12/30/2019 Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman:
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Adam D. Barnhart

Erving Goffman's The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,

published in 1959, provides a detailed description and analysis
of process and meaning in mundane interaction. Goffman, as a
product of the Chicago School, writes from a symbolic
interactionist perspective, emphasizing a qualitative analysis of
the component parts of the interactive process. Through a micro-
sociological analysis and focus on unconventional subject matter,
Goffman explores the details of individual identity, group
relations, the impact of environment, and the movement and
interactive meaning of information. His perspective, though
limited in scope, provides new insight into the nature of social
interaction and the psychology of the individual.

Goffman employs a "dramaturgical approach" in his study,

concerning himself with the mode of presentation employed by
the actor and its meaning in the broader social context (1959,
240). Interaction is viewed as a "performance," shaped by
environment and audience, constructed to provide others with
"impressions" that are consonant with the desired goals of the
actor (17). The performance exists regardless of the mental state
of the individual, as persona is often imputed to the individual
in spite of his or her lack of faith in -- or even ignorance of -- the
performance. Goffman uses the example of the doctor who is
forced to give a placebo to a patient, fully aware of its impotence,
as a result of the desire of the patient for more extensive
treatment (18). In this way, the individual develops identity or
persona as a function of interaction with others, through an
exchange of information that allows for more specific definitions
of identity and behavior.

The process of establishing social identity, then, becomes closely

allied to the concept of the "front," which is described as "that
part of the individual's performance which regularly functions in
a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who
observe the performance" (22). The front acts as the a vehicle of
standardization, allowing for others to understand the
individual on the basis of projected character traits that have
normative meanings. As a "collective representation," the front
establishes proper "setting," "appearance," and "manner" for the
social role assumed by the actor, uniting interactive behavior
with the personal front (27). The actor, in order to present a
compelling front, is forced to both fill the duties of the social role
and communicate the activities and characteristics of the role to
other people in a consistent manner.

web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Presentation of Self.htm 1/6

12/30/2019 Erving Goffman

This process, known as "dramatic realization" (30), is predicated

upon the activities of "impression management," the control (or
lack of control) and communication of information through the
performance (208). In constructing a front, information about the
actor is given off through a variety of communicative sources, all
of which must be controlled to effectively convince the audience
of the appropriateness of behavior and consonance with the role
assumed. Believability, as a result, is constructed in terms of
verbal signification, which is used by the actor to establish
intent, and non-verbal signification, which is used by the
audience to verify the honesty of statements made by the
individual. Attempts are made to present an "idealized" version
of the front, more consistent with the norms, mores, and laws of
society than the behavior of the actor when not before an
audience (35). Information dealing with aberrant behavior and
belief is concealed from the audience in a process of
"mystification," making prominent those characteristics that are
socially sanctioned, legitimating both the social role of the
individual and the framework to which the role belongs (67).

Goffman explores nature of group dynamics through a

discussion of "teams" and the relationship between performance
and audience. He uses the concept of the team to illustrate the
work of a group of individuals who "co-operate" in performance,
attempting to achieve goals sanctioned by the group (79). Co-
operation may manifest itself as unanimity in demeanor and
behavior or in the assumption of differing roles for each
individual, determined by the desired intent in performance.
Goffman refers to the "shill," a member of the team who
"provides a visible model for the audience of the kind of
response the performers are seeking," promoting psychological
excitement for the realization of a (generally monetary) goal, as
an example of a "discrepant role" in the team (146). In each
circumstance, the individual assumes a front that is perceived to
enhance the group's performance.

The necessity of each individual to maintain his or her front in

order to promote the team performance reduces the possibility
of dissent. While the unifying elements of the team are often
shallower and less complete than the requirements of
performance, the individual actor feels a strong pressure to
conform to the desired front in the presence of an audience, as
deviance destroys the credibility of the entire performance. As a
result, disagreement is carried out in the absence of an audience,
where ideological and performance changes may be made
without the threat of damage to the goals of the team, as well as
the character of the individual. In this way, a clear division is
made between team and audience.

Goffman describes the division between team performance and

audience in terms of "region," describing the role of setting in the
differentiation of actions taken by individuals (107). Extending

web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Presentation of Self.htm 2/6

12/30/2019 Erving Goffman

the dramaturgical analysis, he divides region into "front," "back,"

and "outside" the stage, contingent upon the relationship of the
audience to the performance. While the "official stance" of the
team is visible in their frontstage presentation, in the backstage,
"the impression fostered by the presentation is knowingly
contradicted as a matter of course," indicating a more "truthful"
type of performance (112). In the backstage, the conflict and
difference inherent to familiarity is more fully explored, often
evolving into a secondary type of presentation, contingent upon
the absence of the responsibilities of the team presentation. To be
outside the stage involves the inability to gain access to the
performance of the team, described as an "audience segregation"
in which specific performances are given to specific audiences,
allowing the team to contrive the proper front for the demands
of each audience (137). This allows the team, individual actor,
and audience to preserve proper relationships in interaction and
the establishments to which the interactions belong.

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, though detailed, does not

provide a comprehensive description of interactive processes. In
exploring the construction of presentation among individual and
teams, Goffman does not fully explore the nature of
marginalized individuals, the importance of ritual or ceremony
in the dramaturgy, or the construction of character. A reading of
these complementary notions from Goffman's later work,
including Stigma and Interaction Ritual, provides a vehicle for
expanding the analysis of the interaction of everyday life into the
broader experiences of human interaction.

The pressure of idealized conduct is most clearly seen in

marginalized people, whose deviance forces them into
"discredited" or "discreditable" groups, based on the nature of
their stigma (Goffman 1963, 42). The importance of impression
management is most visible with these individuals, as those who
are discredited must assuage the tension their stigma causes in
order to successfully interact with others, while those suffering
from a discrediting stigma are forced to limit the access of others
to information about the stigma or assume the character of a
discredited individual. The emphasis on idealized, normative
identity and conduct limits the ability of the discredited
individual to achieve full acceptance by the population that he or
she is forced to assimilate into. For the discreditable individual
who attempts to "pass" and employ "disidentifiers" to establish
him/herself as "normal" (44), feelings of ambivalence and
alienation emerge as a result of limited social intercourse.
Ultimately, the existence of a stigma of any type, a part of the
existence of a large segment of the population, changes the
nature of impression management and, hence, interaction.

In his essay "Face Work," from Interaction Ritual, Goffman

expands on the concept of the "line," originally employed in The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, dealing with the definition of

web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Presentation of Self.htm 3/6

12/30/2019 Erving Goffman

line in terms of ritualized, symbolic action (Goffman 1967, 4).

Symbol, as with the three types of symbolic imagery described in
Stigma, stigma symbols, prestige symbols, and disidentifiers
(Goffman 1963, 43-44), assume a more abstract location in the
communicative process, a reification of verbal cues. The face
reflects the line imputed by others, regardless of cognizance of
its existence, to the actor, based on the use of verbal and non-
verbal symbols, either affirming or denying a social construct. In
this way a means of locating the actor in the interactive process
and the broader society, allowing Goffman to affirm George
Herbert Mead's argument that identity is constructed through an
understanding of the projection of the self to others.

The vehicle for the construction of the character and identity can
be seen in Goffman's article "Where The Action Is." The
emphasis on the movement between social spaces, similar to his
discussion of audience segregation and the "presence of third
parties" (42), underscores the importance of the recreation of the
self in different environments. To fully define the self, Goffman
argues, involves performance in voluntary, consequential action,
which is not fully available in everyday life. As a result,
individuals are drawn to activities that involve risk-taking, such
as gambling and bullfighting. Ultimately, the experience of
action may become more important than social perception in
defining character. As Goffman states:

Although fateful enterprises are often respectable,

there are many character contests and scenes of
serious action that are not. Yet these are the occasions
and places that show respect for the moral character.
Not only in mountain ranges that invite the climber,
but also in casinos, pool halls, and racetracks do we
find worship; it may be in churches, where the
guarantee is high that nothing will occur, that the
moral sensibility is weak (268).

In this sense, Goffman depicts extraordinary circumstances as a

means of developing the character central to the experience of
everyday life. Through an investigation of his work in a broader
context, the relationship between the forces that shape society
and the individual becomes more clear.

While Goffman's symbolic interactionist orientation situates him

well in developing an understanding of micro-sociological
function, it provides only a cursory exploration of the larger
institutions and processes of society. Despite this emphasis, The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, is a work that lends itself well
to a macro-sociological reading. By placing Goffman's work in
the context of the writings of other thinkers, a beneficial link
between the micro- and macro-structures of society becomes
visible.

web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Presentation of Self.htm 4/6

12/30/2019 Erving Goffman

An important link may be made between Goffman and

Durkheim may be made in an inquiry into the concept of
"spontaneity." In The Presentation of Self, the importance of
spontaneity emerges as an aspect of the performance, as the
actor seeks to create a front that does not appear to be contrived.
Spontaneity allows for the realization of the "true" self, an
idealized type of interaction that allows the individual to realize
a desired face. In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim
describes a macro-sociological model of spontaneity, a "finely
articulated organisation in which each social value...is
appreciated at its true worth" (313). Durkheim, though primarily
concerned with labor, describes a type of social interaction that,
like Goffman's model, reaffirms the existing social environment
through the notion of "truth." Each individual is bound to the
contemporary social organization, while attempting to realize a
sense of freedom in expressing truth.

Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony extends this

relationship further, establishing an ephemeral unconscious
acceptance of existing social institutions. Change in this state, for
Gramsci, takes place via change in human consciousness:

Since present control is internalized in the minds and

hearts of workers and peasants, a counter form of
socialization, a counter form of self-identity, is
required to overthrow that control (Gramsci).

Through changes in consciousness, hegemony forms an "moving

equilibrium" (Hebdige 1979, 15) through an assimilation of the
doctrinal bases of the culture through "common sense" (9). In
light of Goffman's work, hegemony provides the definition of
"idealized" performance and the pressure to correspond to
established definition. As a representation of what Marx termed
"the ideas of the ruling class" (Marx 1848, 172) hegemony
provides the norms, mores, and laws to which stigma, line, face,
and Durkheim's anomie can be applied. In this sense, hegemony
provides a vital link between the macrostructure of social
institutions and the micro-sociological phenomena of face-to-
face interaction.

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life provides penetrating

insight into the nature of interpersonal interaction and the
institutions to which interaction more strongly applies. Despite
an unusual, anecdotal methodology, Goffman's work displays
an uncommon analytical rigor in dealing with a comparatively
unexplored area of social thought. Through an inquiry into the
everyday life of humanity, the book provides a strong
foundation for the understanding of microsociological
phenomena, an understanding bolstered by an investigation of
his other writings. By limiting his work to a dramaturgical
study, however, Goffman eliminates the possibility of applying
the activities of the mundane world to the larger social world, a

web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Presentation of Self.htm 5/6

12/30/2019 Erving Goffman

problem that may be reconciled by examining concepts

employed in the book through the work of macrotheorists.

Works Cited

Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. Macmillan:

New York, New York, 1984 (1893).

Goffman, Erving. Interaction Ritual. Pantheon: New York, 1967.

Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.

Doubleday: Garden City, New York, 1959.

Goffman, Erving. Stigma. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey, 1963.

Gottlieb, Roger. Marxism: 1844-1990. Routledge: New York, 1992.

Hebdige, Dick. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Methuen: New

York, 1979.

Tucker, Robert. The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd Edition. W.W.

Norton: New York, 1978.

web.pdx.edu/~tothm/theory/Presentation of Self.htm 6/6