38
However, the crew members on the film sets I studied were decidedly different
from Baker and Faulkner’s (1991) executives. The behavioral latitude given a producer
or director does not extend down the crew hierarchy to the grips and the electrics: the
crew members who perform much of the coordination work of film production are not the
‘creators of positions’ that Baker and Faulkner (1991) describe. While there is room to
negotiate over role enactments among crew members, creation of new roles is highly
unlikely. For most crew members, film sets are a highly institutionalized setting in which
they may stretch role boundaries a bit but they do not have the power to reach very far
beyond the structural confines of their roles. This fits with Turner’s (1962) contention
that role-making only happens in certain kinds of structural situations; in institutionalized
situations the flexibility accorded to participants is reduced. The generalized role
structure for crew members is strongly constrained by both normative expectations and
technical requirements of the role (for instance, an individual cannot simultaneously be a
grip and a costumer).
Understanding the constraint inherent in a temporary total institution also helps
account for the social dynamics of role enactments. My description of crew members’
balancing act between role performance and relationship maintenance allows us to see
how thanking and role-based joking help perpetuate the role system. Relationships with
fellow crew members are paramount in a temporary total institution, where careers and
emotional well-being are conditioned on successful role performance. Therefore, the
crew rarely breaks out of role or act contrary to role expectations. Instead, they joke and
complain to reduce their stress while continuing to act in a role-appropriate manner. As
Coser (1959) points out in her study of humor in a hospital ward, joking contributes to
Convention