Introduction
Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is a fascinating piece of work in sociology and the field of communication studies, as Goffman successfully employs the perspective of theatrical performance; the principles he derives are dramaturgical ones.
He systematically and empirically considers the way in which the individual, in ordinary work situations, presents himself and his activity to others, the way in which he guides the impression they form of him, and the kinds of things he may and may not do while sustaining his performance before them.
The language and imagery that Goffman derives from theatre, and uses as an effective analogy, discern the various roles individuals play in multiple settings to come across as the person s/he wants people to see them as — a ‘promissory character’ using ‘sign activity.’ In the process, Goffman covertly underscores the asymmetrical nature of communication (Page 20).
The provided framework, as Goffman says, can be applied to any concrete social establishment. Likewise, according to me, the framework has wider applicability in the field of media studies to study the ‘acts’ put up by media institutions to make us believe in their promissory character through conveying information (sign-vehicles) and the expression they give — and sometimes give off — (sign activity).
As Goffman states, the introduction is necessarily abstract and may be skipped; thus, we’ll begin with the first chapter and proceed in logical sequence.
1. Performances
Belief in the part one is playing — by this, Goffman means that when an individual plays a part, he implicitly requests his observers to take seriously the impression that is fostered before them. They are asked to believe that the character they see actually possesses the attributes he appears to possess, that the task he performs will have the consequences that are implicitly claimed for it, and that, in general, matters are what they appear to be.
Further, Goffman says there is a popular view that the individual offers his performance and puts on his show “for the benefit of other people.” The argument or reason that Goffman labels as the popular view for the acts we put on seems to share a link with Max Weber’s idea of rationalisation.
Weber emphasises the increasing dominance of reasons, efficiency, and calculability in modern society. Likewise, people in modern societies, as specialists rather than generalists like in traditional societies, put on acts so that this information about the individual helps to define the situation — enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and what they may expect of him. Thus informed, the others will know how best to act in order to call forth a desired response from him or her.
Therefore, resonance can also be easily found in the examples that Goffman gives — of specialists like a waiter in a fine restaurant who might wear a tuxedo (appearance) and act very courteous and polished (manner), matching the setting to signal high-class service; or a doctor who behaves in a calm, authoritative way while interacting with patients to maintain
the appearance of competence, even if they’re unsure internally — suggesting a certain degree of predictability.
2. Teams
While the first chapter focused on the individual as a performer, this chapter emphasises that many social performances involve groups of people — or teams — cooperating to present a unified front to an audience, or as Goffman says, “any set of individuals who cooperate in staging a single routine.”
Therefore, a group of doctors and nurses in a hospital might rely on subtle non-verbal cues or jargon to manage the impression of medical competence and control during emergencies.
Thus, team members are mutually dependent — one person’s failure can jeopardise the entire performance.
Further, Goffman explores how not all individuals involved in a performance are equal participants. Some may occupy discrepant roles, and these roles complicate the idea of a simple team-audience relationship.
Likewise, by establishing the idea of a team, he is trying to challenge the idea of the autonomous self and reiterate his position of self-presentation as an act that is co-constructed through collective performances. Social cooperative ritual is a cooperative, not just individual, behaviour. This shares similarity with Weber’s ideas of modernisation, where everyone becomes more or less like the same person. Also, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s disdain towards such collectives also needs to be considered, which talks about the silencing of unpopular opinion within a group.
3. Regions and Region Behaviour
Goffman introduces the idea that behaviour varies depending on the physical and social context. Just as actors move between stage and backstage, people also segment their lives into different regions, each demanding different roles, behaviours, and forms of self-presentation.
He says the back region or backstage is the area where the performance is prepared or dropped. Here, people relax, rehearse, express suppressed feelings, or engage in behaviours inconsistent with the front stage image.
Whereas, the front region or front stage is the space where the performance is given. Therefore, people in this space act in ways that align with expected roles, norms, or what Goffman might call “scripts.” The concept of region and region behaviours applies to our everyday life efficiently, as we are one person at work, another at home with parents, and another person when with friends.
4. Discrepant Roles
A basic problem for many performances is that of information control; the audience must not acquire destructive information about the situation that is being defined for them. In other words, a team must be able to keep its secrets and have its secrets kept. Thus, an act is only sacred until it is tainted by insider information, betrayals, or contamination. Like, even
though I’m trying to ‘act’ as a serious person, unsynchronised gestures and movements might give an impression of being grumpy, angry, or hostile.
Goffman identifies several types of discrepant roles like the informer, shill, spotter, go- between, non-person, mediator, and finally the insiders and outsiders. He categorises secrets as dark, strategic, and inside secrets. Thus, the disclosure or leak of these secrets by those in discrepant roles can damage the performance, authority, or even the legitimacy of the team.
Therefore, Goffman is making a subtle but powerful argument — unlike many social scientists who stop at the individual or reality as construction — that social order is maintained not just through cooperation, but also through containment, exclusion, and concealment. Discrepant roles show the fragility of performance — how easily the script can fall apart when the boundaries between audience and performer are breached.
5. Communication Out of Character
It is impossible to always maintain a character perfectly without giving away some unsuitable performance, either intentionally or unintentionally. These moments are often risky and must be managed carefully because they can disrupt the definition of the situation for both audience and team members. Goffman calls these performances “out of character.”
Goffman says such performances can be accidental, strategic, humorous, or emotional. For instance, sometimes performers pretend to drop the mask to gain the audience’s trust, show honesty, or create intimacy — or a person may subtly signal that they don’t fully identify with their role. Like a waiter making fun of their job to customers or co-workers, signalling “I’m not just a waiter.”
However, these moments are usually treated as exceptions, not part of the formal performance. Thus, Goffman argues that stepping out of character is a normal, yet carefully regulated, part of social interaction. Whether accidental or strategic, these breaks are managed so that the definition of the situation is preserved.
6. The Arts of Impression Management
Goffman in his initial chapter starts by informing us that the acts we perform are susceptible to the words we speak or write (what we try to give) and non-verbal cues like expression, body language, dressing, and physical space (that give off the act). Thus, the non-congruency between giving and giving-off elements could jeopardise the character being built and give an impression of a distorted character — or simply confusion among the audience.
Therefore, the expressions given off can be controlled by the individual and team to give a perfect impression of the character they are playing. Thus, management of impression becomes an essential apparatus to control the mind and project character. Goffman’s view here is that social life is full of rehearsals, strategies, and edits, all designed to uphold the illusion of order, identity, and purpose.
Goffman lays out strategies that performers can employ to control how they are perceived, like defensive practices, corrective processes, and role & audience segregation. However, Goffman also says that one’s ability to manage the impression is slighter than one’s ability to suspect the act’s shortcomings.
Conclusion
In his conclusion, Goffman writes, “The general notion that we make a presentation of ourselves to others is hardly novel; what ought to be stressed in conclusion is the very structure of the self can be seen in terms of how we arrange for such performances.”
Goffman’s remark — that the self can be seen in terms of how we arrange for performances
— kept on taking me to movies like Anand and how this framework could be used to study media messages. Let’s take Anand movie for example:
In Anand, the titular character can be seen as a skilled performer in Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical framework. Despite being terminally ill, Anand maintains a joyful, humorous, and vibrant persona — his front stage — carefully managing how others perceive him. He uses humour and warmth to deflect attention from his illness, engaging in deliberate impression management to avoid pity and maintain emotional control in his interactions.
In private, with close friends like Dr. Bhaskar, Anand occasionally reveals glimpses of vulnerability — his backstage — but even these moments are measured. He practices role distance, refusing to let his identity be defined by illness, and treats the “dying patient” role with irony and detachment. Dr. Bhaskar, who knows the truth, plays a discrepant role, helping Anand sustain the illusion. Even after death, Anand’s recorded message (maut tu ek kavita hai) ensures that his final impression remains intact — cheerful and life-affirming.
Through Goffman’s lens, Anand’s life becomes a consciously managed performance, designed not to deceive, but to comfort and inspire.
Buy 1984 on Amazon: Click here to get your copy
If you make a purchase through this link, it support us in creating more insightful content—at no extra cost to you!
References
- Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Penguin.
