User:Cja02c/FrontStage

Front Stage:

Front Stage is a term in the study of sociology that Erving Goffman used to describe a particular aspect of personal perceptions and interactions of the self and self-images, as describes by sociologist Erving Goffman. Goffman’s view of social interaction was heavily based on the ideas of dramaturgy, which “view of social life as a series of dramatic performances akin to those performed in the theatre.” Therefore, people are referred to as actors and audiences and the Front Stage is what provides the actual setting for actors and their performances.4

Contents: Erving Goffman Characteristics Performances Setting Personal Front Critics Goffman’s Other Works References

Erving Goffman:

In his most important and influential work, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life published in 1959, symbolic interactionalist Erving Goffman defines his concept and structure of the self with a significant focus on metaphorical dramaturgy. Through his theatrical analogies, Goffman explains how the self is comprised of two separate parts, the “all-to-human” self and the socialized self. Goffman indicates that this is results from the differences between what we may do spontaneously and what people expect us to do. Goffman emphasizes that people perform for their social audiences, in order to maintain their self image.4

Performances: Goffman uses the term "performance" to refer to all the activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence before a particular set of observers and which has some influence on the observers. The Front then, is “that part of the individual's performance which regularly functions in a general and fixed fashion to define the situation for those who observe the performance.”2

The Setting: Goffman divides the setting into two parts. “First, there is the "setting," involving furniture, decor physical layout, and other background items which supply the scenery and stage props for the spate of human action played out before, within, or upon it. A setting tends to stay put, geographically speaking, so that those who would use a particular setting as part of their performance cannot begin their act until they have brought themselves to the appropriate place and must terminate their performance when they leave it.”2 George Ritzer describes, “for example, a surgeon requires and operating room, lawyer a courtroom, and a taxi driver a cab.”4

The Personal Front:

Characteristics such as race, sex, age, office rank, clothes, even bodily gestures like facial expression are defines the actor in the eyes of the audience. According to Goffman, these are “the items that we most intimately identify with the performer himself and that we naturally expect will follow the performer wherever he goes.” Goffman further divides the structure of his theory of the personal front into two points. The first part of the personal front is the appearance, and includes items that are indicative of the actor’s social status. Goffman describes this part of the personal front to “tell us of the individual's temporary ritual state, that is, whether he is engaging in formal social activity, work, or informal recreation, whether or not he is celebrating a new phase in the season cycle or in his life-cycle.” The second part of the personal front is called the manner. “Manner tells the audience what sort of role the performer expects to play in the situation.”4 Manner can be interpreted as the confidence or lack there of, of the actor portrayed through facial expressions and bodily gestures.

The Front Stage is an extremely important aspect of Goffman’s metaphorical performances because he felt that people generally wanted to portray themselves in the most idealized way. This in turn, led to his argument that actors must conceal and hide certain characteristics of themselves during their performances that may compromise their image in the perceptions of the audience. For example, a teacher may want to hide the fact that they spent hours preparing for a lecture, in order for their audience to believe they have always known this and are highly intellectual on the material. In Ritzer’s Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots, several more instances where Goffman’s actors feel they must hide things in their performances.

Critics:

There have been numerous scholarly responses to this view of Goffman, that his work is heavily influenced by his idea that the fear of embarrassment is a significant factor of human interaction. According to Michael Schudson, “Goffman presents a creature guided more by what it would avoid than by what it would attain, not a maximizer of gain but a minimizer of risk...human beings are completely dependent on how others view them that they avoid at all costs the dashing, or even dimpling, of social expectations.”5 In his essay titled “Appraising Goffman”, Simon Wilson describes Goffman’s use of imagery as viewed by many to be a “sordid, disenchanting view of humans and their society, one marked by both deceit and despair.”6

Goffman’s Other Works:

•	1959: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre. •	1961: Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York, Doubleday. •	1961: Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction - Fun in Games & Role Distance. Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill. •	1963: Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall. •	1967: Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Anchor Books. •	1974: Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row. •	1981: Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Weblinks: Erving Goffman Biography Sociology At Hewett, Goffman's Presentation of Self in Everyday Life Anthrobase Dictionary,Erving Goffman Celebrating Erving Goffman

References: 1. Brown, David K. Goffman's Dramaturgical Sociology: Developing a Meaningful Theoretical Context and Exercise Involving "Embarrassment and Social Organization". Teaching Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 3. (Jul., 2003), pp. 288-299. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0092-055X%28200307%2931%3A3%3C288%3AGDSDAM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H 2. Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. 1959, Doubleday. New York.

3. Manning, Phil. Drama as Life: The Significance of Goffman's Changing Use of the Theatrical Metaphor. Sociological Theory, Vol. 9, No. 1. (Spring, 1991), pp. 70-86. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0735-2751%28199121%299%3A1%3C70%3ADALTSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-

4. Ritzer, George. Contemporary Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. 2003, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New York, New York

5. Schudson, Michael.Embarrassment and Erving Goffman's Idea of Human Nature.Theory and Society, Vol. 13, No. 5. (Sep., 1984), pp. 633-648. Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0304-2421%28198409%2913%3A5%3C633%3AEAEGIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

6. Williams, Simon. Appraising Goffman. The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37, No. 3. (Sep., 1986), pp. 348-369. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-1315%28198609%2937%3A3%3C348%3AAG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z