. 2. No. 4: 42–69. (In Russ.)
Jacobsen M. H. (2017) Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order Through Everyday Observations and Imaginative Metaphors. London: Palgrave Macmillan: 37 p. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-58184-6_8.
Johnsen S., Cloke P., May J. (2005) Transitory Spaces of Care: Serving Homeless People on the Street. Health & Place. Vol. 11. No. 4: 323–336. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.03.002.
Krihtova T. M. (2024) The Seen and Unseen: Visitors of the “Rescue Hangar”. Fol’klor i antropologiya goroda [Urban Folklore & Anthropology]. Vol. 6. No. 4: 8–25. DOI: 10.22394/2658-3895-2024-6-4-8-25. EDN: PAKRKC. (In Russ.)
Kuziner E. N. (2020) “I Will Go Home”, With “Home” Meaning “Basement”: Homeless Women’s Daily Practices and Coping Strategies. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i social’nye peremeny [Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes]. No. 4: 273–298. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2020.4.1653. EDN: YXVWCG. (In Russ.)
Langegger S., Koester S. (2016) Invisible Homelessness: Anonymity, Exposure and the Right to the City. Urban Geography. Vol. 37. No. 7: 1030–1048. DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2016.1147755.
MacKenzie D. (2019) How Algorithms Interact: Goffman’s “Interaction Order” in Automated Trading. Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 36. No. 2: 39–59. DOI: 10.1177/0263276419829541.
Malkov M., Chentsova A. (2024) Logics of Interaction with Homeless People at Moscow Railway Stations. Puti Rossii [Russia’s Directions]. Vol. 2. No. 4: 70–99. (In Russ.)
Mallett S. (2004) Understanding Home: A Critical Review of the Literature. The Sociological Review. Vol. 52. No. 1: 62–89. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2004.00442.x.
Rawls A. W. (1987) The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman’s Contribution to Social Theory. Sociological Theory: 136–149. DOI: 10.2307/201935.
Schindler L. (2021) Adapting Bodies to Infrastructures. Human Studies. Vol. 44. No. 2: 283–304. DOI: 10.1007/s10746-021-09578-3.
Schneider L. T. (2022) “My Home Is My People”: Homemaking Among Rough Sleepers in Leipzig, Germany. Housing Studies. Vol. 37. No. 2: 232–249. DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2020.1844157.
Shults A. V. (2024) In the Shadow of the Metropolis: Ways of Using Urban Space by Homeless People (Using the Example of Moscow). Puti Rossii [Russia’s Directions]. Vol. 2. No. 4: 15–41. (In Russ.)
Smith R. J. (2011) Goffman’s Interaction Order at the Margins: Stigma, Role, and Normalization in the Outreach Encounter. Symbolic Interaction. Vol. 34. No. 3: 357–376. DOI: 10.1525/si.2011.34.3.357.
Smith R. J., Hall T. (2018) Everyday Territories: Homelessness, Outreach Work and City Space. The British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 69. No. 2: 372–390. DOI: 10.1111/1468–4446.12280.
Snow D. A., Anderson L. (1987) Identity Work Among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 92. No. 6: 1336–1371. DOI: 10.1086/228668.
Somerville P. et al. (1992) Homelessness and the Meaning of Home: Rooflessness or Rootlessness? International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 16. No. 4: 529–539. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2427.1992.tb00194.x.
Stephenson S. (2006) Crossing the Line: Vagrancy, Homelessness and Social Displacement in Russia. Aldershot. Ashgate. DOI: 10.4324/9781315258829.
Vanderstraeten R. (2001) The School Class as an Interaction Order. British Journal of Sociology of Education. Vol. 22. No. 2: 267–277. DOI: 10.1080/01425690120054876.