Life is a performance.

“The man in the $1000 suit sells $5 potato peelers!” Stumbling across this video of Joe Ades, a millionaire who spent his days as a potato peeler salesman on the corner of Park Avenue, New York, I found him to be a perfect representation of Goffman’s dramaturgy, or the theory that the whole world is a stage and people are just actors within it (Gronbeck, 1980). The idea that the individual puts on a show for the benefit of other people, that they project an image, a front stage persona, is clearly evident here in Jon’s performance.

He presents himself on the street corner as a bubbly, intriguing and unbelievably passionate person, that isn’t to say that he doesn’t have these qualities “backstage” however, he emphasises and puts on an incredible show front-stage, joking with his customers and being so agreeable. In the interview, although the situation is still very much frontstage (being on national TV) it is backstage in comparison to him working as a salesman on the corner. 

 In this backstage setting he appears much more relaxed, and less energetic and over the top. It can be assumed also, through an understanding of dramaturgy and extrapolation of the difference in his demeanour between working and being interviewed,(that is front and back stage) when at home – in his amazing mansion – or in a backstage position, his demeanour and behaviour would change and become less of a performance (Gronbeck, 1980). This change in his demeanour reflects Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy and the show in which individuals, Jon Ades included, will put on for the benefit of other people, that is, the projection they want to be seen by others. As Jon said, "Life is a vacation", or maybe, more than anything, a performance.

Gronbeck, B 1980, Dramaturgical theory and criticism: The state of the art (or science?), Western Journal of Speech Communication, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 315-330.

Week 5 - Presentation of self.

Presentation of self.

As I sit writing this blog I’m watching my three gorgeous housemates get dressed up for a big night out on the town. They have spent hours meticulously disguising any imperfection in their skin that was barely noticeable to anyone but themselves, emphasising their features, applying layers of mascara and agonising over what to wear. Watching this anticipation and seeing their excitement build, I can’t help but feel it’s perfect timing for me to be writing this blog and reflecting upon this week’s lecture.

Within the lengthy reading this week, Goffman discusses the way in which the painted self or the self that we present to others is reacted to by the via a twisted web of social interactionism, symbols, rules and codes of conduct which are constantly changing from context to context. The presented self that is described, and which my housemates are trying so hard to alter, he labels as demeanour. This concept of demeanour encompasses and is conveyed by our every movement, use of language and carefully chosen outfit. It is this carefully formulated demeanour that shapes the way in which others respond to us, that is, deference.

Goffman suggests that deference and demeanour work together in order to support an individual’s image of self, and when in conflict these two concepts very easily destroy a person’s image of their self. It appears, to me, to be in an attempt to keep a positive alliance between the two and maintain their image of self, that my housemates are making such an effort. In addition, they may also be reflecting Goffman’s symmetrical and asymmetrical classes, and so getting dressed up is an attempt on their behalf to ensure they are not on the lower side of an asymmetrical class power balance with other people in the pub, but are at the very least, involved in symmetrical class balance. An interaction best made by observation, I think. Red wine, watch out!