Reflection

A person’s identity is composed of many things. It is their background, their interest, their dreams, and their goals. It is shaped by how they are raised, the environments they live in, but also by the choices they make in life. Yes, the basic components of identity can be defined, however in the end our identity is what we choose to make it. Personally I don’t think that anyone’s identity is truly formed until the day they die, because until then they are having new experiences and changing their lives every day. I guess the question is what really makes a person’s identity? I’m currently undecided as to what major I may like to pursue in college; I feel as if I’m behind many others in the college process, but this does not affect my identity. I still know who I am – I’m just taking a little longer to decide on a career. I kind of like being undecided because in a way I’m an individual while others are labeled by their school and their major. People majoring in pre- law are labeled as being lawyers – serious critical thinkers who are going to defend the constitution in court. That identity is both chosen and forced upon them.
Goffman also points out that an identity can be a performance. When we toured the Nationals Baseball Park on Wednesday it was very clear that they were giving us a performance. They presented their “history” by talking about everyone but themselves. They are a “young” team so their identity is still not fully developed but they gave us a performance about those who came before them claiming this was who they were. Just maybe it was who they are hoping to be! I felt as if they were trying to adopt their past achievements in order to add inspiration to those who came to the field conveying the message of “one day realities”. The thing to think about though is how are they going to achieve that identity or are they going to spend their years putting on a performance?

reflections 8.30.09

The problem I have in discussing identity is that I really don't know who I am just yet, and that really angers me. Turning nineteen in October, is it normal for me to have no idea what I want to do? We define identity in many ways with many factors that make it up. Identity is a combination of the way people perceive us and how we wish to be perceived, but the problem is I don't yet know how I want to be perceived! There are infinite possibilities of who I can become, but all I want to know is who my true self really is, and why he's so difficult to find.

And how do I go about this? How do I know what to wear, what to say, to what degree I should turn my lip and furl my eyebrows to express the proper emotion? I'm supposed to to do what feels natural, but honestly what the hell is natural? The only conclusion I've drawn in my short existence is to follow instincts and whatever gut reactions I have at a time. From there the thought process analyzes decisions and learns the best methods to get whatever it is I'm looking for. The product of countless equations and conflicts: me. Slowly, I learn my place in society, and the basis of who I want to be, but not necessarily who I am going to be.

I suppose identity really is what we make it to be. It is us who controls how others view us. We make the decisions which guide our life, we decide what we eat and what TV shows appeal to us. Perhaps it's sheer laziness that prevents me from finding who I am just yet, that I haven't tried hard enough looking for the right answers, but I find that difficult to believe. Perhaps it's just life. Though I cannot be sure, I believe eventually we all will discover ourselves, but sometimes I just wish it would happen sooner, I don't want to run out of time.

Week 1 Reflection

The question of identity has always been confusing to me. I always find it annoying and difficult to distinguish between when people are being genuine and when they are just performing. A lot of the time, I think that the world would be a better place if everyone just felt comfortable without performing, but of course this is impossible. Performances can be very good things to hide behind. Even though it is slightly cynical to say that everyone is putting on performances all the time, I think that it would be stupid to think that people are not performing a lot of the time. There are so many social norms and rules that everyone has to follow, performing is necessary some of the time. If people just went around acting and doing everything they wanted to, the world would probably be a very unpleasant place to live in.

Also, if a person's performance makes them feel better about themselves is it really that bad? While watching the movie Don Juan DeMacro this idea really struck me. In the movie, a character, who live in present day New York City, truly believes that he is Don Juan. The man does not hurt anyone by his delusions, he is actually able to bring joy to many people lives, so is it that bad that he talks, dresses, and acts like someone he is not? If a performance or a fake identity is able to bring a person comfort and has a very limited negative effect on others I don't think it is that bad of a thing. Sometimes, performances are just away for a person to become what they want to be.

Reflections August 30

Last year in High School I took a class called Political Theory and our Summer reading book was On Human Nature by Edward Wilson. The book rappels with the pessimism found in human nature (I really wish I had brought my copy of the book down with me) and everyone in my class decided it was very cynical. One idea of his was absolute selfishness, even in the form of altruism, which many people in my class sought conflict and issue with. However, in an essay I wrote on the subject, I argued that in order to create a more perfect society, we must accept and, to an extent, embrace all of human nature's imperfections.
So, linking all that to Goffman, of course at first everyone thinks that the book is dark and cynical, but in reality it really just tries to give its reader more insight into his own actions. Goffman sees specific aspects of human nature, and reports them to us, hoping that in turn we will better know ourselves as a species. Goffman admits in the final chapter that the idea of performances were simply an analogy. Even with this information, the work does still not hold a cynical element; Goffman did what he felt was needed to push a point - to help people better understand themselves so that they might benefit in a social situation. And when did it ever hurt someone to be prepared?

Reflection 8.28

Reading through Goffman for these past two weeks, many have called Goffman and his work, The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, to be cynical. Indeed, by depicting social interaction as a series of performances, one may conclude that Goffman views human interaction as a sham, an insincere business used only for personal gain and satisfying our egos.
The problem with this assertion, however, is that Goffman's work is meant as an informative academic work rather than an opinion piece. In the book's preface, Goffman writes:

I mean this report to serve as a sort of handbook detailing one sociological perspective from which social life can be studied[.]

Rather than defend his work as the absolute authority on human interactions, Goffman maintains that his is but one of many "sociological perspective[s]" that can be considered.
As to the books unsettling metaphors, many interpretations exist. Each of us behaves differently around other people-we would not act the same way in front of our professors as we would on a Saturday night out on the town-but we do not actively seek to fool those whom we interact with. Each of the fronts that we put on throughout our lives, in front of different people and groups, may not be the true representation of who we are, but put together, when it comes to our character, they truly are a part of it.

Question One

As Goffman states many times, almost everything in life is a performance. I agree with his idea that, for the most part, whenever people are around other people they are not completely themselves. I also agree with him that even in a situation as solemn as a funeral a performance is taking place to some extent. In theory, I don't believe that what Goffman is saying is disrespectful, because during funerals, a fair amount of performing is going on. People are expected to dress and act a certain way, and many traditions occur that could be seen as performances. In some cases, I am sure that people fake or exaggerate their emotions in order to act like they are supposed to, but it would be very inappropriate and disrespectful for Goffman to go to a funeral and tell everyone that they are simply putting on a performance. This would definitely detract from the solemnity of the event, but I do not think that stating it in a non-funeral situation is all that offensive. I think in many cases, Goffman associates things that are normal human emotions and reactions with performances because they are so common.

From my personal experience, I find the idea of a funeral a little strange. I had my first real experience with death earlier this year when I had a grandma and grandpa pass away within a week of each other. In many ways, all of the actions that took place and all of the things I needed to do did almost feel like a performance, especially because I was going through two funerals at relatively the same time. The idea of repeating the same emotions, dress and procedure for every person who dies might seem like a performance, but I think that when the funeral is actually occurring, the majority of people are only expressing their feeling in the way that society has given them.

A thought to Ponder

Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, p. 101:

For example, during the showing of the body at a funeral home, usually the social setting and all participants, including both the bereaved team and the establishment's team, will be arranged so as to express their feelings for the deceased and their ties to him; he will be the center of the show and the dramatically dominant participant in it. However, since the bereaved are inexperienced and grief-laden, and since the star of the show must stay in character as someone who is in a deep sleep, the undertaker himself will direct the show, although he may all the while be self-effacing in the presence of the corpse or be in another room of the etsablishment getting ready for another showing.

There is admittedly something odd, I think, about treating a solemn event like a funeral as a performance. But this oddness might be revealing, so to speak, even though it might also be taken as disrespectful. So the question is: in this case, which is it? Is Goffman's treatment of this and other social occasions revealing, or disrespectful?

As a suggestion, consider reflecting on some important and solemn occasion in which you have participated, and applying Goffman's performance metaphor to it. Does that detract from the solemnity of the occasion?