What do you think?
Rate this book
Vårt rollespill til daglig
Grunnbok i sosialantropologi og sosiologi. Forfatteren viser hvordan vi ved begreper og synsvinkler fra teaterforestillingen får ny innsikt i oss selv, og vår omgang med andre. Rollespill, selvpresentasjon og inntrykksmanipulering er ikke overflatefenomener, men grunnleggende trekk som bidrar til å skape samfunn.
224 pages, Paperback
First published May 20, 1959
915 people are currently reading
25547 people want to read
About the author
Erving Goffman
53 books525 followersErving Goffman was a Canadian-born American sociologist, social psychologist, and writer, considered by some "the most influential American sociologist of the twentieth century".
In 2007, The Times Higher Education Guide listed him as the sixth most-cited author of books in the humanities and social sciences.
Goffman was the 73rd president of the American Sociological Association. His best-known contribution to social theory is his study of symbolic interaction. This took the form of dramaturgical analysis, beginning with his 1956 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman's other major works include Asylums (1961), Stigma (1963), Interaction Ritual (1967), Frame Analysis (1974), and Forms of Talk (1981). His major areas of study included the sociology of everyday life, social interaction, the social construction of self, social organization (framing) of experience, and particular elements of social life such as total institutions and stigmas.
In 2007, The Times Higher Education Guide listed him as the sixth most-cited author of books in the humanities and social sciences.
Goffman was the 73rd president of the American Sociological Association. His best-known contribution to social theory is his study of symbolic interaction. This took the form of dramaturgical analysis, beginning with his 1956 book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Goffman's other major works include Asylums (1961), Stigma (1963), Interaction Ritual (1967), Frame Analysis (1974), and Forms of Talk (1981). His major areas of study included the sociology of everyday life, social interaction, the social construction of self, social organization (framing) of experience, and particular elements of social life such as total institutions and stigmas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 431 reviews
May 4, 2023
I’m probably going to say something a little daft about this book – but I do think two things: Goffman really didn’t need to be quite so squeamish about his central metaphor of ‘all the world’s a stage’ and he should have started with something he said in his conclusion and worked out from there. That is, that there are five ways you can come to understand an enterprise: technically (what’s it trying to achieve and how does it go about achieving it?), politically (who has power and how do they get, use and sustain that power?), structurally (what is the internal organisation of the enterprise and how does it use that structure to communicate with the outside world?) and culturally (although this is more concerned with the moral values of the organisation in its relations with the outside world).
Now, if you were counting you’d have noticed only four ways for you to understand an organisation. Of course, the fifth way is what Goffman calls dramaturgically, the performance and staging that goes into creating the representation that is sought after. This is the one this book is most concerned with. I think it would have been good for him to start with this as I had thought this book was going to be much more focused on the individual, and it really isn't - and that really is a good thing.
I think his main problem with the idea of ‘performance’ is that people really don’t see what they do in life as being a performance. The idea of a performance implies that a kind of lie is involved. You know, in the way we can think of actors as basically liars. But his point is that to successfully perform – to carry off these performances – you have to believe in them. Like in that Ani Difranco song As Is, “What bugs is that you believe what you’re saying, what bothers me is that while you’re telling me stories you actually believe that they are real”.
This book starts with the presentation of self in the way that we would probably expect a book of this title to start – with the individual. There are people, people are individuals, they present themselves in various ways to other people. If that presentation is sane or not seeking to cheat or defraud then all is good with the world. In fact, a large part of what we do in life would seem to be a kind of ‘making sure’ the performances we observe from others match some kind of reality. This is the third book by Goffman I’ve read this year and one of the things I often think he is going to do is a kind of intelligent persons body language book – but it never quite becomes that. In this one I was half expecting him to say how you can tell if someone is ‘faking it’. The problem is that he sort of does do this – he tells us that everyone is ‘faking it’.
We like to present to the world an image of ourselves that takes some effort to sustain. This presentation is based on habits, but also on notions of the kinds of people we actually are. Like in that saying, “Fake it until you make it”, a lot of what we do is done because it is the thing someone like us would do.
But this book becomes particularly interesting when it moves away from the individual as the focal point of presentation and onto teams, groups and organisations. What is most interesting about this is the relationship between a performance and the audience. This is a dialectical relationship in all senses – not much point ‘performing’ without an audience – although, obviously enough, we become so convinced of our own performance that we can become our own audience. And the expectations of an audience are a key factor in the path and direction of a performance. This is a very similar idea to Foucault’s panopticon, we are watched so we will behave as if we are watched, so we will behave as if we are watched even when we are not watched. A Clockwork Orange anyone?
There are nice instances in this – in a lot of ways this book is a group of examples strung together to paint a picture – where these relationships between performer, audience and the disinterested are troubled. The metaphor of the performance is extended in this book – he even talks about back stage and front stage and what happens when audience members see into the back stage with the actors relaxing for a moment out of character. Better still, he talks about how almost invariably people backstage tend to downgrade those they are performing for. Like the child who bows his head in submission to the teacher only to poke his tongue out at her once her back is turned, we seem to love to point out how foolish those are who fall for our performances.
There is also a lot of talk here about how people develop warning signals, or prompts, to alert other team members that it is time to go back into character. Talking loudly to let your mum know you have arrived home with a friend so she has time to quickly pop things into the dishwasher and sit back down casually as if she had been a portrait all day long. Because back stage can become front stage at a moment’s notice.
Teamwork in maintaining a performance is essential. This is true as much in families as in organisations. I guess everyone has worked with someone who ‘is a loose cannon’ and says things about the team that the team would rather remained silent. And isn’t this the reason why, when special guests arrive, the youngest children of the house are shipped off to bed? – as they can’t really be trusted to remember that they are now front of stage, rather than back stage any longer.
Throughout this book I was reminded of North By Northwest, a favourite Hitchcock film, particularly the first scene where James Mason meets Cary Grant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdFVxv.... The idea that Grant is playing an advertising executive is utterly inspired. In this scene, he is confronted by someone who ‘knows’ he is a spy, and so everything he does is being read in a way that is different from what he intends. Everything is subtext made explicit by Mason. This is, of course, something from Kafka. It is a nightmare, but nightmares can only frighten us because they present something we are afraid of. Having our 'performance' shown as being based on a fraud, or being seen as a fraud, is obviously a nightmare many of us share.
This is the thing, our performance requires our audience to be somewhat forgiving. So, we gather props about ourselves to make the performance all the more so. I’ve come down with some sort of flu over the last week or so and have been to the doctor more times in the last week than in the last year. Anyway, he’s been sending me off for tests which come back with no result. The thing is, in his surgery we do pretty much the same routine each time. Blood pressure, stethoscope to the chest, check the temperature in my ear. How much of this is for show and how much for real diagnostic purposes is hard to say. It is clear, though, that each is part of the performance and that I possibly wouldn’t feel right about having seen the doctor if these scenes weren’t acted out in their turn.
This is perhaps also the problem when people ‘marry up’ out of their own social class. They get an entrée into the backstage realm of a world that should have been forever hidden to them normally. A place that ought to have remained secret. Or to go back to my other obsession – the idea of people ‘gaining a middle class education’ and the difficulties this often presents them as has been documented in a million books, from Great Expectations to Mr Pip.
So, even while we go out of our way to sustain the illusion of ourselves we are seeking to create – oh, maybe illusion is too strong a word, but certainly the impression we are seeking to maintain of our selves and of our competence – there is a sense of irony that is also forever just below the surface (well, if we are lucky).
It is like St Peter walking on the water – he was fine until he started to doubt and the wind picked up giving him good reason to doubt. We create enterprises, organisations, scenes and situations where there can be no doubt, not for us and not for our audiences. We keep out of sight that which might cause doubt in the eyes of our audiences. And we collaborate in these performances. We learn the rules and the actions and rites that will justify us being taken for what we believe we are.
This is why conmen are such a threat, or why insincerity is so debilitating. There actually is no effort involved in suspending disbelief – we are all too keen to believe. If there is an effort in suspending disbelief it cannot be sustained. No one’s performance is good enough, or flawless enough, to face intense scrutiny. Which, I think might just be an important lesson to be learnt by people in positions of authority. It is easy to get a child to read badly - focus on correcting them and they will provide ample evidence that they can't read at all.
Reading this I couldn’t help but think about how open our society has become, how much more under surveillance we have become. There aren’t nearly as many backstage places where we can set aside our act and relax. I’ve been thinking particularly of ‘open plan office spaces’. I’m not sure it is unequivocally a good thing that people have nowhere to hide and to let their guard down for a moment. I keep thinking of that lovely scene in The Newton Letter by Banville where the man feels incredibly close to the woman he has just made love to as he watches as she unconsciously picks her nose beside him.
This is a great book and will probably mean I'm going to have to read more of Goffman.
Now, if you were counting you’d have noticed only four ways for you to understand an organisation. Of course, the fifth way is what Goffman calls dramaturgically, the performance and staging that goes into creating the representation that is sought after. This is the one this book is most concerned with. I think it would have been good for him to start with this as I had thought this book was going to be much more focused on the individual, and it really isn't - and that really is a good thing.
I think his main problem with the idea of ‘performance’ is that people really don’t see what they do in life as being a performance. The idea of a performance implies that a kind of lie is involved. You know, in the way we can think of actors as basically liars. But his point is that to successfully perform – to carry off these performances – you have to believe in them. Like in that Ani Difranco song As Is, “What bugs is that you believe what you’re saying, what bothers me is that while you’re telling me stories you actually believe that they are real”.
This book starts with the presentation of self in the way that we would probably expect a book of this title to start – with the individual. There are people, people are individuals, they present themselves in various ways to other people. If that presentation is sane or not seeking to cheat or defraud then all is good with the world. In fact, a large part of what we do in life would seem to be a kind of ‘making sure’ the performances we observe from others match some kind of reality. This is the third book by Goffman I’ve read this year and one of the things I often think he is going to do is a kind of intelligent persons body language book – but it never quite becomes that. In this one I was half expecting him to say how you can tell if someone is ‘faking it’. The problem is that he sort of does do this – he tells us that everyone is ‘faking it’.
We like to present to the world an image of ourselves that takes some effort to sustain. This presentation is based on habits, but also on notions of the kinds of people we actually are. Like in that saying, “Fake it until you make it”, a lot of what we do is done because it is the thing someone like us would do.
But this book becomes particularly interesting when it moves away from the individual as the focal point of presentation and onto teams, groups and organisations. What is most interesting about this is the relationship between a performance and the audience. This is a dialectical relationship in all senses – not much point ‘performing’ without an audience – although, obviously enough, we become so convinced of our own performance that we can become our own audience. And the expectations of an audience are a key factor in the path and direction of a performance. This is a very similar idea to Foucault’s panopticon, we are watched so we will behave as if we are watched, so we will behave as if we are watched even when we are not watched. A Clockwork Orange anyone?
There are nice instances in this – in a lot of ways this book is a group of examples strung together to paint a picture – where these relationships between performer, audience and the disinterested are troubled. The metaphor of the performance is extended in this book – he even talks about back stage and front stage and what happens when audience members see into the back stage with the actors relaxing for a moment out of character. Better still, he talks about how almost invariably people backstage tend to downgrade those they are performing for. Like the child who bows his head in submission to the teacher only to poke his tongue out at her once her back is turned, we seem to love to point out how foolish those are who fall for our performances.
There is also a lot of talk here about how people develop warning signals, or prompts, to alert other team members that it is time to go back into character. Talking loudly to let your mum know you have arrived home with a friend so she has time to quickly pop things into the dishwasher and sit back down casually as if she had been a portrait all day long. Because back stage can become front stage at a moment’s notice.
Teamwork in maintaining a performance is essential. This is true as much in families as in organisations. I guess everyone has worked with someone who ‘is a loose cannon’ and says things about the team that the team would rather remained silent. And isn’t this the reason why, when special guests arrive, the youngest children of the house are shipped off to bed? – as they can’t really be trusted to remember that they are now front of stage, rather than back stage any longer.
Throughout this book I was reminded of North By Northwest, a favourite Hitchcock film, particularly the first scene where James Mason meets Cary Grant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdFVxv.... The idea that Grant is playing an advertising executive is utterly inspired. In this scene, he is confronted by someone who ‘knows’ he is a spy, and so everything he does is being read in a way that is different from what he intends. Everything is subtext made explicit by Mason. This is, of course, something from Kafka. It is a nightmare, but nightmares can only frighten us because they present something we are afraid of. Having our 'performance' shown as being based on a fraud, or being seen as a fraud, is obviously a nightmare many of us share.
This is the thing, our performance requires our audience to be somewhat forgiving. So, we gather props about ourselves to make the performance all the more so. I’ve come down with some sort of flu over the last week or so and have been to the doctor more times in the last week than in the last year. Anyway, he’s been sending me off for tests which come back with no result. The thing is, in his surgery we do pretty much the same routine each time. Blood pressure, stethoscope to the chest, check the temperature in my ear. How much of this is for show and how much for real diagnostic purposes is hard to say. It is clear, though, that each is part of the performance and that I possibly wouldn’t feel right about having seen the doctor if these scenes weren’t acted out in their turn.
This is perhaps also the problem when people ‘marry up’ out of their own social class. They get an entrée into the backstage realm of a world that should have been forever hidden to them normally. A place that ought to have remained secret. Or to go back to my other obsession – the idea of people ‘gaining a middle class education’ and the difficulties this often presents them as has been documented in a million books, from Great Expectations to Mr Pip.
So, even while we go out of our way to sustain the illusion of ourselves we are seeking to create – oh, maybe illusion is too strong a word, but certainly the impression we are seeking to maintain of our selves and of our competence – there is a sense of irony that is also forever just below the surface (well, if we are lucky).
It is like St Peter walking on the water – he was fine until he started to doubt and the wind picked up giving him good reason to doubt. We create enterprises, organisations, scenes and situations where there can be no doubt, not for us and not for our audiences. We keep out of sight that which might cause doubt in the eyes of our audiences. And we collaborate in these performances. We learn the rules and the actions and rites that will justify us being taken for what we believe we are.
This is why conmen are such a threat, or why insincerity is so debilitating. There actually is no effort involved in suspending disbelief – we are all too keen to believe. If there is an effort in suspending disbelief it cannot be sustained. No one’s performance is good enough, or flawless enough, to face intense scrutiny. Which, I think might just be an important lesson to be learnt by people in positions of authority. It is easy to get a child to read badly - focus on correcting them and they will provide ample evidence that they can't read at all.
Reading this I couldn’t help but think about how open our society has become, how much more under surveillance we have become. There aren’t nearly as many backstage places where we can set aside our act and relax. I’ve been thinking particularly of ‘open plan office spaces’. I’m not sure it is unequivocally a good thing that people have nowhere to hide and to let their guard down for a moment. I keep thinking of that lovely scene in The Newton Letter by Banville where the man feels incredibly close to the woman he has just made love to as he watches as she unconsciously picks her nose beside him.
This is a great book and will probably mean I'm going to have to read more of Goffman.
August 26, 2017
explains in 250 pages why parties are terrible
five stars now, five stars forever
five stars now, five stars forever
October 8, 2020
ليس العالم سوى مسرح وجميعنا ممثلون، تَرى ذلك باختلاف أداء كل شخص حسب الشخصية التي أمامه، حسب الموقف، وحسب المكان والمجموعة التي معه.
ترى ذلك الرجل يلعب دور الخاضع أمام مديره، ودور الحاكم أمام أولاده ودور العابث مع أصدقاءه.
تلك الفتاة تلعب دور الرقيقة مع خطيبها، ودور المحنكة بين رفيقاتها ودور النجمة السينمائية في الحفلات.
من نحن حقاً يا ترى؟
يُعني هذا الكتاب بالمظاهر التي نتخذها والأداء الذي نقدمه في مختلف المواقف والظروف في حياتنا اليومية. اللغة سهلة –ليست أكاديمية معقدة- والأفكار جيدة. المشكلة بالنسبة لي أن الأفكار معروفة جداً، لا تحتاج لقراءة كتاب وعشرات الصفحات كي تفطن لها. أحب أحياناً قراءة كتب تطرح أفكاراً أعرفها لكنها تبرع في تحليلها أو ربطها باستنتاجات أعمق. لم يقدم لي الكتاب هذه الخدمة. نعرف –مثلاً- أن الأزواج يفضلون إخفاء خلافاتهم أمام الضيوف، أننا نقدم للزوار أنواعا من الطعام والأواني لا نعرفها في الأيام العادية، وأن موظفي المحلات يسخرون من الزبائن بعد خروجهم. ما الجديد هناك؟ لا شيء يذكر.
ربما تكمن قوة هذا الكتاب في سلاسته مقابل كتب أخرى لا يقدر على فك رموزها سوى الراسخون في علم الاجتماع. بالنسبة لي فإن أكبر ميزة له هي أنني تأملت في قدرة الإنسان على التلون حسب المواقف إلى درجة أن معرفة حقيقة شخص ما هو أمر ليس باليسير.
التقييم العام: 2.5/5
ترى ذلك الرجل يلعب دور الخاضع أمام مديره، ودور الحاكم أمام أولاده ودور العابث مع أصدقاءه.
تلك الفتاة تلعب دور الرقيقة مع خطيبها، ودور المحنكة بين رفيقاتها ودور النجمة السينمائية في الحفلات.
من نحن حقاً يا ترى؟
يُعني هذا الكتاب بالمظاهر التي نتخذها والأداء الذي نقدمه في مختلف المواقف والظروف في حياتنا اليومية. اللغة سهلة –ليست أكاديمية معقدة- والأفكار جيدة. المشكلة بالنسبة لي أن الأفكار معروفة جداً، لا تحتاج لقراءة كتاب وعشرات الصفحات كي تفطن لها. أحب أحياناً قراءة كتب تطرح أفكاراً أعرفها لكنها تبرع في تحليلها أو ربطها باستنتاجات أعمق. لم يقدم لي الكتاب هذه الخدمة. نعرف –مثلاً- أن الأزواج يفضلون إخفاء خلافاتهم أمام الضيوف، أننا نقدم للزوار أنواعا من الطعام والأواني لا نعرفها في الأيام العادية، وأن موظفي المحلات يسخرون من الزبائن بعد خروجهم. ما الجديد هناك؟ لا شيء يذكر.
ربما تكمن قوة هذا الكتاب في سلاسته مقابل كتب أخرى لا يقدر على فك رموزها سوى الراسخون في علم الاجتماع. بالنسبة لي فإن أكبر ميزة له هي أنني تأملت في قدرة الإنسان على التلون حسب المواقف إلى درجة أن معرفة حقيقة شخص ما هو أمر ليس باليسير.
التقييم العام: 2.5/5
August 17, 2015
My favorite part of this book is the cover. The presentation of the book in everyday life.
My second favorite part of this book is the author’s name, which is fun to say repeatedly in foreign accents.
My third favorite part of this book was the body of the work itself, which is, indeed, brilliant, and contains innumerable insightful gems for the social scientist or layman. The book is propelled along by an array of interesting examples taken from sociology, ethnography, literature, and philosophy. His analyses are interesting, compelling, and (for me at least) ring true. Now, every time I encounter somebody working behind a desk or a counter in a professional situation, I think about how they might act in the back room, cursing annoying customers and telling lewd jokes.
In every brain is stored manifold masks, masks that we take off and put on effortlessly, unconsciously. Embarrassment occurs when we use the wrong mask, or something slips through our disguise. These are the moments when we realize we are even wearing a mask, moments that Goffman uses to expose the entire system of misrepresentation.
We are used to assuming that misrepresentation is morally questionable, perhaps wrong. But ponder this: how would society be possible if people weren’t willing to suppress some aspects of themselves, and emphasize others. How would society function if lying wasn’t used to smooth interactions between co-workers, spouses, siblings, and friends? In fact, untruths are the grease in the engine of society. Every interaction skates along on the slippery ice of falsity.
In Nietzsche’s words, “It is nothing more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than semblance; it is, in fact, the worst proved supposition in the world.”
My second favorite part of this book is the author’s name, which is fun to say repeatedly in foreign accents.
My third favorite part of this book was the body of the work itself, which is, indeed, brilliant, and contains innumerable insightful gems for the social scientist or layman. The book is propelled along by an array of interesting examples taken from sociology, ethnography, literature, and philosophy. His analyses are interesting, compelling, and (for me at least) ring true. Now, every time I encounter somebody working behind a desk or a counter in a professional situation, I think about how they might act in the back room, cursing annoying customers and telling lewd jokes.
In every brain is stored manifold masks, masks that we take off and put on effortlessly, unconsciously. Embarrassment occurs when we use the wrong mask, or something slips through our disguise. These are the moments when we realize we are even wearing a mask, moments that Goffman uses to expose the entire system of misrepresentation.
We are used to assuming that misrepresentation is morally questionable, perhaps wrong. But ponder this: how would society be possible if people weren’t willing to suppress some aspects of themselves, and emphasize others. How would society function if lying wasn’t used to smooth interactions between co-workers, spouses, siblings, and friends? In fact, untruths are the grease in the engine of society. Every interaction skates along on the slippery ice of falsity.
In Nietzsche’s words, “It is nothing more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than semblance; it is, in fact, the worst proved supposition in the world.”
July 16, 2021
Accessible sociology that is fun to read: Goffman looks at the roles we play and the ensembles we play them with, the costumes, texts and behaviors we employ, the audiences we want to influence as well as the stages we step on. His main accomplishment is to give these phenomena structure and to provide entertaining and stringent examples. Good stuff and still highly relevant.
Disclaimer though: The book was first published in 1959, and there are some examples and words in there that are not considered politically correct anymore (and with good reason) - a fact that has interesting implications for the content of the text.
Disclaimer though: The book was first published in 1959, and there are some examples and words in there that are not considered politically correct anymore (and with good reason) - a fact that has interesting implications for the content of the text.
August 23, 2007
I'm not a student of sociology or psychology, but I can't seem to stay away from the work of Erving Goffman. This is the third book by Goffman that I've read (others: Stigma, Asylums). In this book, Goffman elucidates a "dramaturgical" theory of self, which he claims is an additional method of explaining human action.
First caveat, I've not read any books by Talcott Parsons, or Manheim, and there were several sections in this book that were heavy enough in theory to make me give up. Despite these difficult sections, Goffman's style is breezy and interesting enough to make th is book worth reading for a layman.
Roughly, Goffman sets up a model of human interaction that takes most of its metaphors from the realm of theatrical performance. Human interaction takes place between performers and audiences, interactions happen front stage or back stage. This theatrical metaphor is joined by the idea that human actors interact in teams that share similar motives and values. He joins this "team" idea to the theatrical metaphor by emphasizing the difference between performers and audiences.
After laying out his framework, Goffman then uses examples from literature, his own research, and other researchers to illustrate his point. It is in this section that his writing can seem a bit dated. For example, he repeatedly discusses how college educated women will "play dumb" for their boy friends. I'm not saying this doesn't (still) happen, but the example could use somet updating.
One of the main insights that I took away from this excellent book is that humans largely exist as social beings through their interactions with other creatures, and the idea of a person as an "individual" is, itself, largely a construct. This largely contradicts much of the books/music I imbibed as a teen and young adult (Ayn Rand, punk rock, I'm looking at you).
It also seems to me that this "dramaturgical" perspective is a thesis that has been widely adopted by the self-help movement. Perhaps I will now explore some of that (voluminous) literature. Perhaps not.
This book is not without it's more disquieting moments. One thought this book led me to is that the important thing in life is the maintaining of whatever appearance one is required to maintaining. So long as that appearance is maintained, what lies underneath (i.e. the traditional concept of self or personality) is effectively unimportant. If we are only what are interactions with others make us, then what we think/feel on the inside and don't share with others, matters not at all.
Goffman himself explains that the dramaturgical perspective is merely another aspect of a larger attempt to explain human action in terms of human INTERaction, but for me, it has great explanatory weight.
First caveat, I've not read any books by Talcott Parsons, or Manheim, and there were several sections in this book that were heavy enough in theory to make me give up. Despite these difficult sections, Goffman's style is breezy and interesting enough to make th is book worth reading for a layman.
Roughly, Goffman sets up a model of human interaction that takes most of its metaphors from the realm of theatrical performance. Human interaction takes place between performers and audiences, interactions happen front stage or back stage. This theatrical metaphor is joined by the idea that human actors interact in teams that share similar motives and values. He joins this "team" idea to the theatrical metaphor by emphasizing the difference between performers and audiences.
After laying out his framework, Goffman then uses examples from literature, his own research, and other researchers to illustrate his point. It is in this section that his writing can seem a bit dated. For example, he repeatedly discusses how college educated women will "play dumb" for their boy friends. I'm not saying this doesn't (still) happen, but the example could use somet updating.
One of the main insights that I took away from this excellent book is that humans largely exist as social beings through their interactions with other creatures, and the idea of a person as an "individual" is, itself, largely a construct. This largely contradicts much of the books/music I imbibed as a teen and young adult (Ayn Rand, punk rock, I'm looking at you).
It also seems to me that this "dramaturgical" perspective is a thesis that has been widely adopted by the self-help movement. Perhaps I will now explore some of that (voluminous) literature. Perhaps not.
This book is not without it's more disquieting moments. One thought this book led me to is that the important thing in life is the maintaining of whatever appearance one is required to maintaining. So long as that appearance is maintained, what lies underneath (i.e. the traditional concept of self or personality) is effectively unimportant. If we are only what are interactions with others make us, then what we think/feel on the inside and don't share with others, matters not at all.
Goffman himself explains that the dramaturgical perspective is merely another aspect of a larger attempt to explain human action in terms of human INTERaction, but for me, it has great explanatory weight.
January 13, 2023
Some of you know me by my slave name "Julio Pino". When I was a house guest of the U.S. government the other fellows knew me by three identities, "Cuba", "Professor" and "Assad". There's also my nomme de demimonde "Planck" (alas, "Heisenberg" was already taken.) All this proves Erving Goffman's existential thesis in THE PRESENTATION OF SELF IN EVERYDAY LIFE; not only is "hell other people" but we ourselves are other people, based on circumstance and environment. (I once knew a UCLA graduate student who told me his vocabulary changed from his summer blue-collar job to his autumn and spring university employment, and this guy was a dweeb!) You are a different "you" depending on everything from the level of education of your peers to how close you are to family members to the time of day. There is no "being" in life only a constant "becoming"; more than that, we are all shape-shifters whether we wish to rebel, conform or overcome. Others will stake labels on us, and thereby claims, but we can reclaim our identity by adopting a new presentation or reversing our assigned one; think of African-Americans subverting the N-word. Work, play, and family are just a few of the situations that force us into constant self-representation. Turns out Marlon Brando was right: "Acting is just hustling and all people are born actors." Yes, Marlon, but you got paid millions for it, while the rest of us must be content chameleons.
August 13, 2025
An alien lands to explain what on earth middle-class people are up to. Written in the clinical style of 1950s sociology: clipped and stripped but also lightly ironic.
Completely essential for some large fraction of all people, who I will group under "naive" (whether or not there's a different, perhaps medical, term for their specific naivete): You have been told to "be yourself" and to be honest. You do so. In most social settings you do not prosper as a result.
It's mostly pretty obvious to the naive (like me) that showing too much disinterest is not nice and doesn't help your case. It's less intuitive that the opposite is also socially punishable: caring too much, trying to hard, being self-conscious, direct questions, going red in the face. Or rather it's ok to care but you can't show it. The nerd's crime, besides failing to gauge the interest of their interlocutor and failing to focus on high-status things, is the showing of too much enthuasism.
What is obsolete in Goffman?
* Authenticity is in, so people fake that instead
* Professionalism has changed a lot, with a general tendency towards acting as if you're not acting, as if you don't have a backstage. Dyeing your hair is now fine in most western workplaces.
* Nerds are nominally in, so adults are allowed some childishness
* lots of places like China and Japan are still fully Goffmanian though.
Queering the fake/authentic binary
Completely essential for some large fraction of all people, who I will group under "naive" (whether or not there's a different, perhaps medical, term for their specific naivete): You have been told to "be yourself" and to be honest. You do so. In most social settings you do not prosper as a result.
It's mostly pretty obvious to the naive (like me) that showing too much disinterest is not nice and doesn't help your case. It's less intuitive that the opposite is also socially punishable: caring too much, trying to hard, being self-conscious, direct questions, going red in the face. Or rather it's ok to care but you can't show it. The nerd's crime, besides failing to gauge the interest of their interlocutor and failing to focus on high-status things, is the showing of too much enthuasism.
What is obsolete in Goffman?
* Authenticity is in, so people fake that instead
* Professionalism has changed a lot, with a general tendency towards acting as if you're not acting, as if you don't have a backstage. Dyeing your hair is now fine in most western workplaces.
* Nerds are nominally in, so adults are allowed some childishness
* lots of places like China and Japan are still fully Goffmanian though.
Queering the fake/authentic binary
January 18, 2015
Güzel kitap. Günlük yaşama dair dramaturjik bakış; Bir tiyaro mu oynuyoruz her gün? Sahne ile kulis arasında mı koşuşturuyoruz? Bir sahnenin oyuncusu, bir diğerinin seyircisi miyiz?
Genel kabul görmüş ve yaygın bir görüş kesinlikle: "Dünya bir sahne." Çoğumuz dünyaya herşeyi bilerek geldiğimizden dolayı (daha doğrusu her şeyi bilerek yetiştiğimizden) burada da bıyık altından gülmemiz doğal. Maskeli balo ve onun sahte yüzleri. Bunu görmüştük, bildiğimiz şeyler...
Kitabı okudukça bunu diyemiyoruz ne yazık ki. Goffman tiyatral kavramlardan yola çıkarak toplumsal gözlemlerini (Anglosakson toplumlarına dair gözlemler ve alıntılar ağırlıklı olarak), bireylerin - takımların günlük performanslarını bütün yönleriyle ele alarak, bize aktarıyor. Verdiği örnekleri, yaptığı çıkarımları okurken kendi gerçekleştirdiğiniz performansları da aklınıza getiriyorsunuz. (Hafif şaşkınlıklar ve onaylamalar ile birlikte)
Kitabı okuduktan sonra ne olabilir? İlki bundan sonra çevrenizde gerçekleşen performanslara karşı size bir farkındalık kazandırabilir. İkincisi günlük yaşamda etkileşim içerisinde iken, misal çalışırken ya da misafir ağırlarken, bir an sahnede olduğunuz aklınıza gelebilir. Susup, duraksayabilirsiniz. Belki gülümsersiniz. Sonra kaldığınız yerden devam edersiniz.
Genel kabul görmüş ve yaygın bir görüş kesinlikle: "Dünya bir sahne." Çoğumuz dünyaya herşeyi bilerek geldiğimizden dolayı (daha doğrusu her şeyi bilerek yetiştiğimizden) burada da bıyık altından gülmemiz doğal. Maskeli balo ve onun sahte yüzleri. Bunu görmüştük, bildiğimiz şeyler...
Kitabı okudukça bunu diyemiyoruz ne yazık ki. Goffman tiyatral kavramlardan yola çıkarak toplumsal gözlemlerini (Anglosakson toplumlarına dair gözlemler ve alıntılar ağırlıklı olarak), bireylerin - takımların günlük performanslarını bütün yönleriyle ele alarak, bize aktarıyor. Verdiği örnekleri, yaptığı çıkarımları okurken kendi gerçekleştirdiğiniz performansları da aklınıza getiriyorsunuz. (Hafif şaşkınlıklar ve onaylamalar ile birlikte)
Kitabı okuduktan sonra ne olabilir? İlki bundan sonra çevrenizde gerçekleşen performanslara karşı size bir farkındalık kazandırabilir. İkincisi günlük yaşamda etkileşim içerisinde iken, misal çalışırken ya da misafir ağırlarken, bir an sahnede olduğunuz aklınıza gelebilir. Susup, duraksayabilirsiniz. Belki gülümsersiniz. Sonra kaldığınız yerden devam edersiniz.
June 21, 2011
Contrary to many of the reviews listed, I think Goffman's examination of social interaction as presentation is increasingly relevant in the consumer/citizen, capitalist culture we have created for ourselves in the Western, developed world. The performances we offer now are less representative and more detatched from a possible truth than the more romanticized presentations considered by Goffman.
Influenced, in part, by the work of Simone De Beauvoir, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life draws from and contributes to postmodern theories of identity and self. His ideas create discomfort for his reader because they undermine the very notion of authenticity that individuals cling to. I am reminded of Judith Butler's epic contribution, Gender Trouble. Assuredly, Goffman's preliminary examination contributed to her more intense theory on gender presentation and the idea that we are all performing gender, a stage which is not solely reserved for transgendered or GLTB communities.
Goffman, however, does not completely ignore the emotional dissonance the masquerade causes. A few times throughout the book, particularly in his discussion on the "backstage," he allows the performer time to reconnect with his "natural" state, noting, "And to the degree that the individual maintains a show before others that he imself does not believe, he can come to experience a special kind of alienation from self and a special kind of wariness of others" (236).
Influenced, in part, by the work of Simone De Beauvoir, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life draws from and contributes to postmodern theories of identity and self. His ideas create discomfort for his reader because they undermine the very notion of authenticity that individuals cling to. I am reminded of Judith Butler's epic contribution, Gender Trouble. Assuredly, Goffman's preliminary examination contributed to her more intense theory on gender presentation and the idea that we are all performing gender, a stage which is not solely reserved for transgendered or GLTB communities.
Goffman, however, does not completely ignore the emotional dissonance the masquerade causes. A few times throughout the book, particularly in his discussion on the "backstage," he allows the performer time to reconnect with his "natural" state, noting, "And to the degree that the individual maintains a show before others that he imself does not believe, he can come to experience a special kind of alienation from self and a special kind of wariness of others" (236).
October 13, 2018
Соціальна взаємодія опирається на уявлення учасників один про одного. Проте як ці уявлення конструюються? І чому ми віримо одним презентаціям себе та не віримо іншим? Якраз про це і йдеться в книзі Ірвінґа Ґофмана "Представлення себе в повсякденному житті". Ласкаво запрошую перегляду!https://youtu.be/HqpzNLLvo9o
July 1, 2020
Goffman analyzes impression management, as a fundamental dimension of social interaction, which connects to the nature of our subjectivity and of social institutions. Goffman argues that whenever two or more people come together, their expressions and responses are guided by a mutual understanding of the type of situation that is at hand. Giving an impression of the kind of person (e.g., her social class, professional or practical role, etc.) each is amounts to providing critical, public information to be drawn upon by the interlocutors, so that they might categorize the situation, contextualize and make meaning of the expressions given, and respond appropriately. In other words, giving impressions is crucial to letting people understand, predict, and navigate social situations.
Goffman dedicates each chapter to addressing a basic element or dynamic of impression management. For example, in chapter 2 he argues that impression management often occurs at the level of teams, rather than individuals; there are two or more individuals united in a team that tries to deliver an impression of the team as a whole, to an audience that can be either an individual or a team. In chapters 3 and 6, Goffman examines how each person has various different social roles, and so aims at giving different impressions in respectively appropriate situations; he examines the strategies that people take to ensure that each audience in each situation sees them for only the one social role that is appropriate relative to it, rather than all the other social roles that they occupy. In chapter 4, Goffman examines the strategy of keeping secrets for managing impressions and segregating the different social roles one has, among the different social contexts in which these are appropriate.
I have a few quibbles with the theory. First, Goffman relies on a metaphor of theatrical performance in understanding impression management. On this metaphor, the speaker is like the actor, and the listener is like the audience. So interlocutors take turns being the speaker and audience, as binary, alternating positions. This is extremely different from another, more accurate picture of the nature of human interactions: the interlocutor who is speaking at a moment is totally dependent on the listener, on her expectations and intentions. In turn, the listener's expectations and intentions depend on what the speaker says and does. So all interlocutors, at any moment, are interdependent, like two people canoeing or dancing. Goffman is limited by his misguided metaphor. In all of his discussions of the various primary considerations that govern impression management, Goffman fails to taken into account a game-theoretic dimension of each consideration. Whenever we try to keep a secret about our social standing from another, for example, we will imagine what the other imagines of us, and also imagine what the other imagines of us as imagining this about her.
Second, Goffman assumes that the primary function or value of impression management is its contribution to enabling us to better predict and navigate social situations at hand. We read off of impressions the kind of people we're dealing with, and the kind of situation that is unfolding, and are thereby better equipped to carry out our personal interests. This is certainly a function of impression management, but I doubt it is the only or primary one. For example, giving off a certain impression simultaneously establishes our membership to a certain social group and affirms our particular identity and self-conception. It vindicates our sense that our existence is significant, that we have a legitimate place in the greater social order. I think our need to belong and have our existence affirmed is a drive of impression management, and so the satisfaction of this need is a primary function of impression management.
If Goffman could be less reductive regarding the essential function of impression management, he might've noticed and discussed other dynamics and elements of this phenomenon, than those that he did cover. For example, the elements he does examine all overtly contribute to enabling us to distinguish between different social groups, and the kinds of behaviors that can be expected of these groups. But if we invoke the primacy of our need to belong and to be accepted, we might attend to features of impression management that are tailored towards this need; for example, we might exaggerate certain stereotypical behaviors of a social group, if we pride ourselves in our group membership, even if those behaviors are not considered as admirable or moral in society at large. We might do this independently of whether this behavior will contribute to helping others diagnose the situation at hand.
Overall, I found this book a pretty entertaining read. Nothing is particularly novel or ground-breaking; everything Goffman says is intuitive, but he makes dynamics in our behavior explicit in highly illuminating ways. It is fun to see explicitly that we are driven in all the ways Goffman names; reading this book evoked many personal memories of situations that are explained by Goffman's views. Moreover, it is hilarious to see totally sexist and racist explanations and examples; Goffman certainly lived in another time (e.g., Goffman writes up, as if it is a plain scientific fact, that role of a woman in society is to be sexually appealing to men).
The majority of the book is full of descriptive detail and examples, this being a work in a social science. For the key theoretical points, one only needs to read the introduction and conclusion chapters of this book. I'd recommend this to readers interested in understanding social dynamics. What the book does not address and has no implications for, however, (which I thought it might and brought me to reading the book) are the topics of social normativity and language.
Goffman dedicates each chapter to addressing a basic element or dynamic of impression management. For example, in chapter 2 he argues that impression management often occurs at the level of teams, rather than individuals; there are two or more individuals united in a team that tries to deliver an impression of the team as a whole, to an audience that can be either an individual or a team. In chapters 3 and 6, Goffman examines how each person has various different social roles, and so aims at giving different impressions in respectively appropriate situations; he examines the strategies that people take to ensure that each audience in each situation sees them for only the one social role that is appropriate relative to it, rather than all the other social roles that they occupy. In chapter 4, Goffman examines the strategy of keeping secrets for managing impressions and segregating the different social roles one has, among the different social contexts in which these are appropriate.
I have a few quibbles with the theory. First, Goffman relies on a metaphor of theatrical performance in understanding impression management. On this metaphor, the speaker is like the actor, and the listener is like the audience. So interlocutors take turns being the speaker and audience, as binary, alternating positions. This is extremely different from another, more accurate picture of the nature of human interactions: the interlocutor who is speaking at a moment is totally dependent on the listener, on her expectations and intentions. In turn, the listener's expectations and intentions depend on what the speaker says and does. So all interlocutors, at any moment, are interdependent, like two people canoeing or dancing. Goffman is limited by his misguided metaphor. In all of his discussions of the various primary considerations that govern impression management, Goffman fails to taken into account a game-theoretic dimension of each consideration. Whenever we try to keep a secret about our social standing from another, for example, we will imagine what the other imagines of us, and also imagine what the other imagines of us as imagining this about her.
Second, Goffman assumes that the primary function or value of impression management is its contribution to enabling us to better predict and navigate social situations at hand. We read off of impressions the kind of people we're dealing with, and the kind of situation that is unfolding, and are thereby better equipped to carry out our personal interests. This is certainly a function of impression management, but I doubt it is the only or primary one. For example, giving off a certain impression simultaneously establishes our membership to a certain social group and affirms our particular identity and self-conception. It vindicates our sense that our existence is significant, that we have a legitimate place in the greater social order. I think our need to belong and have our existence affirmed is a drive of impression management, and so the satisfaction of this need is a primary function of impression management.
If Goffman could be less reductive regarding the essential function of impression management, he might've noticed and discussed other dynamics and elements of this phenomenon, than those that he did cover. For example, the elements he does examine all overtly contribute to enabling us to distinguish between different social groups, and the kinds of behaviors that can be expected of these groups. But if we invoke the primacy of our need to belong and to be accepted, we might attend to features of impression management that are tailored towards this need; for example, we might exaggerate certain stereotypical behaviors of a social group, if we pride ourselves in our group membership, even if those behaviors are not considered as admirable or moral in society at large. We might do this independently of whether this behavior will contribute to helping others diagnose the situation at hand.
Overall, I found this book a pretty entertaining read. Nothing is particularly novel or ground-breaking; everything Goffman says is intuitive, but he makes dynamics in our behavior explicit in highly illuminating ways. It is fun to see explicitly that we are driven in all the ways Goffman names; reading this book evoked many personal memories of situations that are explained by Goffman's views. Moreover, it is hilarious to see totally sexist and racist explanations and examples; Goffman certainly lived in another time (e.g., Goffman writes up, as if it is a plain scientific fact, that role of a woman in society is to be sexually appealing to men).
The majority of the book is full of descriptive detail and examples, this being a work in a social science. For the key theoretical points, one only needs to read the introduction and conclusion chapters of this book. I'd recommend this to readers interested in understanding social dynamics. What the book does not address and has no implications for, however, (which I thought it might and brought me to reading the book) are the topics of social normativity and language.
May 27, 2016
Structuralist extremism that rejects the very existence of self.
Identifies the equivalent of self as the total mass of masks worn in the different roles played throughout life i.e. the sum of social encounters one has had thus far. This also means the self is in a state of perpetual change depending on the “casting” of life or in other words the social situations creates the very essence of man and thus conceptualizes his being “through the eyes of the other”. It is impossible according to Goffman to even perceive of oneself as a human being unless in a social context. Uses theatre metaphors and numerous everyday social situations to give common sense credence to his socialist creationism.
Identifies the equivalent of self as the total mass of masks worn in the different roles played throughout life i.e. the sum of social encounters one has had thus far. This also means the self is in a state of perpetual change depending on the “casting” of life or in other words the social situations creates the very essence of man and thus conceptualizes his being “through the eyes of the other”. It is impossible according to Goffman to even perceive of oneself as a human being unless in a social context. Uses theatre metaphors and numerous everyday social situations to give common sense credence to his socialist creationism.
February 24, 2009
I always felt that the reason so few sociologists took up Goffman's ideas was that they (the sociologists)were not good enough. I certainly felt this myself for about twenty years, and even when I did begin to use his ideas, it was in fear and trembling. Goffman was a phenomenon. The Presentation of Self is particular book was a real tour de force, probably his best book, though the later ones are wonderful too. Its central theme is familiar enough from Shakespeare - "All the world's a stage" - but it is executed with great finesse and intelligence. Goffman is perhaps the greatest of the twentieth century sociologists.
February 20, 2011
I like the idea of the metaphor of presenting self as acting a part upon a stage and Goffman's extension of this metaphor but it eventually breaks down and applies only well only to institutions. It's ideas are also very dated so I would recommend reading scholars who have built upon Goffman's work rather than Goffman. As an alternative to struggling through this thing, the wikipedia page on dramaturgy is pretty good and links to http://ssr1.uchicago.edu/NEWPRE/CULT9... which is an excellent summary.
May 22, 2022
لم يدفعني لقراءته فهم التفاعل الاجتماعي بين البشر أو لمعرفة الكيفية لفنون إدارته، بل ما كان يؤرقني من توارد لعدة أدوار في
حياتي اليومية فأصبحت ماهي إلا قطرة من بحر تحليلي هنا!
رقّني وأشجاني كثيرًا ما تحدث عنه بأنّه يكاد لا يوجد أداء في أي نطاق من نطاقات الحياة إلا ويعتمد على اللمسة الشخصية كي تغالي في فرادة التعامل بين المؤدي والجمهور، وما نشعره من خيبة أمل طفيفة حين نسمع صديقًا مقرّبًا كنّا نشعر أنه يدّخر لنا وحدنا إيماءاته الدافئة العفوية وهو يتحدث بحميمية مع صديق آخر من أصدقائه (لاسيما إذا كنّا لا نعرفه).
حياتي اليومية فأصبحت ماهي إلا قطرة من بحر تحليلي هنا!
رقّني وأشجاني كثيرًا ما تحدث عنه بأنّه يكاد لا يوجد أداء في أي نطاق من نطاقات الحياة إلا ويعتمد على اللمسة الشخصية كي تغالي في فرادة التعامل بين المؤدي والجمهور، وما نشعره من خيبة أمل طفيفة حين نسمع صديقًا مقرّبًا كنّا نشعر أنه يدّخر لنا وحدنا إيماءاته الدافئة العفوية وهو يتحدث بحميمية مع صديق آخر من أصدقائه (لاسيما إذا كنّا لا نعرفه).
August 28, 2011
I have met people who didn't seem to have a "backstage."
February 26, 2015
"العالم، في حقيقة الأمر، حفل زفاف"
تلخيص/ مراجعة الكتاب -بالعربي - ضمن مشروع سطرين
http://satrein.com/project/the-presen...
تلخيص/ مراجعة الكتاب -بالعربي - ضمن مشروع سطرين
http://satrein.com/project/the-presen...
July 13, 2021
Dated but interesting reflections
April 8, 2024
"In their capacity as performers, individuals will be concerned with maintaining the impression that they are living up to the many standards by which they and their products are judged. Because these standards are so numerous and so pervasive, the individuals who are performers dwell more than we might think in a moral world. But, qua performers, individuals are concerned not with the moral issue of realizing these standards, but with the amoral issue of engineering a convincing impression that these standards are being realized."
November 19, 2020
I hated every second reading this
December 13, 2022
We all present ourselves a certain way. Goffman extends this metaphor of the world as a stage to explain how we maintain specific images of ourselves and put on a performance.
Spoilers ahead.
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a difficult one to review. The subject matter was interesting, and I felt simultaneously understood and attacked from all angles regarding my behaviour around others. However, I will admit my eyes glazed over several times and often I had to force my way through chapters. I also wish Goffman had explained his ideas better rather than relying on an example from another text (which he copied and pasted into this book!!!) because the example would often confuse me even more. With that being said, I took some notes while reading about stuff that resonated or that I found genuinely useful to know.
From my understanding, Goffman's main argument is that the world is our stage and we are all maintaining an illusion of ourselves which is "appropriate" for others to see. Sometimes, these illusions seep into our private lives too when we act in front of an imaginary audience. I found that particularly interesting because I tend to pretend I have an audience with me at all times. So I honestly don't know how much of me is a performance and what my "natural" state truly is. Am I just a sack of bones? I don't know! Maybe! I suppose an audience holds you accountable.
At an individual level, you can have two types of performers. Sincere performers are those who believe in the performance they are putting on. Cynical performers are those who don't believe in their performance nor do they care what the audience believes. Dramatisation is needed to show others (aka the audience) that your work is important. This literally entails people dramatically highlighting things that may go unnoticed e.g., a nurse who has to inject a hypodermic needle is seen as more "important" than a nurse who is chatting to patients even though the latter is actually subtly taking their observations (i.e., BP, HR, RR etc.) at the same time.
Sometimes, in dramatising our actions in doing anything, less of that thing actually gets done. Say I go to the library to study, I will put a lot of effort into dramatising the work I'm getting done, thus expending all my energy in that dramatisation rather than actually getting the work done. That's a true story too, for the longest time, I struggled to study in the library or any public place because I wanted to look productive to others. It's the same case in lectures--I'll put a lot of effort into showing I'm paying attention but nothing will actually make its way into my brain.
We also engage in audience segregation, that is we act differently with different groups of people. This, of course, means that issues can crop up when people from different audiences are in a room together. See, this is why we shouldn't have big parties and stick to small gatherings instead! (Unless it's a ceildih, ceilidhs are always the exception.)
I find this especially challenging because masking is my, well, normal. I wear different masks with different people and God forbid everyone in my life hangs out in a room together because I would be switching gears with practically every person I met.
People want to believe they are receiving unique attention. If you say the same thing to two people in the same gathering, both will feel less special and probably like you less. Interestingly enough, I encountered a similar concept in a psychology class I took in my third year called generalised reciprocity. Eastwick et al. (2007) had done a speed-dating experiment to figure out how reciprocity worked in attraction. Those who showed generalised reciprocity (liking that applied to everyone) were less liked in romantic contexts than those who showed dyadic reciprocity (liking that was unique to you).
Goffman discusses a lot about how these performances apply in a team or group context. Indeed, I'd say probably three-quarters of the book has to do with our interactions as a team.
That gigantic block of text summarises why I often feel so left out in group interactions. When I'm in on a team's secret, I definitely feel conspiratorial but when I'm on the opposite end, I feel so sure that there's some sort of hidden bond there--the secret. Also, there's this hidden understanding when you're interacting with someone that you're going to follow all the right steps whether that's on a date or with a friend. I definitely exaggerate my words and movements more when I'm with certain friends because I think that's how people are meant to act around friends, and they generally match my energy. So, if we're all just putting on performances, I don't know what's real anymore. I think that's going to be a common thread in this review--what is real?
One slip in maintaining an image will have massive repercussions in not just how you are seen but the rest of your team as well as everyone else who shares your dramaturgical climate.
Teams have discrepant roles:
- The informer is someone who is privy to the backstage of the team, who acts as a performer and then stabs them in the back by revealing the team's secrets.
- A shill is the first kind of imposter, a confederate who acts like a member of the audience but is actually in league with the performers.
- Spotters are the second type of imposter who acts in the audience's interests to make sure the performers are doing well or doing the right thing. They're usually disliked and an example would be a food critic who doesn't reveal they are a critic until you read the paper the next morning and it's full of atrocious things about your cooking. A shopper is part of the audience but reports back to their employer who is the team's competition.
- The go-between/mediator learns secrets from both sides and gives the true impression to both sides that they'll keep their secrets but also give the false impression that one team is more important than the other. An example would be a chairperson of any meeting. The chair would lead the discussion with the panellist but is also on the audience's side by guiding how they should respond to what is being said.
- The non-person is not in the audience nor are they part of the performance. They aren't imposters but just seem to be there in the situation.
Then there are further roles for those who aren't in the performance but still have information about it.
- A service specialist fixes, constructs and maintains the performers' display. They won't share the risk, guilt or satisfaction of the performance and the performers of the team won't learn secrets about the service specialist. A therapist would be a good example of this.
- A confidante is someone you confide in and it's only friendship and trust that prevents them from sharing that information with others. People tend to turn service specialists into confidantes. I definitely am guilty of doing this with my personal tutor/professional mentor at the medical school lol and now I know not to do that anymore!
- A colleague is someone who doesn't necessarily perform for the same audience or at the same time but share a "community of fate." They have to put similar performances on so there's an understanding between colleagues.
There are four types of communication out of character.
- Treatment of the absent: Performers derogate the audience when they're backstage and vice versa too (so the audience derogates the performers). Sometimes, praise can also be given though I doubt this happens all that often.
- Staging talk: This is like talking shop. People who live in the same dramaturgical climate will talk about how their performance went, the audience etc. It's like two medical students on different blocks being able to talk about placements and anything medicine-related.
- Team collusion: Essentially secret communication that team members know. For instance, if my mother and I are at a party and I want to leave early, I would glance furtively at her and signal that I'd want to leave and then she'd make an excuse and we'd leave. Sometimes, you're given the invitation to collude which you can reject at the cost of offending the invitee. Collusions within teams are important when you have to quickly assemble a performance.
- Realigning actions: When individuals come together to interact, they follow a routine that has been decided for them by their team (this is when two teams meet/interact). Some aims may be to make the other team look inferior to your own or there can be unofficial communication to gauge where the other person stands.
My favourite type of communication was guarded disclosure where two members will talk to each other and slowly bring out their views all whilst gauging the other person's. When one individual has reached their most extreme view, the other (who, let's say, has more extreme views) will downplay their views and tactfully match the other person's level of extremity.
Spoilers ahead.
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a difficult one to review. The subject matter was interesting, and I felt simultaneously understood and attacked from all angles regarding my behaviour around others. However, I will admit my eyes glazed over several times and often I had to force my way through chapters. I also wish Goffman had explained his ideas better rather than relying on an example from another text (which he copied and pasted into this book!!!) because the example would often confuse me even more. With that being said, I took some notes while reading about stuff that resonated or that I found genuinely useful to know.
From my understanding, Goffman's main argument is that the world is our stage and we are all maintaining an illusion of ourselves which is "appropriate" for others to see. Sometimes, these illusions seep into our private lives too when we act in front of an imaginary audience. I found that particularly interesting because I tend to pretend I have an audience with me at all times. So I honestly don't know how much of me is a performance and what my "natural" state truly is. Am I just a sack of bones? I don't know! Maybe! I suppose an audience holds you accountable.
At an individual level, you can have two types of performers. Sincere performers are those who believe in the performance they are putting on. Cynical performers are those who don't believe in their performance nor do they care what the audience believes. Dramatisation is needed to show others (aka the audience) that your work is important. This literally entails people dramatically highlighting things that may go unnoticed e.g., a nurse who has to inject a hypodermic needle is seen as more "important" than a nurse who is chatting to patients even though the latter is actually subtly taking their observations (i.e., BP, HR, RR etc.) at the same time.
Sometimes, in dramatising our actions in doing anything, less of that thing actually gets done. Say I go to the library to study, I will put a lot of effort into dramatising the work I'm getting done, thus expending all my energy in that dramatisation rather than actually getting the work done. That's a true story too, for the longest time, I struggled to study in the library or any public place because I wanted to look productive to others. It's the same case in lectures--I'll put a lot of effort into showing I'm paying attention but nothing will actually make its way into my brain.
We also engage in audience segregation, that is we act differently with different groups of people. This, of course, means that issues can crop up when people from different audiences are in a room together. See, this is why we shouldn't have big parties and stick to small gatherings instead! (Unless it's a ceildih, ceilidhs are always the exception.)
Front region control is one measure of audience segregation. Incapacity to maintain this control leaves the performer in a position of not knowing what character he will have to project from one moment to the next, making it difficult for him to effect a dramaturgical succes in any one of them.
I find this especially challenging because masking is my, well, normal. I wear different masks with different people and God forbid everyone in my life hangs out in a room together because I would be switching gears with practically every person I met.
People want to believe they are receiving unique attention. If you say the same thing to two people in the same gathering, both will feel less special and probably like you less. Interestingly enough, I encountered a similar concept in a psychology class I took in my third year called generalised reciprocity. Eastwick et al. (2007) had done a speed-dating experiment to figure out how reciprocity worked in attraction. Those who showed generalised reciprocity (liking that applied to everyone) were less liked in romantic contexts than those who showed dyadic reciprocity (liking that was unique to you).
Goffman discusses a lot about how these performances apply in a team or group context. Indeed, I'd say probably three-quarters of the book has to do with our interactions as a team.
A team is a grouping, but it is a grouping not in relation to a social structure or social organisation but rather in relation to an interaction or series of interactions in which the relevant definition of the situation is maintained. [...] No effort may be made in many cases to conceal who is on the staff; but they form a secret society, a team, in so far as a secret is kept as to how they are cooperating together to maintain a particular definition of the situation. [...] Since we all participate on teams we must all carry within ourselves something of the sweet guilt of conspirators.
That gigantic block of text summarises why I often feel so left out in group interactions. When I'm in on a team's secret, I definitely feel conspiratorial but when I'm on the opposite end, I feel so sure that there's some sort of hidden bond there--the secret. Also, there's this hidden understanding when you're interacting with someone that you're going to follow all the right steps whether that's on a date or with a friend. I definitely exaggerate my words and movements more when I'm with certain friends because I think that's how people are meant to act around friends, and they generally match my energy. So, if we're all just putting on performances, I don't know what's real anymore. I think that's going to be a common thread in this review--what is real?
One slip in maintaining an image will have massive repercussions in not just how you are seen but the rest of your team as well as everyone else who shares your dramaturgical climate.
Teams have discrepant roles:
- The informer is someone who is privy to the backstage of the team, who acts as a performer and then stabs them in the back by revealing the team's secrets.
- A shill is the first kind of imposter, a confederate who acts like a member of the audience but is actually in league with the performers.
- Spotters are the second type of imposter who acts in the audience's interests to make sure the performers are doing well or doing the right thing. They're usually disliked and an example would be a food critic who doesn't reveal they are a critic until you read the paper the next morning and it's full of atrocious things about your cooking. A shopper is part of the audience but reports back to their employer who is the team's competition.
- The go-between/mediator learns secrets from both sides and gives the true impression to both sides that they'll keep their secrets but also give the false impression that one team is more important than the other. An example would be a chairperson of any meeting. The chair would lead the discussion with the panellist but is also on the audience's side by guiding how they should respond to what is being said.
- The non-person is not in the audience nor are they part of the performance. They aren't imposters but just seem to be there in the situation.
Then there are further roles for those who aren't in the performance but still have information about it.
- A service specialist fixes, constructs and maintains the performers' display. They won't share the risk, guilt or satisfaction of the performance and the performers of the team won't learn secrets about the service specialist. A therapist would be a good example of this.
- A confidante is someone you confide in and it's only friendship and trust that prevents them from sharing that information with others. People tend to turn service specialists into confidantes. I definitely am guilty of doing this with my personal tutor/professional mentor at the medical school lol and now I know not to do that anymore!
- A colleague is someone who doesn't necessarily perform for the same audience or at the same time but share a "community of fate." They have to put similar performances on so there's an understanding between colleagues.
There are four types of communication out of character.
- Treatment of the absent: Performers derogate the audience when they're backstage and vice versa too (so the audience derogates the performers). Sometimes, praise can also be given though I doubt this happens all that often.
- Staging talk: This is like talking shop. People who live in the same dramaturgical climate will talk about how their performance went, the audience etc. It's like two medical students on different blocks being able to talk about placements and anything medicine-related.
- Team collusion: Essentially secret communication that team members know. For instance, if my mother and I are at a party and I want to leave early, I would glance furtively at her and signal that I'd want to leave and then she'd make an excuse and we'd leave. Sometimes, you're given the invitation to collude which you can reject at the cost of offending the invitee. Collusions within teams are important when you have to quickly assemble a performance.
- Realigning actions: When individuals come together to interact, they follow a routine that has been decided for them by their team (this is when two teams meet/interact). Some aims may be to make the other team look inferior to your own or there can be unofficial communication to gauge where the other person stands.
My favourite type of communication was guarded disclosure where two members will talk to each other and slowly bring out their views all whilst gauging the other person's. When one individual has reached their most extreme view, the other (who, let's say, has more extreme views) will downplay their views and tactfully match the other person's level of extremity.
October 13, 2024
“As performers we are merchants of morality” (251)
“We lead an indoor social life” (244)
“(…) the individual who performs the character will be seen for what he largely is, a solitary player involved in a harried concern for his production” (235)
“Maids are often trained to enter a room whithout knocking, or to knock and go right in, presumably on the theory that they are non-persons (…)” (que gonorrea - pie de página 229)
“A back region or backstage may be defined as a place, relative to a given performance, where the impression fostered by the performance is knowingly contradicted as a matter of course” (112)
“The line dividing front and back regions is illustrated everywhere in our society” (123)
“We lead an indoor social life” (244)
“(…) the individual who performs the character will be seen for what he largely is, a solitary player involved in a harried concern for his production” (235)
“Maids are often trained to enter a room whithout knocking, or to knock and go right in, presumably on the theory that they are non-persons (…)” (que gonorrea - pie de página 229)
“A back region or backstage may be defined as a place, relative to a given performance, where the impression fostered by the performance is knowingly contradicted as a matter of course” (112)
“The line dividing front and back regions is illustrated everywhere in our society” (123)
July 17, 2021
This is a truly stunning book. This is probably the tenth time I've read Goffman's Presentation of Self in my academic life. Every time I read it, a new lens appears.
Currently, I am researching leadership in our universities. I returned to Goffman. What I have missed through my previous readings is the role of 'the audience' in sustaining the performance. So 'the audience' for the performance (of leadership) must believe. When they doubt - the performance is over. When the backstage emerges - sexual improprieties, entertainment expenses, plagiarism - the performance is concluded.
It is so clearly written. The argument is profound and seductive. And how inspiring is this book when readers recognize it was Goffman's first book, built on his PhD.
For anyone who questions the 'value' of a PhD - it may be important to remind them that The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life was a PhD. It has changed knowledge - and continues to change knowledge.
Breathtaking. Profound. Disturbing. Powerful.
Currently, I am researching leadership in our universities. I returned to Goffman. What I have missed through my previous readings is the role of 'the audience' in sustaining the performance. So 'the audience' for the performance (of leadership) must believe. When they doubt - the performance is over. When the backstage emerges - sexual improprieties, entertainment expenses, plagiarism - the performance is concluded.
It is so clearly written. The argument is profound and seductive. And how inspiring is this book when readers recognize it was Goffman's first book, built on his PhD.
For anyone who questions the 'value' of a PhD - it may be important to remind them that The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life was a PhD. It has changed knowledge - and continues to change knowledge.
Breathtaking. Profound. Disturbing. Powerful.
February 18, 2017
شاید کسانی که تو فضای علوم اجتماعی بالاخص جامعهشناسی باشن، قبل از خوندن این کتاب، با ایدهی کلیش آشنا باشن فلذا چندان دچار شگفتی یا هیجان نشن ولی به هر حال به نظرم یک لنز نظری بسیار جالب (زندگی روزمره به مثابه صحنههای یک نمایش) برای نگاه کردن به زندگی روزمره در اختیار میذاره و بینشهای ارزشمندی ارائه میده که حتی برای غیرجامعهشناسان هم میتونه جالب توجه باشه و ناگهان نگاه آدم به موقعیتهای مختلف زندگیش روزمرهش رو کاملا تکون بده.
July 5, 2019
همینطور که خود نویسنده میگه ادعای نمایشی بودن دنیا چیز جدیدی نیست،فصلهای اول تا پنجم سعی در بیان و شناختن پارامترها به مخاطب در مورد تحلیل جامعه از بعد نمایشی داره.
فصل ششم که به مدیریت تاثیرگذاری میپردازه خیلی محدود و خلاصه است. و فصل هفتم که نتیجهگیری مبحثه شما رو قانع میکنه که با نخوندن کتاب احتمالا چیز زیادی رو از دست نمیدادید.
فصل ششم که به مدیریت تاثیرگذاری میپردازه خیلی محدود و خلاصه است. و فصل هفتم که نتیجهگیری مبحثه شما رو قانع میکنه که با نخوندن کتاب احتمالا چیز زیادی رو از دست نمیدادید.
September 12, 2010
This is a highly insightful book on the performative nature of social interactions. It also reveals the severe restrictions on acceptable middle class behavior in the 1950s. Accessible and engaging and you don't have to be a sociology nerd to enjoy it.
August 28, 2016
I was assigned this in a drama class and although I dropped out of the class, hung onto the book as a "to-be-read". Finished it late in life and kicked myself for it. Offers invaluable insight on behaviour and perception.
August 2, 2016
I think this book served as a huge reminder that people act in different ways depending on the audience. The audience could be friends, family members, classmates, teachers, or coworkers. Each audience changes, meaning that the performer has to change too.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 431 reviews