Describing the Theory of Goffman - Essay Example

THE THEORY OF GOFFMAN By Location Introduction Goffman was a Canadian-American sociologist who assisted to explain society through people’s everyday interaction. His works created a distinctive style dissimilar to that of other sociological theorists. Goffman’s work and contribution challenged sociology at the time and offered a peculiar perspective on the notion of self and the society. He stated that people are all actors playing a part and that human behavior is dictated by symbols (Roderick 2003). The Presentation of Self-theory Goffman’s aim in the presentation of self in everyday life was to reflect the manner in which an individual in ordinary situations of work presents himself and his activities to other people. This is a significant individual’s feature. Goffman believes that in every interaction that occurs, information about individuals involved is both presented and absorbed. When a person is interacting with others, there are two impressions given (Baptista 2003). The first impression is the one that the individual gives and the second one is where a person gives off. An impression is given through talking, and it is information that a person has the intentions to give. However, an impression that is given off is through non-verbal communication which used by the person to make the participants accept an anticipated identity projection. It is how a person attains through offering a dramaturgical analysis of the components of the expressions of an individual (Goffman 2010). This is worth looking at the dramaturgy subject, which is the study of meaningful behavior. The major concern of a dramaturgical analyst is to center on the impression the actor is making on other people (Bullingham & Vasconcelos 2013). Every person is attempting to persuade others to have faith in their character. For this to be accomplished, a person is required to deliver a performance. Goffman introduced a thinking that was popular from the perspective of symbolic interaction known as the dramaturgical approach. It is defined as the social interaction study in terms of theatrical performance. In this approach, he stated that individuals could be seen as performers in a theater. Actors in a play depict a particular image to their viewers and so individuals in a society put forth in their behavior a particular impression to other individuals. For instance, people may go quiet when in church. They may also be respectful and humble. However, when in a party, they may be more outgoing and relaxed. Eventually, a person must impress others on what he/she desires them to see, to be valued. Goffman contends that this can be very difficult depending on the part played by a particular individual and how much of the work appears visible to others (Gergen 2009). It is also very probable that a person will have to hide some particular elements that have assisted them to create their performance. For instance, Goffman debates that if any work considered dirty has taken place, such as tasks that are physically degrading then this must be kept concealed. The task is kept hidden at the time of performance itself. Consequently, the theory of Goffman of the self, encompasses a performance that is highly constructed (Scheff n. d). In the performance, every element, whether physical, mental or verbal has been established to give the right impression out to other people. Goffman says that teams can also manage these performances. Eventually, these performances will impact another fundamental concept of the individual who is that of a face. The face of an individual is the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself. To be precise, it was proposed by Goffman that each person constructs a performance by using a physical setting and both and non-verbal elements, which impact their face. According to Goffman, how a person expresses information to their audience is termed as the front. Various parts comprise the front. The first is the setting, which includes the physical layout and physical objects. The setting communicates or reinforces the identity, which a person desires to perform. A person will also have a personal front that can be divided into appearance and way. A persons appearance will offer physical signs as to the social status and occupation of a person in the society. At the same time, the way of a person is a sign of whether the person will interact in a more active or passive manner. For a performance that is convincing to be maintained, there should be a consistency between the setting, manner, and appearance of a person. The person must ultimately impress on others what he desires them to see. However, it is very difficult depending on the part one is playing and how much of the work looks visible to others (Boellstorff 2008). When a person presents himself before others, his performance will tend to incorporate and illustrate the values of the society that are officially recognized (Salovey & Rothman 2003). It is this presentation of the societal values, which can have a weighty effect on a person (Kline 2003). Goffman contends that the person may privately maintain behavior standards, which he does not individually believe. Goffman acknowledges a standard structure that people follow, and he defines it as a communicative transformation and confirmation of the community moral values. Goffman states that the society develops the means of grouping individuals. When a person does not meet one of the categories requisites, then they are perceived as deficient and therefore regarded as a stigma. Hence, a stigma is based on social standards, something that is outside of a person. Nonetheless, he suggests that there is some flexibility in that social interaction rules do not produce social order. Instead, they are a means of portraying social order. Thus, there is a balance between a person and social order. One can opt to follow the rules and be foreseeable. However, there is always an opportunity to go against the rules and still be deliberated free in a choice. Examples from contemporary societies in Goffman’s theory Goffmans Presentation of Self can be linked to his theories of social performance and identity that is referred to as the tangible and intentional element. According to Goffman, in social interaction, individuals have the desire to control their impressions other people make of them (Jenkins, 2014). This concept is not only applicable for social media but has attained an extra context as content is shaped and formed as humans enter the social media. The dramaturgical analogy of Goffman augments the notion that people present and idealize their traits rather than portraying an authentic version of themselves. It means that instead of presenting their real identities, social media users present a shaped and altered version of their true identities. This dramaturgical analogy is based on the backstage and the front stage. Therefore, the significant part of the social media is the front stage. A research was conducted on several individuals on their social practices on personal blogs and Facebook. As compared to personal blogs, all respondents being studied presented themselves in a different manner in Facebook. Goffmans theory works better on the presentation of self on Facebook than on personal blogs. Facebook is all about acting a successful character. On the other hand, the personal blog concept was about staging the front stage as a backstage. Personal blog performances institute an inverted model where the intimate is channeled and ritualized. Additionally, the impression management follows an altered logic of backstage selective opening. Nonetheless, the performances were dramaturgical and theatrical as performances in the theory of Goffman. Furthermore, social situations on personal blogs and Facebook are different to face-to-face interactions. Both personal blogs and Facebook can be perceived as sociability abstract rather than an actual sociability. There was no immediate co-presence between the respondents interacting. This had the result of generating an ambiguity of in front of whom the performance essentially was held which additionally made the social situation diffuse, strewn and harder to describe (Aspling 2011). Additionally, Goffmans theory is also applied in exhibitions presentation of self can be split into performances which occur in situations that are synchronous and artifacts that take place in places that are not synchronous. Goffmans dramaturgical analogy centers on situations, while social media regularly employs exhibitions such as status lists, updates and sets of photos alongside situational events such as chatting (Hogan 2010). It becomes clear that the self-presentation in the social media age underlies various forces leading to combined factors of how to be perceived online. Social media users are now choosing what to display individually, which can be regarded as a form of impression management and a selective admission of private details that are designed to present an idealized self. Overall, Goffman’s dramaturgical analogy on social interaction and the presentation of self is classical within sociology. Nonetheless, social interaction and the presentation of self increasingly take place online. Regrettably, his perspective is limited to face-to-face interaction. Critical analysis Goffmans theory has received worldwide acclaim as well as criticism in equal measure. One renowned critic of Goffmans work is Raffel. According to Raffel, Goffman is making assumptions concerning the self that can initially be located and stemmed from Sarte’s influence. Being and nothingness is basing on and assuming Sarte’s theory correctness. Raffel states that there is no actual capture of the real self by others in Goffman’s theory since the actual self is present only in repudiation. In others words, as stated by raffle (2002), what other people see of an individual through his looks is certainly not the individual. This is because, if the individual accepted it as himself, the individual would deny himself, which only exists. Raffel also contends with Goffmans view of the world. According to Goffman, self-other relations are always, unavoidably a struggle to control definitions of self. Goffman thinks the real substantial self, does not exist but merely endless equally illusory external images. However, Raffel (2002) contends that if we move from the notion that the self is either nothing or primarily inside to the concept, then the self takes on a reality and become significant. With this self-notion, there would clearly be illustrated in peoples activity in the world. Goffmans notion of the other is that others are observers always looking at other individuals, seeking to pierce an exterior but never quite able to do so except indirectly. On the other hand, Raffel feels it becomes misleading to perceive the other individual just as an observer. This is because the other individuals major activity is simply not staring at another individual. Raffle goes on to state that if individuals become what they are by how they react then the other individual is more an influence on what they are than a sort of spy trying to catch other them out. Raffel agrees with Goffman that it is true that humans behavior varies depending on who they are with. Nonetheless, Raffel argues that given Goffmans root image of the self as either not there or inside can only interpret this as demonstrating exterior unreality. He goes on to state that to see variations in self in some sense stimulated by others peoples presence in this way is to overlook all the ways (Pozzi 2014) seriously. Ways overlooked are the ways in which another person’s presence could bring out aspects of a self that are there. For instance, it is mostly the case that an individuals sympathy can be moved by facing a truly sorry case. However, it appears quite incorrect that sympathy is not always existent as Goffman would. Goffman interpreted that demonstrating sympathy must be a front to hide a hard-hearted interior. However, Raffel states that the sympathy seems substantial, an authentic part of ones self. Although a part of oneself is not always accessible since it is only aroused by others (Flower 2008). Overall, it appears that some things have been proven, but much remains to be done. It seems clear that Goffman is defining the self in certain particular ways and manners that are highly questionable and that have for a long time gone unopposed. It is also evident that there is now an alternative way that is possible to hypothesize what a human self could be. Moreover, this alternative perspective should be an avenue that is promising so that sociologists follow it. Conclusion The presentation of self is an allegorical account of how people create and maintain performance in the society. It is a theory that could be used to infer any social exchange. The presentation of self-theory consists of both the actions of a person and structures which partly determine these actions. In a society where eccentricity is becoming ever more prevalent, it is essential for sociologists to examine this as the concept of what constitutes a person is changing. Through the presentation of self, a person was seen as making cognizant and unconscious choices on how to project the image they want. This can be contended with the real Goffmans meaning to sociological theory. In addition, the presentation of self-theory offers a probing intuition into the interpersonal interaction nature and the institutions to which interaction more strongly relates. Despite a rare subjective methodology, Goffmans theory portrays a surprising analytical thoroughness in dealing with a somewhat strange social thought area. Through an inquiry into humanitys everyday life, the theory offers a firm basis for the understanding of micro-sociological sensation. Nevertheless, by restricting his work to a dramaturgical study, Goffman eliminates the probability of employing physical activities of the mundane world to the wider social world. References Aspling, F 2011, The private and the public in online presentations of the self: A critical development of Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective. Baptista L., Framing & Cognition 2003, In: Treviño A. (ed.) Goffmans Legacy, Boellstorff, T 2008, Coming of Age in Second Life: an anthropologist explores the virtually human, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Bullingham, L & Vasconcelos, AC 2013, The presentation of self in the online world: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of information science, 39(1), pp. 101-112. careers of professional footballers (Doctoral dissertation, Sociology). Flowerdew, J 2008, Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffmans “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(2), 77-86. Gergen, KJ 2009, An Invitation to Social Construction, Sage Publications, Los Angeles. Goffman, JM 2010, Through the looking glass: from ‘classical’ to contemporary Goffman. In:Jacobsen M (ed.) The contemporary Goffman, Routledge, London. Hammond, H 2010, Critically assess Goffman’s analysis of the presentation of self, Available Fromhttp://www.essex.ac.uk/sociology/documents/pdf/ug_journal/vol2/2009sc203_haahhammond.pdf [March 18, 2015] Hogan, B 2010, The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Jenkins, R 2014, Social identity, Routledge, New York Kline, DA 2003, Quakerly conflict: The cultural logic of conflict in the Religious Society of London. Pozzi, M, 2014, All the worldwide webs a stage: teenage girls self-presentation and identities formation through status updates. Raffel, S 2002, If Goffman Had Read Levinas. Journal of classical sociology, 2(2), 179-202. Roderick, M 2003, Work, self and the transformation of identity: A sociological study of the Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham. Salovey & Rothman 2003, Social Psychology of health, Psychology Press, New York. Scheff, T 2006, Goffman Unbound! A New Paradigm for Social Science, Paradigm Publishers, Scheff, TJ 2009, The Goffman legacy: deconstructing/reconstructing social science. Read More