10/16/2014

Erving Goffman Review

Erving Goffman, a Canadian sociologist, is most well known for his work and analysis on human interaction.
Known as a micro-sociologist, Goffman conducted his study through face-to-face interaction and observation,
focusing on detailed encounters and observable norms. Goffmans sociological contribution began with The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life published in 1956. Five subsequent major works followed including
Asylums (1961), Stigma (1963), Interaction Ritual (1967), Frame Analysis (1974) and Forms of Talk (1981).
His subjects ranged from interactive public behavior to forms of speech, often following the school of symbolic
interactionism. His theories facilitated a great deal of insight with regard to personality development and
individual behavior. This paper will comment and critique the theoretical works of Goffman, specifically his
theories of dramaturgy, impression management and stigma.
The notion of Dramatrugy emerged from Goffmans first published works, The Presentation of the Self in
Everyday Life. Described as a theatrical performance put forth by the individual in order to control or guide
the impression they are making by altering or reshaping their manner, appearance or setting thereby achieving
desirable results (Goffman, 1959). Simultaneously, the person(s) with whom the individual is interacting with is
also attempting to form an opinion of that individual based on the information put forth. He explains that
society is not homogenous (Goffman, 1959), meaning that we must act accordingly in different situations. Our
behavior, then, is guided by the context of the situation and executed through an on stage performance when
we are in the midst of others. Our back stage selves are characterized as a private place where we are allowed to
be our true selves in lieu of our societal role and identity (Goffman, 1959).
Goffman sets forth a compelling argument explaining the behavior of individuals in a public space throughout
different settings. However, what Goffman fails to incorporate in his argument is which contexts specifically
account for an on stage performance and which context account for a back stage performance. There are many
instances in which an individual could be surrounded by a mix of persons to whom they deliver their on stage
and back stage performance to. In other words, an individual in any given setting may be in the presence of both
close friends and acquaintances. In this case, do we expect the individual to deliver a primarily on stage
performance or back stage performance, or a mix of the two? Goffmans theory of dramaturgy is portrayed as a
black and white concept, when often interaction between individuals is a complicated one that can be more
precisely analyzed on a continuum of shades of grey.
Although Goffman reduces social interaction to two types of external influences (on stage and off stage) his
theory that indicates individuals actively alter their appearance, manner and setting in order to receive a
favorable review by their audience is a valid one. Impression management involves catering to different types of
people using differential approaches in order to be seen favorably by each differing individual or group
(Goffman, 1959). One would not wear an EVENING GOWN to an interview just as professional attire is not
worn to a ball. While professionalism is both required and expected while on the job, it would be off-putting at a
gathering with close friends or a night on the town. Goffman is able to discern this by analyzing an interaction
that is mostly thought to be a mechanical one. Individuals do not think actively that the person they are
conversing with is aware of their behavioral alterations. Only the individuals themselves are acutely aware of
this fact and in some cases, an altering of behavior based on setting may arise out of habit or second nature.
Most individual interactions result from a force that is external to the individual, and are very dependent on the
surrounding environment. This ties into Goffmans theory of dramaturgy in which we put forth different images
of ourselves in order to appease the audience to which we are speaking (Goffman, 1959). Goffmans theory of
Impression Management suggests this is an interaction generally taking place between individuals who are not
well acquainted. Though this is likely to be the context in which Impression Management is used to its fullest
extent, the theory is never totally abandoned due to the maintenance required to uphold the initial impression.
Goffmans theories discussed in The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, although thorough, only graze
the surface of more complicated social interactions by explaining the mechanics and thought-process behind
first-time interactions, in addition to categorizing these interactions too broadly. His theories of dramaturgy and
impression management only explain only the most basic of face-to-face interactions and do not account for the
interactions that follow once the relationship between individuals, the setting and the context become more
complicated. The largest weakness these theories present are that the data was not empirically gained.
Goffmans research was obtained through observation alone, which is subject to the observers interpretation,
thereby making it more difficult to properly assess the true nature of these interactions. The more interfering
variables present in a theorists research, the more errors in the theory are likely.
Goffmans later work delved further into his theory of Impression Management by taking a closer look at what
individuals monitor about themselves in order to be viewed positively by others. Goffmans Stigma, published
http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298

1/3

10/16/2014

Erving Goffman Review

in 1963, described the social processes involved in masking or coping with a social variable that would threaten
an individuals status and social standing (Goffman, 1963). This can include external deformations, deviations
in personal traits and negative stereotypical attributes associated with certain religious or ethnic groups. These
displays of stigma serve to spoil the individuals identity, thereby deeply discrediting the individual as a result
of the attribute (Goffman, 1963). Stigma management takes place whenever there are identity norms or during
their on stage performance in the public eye. In order to operate with optimal functionality, the individual
must conceal the stigma or learn coping strategies to manage if the stigma is easily visible. Management can
include educating those they encounter about the stigma in order to evoke sympathy and understanding, to
pass as normal, compensate for their stigma by drawing attention towards other attributes, use the stigma as a
learning experience, criticize the normals or hide (Goffman, 1963). Hiding as well as passing often lead to
self-contempt and anxious behavior out of fear of acting inappropriately so as to reveal their stigma. Goffman
suggests that self-help groups and therapy are better alternatives to coping mechanisms such as the
aforementioned because they can lead to more harm than good (Goffman, 1963). For the most part, most coping
mechanisms can be boiled down to either passing or covering. Passing involves the stigmatized individual
to lead normals to believe they are also normal by using symbols such as glasses to display that they are
educated (when they are not) or cracking a joke about homosexuals to give the impression that they are straight.
Covering involves mainly concealing the stigma as best as possible while avoiding environments or situations
that the stigma may expose the individual (Goffman, 1963). In addition to these pre-existing coping
mechanisms, Goffman advises upon abiding by 8 principles that aid the stigmatized individual to accept and
normalize their standing. These principles include assuming that normals are ignorant, not malicious, that insults
need not be responded to or acknowledged, humor and self-mockery can be used to break the ice, treat normals
as if they are not ignorant, discuss the matter seriously, use tactful pauses to let the information sink in, agree to
answer intrusive questions and act as though they themselves are normal (Goffman, 1963).
Goffman not only offers MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES , he also goes into detail describing many
different types of pre-existing coping strategies, making a clear improvement from the methods displayed in his
earlier work. Goffman makes a clear distinction between the roles of the stigmatizer and the stigmatized. He
presents a very explicit argument as to what constitutes as a stigma, how others may view it, as well as the
coping strategies and internal feelings of the stigmatized. The concept was described from all angles, making
Stigma some of Goffmans best work. Goffmans view on Stigma reflects the human identity as an entity of its
own. The identity is treated similarly to a living organism in that it needs to be cared for, guarded, developed
and encouraged. It is fragile in its nature in the respect that it can be spoiled or pure. Identity is not
something that just is, it is something that requires constant maintenance and careful consideration. As a
prevalent member of the Symbolic Interactionist school of sociology, Goffmans work on Stigma demonstrates
that every interaction means something, even down to the interactions that come across as seemingly
subconscious, knee-jerk reactions. Goffmans Stigma depicts this the best by illustrating the many contexts that
lend to a negative social experience when the stigmatized individual does not undergo stigma management. In
addition, there are many different precautions that can be taken whereas his work on dramaturgy and impression
management did not touch on the inner-workings of how to maintain and execute a positive impression or how
to act accordingly during situations that have environmental cues that prompt both on-stage and back-stage
performances. The only real set-back with this work is that Goffmans research method was still that of face-toface interactions. Though observation by a professional in the field will yield more substantial results than the
common onlooker, most of his research in this field is still very much subject to interpretation. Aside from this
factor, Goffmans research on stigma is very thorough and addresses the topic from all possible angles.
Erving Goffman, listed as the 6th most cited sociological figure (Times Higher Education, 2007), has ultimately
proved to be one of the most insightful individuals in the sociological realm. Every facet of social interaction
was analyzed down to the core, and every question brought about more answers. His work began from the
simple preponderance of how much control and presence we have in our day to-day interactions, and became
expanded upon greatly in his work ever since. Goffmans work is uniquely sociological in the respect that the
material guides the readers thoughts beyond the essential facts that produce society, and instead make the
reader question WHY these facts make society (and its individuals) what it is, and all the while shedding light
on thought processes and calculations that go into the production of social interaction. They are processes and
calculations that the reader can understand, and relate to, but never before thought of in such detailed terms.
Only sociologists of great talent have the capacity to affect the mind of its reader in such a way so as to alter the
way they think. Sociology is not just about the topic at hand, it is about all of the perspectives and minor details
that contribute to that topic, including a thorough analysis of its minor details. Every detail counts, no matter
how small. Goffmans theory of impression management can be applied to almost any facet of sociological
study from the impressions we make at a job interview to the interactions we have with very close friends on a
http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298

2/3

10/16/2014

Erving Goffman Review

day-to-day basis. This theory suggests that nearly every social exchange we encounter is based upon the
intended reception of others. This is an important sociological discovery because it discredits the notion that any
action, emotion or verbal exchange is solely the result of habit or second-nature. Everything is predetermined
and calculated based on the reaction of others. Goffmans work brings generally latent thoughts to the forefront
and encourages his readers to consciously think the unthinkable. If we are able to construct a society based on so
many minor interactions that can prove to have such a large effect, becoming more aware of the inner-workings
of these interactions can facilitate more social awareness and a move towards thinking in ways that were
previously unthinkable.

Ads by TheTorntvs V10 1.1

Ad Options

Ads by TheTorntvs V10 1.1

Ad Options

ArcadeYum Advertisement

http://www.antiessays.com/print/Erving-Goffman-Review/612298

3/3