The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

"When an individual plays a part he implicitly requests his observers to take seriously the impression that is fostered before them." - 1 pp 28

In the ancient Greek, "persona-lity" has a dramatic meaning - the"mask" we wear it wherever we go as we present ourselves to ourselves and to others. It reflects our self concept - what we seek to maintain about ourselves - the self (mask) we think we have, the one we think we project and that others perceive etc. "Self" is socially constructed. People attribute my characteristics to me. As an "individual", I/you cannot be understood separate from the social melees we mingle in.

Goffman (1959) uses a metaphor (a drama) to explain how social meaning is attributed to "/me/you" a person in ordinary, everyday interaction. We see how the persona, on and off a stage and with various audiences, is manifested through

- performance and roles, the scripts we use, how these are delivered and interpreted etc.

Individuals and audiences are taken in with performances. They become a "reality". But the performances may be less than convincing - seen insincere, inerpreted as a masquerade of self-interest. Judgements about them may be cynical or dismissive.

"Perhaps the real crime of the confidence man is not that he takes money from his victims but that he robs us all of the belief that middle-class manners and appearance can be sustained only by middle-class people." 1. pp 29

The performer may consciously guide the audience for his/her own ends. In this sense we are our own spin-doctors. Goffman referenced movement from belief-to-disbelief (from conviction and to cynicism) and disbelief-to-belief. Purposive and transitional movement is possible between the two.

Concepts in the Goffman Framework

  1. The Drama

    Through the drama actors give meaning to themselves, to others (and of others) and their situation. Interactions (performances before observers) deliver impressions to others according to the actors goals (teleology). Information is exchanged to confirm identity and the significance of behaviour.

    The actor may have no "intent" and may be unaware or uncertain of their performance,. Nonetheless others impute attributes to them.

  2. Front

    Goffman refers to this concept as "expressive equipment " that is employed. It expresses a dramatic realisation of the interpersonal self that individuals through "impression management" activity, generate, present and others expect. The front establishes ourselves. Fronts (in that there are stereotypical repertoires of them) work to standardise.

    "that part of the individual's performance which.... functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance" (1 pp 32.)

    Through the front, the actor's social role, interactive behaviours and audience expectations are brought together. It is manifest in appearance and manner in a setting. It is created from controlled (or uncontrolled) performance and information exchange.

    Others can understand "me" from the traits that "I" project and/or attribute to " my" front. Trait definitions are are value laden (normative) terms in our vocabulary and are commonly and collectively known.

    Credibility and the Ethical-Virtuous Front

    A front must be convincing - "in-line" with expectations. This is significant in terms of attributing ethical, correct or "inappropriate" (if not quite so clearly unethical) characteristics. The actor transmits information via various channels (a process to be controlled if others are to be convinced that behaviour is in line with the role and person they assume). Such credibility is won by

    • satisfying the expected duties and manners of an attributed role
    • being consistent in communication of activities and traits.

    An "idealised" front conforms to conventions, mores and rules required by the audience (the team, the gang, the public). The aim is for the performance to be believed. The actor wants it - the audience want it. Credibility is manifested in verbal and non-verbal signifiers used

    • to establish intention
    • to verify the integrity and honesty of what is said or done and how it is said/performed.

  3. Signs and Signifiers

    Various signs and signifiers are used in projecting the front including

    1. the Social setting (scenery, props, location)
      The front incorprates the setting and baggage we bring with us. We enter, reside in perform in and leave settings (home, office, surgery, factory floor, the board room, restaurant, bed, funeral procession, Ascot, Clapham Common at night) and these may offer protections. Some are relatively fixed - some vary according to time (years or moments) or place.

      To add to sex, age, race, dress, size - we can add speech and phraseology, insignia, clothing, lap-top computer, framed diploma on the wall, Lotus Elite, Mac over PC. We assemble "sign-equipment" in our settings of interaction and our projection of impression may be turned on/off according to setting. Some impressions in a particular setting may be seen as profane (girlie pictures on locker room walls) depending on the significance of the symbols to the actors and audience.

    2. Appearance and manner
      Goffman differentiates between

      • Appearance is an element of "front" or "role". Expectations about appearance are often regularised or normative within a culture - although this is more varied today as fashion designers and followers of fashion challenge expectations.

        "Appearance signs" are selected (corporate and gang uniforms). Appearance works ritualistically to tell of the performer's status - formal or informal, conformity/individuality. Dress, props (clothes, car, house, food, body posture, facial expressions, gestures) serve to communicate gender, status, occupation, age and personal commitments.

      • Manner - how we play the role; the personal touch - works to warn others of how the performer will act or seek to act in role - dominant, aggressive, yielding, receptive etc). A manner is expected - of the doctor, the sales person, the mother, exposed politician.

        Note: how on 13th January 1999 Jacques Santer was accused by Euro-MPs and the media of being insufficiently contrite and too passive in his responses to criticisms of the Commission's handling of corruption allegations.

      Inconsistency with appearance and manner may confuse and upset an audience/observer until enough information is gathered to decide what is coherent or what is not. We may not expect a Prime Minister for example to be playing a Stratocaster in a rock and roll band (unless it is for charity and only for a few playful moments in a highly controlled setting) or a Chancellor of the Exchequer to be exposed as conspiring against his/her Prime Minister.

    Risk Taking

    Definition of the "full" self can also involve performance in voluntary, consequential actions (not always available in standard role settings). Outside of their normal roles, many seek excitment in recreation. Experience of higher risk action in other, outward oriented performances (outside of home, family, a steady low risk job) becomes more important in defining "strength of character". Many high risk and action settings provide occasion and place for expression of moral sensibilities such as bravery, courage, determination, reliability, mastery of valued arts which inspires the confidence of others.

    Ballooning round the world, charitable work, Karioke, drinking, gambling and business dealing offer high energy experience and tests of moral sensibilities - strength in adversity, reutation for stamina, willing competitive spirit. As Mackie (2) points out regarding the speed of intuitive, ethical decisions, performers express claimed capacities spontaneously in a matter of seconds as the interact with others. Thus a mistake can be made, a faux pas may be committed, an unintentioned slip from perfection, natural tendency (rather than controlled front) may be revealed. Like the Emperor in his new clothes we are exposed in doing something contrary to the expected.

    Excuse me your majesty, I did not know you were in the water closet holding a conference with the kitchen maid ...err... there are just these executive papers to sign authorising expenditure for tonight's missile attack on the Antipodean Republic.

    A Repertoire of Stereotypical Fronts?

    We have a repertoire and vocabulary of manageable fronts (Goffman's term) which we use across a multitude of settings. Just as we know what the next tune is in a Beethoven Sonata or Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody - we prepare and deliver responses. Personality trait definitions become collective, normative terms, common understandings in a vocabulary.

    Thus social fronts are institutionalised. Others anticipate and base expectations "me/you" from stereotypical, stock traits "we" project e.g. father???, tutor, confidant, banker manager, car dealer.

    When we take on a new job role for example - an expected front is already waiting in the incumbent's workplace. We perform the job and don the front that comes with it. This is significant in terms of workplace culture and expectation. The male university vice chancellor who wears an earring - will be seen as "eccentric" and many observers will be vigilant for signs of what they see as further "aberrant" behaviour.

    Meanwhile..... in private

    The actor may behave differently than when in front of the audience. Aberrant values and actions (discrepancies between appearances and overall reality) may be withheld and approved traits only presented in public to legitimise the individual's social role and confirm faith with the embracing social framework.

    There is a parallel with Plato's Ring of Gyges (3), when Goffman (1 - pp 52) comments on cases where performers conceal from audiences activities seen as being out-of-line with the "idealised front". Many settings and official roles include inner shells which can be kept private and not subject to inspection. These enable the performer to conceal their "spirited life performances". This seems quite Clinton-esque and is manifested also in

    1. workers who can justify theft from their employer or excessive travel expense claims to themselves.
    2. an accountant who may correct errors and mistakes before a presentation to senior managers (a performance). The fact of the errors is concealed. An impression of infallibility is maintained - protecting the front.
    3. a car dealer may valet and polish a second hand car - concealing the fact that little or nothing has been done to remedy deeper mechanical faults. The dealer however may safeguard his/her position by offering (at a price) a warranty.

    Goffman writes

    if the activity of an individual is to embody several ideal standards, and if a good showing is to be made, it is likely then that some of these standards will be maintained in public by the private sacrifice of others. Often, of course, the performer will sacrifice those standards whose loss can be concealed and will make this sacrifice in order to maintain standards whose inadequate application cannot be concealed.

  4. Groups and membership

    Goffman's analysis of the dynamics of groups can be compared with Janis' account of "group-think". Goffman focuses on

    • "teams" - individuals who co-operate to enact a goal-oriented performance.
    • performance - audience relationships

    Team co-operation is evident from

    • consensus and conformity in the demeanour/behaviour of "team" players
    • roles that a player assumes - given the intended, desired performance.

    The scope for dissent is minimised as individuals must maintain their front/face in line with expectations of team performance. The team also may project a "proper front" for each audience. This guides the team, actors and audience as they maintain consistent interactions and relationships in "appropriate" settings. Goffman differentiates between

    • team - private
    • team - audience

    Signifiers unifying the team
    Unifiers may in reality thin and partial but projected as strong. When " before an audience" actors individual actors feel pressure to stick to the required team front. There may be private (behind the scenes) dissent about values, individual performances and threats to team goals. The individual's "team" front masks their position as deviant behaviour before an audience would undermine overall team performance and credibility.

  5. Front stage, back stage, off-stage

    For Goffman, the "region" or setting for the team performance and audience can differentiate individual behaviour and actions. In a stage drama, regions can be:

    • front stage
      - the team's formal, official position is visible here. It adheres to conventions that have meaning to the audience.
    • back stage
      - here the front stage impression may be contradicted elaborating the "truth of the performance". Secondary presentations arise. Conflict and difference can be more evident as team members may feel less bound by the exigencies of public role (off-the-record).
    • outside (off-stage)
      - individual actors may meet the audience (or sub-sets) independently of the team performance. Specific performances may be given and the audience segmented.

  6. From Micro to Macro
    Spontaneity - Truth and Hegemony

    An uncontrived front and the true self is revealed via the trait of spontaneity (idealised interaction allowing the individual to present a desired face). This notion - spontaneity in performance - links Goffman to macro-sociological entities such as organisations in which specific enterprise and social values are being implemented by management. Such values may be those embodied in

    • professional codes of practice
    • total quality management
    • investors in people
    • business process re-engineering
    • learning company schemes

    These define required, role-based social interaction which affirm an organisational ideal or "truth". They drive organisational performance. The organisation-bound individual is socialised into the organisation and internalises its values from which they express their spontaneous freedom in actions which reflect the "truth".

    Processes of social hegemony , (after Gramsci) through its affect on consciousness, promote "common sense" and assimilation of doctrinal bases of culture.

    • large sections of the population give their "spontaneous" consent to directions imposed by dominant groups e.g. intellectuals and agents.
    • "idealised" performances are defined via social pressure
    • the norms, mores, and laws to which face, line and stigma apply are established.
    • the link between the macro-level of social institutions and the micro-level of face-to-face interaction can be seen.

  7. Sincerity and Moral Facets of Roles

    Goffman differentiates the "real" and the "phony" ("Being" versus "acting"). We can compare formal, controlled action with spontaneous outbursts and unconscious acts.

    Real performancesContrived
    Unintentional actionsActions painstakingly put together
    Un-self consciousself-conscious

    He sees symmetries in witness-actor interaction but also notes that the witness has an edge in the long run. This leads to "defensive and protective practices" by actors to protect their front. How does this work?

    • I (the witness) see your spontaneous gesture
    • You (the actor) see me watching and control it
    • I in turn see you control it and you (as a witness) see me watching for another spontaneous gesture and you control this
    • the second gesture .... story continues etc.

    Justifications and Defences

    Goffman suggests that, given this Actor-Witness relationship, we "align our actions" by offering qualifiers and disclaimers to witnesses (and ourselves).

    • we differentiate "failure in good performance" (we failed but we did our best) vs. failure in "poor or illegitimate performance"
    • people seen to be doing things in illegitimate ways end up "deserving" what they get - their come-uppance.
    • we expect people "ought to be" what they say they are (nb: how easy it is for confidence tricksters, thieves etc. to hoodwink us). Thus someone who constantly avows their virtue only to slip into malpractice themselves opens themselves up to vilification. Their credibility is shattered.

    You ought to be ideal not fallible!!!!!

    There is a morally related expectation that we "ought to be able" to accept what people say they are. We are disappointed and disillusioned when they are not. Those who disappoint become stigmatised.

    there is a crucial discrepancy between our all-too-human selves and our socialised selves. As human beings we are presumably creatures of variable impulse with moods and energies that change from one moment to the next. As characters put on for an audience, however, we must not be subject to ups and downs.........A certain bureaucratisation of spirit is expected so that we can be relied upon to give a perfectly homogeneous performance at every appointed time

    We expect others to be ideally virtuous. This fulfils a social/group need. Brave soul - role models are important. They lead and are expected to lead by example. When the role model's "front" is discredited substantial difficulties occur. Note:

    • the President/MP?
    • civil servants who publicly state that they were economical with the truth
    • spin doctors who accept large mortgage loans from friends
    • the husband/lover?
    • the pop-star caught inflagrante delicto?
    • the corporate executive whose position is compromised?

    A few may claw their way back to credibility - but often as hard workers for disadvantaged groups (John Ehrlichman and T Dan Smith), as social experts in the field in which they fell (John McVitie) or sincerely reformed characters (Boy George, Sarah Ferguson) albeit still at the vulnerable margin.

    Marginalisation and the Discredited Self

    The Discredited Self, who lacks a "consensual validation of self" must . .

    1. play another role
    2. find another audience

    The demand for idealised conduct pressurises the impression management activities of those at the margin. Because in some way they deviate from the ideal, the stigma they carry pushes them towards marginalised, less credible groups.

    • to be be accepted by others and interact with them successfully - they must sooth or appease the problems generated by their stigma.
    • they may filter information they give out about themselves and may adopt the traits of the "discredited" to interact with the marginal, discredited group.

    The audience's idealisation of normative identity/conduct

    • limits the ability of the marginalised to achieve full acceptance
    • the marginalised will make use of dis-identifiers in an attempt to be accepted as "normal"
    • if the marginalised stay marginalised (only limited interaction occurs) then feelings of ambivalence and alienation are generated.

    The problems of Goffman's Method

    Goffman's framework of analysis casts light on:

    • how we shape and control the impression we make on others (audience) in order to influence their reactions.
    • the "defining" elements of a social situation. Goffman's is a "symbolic interactionist" approach. His terminology and account of relationships/ processes enables us to step back from a subjective reality and symbolise/objectivise instances.

    The framework is helpful and facilitates some prediction of processes and outcomes of social interaction. We may anticipate (predict) what may happen in various situations e.g. a business person meeting clients for a difficult negotiation.

    Actions associated with "front" are symbolised as routines, standard expectations, rituals and cues - abstractions which take concrete form - a process we call "reification" (attributing concreteness to abstracted generalisations).

    Goffman's methodology (for which he has been criticised) was to observe and report on instances and his evaluations of everyday actors presenting themselves to everyday audiences. The evaluation is pitched at micro- rather than macro-level and is sociological rather than psychological. Keenly related as it is to individuals and their relationships with others, there is substantial overlap with the subject matter of psychology. Goffman's commitments though remained sociological and his conclusions (analytical theory) cover:

    • the social construction of individual identity and group relations
    • dynamics and meanings of interpersonal information
    • the relationship between environment and these processes

    The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life heightens our understanding of micro sociological phenomena/structures such as role. However the "symbolic interactionist metaphor" does not easily translate the mundane and "everyday" to larger institutional social structures and processes of power. Yet, "PSEL" informs the work of other sociologists and micro-macro links become evident.

    The Application to Management Thinking

    The model rational manager who

    • plans, organises, motivates and controls (Fayol),
    • who uses measurement and technology to inform decisions, secure predictability and control actions (F W Taylor) and
    • the administrator who develops a form of organisation based on objectives, functionality, rational policies and standard operating procedures.
    • leads according to a prescription of task and relationships orientation (various leadership theorists including Blake and McGregor)

    ... is represented in such models without any analysis of how the human, frail, fallible individual copes with the cut and thrust of interaction in everyday life. This is a faceless, impersonal manager who has no name. The elements of the drama - that actual individuals witness - thus has the capacity to be recorded and interpreted. the way in which the actual manager construes their situation and is construed by others - can at least be described using the symbolic reference points offered by a Goffman framework.

    The manager manages and has to manage the problems of creating and maintaining their front, the credibility of their membership - all the time avoiding stigmatisation and marginalisation - can be studied.

    This is the point at which this paper ends - by hinting at this ( a real cop out!!) and offering some questions which may be useful to pursue.........

    What is the application of Goffman's analysis to

    • the practice of staff appraisal?
    • recruitment and selection
    • equal opportunities
    • trade union membership
    • team and management development
    • managerial change strategies such as total quality management, business process re-engineering and human resource management?
    • corporate governance and the relationships between executive and non-executive board members and external auditors.

    References

    • Goffman E, 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, reprint Penguin Books, 1990.
    • Mackie, 1976, Inventing Ethics, Penguin
    • Plato, Republic
    • Goffman E, Interaction Ritual, Pantheon: New York, 1967.
    • Goffman E, Stigma, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963.
    • Lemert C and Branaman A (eds), 1997, The Goffman Reader, Blackwell

    Developed and maintained by Chris Jarvis for the BOLA Project