Goffman From A Dramaturgical Perspective
Personally, I do not believe that my life is a performance and everyone around me as the audience. However, it is what Goffman wants me to think since he refers to his attitude as dramaturgical perspective (Goffman, 1999). Furthermore, the book was published in 1959 before the social revolution in the 1960s exploded the anticipation of formality it documents, the assumptions concerning proper behaviour, making a good impression, and social distinction. The difference remains, of course, but individuals tend to act in ways, which consciously disavow differences in status and class instead of highlighting them. Moreover, Goffman’s underlying framework is valid, and it casts useful light on dilemmas of going online.
The author’s fundamental contribution
is how he slants the premise, which we present a front in our entire behaviour before others. One has to understand that this posturing is pervasive and real but rarely a consequence of out-and-out deception or since we have succeeded in deceiving ourselves. As a result, we easily relate certain behaviours as fitting in particular circumstances; some stylization that is inherent in our interactions. Additionally, the author tries to point out the significance of separation between the spheres of action, which allows one tailor the measures to their setting. Hence, most institutions have the front stage where the workers focus on the impression made upon the public and backstage where they may interact freely to get their task done expeditiously. Thus, eliminating the distinction between the back and front stage not only regards the staffs’ performance but causes extreme distress yet it is precisely the situation in most internet forums.
Even when one request private chat sessions, an individual takes the risk that the correspondent might leak or save the exchange to others which are a taboo against revealing internal conversations enforced by teams in the everyday life in their social ties and slightly weakened during internet connections. Therefore, many online forums have managed to discourage private conversations to enforce absolute transparency, which is the right for everyone to participate in decisions.
The author’s fundamental contribution
is how he slants the premise, which we present a front in our entire behaviour before others. One has to understand that this posturing is pervasive and real but rarely a consequence of out-and-out deception or since we have succeeded in deceiving ourselves. As a result, we easily relate certain behaviours as fitting in particular circumstances; some stylization that is inherent in our interactions. Additionally, the author tries to point out the significance of separation between the spheres of action, which allows one tailor the measures to their setting. Hence, most institutions have the front stage where the workers focus on the impression made upon the public and backstage where they may interact freely to get their task done expeditiously. Thus, eliminating the distinction between the back and front stage not only regards the staffs’ performance but causes extreme distress yet it is precisely the situation in most internet forums.
Even when one request private chat sessions, an individual takes the risk that the correspondent might leak or save the exchange to others which are a taboo against revealing internal conversations enforced by teams in the everyday life in their social ties and slightly weakened during internet connections. Therefore, many online forums have managed to discourage private conversations to enforce absolute transparency, which is the right for everyone to participate in decisions.