Goffman's Dramaturgical Theory

When somebody begins to feel dizzy and coughs sporadically, or when an individual breaks their arm, the normal thing to do is to see a doctor. When seeking medical expertise or consultation, many people expect that they will obtain a reason for why their bodies are not working at its normal everyday state, and that the doctors are able to prescribe something to fix their problem. Sometimes it can be easy to predict a diagnosis like the common cold, while other times, it can be the exact opposite and require a doctor’s perspective. However, physicians are also humans and make mistakes, meaning that they are not always right. The aftermath of my experience led me to not only question medical authority, but to also hide myself by doing what many
individuals engage on a daily basis; pretend to be something they are not.
Parson defines the sick role as a temporary social role exempting the individual from blame and fulfilling their social roles, however, claiming this brief part comes with responsibilities such as getting better quickly and the implementation of doctor’s directions (Parson, 1978, 592). Not only does the patient have duties, but so the doctors. The physician’s role must gain the patient’s trust and access to their body as well as act in the most competent way as possible and perform in a way that will benefit the patient (Reuter, 2016, “Structural Functionalism and the Sick Role”). Finally, doctors are the only ones who could decipher who can lay a claim to the sick role (Reuter, 2016, “Structural Functionalism and the Sick Role”). The year I experienced several fainting spells, my mother and I sought out medical expertise twice from two different walk-in clinics. The first consultation resulted in no diagnosis, and the physician stated that I was fine, however, the second visit led me to undergo various test such as an electrocardiogram and a blood test concluding that I had an iron deficiency. Looking at this experience through Parson’s sick and physician role, it can be clearly stated that access to the sick role was not granted to me, however, this could be explained by the fact that the doctor did not believe that I was sick, hence playing his role as an agent of social control. Although the fact that the physician could not provide me with a prognosis did not allow me to gain his trust nor did he perform his job with professionalism. Additionally, he expected me to trust in his prognosis and not question his authority. However, during the second meeting in a different clinic and medical expert, the fact that I was submitted to different tests indicated that the doctor was acting with competency and in my best interest. Likewise, he asked me more questions than the first medical professional allowing to me to gain his trust. Also, by undergoing several examinations, the doctor was clearly playing role as an agent of social control, although unlike the first one, the latest physician appeared to act with diligence. Other than the physician’s role, it can be said that I claimed the sick role, and performed the duties along with them. My body was not functioning at its normal state, therefore I visited the doctor and executed their orders by incorporating foods high in iron in my diet, which led me to get better as quick as I could.
Moreover, the first consultation led me to feel what Jeffrey (1979) calls rubbish. A patient is deemed rubbish because they’re problems were more psychological than physical (Jeffery, 1979, 94). These patients were disregarded and were disliked by the staff (Jeffrey, 1979, 94). In my case, when I was experiencing my fainting spells, I went to a walk-in clinic and waited for hours only to have the doctor say that nothing was wrong with me. I felt that just because I went in there without having a fainting spell, I was seen as a less important case compared to those with physically visible symptoms such as coughing, fever, and so forth. Had I gone into the doctor’s office and fainted right in front of him, would he have asked me to undergo different tests or to prescribe me with any medication?
Goffman describes stigma as a difference that leads people to treat others differently (Goffman, 1997, 204).
According to Goffman, there are three types of causes that results into the stigmatization of the individual (Goffman, 1997, 205). These differences can about a physical appearance, their personality, or something that they are born with and that they are unable to change like ethnicity (Goffman, 1997, 205). Additionally, Goffman’s dramaturgical theory notes that people hide what they believe is a discrediting attribute in order to show society the best impression of their best selves (Goffman, 1997, 203). The aftermath of my experience led me to dread going to my next class out of fear that I would be treated differently and that I would be stigmatized. Not wanting to show my peers that I was weak or fragile indicates that I did not want them to stigmatize my character. Moreover, after passing out the school nurse suggested I go home and rest, illustrating him giving access to the sick role. Though, not wanting to appear weak, I convinced him that I was fine, thus signifying not only the stigmatization of my character, but also engaging in impression management by showing the nurse that I was feeling healthy. Besides managing my impression to the school nurse, I had to do it to several of my peers. Many of my classmates questioned me about my state leading me to reassure them that I was doing alright, despite the fact that I was afraid it would happen again. I had
to leave my fear backstage and put up a courageous font on the front stage, thus again demonstrating impression management. Furthermore, when being questioned about being ill, no one can truly understand what illness really feels like other than the ill person. Frank (1997) states that once the person’s illness can no longer be hidden, they try to keep up their act by showing that being ill is not as bad as it appears to be (66). With this in mind, during my incident, I tried to disregard my symptoms and kept going to the point that my body gave up and fainted, thus resulting in me having to demonstrate to my classmates that fainting was not as bad as it looks. Stigmatization results in different consequences such as social exclusion, the disruption of social interactions, and so forth (Reuter, 2016, “Symbolic interactionism- The Stigma of Illness”). Although I was trying to keep face by illustrating that I was fine, me fainting did not result into social exclusion, it resulted into empathy from other students. As it was aforementioned, many of my peers conducted a discussion of whether of my state, even those who were known as the popular kids and that I did not know. Hence, illustrating that there was a disruption in the interaction order, but in a positive way.
In order for physicians to provide a diagnosis, they must look at the symptoms and try to associate them to a disease.
In Ziporyn’s (1992) book, she discusses that there is no clear and concise definition of any disease and that diseases are defined by their symptoms and vice-versa (7). She adds that the reason that there is no standard definition is due to the fact that physicians are looking at different aspects of the disease (Ziporyn, 1992, 4). In order for the doctor to identify a disease, they must discover the clincher, meaning an aspect that clearly classifies what kind of disease it is (Ziporyn, 1992, 56). Although, inside Nettleton’s (2005) article, she looked at patients who were ill, but their symptoms were unexplainable, also known as medically unexplained symptoms or MUS (1170). The doctors that viewed patients with MSU could not identify the clincher. These patients could not claim the sick role and similar to Ziporyn’s (1992) findings, they blamed the patient (5). When looking back at my experience, the symptoms included stress, fatigue, dizziness, feeling hot, having trouble breathing, and so on. The reason behind me not getting a diagnosis could possibly be because the doctor could not discover the clincher, thus leaving me without a diagnosis and seeking for a second opinion. Furthermore, an alternative that Ziporyn (1992) mentions is admitting that the doctor does not know what’s wrong (6). When I fainted, the first doctor I met could not admit that he
had no idea what was going on and brushed me off as if my fainting spells were normal. Similarly to the women in Zimmerman’s (2000) article, those who were the recipients of breast implants consulted the medical professional when they experienced any problem, but they were brushed off as if it was natural (267). Nevertheless, it is a possibility that the reason the doctor did not admit his ignorance is because he wanted to save face by looking as if he knew what he was doing. If so, wouldn’t it have been better to give subject me to the different tests that my mother insisted rather than just disregarding my symptoms? That way my mother and I would not have thought that the doctor was incompetent at his job. Similarly to Zimmerman (2000), women who have received breast implants experienced symptoms were not physical and the doctors refuted by stating that they’re symptoms were all in their heads (271). In my incident, my symptoms such as dizziness, feeling hot, hearing an unwavering noise that would not stop are felt by me and could not be physically seen, hence possibly explaining the first doctor dismissing my case. In conclusion, when an incident like mines occurs, it seems like it is a norm for others to check up on that person despite the fact that they are not acquaintances. Although fainting does not lead to social exclusion, other diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome can exclude those who suffer from it from other social groups, thus leading them to hide that factor and hiding their true self. In addition, doctors are not always perfect and prone to make mistakes, hence obtaining a second opinion is another way to obtain hope for those with grave illnesses like cancer. Furthermore, many individual do not choose to question physician, and comply with doctor’s orders. It’s time that people begin to question doctor’s orders because there is a possibility that their diagnosis and their way of fixing the human body can detrimental to an individual in the long haul.