The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

In this valuable study Dr Goffman examines what happens when an individual appears in front of others. Usually the individual mobilizes his activity in order to convey an impression to others which it is in his interest to convey. This process is called impression management and it occurs in practically every social interaction. Each participant is expected to suppress his feelings and to convey a view of the situation which he feels the others will at least temporarily find acceptable.
We all perform in front of others and we expect that others believe the performance we deliver. Everyone more or less consciously is always playing a role, is always presenting a personal front which is both behavioural and material - clothing, size, posture, hair, make-up and gesture. Performers tend to offer their observers an impression that is as positive as possible, mostly even idealised. A slight error or off key note can disrupt an entire performance and of course the performer can act so as to dupe or misguide his audience in which case self-deception is not excluded.
Social distance usually leads to a process of mystification whereas excessive familiarity may breed contempt. In the absence of the other, with a third party, belittling and criticism - secret derogation - often take place and is even in many cases a source of contentment. The author distinguishes four types of communication out of character: staging talk, team collusion, treatment of the absent and realigning actions. A study which will interest all those who would like to know what phenomena occur during a variety of social interactions.

This is a revolutionary book. It introduces the stage metaphor into sociology; all of social interaction is a performance on a stage. It's questionable how novel this metaphor is, but this is certianly its first explicit statement. The language used to present the ideas of the author is, like most sociological writing, unecessarily complicated. There are some problems with clarity and structure; the book just doesnt have a holistic feel for me. No sociological background is presupposed, there is extensive quoting from other sociological sources, many footnotes, and various other ways to enter sociological literature throught the book. So if you are interested in reading sociology, this is probably a good place to start (again, the language is unecessicarily thick and this may be it's bane as an introduction).

However, the book is misguided. The idea of viewing social interaction as a performance on a stage is unecessary. The authors motives for saying this will make my position clearer.

(The following is a charicature of the author's argument). There is certianly a large amount of social behavior which is directed towards other people (the audience) in order for the audience to build an impression of the actor. Well, if it can happen here we can draw a parallel with other situations, infact all situations and therfore all of social interaction is like a performance on a stage, "All the world is not, of course, a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isnt are hard to specify" (p 72). The performances can either be with individuals, or groups of people, and they can be performing conciously or unconciously. (end of charicature)

There are other arguments, obviously, and the statement "we can draw a parallel with other situations" is most of the content of the book, which i dont like to gloss over with a sentence. But the real question here is, is the view worthwhile? My answer: No. Social interaction is a complex phenomena that cant possibly be summed up with a signle metaphor. Yes, some social interaction is like a performance, where indivudals are intentionally making impressions on one another. Yes, some social behavior can arise from unconcious beliefs. However, most social interaction is exactly the way we see it, conciously controlled, meaningful, purposeful interaction with individuals; it is not some kind of performance with the purpose of creating a "reality".

I hope my view of the book is clear so that the biases on the final part of my review can be sorted out: the book is a waste of time. Where the author is right, the statement is little more than common sense. Where the author goes outside of common sense, he's wrong, sometimes plainly so. This book is part of the tradition in sociology of thinking that society pulls the wool over each individuals eyes, that reality is a social construct with no purpose other than social control (here the wool is the performance, and the control has to do with impressions ... but this quickly degenerates into an obscure mess of assertions). There is no real empirical support given for most of the claims. Where "evidence" is given, the evididence is so heavily intepreted that it fails to correspond to facts in the world but rather to facts about the views of the reporter. Where there is no correspondence to the world there is no truth. Various sources of sociology are cited, but this is more like intellectual bullying. Saying that some author, which also didnt have any empirical support for his claims, agrees with you is just to bully your reader into acepting your claims. The claims in the book have no practical application in the world, but only serve to intepret situations differently, and in personal opinion, less correctly. Nothing said here will lead to better predictions about social behavior or a better understanding of psychology. In short, this isnt a scientific study at all.

My final qualm with the book deserves its own paragraph, the use of language. The best example is the definitions given at the end of the introduction "A performance may be defined as all of the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants" (15). This is a curios definition. Me breathing while i work is a performance, it changes the percentages of O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere near my co-workers. Me staring into space is a performance, other people see me stare into space and are therefore influenced. Infact, me simply existing is a performance, since my existance causes a gravitational effect on the other participants, as well as influencing them to create beliefs about me existing. Its as if Goffman created a definition for performance which included all possible actions taken by any person, and then wrote a book about how all possible actions taken by any person fall under the category of performance. He didnt. He used a word that we associate with controlled behavior (performance) and defined it in a way no one is used to. Then he used alot of word play to show that behavior has no substance, its all for the purpose of maintaining social reality. I hope this very limited example shows the terrible use of language that is endemic to Goffman and sociology more generally.

So an ode to sociology is in order ... actually no it isnt. Why wont this subject go away? This book is an integral part of sociology, and it espouses the methods and style of sociological researchers and writers by being an archetypical work within the tradition. The methods are questionable; the style is obscure. Like it or hate it, sociology is a part of modern thought. Read the book to be an educated person and keep in mind its intellectual failings.

This review is being written as I am reading "The Presentation of the Self" for the third time. And to put all my cards on the table: I read Goffman more out of necessity than interest.

This book is a classic for all the right reasons. It is thoroughly argued, well-grounded in empirical examples, and offers a (at the date of its initial publication) truly original approach to the study of social situations. Additionally, although Goffman's prose is a little thick, anyone can understand his argument. He does not expect a readership well-informed in any particular social theory.

Goffman offers his own theory, drawing on theater as a rich source of metaphor, to explicate social organization and behavior. Although I personally do not find the argument very compelling, it certainly can't be easily dismissed. This is the product of close observation of social behavior and organization in innumerable contexts, framed by a logical and rigorous theory. Goffman makes what is, in essence, an argument in favor of 'social construction': Individuals consist of diverse sets of roles played out in different situations.

There are definite weaknesses with his argument, however. To begin with the simplest: Goffman's prose, although he does not rely heavily on jargon (and provides adequate definition of any jargon he does use), does not make for a light read. This is dense. The examples are often clear (and occasionally entertaining), but Goffman's prose is stereotypically academic.

Secondly, although the book is full of empirical examples, many of these are based on observations of social situations that would not resonate with the contemporary reader. This book is clearly a product of its time. Readers might find some of the examples, or Goffman's glosses of them, offensive or just plain silly.

Furthermore, as Goffman himself states in the preface, his 'dramaturgical' perspective applies best to, and his examples are drawn from, "the kind of social life that is organized within the physical confines of a building or plant." This is social psychology applied to a very particular sort of social organization. While Goffman's theory may have applications to, say, the study of family structure, or intimate interpersonal realtionships, he clearly meant it to apply most directly to office places, service industries, royal courts and the like. In other words, the dramaturgical perspective works best in explaining those situations in which performance is an expected part of the social structure (i.e., expected by the performers themselves) - but might fall short in those situations in which the aim is 'being genuine'.

Consequently, Goffman's argument does not necessarily demonstrate that individuals lack a 'core self' or identity. Goffman, however, suggests in his conclusion "that the very structure of the self can be seen in terms of how we arrange for such performances" as he discusses - in other words, that we are our performances, and nothing more. It is easy to read into Goffman's work the suggestion that we lack core identities. I do not think his analyses support that suggestion, however.

On this matter, compare Goffman's arguments to the philosopher Thomas Nagel's argument in "Concealment and Exposure". Nagel argues that for certain social situations to work smoothly, we (as participants) need to 'conceal' aspects of ourselves (thoughts, feelings, biological urges...) that would disrupt that smooth flow. Nagel does not mean that we do not have such thoughts, feelings, or urges; only that we must cover them up from time to time. Structurally, Nagel and Goffman make very similar arguments: There are social demands placed on individuals such that we, effectively, have to 'act' out certain roles in order to maintain social organization. But where Goffman stretches this insight to claim that the 'self' consists entirely of such performances, Nagel is able to reconcile a dramaturgical perspective on social behavior with the existence of an individual self. (That is to say, an argument about how the self is presented in social situations concerns only the self's presentation. It is not an argument about the identity of that self, per se.)

Finally, Goffman does not offer an explanatory theory - this is purely (although rigorously) descriptive. Goffman refers to this book as "a sort of handbook", and it is; it is almost a field guide or crash course in social observation. Of course, in social theory as in anything, clear observation and a logical classification of what we are observing is a necessary overture to explanation. As such, this is not really a weakness, but Goffman's readers should accept that additional argumentation is necessary to account for *why* our performances are divided into front and back regions, etc. On a related matter, Goffmanian analyses have been critiqued for being politically conservative; since they are heavily descriptive, they tend to take society as it is presented, with little or no normative judgment. Take that as you will. From my perspective, it is a weakness; others would certainly regard it as a strength.

All in all, this is a worthy read, whether or not you agree with Goffman's analyses. It is especially important that those who disagree with Goffman should read this book; it has had such a tremendous impact on the practice of sociology that familiarity with it is a necessary part of any broad reading of social theory.

I remember reading this work many years ago and feeling a whole new world had opened up to me in relation to understanding ' the self'. Instead of looking inward only it was necessary to see the way we reshape ourselves in response to the kind of people we are with. The ' self' becomes a ' construct' which alters with performance, and with each new set of characters or scene we met. And so we ourselves are in effect many different selves, and there seems to be no limit to the new faces we can make in new worlds that we meet.
All this was revelatory to me. And yet it seems to me now years later that Goffman was touching upon one kind of ' self- making and self- meeting'. And that the question of our own relation to ourselves, and the question of whether we have a real essential singular self ( or are simply a series of passing states as Hume and Buddha would seem to imply) does not seem to me solved by Goffman.
But then his again his work is about ' the presentation of self in everyday life' and not the ' essence of self in eternity'.
In any case this is a truly interesting and self- opening study.

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.