Reflection #1

During class we spoke about the word 'identity'. I think that identity is what makes someone or something unique. Your identity is who you are internally and externally. I was born into a Roman Catholic family and even though I guess it was chosen for me, I love it and I identify myself as a Roman Catholic. I remember in my First Communion classes, the first thing you learn to say is, 'I am special. I am a child of God.' This is what comes to my mind every time someone asks that question, 'Who are you?'.

What we realised in class is that Goffman doesn't focus on those aspects of a person that are special to each one of us. He gives general theories about people and, therefore, some of them appear to be cynical. I have to say though that I agree with his idea that everything we do is a performance. It sounds as though he's trying to say that we are pretending to be something that we're not, but I think it's that we either consciously or unconsciously want to make a certain impression on those around us.

When we wake up in the morning, we decide what we're going to wear for the day and lots of thoughts go through our heads like: Where am I going? Who am I going to see? By the time we decide on an outfit at least a minor part of it is based on the image that you would like to present.

Goffman is cynical if you look at the way he generalises his ideas about people but his theories do make a lot of sense. As I read the book, examples from everyday life come to mind which just goes to show that Goffman's theories do exist.

Professor Jackson left us with an interesting question during our last discussion...

 

"Is Goffman a cynic?"

It's hard to say what Goffman's intentions were while writing The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, but I think there are definitely some cynical aspects to him and some aspects that aren't as cynical. 

Goffman definitely generalizes about different classes of people and talks about them as if a certain behavior is common among all the people in that specific group. For instance, he brings up the men vs. women example throughout the book and although the book was written in the 50's, it seems as though he has something against women. He talks a lot about how women put up a front with men, sometimes acting dumb or asking for help when they really don't need it. In this way, I think Goffman can be seen as a cynic because he puts women in a negative light and generalizes about their behavior. I'm sure not all women in the 50's behaved in the same way. 

However, although he does generalize about women, I think he brings up a good point. There are definitely women out there who put up a certain front to be viewed in a specific way. I saw it all the time in high school and I still see it today. Some women, in search for attention, do put up a front that will attract this kind of attention. In this way, Goffman is simply commenting on what he's experienced and may not mean it in a cynical way. 

I don't think I really think Goffman is either cynical or not cynical. Depending on how you view the way he writes, it can be taken either way. I think I am still a little torn in how to interpret his writing. A lot of the times, it's the intial shock what what he says that makes me think he's cynical, but if i take a step back and ask why Goffman wrote a particular point, it sometimes seems less cynical and more a reflection of what he's observed. 

Reflection: "Why do you think Don Octavio DeFlores is Dr. Mickler?"

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life was an interesting book to read, seeing as how we are newly moved-in freshmen with the obvious desire to make friends and be accepted. I thought that most of Goffman's points were right on track, as embarrassingly revealing as they may have been. Take it from someone who overthinks everything, I don't think there was much I hadn't already reflected upon myself in this book. Maintaining a mask can be crucial sometimes.

Comparing Goffman's ideas to these first couple of weeks of school, I think a lot of the fronts that people maintain comes from the insecurity of a new environment. When you don't know people, you don't know which mask to put on, and that's part of the fear. You don't want to accidentally offend someone. But the more you get to know people, the more you know how these new people will react to the things you say and do. I see it less as a performance, and more like trial and error.

We watched the movie Don Juan DeMarco last night, which, to our dismay, we related back to Goffman. Don Juan (Johnny Depp) has two very distinct masks. One, that he is the world's greatest lover, and the other, that he is an obsessive suicidal man. As the movie progresses and Don Juan recounts his tale to Dr. Mickler (Marlon Brando), it becomes more and more difficult to discern between which story is the truth: Is he a great romancer or a schizophrenic patient?

While this is an obviously caricatured example of putting on a mask (in Don Juan's case, both literally and symbolically), it asserts the point that we put on masks to suit our needs, and in some cases, to protect ourselves. As Don Juan states, seeing everything for just how it is, is an "unimaginative way of looking at the situation."

Hopefully no one has masks as drastic as Don Juan's, but everyone has contradicting masks to a certain extent. I can relate from experience that in high school I had teachers that I would be casual and talkative to, and others with whom I only spoke very seriously. I had friends that I would go to the Nutcracker with, and friends that I would go to the playground with. These fronts are all a part of me, but they certainlly can't be displayed at the same time.

Waiting for Goffman

Is Goffman a cynic? Of course, most realists are, however, the extent to which this cynicism appears callous derives from the nature of writing a persuasive book. A funeral, a wedding, and a birthday party are all performances to a certain extent, even those who are the "actors" would likely concede this point. However, the performance aspect, that which portrays the actors' love for their deceased friend, married couple, or aging relative, is only part of a larger celebration of life or selfless expression of love that is inherent in the human psyche.

It is possible that I misunderstand Goffman to some extent, but for every person who goes to a funeral or other event of mourning or celebration, there are at least to driving forces to their attendance and interaction. The first, though not necessarily the most important, is Goffman's theory of presenting a social front of mourning, love, or happiness to show those around your care for the soul in question. However, the stronger force at work here is a more pure one; it is the innate human will to be caring, and hence to visit the deceased, celebrate with the wedded, and acknowledge the passage of time along with aging companions. This personal desire to do good, even if no one is watching, is something that Goffman overlooks (though social Darwinist theorists have often struggled with it).

So there is something rather cynical about how Goffman presents his material, but, as I stated before, he has a reason: in writing a persuasive piece, it is not his prerogative, but rather that of the reader, to study the alternatives to his theories that are not in direct conflict. As Goffman has not mentioned what I have earlier, neither has he exactly refuted it. The cynicism of human nature lies in a certain degree of absence in discussion thereabout.

Funerals and Thespians

Is Goffman's treatment of this and other social occasions revealing, or disrespectful?

In my current sleep-deprived state, I am more than usually inclined to be terribly offended by Goffman's implication that a funeral is no more than a performance, however, I feel that, in this case especially, he is more revealing than disrespectful.

As Goffman has said himself, a truly memorable and believable performance is better staged by an actor slightly detached from what is happening, so as to gain perspective. The funeral director, in this case, would make a perfect candidate. He is professional, having presented and mourned over the deceased so consistently, and is therefore capable of presenting his grief in a way that the true mourners would find most acceptable.

Being someone who seldom expresses grief on a highly visible scale, I can relate to the struggles faced by both family and institution in giving the deceased the funeral that he or she deserves. Serving as a pall bearer for my grandmother's funeral with little idea of what was actually passing, I simply attempted to act as the other family members and friends expected me to: I kept silent and with downcast eyes. Christian and societal prerequisites had already eliminated any potential for organic mourning or what could be considered inappropriate jubilance in the potential celebration of an extraordinary life. Therefore, these expectations and prerequisites had already transformed the original mourning into the monotonous ceremony that society guarantees will bring closure. In short, it was already a performance.

Though I would never hint at it at a funeral, I believe that Goffman, through the most sensitive media at his disposal, has made a startling revelation in relation to the inner workings of funerals. What is suggested is not as insensitive as it initially appears, but is, in fact, the only viable option for the mourners and funeral director to create closure for the deceased in a socially acceptable way.

Afterthought:

Other examples that strengthen Goffman's view can be found in celebrity funerals and more ritual-based funerals found in Chinese and other cultures. The extremes of performace and flare, which does not serve to return any vivacity to the deceased or comfort to his/her family, can be clearly discerned as a performance to gain the acceptance and support of the more general public.

Stone me if you want, but I think that Ronald Reagan's funeral is the single biggest modern example of this idea:

Six Feet Under .... My thoughts on funerals

My first blog post EVER! =)

http://profptj.blogspot.com/

After reading some of the blogs on other groups, I realised that many people think that Goffman is being quite disrespectful. I guess that technically it is a bit depressing to think that people do stage funerals but I've seen it happen.

I've been singing in a church choir for many years and we've been asked to sing for lots of funerals and weddings. My mother actually doesn't like weddings because of how they seem to be like performances and I think some funerals tend to be like that as well.

Our choir members usually don't know the family well, so when we arrive at the church I would put on a sort of passive expression because you don't want to look too happy. So in a way, my choir is part of the performance. I think this applies to most of the people who are attending the funeral.

If we look at the ones who are mourning the loss of their friend/relative, they sometimes put on a show as well. People become so concerned with the impression they leave on the guests that they come up with a perfect program. This is evident in the eulogies which are pre-written and usually only comment on the deceased person's good attributes. I do not mean to say that the family member's are not genuinely mourning the loss of a relative but the point I am trying to make is that they do in fact end up putting on a show for the crowd, whether they know it or not.

I compare Goffman's theory of the group performance to most weddings. Weddings are lovely but nearly all are staged. The couple picks a special Bible reading (if it's a religious wedding), the best outfits, flowers and some even invent their own traditions.

I hope you enjoy this example =) I know I did!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

So overall I think that Goffman knows what he's talking about and even though his theory might

not apply to a funeral you've been to.... that event is probably the exception and not the rule.

Funerals as performances

Last year I lost my grandfather to Alzheimer's disease, and it became the first funeral I had ever been to. Looking around, everyone was crying, myself included. The way in which Goffman describes the funeral as a performance isn't necessarily offensive, but I don't think it's accurate. When I think of a performance, I think of people acting and I don't believe anyone at this particular funeral was acting. Their emotions were real and involuntary. He also mentions the deceased person as "the star of the show". This comment does sound a bit offensive because it makes the fact that the person is dead almost a positive thing. The "star of the show" is dead, so that should be a bad thing. How can someone who is dead even be the star of a show? 

Question 1 - On Goffman's Funerals and Tuxedos at Football Games

You can't walk into a funeral laughing. You just don't do that.

There's no disrespect in the truth: The idea of a funeral being a performance is, for the most part, true (How many times do you hear people say "I'm so sorry for your loss"?). Although no one really knows how to act at a funeral, which is why it seems so scripted. Except for the immediate family/friends, people are sad but not sad enough. Because it's sort of like a double edged sword: You can't be more sad than the people who knew the deceased better than you, but you can't just act like it's ok. Most people really are sad when someone dies. It's not their feelings and intentions that are performed and forced, but their actions. People say "I'm so sorry for your loss" because they don't know what else is appropriate to say.

I've lost grandparents, and been to funerals where I couldn't hold it together, but I also remember one weird night when I was younger. My dad broke the news to me that my great uncle (whom I had never known particularly well) had passed away. Still--and I remember this exactly--my first thought was, immediately, "Cry." And then I sobbed. I didn't even really know him, but I felt like it was the right thing to do.

I think for most occasions where many people are coming together for an organized event, there's a certain air that's meant to be maintained. Maybe it's in the fact that it's organized, and therefore actions are organized, too. But who can argue that everyone at a wedding should be happy and celebrating? That funerals are for mourning and not cynicism, speeches are formal and attentive, and sporting events are loud and rowdy? No one wants to see someone angry and upset at a wedding, and no one wants to see a tuxedo at a football game.