The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959)

Is social life just one big performance in which we are all individual actors?

Sub-questions:

Summary:

Key Terms:

Paragraph (primary question and summary):

How is reality constructed? Erving Goffman addresses the concept of role by examining how individuals “play a role.”  As a role is played, there are two parties involved: individual playing and the observer.  The question that Goffman is seeking to answer is, in my own words: Is social life just one big performance in which we are all individual actors? This general question can be broken down into sub-questions.  It is important to do so in this analysis because we cannot discuss, for example, the “performance” without talking about the “actor.”  To interpret the performance/actor/observer, we must also seek to answer: What is a “real” act versus a phony act?  “What are the ways in which an act [a given impression] can be discredited?” (pg. 62)  Are legitimate performances of everyday life “acted?”  Goffman believes not.  “The legitimate performances of everyday life are not ‘acted’ or ‘put on’ in the sense that the performer knows in advance just what he is going to do, and does this solely because of the effect it is likely to have.” (pg. 64-65)  That begs the question: then in what sense are they?

“A status, a position, a social place is not a material thing, to be possessed and then displayed; it is a pattern of appropriate conduct, coherent, embellished, and well articulated.  Performed with ease or clumsiness, awareness or not, guile or good faith, it is none the less something that must be enacted and portrayed, something that must be realized.” (pg. 65)  There are many elements within the preceding statement and some ideas that can be deduced, one extrapolation being a quest to uncover the reason(s) for putting on an “act.”  Such reasoning might be for the benefit of other people (pg. 52).  Additionally, it must be noted that the performer can be fully taken in by his own act or the performer may not be taken in at all by his own routine.  Goffman discusses the element of belief in the “put on.” (pg. 53)

Paragraph (key terms):

Goffman describes performance as 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. (pg. 55) A performance may include a “front” which is that part of the individual’s performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance. (pg. 55)  One type of front is the personal front which are the items that intimately identify with the performer himself and that we naturally expect will follow the performer wherever he goes. (pg. 55) The performance setting includes background items which supply the scenery; props for front; example: living room. (pg. 55) Appearance is a type of personal front;  example – business suit (pg. 55) Manner(s) are a type of personal front; example – aggressiveness. (pg. 55)

There are 2 types of performers (pg. 53):  (i) sincere: believes in own act and (ii) cynical: deludes the audiences for purposes of what is called “self interest” or private gain.  The resulting benefit from a performance might include: performer’s own good and/or the good of the community.  An example of a performance could be a doctor giving a placebo.  This presents discussion on the idea of belief. Belief can go in 2 directions/cycle of development (pg. 54):  (i) from disbelief to belief (example: begins with army recruit enduring initial physical punishment; ends following rules to gain respect of peers/officers) or (ii) from belief to disbelief (example: begins with idealistic medical students; midway heed to learning tasks; ends with original ideals of medical service).

Dramatic realization includes signs which dramatically highlight and portray confirmatory facts that might otherwise remain unapparent or obscure. (pg. 56) An example would be a baseball umpire (performer) who emphatically gives his judgment to convince audience that he is cure of his judgment. Idealization is when the performer offers his observers an impression that is idealized in several different ways. (pg. 58) This points out a crucial discrepancy between our all-too-human selves and our socialized selves. Misrepresentation can be analyzed because an audience will judge truth/falsehood, genuine/spurious, and valid/phony of presentation. (pg. 60) Only shame, guilt, or fear prevent performers from misrepresenting to an audience.

There are many statuses in which membership obviously is not subject to formal ratification. (pg. 61)  Reality encompasses a real, sincere, or honest performance (pg. 63) and is seen as not purposely put together but many individuals sincerely believe that the definition of the situation they habitually project is the real reality.  Reality is less firmly connected with the solid world than one might first assume.  Real routine can be managed/enabled in part because of “anticipatory socialization.” Contrivance is a false performance that thorough fabricators assemble for us (pg. 64) and can result from scripts.

Question (for class discussion):

Goffman believes reality is constructed through, and can be studied by examining, symbolic interaction.  We are basically talking about human beings interpreting each other’s actions as the means of acting toward one another.  I feel that this particular article doesn’t give enough in regard to intentional/conscious/subconscious.  Do you think that this entire argument could be held completely differently if we start with a premise of discussing individuals as completely intentional beings versus individuals as actors who are sometimes or never intentional (perhaps performing strictly subconsciously or as creatures of habit or however you want to put it)?

What I mean is, this seems very observational.  There are instances.  There are actors.  I don’t find too much delving into the “why” behind the acts.  A theory like exchange theory seems to answer the “why” clearer: because of the economic benefit or some other reasonable equation.  This theory says more “the waiter is waiting tables” but seems to miss on the “why” explanation.

Critique:

Goffman believes reality is a construction of social interaction.  He fails to offer any evidence of anything other than that.  He talks a great deal about the performer and the act but the only discussion regarding tangible things is his description of the “setting” of the performance.  This leaves me wondering more about the reality of the tangible.  A second theme of analysis that Goffman lacks is thorough discussion of group performances.  He talks a lot about the umpire, the waiter, etc. but does not give too much thought to groups acts like, say, a church congregation or a governmental congress.  The third critique I have of Goffman is that he is deeply rooted in the here and now.  He is trying to interpret reality as a whole which is a huge concept.  But, he’s only looking at the presentation of self as it appears to him in the form of what we commonly see in Western culture.  He does mention the individual possessed by voodoo spirits in the West Indies but I felt that was a very easy instance to insert into a piece about performance.  He is very descriptive as an empiricist.  Overall, he focuses too much on the individual as an automaton.

Goffman’s work could be enhanced by first stating that he is not seeking to define reality in general but that he is simply giving a description of events that he has witnessed and little more.  Second, he could compare and contrast individual performances with group performances.  Third, he could give examples of historical interaction or the development of social interaction rather than just giving analysis of a couple present instances.

bonus links:

university of minnesota’s kathleen hull [goffman lesson]

blumer’s symbolic interactionism

university of chicago

ucla