Being Feared: The Micro-Dynamics of

Fear and Insecurity Ben Ellis

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/being-feared-the-micro-dynamics-of-fear-and-insecuri
ty-ben-ellis/
Being Feared
The Micro-Dynamics of
Fear and Insecurity
Ben Ellis
Being Feared
 Ben Ellis

Being Feared
The Micro-Dynamics of Fear and Insecurity
Ben Ellis
School of Criminology
University of Leicester
Leicester, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-61544-4 ISBN 978-3-030-61545-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61545-1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: David Wall/Getty Images

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
For Grandad Knight
1923–2020
 Preface

A man in his 30s sat at his office desk in the early evening. He liked to
work beyond 5 pm because it meant he could avoid the worst of the rush
hour traffic. It was December and the winter freeze had taken hold. So,
when it was time to head home he put his hat and gloves on, along with
his big winter coat and prepared to brave the sub-zero temperatures.
He worked in a large public sector organisation and there were always
unfamiliar faces passing by him in the corridors but a smile and a nod
usually punctuated each encounter. He made his way to the exit of his
building. As the automatic doors opened the cold air hitting his face was a
shock. Yet with little hesitation he pressed his hands a little deeper into his
pockets and stepped outside. As he made his way to the staff multistorey
car park it started to rain. He pulled the hood of his coat up and bowed
his head slightly to stop the cold wind and rain from getting to his face.
He had to cross a number of roads and pass between several buildings to
get to his car. There were many people walking around and going about
their business but he kept his head down and made his way quietly.
There was a woman walking in front of him making her way similarly,
he presumed, to her car and a journey home. She appeared to be cold. She
was clutching her bag close to her with her arms folded. As the throng
of people started to thin out he turned down the street on which the car
park stood. The woman glanced behind and saw the man but continued
to walk towards the entrance to the car park. She opened the door and
entered. The man followed a few seconds later.

vii
viii PREFACE

He opened the door and entered the room to pay his ticket for the
car park barrier. He looked to his right and saw that the woman he had
been walking behind stood in the corner. She was staring back at him,
eyes wide open, clearly flustered by something. She was visibly shaking.
“I don’t have any money! I don’t have anything!” She shouted. “There is
nothing in here!” She gestured towards her handbag without loosening
her grip on it. She looked terrified.
The man was confused. He really didn’t know what to think at first.
He stood, unable to comprehend what the woman was talking about.
The thought crossed his mind that there may be something wrong with
her but it slowly started to dawn on him; she thought he had come to
mug her. She thought he had followed her into the room to mug her!
He didn’t know what to say. He didn’t know what to do. Should he
be sympathetic and calm her down? Should he be annoyed? Should he
be insulted? What is it about him that has caused this reaction? He just
wanted to go home. The man had experienced this sort of thing before
but never with this intensity.
“I am just going to pay for my parking ticket if that’s OK?” He said.
The tone of his voice was calm but he hoped it also conveyed his annoy-
ance at being suspected of criminal intent. The woman, still standing
in the corner, was clearly shaken. As the man put his money into the
machine the woman’s demeanour quickly changed. She was apologetic.
She must have finally realised he was a member of staff but the impact
of her initial impression and reaction left an awkward atmosphere as the
machine approved the man’s payment. He hurriedly took his ticket from
the machine and went to his car without looking back at the woman or
saying anything further. He had not meant to cause this impression but
what could he do? He was making a journey he had made hundreds of
times before. That woman had been deeply afraid of him and he knew it.

Leicester, UK Ben Ellis

 Contents

1 An Introduction to Being Feared 1

Fear of Crime and Being Feared: A Brief Background 2
Turning the Tables on Fear of Crime: The Aims and Purpose
of This Research 3
The Conceptual Approach to the Research 4
Methodology Within the Research 5
Towards an Understanding of ‘Being Feared?’ 8
Structure of the Book 10
References 13

2 An Object of Fear? Setting the Scene for Understanding

Being Feared 17
The Dramaturgical Model 20
Meaning and Interaction 22
Dramaturgical Awareness 26
Defining the Parameters of Being Feared: Goffman’s
Encounters 28
Focused and Unfocused Interaction 29
Performance and the Minutia of Interaction 33
Front: Setting, Appearance and Manner 34
Goffman: From Situation to Structure 37
Primary Frameworks 38
References 41

ix
x CONTENTS

3 Pillars of Fear—Purposeful Fear 43

Purposeful Fear 44
References 60

4 Pillars of Fear: Accidental Fear 61

Being Feared: Why Me? 69
References 76

5 Pillars of Fear: Alleviating Fear 77

Adapting to the Presence of Fear 84
References 90

6 Pillars of Fear: Competent/Dutiful Fear 91

References 103

7 The Importance of Context: The Body, the Desire

and the Duty 105
The Importance of the Body—The Presentation of Self 106
The Importance of Context 114
References 123

8 Conclusion: The Dynamics of Being Feared—The

Polarity of Intensions 125
Where to from Here? 128
References 133

Bibliography 135

Index 151
 CHAPTER 1

An Introduction to Being Feared

Abstract This introductory chapter has three functions: (1) to introduce

the project and the content of the book including the pillars of fear; (2) to
specifically outline the methodologies used to gather the data; (3) to give
a short review of the existing literature on this topic, teasing out what the
new sociological and criminological questions are regarding this insight
into fear of crime. These discussions are based somewhat on broader ideas
around the impact of fear of crime and how this research is situated within
it.

Keywords Fear of Crime · Being Feared · Framework · Goffman ·

Context

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a concise overview of this book

and its research on being feared. In doing so it considers the topic, aims
and rationale of the work to follow. It introduces the background to the
focus of this research and situates the book within the current perspec-
tives of fear of crime. Shortfalls within the existing research literature are
identified and this helps to provide the setting, rationale and context from
which this research moves forward. Following sections specify the aims of
the project, introduce the data collection methods, and provides a brief
overview of literature.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2020
B. Ellis, Being Feared,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61545-1_1
2 B. ELLIS

Fear of Crime and Being

Feared: A Brief Background
Researchers have long studied the negative impact of fear of crime and
the people who experience it (see Farrall and Ditton 2000; Hale 1996).
As a topic of public interest, policy study and academic research, the fear
of crime has been with us since the 1960s. The origin of these fears,
the reasons for their emergence, and an understanding of the processes
associated with their emergence has ebbed and flowed since it was first
discovered (Farrall and Lee 2009). This is not to suggest that anxieties
about crime had never surfaced prior to this point. Rather, from the 1960s
and 1970s, we have witnessed a massive growth in the efforts put into
understanding and controlling such fears (Jackson, Farrall and Gray 2006)
in a more organised and academic fashion. This concerted interrogation
has led to diverse areas of debate and understanding. This ranges from
(but is not limited to) the understanding of vulnerability (see Goodey
1997; LaGrange and Ferraro 1987), the difficulties of definition (Ferraro
and LaGrange 1987; Croake and Hinke 1976) and policies to combat fear
of crime (Bennett 1991; Henig and Maxfield 1978). Despite the consider-
able attention given to this area of study, nearly all studies addressing the
fear of crime to date have taken the perspectives of those who have had
their own safety threatened and their own security jeopardised; the fearful.
As a result, the experiences of being feared have been given far less atten-
tion. There have been some powerful individual accounts (see Ellis 1995;
Kelley 1988) alongside the work of Day (2009), which was the genesis for
this research. The existing research into fear of crime offers little insight
into this experience and represents a missing link in our understanding of
how fear of crime is understood by all of those that experience it.
This book, therefore, turns to those who are perceived to be threat-
ening, and to those groups that the public views as potential perpetrators
of crime; the feared. The research focuses on the perceptions, emotions
and ensuing actions of those who are perceived as a threat to security
by others in mostly, fleeting encounters. It provides an in-depth analysis
of the perception of fear in interactions, how this is recognised within
an encounter, how these perceptions are attributed and reacted upon
and how these experiences relate to particular situations and how they
are structured in ongoing life experiences. All of this is taken from the
perspective of being feared. As Day (2009) suggests, fear between people
in public spaces is so universal as to almost pass without mention. Yet, for
 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO BEING FEARED 3

an experience with such universality, there is a dearth of understanding

concerning the perspective of the feared. It is in an attempt to explore
and redress this deficit to which this research is focused.

Turning the Tables on Fear of Crime:

The Aims and Purpose of This Research
In consideration of the perspective this study has taken towards fear of
crime, the core purpose of the research is to explore and address the lack
of understanding about the experience of being feared. The main aims
and objectives of this research were:

1. To understand the micro-dynamics of fear from the perspective of

those who are perceived by the public and in communities as objects
of fear, potential offenders, as ‘fearsome’ and ‘intimidating’.
2. To explore how being feared feeds into perceptions of identity,
threat and fear and how these perceptions shape the actions of those
that perceive themselves to be feared.
3. To understand how these actions and perceptions are shaped at the
point of interaction.
4. To understand the role that fear plays in the produc-
tion/maintenance of order within personal and/or work-based
encounters.

Each of these aims and objectives are addressed within the chapters that
follow. It is also important, at this point, to express explicitly what the
original contribution to knowledge will be for this research. Taking the
perspective of the feared is not an entirely new endeavour (see Day 2009;
Ellis 1995; Kelley 1988). This research contributes to the understanding
of being feared in four distinct and original ways. First, the research
takes a micro-sociological approach to the phenomenon of being feared.
Micro-sociology is based on interpretative analysis rather than statistical or
empirical observation, and shares close association with the philosophy of
phenomenology (Goffman 1974). It is focused on the nature of everyday
human interaction and agency on a small scale (Goffman 1974). This
focus allows the research to understand the dynamics of fearful encounters
in a way that has yet to be understood.
4 B. ELLIS

Second, is the decision that was made to use a Goffmanian framework

within the research (addressed in more detail in Chapter 2). This follows
on directly from the micro-sociological exploration and helps to situate
and frame the area of research. By using Goffman, the research is able to
frame the moments when people meet face-to-face and define the context
in which being feared is realised and understood.
Third, the range of the experiences within the sample differs signif-
icantly from previous work concerning this perspective. Ellis (1995)
and Kelley (1988) offer personal accounts of being feared. Day (2009)
completed a qualitative study of university age males. This research has
been designed to explore the experience of being feared from a wide range
of contexts. This helps to examine the differences between unique groups
but also explores the potential common threads that link the experience
of being feared together. This study and its exploration makes no claim to
be representative or generalisable to the groups sampled but does offer a
wider range of experiences than has hitherto been undertaken. In doing
so, it offers a wider starting point from which further research can follow.
Fourth, the study considers the different contexts of being feared by
understanding interactions from an everyday and work-based perspective.
This contribution is very much linked to the broad range of contexts
derived from the sampling process within the research. Fear, within an
interaction, can be exacerbated by deeper symbolic and social meanings
as understood by those that experience it. By exploring a wider range of
people and occupations, the study can understand the significance of these
factors on the experience of being feared. In this sense, the research goes
beyond an understanding of fearfulness and towards an understanding of
being feared.

The Conceptual Approach to the Research

In order to understand the meaning and interpretations inherent in inter-
personal communication a conceptual framework based on the work of
Erving Goffman has been developed. As previously mentioned, this situ-
ates the research on a micro-analytical scale and places it within a symbolic
interactionist tradition. The research explains and uses Goffman’s over-
arching concept of dramaturgy. Alongside this, the research uses the
insights from Encounters (1961), the concept of ‘performance’ from The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) and Frame Analysis (1974)
as well as drawing on additional elements from the work of Goffman.
 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO BEING FEARED 5

Dramaturgy makes it possible to identify that each aspect of a person’s

behaviour is essentially expressive in both the giving and the receiving
of communicative information. This is essential in understanding the
dynamics of fearful situations. Key thematic questions stem from this
and will be explored throughout the book. This includes the ways in
which people present different expressive identities in different contexts.
This helps us to understand the front stage and backstage elements of
Goffman’s dramaturgy when looking into different fear contexts such as
personal and work-based. By using Encounters (1961) the research is able
to conceptualise an area of specific interaction that metaphorically frames
a situation within which it is possible to analyse fleeting interaction. This
is important in recognising that being feared requires an object of fear, a
person. Goffman’s exploration of the dynamics of encounters allows the
research to situate the enquiry at the point where the fearful and the
feared are in each other’s presence.
Goffman’s ‘performance’ allows the research to consider the ‘ingredi-
ents’ of each encounter and the expressive information given and received
during an interaction. This allows the research to consider the expres-
sive, physical and symbolic elements of the individual or group that can
contribute to being feared. By understanding performance, the feared
person can divulge, as they see it, the reasons why they believe themselves
to be feared. They can also, within this Goffmanian frame, describe the
ways in which they observe and recognise fear in the people they interact
with. Frame Analysis (1974) provides a schema that brings the aforemen-
tioned elements together to provide a metaphorical frame within which
individuals can describe and structure their experiences of being feared.
This helps to understand how the experience of being feared is organised
over time and how it is given meaning by those that experience it. In light
of this conceptual frame, the type of detail a micro-social analysis required
meant that an appropriate research design was essential.

Methodology Within the Research

This research presented within this book has relied on a qualitative design
to conduct the empirical research. A qualitative design is ideally suited
for understanding the experience of being feared because it is able to
provide the contextual understanding of individual and group experiences
and how interaction is interpreted. It was considered the best method
6 B. ELLIS

for allowing the research aims and objectives to be achieved and opera-
tionalised. A qualitative design allows for the study of a limited number
of participants (Bachman and Schutt 2007), which suited the timescale
of this research. It allows for detailed understanding and description of
complex phenomena, which is commensurate with the use of a Goff-
manian conceptual frame. A qualitative design opens the possibility of
inductive enquiry into a little-known experience. By doing so, it places
the explanations and importance of events in the hands of those that have
experienced them. It also, importantly for the experience of being feared,
allows for idiographic causation. That is to say, it allows for the partici-
pant to determine the causes for the events that they have experienced.
This is essential for understanding the experience of being feared and
the dynamics therein. This allows for both narrow individual analysis and
broad thematic analysis. It affords the researcher the ability to legitimise
the individual experiences whilst being able to connect the larger themes
and common threads within the data.
In order to achieve the aims and objectives of the research it was
necessary to develop a sample from which the experience of being feared
was likely. In addition to this, there was a desire that the sample would
offer a broad understanding of the experience of being feared. It was
because of this that police officers, bouncers/door staff, gym goers, young
people and students were strategically selected for the sample. Due to the
serendipitous recruitment of a soldier when hoping to talk to a gym goer,
soldiers were added into the sample at a later point. It is also important
at the introductory stage, to provide rationale for the groups that have
been selected within this research. It is recognised that this, in no way,
represents an exhaustive list of people that would have experienced being
feared. Instead, it represents a starting point from which an initial explo-
ration can be taken, and further research and understanding can be added
over time.
Young people and students were selected for this research because the
group falls within an age range that has often been described as the most
likely to be the cause of interpersonal fear. It is critical for the research
to understand the experiences of those deemed by others as the group
most likely to be the objects of interpersonal fear (Pearce, Dixon, Reed
and Margo 2006; British Crime Survey 2009/2010). This is true both
of individuals but also of groups. The point at which students and young
people learn of this status, if at all, is important to understanding the
experience of being feared. This is a group that have made or are making
 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO BEING FEARED 7

their transition from child to adult. In this sense, their understanding of

their feared status is potentially in the earliest stages of formation.
Gym goers have been selected to provide a specific insight into the role
that the body plays in being feared. The role of the trained or muscular
individual represents the embodiment of masculinity and these individ-
uals may be aware that the appearance of their physique might cause fear
(Fussell 1991). An awareness of the body, the physical outward appear-
ance and the reactions to this appearance represents an integral element
of understanding the experience of being feared. The inclusion of this
group allows for the research to investigate being feared from a context
that centres on the very object of fear—the body. Understanding those
that attribute fear directly from this standpoint is a necessary platform
from which the importance of the outward physical appearance can be
derived.
Police officers were selected in order to provide an insight into fearful
interactions from an occupational context. A police officer’s day-to-day
activity requires them to interact with people or communities that may
fear them. By exercising their duty as police officers, they may be called
upon to threaten the use of force. They also have the power to commit
acts of violence. They may also be required to allay the fears of victims
of crime in order to better investigate crimes. The management of fear is
integral to the role of the police officer.
Bouncers/doorstaff offer an insight into being feared from a less
formal position of authority. Many bouncers are not employed full-time
within the private security industry, and this was true of the sample
collected for this research. Bouncers are required to manage specific activ-
ities in specific places so their powers and resources are more limited
than that of the police. Despite this, bouncers are aware of and employ,
techniques and tactics in order to obtain and maintain order. This may
involve causing fear as well as threatening violence and, indeed, the use
of violence. As Hobbs, Hadfield, Lister and Winlow (2002) describe,
bouncers represent an important part of being feared in what can be called
the ‘economics of intimidation’.
Soldiers have also been included as a sample group within this research.
Soldiers provide a chance to frame the extreme range of fear experienced
by people. This is by understanding the experience of being feared in the
most dangerous and life-threatening situations it is possible to encounter.
The powers that soldiers possess in the line of duty exceed that of any
everyday situation. The resources and training received offers a valuable
8 B. ELLIS

yardstick for the framing of fear-provoking activity. The limits on their

capacity for violence are derived from their given objectives in combat
and as such, they can provide a unique insight into the experience of
being feared from a context in which they can legally take life.
Specifically, data was collected from the strategically recruited sample
via face-to-face semi-structured interviews. In total 52 interviews were
used within this research from men and women from across the afore-
mentioned groups. This comprised of an initial 32 interviews with an
additional 20 interviews completed later. This approach meant that occu-
pational/personal experiences and perceptions could be gathered to
develop a detailed picture of the issues surrounding the experience of
being feared. Participants were invited, before the interview began, to
choose their own aliases. This allowed for a degree of ownership to the
research process and, the author believes, led to a richer data source as a
result. This does mean that there is a wide range of names used within the
sample, that can belie the seriousness of what is being said. For example,
when describing the ways in which he put prisoners of war into stress
positions for hours, a participant who was a Royal Marine remarked:

I can tell you this, because I am a Pink Fairy.

Towards an Understanding of ‘Being Feared?’

To echo the sentiments of Farrall and Lee (2009: 1), when starting a
review on the fear of crime there are two questions that are immediately
apparent: ‘Where to begin?’ and ‘is there anything left to say?’ Deciding
where to begin requires a balance between ‘setting the scene’ within the
field and the level of specific detail that should be included in an ongoing
discussion. A full review of the field will not be conducted here (see for
a detailed example Hale 1996; Farrall et al. 2009) but a certain broad
introduction is needed and that is where this chapter starts. However, it
is to the latter question that the major thoughts should eventually turn.
To do this there are certain aspects of the literature on fear of crime that
must be explored and questions that need to be addressed. Amongst these
is the way in which fear is conceptualised and measured. More specif-
ically, in order to better understand the experience of being feared, it
is important to know who fears whom, under what circumstances and
conditions people are fearful and what types of behaviour people fear.
Understanding this can lead to a better realisation of the direction most
 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO BEING FEARED 9

fear of crime research has taken and the perspectives that it has, hitherto,
dedicated its efforts into understanding. Following this a clearer idea can
be formed about the way in which an understanding of the experience
of being feared can move the fear of crime literature forward and add a
considerable dimension that has, thus far, been missing.
To conclude this introductory chapter, it is important critically to
introduce the concept of being feared and how exploring this ‘inside out’
view of fear of crime can help to expand understanding within the field. As
already stated, an investigation into the perspective of the feared is not an
entirely new endeavour. There is a need to have focused research to enable
the exploration of the dynamics of fearful encounters in a way that has
yet to be fully understood. As the history (both politically and academ-
ically) has shown, fear of crime often centres its efforts on the victim’s
(actual and potential) perceptions of crime. Questions and disagreements
surrounding the measurement of fear of crime reflect this direction of
thinking (see for example Hale 1996; Farrall et al. 2009). This research, as
already stated, takes its inspiration and direction from much of this work.
This enables this research to understand the conditions, environments and
expressions of fear of crime as experienced by the fearful. It also, crucially,
has provided this research with a starting point for understanding who
and what people are afraid of.
In understanding this, there is a need to restate how being feared might
be understood as a concept and to allow those that experience it to assign
its true meaning and explain its varied contexts and nuances as they expe-
rience them. By addressing being feared, it turns the focus of fear of crime
research towards those who are perceived to be threatening, and to those
groups that the public views as potential perpetrators of crime. Questions
remain unanswered about the perceptions, emotions and ensuing actions
of those who are perceived as a threat to security by others. Kirsten Day
(2009) suggests that fear between people in public spaces is so universal as
to almost pass without mention. Yet the perception of fear in interactions
from this perspective, how this is recognised, and how these perceptions
are attributed is, up to now, very narrowly understood. As already stated,
for an experience with such apparent universality, there is a dearth of
understanding concerning the perspective of the feared.
Previous work concerning this perspective such as Ellis (1995) and
Kelley (1988) offer personal accounts of being feared. Day’s (2009) study
of university age males was focused on a sample exploring primarily the
experience of ethnic minority males. As such, the breadth of experiences
10 B. ELLIS

and range of contexts for the experience of being feared well placed and
an ideal starting point, but was necessarily limited. This research was
designed to explore the experience of being feared from a wider range of
experiences. This includes the everyday, mundane interactions all the way
to the most extreme environments of human violence. In order to add
to the vast array of fear of crime literature the study needs to consider a
broader array of contexts in everyday interactions than has been achieved
within the field to date. Fear, within an interaction, can be exacerbated
by deeper symbolic and social meanings. Individuals can assign the causal
factors of perceived fear towards their occupational endeavours as well as
or instead of personal characteristics.
It is from a point of deeper understanding of fear of crime more gener-
ally, and the established importance of being feared that this research is
able to take its first steps. Initially this is centred on identifying the people
that are most likely to have experienced being feared. The research needs
to be able to frame the moments when people meet, face-to-face and
define the contexts in which being feared is realised and understood. This
can then be utilised to guide the focus of the data collection and focus
the participants on recounting the specific details of their experiences.
This ‘inside out’ perspective adds a dynamic to the existing literature but,
it must be stressed, that such a position is not possible without under-
standing first what those on the inside (the feared) are looking out onto.
It is this point that situates and links this research endeavour alongside
the rest of the fear of crime field.

Structure of the Book

Chapter 2 considers the framework upon which the research and its find-
ings are built. It introduces a conceptual framework that will allow us
to understand the meaning and interpretations inherent in interpersonal
communication—an essential element in understanding how and why
people interpret the meanings within the encounters they have. In order
to do this a conceptual framework based on the work of Erving Goffman
was developed. Goffman has been used to address fear of crime in the past
(see Warr 1990) and again his work is called into action to help under-
stand the experience of being feared. There was a key thematic question
that was addressed during this research: How can we best explore and
begin to understand being feared? To answer this there were a number of
things that needed to be considered. First, within the thematic question
 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO BEING FEARED 11

is the implicit fact that in order to understand being feared it is impor-

tant to observe that it is not only a spatial or temporal concern but one
that includes a living object of fear—a person. Second, there are situa-
tions when we fear people or we fear that they will do something to us
that we do not want; under what conditions does this happen? When it
does happen how does the person, who is the object of this fear, realise?
How does the feared person make sense of this and how do they link
it to their experiences of life within a wider society and their sense of
self? Within all of this there is a need to acknowledge the importance
inherent in the giving and receiving of expressive information between
individuals—the feared and the fearful. This allows us to understand how
meaning is derived within interactions, and how the settings and contexts
of those interactions shape our understanding of their importance. This
chapter lays the foundations upon which the pillars of fear are built.
As mentioned within this introductory chapter, the research was able
to identify unique contextual experiences within the experience of being
feared. Often derived from the personal contexts and situations that the
participants have had. There was also a series of common threads that
was able to link these experiences. These are known as the pillars of fear.
Chapter 3 introduces the first of the four pillars of fear—the concept
of purposeful fear within an interaction. This concerns the actions and
behaviours of those that want to encourage or augment fear in others.
Purposeful fear can be defined as the purposeful actions of an actor
to instil fear in another within an everyday encounter. This theme was
evident in the experiences of nearly all of the participants within the
study and present within every research group. This suggests that it is
an integral part to understanding the experience of being feared. Whilst
purposeful fear was a near-universal phenomenon, its uses amongst the
participants varied from the mundane to the more extreme. The third
chapter explores the different justifications and contexts in which this
pillar surfaces.
Chapter 4 turns to those circumstances in which fear has been caused
accidentally, and introduces the accidental pillar of fear. Fear can be
caused in others by an individual with no intention to elicit a fear reac-
tion whatsoever (reference the preface to this book). For example, where
purposeful fear can be a useful enabler within an interaction, accidental
fear constitutes a barrier to a successful interaction. There are some cross-
referenced themes between this and the previous chapters, building on
12 B. ELLIS

the narrative logically throughout. For example, the context of interac-

tions can have an impact on the fear perceived in others. This is true
of each of the pillars of fear and could be related to age, gender, race,
other corporeal considerations, surroundings and other temporal consid-
erations. This chapter highlights the impact that accidental fear can have
in both social and professional life. The barriers that accidental fear can
create needs to be understood and navigated by those that experience
them. This is important as, in stark contrast to the purposeful pillar of
fear in the preceding chapter, this can be the cause of many different
feelings, actions and reactions on the part of the feared person.
Chapter 5 considers the actions of those who have caused or noticed
fear (purposefully or accidentally) within an encounter, and seek to
remove it. In doing so, this chapter explores the alleviating fear pillar.
It explores those that actively engage in measures to alleviate and reduce
the fears of others when they notice it is present. It considers the steps
taken to avoid encounters in which fear is expected. It also examines the
situations in which those that perceive being feared engage in specific
behaviours to alleviate fear in others. This is a theme that intersects with
every group, and within every context from the mundane to the extreme.
It is common between individuals to the point of near universality. There
is a simple central premise to this pillar of fear that revolves around the
idea that no participant within the research has the desire to be feared
within every encounter. To that end, the protocols engaged within the
cohort to alleviate fear are equally as developed as those to instil fear.
As will be evidenced within the chapter, failure and/or the futility of the
effort is far more prevalent in those that wish to alleviate fear than with
those that wish to instil it. This chapter helps to underline the impor-
tance of appearance as discussed within previous chapters and expands on
the conceptual and theoretical threads within the work. It also helps to
demonstrate the potential social precariousness of being feared.
Chapter 6 introduces the final pillar of fear. Competent/ dutiful fear is a
term that can be used to describe those that provoke fear in the execution
or service of their job. This pillar of fear is very much situated in the work-
based contexts as examined by this research. It is important to explore this
theme within the sample and it can be considered, in many ways, as a valid
construct in itself. The pillars that have preceded this one (purposeful,
accidental and alleviating) can be considered within a personal and work-
based context. There is a complex range of factors to explore within this
pillar. It is unique in that it explicitly considers fear away from a solely
 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO BEING FEARED 13

personal perspective. It considers and moves the context of being feared

towards understanding the provocation of fear for reasons that can be
deemed as outside of the personal, or guided by the execution of a duty
or obligation. This can move from the civilian use of force within police
forces and the night-time economy, all the way to the conduct of soldiers
and prisoners of war. This chapter includes a summary of the four pillars
of fear and their interconnectedness.
Chapter 7 summarises how being feared was understood and used
differently between the groups within this research depending on the
different contexts in which these encounters took place. It connects a
common area between each of the pillars presented within the research.
Explanations of what caused fear, justifications for its use and the
processes of its management moved from the extreme to the mundane.
Those that are feared speak to the contexts to which they most relate.
It reflects how they see themselves and how they organise and frame
(Goffman 1974) their experiences. This is a simple yet profound finding.
It is presented in the chapter as a calling card for deeper understanding
and further investigation into the nuances, hitherto unexplored, within
the concept of being feared. Reflections of being feared centre on self
and the purpose and context of presence within an encounter. Resulting
desires (causing fear, alleviating fear) can be both personally assigned
and/or linked to the duty to which they are dedicated. It is within this
finding that the selection, within the methodology, of the research groups
is of the greatest use.
The final chapter concludes this book. It summarises the usefulness
of the Goffmanian framework that was developed within the research.
It also summarises the importance of the pillars of fear as found within
this research. Purposeful fear, accidental fear, alleviating fear and compe-
tent/ dutiful fear have been derived from a wide range of contexts and
experiences. Reflecting this wide range of experience, the chapter also
offers a number of suggestions for further research, following the findings
herein.

References
Bachman, R., and Schutt, R.K. (2007) The Practice of Research in Criminology
and Criminology Research. London: Sage.
Bennett, T. (1991) The Effectiveness of a Police-Initiated Fear Reducing
Strategy. British Journal of Criminology 31 (1): pp. 1–14.
14 B. ELLIS

Croake, J., and Hinke, D. (1976) Methodological Problems in the Study of

Fears. Journal of Psychology 93: pp. 197–202.
Day, K. (2009) Being Feared: Masculinity and Race in Public Space, in Lee,
M., and Farrall, S. (eds.) Fear of Crime: Critical Voices in an Age of Anxiety.
London: Routledge.
Ellis, T. (1995) How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? in Belton, D. (ed.) Speak
My Name: Black Men on Masculinity and the American Dream. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon: pp. 35–44.
Farrall, S., and Ditton, J. (2000) Fear of Burglary: Refining National Survey
Questions for Use at Local Level. International Journal of Police Science and
Management 3 (1): pp. 9–18.
Farrall, S., and Lee, M. (2009) Fear of Crime: Critical Voices in an Age of
Anxiety. Abingdon: Routledge.
Farrall, S., Jackson, J., and Gray, E. (2009) Social Order and the Fear of Crime
in Contemporary Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferraro, K.F., and LaGrange, R. (1987) The Measurement of Fear of Crime.
Sociological Inquiry 57: pp. 70–101.
Flatley, J., Kershaw, C., Smith, K., Chaplin, R., and Moon, D. (eds.) (2010)
Crime in England and Wales 2009/2010: Findings from the British Crime
Survey and Police Recorded Crime. Great Britain Home Office Research
Development and Statistics Directorate.
Fussell, S. (1991) Muscle: Confessions of an Unlikely Bodybuilder. New York:
Poseidon Press.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Pelican.
Goffman, E. (1961) Encounters. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. Norwich: Fletcher and Son.
Goodey, J. (1997) Boys Don’t Cry: Masculinities, Fear of Crime and Fearlessness.
The British Journal of Criminology 37 (3): pp. 401–418.
Hale, C. (1996) Fear of Crime: A Review of the Literature. International Review
of Victimology 4: pp. 79–150.
Henig, J., and Maxfield, M. (1978) Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for
Intervention. Victimology 3: pp. 297–313.
Hobbs, R., Hadfield, P., Lister, S., and Winlow, S. (2002) ‘Door Lore’: The Art
and Economics of Intimidation. The British Journal of Criminology 42 (2):
pp. 352–370.
Jackson, J., Farrall, S., and Gray, E. (2006) The Provenance of Fear. Experience
& Expression in the Fear of Crime Working Paper No. 2 (November 2006).
Kelley, R.D.G. (1988) Confessions of a Nice Negro, or Why I Shaved My Head,
in Kimmell, M.S., and Messner, M.A. (eds.) Men’s Lives. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
LaGrange, R.L., and Ferraro, K.F. (1987) The Elderly’s Fear of Crime: A Critical
Examination of the Research. Research on Aging 9: pp. 372–391.
 1 AN INTRODUCTION TO BEING FEARED 15

Pearce, H., Dixon, M., Reed, H., and Margo, J. (2006) Freedom’s
Orphans: Raising Youth in a Changing World [online]. Available
at: https://www.ippr.org/publications/freedoms-orphans-raising-youth-in-a-
changing-world. Accessed 26 July 2013.
Warr, M. (1990) Dangerous Situations: Social Context and Fear of Victimisation.
Social Forces 68 (3): pp. 891–907.
 CHAPTER 2

An Object of Fear? Setting the Scene

for Understanding Being Feared

Abstract This Chapter looks at the conceptual framework used within

the research and addresses how the work of Erving Goffman is utilised.
There was a key thematic question that was addressed during this
research: How can we best explore and begin to understand being feared?
There is a need to acknowledge the importance inherent in the giving and
receiving of expressive information between individuals—the feared and
the fearful. This allows us to understand how meaning is derived within
interactions, and how the settings and contexts of those interactions shape
our understanding of their importance. This chapter lays the foundations
upon which the pillars of fear are built.

Keywords Goffman · Performance · Framework · Being Feared ·

Dramaturgy · Meaning

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce a conceptual framework that

will allow us to understand the meaning and interpretations inherent in
interpersonal communication. A conceptual framework based on the work
of Erving Goffman has been developed during the course of this research.
This situates the research on a micro-analytical scale and broadly places it
within a symbolic interactionist tradition. It also helps to understand and
legitimise the lived experience of those that experience being feared. The
chapter explains and uses Goffman’s overarching concept of dramaturgy.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 17

Switzerland AG 2020
B. Ellis, Being Feared,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61545-1_2
18 B. ELLIS

Alongside this, the chapter introduces and uses insights from Encounters
(1961), the concept of ‘performance’ from The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life (1959) and aspects of Frame Analysis (1974) as well as
drawing on additional elements from the work of Goffman.
Leading on from the introductory chapter, there was a key thematic
question, which warrants repeating: How can we best explore and begin
to understand being feared? To answer this there are a number of things
that need to be considered. First, within the thematic question is the
implicit fact that in order to understand being feared it is important to
observe that it is not only a spatial or temporal concern but one that
includes a living object of fear—a person. Second, there are situations
when we fear people or we fear that they will do something to us that
we do not want; under what conditions does this happen? When it does
happen how does the person, who is the object of this fear, realise? How
does the feared person make sense of this and how do they link it to
their experiences of life within a wider society and their sense of self? To
answer these questions a micro-sociological approach will be needed that
can consider an individual’s sense of meaning in the minutia of interaction
and a way of framing these experiences over a period of time. This starts
by turning to the work of Erving Goffman to engage in several of his
sociological contributions to begin to conceptualise the dynamics of being
feared.
Goffman’s dramaturgy makes it possible to identify that each aspect of
a person’s behaviour is essentially expressive in both the giving and the
receiving of communicative information. Goffman’s overarching concept,
of dramaturgy in Presentation of Self in Everyday life (1959) conceptu-
alises that all life is theatrical and this provides a detailed metaphor for
understanding human interaction and how humans present themselves in
society. It also, importantly, forms the basis upon which it is possible to
analyse meaning within an interaction, how this meaning is constructed,
and how it endures. This places emphasis firmly within the micro-scale
social examination of symbolic interactionism. The work of Mead, Cooley
and Blumer were of particular influence to Goffman’s work and are cited
throughout. The emphasis within the symbolic interactionist tradition is
again seen with Encounters (Goffman 1961).
Within Encounters (1961), Goffman conceptualised an area of specific
interaction that metaphorically frames a situation within which it is
possible to analyse fleeting encounters. Here the personal perceptions of
specific interaction can create the experiences with which this research has
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 19

engaged, and to which the participants will give meaning, attribute cause,
apply reason and describe and structure experience. It is the moment
when our actors meet and the expressions given by the ‘interactants’
form the perceptions of fear from which this research draws. Performance
allows us to consider the ‘ingredients’ of each encounter. It gives us a
framework to move away from a metaphorical frame towards an analysis
of the actions and mannerisms shown on both sides of an interaction. In
this sense, we can identify that those who are feared are not only passive
(are feared without a direct effort to be so) but can be active (specifically
try to elicit fear). For example, some people might want to be feared. It
is how this is acted out that has been illuminated through this study and
ultimately why Goffman’s framework, as used in The Presentation of Self
in Everyday Life (1959), is so useful. This performative, dramaturgical
view of the world can be read and understood without witting knowl-
edge of the existence of these phenomena. Thus, the signals of fear in
others, as identified by those that may have caused them/are the object
of them, are of great importance. It will be in the reflection of behaviour
within encounters and the regularity with which they occur that can lead
to a more structured understanding of what it is like to be feared. Frame
Analysis (1974) represents a culmination in Goffman’s work that links the
situational aspects of interaction with the structural concerns of an indi-
vidual within society. Goffman used the idea of frames to label ‘schemata
of interpretation’ that allow individuals or groups to “locate, perceive,
identify, and label events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, orga-
nizing experiences, and guiding actions” (Goffman 1974: 21). Goffman’s
schema brings these elements together to provide a metaphorical frame
within which people can describe their experiences regardless of their
specific knowledge of frames, as a concept and regardless of whether they
have ever sought structure within their experiences before. This research,
in light of this, has been able to identify, through investigation, how
people experience being feared and what impact this has on the structure
of their lives.
This perspective moves away from the current literature on fear of
crime. This is not to suggest that a hitherto primary focus on the
fearful with specific concentration on spatial, temporal or other extra-
neous external factors are unimportant to an understanding of fear of
crime—quite the opposite. This being so, the question that still requires
answering concerns how best to approach an understanding of what it
is like to be feared. Erving Goffman’s work provides the best example
20 B. ELLIS

of how to approach a topic based on the individual interpretation and

structure of human interaction and this is why it has been chosen.

The Dramaturgical Model

Goffman conceptualised social life using a dramaturgical model, that
is, all social life is theatrical within his (1959) book The Presentation
of Self in Everyday Life. The dramaturgical model is a metaphor for
understanding human interaction and how humans present themselves
in society. It is a theatrical framework that interprets individual behaviour
as the dramatic projection of a chosen self. Dramaturgy is a sociolog-
ical perspective stemming from symbolic interactionism. Much of the
output in dramaturgical thinking has been either about, or inspired
by, the work of Erving Goffman. There have, however, been notable
efforts, for example by Lyman and Scott (1975), Combs and Mansfield
(1976), Manning (1976), Harre (1979), Gronbeck (1980), Hare (1985),
Cochran (1986) and Hare and Blumberg (1988), to extend, elaborate
and make a case for dramaturgy as a distinctive model, and in some cases
a theory, of human behaviour (Brissett and Edgely 1990).
The most straightforward definition of dramaturgy is that it is the
study of how human beings accomplish meaning in their lives. Like other
forms of interpretive explanation, it focuses on “connecting action to its
sense rather than behaviour to its determinants” (Geertz 1983: 34). By
adopting a dramaturgical model, it is important to note that it assumes
that there is a difference between what a person really ‘is’ or thinks he/she
really is and what he/she presents to the outside world—how he/she
wants to be seen by others (Goffman 1959). This implies that social
life is, metaphorically, a stage on which individuals enact the different
roles in which they find themselves and different individualities that they
want to demonstrate or the different ways that they interpret this role.
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays
many parts, His acts being seven ages” (Shakespeare C1599–1600, As
You Like It, 2/7). Goffman (1959), as part of this dramaturgical model,
sees social life in terms of actors acting, that is, all of us are like actors
on a stage, presenting a play. The ‘audience’ is made up of other social
actors. According to Goffman (1959) we are all constantly play-acting all
the time with each other.
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 21

Therefore, Goffman sees social interaction as involving ‘impression

management’. This means that an actor wants to feel that he or she is
performing the role and that he or she is playing well. Thus, when we
are interacting with each other, we adopt certain strategies to try and
ensure that our ‘act’ will be seen by an audience in a way that will reflect
well on us (Goffman 1959) or in the intended way (i.e. being violent).
Here, importantly, Goffman focuses on both the role of the actor and
of the audience. This suggests that within Goffman’s dramaturgy there is
an emphasis on both the giving and receiving of expressive information.
Additionally, Goffman (1959), in his dramaturgical model emphasises that
the actor intends their performance to reflect well on them (‘performance’
is discussed in detail later). This is based on Goffman’s broad descrip-
tion of the dramaturgical model that can be developed in more specific
settings. Strong (1988) suggested that Goffman, with his development of
dramaturgy, explored virgin territories and left it to others to seek more
substantiated conclusions. Strong’s (1988) point is an important one. He
suggests that Goffman “was not too fussy about the means by which he
derived his terms, or the manner in which others might operationalise
them. Instead, he was driven on by his desire to map, however provi-
sionally, the many contours of his presumed newfound domain” (Strong
1988: 230).
For Goffman, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), the
scripts of many types of interaction outline in basic terms what roles are
available and what is generally supposed to occur. However, in contrast
to the theatre, individuals in real-life negotiate amongst themselves to
determine who will play which role and exactly how events will transpire.
Individuals must also work to convince others that their roles are genuine;
in doing so, they use the props appropriate to the role and enlist the tacit
support of other actors to control the events that occur.
Dramaturgy asserts that people’s activities, their selections, their
accomplishments and their communications in social interaction establish
the meaning that can be derived from them (Brissett and Edgley 1990: 4).
In other words, it is in the very expressiveness of their doing that the inex-
orable flow of meaningful human behaviour resides (Brissett and Edgley
1990). For the dramaturgical vision of human interaction ‘meaning’ is
not a legacy of or from culture, socialisation or institutional arrangements,
nor the realisation of either psychological or biological potential (Mead
1934). That is to say, that meaning is a continually problematic accom-
plishment of human interaction and it is fraught with change, novelty
22 B. ELLIS

and ambiguity (Brissett and Edgley 1990). This assertion puts dramaturgy
firmly within a micro-analytical frame and in doing so proves its useful-
ness to the study of fearful interactions. However, a full understanding of
how an individual establishes this meaning is needed.

Meaning and Interaction

Mead, in Mind, Self and Society (1934) provides a definition of how
‘meaning’ is established within human interaction. “Meaning arises and
lies within the field of the relation between the gesture of a human
organism and the subsequent behaviour of this organism as indicated
to another organism and the subsequent (or resultant) behaviour of the
given organism, then it has meaning” (Mead 1934: 75). In other words,
Mead’s (1934) definition situates the parameters in which meaning is
established between humans through communicative behaviour. Simply
put, behaviour is given meaning by the observing person to the gestures
of the observed and meaning can be observed in the reactions of other
people.
Therefore, meaning between social actors cannot be assumed to
involve a mutually accepted interpretation, rather it is given its meaning-
fulness by the individual’s interpretation of the gestures of others (Mead
1934), however it might be received and however it might be intended.
So, importantly, we observe behaviour and we impute meaning. Here,
meaning can only be deduced by observable behaviour. Therefore, a
person can only consider himself or herself as being (situationally) feared
if there is observable behaviour that indicates this. Also, the conveying of
meaning through gestures can be done to the point where all observers
understand a shared or intended meaning or where different or discor-
dant meanings are established between the actors. For example, a person
joins a queue for a cash machine/ATM and is agitated because of the
length of the queue and an important appointment they are late for. Their
behaviour and mannerisms would be, as they see it, demonstrative of the
aforementioned delays. For the person immediately in front of them in the
queue entering their security code the behaviour could be interpreted very
differently. They are unaware of the impending appointment and consider
the behaviour to be irrational and worrying. In this example, the meaning
that was intended in the display of impatience was not received in the
way it was given. It is only in interaction with similarly expressive and
empowered others that meaning emerges, and herein resides the fragility
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 23

and precariousness of this achievement (Brissett and Edgley 1990). The

precariousness within the example above lies in the difficulty in estab-
lishing a shared understanding or intended meaning within the observed
behaviour.
Mead (1934: 78) suggests “meaning… is not to be conceived funda-
mentally as a state of consciousness or as a set of organised relations
existing or subsiding mentally outside the field of experience into which
they enter; on the contrary, it should be conceived objectively as having
its existence entirely within the field itself. The response of one organism
to the gesture of another in any given social act is the meaning of that
gesture”. In this sense, meaning within an interaction can only be estab-
lished in specific relation to the events at the point of the experience itself
and cannot be brought into it. In relation to a fearful interaction, fear
can be considered to be present if the responding gesture by one of the
interactants is considered to be indicative of fear by an observer.
Mead’s point is an important one. First, it places the establishment
of meaning with the individual. In doing so it legitimises the belief an
observer has in the interpretation they make of other’s actions. This is
true of both a fearful individual and of an individual who perceives fear in
another; even if the meaning derived by each individual within the inter-
action is contradictory. The personal agency inherent in this legitimating
process also leads to the underlying concept that meaning, as established
by the observer, is the representative of their reality. This process of objec-
tifying meaning as the interpretation and counter-interpretation during
interaction also allows us to legitimise the experience of being feared.
Second, it links nicely with the adoption of a Goffmanian framework
placing the specific establishment of meaning within a fleeting encounter
(discussed in detail shortly). This also places an emphasis on microanalysis
and the importance in realising the expressiveness of all human activity
(Goffman 1959).
Brissett and Edgley (1990: 4) also suggest that it is important to under-
stand that there is nothing in this expressive/impressive dimension of
life that necessitates, requires or demands any consideration of cognition,
volition, deliberation or intention. It is simply that whether we like it or
not, plan it or not, want it to be or want it not to be, our behaviour is
expressive. It is how we come to know others and how we come to know
ourselves (Brissett and Edgley 1990). It is also how we come to know our
position within the wider social world as reflected in the reaction people
24 B. ELLIS

have to use in situations of interaction and how the reactions of others

may shape our ongoing behaviour and our ongoing sense of self.
“In every encounter, no matter what else is accomplished or what the
intention of the person, the individual effectively conveys a definition of
the situation which includes an image of self, and this definition of the
situation may be confirmed, modified or rejected. The audience will tend
to identify the person by his presented self, which includes elements of
which he may be unaware, whether he wills it or not” (Zicklin 1968:
240).
Indeed, Goffman (1959) also directed a certain focus on the commu-
nicative dimension of human interaction. Goffman suggested “the expres-
siveness of the individual…appears to involve two radically different kinds
of sign activity: the expression that he gives and the expression that he
gives off. The first involves verbal symbols or their substitute, which he
uses admittedly and solely to convey the information that he and others
are known to attach to these symbols. This is communication in the tradi-
tional and narrow sense. The second involves a wide range of action that
others can treat as symptomatic of the actor, the expectation being that
the action was performed for reasons other than the information conveyed
in this way” (Goffman 1959: 2).
There are important points to make here. First, is that Goffman treads
a fine dramaturgical line between his emphasis on either the performer or
audience. Carlson (1996: 35) suggests, “cultural performance theorists
tend to place more emphasis on the audience or upon the community in
which performance occurs. Theorists…if they are sociologists, naturally
tend in this direction while ethical philosophers and psychologists natu-
rally emphasise the activities and operations of the performer. Although
Goffman draws emphasis strongly upon both sorts of concern, his overall
emphasis, is rather more toward the audience”. That is to say, Goff-
man’s emphasis focuses on how dramaturgical expression functions within
society and how it is recognised and viewed (Carlson 1996). Relating this
to understanding the experience of being feared, the audience member(s)
can be the feared person, observing and analysing the behaviour of those
that are fearful. In the same sense, they are also the performer, providing
the cues (whether intended or not) from which other fearful interactants
will react and respond.
Second, it is with communication in this broad sense that dramaturgy
is interested and how meaning can be established on different levels
(Brissett and Edgley 1990). Dramaturgical meaning is concerned with
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 25

the inexorable expressive link between discursive (language, speech) and

non-discursive (clothing, hairstyle, gestures) (Brissett and Edgley 1990)
communication. So, in this sense, meaning within an interaction is not
restricted to verbal communication. It considers both the importance of
discourse (Mead 1934) and the importance of appearance (Stone and
Faberman 1986). As has been shown previously, non-discursive commu-
nication can be enough to infer fear (see for example Madriz 1997), when
fearful people have described the appearance and characteristics of the
people whom they fear. Indeed, this can be manifest with or without the
addition of discursive communication.
Third, dramaturgy is a “fully two-sided view of human interaction”
(Brissett and Edgley 1990: 4). In other words, actors can only estab-
lish meaning when an audience observes it. This helps to frame the type
of interaction this research is exploring. It helps to frame fear interac-
tions in which actors are present and not pervasive relationship-based
fear over time—it provides a situational frame. The meaning therein is
open to wide interpretation but the two-sided nature of this interaction
is a distinguishing realisation. Stone and Faberman (1986) discuss the
ways in which human’s ‘negotiate’ the meanings derived from interaction
with others suggesting, “First, man is conceived as a passive neutral agent
buffeted about by stimuli that impinge upon his nerve endings. These
stimuli may be external-reifications of society, culture, physical environ-
ment, or words and other symbols. They may also be internal instincts,
needs or drives. Or they may be some combination of external and
internal forces. Second, and in direct contrast, man is viewed as an active
agent, selecting those stimuli or objects to which he shall respond, accom-
plishing his selections in the matrix of communication and transforming
his society or his social world in the process” (Stone and Faberman 1986:
11).
Stone and Faberman’s (1986) suggestions place the performer in a
contrasting or precarious position. On the one hand an individual could
appear to be a subordinate or passive member of society from which
stimuli are applied from the outside in, or are driven by a more basic
need. On the other hand, it presents an individual as an active participant
in a dramaturgical world, giving and receiving expressive behaviour, expe-
riencing meaning within the world via a selective filter. As far as being the
object of fear is concerned, the interpretations derived from this selective
procedure are important. As Stone and Faberman (1986) suggest, the
process of stimulus selection and the resultant responses can transform
26 B. ELLIS

an individual’s social world. This can have considerable implications on

the lives of those that experience being the object of fear. This is true
regardless of whether fear is the desired outcome of interaction.

Dramaturgical Awareness
‘Dramaturgical awareness’ is a term used by Brissett and Edgley (1990).
It refers to the process by which a person can become, not only expressive
but also aware of their expressiveness (Brissett and Edgley 1990). “The
awareness of this (the dramaturgical) principle can be used to organise
one’s experiences, communicate more effectively with other people,
manipulate and deceive them, or present one’s self in a more favourable
light” (Brissett and Edgley 1990: 6). This is a simple, but crucial obser-
vation. First, it moves forward from the more generic observation that
dramaturgy is a fully two-sided phenomenon (Brissett and Edgley 1990)
to considering that the principle is one by which experiences can be
organised and that this can, in turn, influence the relationship and the
impression an individual has with the people and the world around them.
Second, it leads to an understanding that the expressions of others and
the self are both implicitly and explicitly meaningful. Third, the implica-
tion being, that an actor’s expressiveness has the capacity (although they
may not necessarily be aware of this capacity) to influence the reactions
of others. At which point, these experiences can form an ongoing and
continuously developing narrative of an individual’s place in society. It is
that which we wish to explore in a very specific context. Each of these
elements is critical for understanding the experience of being feared. It is
especially critical for those that would seek to cause or augment the fear
of others.
Zicklin (1968) expands and clarifies the possible variances of interac-
tion as viewed dramaturgically: “First there is the interaction in which the
individual does not care how he is seen by others…Second, we have the
individual who generates an impression unintentionally, merely by doing
what he does, or being the way he generally is…. Third, we find the
individual who wants to communicate to others how he experiences the
world, including himself, and wants to give a candid realisation of his own
unique, total, being in the world…. In this mode, the person intends to
grasp the way in which the other experiences himself, as the other reveals
this in his thoughts, expression and actions…. Finally, the one would face
those orientations to the other in which a conscious attempt is made
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 27

to make the other perceive the attributes and characteristics of self that
one has chosen to emphasise” (Zicklin 1968: 240). Here Zicklin (1968)
unfolds a universe of different types of interactions that are important for
an understanding of the experience of being feared. The implication that
can be taken from this is that within interaction there is a variation, within
the different types of interaction, between a person who passively gener-
ates an impression without intention, to a person who actively emphasises
certain characteristics.
“Dramaturgical awareness is variable. People do not intend to be
dramaturgical, nor do they have an intrinsic need to be dramaturgical.
Sometimes people care a great deal about how they appear in front of
other people; sometimes they could not care less. In any relationship,
awareness of one’s expressiveness would seem to depend in both the
significance and tolerance of the other. For whatever reason, some others
are just more important to the actor” (Brissett and Edgley 1990: 6).
Brissett and Edgley’s (1990) point again approaches the distinction
between the importance of the actor and the audience within an interac-
tion. Some audiences can be more enabling whilst others are very critical
and challenging. It would therefore seem that the level of awareness
an actor has of himself and his acts is established, in large part, by the
degree of his involvement with the audience and its reception of him. Or
importantly, whether, in a fearful situation specifically, the actor defines
themselves as the object of fear. That is to say, an actor who is aware of
being feared is aware of both his role and the role of his audience as well
as the context of the situation. An actor who is not aware or sensitive to
the fear felt by his audience would not define himself in these terms. In
this sense an audience without his knowledge can fear an actor that does
not possess a distinct dramaturgical awareness.
Most scholars that write of dramaturgy concede that behaviour has
expressive consequences (Brissett and Edgley 1990). Indeed, in most
fundamental ways that is what interaction is all about. However, when
questioning the relationship dramaturgy has with dramaturgical aware-
ness the picture is not clear. Dramaturgy is often characterised through
the work of Goffman as dramaturgical awareness run amok (Brissett
and Edgley 1990). This is to say, that the dramaturgical image is often
presented as one in which an actor is constantly employing his dramatur-
gical awareness in order to influence the impression that others have of
him. This can stem from the often-cited example from Goffman (1959:
15): …“when an individual appears before others he will have many
28 B. ELLIS

motives for trying to control the impression they receive of the situation”.
This statement leaves itself open to translation in which the motives of the
dramaturgical actor are seen as nefarious, control is seen as manipulation
and impression is seen to have a lack of authenticity (Brissett and Edgley
1990). Deegan (1978), for instance, characterises Goffman’s writings as
a sociology of defence mechanisms, Lyman and Scott (1975) dwell on
the differences between appearances and actuality, whilst Wilshire (1982)
insists that a dramaturgical view of life implies that people conceal and,
additionally that people conceal the motivation to conceal.
It is certainly possible that this happens in some interactions. However,
it is not necessarily as a result of employing dramaturgical awareness. This
is clear when considering that whilst deceit, cynicism, con games and
treachery can all be dramaturgically accomplished the same can be said
for love, truth and sincerity (Brissett and Edgley 1990). Not all presenta-
tions are misrepresentation in as much as it is possible that “some people
may be as interested in revealing as in concealing” (Hannerz 1980: 210).
Additionally, to reiterate Goffman’s (1959: 15) assertion that an indi-
vidual will have many motives for trying to control the impression an
audience receives of the situation, this has a multitude of implications for
fearful situations. In as much as an actor can have just as much moti-
vation for appearing as an object of fear as they might wish to appear
as a non-threatening object or, no object within the interaction what-
soever. This is much in line with Hannerz’s (1980) insight that not all
presentations are attempts to conceal a different reality. Additionally, it
does not consider the legitimate establishment of meaning as discussed in
the previous section. It does, however, highlight the need to address the
various criticisms of the dramaturgical approach.

Defining the Parameters of Being

Feared: Goffman’s Encounters
Goffman (1961: 17) posits a broad definition of an encounter being that
of a “type of social arrangement that occurs when persons are in one
another’s immediate physical presence”. This simple and elegant defini-
tion seems an easily applicable setting for the observance of any expressive
or communicative action that happens within its boundaries. Yet Goff-
man’s task was more detailed and therein the relevant parts of this detail
must be teased out and applied to our necessarily narrower endeavour.
More detailed descriptions of Goffman’s encounters will be introduced,
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 29

outlining how it will be used and to define a unit of analysis towards

research into the experience of being feared. To do this, interactions
are broken down into several parts as described by Goffman (1961).
However, Goffman himself suggested, “The term ‘encounter’; has a range
of everyday meaning that reduces its value as a general term. Some-
times it is used to refer to face-to-face meetings with another that were
unexpected or in which trouble occurred; sometimes it refers to meeting
another at a social occasion, the frequency of comings-together during
the occasion not being an issue. All of these meanings I have to exclude”
(Goffman 1961: 18). Goffman’s point here is an important one. Encoun-
ters: two studies in the sociology of interaction (1961) concentrates on one
type of interaction, focused interaction, as Goffman defines it. It is here
that the discussion must start because a concentration on this does not,
in itself, adequately serve all of our aims.

Focused and Unfocused Interaction

Goffman (1961) suggests that there was sociological tradition, prior to
his insight, for distinguishing face-to-face interaction as part of the area of
‘collective behaviour’ focusing on the breakdown of normative interaction
and concentrating thereafter on the formation of crowds, mobs, panics
and riots (Goffman 1961). Little consideration, according to Goffman
(1961), had been given to orderly or uneventful face-to-face interaction.
This being so, Goffman suggests that instead of subdividing face-to-face
interaction into the eventful and the routine, a division should be made
into the unfocused interaction and the focused interaction.
“Unfocused interaction consists of those interpersonal communica-
tions that result solely by virtue of persons being in one another’s
presence, as when two strangers across the room from each other check up
on each other’s clothing, posture and general manner, while each modifies
his own demeanour because he himself is under observation” (Goffman
1961: 7).
A pertinent example of an unfocused interaction would be that of
a journey on an underground train. There will be commuters sat in a
carriage that are likely to be aware of the clothing, gender and posture of
those around them (Goffman 1961). An unfocused interaction, according
to Goffman (1961), means that there can be awareness of the presence
of others and an engagement in a non-verbal interpersonal communica-
tion without a shared focus. There can be expressive communication that
30 B. ELLIS

results solely by virtue of the participants being in one another’s presence

(Goffman 1961). The concept of unfocused interactions allows us to be
aware of the environments through which we travel on a daily basis and
enable us to steer a smooth course through life or, in more extreme situa-
tions, to prepare for attack when combat cannot be avoided. In this sense
Goffman (1961, 1971) suggests humans cannot escape from their evolu-
tionary past. This includes the need and ability to detect and respond
to predators and other animate and inanimate dangers in the environ-
ment (Warr 1990). An understanding of unfocused interaction helps to
describe what people will do, that they may perform corrective functions,
and help set the directions a particular communication will take including
the actions that might result from it. Goffman (1961) places importance
on a non-structured recognition of those around us. Suggesting a level of
physical and sometimes verbal communication upon which it is possible
to engage without sharing a mutual focus. In order to acquire a mutual
focus within an interaction it must become focused.
“Focused interaction occurs when people effectively agree to sustain
for a time a single focus of cognitive and visual attention, as in conversa-
tion, a board game, or a joint task sustained by a close face-to-face circle
of contributors” (Goffman 1961: 7).
It is within the cooperative element of mutual exchange that Goffman
(1961) presents the focused interaction. A focused interaction can be
initiated by an encounter such as eye contact, or a statement made in
a particular tone of voice. When the other responds, the interaction
develops and moves into the engagement phase, characterised by mutual
glances, proximity of one speaker to the other and gesture (Bartneck and
Forlizzi 2004).
In terms of the relevance of the focused interaction and, the study
of fear is concerned, there is a high dependence on the characteristics
and attributions made about the interaction by those who experience it.
Indeed, this applies to both focused and unfocused interactions. The rela-
tive ‘focus’ of an interaction will be attributed or assigned by those who
apply meaning to that interaction and this point cannot be overstated.
Goffman, in Encounters (1961), dedicates his detailed examples
exclusively on the focused interaction. However, beyond this assertion
Goffman immediately ran into definitional issues. Goffman termed these
interactions as “a focused gathering, or an encounter, or a situated activity
system” (Goffman 1961: 17). The assertion being that these interactions
formed a natural unit of social organisation (Goffman 1961: 8).
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 31

These concepts, and their ultimate usefulness to the research at hand,

run into problems mainly due to the number of terms used to describe
a focused interaction. Goffman (1961) himself suggested that the use of
three terms were used out of desperation rather than by design (Goffman
1961: 17). Goffman also suggested that each of the three is unsatisfac-
tory in many ways but each is satisfactory in ways that the others are
not (Goffman 1961). An introduction to each of these terms would
be necessary to understand how an interaction can be best interpreted
and understood. However, in much the same way as Goffman, it will
be necessary to limit this exploration to those elements that lend them-
selves most effectively to the understanding of fearful interactions. First,
a focus on encounters and how Goffman’s own definition struggles to
separate an encounter from a focused gathering. Second a look at the
difference, as seen by Goffman (1961), between focused gatherings and
social groups helps to situate an interaction as a temporary and fleeting
event. Goffman’s definitional distinctions are also important in allowing
a fear research framework to be sensitive to the fact that fearful interac-
tions are not limited to individual on individual interactions. They include
individual/group interactions as well as group/group interactions. Third,
situated activity systems will be introduced briefly to demonstrate that
there are a number of constraints that do not work well with a focus on
fearful interactions.
Defining encounters according to Goffman as separate or distinct
from focused gatherings is difficult. Within Encounters (1961) the terms
focused gathering and encounter are often used interchangeably or simul-
taneously. The usefulness of the term ‘encounter’ can, in some senses
then, seem relatively redundant if a focused gathering is adequately
defined. As with Goffman’s separation of focused gatherings and social
groups one of the primary distinguishing features of encounters is their
temporary nature, as with focused gatherings, and the tendency of
members of social groups to maintain their group identity beyond the
boundaries of immediate interaction—a far greater sense of social perma-
nence. Goffman in Encounters (1961: 17) limits himself to one type
of social arrangement that occurs when persons are in one another’s
immediate physical presence to be called an encounter or a focused gath-
ering (Goffman uses the terms together here). For the participants, this
involves: a single visual and cognitive focus of attention; a mutual rele-
vance of acts; or an eye-to-eye ecological huddle that maximises each
participant’s opportunity to perceive the other participants’ monitoring of
32 B. ELLIS

him (Hermer 2001). Here we can take Goffman’s notion of an encounter

which posits an immediate, zero-sum, atemporal game of interaction
(Hermer 2001) and recast it in such a way that captures the complexity
of fear-inducing conduct. The central concentration of Goffman’s work in
Encounters (1961) was on that of the focused interaction exclusively. Our
attention, and the working definition that will stem from that, must not
share this exclusivity. Equally, the concept of the encounter (as defined
for a focused interaction) is well documented within Goffman’s work.
However, the definition as might be used for an unfocused interaction
remains less clear.
An unfocused interaction lacks the central focus of its focused alter-
native. It lacks the openness to verbal communication or willingness
to engage in eye-to-eye contact (Goffman 1961). So, in this sense
the boundaries or ingredients of an unfocused encounter appear to be
reduced to being in one another’s presence and, where fear is concerned,
a mutual relevance of acts. Each of these definitional elements can be
discussed in turn.
Being in one another’s presence is a fundamental element of the inter-
action as Goffman saw it—be it termed as a focused gathering or an
encounter. Goffman suggests “whatever an individual does and however
he appears, he knowingly and unknowingly makes information available
concerning the attributes that might be imputed to him and hence the
categories in which he might be placed” (Goffman 1961: 102). The
‘status symbolism’ suggested here is discussed in detail later with regard
to ‘performance’. A differentiation must be clarified as to the latent struc-
tural properties of focused and unfocused interactions and their relevance
to fear. As Goffman suggests, in relation to the focused interaction as
documented in Encounters (1961), “I fall back on the assumption that,
like any other element of social life, an encounter exhibits sanctioned
orderliness arising from obligations fulfilled and expectations realised, and
therein lies its structure” (Goffman 1961: 19).
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 33

Performance and the Minutia of Interaction

Goffman (1959: 32) uses the term ‘performance’ to refer to all the activity
of an individual, which occurs during a period marked by his continuous
presence before a particular set of observers and which has some influence
on the observers. That is to say, for our purposes, ‘performance’ refers to
the human interaction that occurs during an encounter as defined in an
earlier section of this chapter. In this sense ‘performance’ represents the
‘ingredients’ of an interaction, that expressive information that is given
by individuals in each other’s presence. It is this expression information
from which the meaning within interaction is derived by each of the
participants. Following Goffman’s overarching dramaturgy, as seen in The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, interaction is a ‘performance’, shaped
by environment and audience, constructed to provide others with impres-
sions that are consonant with the desired goals of the actor (Goffman
1959). Importantly, Goffman, following Mead (1934), suggests that the
interpretation of the actor’s performance lies with the audience. This has
important connotations with everyday interaction but also, more impor-
tantly for this research, with fearful interactions. That is to say, where fear
is concerned, the performance given by an actor as interpreted by an audi-
ence is of greater importance than the intention of the actor. This relates
to a previous debate concerning the meaning within fearful interaction
as interpreted through the experience of being feared. The presence of
fear within an interaction is the fear that is presented by the feared indi-
vidual. Thus, keeping the attention squarely with the experience of the
feared individual and the attribution to self and not diluting this with a
good deal of attention placed on that of the fearful actor, to darkness or
any geographic or spatial features. Fear as experienced and attributed by
the feared individual will remain the chief concern of this research. This is
not to suggest that a performative understanding of the feared actor is not
required. Within the process of attributing the cause of fear an actor may
possess a distinct understanding of their actions within a fear-provoking
situation.
This being said, performance exists regardless of the mental state
of the individual, according to Goffman in The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life. This is because particular expectations are often imputed
to the individual in spite of his or her lack of faith in, or even ignorance
of, the performance (Goffman 1959). In this sense, performers are
categorised as performers regardless of whether they are aware of it or
34 B. ELLIS

not. Goffman’s (1959) ‘performance’, as part of a dramaturgical model,

outlines ways in which performers are communicative beyond verbal
interaction to a point where their environment and demeanour act as
descriptive tools for impending interaction.

Front: Setting, Appearance and Manner

Goffman (1959) uses the term ‘front’ to refer to that part of the individ-
ual’s performance that regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion
to define the situation for those that observe the performance. ‘Front’ is
therefore considered to be the expressive equipment of a standard kind
intentionally or unwittingly employed by the individual during his perfor-
mance (Goffman 1959). The front acts as a vehicle of standardisation,
allowing for others to understand the individual on the basis of projected
character traits that have normative meanings. Goffman (1959) therefore
addresses the issue of credibility when considering the characteristics of
front. A front must be convincing and as such be ‘in-line’ with these
normative expectations. This is significant in terms of attributing ethical,
correct or ‘inappropriate’ characteristics of those around us within an
interaction. Goffman, in Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, suggests
that the actor transmits information via various channels. This is also a
process to be controlled if others are to be convinced that behaviour is
in line with the role and person they assume. This would hold partic-
ular significance for a person wishing to give and maintain a particular
or specific performance. Such credibility, according to Goffman (1959),
can be acquired by satisfying the expected duties and mannerisms of an
attributed role (school teacher, police officer) and through consistency in
the communication of activities and traits associated with specific roles.
Following this Goffman breaks the concept of front down into three
constituent parts—setting, appearance and manner.
‘Setting’ refers to the furniture, décor, physical layout and other back-
ground items, which supply the ‘scenery’ and ‘stage props’ for the spate of
human interaction that is played out before, within or upon it (Goffman
1959: 32). In the case of a fearful interaction these external elements
could take the form of alleyways, graffiti, dead-end streets, street lighting
and secluded forest or wooded areas. The setting tends to be geograph-
ically fixed (Goffman 1959: 32) so requiring those who perform within
a specific setting unable to start until they are in the appropriate place
and must terminate their performance when they leave (Goffman 1959).
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 35

Such an example would be that of a teacher at their school and within

their classroom. Goffman does suggest that some exceptions are possible
where the setting can follow along with those performing—a funeral
cortege for example (Goffman 1959). Setting, in this sense provides an
important part of the experience of being feared. It may be the case that
a person who perceives fear within an interaction believes that this has
been caused by the setting itself. A dark alleyway, as previously suggested,
might be an obvious choice rather than an assumption that the fear
within the interaction was caused by the action of the actor. Goffman
uses the term ‘personal front’ to refer to the other expressive equip-
ment that is more intimately associated with the performer themselves
and that which would follow the performer wherever they go. ‘Personal
front’ can include: insignia of office or rank; clothing; sex, age and racial
characteristics; size and looks; posture; speech patterns; facial expressions;
bodily gestures; and the like (Goffman 1959). Goffman (1959) suggests
that some of these characteristics, these vehicles for conveying signs, are
relatively fixed over a period of time and do not vary for the individual
from situation to situation. Some of these vehicles, however, are rela-
tively transitory like facial expression. This can vary during a performance
and from one moment to the next (Goffman 1959). This variance, as
described by Goffman, from one moment to the next has been experi-
enced by the author in relation to the reactions of others to clothing
and the class/threat implications therein. It has become very obvious that
there is a marked difference in the reaction of those encountered when
wearing a tracksuit compared to wearing a tweet jacket, for example.
Goffman further subdivides personal front into ‘appearance’ and
‘manner’.
‘Appearance’ refers to those stimuli which function at the time to tell
us of the performer’s social statuses. Expectations about appearance are,
according to Goffman in Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, often regu-
larised or normative within a culture. ‘Appearance signs’ are selected, for
example, corporate and gang uniforms.
Appearance also works ritualistically to tell an audience of the
performer’s status - formal or informal, conformity/individuality. Dress,
in this sense can serve as ‘props’ (clothes, body posture, facial expres-
sions, gestures) that serve to communicate gender, status, occupation, age
and personal commitments. These ‘props’ can serve to demonstrate group
validity in formal and informal group collectives. For example, a suit and
tie can signal a person’s validity in a professional occupation in the same
36 B. ELLIS

way that a particular style of clothing can signal membership of a gang or

musical genre—the Mods and the Rockers of the 1960s famously repre-
sent such a divide. These stimuli also tell us of the individual’s temporary
ritual state: that is, whether he is engaging in formal social activity, work
or informal recreation; whether or not he is celebrating a new phase in
the season cycle (such as wearing shorts instead of trousers) or in his life
cycle (no longer wearing a school uniform) (Goffman 1959).
‘Manner’ refers to those stimuli which function at the time to warn us
of the interaction role the performer will expect to play in the oncoming
situation. Manner, simply put refers to how an actor plays the role, the
personal touch. It works to warn others of how the performer will act
or seek to act in role (dominant, aggressive, yielding, receptive and the
like). Thus, a haughty aggressive manner may give the impression that the
performer expects to be the one who will initiate the verbal interaction
and direct its course (Goffman 1959: 35). Whereas a meek, apologetic
manner may give the impression that a performer expects to follow the
lead of others or at least that he can be led to do so (Goffman 1959:
35). Here Goffman suggests that we often expect a confirming consis-
tency between appearance and manner; we expect that the differences in
social statuses amongst the interactants will be expressed in some way
by congruent differences in the indications that are made of an expected
interaction role (Goffman 1959: 35). That is to say, if an observer imputes
a role upon someone that they will be helpful and honest (like asking a
policeperson for directions), they will assume that this expectation will
be upheld. They have formed this expectation by relating the policeper-
son’s appearance (as a person in uniform) and their expectation of the
role they perform. Likewise, this imputed role, and therefore expecta-
tions, can be negative. If a person observes someone wearing the insignia
of a youth gang, they would expect the manner of this person to be in line
with the expectations they have formed of such an appearance. Goffman,
in Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, does illustrate that there is a
possible conflict or contradiction between appearance and manner when
these expectations of interaction are not fulfilled. In the same way that
there is an expectation of a degree of consistency between appearance and
manner there is also, according to Goffman (1959) an expected coherence
amongst setting, appearance and manner. Inconsistency with appearance
and manner may confuse and upset an audience/observer until enough
information is gathered to decide what is coherent or what is not.
 2 AN OBJECT OF FEAR? SETTING THE SCENE … 37

Goffman: From Situation to Structure

Within the preceding sections the experience of being feared, as consid-
ered by a Goffmanian framework, has been situated with an overarching
dramaturgical model, a unit of analysis (encounters) and the ingredients
of interaction, as analysed using expression (performance). This section
addresses the process by which the experience(s) of being feared can be
structured and given meaning within the lives of those who experience
it. This leads us towards Frame Analysis (Goffman 1974). “Goffman,
it has been argued, stands between the two traditions in sociology and
has attempted to bridge ‘situations’ with ‘structures.’ He reminds us
of the continuing need to interdigitate the metaphor of structure with
the fleeting comings and goings of individuals” (Williams 1986). Frame
Analysis (1974) itself, a later work of Goffman, draws on his earlier work
and, as Manning (1980) suggests, could not have been written without
this earlier work. The same can be said of the framework used within this
chapter to construct the world around which being feared is experienced.
Thus, the usefulness of Goffman’s frame analysis for the study of being
feared can also be found quickly in Goffman’s own words.
“This book (Frame Analysis ) is about the organisation of experience
– something that an individual actor can take into his own mind – and
not the organisation of society. The author makes no claim whatsoever to
be talking about the core matters of sociology – social organisation and
social structure. Those matters have been and can continue to be quite
nicely studied without reference to frame at all. The structure of social
life will not be addressed but the structure of experience individuals have
at any moment of their social lives. The author personally holds society
to be first in every way and any individual’s current involvements to be
second; this report deals only with matters that are second” (Goffman
1974: 13).
With the adoption of Frame Analysis (1974) we can see a culmina-
tion of the Goffmanian framework in general and specifically, with the
ongoing cumulative experiences of those who regularly or intermittently
perceive themselves to be regarded as threatening and how this shapes
and structures their relationship with society, public space and with indi-
viduals around them. Additionally, whilst adding a structural element to
the formation of experience Goffman is able to remain within the remit of
a micro-sociological approach. Relating the experiences of the individual
into an organised collection of meaningful and personal events, rather
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Walter Grossett had been heir-presumptive to his uncle, John
Muirhead of Bredisholm, the last of the male representatives of that
ancient family and of the Muirheads of that Ilk. Muirhead had helped
Grossett in his mining speculations, and had become so involved
that he was obliged to sell the reversion of the estate in order to live.
He wished the property kept in the family, so he sold it to Walter
Grossett’s nephew, the son of his youngest brother, James, a
prosperous merchant of Lisbon, who assumed the name of
Muirhead. James’s son John married a granddaughter of Lord
George Murray—Lady Jean Murray, daughter of the third Duke of
Atholl.[102] He is the ancestor of the family which, in the female line
but retaining the name of Muirhead, still possesses the property of
Bredisholm.
Grossett’s second brother, Alexander, was a captain in Price’s
regiment, and served on the staff at the battle of Culloden, where he
was killed under circumstances related in the text (p. 336). His wife
and children are on the list of recipients of gratuities from a Guildhall
Relief Fund collected for sufferers in the campaign of the ’Forty-five
(see Appendix, p. 429). The entry reads, ‘Captain Grossett’s widow
and 4 children, £150.’ It was the largest individual sum distributed.
Grossett’s narrative seems truthful and straightforward. Although
presented in the unusual form of a commercial invoice, it is
particularly interesting and useful in giving details of minor events of
the campaign not generally mentioned, or at least not detailed
elsewhere. He, however, would convey the impression that his
enterprises were always successful, which was not the case. For
instance, the Jacobites were successful in securing the passage of
the Firth of Forth, yet Grossett does not make the reader understand
this in his long account of the operation at pp. 353-358, and the
same applies to other passages. Yet the description does not differ
more from the Jacobite accounts than in modern times do the
descriptions of operations as narrated by opposing belligerent
generals.[103]
Two services he was employed on are worthy of special notice—
the release of the officers on parole (p. 364), and his participation in
the distribution of the Guildhall Relief Fund (p. 374). The former
service had been originally destined by Hawley for the company of
Edinburgh volunteers under the command of John Home (author of
Douglas), by whom it was indignantly refused.[104] The latter, which
is described in the Appendix, is particularly interesting at the present
time of war, when similar funds are being distributed for similar
purposes.
The manuscripts of the ‘Memorial,’ the ‘Narrative,’ and ‘The
Account of Money’ are in the Record Office. A remarkable
coincidence procured the Correspondence printed on pp. 379-399.
After the ‘Narrative’ was in type, my friend, Mr. Moir Bryce, President
of the Old Edinburgh Club, sent me a packet of letters, most of them
holograph, to look over and see if there was anything of interest in
them. To my surprise and gratification, I found they were the identical
original letters that Grossett quotes as authority for his transactions.
Mr. Bryce, who had purchased the letters from a dealer, knew
nothing of the history of their ownership. He subsequently
generously presented me with the collection. The Report of
Fawkener and Sharpe was lent to me by Miss Frances Grosett-
Collins, Bredisholm, Chew Magna, Somerset. Miss Grosett-Collins
also kindly lent me some family papers from which, along with
documents preserved in the Record Office and the British Museum,
these brief notes of her ancestor’s career have been compiled.
 ACCOUNT OF THE BATTLES OF
PRESTON, FALKIRK, AND CULLODEN
This is a beautifully written manuscript of sixty-two folios, small
quarto, by Andrew Lumisden, private secretary to Prince Charles
when in Scotland. Certain documents bound up with the manuscript
give its history. It was originally written for the information of John
Home, author of the tragedy of Douglas, when engaged in writing his
history of the Rebellion. After Home’s death, it was presented by his
nephew, John Home, W.S., to Macvey Napier, Librarian of the Signet
Library. In 1840 Napier presented it to Mr. James Gibson Craig,
W.S., because, as he says in a letter, he ‘has a just taste and value
for such documents.’ On Mr. Gibson Craig’s death in 1886, it passed
into the collection of his partner Sir Thomas Dawson Brodie, Bart.
On his death, it came into my possession by purchase.
Andrew Lumisden was a grandson of Andrew Lumisden,
episcopal minister of Duddingston, who was ‘outed’ at the
Revolution. In 1727 the latter was consecrated bishop of Edinburgh,
and died six years later. The bishop’s third son, William, was
educated for the bar, but he ‘went out’ in 1715, and, refusing to take
the oaths to Government after that Rising, he was unable to follow
his profession, but practised in Edinburgh as a Writer or law agent.
He married Mary Bruce, a granddaughter of Robert Bruce, third of
Kennet. To them were born two children, (1) Isabella born in 1719,
who, in 1747, was married to the young artist Robert Strange, whom
she had induced to join Prince Charles’s Life Guards, and who
afterwards became the most famous British engraver of his time, and
was knighted by George iii.; and (2) Andrew, born in 1720, the
author of this ‘Account.’
Andrew followed his father’s profession of Writer, and when
Prince Charles came to Edinburgh in 1745 he was, on the
recommendation of his cousin Sir Alex. Dick of Prestonfield,
appointed private secretary to the Prince, and accompanied him
throughout the campaign. After Culloden he was attainted. He
concealed himself for some weeks in Edinburgh, escaped to London,
and thence to Rouen. Here at first he suffered great privation, but
succeeded in obtaining a French pension of 600 livres, which
relieved his immediate wants. In 1749 he went to Rome, and in the
following year he was appointed Assistant Secretary to the Old
Chevalier. On the death of James Edgar, in 1762, he succeeded him
as Jacobite Secretary of State. The Old Chevalier died in 1766, and
Lumisden was for a time continued in his office by Charles. The
great object of Charles’s policy was to be acknowledged by the Pope
as King of Great Britain, a title which Clement xiii. refused him in
spite of a powerful appeal by Cardinal Henry, Duke of York, to his
Holiness.[105] Charles, smarting under the indignity, became
intensely irritable, and gave himself up more and more to self-
indulgence. In December 1768 Lumisden, along with two other
Scottish officials, was summarily dismissed for refusing to
accompany his royal master to an oratorio when that master was
intoxicated.[106] Leaving Rome, he settled in Paris, where he moved
in the highest literary and artistic circles. In 1773 he was allowed to
return to Great Britain, and five years later he received a full pardon.
Lumisden, who was never married, continued to spend much of
his time in Paris, accounted ‘a man of the finest taste and learning,’
living the life of a dilettante, and paying frequent visits to London and
Edinburgh.
There is a pleasant anecdote told of him at this time, which
reflects the kindly feeling borne by King George iii. to irreconcilable
Jacobites. It is very similar to the well-known story of King George’s
message to Laurence Oliphant of Gask, told by Sir Walter Scott in
the Introduction to Redgauntlet. It must be remembered that to their
dying day both the laird of Gask and Andrew Lumisden never
referred to King George except as the Elector of Hanover. The story
of Lumisden is told in a family paper[107] by his great-niece Mrs.
Mure (née Louisa Strange), and may be given in that lady’s own
words.
 A valuable library was about to be dispersed in Paris,
which contained a rare copy or edition of the Bible, and
George iii. commissioned his bookseller, Mr. Nichol, to
procure it for him at a certain limit as to price. Mr. Nichol,
intimate with Mr. Lumisden, whose literary character
qualified him to pronounce as to the authenticity and value
of this work, employed him to examine, and, on approval,
to make this purchase, which he did, obtaining it at a far
lower price than had been mentioned. The king, delighted
with his acquisition, asked Mr. Nichol how he had
managed to get it. Mr. Nichol replied he had ‘applied to a
friend of his much connected with literature, whom he
could trust,’ etc., etc. ‘Well, but who is your friend,’ said the
king, ‘I suppose he has a name?’ ‘A gentleman named
Lumisden, your Majesty,’ said Mr. Nichol. ‘Oh!’ replied the
king, ‘the Prince’s secretary.’ The king, with true courtesy,
never called Charles Edward aught but ‘the Prince.’ ‘Yes,
your Majesty,’ said Mr. Nichol shyly, ‘the same.’ ‘Well,
Nichol,’ said the king, ‘I am much obliged by the trouble
Mr. Lumisden has taken; pray, make him my compliments,
and tell him so; and I should like to send him some little
token of this. What shall it be?’ Nichol suggested ‘a book,
perhaps,’ and it is said the king laughed and said, ‘Oh,
yes! a book, a book! that would suit you!’ However, the
message was sent, and Mr. Lumisden’s reply was, that he
should be gratified by the possession of a copy of Captain
Cook’s Voyages, then just published, in which he took a
deep interest, and considered they owed their success to
the individual patronage given them by the king himself.
A very handsome copy of Anson’s and Cook’s
Voyages, in nine quarto volumes, was sent to Mr.
Lumisden by the king. They were left by Mr. Lumisden to
my father [Sir Thomas Strange], and he bequeathed them
to his son James, now Admiral Strange, in whose
possession they are. [Written in 1883.]
 In 1797 Lumisden published a volume at London entitled
Remarks on the Antiquities of Rome and its Environs ... with
Engravings, his only literary legacy excepting this account of the
battles in Scotland. I have failed to discover at what period of his life
this manuscript was written.
Lumisden died in Edinburgh in 1801. His usual lodging had been
in the Luckenbooths, the very heart of the old town, but he had
recently changed his quarters to the then new Princes Street, and to
the very newest part of that street, the section west of Castle Street.
To the imagination it seems strangely incongruous, yet as a link
between the past and the present not entirely unfitting, that this aged
partisan of the House of Stuart, probably the last Scottish gentleman
who personally served that dynasty whose capital was the ancient
city, should meet his death in the newest part of that modern street
which is the glory of the Edinburgh that the Stuarts never knew.
 ORIGINS OF THE ’FORTY-FIVE
PAPERS OF JOHN MURRAY OF
BROUGHTON
A COPY OF ORIGINAL PAPERS written by John Murray,
Esq., Secretary to the Young Pretender, containing a
History of the first Rise and Progress of the Late Rebellion
from the End of the year 1742 to 1744.
N.B.—The original is written by Mr. Murray’s own
hand and was found after the Battle of Culloden, and
seems to have been originally design’d as Memoirs,
etc.

Copy of a shattered Leaf belonging to the original Manuscript

During all this winter[108] my Lord T[ra]q[uai]r,[109]
as I observed before, was at London with Lord
Edgar to Murray
Semple[110] and Mr. Drummond,[111] and the gentlemen
in the Highlands immediately concerned in his Majesties affairs were
employed in cultivating his interest amongst their vassals and neighbours,
which was the more easily done as the most part of that country are
naturally Loyal and at the same time ... run so high against the
Government, that any scheme proposed ... was most acceptable. It seems
after his Lordship had been there sometime, he wrote a letter to his
Majestie, in answer to which I received one enclosed to me from Mr.
Edgar,[112] dated the 5th of July 1742, which was this.... It is a long time
since I had the pleasure of writting to you which has been occasioned by
my knowing you was informed of everything by Bahady, and that being the
case I did not care to ... venture all ... time when I shall ... to say to you as
I ha ... view of recommending them ... for Lord [Tra]q[uai]r to your care ...
of it with much satisfaction ... to assure you of my best respect and of the
longing I have to tell you by word of mouth how much I am yours. As Lord
T[ra]q[uai]r has been lately at London and knew there how things were
going it is useless for me to enter here ... matters and as the King has
particular directions to give you ... sent I shall add nothing ... but by his
Majesties Com ... kind compliments ... that the family a ... I am with all my
h....
After his Lordships return ... taken to inform the Highlands of the
favourable situation there seemed to ... from the information he had got
from Lord Semple and Drummond ...
The rest of this page torn away.
Copy of another shattered Leaf
Which message tho’ they began to languish a little, yet kept up their
spirits. As nothing is more common than for people to believe what they
wish and hope for, however specious the encouragement may be. Upon
Mr. Drummond parting with His Lordship at London, he assured him he
would write particularly whatever Resolutions the Cardinal[113] should
come to after his arrival, imagining, as he said, that the promises they had
gott in England from the King’s friends there would suffice to determine the
old man to act strenuously in his Majesty’s favours; upon which we waited
impatiently to hear from him. In the beginning of Winter Locheal came to
town with whom I had occasion often to converse on these subjects, and
always found him the man the most ready, and willing chearfully to enter
into any scheme that would conduce to His Majesty’s interest: and must
here declare that I really believe he is the most sincere honest man the
Country produces, without the least shew of self interest. After several
months had passed without my hearing from Rome, or any letters coming
from My L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r received one from Mr. Drummond about the
beginning of December and dated ... of ... which alarmed us very much, as
it gave us ground to believe that things were much nearer Action, than we
had any notion of, and indeed it seemed to us only fitt to be written a few
weeks before a descent; but to make the reader Judge, I shall here insert
a letter itself.
Copy Mr. Drummond’s letter to the Earl of T[ra]q[uai]r dated
the 1742.
The rest awanting.
Copy of another torn Leaf in Manuscripts
As there was nothing in this letter but a general assurance of the
French Design without either specyfying the number of the Troops, Arms,
Money, Ammunition or even the fixed time, My Lord T[ra]q[uai]r and the
Laird of Lochiel[114] considering how unprepared the Country was to join in
any such attack attempt, and that from the contents of the letter it was
impossible to give any positive directions to the Gentlemen of the
Highlands, together with the near prospect they had of a landing, which
must of necessity have proved abortive had it really happened. They
thought it absolutely necessary they should be presently informed of
everything, but the difficulty was how to accomplish it. There was no
opportunity to write, the time of an answer uncertain, and from the
indistinct letter already received they had no great reason to expect
anything in writing very satisfactory ... upon which I offered to go ... and
then learn distinctly ... the Resolutions of the ... fully informed ... but as this
was not to ... having the opinion of ... who were the most ... in his
Majesties Interest ... a letter wrote by ... which went to him by ... likewise
one to S[ir] J[ames] C[ampbell][115] their advice and opinion, and during
the intervall we had severall conversations all tending to acquaint us
particularly of what had been carried on for sometime before by Lord
Semple, Mr. Drummond and then received by me as one of these who had
been the first in the Country to form a Concert, binding themselves by oath
not to discover their schemes to any but one of themselves, or the
persons agreed upon to be received amongst them by the Consent of the
whole.
I had for a long time before been pretty well acquainted with who were
the principle people concerned in all the present transactions, without
knowing there had ever been any such formal Combination. I gave my
word of honour faithfully to keep these secrets, and then they told me the
rise of the Story what assurances they had given the French by the hands
of Drummond and Lord Semple after making terms with the King himself,
that nobody should be acquented with their procedure without their
consent. I was like wise informed
The rest of this Page not legible.
The weather at this time happening to be very stormy, the express did
not return for two weeks longer than we expected; but upon receiving his
Lordships answer which he approved of the proposal, I sett about making
ready to sett off, and accordingly took journey about the 10 or 12 of Jany.
1743, upon the pretence of talking with the Duke of Queensberry[116] then
at London concerning a process I had with the Earl of March,[117] to whom
his Grace had been Tutor-in-law.
 On the Friday I left Edinburgh and went to Traquair and so through
Tweeddale to York, where I stop’d to talk to the D[uke] of P[erth] one of the
Concert, and acquaint him with my journey and received his commands.
The principal part of my transactions was to make myself fully acquainted
with the French Resolutions, to give them all encouragement possible,
and to write to his Majesty acquainting him that the Gentleman in the
Highlands being informed that my L[ord] M[arischal],[118] whom his
Majesty had honoured with the Command, was a man of a very high and
forbidding manner, and exceedingly positive in his way, they were afraid
least such procedure might create differences and heart burnings amongst
them; wherefore he prayed his Majesty would send over General Keith,
[119] who they understood was of a very mild and humane temper and in
whose abilitys they had great confidence. When I came to York his Grace
the D[uke] of P[erth] approved highly of my going over and gave me a
great many injunctions[120] how to write to the King, which is needless
here to put down as they all tended to prevent differences in case matters
came to be put in execution. I then went to London, where I only stayed
some few days, and sett out of on Munday about 12 o’clock to Dover
where I arrived the same night about 9 o’clock, and found a Packet ready
to sail. As the wind was then pretty fair, I was in hopes of getting next
morning pretty early to Calais, but it changed a little after we was at sea,
so were oblidged to make for Boulogne, this made me exceedingly uneasy
as I was instructed to go privately to Paris without the knowledge of any of
the people who were at Boulogne, and now in all probability we were to
land in broad daylight where I must infallibly have been known; but luckily
we were becalmed all that day, and did not arrive till about three in the
morning. I stayed there till about five, when I got a chaise and set out for
Paris, where I came on Friday morning and went to McDonald’s the
Banquier,[121] and enquired for Mr. Maxwell, which was the name
Drummond then went by. I immediately went to him this same day before
dinner, and found him greatly surprised at my Coming, but said it was very
lucky as it might be a mean to quicken the French in proceeding; when
they saw how forward and anxious the Country was to come to action.
Upon my arrival at London I heard of Cardinal Fleury’s death, which was a
very unlucky incident; for these two Gentlemen had it left in their power to
assert, that had not that happened, every thing would certainly have been
performed, and not then in my power to advance anything positively to the
contrary. I went with Mr. Drummond in the evening to Lord Semple who I
had never seen before: he received me very civily and enquired about the
situation of the Country which I told him was very favourable; but as the
letter Mr. Drummond had wrote, gave us to understand that the Cardinal
had determined to put things in execution sooner than we had any cause
to expect, never having had anything encouraging before, and that by that
letter, we was told of no particulars, it was judged necessary I should
come over to know how things were to be executed: and particularly, what
assurances of every kind we might depend upon; so as the Gentlemen of
the concert might be able upon my return to sett immediately about
preparing the Country for their reception. He then agreed with Mr.
Drummond that my coming over was well timed, but that he was afraid it
might require some time before the French could be brought into it, as in
all probability their schemes would be entirely altered by the Cardinal’s
death; that all his views consisted in keeping peace, but that there was a
party of younger people about court, who had gained a good deal upon
the King, which together with his own natural disposition and heat of youth
inclined him to war. At the same time he said it was lucky that he had
observed the Cardinal’s Decline, and had persuaded him to impart all the
affairs that concerned this Country to Mr. Amalot,[122] by which means
they would be but little stop as to the King or Ministery being acquainted
with whatever related to us, as Mr. Amalot was continued as Minister of
Forreign Affairs. A great deal more of this kind passed, and upon my not
being able to tell them minutly what every individual of the Concert had
done in the particular District alotted them, Mr. Drummond complained that
I had not been fully informed of all their Scheme. I in the meanwhile did
not reflect upon the Cause of his making such reflections against Lord
T[ra]q[uai]r, who was the person that informed me of their Concert; but it
has often occurred to me since, that they laid great stress on all the little
pieces of information they gott of the Gentlemen’s procedure in Scotland,
and everything they gott took care to make a mighty matter of it to the
King: and Mr. Drummond did not fail as he has often told me himself, to
write in the strongest terms to his Majesty, of their great success, which he
knew must always redound so far to his advantage, as he had taken care
to make the King believe he was the person who had sett all in motion,
and that it was upon his plan that they acted, and their success mostly
owing to following the Scheme he had laid down to them. I then told them
it would be necessary as the Cardinal was now dead that I saw Mr.
Amalot, and heard what Resolutions they had taken, to be able to inform
the King’s friends of what was to be expected. Lord Semple told me that
Mr. Amalot was then at Versailes, but would be in town on Sunday when
he would talk to him, and inform him of my being sent over, and gett him to
fix a time when I might have an audience, he accordingly was with him on
the Sunday and, as he told me the same evening, could not see him for ...
and when he did tell him, he took it very ill that he had been made wait so
long in his Out-chamber; that although his Master was not upon the
Throne and so did not keep his Ministers publickly at Court, yet he thought
using these he employed in his service in that shape was treating him ill
and not like a Prince as he really was. That Mr. Amalot made excuses
from his being so little in Paris all week, and consequently hurryed all the
while he was there; but fixed no time when to see me, so his Lordship
went by himself to Versailes that week, where he stayed a night or two
and returned to town. I went out some days after along with him and Mr.
Drumond to see Mr. Amalot who was first to talk to with the King and then
return me his Majesty’s answer, but was told from day to day, that he could
not have an opportunity of talking with the King. So was oblidged to return
to Paris without seeing him.
I wrote a pretty long letter to the King acquainting him with the reasons
of my coming over and hoping his Majesty would pardon my leaving the
Country without his Permission, but not to be too tedious by mentioning all
the different conversations I had with his Lordship and Mr. Drummond
during my stay which were all to the same purpose, together with the most
severe Reflections and Invectives against the Dutches of Buckingham[123]
and Lord Marshal with Coll Cecel,[124] Coll Brette[125] and Ch. Smith[126]
and all those who were of a contrary party from them, alledging it was
entirely owing to their having given in Ridiculous Schemes to the Cardinal
demanding vast numbers of men, money, cannon, etc., sufficient to
conquer the Country, which made the Old man have a mean opinion of the
power of the King’s party and put a stop to his realy putting in execution ...
required of him; and at the same time assuring me that these people were
most unjust to the Cardinal in alledging that he was not hearty and sincere
in the King’s interest, for that he had often professed that he would
willingly lose his own life in the cause, that there was nothing he had so
much at heart next to the Interest of his own Master, and that he had even
cryed[127] with concern in speaking of the misfortunes of the King’s family,
and notwithstanding he had a very mean opinion of the other party, yet the
Memorials they had given instruct him so much that it cost Lord Semple
the utmost[128] pains and trouble to perswade him of the contrary, but they
had after some time succeeded so effectually that he was determined to
send over a body of troops to England and designed Mr. Mailebois[129]
should return to Flanders for that purpose; but that the party at Court
which opposed him had influenced the King to make him march his Army
into Westphalia which occasioned the Neutrality for Hannover; that this
was so opposite to his Schemes, and he was sensible that a general war
must ensue, and France thereby brought into great difficulties, that
together with the King’s loose way of living, having at that time taken the
third sister for his mistress, had certainly broke his heart, for he had been
observed from that moment to decline, and dyed soon after.[130]
Having spent some days at Paris in hearing such like storys, I went
again to Versailes where we were still put off till the night I left it. When we
had an audience of Mr. Amalot I told him that the Gentlemen in the
Concert in Scotland,[131] having from time to time received assurances
from the late Cardinal of Troops, Arms and Money, had been continualy
expecting to hear that a final Resolution was taken but upon being
informed of the bad state of health the Cardinal was in,[132] they had done
me the honour to send me over instructed to represent the situation of
their affairs to the Ministry and to acquaint them they had wrought so
effectualy with the Country in general and their Vassals in particular that
they could raise near thirty thousand men and were able to make
themselves masters of the Country in six weeks or two months. Upon
which he interrupted me and said that they were satisfied the Scots were
able to do a great deal but that they must have assurances from England,
but at the same time he said he did not well understand the possibility of
engaging so many people without letting them into the secret. Upon which
Lord Semple explained the matter to him, I then mentioned to him the
number of men, arms, etc., we expected in Scotland together with the
place of their landing and method proposed for their acting he said if
things were gone into there would be no difficulty of arms, money, etc., but
seemed to be ignorant as to the place of landing or indeed the particulars
of the scheme and which confirmed me in this; some things that L[ord]
Semple mentioned to him he knew nothing about and he owned he had
not read the memorials but promised to do it and gave us to understand
that nothing could be undertaken without encouragement from the English
and assurances of the troops upon their landing having provisions of
victuals and carriages which we took pains to show him that from the
frequency of the touns upon the coast and the trade there continually
carried on they could not fail of, and then told me he had not gott time to
talk seriously and fully with the King, but that his Majesty desired him to
assure me he had the King my master’s interest very much at heart and
so soon as he could do it safely and with his Honour, he would; and told
us to believe it that he could easily loss 10,000 men, but that he would not
undertake it rashly as his being foiled in a thing of this kind would not be
consistant with the Honour of his Crown and desired we might think very
seriously of what we was about and take care not to bring ruin upon
ourselves and the Country by a rash attempt,[133] and so we parted and
so we came that same night to Paris.
Next day I again wrote to the King a few lines wherein I told him I
thought Mr. Amalot had done as much as he could at the present juncture
and that I thought the information I had gott was well worth my while of
coming over and sure enough it merited the journey, for by this I had it in
my power to assure our friends in Scotland there was no determinate
Resolution taken; and at the same time the manner in which Mr.
Drummond told me he had taken to engage the Highland Gentlemen
seemed to me very good and practicable. As I was then but little
acquainted with business imagined it might have the same effect upon
these in the Low Country and indeed was so much prevented with the
good character of L[ord] Semple and Mr. Drummond had amongst those
concerned in his Majesty’s affairs in Scotland that it never came into my
head to doubt of anything they advanced; in which opinion I partly
remained till my L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r’s return to Scotland in Octr. 1743 that
same year.[134]
From what Mr. Amelot had told us the next thing to be done was
endeavouring to form a Concert in England, by which they might be able
to give such encouragement to the French and such assurance of joining
upon their landing together with victuals and carriages as might then
oblidge the King to declare one way or other. To execute this Mr.
Drummond and I sett out from Paris the end of Febuary and gott to
London by the way of Dover in four days and a half. The method he
proposed was to bring my L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r to London and to work the
point by him as he was acquainted with all the principal Torries and
desired I would go to York and gett the D[uke] of P[erth] to send express
for him and that I would return with a Resolution to stay there for some
time to be an assistant to his L[ordship] and him; but this I refused to go
into as the reason I had given out for my journey would not suffice to
detain me any time, so rather chuse to go to Scotland myself and shew
my L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r the necessity there was for his coming up. In the
meanwhile I was employed in endeavouring to learn from Coll. Cicel and
Mr. Smith the objections the Dutches of Buckingham and her party had to
L[ord] Semple, and as I was pretty well acquainted with them both I easily
made myself master of all they had to say against him, which I then
thought quite frivolous from the favourable notion I had of L[ord] Semple.
As to the particular accusations laid against him I shall say nothing of
them here as I shall put down the Copy of a letter I had the Honour to
write to the King some litle time after my arrival in Scotland wherein I
mentioned them all.
I sett out from London[135] the 18th of March, came in by York, where I
saw the D[uke] of P[erth] who was much disappointed upon what I told
him, stayed 24 hours there and came to Edinburgh the 21st. I immediately
inquired for L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r and finding he was in Perthshire with his
brother-in-law L[ord] J[ohn] D[rummon]d I sent an Express to him, in the
meantime I mett with L[ochie]l and acquainted him of all that had passed
and particularly of the Scheme he proposed to raise money whereby to
pay his father-in-law’s pension; he was far from being pleased with the
French delays and not satisfied with the Cardinal’s sincerity and likewise
heartyly vexed there was no money for Sir J[ames] who then stood in
great need of it. However the only thing to be done was for L[ord]
T[ra]q[uai]r to go to London and endeavour to bring in the English which
would in a little time satisfie us whether the French really intended us their
assistance or not. On the 16th of the month L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r came to
toun, to whom I told all that had passed and his Lordship agreed to go to
London. Upon conversing with his Lordship[136] I told him that he ought to
push Mr. Drummond’s getting that money, for if he did not make his word
good in that trifle it would be a means to make folk doubt all the other
things he had advanced. His Lordship sett out from his own house on the
Sixth of Aprile and I sent the bond Mr. Drummond desired signed by
L[ochie]l and I to the D[uke] of Perth who signed it likewise and sent it to
L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r[137] at London, which is still in Mr. D[rummon]d’s
Custody, but no money raised during my being at London after my return
from Paris, Mr. C. Smith delivered me a packet from Rome, but as its
contents could not be obeyed till I came home, thought it more proper to
insert it here tho’ posterior to the Receit of it.
Copy of a letter from Mr. Edgar of ... mber the 22nd, 1742.
Sir,—Upon what Mr. Charles Smith has
told me from you on the subject of the
Edgar to
Bishops[138] upon what he says himself and Murray
as the opinion also of other friends the King
has thought seriously on the matter and is pleased to settle it
as you proposed, as you will see by the enclosed paper signed
by him under another name and a letter from me to Bishop
Ratrae;[139] yours covering it both are write in closs Cypher, but
as I am unwilling that the Cyphers we use together should be
put into any third hand whatsoever, I have wrote the enclosed
packet by the Cypher Coll. Urquhart[140] informed me he had
recovered from amongst the late Earl of Dundonald[141] papers
before his death. I really look upon this Cypher to be a safe
one and that there is no Copy of it but what you and I have, it
was originally sent to Mr. Robert Freebairn[142] and he gave to
the Earl of Dundonald and I am perswaded neither the one nor
t’other made a Copy of it which would not be an easie task nor
allowed any to be made by any other body, I remmember Coll.
Urquhart after he had recovered that Cypher asked me if he
should send it to me, or what he should do with it, and in return
I desired him to keep it by him and give to the King’s friends
who had a mind to write to his Majesty and wanted a Cypher to
do it by, by which means the new one I sent him (now used by
you and me) would be a Virgin One unseen and untouched by
anybody, I thought it was necessary to say thus much to you
on the Cypher in Question. The Packet I now send you is open,
therefore may if you please look into it yourself, but as I reckon
you wont care to be at the trouble to decypher it I wish you
would seal the packet and deliver it with ... of the Cypher into
Mr. Rattrae’s own hands. I shall only add on this subject that I
know I need not recommend to you to take care of your own
safety in this matter and that as few as possible and these only
of whom you are sure know anything that we have the least
dealing in it, for tho’ our Clergy be well meaning honest men,
yett many of them have not the gift of Secrecy and holding their
tongue, which is a mischief I am sure you will guard against. I
don’t know indeed what to say to you on certain affairs, I live in
good hopes they will still go well, when anything favourable is
certain you will hear of it much sooner from Bahady and L[ord]
Semple than you could from me; which is the reason I write so
seldome to you, I am unwilling to venture a letter in this critical
juncture unless when necessary as it happens in the present
case. I should be glad you informed me of what you heard or
know of Drumelzier’s[143] brother he has not write to me since
 he mett with his brother and I have heard nothing about him
since he went home. Drumelzier, I fancy, may have told him the
substance of what you communicated to him of my letter to you
concerning him, which he may have taken very ill of me and
which has made him write no more to anybody in this place.
The family is well and the King charges me with many kind
compliments to you. Longing to have you in my Arms. I am well
all with my heart.—Sir, etc.
It was not long after his Lordship’s departure that I had an occasion to
send a letter to Rome when I wrote as below.[144]
Mr. Narsom’s letter to Mr. Edgar dated the Day of 1743.[145]
This is the first opportunity I had to write
since I left Paris otherwise you may beleive I
would not have failed to lett you hear from me Murray to
Edgar
long e’er now. I received yours of the 22nd of
Novr. from Mr. Smith at London but as Mr. Rattrae has not
been in town not finding any sure hand the two enclosed
papers are still in my Custody, but I am informed he intends
soon in this place, when I shall take care to deliver them with
the Cypher; I am very hopefull his Majesty’s making choise of
him will prove a means of uniting them together as they have
for some time ago addressed him as the eldest of the Colledge
to take inspection of the Diocess during the Vacancy; I return
you my most sincere acknowledgements for your good advice
as to my Behaviour with them which you may depend upon I’ll
strickly follow and by what I wrote you of Mr. Keith’s[146]
procedure you will be still more convinced of the Necessity I
am under to act cautiously with them. I understand my Lady
Clanronald lately received a letter from L[ord] J[ohn]
D[rummon]d with the contents of your last to me which was
immediately told Keith so that Mr. Rattrae’s Election was
known before my Arrival here. I am sorry L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r
should keep such correspondence but there are some people
continue long young and consequently ought to be looked
upon as Children.
Upon my return to London having the fortune to be entirely
trusted by Coll. Cicel and Mr. Smith, I made it my business to
inform myself as particularly as possible of their grounds of
Quarrel with L[ord] Semple, when I found they both agreed in
the following Accusations, 1mo. That he had been employed
by means of the Dutchess of Buccingham and Coll. Cicel to
transack some little affairs and from that time had assumed to
himself the Character of Minister for the King’s friends in
England. 2d. That by his Behaviour to Or[mon]d and L[ord]
Marshall he had entirely disobliged them whose friendship he
ought by any means to have Cultivate. 3tio. He had been
grossly deceived by the Cardinal who had made him believe
twenty things he had no intention of Performing. 4to. He was
so credulous in beleiving the Cardinal’s assertions as to write
from time to time in terms only fitt some weeks before an
invasion. 5to. He seemed to ack the part rather of a French
than Brittish minister. 6to. He seemed to turn his politicks into a
kind of Mechanicks and made a trade of them. 7to. He
contradicted himself not only in a different but even in the same
letter, by saying that the Cardinal was so well satisfied with the
offers made him and the information he had gott that he
desired no further and in the same letter advises Coll. Cicel still
to inform him further so that he might determine the Cardinal
more and more to act in his Majesty’s favours. 8to. He acted
imprudently by transmitting to Coll. Cicel the Commissions sent
him by the King to dispose of in so large a Packet that Mr.
Smith could not conceal them in the Ship and at the same time
wrote a long letter with a great many trifles of what had passed
betwixt him and the Cardinal in Closs Cypher who, he
insinuate, he entirely managed and all relating to the
Commissions in plain English. 9to. His coming over was not
only without the knowledge of but disagreeable to the King’s
friends in England, that my L[ord] Barramore[147] and he were
vastly uneasy about it and gave him all the Civil usage and fair
Words they could in Prudence so as to make him leave the
place least he should be taken up. 10to. He is not trusted by
the King’s friends in England. 11to. He was not even trusted by
the Cardinal notwithstanding he pretended he had so much to
say with him and given this instance that he, the Cardinal, sent
a proposal to the King’s friends by Mr. Bussie[148] at London of
landing a body of Swedes[149] in the Country which he seemed
greatly surprised at when told by L[ord] Barrimore and that he
should afterwards have greatly repented telling him, imagining
when he went over he would make a handle of this information
to show how he was trusted by the English. 12to. That Coll.
Cicel told him at parting that provided the Cardinal was
explicite he would inform him of everything that was necessary
but as he saw that was not like to be the case he never had
wrote him anything which was sufficient to show him he was
not trusted and that he and L[ord] Barrimore particularly
complained of L[ord] Semple’s intruding himself into the
management of their affairs, and Lastly that he was quite drunk
with his ministerial office and acted so high and mightily a part
as even to intermiddle betwixt the King and Dutchess of
Buckingham. These so far as I can remember are the sum of
their Accusations, which I could have reduced into the
compass of a few lines were it not I thought it my duty to write
in as plain and minute a manner as possible whatever I have
learnt having an Eye to nothing but truth and to give the King
all the information in my power so that if I have acted out of my
sphere I hope you will interceed for my forgiveness. I only beg
leave to say that from the little knowledge I have of L[ord]
Semple I take him to be a man of great honour and possessed
of much greater abilities than any of his Accusors.[150]
I parted with L[ord] T[ra]q[uai]r about a fortnight ago when
he sett out for London with a view to bring the English to
Concert matters so as to be able to act this summer. The
Gentlemen of the Concert are highly dissatisfied with their
behaviour they say they have been ready to act for some years
past, putt to a great expense in Cultivating a friendship and
intimacy with their Vassals, keeping a great many otherwise
useless fellows in their Grounds and often obliged to give very
advantagious [terms] to their tennants for fear of disobliging
them, whereas on the other hand they, the English, do nothing
but make a noise and complain of their Oppression.
The situation of things are such at present that had they
any Resolution att all they would almost without stroke of
sword putt an end to the cause but in place of that they draw a
cross one another and run into little political partys so that if
they are not brought to engage heartyly so as to be able to act
this summer we give up all hopes of ever bringing them to act
in Concert with us. Had the King’s friends in a body used
means to favour the Restoration they could not have done it to
better purpose than the present Government. There are now
16,000 men out of the Country, 6 Regiments more partly gone,
the rest going, only about twenty thousand in England[151] nine
parts of ten of which are as raw and undisciplined as those to
come against them, The Duke of Hannover[152] going over and
in short every soul—Whigg and Torry, Republican, etc.,—
disobliged and irritated to the last degree, so that we to be sure
are able to do more of ourselves at this juncture then we could
do with the assistance of 10000 men were these Troops
returned.
L[ochie]l with whom I have Occasion often to talk on this
subject gives it as his Opinion that the Highlanders have now
for so long time been in hopes of something being done and
now seeing so fair an Opportunity, will probably unless brought
into Action once this Summer or harvest give up all thought of
ever seeing a Restoration and he is afraid every one will do the
best they can by endeavouring to catch at part of his Country
before she sink entirely and I am really affraid it will be the
case with some of the least steady amongst them. He is
thoroughly convinced that with 20,000 Stand of arms his
Majesty or the Prince with a good General and some Officers
att our head, Scotland is well able to do the whole affair, and
indeed it is not only his, but the opinion of several others I talk
to in this place upon that subject, as in this case none would be
exempt from carrying arms and things are now quite changed
from what they were formerly when a simelar proposal[153] was
made. This I could not fail acquainting you with least L[ord]
T[ra]q[uai]r’s journey don’t take effect and this irrecoverable
opportunity lost by the further delay of the English, and indeed
any delay may prove of the worst consequence as the death of
either L[ord] L[ova]t or Sir J[ames] C[ampbell] who are both old
men will greatly weaken if not entirely ruin the Concert as there
are few to be found who can fill their places. L[ochie]l desires
me to mention the great use General Keith would be off. The
Highlanders having got the same notion of him they formerly
had of Lord Dundee. Drumelzier and his Brother have been all
this winter at Tangiers and propose to pass all the Watters