“Masks are arrested expressions and admirable echoes of feeling, at once faithful, discreet, and superlative. Living things in contact with the air must acquire a cuticle, and it is not urged against cuticles that they are not hearts; yet some philosophers seem to be angry with images for not being things, and for words for not being feelings. Words and images are like shells, no less integral parts of nature than are the substances they cover, but better addressed to the eye and more open to observation. I would not say that substance exists for the sake of appearance, or faces for the sake of masks, or the passions for the sake of poetry and virtue. Nothing arises in nature for the sake of anything else; all these phases and products are involved equally in the round of existence…”
George Santayana, Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies (London: Constable, 1922)
These words from the beginning of Goffman’s book reflect perfectly one of the most important differences between philosophy and sociology, consisting in divergences whether to take into consideration masks, words, images and other concepts studied by sociology, or things and feelings studied by philosophy . Santayana offers an optimal solution to this debate, he believes that both the sociological and philosophical concepts deserve to be treated as essential parts of peoples’ lives. Apart from that, the words preceding Goffman’s work offer a quick peek on the content of the American sociologist.
This fact is very easy to notice from the chapter named “The arts of impression management”. Here, Goffman presents the principal ‘performance disruptions’, as he names them. One of these disruptions are considered to be ‘unmeant gestures’, which can many times spoil really important moments from different ceremonies, festivities or even parties. A relevant example taken from Ponsonby’s Recollections of Three Reign (Eyre & Spottiswoode) is given here: “One of the Attaches from the Legation was to carry the cushion on which the insignia were placed, and in order to prevent their falling off stuck the pin at the back of the Star through the velvet cushion. The Attache, however, was not content with this, but secured the end of the pin by the catch to make double sure. The result was that when Prince Alexander, having made a suitable speech, tried to get hold of the Star, he found it firmly fixed to the cushion and spent some time in getting it loose. This rather spoilt the most impressive moment of the ceremony.”
Obviously, both the person who contributed to an unmeant gesture and the one performing it, are equally responsible for the happening. In the same time, the one causing the gesture discredits himself also, maybe even more than the others because the “audience”, also a term introduced by Goffman, will have the tendency to blame him for spoiling the event and others reputation. So, it seems essential that when working in a team, to take good care that your team-mate’s performance is at a high level, in order to cause positive impression about the entire team in witch yourself are. This looks even more important when considering the fact that usually, critics or appreciations are directed towards the entire team performing the action, not towards a particular individual. Eloquent in this context are the sayings of the author himself: “…the individual held responsible for contributing an unmeant gesture may chiefly discredit his own performance by this (referring to Ponsonby’s example), a team-mate’s performance, or the performance being staged by his audience.”
Another performance disruption is considered to be ‘inopportune intrusions’. “When an outsider accidentally enters a region in which a performance is given, or a member of the audience inadvertently enters the backstage, the intruder is likely to catch those present flagrante delicto. Though no one’s intention, the persons present in the region may find that they have patently been witnessed in activity that is quite incompatible with the impression that they are, for wider social reasons, under obligation to maintain to the intruder.” The fact that someone accidentally enters a region in which a performance is given can not be considered as a lack of common sense. However, the fact that those present are obliged to change their way of being from that moment on, can not be argued. That is because people unconditionally tend to change their way to act when a new ‘actor’ comes into play, meaning someone whose reactions to what they say can hardly be guessed or previewed.
“The past life and current round of activity of a given performer typically contain at least a few facts which, if introduced during the performance, would discredit or at least weaken the claims about self that the performer was attempting to project as part of the definition of the situation.” Well-kept dark secrets or negatively-valued characteristics that everyone can see but no one refers to, could be behind these facts which can cause nothing but embarrassment, as usual. These facts can be brought to one’s attention by unmeant gestures or inopportune intrusions, but more frequently they are introduced by intentional verbal statements or non-verbal acts whose full significance is not appreciated by the person who contributes them to the interaction. Commonly, these disruptions are called ‘faux pas’. These particular disruptions are divided into some categories. “Where a performer unthinkingly makes an intentional contribution which destroys his own team’s image we speak of ‘gaffes’ or ‘boners’. Where a performer jeopardizes the image of self projected by the other team, we may speak of ‘bricks’ or of the performer having ‘put his foot in it’ “. These ‘faux pas’ could be caused by the performer’s lack of attention and ignorance concerning the performance. These disruptions could be avoided with the help of self-discipline and concentration, a small price considering the damages such mistakes could cause to the individual or to the team. A prestigious etiquette manual named The Laws of Etiquette (Philadelphia: Carey, Lee & Blanchard, 1836, page 101) provided a classic warning against such indiscretions: “If there is any one in the company whom you do not know, be careful how you let off any epigrams or pleasant little sarcasms. You might be very witty upon halters to a man whose father has been hanged. The first requisite for a successful conversation is to know your company well.” This is a rather rude example, but with an important message: always be sure that you know what you are talking about, if not you are in a great danger of making a fool out of yourself not only in front of the person whom you are talking to, but also in front of all the others who will judge you by the appearance, saying that you are a rude and impolite man. It will be, then, more than clear that your purpose of making good conversation will turn against you. There is, in the book The Canons of Good Breeding, page 80, another eloquent fragment upon this subject: “In meeting a friend whom you have not seen for some time, and of the state and history of whose family you have not been recently or particularly informed, you should avoid making enquiries or allusions in respect to particular individuals of his family, until you have possessed yourself of knowledge respecting them. Some may be dead; others may have misbehaved, separated themselves, or fallen under some distressing calamity”. How many times do people find themselves in similar situations, but do not seem to react properly after saying something indecent, causing stress and disappointment to others they respect and care about? People usually tend to aggravate their actions by not accepting the mistake they have done, when, on the contrary, they should apologize and try to remediate the situation. This is an important issue which is worth thinking about.
Unmeant gestures, inopportune intrusions, and ‘faux pas’ are important sources of dissonance and embarrassment, their particularity consisting in the fact that they are unintended and that they could have been avoided if the individuals would have known in advance the results of their activity. “However, there are situations, often called ‘scenes’, in which an individual acts in such a way as to destroy or serious threaten the polite appearance of consensus, and while he may not act simply in order to create such dissonance, he acts with the knowledge that this kind of dissonance is likely to result. The common-sense phrase, ‘creating a scene’, is apt because, in effect, a new scene is created by such disruptions.” This creation of a new scene causes the dividing of the team into two new teams. This fact is due to the new drama which forcibly takes place to the previous interplay between the teams.
Scenes occur in different situations, one of them being that when team-mates can no longer countenance each other’s poor performances and blurt out on the first occasion criticism towards the individuals they were supposed to be in dramaturgical cooperation. The results of such unproductive behavior can not be but negative. Firstly, in that way, the audience obtains a back-stage view, and secondly, it gains the opinion that something is surely suspicious about a performance on which the individuals who are supposed to know it best are quarreling and criticizing each-other.
Another type of scene occurs when the audience no longer wants to react to the performance in polite terms, reacting expressively or even violently. This kind of behavior is considered, then, by the other team, unacceptable. This happens when an individual screws up his social courage.
Scenes can also occur when two people interact in such a loud way that the others who are taking part in other scenes are forced to witness that interaction, being obliged to give-up to their own.
The final kind of scene has in its primary role a person who acts like a ‘one-man team’. In that situation, that person is most assumable to choose his claim or request in such a way that it will not be refused by the audience. However he could also intent a claim that the audience will surely reject, that is if his motivation is strong enough. In that situation he will become totally dependent of the audience. He will try, then, to put himself in the position of a member of the audience, or, on the contrary, to make the audience ‘enter’ his team. Anyway, this kind of actions are really embarrassing, considering the fact that in case of a refusal, the individual can suffer humiliation.
All the incidents described above may seem to be hard to manage, but this is not necessarily true. It depends on the performer himself, as well as on those who participate in the interaction and who do not, that they possess and express certain attributes in practice in order to save the situation and to cancel its unfavorable results. “These attributes and practices will be reviewed under three headings: the defensive measures used by performers to save their own show; the protective measures used by audience and outsiders to assist the performers in saving the performer’s show; and, finally, the measures the performers must take in order to make it possible for the audience and outsiders to employ protective measures on the performer’s behalf.” This implies a constant interaction between the performer, the audience and even the outsiders. It is therefore a situation that depends on numerous sides, the most important thing consisting in the will of these parts to interact in such a way that, in the end, the show turns out to be a success.
I will now go on with describing the ‘Defensive attributes and practices’. The first concept concerning these is the ‘dramaturgical loyalty’. Goffman thinks that it is only apparent that the team members must act as if they have accepted certain moral obligations. The real motivation which keeps them from betraying the secrets of the team is not to fall victim to their self-interest or their lack of discretion. It is given here an example with a child who is isolated from the discussions of his parents until they become sure of the fact that he will not divulge their sayings to another member of the family, that is, whose part will he take. Almost the same situation occurs referring to the servants and their masters. The intimacy problem became so acute that masters were forced to try new modalities in order not to keep team-secrets from servants: “The dumb-waiter was a tier table, which, prior to the dinner hour, was stocked with food, drink, and eating utensils by the servants, who then withdrew, leaving the guests to serve themselves.” (Hecht, The Domestic Servant Class in Eighteenth-Century England, page 81, quoting from Defoe’s The Maid-Servant’s Modest Defense). I
In Goffman’s opinion, the key problem in maintaining the loyalty of team-members is not to allow performers to develop emotional ties with the audience, because this will eventually be a disadvantage for the whole team. In order to avoid these unfortunate events, the author suggests that team-members should be more ‘inhuman’ regarding their feelings. Another technique for countering the danger of affective ties between performers and audience is to change audiences periodically. Although these actions may involve some additional efforts and spending, the loyalty between team-members will surely improve. It is also vital for the maintenance of the team’s performance that each member of the team possesses dramaturgical discipline and exercise it in presenting his own part. “A performer who is disciplined, dramaturgically speaking, is someone who remembers his part and does not commit unmeant gestures or ‘faux pas’ in performing it.” This affirmation takes my thoughts to the book of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim, Division of Social Work (1983), where the famous writer enounces the same idea as Goffman, that everyone should do his work, so that the entire team, or collective, develops as a whole. “The disciplined performer is also someone with self-control, someone with sufficient poise to move from private places of informality to public ones of varying degrees of formality, without allowing such changes to confuse him.” The management of one’s face and voice is also capital for dramaturgical discipline. That is because sometimes the people that encounter you, have different interests from yours. So it is not recommendable to express your feelings by mimics, because they could appreciate how what has been said affected you and react in consequence. This being said, I can conclude that Erving Goffman’s chapter, ‘The Arts of Impression Management’ from the book ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’ represents an essential work among all the other written on that particular theme, considering its original concept on life, regarded as a show in which people are the actors.
Bibliography
· George Santayana, Soliloquies in England and Later Soliloquies, London: Constable, 1922;
· Ponsonby, Recollections of Three Reign,Eyre & Spottiswoode;
· The Laws of Etiquett, Philadelphia: Carey, Lee & Blanchard, 1836, page 101;
· The Canons of Good Breeding, page 80;· Hecht, The Domestic Servant Class in Eighteenth-Century England, page 81, quoting from Defoe’s The Maid-Servant’s Modest Defense;
· Emile Durkheim, Division of Social Work, 1983;
Tudor Cojocari
