Analysis of ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’ Essay

Erving Goffmans The Presentation of Self in Everyday bread and butter provides a detailed description and analysis of process and meaning in everyday interaction. Goffman writes from a emblematic interactionist perspective, emphasizing a qualitative analysis of the components of the interactive process. Through a sociological analysis he explores the details of single(a) identity, sort out relations, and the movement and interactive meaning of information. Goffmans perspective provides insight into the reputation of social interaction and the psychology of the individual.Goffman employs a dramaturgical approach in his study, concerning himself with the mode of presentation sedulous by the actor and its meaning in the broader social context (Goffman, 240). Interaction is viewed as a execution, molded by environment and sense of hearing, constructed to provide others with impressions that argon consonant with the desired goals of the actor (17). The movement exists regardless of the moral state of the individual, as persona is often imputed to the individual in spite of his or her lack of faith in the performance. Goffman uses the example of the doctor who is forced to give a placebo to a patient, 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 specialised definitions of identity and behavior.The process of establishing social identity becomes closely allied to the concept of the apparent motion, which is described as that graphic symbol of the individuals performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to plant the situation for those who observe the performance (22). The front acts as a vehicle of standardization, allowing for others to understand the individual on the basis of projected character traits that have normati ve meanings. As a collective representation, the front establishes correct orbit, appearance, and manner for the social power assumed by the actor, uniting interactive behavior with the personal front (27). The actor, in order to present a realistic front, is forced to fill the duties of the social role to put across activities and the characteristics of the role to other people in a consistent manner. In constructing a front, information virtually the actor is given off through a variety of communicative sources, all of which must be controlled to convince the audience of the getness of behavior. Believability, as a result, is constructed in terms of verbal signification, which is used by the actor to establish intent, 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 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 approved. This legitimatizes both the social role of the individual and the framework to which the role belongs (67). Goffman also explores character of group dynamics through a discussion of teams and the human 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 in the assumption of differing roles for each individual, hardened by the intent of the performance. Goffman refers to the shill, a member of the team who provides a visible model for the audience of the soft of response the performers are seeking, promoting excitement for the realization of a goal, as an example of a discrepant role in the team (146). In each ci rcumstance, the individual assumes a front that is perceived to enhance the groups performance.As a result, disagreement can be carried out in the absence of an audience, where the performance changes and may be made without the threat of damaging the goals of the team or individual. This creates a division between the 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). Goffman divides region into front, back, and impertinent the stage, based upon the relationship of the audience to the performance. art object the official stance of the team is visible in their front stage 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). To be outside the stage involves the inability to gain access to the performance of the team, described as anaudience segregation in which specific performances are given to specific audiences. Thus allows the team to create the appropriate front for the demands of each audience (137).This routine allows the team, individual actor, and audience to preserve proper relationships in interaction and the establishments to which the interactions belong. Though detailed and very well portrayed, Goffmans study does not provide a do it description of interactive processes. In exploring the construction of presentation among individual and teams, Goffman does not fully explore the nature of marginalized individuals. This is significant due to the notion that these individuals and the groups could assume somewhat different roles of interaction among members due to their placement outside of major groups. The methodological approach used by Goffman was also somewhat inconsistent and the approaches to testing to insert data seemed random at times.By limiting his work Goffman al so eliminates the possibility of applying the activities of the everyday to the big social world.Goffmans The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life overall provides insight into the nature of interpersonal interaction and the institutions to which interaction applies. Despite methodology, Goffmans work displays an analytical thoroughness in dealing with an elicit area of social thought. Through an inquiry into the everyday life of humanity, Goffmans work provides an effective buttocks for understanding the nature of social interaction and the development of the individual.