Dramaturgical Perspective and Social Media Behavior or: The Presentation of Self on Everyday Sites.
There are probably two or three people in the world that would laugh at that title. For the rest of you, I’m sorry.
After posting on friendfeed on Media Bullseye, I started to think about how we manage and control the ways in which we broadcast our identities online. After feeling a bit uncomfortable aggregating and broadcasting the disparate and sometimes conflicting social roles I play, I thought back to my days as a sociology student and remembered good ole Erving Goffman.
In his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman used the metaphor of the theater to analyze human social action. The ideas in the book formed Goffman’s sociological perspective known as dramaturgy.
The basic idea of dramaturgical sociology is that our actions are dependent on time, place, audience and context. Because of this, what we think of as "self" is really just a dramatic effect formed by the immediate social scene in which we’re playing. Identity is not a stable, independent entity; instead, it is constantly changing as we interact with other social actors.
So, we’re actors playing roles. And just like theatrical actors do on stage, we are constantly trying to convey our intentions to others through what we say, what we wear, our body language, and through the quality and frequency of interactions we have in order to give a particular impression to others. Ole Erving called this "impression management".
One more paragraph and I’ll actually get to the point (gotta love 5 full paragraphs of setup before actually saying anything). Extending the theatrical metaphor, Goffman talks about two distinct types of behavior: Front Stage and Back Stage. Front Stage actions are what we do in front of an audience. Back Stage actions happen when no audience is present.
Just think about how much you would change the way you behave in front of an audience of professional peers (think of giving a speech) compared to how you’d act while having beers with your friends in a dive bar. Think of how you would act in a job interview setting compared to how you would present yourself at a party with your knucklehead friends from high school.
Impression management, to me, is one of those things we do without thinking. It’s a completely unconscious activity that seems absolutely natural. The interactions you have with your boss are different from those with your significant other. You have different intentions, therefore you present yourself differently. It’s just common sense, right?
Right. (I like answering my own questions)
But now that so many of our social interactions have shifted from the physical world to the online world, the situational constructs that guide us in deciding what "me" to portray have blurred. There’s really no distinction between the front and back stage anymore.
Which brings me to one final question: is Authenticity even possible?
Believe me, I am, and have been on the authenticity bandwagon. I love the idea that with an open form of two way communication online comes a worldwide, distributed, vocal bullshit filter.
Looking back at the Cluetrain Manifesto, I’m now left with some questions:
CM: Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.
But is sounding human just another role?
CM: Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived.
But is this "natural" human voice really uncontrived, or is it just the opposite: a role being played that is carefully crafted to sound uncontrived in order to reap the benefits given to what others perceive as honest and open?
CM: Getting a sense of humor does not mean putting some jokes on the corporate web site. Rather, it requires big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of view.
Is this really a change in reality, or just a change in perception? When a company tries to add a little humility and straight talk, aren’t they really just changing the way they are trying to earn a favorable impression?
So, is being authentic online even possible? Is it a good idea to merge all of our online personas in one big feed for all to consume (like friendfeed)? Or is better to do "impression management", however involuntarily, based on the context of our interactions (the me on twitter is different from the me on LinkedIn)?
I don’t know the answer, and I’d really like to hear your thoughts.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Well this is a very good question, I’ m a senior at East Stroudsburg majoring in Sociology and for my Sociological theory class we have to write a research paper on a sociological theory, I’ve chosen Dramaturgy (BTW I got your joke, and gave a little chuckle) and I’m especially interested in modern communication i.e. the internet and it’s effects on the theory of Dramaturgy. Actually, that’s how I stumbled onto this blog, but in regards to your question, I would say that the mass communication of today especially in the context of blogs or e-mails, actually allows us to be simultaneously more and less authentic. By this I mean that the anonymity allows us to reveal our “back stage” to more people, and yet also allows us to form our ideal “front stage” at the same time. You may want others to think that you are a very tough person, and act accordingly on the internet, when no one can see you, whereas in real life you are very weak and no one would buy the performance. Similarly, since you are no longer face to face with someone while communicating, things like appearance and manner are no longer valid, and there are less restrictions on how you can act without invalidating the role you have chosen, allowing one to reveal their true selves as in their back stage, without ruining their front stage. I’m sorry for the length and I really must be getting this paper done, however I am glad that someone else has also come to these conclusions. If you would like to discuss this further, you can e-mail me. Thanks.