The Presentation Of Self In Everyday Life

Goffman takes up the issue of communication out of character; that is, instances wherein one performer communicates with, or treats, another performer in a manner that is wholly opposed to their mode of expression in front of an audience. However, for the team to maintain a favorable impression in their audience’s eyes, this type of communication is excluded from the performance and takes place solely within a performance team’s dynamic. Consequently, Goffman calls this an “undercurrent of communication” or “communication out of character” (168), where the character in question is the role an individual performs in front of their public.

Additionally, Goffman identifies four main types of this form of communication: treatment of the absent, staging talk, team collusion, and realigning actions. Treatment of the absent refers to ways performers relate to their teammates when they are out of the audience’s view. Perhaps one of the most common examples of this is when performers disparage, or speak poorly about, the audience. In such instances, communicating out of character within a team setting manifests as a disparaging “treatment of the absent” audience. Goffman writes, “When the members of a team go backstage where the audience cannot see or hear them, they very regularly derogate the audience in a way that is inconsistent with the face-to-face treatment that is given to the audience” (170). He uses service trades as an example, as customers are treated with respect during the performance but are often ridiculed, mocked, criticized, gossiped about, or condemned backstage.

Staging talk refers to the kinds of conversations and discussions had among performers in the absence of the audience; the content of these conversations revolves around the conditions of the performance to be given. Performers raise questions “about the condition of sign-equipment; stands, lines, and positions are tentatively brought forth and ‘cleared’ by the assembled membership […] the size and character of possible audiences for the performance are considered” (175-76). In more contemporary terms, one would characterize this discourse as the performance team “talking shop.”

Team collusion refers to the way, during a performance, certain members of the group acknowledge that one of the performers is acting out of character in a way that isn’t immediately noticeable or disruptive. In situations such as this, members of a team will acknowledge this fact and act in such a way as to maintain the dividing line of the front and back regions to preserve the impression being fostered by their activity. As Goffman puts it, “I shall call ‘team collusion’ any collusive communication which is carefully conveyed in such a way as to cause no threat to the illusion that is being fostered for the audience” (177). Lastly, realigning actions refers to how members of different teams or the same team interact and communicate with each other in such a way that, while roles and performances may still be sustained and executed, subtle shifts also transpire that alter the balance regarding the relations of power of the situation. Goffman describes unwanted sexual advances from male group members as one example among many:

“an even more aggressive action against the alignment between the sexes is found in situations where the working consensus is defined in terms of superordination and distance on the part of a performer who happens to be a woman and subordination on the part of a performer who happens to be a man. The possibility arises that the male performer will redefine the situation to emphasize his sexual superordination as opposed to his socio-economic subordination […] And when we study service occupations […] inevitably we find that practitioners have anecdotes to tell about the time they or one of their colleagues redefined the service relation into a sexual one (or had it redefined for them)” (193-94).

For Goffman, the ways relations between teams or within a single team shift and realign the participants highlights that whether or not a particular performer feels like they are being their “authentic” self, intrateam and interteam interaction demonstrates that every performer negotiates many different sides of themselves that cannot be revealed simultaneously without ruining the performance. He writes, “Whether performers feel their official offering is the ‘realest’ reality or not, they will give surreptitious expression to multiple versions of reality, each version tending to be incompatible with the others” (207).

Goffman summarizes his arguments from the previous chapters to focus on “the arts of impression management” (210). Here Goffman refers to the ways a performance can be disrupted (e.g., unmeant gestures, inopportune intrusions, faux pas, one performer acting out of character and causing a scene). These disruptions “are often called ‘incidents.’ When an incident occurs, the reality sponsored by the performers is threatened” (212). To limit these incidents and the resulting embarrassment, all participants in the situation must “possess certain attributes” and “express these attributes in practices employed for saving the show” (212). These attributes and practices constitute that class of actions called impression management. Of the many kinds of impression management skills employed by performers, Goffman identifies three “defensive measures” and one “protective measure” as the four main ways performers manage the audience’s impression: loyalty, discipline, prudence (defensive measures), and tact (protective measure).

Regarding loyalty, Goffman argues that cultivating a sense of belonging, self-worth, and appreciation on the part of all its members, regardless as to whether or not they contribute to the disruption of a performance, is one of the key ways a team can manage a performance. Building a sense of trust and belonging within a team helps manage the possibility of a team member defecting from the group and actively disrupting a performance by revealing private information to the audience.

Regarding discipline, Goffman argues that cultivating a sense of discipline helps avoid disruptions. And if a disruption were to occur, “the disciplined performer will be prepared to offer a plausible reason for discounting the disruptive event” (216). Thus, a sense of discipline entails a readiness on the performers’ part to smooth over any disruptions that an audience may witness. Regarding circumspection, Goffman is referring to all the ways a team prepares and stages the performance; “in the interests of the team, performers will be required to exercise prudence and circumspection in staging the show, preparing in advance for likely contingencies and exploiting the opportunities that remain” (219).

Now, regarding tact as a protective measure, Goffman refers to how performers reinforce certain mannerisms and behaviors to ensure segregation between the audience and the performance’s back regions. He explains that access to a performance’s front and back regions is controlled not only by performers but also by others. Individuals usually avoid regions they have not been invited into, and they tend to give some warning, such as a message, cough, or knock, before entering such a region. This advance warning gives performers time to stall the intrusion or adjust the setting so that “proper expressions” are fixed on their faces. Thus, it is through defensive and protective measures that performers can manage the audience’s overall impression of the situation.

Goffman summarizes the entire text and concludes with a definition of the “self.” The study’s overarching framework asserts that a social establishment is a fixed location with clear spatial and temporal boundaries that serves as the setting for a particular performance by a group of individuals. Now, social establishments may be considered in five ways: technically, politically, structurally, culturally, and dramaturgically (this last one being Goffman’s own contribution to sociological study). To view a social establishment technically means to analyze it “in terms of its efficiency and inefficiency as an intentionally organized system of activity for the achievement of predefined objectives” (240). Thus, the technical assessment of a social establishment judges a performance based on the group’s ability to achieve its desired end.

To view a social establishment politically means to assess it “in terms of the actions which each participant […] can demand of other participants […] and the kinds of social controls which guide the exercise of command and use of sanctions” (240). In other words, the political aspect of social establishments involves how decision-making power is distributed within the group and the rights allocated to each of its members. To view a social establishment structurally means to assess it “in terms of the horizontal and vertical status divisions and the kinds of social relations which relate these several groupings to one another” (240). This means that the structural aspect of an establishment is the division of labor and tasks within a performance team’s various groupings. To view an establishment culturally means to assess “the moral values which influence activity in the establishment—values pertaining to fashions, customs, and matters of taste, to politeness and decorum, to ultimate ends and normative restrictions on means” (240). Thus, an establishment’s cultural aspect refers to the values that dictate the group’s appearance and mannerisms as a whole. Lastly, the dramaturgical aspect of an establishment is the “techniques of impression management employed in a given establishment” (240). In other words, the dramaturgical aspect deals with the regulation and preservation of the overall experience and impression fostered upon the audience.

However, Goffman’s final remarks regarding the nature of the self are perhaps his most important addition to the overall analysis of social establishments. Goffman writes, “the self is a product of all these arrangements [teammates, staging, techniques of impression management], and in all of its parts bears the mark of this genesis” (253). Thus, while it is important to understand the complex levels of interaction and communication that go into every social interaction, it is equally, if not more, important to remember that the individual who performs is not identical to the role they play.