Rating: 
Summary: A justifiable classic - though not without its flaws
Review: This review is being written as I am reading "The Presentation of the Self" for the third time. And to put all my cards on the table: I read Goffman more out of necessity than interest.
This book is a classic for all the right reasons. It is thoroughly argued, well-grounded in empirical examples, and offers a (at the date of its initial publication) truly original approach to the study of social situations. Additionally, although Goffman's prose is a little thick, anyone can understand his argument. He does not expect a readership well-informed in any particular social theory.
Goffman offers his own theory, drawing on theater as a rich source of metaphor, to explicate social organization and behavior. Although I personally do not find the argument very compelling, it certainly can't be easily dismissed. This is the product of close observation of social behavior and organization in innumerable contexts, framed by a logical and rigorous theory. Goffman makes what is, in essence, an argument in favor of 'social construction': Individuals consist of diverse sets of roles played out in different situations.
There are definite weaknesses with his argument, however. To begin with the simplest: Goffman's prose, although he does not rely heavily on jargon (and provides adequate definition of any jargon he does use), does not make for a light read. This is dense. The examples are often clear (and occasionally entertaining), but Goffman's prose is stereotypically academic.
Secondly, although the book is full of empirical examples, many of these are based on observations of social situations that would not resonate with the contemporary reader. This book is clearly a product of its time. Readers might find some of the examples, or Goffman's glosses of them, offensive or just plain silly.
Furthermore, as Goffman himself states in the preface, his 'dramaturgical' perspective applies best to, and his examples are drawn from, "the kind of social life that is organized within the physical confines of a building or plant." This is social psychology applied to a very particular sort of social organization. While Goffman's theory may have applications to, say, the study of family structure, or intimate interpersonal realtionships, he clearly meant it to apply most directly to office places, service industries, royal courts and the like. In other words, the dramaturgical perspective works best in explaining those situations in which performance is an expected part of the social structure (i.e., expected by the performers themselves) - but might fall short in those situations in which the aim is 'being genuine'.
Consequently, Goffman's argument does not necessarily demonstrate that individuals lack a 'core self' or identity. Goffman, however, suggests in his conclusion "that the very structure of the self can be seen in terms of how we arrange for such performances" as he discusses - in other words, that we are our performances, and nothing more. It is easy to read into Goffman's work the suggestion that we lack core identities. I do not think his analyses support that suggestion, however.
On this matter, compare Goffman's arguments to the philosopher Thomas Nagel's argument in "Concealment and Exposure". Nagel argues that for certain social situations to work smoothly, we (as participants) need to 'conceal' aspects of ourselves (thoughts, feelings, biological urges...) that would disrupt that smooth flow. Nagel does not mean that we do not have such thoughts, feelings, or urges; only that we must cover them up from time to time. Structurally, Nagel and Goffman make very similar arguments: There are social demands placed on individuals such that we, effectively, have to 'act' out certain roles in order to maintain social organization. But where Goffman stretches this insight to claim that the 'self' consists entirely of such performances, Nagel is able to reconcile a dramaturgical perspective on social behavior with the existence of an individual self. (That is to say, an argument about how the self is presented in social situations concerns only the self's presentation. It is not an argument about the identity of that self, per se.)
Finally, Goffman does not offer an explanatory theory - this is purely (although rigorously) descriptive. Goffman refers to this book as "a sort of handbook", and it is; it is almost a field guide or crash course in social observation. Of course, in social theory as in anything, clear observation and a logical classification of what we are observing is a necessary overture to explanation. As such, this is not really a weakness, but Goffman's readers should accept that additional argumentation is necessary to account for *why* our performances are divided into front and back regions, etc. On a related matter, Goffmanian analyses have been critiqued for being politically conservative; since they are heavily descriptive, they tend to take society as it is presented, with little or no normative judgment. Take that as you will. From my perspective, it is a weakness; others would certainly regard it as a strength.
All in all, this is a worthy read, whether or not you agree with Goffman's analyses. It is especially important that those who disagree with Goffman should read this book; it has had such a tremendous impact on the practice of sociology that familiarity with it is a necessary part of any broad reading of social theory.
Rating: 
Summary: Our play is the thing
Review: While many had remarked previously on "life being a stage", Goffman brings home quite a few poignant points in comparing the way in which we present ourselves in everyday life with acting out roles in a play.While reading Derbyshire's book on the Riemann hypothesis I came across an analysis of the working method of the great mathematician Gauss, in which the author quoted this book as a "minor psychology classic". Indeed, somewhere on the boundary between social psychology and sociology, Goffman gives us a still very relevant analysis of the intricacies of self presentation in the context of group behavior. Based on the premise that in every context we present ourselves to others there is a performer(s)-audience relationship, the author equates the presentation of oneself as playing a part on a stage. He explores a variety of contexts and next analyzes the dynamics of group behavior. While this book is half a century old and some of the social settings may be somewhat outdated and lack similarity to modern American life, I think much of the material has still a lot of relevance. Of particular interest was the section discussing the denigrating and sarcastic way that servants gossip behind the customers back, a process that unfailingly occurs behind the scene of any group interaction. It was too bad that the author maintained the rather descriptive approach of the book, without going into the underlying causes of repression and relieve. Yet, in all, I considered this a well organized and focused analysis of the way we present ourselves to others, that may lack the hipness of the Greene's books "the 48 laws of power" or "the art of seduction", but has lost little of its relevance over the lat 50 years.
|
