IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socres/v25y2020i4p718-733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sacred Game: A Goffmanian Ethnography of a Women-Only Public Place in South Korea

Author

Listed:
  • Jongryul Choi

    (Keimyung University, South Korea)

  • Yeseul Lee

    (Keimyung University, South Korea)

Abstract

Recently, women-only public places have emerged rapidly and become widespread all over South Korea, but very little empirical research has been conducted on how women construct interaction order in such places. This article is a Goffmanian ethnography of how Korean women construct interaction order in a women-only public place. It presents ‘sacred game’ as a conceptual scheme to inform ethnographic research on interaction order. By using this conceptual scheme, we conduct an ethnography of a women-only yoga studio in South Korea. This research shows that women actively engage in sacred game when they appear in a women-only public place where situational proprieties are ambiguous and actions are inconsequential. This research suggests that creating this kind of public place would be better than merely creating a women-only public place itself in order to empower women to form a modern sociability.

Suggested Citation

  • Jongryul Choi & Yeseul Lee, 2020. "Sacred Game: A Goffmanian Ethnography of a Women-Only Public Place in South Korea," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 25(4), pages 718-733, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:25:y:2020:i:4:p:718-733
    DOI: 10.1177/1360780420907921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1360780420907921
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1360780420907921?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hendrik Vollmer, 2013. "What kind of game is everyday interaction?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 25(3), pages 370-404, August.
    2. Andriotis, Konstantinos, 2016. "Beggars–tourists' interactions: An unobtrusive typological approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 64-73.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Darma Darma & Mahdi Malawat & M. Ridwan, 2021. "Delineating Subjective Experiences in the Mardika Market: Self-Management of Beggars Identities in Moluccas, Indonesia," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 26(1), pages 607-615, Decembrie.
    2. Seo, Kwanglim & Choi, Youngjoon & Shin, Joongwon, 2021. "Homelessness in destinations: Tourists' visit intention," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Bernstein, Joshua D., 2019. "Begging to travel: Begpacking in Southeast Asia," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 161-163.
    4. repec:thr:techub:10026:y:2021:i:1:p:607-615 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Vollmer, Hendrik, 2016. "Financial numbers as signs and signals: Looking back and moving forward," economic sociology. perspectives and conversations, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, vol. 17(2), pages 32-38.
    6. Shara Aprilia Riszi Indah Dewi & Listyaningsih Umi & Giyarsih Sri Rum, 2020. "Differences in the Spatial Distribution and Characteristics of Urban Beggars: The Case of the Sanglah District in Denpasar (Indonesia)," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 39(4), pages 109-119, December.
    7. Vollmer, Hendrik, 2019. "Accounting for tacit coordination: The passing of accounts and the broader case for accounting theory," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 15-34.
    8. Femke Bekius & Sebastiaan Meijer & Hugo Thomassen, 2022. "A Real Case Application of Game Theoretical Concepts in a Complex Decision-Making Process: Case Study ERTMS," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 153-185, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socres:v:25:y:2020:i:4:p:718-733. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.