The Presentation Of Self In Everyday Life 1959

[Adimar Nigerson]

BibGuruoffers more than 8,000 citation styles including popular styles such as AMA, ASA, APSA, CSE, IEEE, Harvard, Turabian, and Vancouver, as well as journal and university specific styles. Give it a try now: Cite The presentation of self in everyday life now!

Learn how to create in-text citations and a full citation/reference/note for The presentation of self in everyday life by Erving Goffman using the examples below. The presentation of self in everyday life is cited in 14 different citation styles, including MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard, APA, ACS, and many others.

Here are The presentation of self in everyday life citations for 14 popular citation styles including Turabian style, the American Medical Association (AMA) style, the Council of Science Editors (CSE) style, IEEE, and more.

When an individual enters the presence of others, they commonly seek to acquire information about him or to bring into play information about him already possessed. They will be interested in his general socio-economic status, his conception of self, his attitude toward them, his competence, his trustworthiness, etc. Although some of this information seems to be sought almost as an end in itself, there are usually quite practical reasons for acquiring it. Information about the individual helps to define the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and what they may expect of him. Informed in these ways, the others will know how best to act in order to call forth a desired response from him.

Essentially, the argument here is that social interaction requires performances from all actors involved in any social interaction in order to define and negotiate the situation we find ourselves in. Through our performances, we make claims about what the situation is, who we are, and what to expect from one another.

Certainly then, an individual may intentionally and consciously put on a performance in order to gain in some way from a given situation. However, performances occur in any and all social interactions. The performer may well be convinced that the performance they are giving is not really a performance at all and instead may view it as an authentic reflection of him- or herself.

refers to the other items of expressive equipment, the items that we most intimately identify with the performer himself and that we naturally expect will follow the performer wherever he goes. As part of personal front we may include: insignia of office or rank; clothing; sex, age, and racial characteristics; size and looks; posture; speech patterns; facial expressions; bodily gestures; and the like.

a haughty, aggressive manner may give the impression that the performer expects to be the one who will initiate the verbal interaction and direct its course. A meek, apologetic manner may give the impression that the performer expects to follow the lead of others, or at least that he can be led to do so.

A shill is someone who acts as though he were an ordinary member of the audience but is in fact in league with the performers. Typically, the shill either provides a visible model for the audience of the kind of response the performers are seeking or provides the kind of audience response that is necessary at the moment for the development of the performance.

Performers often rely on the tactful tendency of the audience and outsiders to act in a protective way in order to help the performers save their own show (Goffman, 1959, p. 229). However, the tactfulness of the audience may not be enough to recover the situation, which may result in embarrassing and socially awkward consequences. As Goffman explains in his wonderfully Goffman way:

Whenever the audience exercises tact, the possibility will arise that the performers will learn that they are being tactfully protected. When this occurs, the further possibility arises that the audience will learn that the performers know they are being tactfully protected. And then, in turn, it becomes possible for the performers to learn that the audience knows that the performers know they are being protected. Now when such states of information exist, a moment in the performance may come when the separateness of the teams will break down and be momentarily replaced by a communion of glances through which each team openly admits to the other its state of information. At such moments, the whole dramaturgical structure of social interaction is suddenly and poignantly laid bare, and the line separating the teams momentarily disappears. Whether this close view of things brings shame or laughter, the teams are likely to draw rapidly back into their appointed character.

The experience Goffman effects is that of colonizing a new social place into which the reader enters, from which to exit never quite the same. To have once, even if only once, seen the social world from within such a place is never after to see it otherwise, ever after to read the world anew. In thus seeing differently, we are other than we were.

Goffman provides us with an interesting and useful framework within which to think about social interaction through the framework of dramaturgical analysis. As we shall see, this is not a theory which claims to explain all of society or all aspects of social interaction. What it does provide is a framework that we can apply in studying social groups and their interaction between and among one another. It is a method of analysis.

And now a final comment. In developing the conceptual framework employed in this report, some language of the stage was used. I spoke of performers and audiences; of routines and parts; of performances coming off or falling flat; of cues, stage settings and backstage; of dramaturgical needs, dramaturgical skills, and dramaturgical strategies. Now it should be admitted that this attempt to press a mere analogy so far was in part a rhetoric and a maneuver.

Goffman (1959) intends his dramaturgical methaphor to be used as a scaffold. It is not all-emcompassing and is not adequate as an approach used in isolation. Rather, it is a means to an end. It is a method of highlighting and teasing out aspects of social interaction which, once identified, must be analysed further through the use of other Sociological methologies and perspectives. Nonetheless, the analogy of the theatre to describe everyday life is fascinating and has had substantial impact on the field.

The best way for me to really understand whatever it is I read is to take notes. Currently these notes are just sitting in my Notion, so I thought I might as well share it. Hopefully you learn something new and maybe even buy the book.

The presentation of self in everyday life is a book published by the sociologist Erving Goffman in 1959. In it he likens human social interaction to that of a theatrical performance, to put it simply. For a more in depth summary read here.

Manipulation of a cynical performer is not always malicious e.g a doctor providing a placebo (although doctors don't know when something is a placebo so this is false), an air hostess double checking something they know to be fine, just to put a scared customer at ease etc

Bad - E.g Needing to do it in order to fit a stereotype, in order to get help as the "normal" performance does not fit the expected performance the audience is expecting. Example given was black people purposely acting stupid and happy-go-lucky when interacting with white people because that was what was expected of them given their race and class. Another example was keeping a house in a somewhat "bad state" in order to avoid an increase in rent (so the owner doesn't think they are undercharging). People can also exploit this (e.g knowing the stereotype of poverty, and playing the part well in order to deceive the audience. Likewise, the audience expecting the performer to play the part of "poverty" even if their appearance and manner clearly indicates such already)

Performances are often idealized versions of reality e.g an 8 year old saying he doesn't watch shows for 6 year olds, even though he may do so occasionally in private. However it is this idealized performance that forces the individual to improve.

The performer may be engaged in illegal activities that directly contradict their performance. They do this because they need their audience to believe this performance as they gain from this, which helps them further gain from their illegal activity.

Errors and mistakes are concealed from the audience, and any form of correction is also concealed from the audience. This gives the impression that they are incapable of making mistakes. Which links back to the point that it makes them better because it forces them to catch their mistakes.

The performer may be engaged in illegal activities, or profiting from illegal activities in order to give the performance. Such activities will contradict what it i they wish to convey to the outside world, this is known as "dirty work"

Difference between appearance and actual activity. If an appearance is meant to signify several things (activity wise), often certain parts of the appearance will be compromised, as they are not visible to easy to assess, and still provide the same level of performance to the audience.

Individuals foster the impression that they had "ideal" motives for playing their role e.g a priest claiming they are priest because they received the call of God, nothing else (which may not alway be true). Or upper class people giving them impression that they somehow earned the right through pure means (hard work alone).

When an individual performs they often give the impression that this is the only performance they give (or at least the one with most significance in their lives). Because of this, there is segregation in the audience. example, someone speaking in slang, smoking etc will not put on the same performance for their boss. audience dictates performance

Within this, individuals tend to give the impression that the performance given to the audience is very special / they have a special relationsip. This can be seen via doctors and their patients, friends etc.

3a8082e126