Is Society Analogous to a Stage as Goffman Argues - Essay Example

Is society analogous to a stage as Goffman argues? Society is analogous to a stage, when perceived from the nature of human interactions in the society, which is the premise on which Goffman has based his argument. The fact that society is analogous to a stage means that self is a component of the wider society which cannot perform outside of the society’s influence, since identity is given by the society to self (Smith, 2006 p23). While individualism is an aspect that cannot be ruled out; where individuals are unique in their character, personality and behavior, the extent to which they are individually different is an aspect that the society has to determine, thus making even the concept of individualism a matter of societal opinion (Scheff, 2006 p72). To defend this position, Goffman has applied the symbolic human interactions on small scale, such as the face to face interaction, where individuals form an identity based on the cultural values, expectations and norms (Roberts, 2006 p62). In this respect therefore, the concept of self; applied to define the identity of an individual is not existent, where the social view is nonexistent, which then serves to indicate that there exists an inseparable link between individual and society, a link which cannot be severed, since there has to be a dual evaluative work undertaken by both the society and the individual (Biddle, 1986 p56). The identities and behaviors portrayed by individuals are based on the impressions that the individuals seek to make to the society about them. Such impressions are made through either positive reinforcement of the societal norms, values and expectations or through objections to the same, depending on whether an individual agrees or disagrees with what the society esteems. Nevertheless, in all the two cases; concurring with the society or disagreeing with it, an individual must communicate this impression to the society, an aspect that portrays self as something that is capable of being manipulated by the society, which means that self is not a fixed and determined object (Durkheim, 1984 p89). This being the case therefore, it can rightly be held that society is analogous to a stage that Goffman argues, since self cannot be delinked from the society. According to dramaturgical sociology as advocated by Goffman, human interaction is defined by the elements of audience, time and place, and thus self emerges as the sense of who an individual is, but based on the place, the time and the audience the individual is exposed to (Goffman, 1959 p49). This aspect has metaphorically been presented through the analogy of a theater performance, where there is both the back stage and the front stage, where an individual can act differently on the back stage where the audience are not seeing him, but has to act as he/she would like the audience to perceive him/her while on the front stage. This scenario serves to indicate that the character and identify of self is solely based on the presence of the audience or lack of it, where an individual portrays two different sets of behaviors, depending on the presence or absence of an audience (Collins, 1980 p12). In this respect, self cannot determine for itself the identity it ought to possess, since the same must be influenced by the society, considering that the identity must be forced to conform to certain values, norms and cultures of the society, and even in situation where self does not want to conform to the societal requirements, it must portray the same to the society. Therefore, self cannot be separated from society, thus indicating that society is analogous to a stage, since it shapes every individual’s identity (Tucker, 1978 p14). Goffman argues that identity is not a fixed psychological state, but a function of the human interactions, since a person’s identity has to be remade as the person interacts with others (Smith, 2006 p36). Similar to what happens in theater, people manage their settings in such a way that it has to give a particular impression of themselves to the society. The clothing, words and the nonverbal communication applied by people in everyday life are all applied towards influencing the society to make a certain impression of the individual (Manning, 1992 p9). Therefore, even the activities that an individual undertakes in the back stage are a mere preparation for the presentation that he/she seeks to make later, when he appears on the front stage. Individual uses knowing and manipulative acting skills of presentation to influence others (Roberts, 2006 p63). Consequently, the preparation that individuals perform in their dressing rooms such as the selection of the dress they are going to wear, or the activities of preparing a speech before presenting it, are merely back stage preparations, meant to influence the perception of the society regarding the individual, when the individual appears before the society/audience (Goffman, 1959 p34). However, the individual’s presentation of self may differ depending on whether they are before the audience or without the audience, where the socially undesirable behaviors can easily be conducted where the audience is absent as an expression of the pure character and behavior of an individual (Manning, 1992 p17). Nevertheless, while an individual may be able to express a different identity in the absence of the audience, the context and the setting where the individual makes such expressions is influenced by the audience, since it is only the absence of the audience that allows the individual to express his real identity. Therefore, despite the fact that the real identity of an individual might differ from the expressed identity to the society, meant to influence the society’s impression of the individual, the setting and place where the individual afford such freedom is influenced by the society, such that it has to be done away from the society (Collins, 1980 p18). This way, it is apparent that the identity of self cannot be delinked from the society, and thus emphasizing the fact that society is analogous to a stage. Further, the role and status of an individual is an expression of the impression that an individual wants to make on the society, since the society has established some fixed and determined values regarding the identity of certain roles and statuses in the society, which then forces an individual to conform to such values, even where their character and behavior is different. The society has categorized people into different categories, and each individual within a category has been allocated certain attributes that the individual ought to display, for the individual to be felt as ordinary or natural (Goffman, 1959 p11). Whenever an individual within any of the categories that the society has established fails to display the attributes that the society has established, the individuals are then perceived to be deficient of the requisite attributes, and they are therefore ascribed to Stigma (Goffman, 1990, p12). Stigma is not an aspect that is based on an individual’s own will or ability, but it is based on the established social standards; something that is outside the individual but requiring that the individual should conform to (Roberts, 2006 p64). Nevertheless, the established social standards and rules for the different categories of people that the society has established are not compelling, and therefore an individual is not forced to conform to them (Scheff, 2006 p79). However, the individual belonging to the category of people established by the society are required to express the attributes of social order, and to avoid being stigmatized, the individuals needs to conform to the social attributes. The consequence is that, while the individual will could be different, it is not possible for the individual to live outside of the societal will, lest the individual is found to be nonconforming, which then results to stigmatization (Goffman, 1990, p11). The fact that an individual can therefore not be absolutely free from the societal will, with self being forced to adjust to fit into the status and roles of the categories established by the society as a matter of conforming to the norm, is an aspect that serves to show t the difficulty involved in delinking individual from society, thus emphasizing the argument by Goffman, that society is analogous to a stage. Goffman’s theory postulates that; every aspect of an individual, whether physical, verbal or psychological is geared towards giving the desired impression to the society (Smith, 2006 p45). Place, time and setting restricts individuals from exhibiting what they would consider the true identity of self, although the society is not restricted to perceiving things as an individual would like to make the impression. Therefore, while an individual would like to communicate a certain message to the society through words or other non-verbal means, the society is likely to treat the individual with doubt and cynicism, based on society’s own assumptions and perception (Collins, 1980 p15). Therefore, it is apparent that the society is the stage where the performance is done, considering that it has with it all the tools to influence an individual’s behavior, while the individual is limited in tools and techniques of influencing the society, since the society still has a chance of treating the individual’s presentation of self, with disbelief. Most important however, is the fact that despite the chances of an individual being treated with disbelief and cynicism by the society, an individual does not have a choice but to make a desired impression of self through attempting to maintain an expressive control through a number of means (Roberts, 2006 p65). This is because, the failure to make an impression on the society will give the society a chance to adjudge the individual as deficient on the values and standards established by the society for the individual’s category of social status (Durkheim, 1984 p91). This fact by itself serve to show that while society is outside of the influence of an individual except where it chooses to be influenced, an individual does not have much of a choice. Therefore, an individual is constantly seeking to make the desired impression on the society, but the society holds the choice of either accepting or rejecting the impression, a fact that serves to prove right the argument by Goffman that society is analogous to a stage. The two-way street concept of the dramaturgical perspective as advocated by Goffman is the other aspect that serves to present society as analogous to a stage, since the Goffman theory postulates that presentation and reception of impressions are completely intertwined (Tucker, 1978 p21). An individual has to think in terms of the two-way street at all times, because he/she has to consider the impression he wants to make on the one hand, and the likely reception of the impression by the society on the other. This way, an individual lives a duo-life, with one aspect of his life being that of the self and the need to express the true self identity, and that of the society on the other hand, trying to evaluate the impression that the society forms of him (Goffman, 1959 p24). The individual is always aware that the society is doing some evaluative work on how the individual makes an impression, and thus needs to make the impression right, since the society might doubt the authenticity of the presentation, considering that the society is aware that the individual is trying to achieve a certain impression, which might not be a true presentation of him. This way, the individual is bound by the duo-life aspect, since the individual’s identity is linked with the society outside of the individual’s ability, an indication that society is analogous to a stage as argued by Goffman, because all individuals have no choice but to live a life intertwined with the society (Hebdige, 1979 p7). The acute awareness of an individual about the society is the further evidence that society is analogous to a stage. Individuals will not give an impression to the society all the time. Dramaturgical perspective as advocated by Goffman is based on the premise that there are times when individuals will be before the society/audience, and times when they will be in the absence of the audience (Biddle, 1986 p57). Nevertheless, the fact that individuals are not at rest even when they are on the backstage where the society is not seeing them, serves to indicate that individual and society are inseparable. While on the back stage, individuals are constantly preparing for the next impression that they will be making on the society at later stages. This means that their minds are constantly fixed on the society (Smith, 2006 p63). This acute awareness is by far very disruptive on an individual’s sense of self, since self identity is not given any priority, unless it is being shaped by the society, based on the impression that an individual is going to make to the society. Therefore, without society, individuals would not be working on identity, since identity is a function of the society’s perception towards the individual. Therefore, considering that the individual has to be fully aware of the society at all times, it therefore remains that self and society are inseparable, and thus society is analogous to a stage. References Biddle, J. (1986). Recent Development in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 51-69. Collins, R. (1980). Erving Goffman and the Development of Modern Social Theory. London: Macmillan. Durkheim, E. (1984). The Division of Labor in Society. Macmillan: New York, New York. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday: Garden City, New York. Goffman, E. (1990). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, London, Penguin. Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Methuen: New York. Manning, P. (1992) Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology, UK: Polity Press. Roberts, B. (2006). Micro-social theory. (Basingstok) Palgrave: Macmillan.Scheff, T. (2006). Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm For Social Science. London: Paradigm Publishers. Smith, G. (2006). Erving Goffman. London: Routledge. Tucker, R. (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader (2nd ed.). W.W. Norton: New York. Read More