Vibes Are Sacred and Awkwardness Is Heresy

You know the moment. A group chat flares alive, five people typing at once, the jokes stacking like glasses at a wedding. Someone drops a meme at the exact right second. Someone else replies with the exact right emoji. The thread acquires velocity. You feel it in your chest - not happiness exactly, more like synchronization. A warm click of belonging.

Durkheim would call that sacred.

Not sacred like incense and stained glass. Sacred like electricity in a crowd. Sacred like a stadium chant. Sacred like the sudden conviction that the group is more real than you are, and that your job is to keep the current running.

Goffman would lean in and whisper: yes, and look at the performance. Look at the face-work. Look at the tiny rituals by which you avoid shame the way medieval villagers avoided plague. (Different germs, same fear.)

Our age has not lost religion. It has redistributed it into vibes.

Vibes as the New Sacred

Durkheim’s big move was to say that the sacred is not primarily about gods. It is about boundaries. Sacred things are set apart, charged, protected by taboo. The sacred is what the group treats as untouchable, even when it pretends to be casual.

In a modern social scene, what is untouchable?

The vibe.

You can insult a policy. You can debate a movie. You can admit you are broke. But kill the vibe and watch the room stiffen. Someone says something too intense, too earnest, too sharp, too personal. The air changes. The music seems louder. Drinks become interesting. People check their phones with sudden devotion. A minor excommunication begins.

The vibe functions like the sacred because it organizes the social world into permissible and impermissible. It produces an emotional map: what can be said, what must be softened, what must be disguised as a joke. It creates a shared reality where the worst sin is not lying or cruelty. The worst sin is awkwardness.

And once you see it, you see it everywhere. Friend groups. Work meetings. Dates. Family dinners. The sacred object is not truth. The sacred object is smoothness.

Durkheim had a phrase for the felt energy that binds people together in ritual: collective effervescence. In the past, it rose through chanting and prayer. Now it rises through synchronized banter, shared references, and the subtle intoxication of being inside the joke. The group becomes a small god, and everyone offers sacrifices to keep it pleased - little laughs, little nods, little strategic silences. (If you have ever laughed at something you did not find funny, congratulations, you have participated in a rite.)

Awkwardness as Profanation

Goffman helps here because he treats social life as theater. Not in the cynical sense that everyone is fake, but in the practical sense that everyone manages impressions. You carry a face, you maintain it, you help others maintain theirs. Politeness is not mere nicety. It is infrastructure.

Every interaction has an unwritten script, and the script’s job is to prevent embarrassment from leaking into the open like a gas. When the script breaks, you don’t just feel discomfort. You feel moral panic. You rush to repair it. You change the subject. You make a joke. You pretend you did not notice. You look for the exit like a worshipper searching for a hymn book.

This is where Durkheim and Goffman shake hands. The sacred is what must be protected. The performance is how it is protected.

Awkwardness is profanation. It is the moment someone brings the wrong kind of real into the room.

Someone asks a question that is too direct. Someone speaks in paragraphs when the vibe demands one-liners. Someone names the tension everyone agreed not to name. It feels like an offense because it is one. Not against logic, but against the social order. The profane is not obscenity. The profane is sincerity in a space that runs on implication.

Think of how quickly we invent euphemisms to avoid the profane. I am just checking in. I just wanted to circle back. No worries at all. We use phrases like blankets, thrown over the nakedness of need. We are not only communicating. We are cushioning the sacred vibe against the hard edges of reality.

So when people say modern life is disenchanted, they are half right. The old enchantments are gone. The new ones are just faster, smaller, and portable.

The gods did not die. They learned to travel light.

Three Headline Hooks to Start the Fight

If you want to write this article with a snap, your headlines need to do what the vibe does - pull people into a shared attention field, then twist the knife. Here are three options that work as openings or section headers:

1. The New Sacred Is Not God - It Is Vibes
   Why it works: It breaks expectation with a clean substitution. Simple words, high claim, instant friction.

2. Awkward Silence Is a Modern Sin
   Why it works: It names a feeling everyone recognizes, then frames it as moral, not psychological. That shift is the hook.

3. Group Chats Are Rituals and You Are Their Priest
   Why it works: It upgrades the mundane into the mythic. It flatters and accuses at once, which is the best bait.

Pick one, and the rest of the essay can spiral out: the vibe as sacred object, the chat as ceremony, the meme as hymn, the emoji as incense.

And then the punch.

The punch is this: the opposite of anomie is not community. It is choreography.

We do not suffer today because we have no shared meaning. We suffer because meaning has been reduced to maintaining the room temperature of the group.

So ask yourself, in the next conversation, the next meeting, the next thread where everyone is being pleasantly nothing: what are you protecting?

The bond - or the performance?

Because one of them can survive truth. The other cannot.

And if you ever want to find the sacred in the modern world, do not look for altars.

Listen for the moment someone says something real, and everyone laughs a beat too late.

Meaning of Goffman"s Presentation of Self Explained

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life is one of the most important works of the Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman . In it, the bases of the dramaturgical approach to everyday life are developed , according to which the best way to understand the social interaction that takes place in everyday life is through the metaphor of a theatrical performance. 

Goffman assumes that when we show ourselves to other people we try to convey - consciously or unconsciously - a certain impression about ourselves. For this we interpret the role we want to convey. Thus all social interaction is a performance created for the audience.

Goffman uses the entire arsenal terminological of the world of the theater: The action takes place on a stage ( stage ), which determines largely the work (are very different behavioral patterns in a church and a nightclub); the work is prepared in the racks ( backstage ) (eg the mirror being tested facial expressions ); the actors use it to make their role, appropriate costumes and props more credible (Goffman uses the example of the symbolic force that the white coat and the stethoscope have in the relationship between doctor and patient).

According to Goffman, when we enter a situation, certain information about ourselves helps us define the scene, allowing the "audience" to decipher what to expect and how to react during said interaction. In short: we "express" ourselves as actors to make an "impression" on our audience. If the situations must be defined, there must be an agreement between the interlocutors, which is carried out through consensus. The moral character of the actor demonstrated during the first impression is crucial for the acceptance and definition of the scene: you must be who you say you are. That is why when an individual presents himself to others, he wants to control the impression they receive. 

See also: 

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

Erving Goffman - Stigma and Social Identity (part 2, part 3)

On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction (part 2)

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory is mainly based on the understanding between people and on a common interpretation of symbols and stimuli (see Symbolic Interaction). Thus, for example, members of the same culture interpret slang in a similar way, behave according to accepted norms and have expectations in relation to the people with whom they interact. In every interpersonal meeting there is a negotiation about the definition of the situation between all the social players in the situation, with each player trying to impose the desired definition of the situation on the other players by managing the impression he creates.

Impression management consists of all the person's communicative actions, both the conscious (mainly speech) and the unconscious ( body language , intonation). The person tries to create the best impression for him so that he can force the best definition of the situation for him on the other players and therefore on the whole situation.

Since all players perform impression management, the definition of the situation is in constant negotiation between them, and each of them adopts different and alternating impression management strategies, so that in fact they negotiate the definition of the situation and even the type of interaction between them.

In many cases misunderstandings occur between people and the explanation for this is a different interpretation of the symbols or stimuli created during the interaction. A non-uniform interpretation of symbols or occurrences causes the reaction to be different as well.

Goffman likened society to theater and humans to actors, and according to his image interactions take place on stage. The person is a kind of actor who appears on stage and he can put on a mask and through it he will present himself as he wishes. One of the problems that Goffman presented is the gap between the way the actor presents himself, and the way he is perceived by others (the audience). This gap is the basis for misunderstanding and social conflict. This approach advocates that man shapes culture.

Read more: Meaning of Goffman"s Presentation of Self Explained

See also: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman - Stigma and Social Identity (part 2, part 3)

On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction (part 2)

Symbolic interaction - short definition and explanation

Definition: Symbolic interaction is a sociological paradigm that claims that  reality is socially constructed on the basis of interactions between individuals in society, which is based on symbols and interpretation. This is a micro-approach based on the practices of daily life (hence also called: Sociology of daily life ).

The intellectual roots of the approach are found in Georg simmel and to a lesser extent in Max Weber . Simmel, unlike contemporary sociologists, researched the sociology of everyday life. The plane of analysis was not the social structure, culture, social institutions, and so on, but "smaller" events, such as human interactions. He wrote, among other things, about the dyad (the interaction between two people), the triad (three people), about the feelings of the stranger, and more. Weber, too, influenced the theorists of the symbolic interaction approach, especially in his interpretive approach to social reality (as opposed to other classical sociologists who were positivists ).

The symbolic interaction approach developed at the University of Chicago in the early 20th century , culminating in the 1920s (also called the "Chicago School"). The main theorists of the approach were Robert Park , Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead . The Chicago School sank in the 1930s , but continued to exist in later years. The main theorist in those years, and the one who coined the term symbolic interaction , was Herbert Blumer . The last major theorist in this approach was Irving Goffman, Who developed the dramaturgical theory. Goffman greatly influenced the symbolic interaction approach and sociology in general, so that sometimes, when referring to the term "symbolic interaction," one refers to Goffman's dramaturgical theory.

In the 1960s and 1970s , theoretical approaches flourished that, along with symbolic interaction, dealt with the sociology of everyday life. Among them are phenomenology and ethnomethodology .

See also: 

Meaning of Goffman"s Presentation of Self Explained

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman -summary

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

forms of face-work according to Goffman

The basic forms of face work according to Erving Goffman (see On Face-Work for background):

The avoidance process

The simplest way a person can avoid threats to the face he has designed for himself is to avoid situations where such a potential threat exists. He can do this by avoiding providing information that does not fit the "line" he is taking. That is, he will try to change the subject. He may also suppress his emotions, until he knows which line he is expected to take. These are "defensive" maneuvers to preserve the face. Other types of maneuvers are "conservative" maneuvers. Respect and politeness for example. These are designed to preserve the face of the other in the social interaction to avoid threatening the face of the person himself.

When a person fails in the avoidance process, he or she may act as if nothing has happened, or as if the injury is meaningless to him or her. Thus he deceives himself and the environment that no significant harm has occurred. In mental hospitals this is most evident when patients themselves treat repeated injuries to their own face and those of their environment in equanimity, while their critics react with despair. The inability to wear a mask properly in fact does not allow a person to exist in a normative society.

 

The repair process

When the mask that the person builds for himself is damaged, he enters a process whose essence is to repair the effect. This is expressed in statements  such as "sorry", or "definitely, I agree with what you said". The repair process consists of four steps: a challenge - accepting responsibility for the injury, a suggestion - offering to try to reduce the intensity of the injury (“it was a joke, don’t take me seriously), acceptance - when the victim receives the gesture, and thank you - the final step. These stages are part of the rituals of interpersonal relationships in social interactions.

 

Earn points - Aggressive use of face work

Another form of ritual in the process of maintaining the face is expressed according to Goffman in what can be called "accumulating points". When a person knows for example that when he behaves modestly people may praise him, he may "fish compliments" in this way. This is how a person maneuvers the environment in order to best preserve his face. Thus a person may also for example manipulate others into feeling guilty about what they did or did not do to him, through wearing a particular mask. It is actually a type of game where each side tries to preserve its face in the best way according to the circumstances by accumulating as many symbolic "points" as possible.

 

Collaboration in face-work

Cooperation can take place for example when some of those present at the social gathering feel the danger threatening one of their faces. They may prevent the injury by using implicit communication which means: "The line you are taking is not appropriate… You are about to lose your mask - you need to be careful". This may be done in implicit or indirect gestures, even in a non-verbal way.

 

The ceremonial functions of the self

So far we are talking about two planes of the self according to Goffman: the line - which is the pattern of behavior that a person chooses at any given moment, and the face - which are the way in which the pattern of behavior he adopts is reflected in every social interaction according to the environment. When separated, no significant damage is done to the face because these two components overlap, ie, it must be located within a certain line - a ritual known to all around and defined by the environment and the face is not damaged if they do not risk belonging to one line or another. But, whenever a person connects a line to a face - his self will have a role - a ceremonial role.

 

Face and social relations

Much of the activity that takes place in social gatherings can be interpreted by Goffmanas an attempt on the part of all present to go through the event in peace. Greeting hello, for example, provides an effective way to suppress hostility on the part of those present, so that they can momentarily drop the barriers between them and speak. Farewell greetings summarize the events in the meeting and their nature reflects the way in which the next meeting is expected to take place. In fact, blessings of peace and parting are an effective ceremonial way to avoid direct injury to the face. This is because they "soften" the ground before the interaction in the social encounter.

 

The nature of ceremonial arrangements

In conclusion, it can be said that in fact beneath the cultural differences, people everywhere are in fact the same. In all societies, people must adapt to the universal norms dictated by social encounters while wearing masks. The way to do this is by performing repetitive ceremonial actions while keeping the face in changing social situations. It is interesting to think that this universal human nature, is in fact inhuman in nature. In fact, when a person wears a mask, he is doing a mechanical action. It does not reveal its essence as a person, but presents a mask that reflects moral rules and social norms. In fact, according to Goffman, the moral rules that make a person human are a product of the requirement to observe the rituals of social encounters.

see more by Goffman

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Stigma

Symbolic Interaction

These might interest you:

  

Goffman on Face-Work - detailed summary

Goffman, Erving. (1967/1999). On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction

Goffman's article about face-work examines the ceremonial gestures that people use when interacting face to face. Goffman argues that in situations where interpersonal communication takes place face-to-face, human beings function as actors in a play, in an attempt to preserve their image in the eyes of the "audience" around them.

For Goffman a person's social world is made up of countless social encounters (see also Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life). These require him to take a certain "line": that is, a pattern of verbal or non-verbal gestures by which he expresses his view of any given situation, and through which he expresses his appreciation towards those around him and towards himself. The term "face" (or mask for that matter) refers to the way a person conducts himself according to the "line" he assumes the environment believes he has taken. For example: a person presents his profession, or religion, in a good way (his "line") by presenting his self (his "face") in a good way.

The person responds emotionally in an immediate way to every social encounter. His feelings become part of the mask he has formed for himself. If the events shape his "face" better than he imagined he would probably feel good, and vice versa. In fact, it is the mask that shapes a person's emotional world. The rules in each social group and the definition of the situation, are what dictate how much emotion the person will experience towards his own mask, and how much emotion he will choose to share with his environment in order to preserve the image that the mask creates.

Sometimes, a person may find himself in a situation where he uses a "wrong face", i.e. ones that do not fit with the "line" dictated to him by his environment. This may happen when he is caught without having prepared such a "line" in advance, and therefore has not formed for himself a mask worthy of the given situation. When a person is in the "right face" for the given situation, he feels self-confident. This is because he feels he is taking exactly the "line" that the environment expects him to be on.

The combination of self-respect and consideration for others that the person adopts in social encounters obliges him to take an approach that will preserve both his mask and the masks of those around him. That is, in social interaction all those present should preserve both their personal image and that of their friends. This reciprocity is the basis for all interpersonal communication, especially in face-to-face speech.

It should be understood that wearing the mask is not a "natural" state of man, but a state that can be called a "working state". This is because the norm of social gatherings is not based on the mutual acceptance of each person as a person, but on a temporary situation, which requires the maintenance of clear rules that will allow for the proper conduct of society. Maintaining the mask is not the essence of social interaction. It is only the tool that man uses in order to conduct himself in the best way. In parallel, it can be said that learning how to wear a mask is actually learning the "rules of motion" of social interaction.

go to part 2 of the summary on the forms of face work

see also Stigma by Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

These might interest you:

  

Excellent Summary: Stigma and Social Identity by Erving Goffman

Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity - ‎Erving Goffman – summary part 1

Abstract of Summary: Goffman's article is a review of the subject of the stigma. Goffman develops by defining the concept of stigma, and related concepts. He then describes ways in which a stigmatized person may behave, and the results of mixed encounters (between stigmatized and normal). And then discusses two types of knowers - people who do not have a stigma but are sympathetic to those with stigma. In addition, he discusses the moral development of the stigma holder, and describes four different patterns of socialization of the stigma holder created by the moral development.

 

Stigma and social identity

The Greeks coined the term stigma, to denote bodily hallmarks, declaring that their subject is an invalid person who has perpetrated according to practice, and should be avoided. Today the term is used in a similar sense, but is attributed to the disgrace itself, rather than to its physical testimony.

 

Preliminary concepts

According to Goffman, society creates means for classifying people. When a stranger appears, the first glance may make it possible to predict his "social identity." The claims that are presented "in practice" and attribute characteristics to a person in a potential retrospective, are called actual social identity. The classification that can be seen to have actually been called the real social identity.

When there are undesirable characteristics that contradict our stereotypes in relation to what a particular type of individual is supposed to be, and causes a reduction in the value of multi-characterization, it is a stigma (contrast between social-power-of-power and actual-social-identity).

In the term stigma (and its synonyms) there are two options:

The condition of the one whose value was reduced.

The condition of the one whose value may be reduced.

 

All of these types have the same sociological features:

An individual, who might have been easily accepted by ordinary social contact, has a trait that can make him stand out and keep away from those who meet him, weakening the claim placed on him by his other characteristics.

Ourselves and those who do not deviate negatively from normal sincere expectations.

“Normal” people practice various discriminations that reduce the life opportunities of the stigmatized subject, creating a stigma theory that would explain its inferiority and the danger it represents.

A distinction must be made between fulfilling a norm and supporting it only - here the question of the stigma does not arise, but only where there is a certain expectation on all sides that those in a given category should fulfill a certain norm and not just support it.

It is also possible according to Goffman that an individual will not be able to fulfill what is demanded of him and yet will not be harmed by it - even though he carries a stigma, is not impressed or regrets it.

In America today, however, the individual with the stigma seems to tend to adhere to the same beliefs as us in relation to his identity. Self-hatred and cancellation can only arise when he and the mirror are around.

According to Goffman the main feature of the stigma of the individual with the stigma is "acceptance" - he does not receive the respect that was expected of him due to his social identity, and he responds as an echo to this negative by believing that some of his characteristics do justify it.

 

The ways in which a person with a stigma reacts to his condition:

A.  direct attempt to correct what he sees as the objective basis of his deficiency (for example plastic surgery).

B. Attempt to improve his condition indirectly by devoting a great deal of personal effort to taking over areas of activity, which are generally considered closed to a person with a disability, physical reasons or liability.

C. Disengagement from what is called reality, and stubbornly trying to use an unacceptable interpretation of the nature of his social identity.

Next part of Goffman's Stigma- summary

See also: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

These might interest you:

Stigma and Social Identity by Erving Goffman – summary part 2

Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity - ‎Erving Goffman – summary part 2 (part 1 here)

The person with the stigma may use his stigma for "secondary gains," as an excuse for failure. He may also see a blessing disguised in the anguish he went through because of the feeling that suffering can teach the sufferer the essence of life. Similarly, it can lead to a reassessment of the limitations of the normal.

The reactions of the normal and of the stigmatized are those that can occur for continuous periods of time, or in isolation from regular contact. Goffman is interested in "mixed moments" - the moments in which stigmatized and normal people are in the same "social situation", meaning that there is an immediate physical presence of both.

The very predictable possibility of such contacts may cause normal and stigmatized people to organize life in such a way as to avoid such encounters, and this is likely to be more detrimental to stigmatized people.

 

When they meet, both parties will have to face the causes and consequences of the stigma directly.

The person with stigma may feel insecure about how normal people will recognize and accept him, and feel that the usual method of interpreting everyday events has been undermined as his achievements may be interpreted depending on the circumstances as signs of considerable and noteworthy ability. At the same time he feels that tiny failures may be interpreted as an expression of his stigma-marked variance. When the stigma of the stigma is visual, he may feel that being present among the normal exposes him to an invasion of his privacy. Goffman argues that an individual with the visible stigma has special reasons for feeling that mixed social situations tend to have frightening and unrestrained interactions.

As a result, the attention of both parties may secretly withdraw from its social goals, and "self-awareness" and "post-awareness" occur, manifested in a pathology of interaction difficulties.

 

Belonging and knowing

As stated, according to Goffman the gap between the possible and actual alienation of the individual may cause his detachment from society and himself. However, he will usually find that there are others who support him: 

1.The partners in his stigma - among them the stigma holder can use his disadvantage as a basis for organizing life. On the other hand, he may find that the stories of his fellow sufferers bore him. Whether or not the stigma owners crystallize into the community, there may be agents who have represented the stigma and will have the support of the stigma owners. Most often these agents will serve as spokespersons and representatives before a public of normals.

2.The knowers - normal people whose special situation made them know the secret of the life of those who have the stigma and relate to the,. Well-known people are the borderline people, in front of whom no maimed individual should feel ashamed or exercise self-control. Types of person who knows:

A. a person whose knowledge comes from working in an institution, who takes care of the needs of those with a certain stigma (like doctors).

B. a person associated with a stigma through the social structure - a relationship that causes the wider society to relate in some ways to both people (like spouses). For the most part, the tendency of the stigma to spread from the individual with the stigma to those close to him, is the reason why these connections are avoided.

Those who know (those with a stigma of respect) can understand both the person with the stigma (referring to the stigma as a natural thing) and regular people (in his willingness to carry a burden that is not his own he imposes excessive morality).

Next part of the summary>

See also: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

These might interest you:

  

Stigma and Social Identity by Erving Goffman – summary part 3

Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity - ‎Erving Goffman – summary part 3 (part 1 here, , part 2 here)

Stigma and moral development

Moral development according to Goffman is both a cause and effect of being stigmatized by a sequence of personal adaptations. One stage in this process of socialization is the stage through which the person with the stigma learns and directs the point of view of the normal, and thereby acquires the views of the wider society in relation to his identity, and a general concept as to what it is like to have a certain stigma. Reveals that he has a stigma. The combination of these two stages in moral development creates according to Goffman different patterns of socialization:

1.A pattern that includes those who have an innate stigma - connecting into their inferior state while learning, and internalizing the standards from which they fall.

2.A pattern that stems from the ability of a family (and to a lesser extent a neighborhood) to transform itself into a body that protects its young members. Such a framework can protect a child with a birth stigma. The moment in life when the home circle can no longer protect the individual will cause a moral experience as soon as it occurs.

3.A pattern exemplified by someone who becomes stigmatized later in life or who discovers it later - this person is likely to have difficulty redefining himself.

4.A pattern exemplified by those who are connected in the first place in a foreign community, and therefore must learn through a second existence which is perceived by those around them as the true and valid way.

In a person's attachment to his category, which has the stigma, there is a built-in ambivalence. As a result, there may be fluctuations in his support of those who belong to him. There will be "cycles of engagement" through which he will learn to accept the special opportunities of group participation or to reject them after he has already received them. There will also be parallel fluctuations in belief in the nature of the affiliation group, and in the nature of regular people.

The attitude of the stigma holder towards the informal community and the official institutions of its kind, can be a sign of a big difference between those who are different from the group and those who find themselves part of a well-organized community.

When the stigmatized individual reviews his own moral development, he can select and process, in retrospect, the experiences that are implied to him as an explanation for his contemporary practices in relation to his peers and group. Thus the event in life may have a double meaning in relation to the moral development, first as an immediate objective moment to an actual turning point, and later (and also easier to prove) as a means of explaining the present position.

See also: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

These might interest you:

  

Erving Goffman - short summary

Irving Goffman was a Canadian-born American Jewish sociologist. Considered one of the most important sociologists of the 20th century, he is mentioned in one line along with Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and Margaret Mead.

Goffman excelled in qualitative-descriptive social research such as that which characterized major figures in the fields of psychology and social research, in their early years, and did not rely on quantitative processing of findings such as those common today in many areas of the social sciences. His book, published in 1959, "Presenting the Self in Everyday Life," brought him worldwide publicity and has since been published in at least ten languages.

According to this approach, there is no single "truth", but various truths dictated by the way the individual interprets reality. According to which, when we come to conduct social research, we should not look at society as a large group, but examine each situation individually. At the same time, as we examine a particular situation (what is happening on the center of the stage), we need to keep in mind the broader social and cultural context (according to the parable of the theater, wardrobe, or parking lot).

According to Goffman the individual wears and takes off masks all the time. He illustrates this by using the word "person", which comes from the Greek root "persona", which means mask.

Goffman is best known for his contribution to symbolic interaction and role theory. Goffman uses the theatrical metaphor, arguing that humans play roles on different social stages. For example, in the social arena "home" a person can play the role of "father" and behave in a certain way, while in the social arena "workplace" he can play the role of "employee" and behave in a different way.

Goffman Coined the idea of self-presentation: very radical at the time. Was a variant of Interpretative sociology: a sociology of people interpreting and attaching meaning to their world. You are either for agency or structuralism: schism in sociology. Tries to find implicit rules that govern life. Disturbances are used to discover these.

Dramaturgical approach. According to Goffman social life is like a performance: a play enacted on a stage, in front of an audience. Why? Because you want an audience to test your identities (front stage) and teammates with whom you withdraw backstage and can converse casually. Tact: helping people out when people make mistakes. Goffman’s methodology was participant observation, often very deep. Institutions that should deal with madness, criminality or illness often enhance the phenomena they should reduce because within these total institutions only two identities are possible: right and wrong. Goffman’s focus on micro situations makes him lose track of the bigger picture.  

Another contribution of Goffman to the science of sociology is his essay on the subject of totalitarian institutions. In this article, Goffman examines a number of what he calls totalitarian institutions: schools, prisons, military training camps, psychiatric hospitals, and even concentration camps. His main contention is that despite the considerable differences between these institutions, they all have similar characteristics that dictate the behavior of the individual in their limited space. Some interpret the article as a critique not only against psychiatric institutions but against totalitarian regimes wherever they are.

See also: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman

Erving Goffman - Stigma and Social Identity (part 2, part 3)

On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction (part 2)

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

Meaning of Goffman"s Presentation of Self Explained

Summary: The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life by Erving Goffman

"All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts" (William Shakespeare, "As You Like It")

 Erving Goffman's "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" takes a dramaturgical ,theatre like, approach to social interactions. The question that interests Goffman in how we manage the impression of ourselves within social interactions. He holds that in fact, in social interactions, we always "perform" ourselves. Our theatrical performance of who we are is never a solo act since it depends on the setting ("stage"), audience and the cooperation of other players. For Goffman, this turns any social interaction into a sort of negotiation on the meaning of the situation and the roles of people in it. This means that if I want to be something I need other people to relate to me as that something.

Like in theatre, it is not about what's real but rather about what is perceived as real. In "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" Goffman demonstrates how we use different narratological and symbolic mechanism to shape the manner in which we are perceived and perceive others. For Goffman we do not only negotiate our "characters" but also cooperate in constructing them and setting the stage for them.

Erving Goffman's main point of interest in "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" is the nature of social interaction. When we meet a person we always attempt to draw information about him such as social, economic and marital status, an assessment of his nature an traits, his abilities and so forth. The information we derive allows us to befit our conduct and expectation to that person.

For Goffman, the nature of our social interactions is managing these impressions the same way an actor manages his role on stage. An interesting point Goffman makes is that our social character is always divided in two: the impressions we (actively) make and the impression (passively) creates. One of the ways in which we attempt to present ourselves in everyday life is to have control over the definition of the situation, positioning other people in such positions that they will act in accordance with what we want (think of children playing).  

From the other's point of view they perceive both the manner we try to appear (things we say, for example) and our actual appearance (which could include things we unintentionally give away). Bases on these modes of information people will decide if to cooperate with our definition of the situation or not. Goffman argues that this makes any social interaction a state of negotiation. All participants in the interaction create a "Modus Vivendi" of positions and roles which does not always express true agreement but rather the calculation of needs and abilities within the situation. In any case people can accept, deny or modify our performance of ourselves.

Goffman thinks society is organized by the principle that determines that everyone has certain social characteristics and it is his moral right to expect proper evaluation and treatment. This principle mandates another one holding that people have to be what they claim to be. If someone turns out to be something else, we denounce him. 

See also: Erving Goffman - Stigma and Social Identity (part 2, part 3)

Symbolic Interaction

Erving Goffman's Dramaturgy theory explained

Meaning of Goffman"s Presentation of Self Explained