GOFFMAN’S PRESENTATION OF SELF THEORY

by Jovita J. Tan (29 September 2014)

1.0 Introduction
This essay will look specifically into the presentational self theory. The presentation of self
theory was founded by Erving Goffman who was one of the best-known and most influential
American sociologist of the twentieth century due to the fact that his dramaturgical metaphor has
become sociology’s second skin (Fine & Manning, 2003, p. 457). This paper will look at how
Goffman’s self presentation theory came about, the assumptions and concepts surrounding the
theory, the critiques that may have arised from the theory as well as the usage of this theory in
research work.

2.0 The Presentational Self Theory

2.1 Background of the Founder
Erving Goffman was born in Canada in the year 1922 (Branaman, 2001, p. 94). He
graduated with a BA in Sociology and Anthropology from the University of Toronto in 1945 and
obtained his PhD in Sociology from the University of Chicago in 1953 (ibid). By building on the
research he has done for his doctoral thesis1 in Shetland Isles, Goffman published his first and most
famous book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, which was published in 1956 and revised
in 1959 (ibid). This widely read book was how the presentational of self theory came about.

2.2 The Theory’s Idea

Goffman’s presentational of self theory was drawn on George Herbert Mead’s idea that the
self is a product of social life (Branaman, 2001, p. 95). However, Goffman’s idea is more radical
and less abstract as compared to Mead’s (ibid). Unlike Mead’s idea that the self arises in social
experience, Goffman’s view is that the self does not merely arises from social experience but is also
a product of the social scene or a dramatic effect of performances in social life (ibid). Hence,
Goffman’s dramaturgical model came into play. In other words, this theory uses theatrical
metaphor to explain the various ways in which communicators present the self.

2.3 Goffman’s Dramaturgical Model

There are two main concepts to Goffman’s dramaturgical model. The first being All the
World’s a Stage; while the other is the performer. All the World’s a Stage was a poem written by

1
Goffman’s doctoral thesis was titled Communication Conduct in an Island Community (Branaman, 2001, p. 94)
William Shakespeare for the play As You Like It in 1599 or 1600, in which Shakespeare described
the world from a theatrical point of view surrounding the seven ages of humanity from infancy to
old age (Shakespeare, 1848). Littlejohn and Foss (2003, p. 87) implied that Goffman simply meant
the same when he brought forth the idea that our everyday settings are viewed as a stage where the
people are considered actors who use their performances to make an impression on an audience. In
other words, everyone’s life is but a series of performances and impression management is at the
core of each performance.

2.4 Impression Management

Impression management can be further broken down into six aspects –– the definition of a
situation, expressions and impressions, front stage and back stage, accounts, self-enhancement and
ingratiation as well as self-awareness, self-monitoring and self-disclosure.
The definition of a situation is central to Goffman’s notion of impression management. To
define a situation is to make sense of the events encountered in everyday life. To put it differently,
it is the ability one uses to interpret the situation he or she is in. The question that normally comes
to mind when defining a situation is “What is going on here?” or “What has happened?”. The
answers obtained would be the definition one gets regarding the said situation. According to
Littlejohn and Foss (2008, p. 87), the definition of a situation can be divided into strips and frames
where a strip is a sequence of activities while a frame is a basic organizational pattern used to define
a strip. For example, a man puts his hand into his pocket; he removed his cellphone from his pocket;
he made a call on his cellphone; he put his cellphone back in his pocket. This sequence of activities
is called a strip where it can be framed as the man making a call on his cellphone. Hence,
frameworks are the models used to comprehend one’s experiences, the ways things are seen as
fitting together into some coherent whole (ibid). In a way, these are like the jigsaw puzzles of life.
That is why, face-to-face engagements or encounters, where people take turns presenting dramas to
one another, are viewed in the context of frame analysis (ibid).
The second aspect of impression management is the expressions and impressions.
Impressions are created through what Goffman called sign vehicles or carriers that include both
language and body language (Goffman, 1959, p. 1). Impressions are created via expressions.
Goffman (1959, p. 2) further explained that expressions can be radically divided into the
expressions one gives and the expressions one gives off. The expressions one gives are the primary
things said, the intentional poses, the facial gestures2 and other controlled body languages that are
emitted. On the other hand, The expressions one gives off are the elements of one’s expressiveness
over which one has less control. This means that inconsistencies exist between what is said and
2
Examples of facial gestures are smiles, winks, surprise, sad and etcetera.
~1~
what is actually done and the body language is usually the ‘culprit’ that gives an individual away in
some situations. Or, as Manning (1991, p. 76) puts it, impressions that are given are used
admittedly while those which are given off convey information inadvertently.
Impressions are managed within contexts or settings where various personal fronts 3 are
needed to work in different settings as required by social norms. Sometimes, personal fronts are
altered to suit a situation an individual may be in, such as a young doctor trying to look older and
more matured for his or her patients. In dramaturgy, the front stage and back stage cannot be
ignored. The front stage of life’s performances occurs in situations where individuals interacts with
others in public or in professional settings while the back stage behaviours normally but not
necessary happens in one’s home environment where one can stretch and relax without having to
consider the presence of others. In other words, the front stage is what confronts the audience or to
put it rightly, what the actors intend for their audience to see as contrast to the back stage where all
support activities necessary for maintaining the performance on the main stage happen (Kivisto &
Pittman, 2007, p. 280)
The next aspect of impressions management are accounts which are the statements people
provide to explain a behaviour that was unanticipated or improper. There are two types of accounts,
namely excuses and justifications. Excuses are attempts to lessen responsibility. An individual can
be clearly seen as using excuses when he or she implied the notion of “I don’t know.”, “Don’t
blame me.” or any other similar statements. These show that the individual is trying to convince
others the fault that occurred is not his or her responsible or at the very least, the responsibility is
not fully his or hers. In contrast, justifications are attempts to suggest that the behaviour had some
positive outcome. In justifying, one admits that the fault is his or hers but gives explanations as to
why the fault was committed.
Impression management usually includes self-enhancement or ingratiation to a certain
extend. These are described by Jones and Pitman (1982) as behaviours performed by individuals
that have the effect of making the actor seem more likeable (as cited in Nguyen, Seers & Hartman,
2008, p. 150). They are the attempts one make to inflat his or her credentials, statuses and so on by
trying to alter the situation through flattery, agreeing with others beyond the individual’s true
beliefs, doing favours and even falsely presenting one’s self to others in a favourable light.
Lastly, impression management also looks into self-awareness, self-monitoring and self-
disclosure. Self-awareness is when one’s attention is focused on the self –– the private self and the
public self. The private self is the part of the self in which an individual’s attitude cannot be
perceived by others while the public self is that part which is given away by an individual’s

3
Examples of personal fronts are age, gender, hair styles, clothing and etcetera.
~2~
mannerisms and behaviourisms. People differ to the degree in which they are self-aware and the
consequences that it entails. Once people become accomplished ‘actors’, they get better at self-
monitoring so that they become more attuned to the reactions of others and adjust their bahaviours
accordingly and be on the fly. A high self-monitor individual will always be aware of his or her
social situations and will be able to pick up cues easily. Finally, self-disclosure is by which
individuals can regulate what others know about them. It is the amount of information one is
willing to reveal about the self to others. It is the breadth and the depth of one’s self an individual is
willing to give to achieve a certain level of intimacy.

2.5 Assumptions and Relevant Concepts

According to Brown (1977), Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis is based on four assumptions
–– (i) that there is a transfer of meaning from one term to another, (ii) that the analysis is literally
absurd, (iii) that it is nevertheless meant to be understood, and (iv) that it is self-consciously “as if”
(as cited in Manning, 2005, p. 211). Therefore, the philosophical assumptions of the theory will be
derived based on these assumptions.
Since Goffman’s presentational self theory is all about dramaturgy, then the epistemological
assumption that all human behaviours or practices are ‘performed’ can be established. This
assumption meant that any activities, actions, behaviours or conducts at any location at any point in
time is a public presentation of the self. In other words, human actions are seen as social
performances with the desire to leave impressions on others.
The ontological assumption of the presentational self theory is the extend to which the
presented self is a natural occurrence of human interaction. This means that the ‘performance’ of
the communicator occurs spontaneously and is not purposely scripted and staged as in a play.
The axiological assumption of Goffman’s self presentation theory is that ‘performance’ or
‘acts’ of the communicator depends greatly on the cultural and societal values that he or she is in.
As such, the activities and behaviours of an individual in front of the public is shaped based on what
the society and community say as acceptable. Hence, the a person’s ‘performance’ is guided by the
norms of society and community.

2.6 Critiques on the Theory

The use of metaphor in research has its strengths and weaknesses besides raising a series of
instructive issues. The broad advantages and disadvantages of Goffman’s presentational self theory,
as described by Manning (1991, p. 78–79), are as follows:
Strengths Weaknesses

~3~
 1) The self presentation theory is an extended 1) Metaphor is literally absurd. Hence, no
metaphorical description of daily behaviour matter how convincing it appears to be, it
which forces the reconsideration of nevertheless remains ‘category error’. This
mundane social events. casts doubts on its validity. Therefore,
2) Theatrical metaphors create ‘semantic drawing a line between true and false of the
maps’ to the social world which are best dramaturgical analysis cannot be clearly
thought of as conceptual systems. established.
3) This theory first acts as a guide to the social 2) Theatrical metaphors are at best only partial
world and then as a falsification to it. It is descriptions of social behaviours.
an approach that gives both an insightful (if 3) This theory also questions the aims of
incongruous) comparison and a literal discovery with regards to the social world or
absurdity. the invention of ‘narratives’ about life.

2.7 Usage of the Theory in Research

Since the presentational self theory is basically about how one carries themself in the public
sphere (or sometimes even the private sphere), the theory will be useful in the area of behavioural
studies such as consumer behaviours in the process of buying and selling, netizens behaviours on
social media4 and so on. In addition, this theory can also be used in research related to impression
management 5 . Besides that, social researchers can also make in-depth studies into Goffman’s
theory by comparing it to other theories regarding the conception of self 6 . Goffman’s self
presentation theory can be used in various areas of research so long that the concept of the theory,
which is the dramaturgy aspects of the theory, is of relevance to the field of studies and is within the
sociocultural tradition.

3.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, the presentational self theory is a metaphorical account of how individuals
construct and maintain a performance in society. Since the theory is classified under the
sociocultural tradition, it can be said that although the theory is about the self, the way the self is
being presented or acted out depend greatly on how the notion of society and community on how
one should behave. Thus, performances define who an individual is as a communicator and the

4
Matthew Gardner Birnbaum researched and wrote a doctoral thesis entitled Taking Goffman on a Tour of Facebook:
College Students and the Presentation of Self in a Mediated Digital Environment (Birnbaum, 2008).
5
Nguyen et al. (2008) did a study on how self-promotion and ingratiation is used in impression management titled
Putting a Good Face on Impression Management: Team Citizenship and Team Satisfaction.
6
A research was done by Stanley Raffel for the Edinburgh Working Papers in Sociology titled If Goffman had Read
Levinas (Raffel, 1999).
~4~
communicator is the presentation of a self or many selves before others. To close off using the
words of Kivisto and Pittman (2007, p. 289), social reality is a performed event and is highly
dependent on the various components of the theater.

~5~
4.0 References
Branaman, A. (2001). Erving Goffman. In A. Elliott & B. S. Turner (Eds.), Profiles in
Contemporary Social Theory (pp. 94–106). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Fine, G. A. & Manning, P. (2003). Erving Goffman. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion
to Major Social Theorists (pp. 457–485). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor
Books.
Kivisto, P. & Pittman, D. (2007). Goffman’s Dramaturgical Sociology: Personal Sales and Service
in a Commodified World. In P. Kivisto (Ed.), Illuminating Social Life: Classical and
Contemporary Theory Revisited (4th ed.) (pp. 271–290). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Littlejohn, S. W. & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of Human Communication (9th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Manning, P. (1991). Drama as Life: The Significance of Goffman’s Changing Use of the Theatrical
Metaphor. Sociological Theory, 9(1), 70–86. Retrieved from
http://dl1.cuni.cz/file.php/344/Goffman/Manning_-
_Drama_as_Life_The_Significance_of_Goffmans_Changing_Use_of_the_Theatrical_Meta
phor.pdf
Manning, P. (2005). Dramaturgy. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Theory (pp. 211–214).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nguyen, N. T., Seers, A. & Hartman, N. S. (2008). Putting a Good Face on Impression
Management: Team Citizenship and Team Satisfaction. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 9(2), 148–168. Retrieved from
http://ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol9/no2/jbam_9_2_3.pdf
Shakespeare, W. (1848). Shakespeare’s Seven Ages of Man. London, UK: John Van Voorst.

5.0 Bibliographies
Birnbaum, M. G. (2008). Taking Goffman on a Tour of Facebook: College Students and the
Presentation of Self in a Mediated Digital Environment (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from
http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/194670/1/azu_etd_2833_sip1_m
.pdf
Raffel, S. (1999). If Goffman had Read Levinas. Journal of Classical Sociology, 2(2), 179–202.
Retrieved from
http://www.san.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/13017/WP17_Raffel1999.pdf

~6~