Sociologist Ervin Goffman - Essay Example

Erving Goffman: Dramaturgy Sociologist Ervin Goffman proposed the notion of dramaturgy in which he suggested that life is a continuous drama or play where individuals are actors and the world a stage on which their performances are showcased. However, this idea is not unique to many who may have come across similar sentiment from Antonio in the Shakespearean comedy; “The Merchant of Venice”. However, unlike the Shakespearean character, Goffman delves further into the idea lending it both practical and philosophical credence by demonstrating its relevance and applications. He hypothesised that when one is born, they are thrust into the stage; that is life and their ultimate socialization is based on their ability to learn how to play their assigned roles from those around them. He argued that in social interactions, people enact their roles in the presence of others who are also similarly engaged. Therefore, whatever one does, they are playing a role on the stage of life. Just like convectional theatre, “Life Theatre” has both the front and back stage. The former is where performances are prepared and where one can be their real self. On the other hand, the front stage is where people perform and deliver their lines; for example, when one is in a classroom behind a lectern or anywhere else in the public domain, they deliver their lines to create an impression. For instance, father may be a high school principal whereby in school he will act very stern and harshly, but his real self is gentle and soft spoken; a side he only showcases to his family. Conversely, he could also be kind and gentle at work, but brutal and cruel when he is in his home (backstage). In the words of Oscar Wilde, “Give a man a mask and he will show you his true face” He suggests that people are their real self only when they are unobserved or in their private space and this appears to be in line with the dramaturgical construct of the backstage reality. This is certain as Goffman (1974) postulates that the most important aspect for interaction between an individual and society is consensus similar to that between the actor and audience. Thus, the latter can see the former for what they are presenting themselves as irrespective of contrary imputation or evidence. According to him, just like a stage in which the audience is often manipulated by the creation of different impressions, people also use various mechanisms referred to as “sign vehicles” such as the social setting, appearance and mode of interaction to represent themselves to others in the light they deem most favourable (Burns, 1991). Social setting is the physical space in which the interactions occur, it could be anywhere ranging from a school classroom, doctors waiting room or a prison cell. The manner with which people arrange their space and what they are filled with conveys a great deal about them. For example, when one is living in a palatial home surrounded by high walls and guards, there is an implied message that they are very important or powerful and people should stay away unless they are invited. On the contrary, someone with a welcome mat and none of the aforementioned security infrastructure would appear less intimidating and their homestead would appear much more inviting. In the same way, there are plots in drama, life also has several props, through which the “actors” position strategically based on how they would like to be perceived by the society. For example, one may find a manager with a picture of his/her family on her desk, and this communicates that family is a very important element of his/her life. Similarly, a professor may display their diplomas on the walls of their office to help legitimize their scholarship. Everything people use or own is strategically designed to enhance the image or the character they wish to be seen from the stage. Some drive big cars, wear flashy clothes, live in state of art houses or use any other “prop” that designates them as powerful, ambitious and successful. On the other hand, even when one does not possess the means for such displays they will show in a variety of ways the person they act through their manner of speech, dress and accessories and properties irrespective of how humble. This is reminiscent of Weber’s theory of symbolic interactionism in which he emphasis on the viewpoint of an individual and their relation to the society in which they live (Blumer, 1986). In Weber’s theory, due to capitalism, rationalization and industrialization the institutions in which people work will in turn determine the role they play in the drama of life and ultimately define them. However, it is worth noting that although as Goffman states that one is the person they play behind the scenes, it is however possible for them to end up becoming the thing they display to audiences and ultimately lose their identity (Goffman, 1959). Consider Charlie Chaplin’s classic film titled “Modern Times”, which is an engenderment of the bureaucratic rational world Weber predicts. In the film, Chaplin plays a character who executes routine tasks so many times that get to a point where they cannot stop going through the motions even when they are no longer at work. From this understanding, one can also make a connection to the ideas of Karl Marx, who claimed in his critic of capitalism that the modern industrial society is developed though the exploitation of the poor by the rich (Appelrouth and Edles 2008). From a dramaturgical point of view, it can be argued that a capitalist society casts the poor working classes in mind numbing repetitive and often unjust roles. These roles because of their constant repetition take over the workers real identity and they become little more than automatons existing for the sake of their capitalist masters, while the wealthy enjoy the product of their (workers) labour. Durkheims work was focused on coming up with a way through which society could maintain integrity and coherence in the modern era. This stability can be compared to consistency in Goffman’s front stage; however, it is apparent that the ardours of the modern era, underpinned by rationality are making this a near impossible task. This is because society especially the working masses are struggling to keep up with the changes, which are ultimately changing them instead. In the rational world depicted by Weber, individuals may not even have control over the very roles they act; the demands of their life may force them to engage so much in one activity that they no longer have room for the other. Take the example of a man working as a CEO in a huge company that constantly requires that he is present in making decisions that sometimes hurt people’s careers and even lives. His backstage self may be gentle and kind, but after years of being conditioned to think objectively, he may find himself acting the same way he acts at work to his family. Appearance according to Goffman says a great deal about people, which is true given most first impressions are based solely on appearance. For this reason, they use myriad ways to enhance their character such as clothes and other props. In addition, there is the use of physical appearance with many people being obsessed with attaining a particular body shape, figure or weight. Women are especially notorious with their obsession for thinness, while men although on a much smaller scale and physical fitness. Both of these are inextricably tied to one’s attractiveness; hence, the obsessions. Society tends to judge people by their appearance and as a result, as they “act” they will strive to have the perfect body to create a favourable impression. The quest to characterize everyone and everything also leads to people stigmatizing each other according to racial and ethnic lines as groups and individuals try to present themselves as the more superior “character” (Goffman, 1963). This is especially relevant given that it was written in the 60’s when the debate on racial segregation took a prime position in day-to-day American discourse. Finally, Goffman argues that the manner in which people interact is an effective sign vehicle since it conveys the attitude they hold towards the subject or target (Collins, 2004). Gestures take Centre stage when people are not using verbal communication; for example, when someone offers a hand for a handshake and it is ignored, this is often seen as an insult. There are of course other more subtle ways of communicating a message such as the firmness of a grip or the facial expression such as smiling or frowning (Goffman, 1967). However, one’s body can betray their true character even if that is not what they wish to project on the front stage. For example, a student could have failed in an exam, but claims they are unaffected or unconcerned by the result. Nevertheless, their body language may contradict them for example if they appear to have lost their usual animation or suddenly they are forlorn. Overall, After discoursing on Goffoman’s theory, one thing that stands out about is the fact that it has attempted to create a structure of the various roles individuals can play on the stage (Lemert and Branaman, 1997); for instance, by designating “vehicles”. This resonates with the attempts of Emile Durkheim among whose top priorities were to turn sociology into an independent science. Although the ideas of the two thinkers are essentially divergent and in many cases unrelated, it is clear that the work of Goffman goes a long way in justifying Durkheim’s ambitions that sociology should be looked upon as an independent science. In conclusion, it is evident that Goffman’s theory of dramaturgical analysis is undeniably a reflection of human day-to-day life. Therefore, with each word-spoken, clothes or accessories bought one is always trying to give the best show possible hoping in return they will get recognition, fame and perhaps wealthier. References Appelrouth, S. and Edles, L, D., 2008. Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings. Califonia: Pine Forge Press. Blumer, H., 1986. Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. California: Univ of California Press. Burns, T., 1991. Erving Goffman. London: Routledge. Collins, R., 2004. ‘Interaction ritual chains in contemporary sociological theory. edited by Calhoun et al, Oxford: Blackwell, pp.75-90. Goffman, E. 1974., Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience. New York: Harper. Goffman, E., 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin. Goffman, E., 1963. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Penguin. Goffman, E., 1967. ‘On face’ in interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Anchor. Lemert, C and Branaman, A., 1997. The Goffman reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Read More