Because of my being shy and not bold enough to stand up for myself, I've many times been told "just be yourself!" This is one more ocassion in which I find a philosophical argument that turns out to support my position: being myself means being shy and cowardly; I mustn't be myself, I must change that self of mine!
Manuel Lujan have you ever thought that maybe that your true self is not shy and cowardly, and the prsona that you are identified as is just an socially acceptable programming that you have gained as a child because of the environment you were born in, and your true self doesn't even knows shyness or cowardice and it is just fear that is causing you to keep being this persona that you are identified currently? you should read Carl Jung.
Yeah, Goffman probably wouldn't tell you to 'just be yourself', as there is no self in that sense. You only play roles. So your 'self' changes from situation to situation. You might not be shy when having dinner with your best friend or mother? Because our 'self' changes depending on the situation we're in and what role you're supposed to play in that situation. If someone is telling you to "just be yourself", they might be taking a dominant role in the sense that they're telling you what to do, then your role would be more quiet and shy as the 'dominant' role is already taken. So Goffman would probably say that you ARE in fact being yourself as shy and quiet when being around people that are forthcoming and 'dominant'. But if you meet a person that is more shy and quiet again, you might take a role that's more talkative?
There is limited reward to being shy - this is condition from childhood where displaying certain reserved behaviors might have been rewarded and open inquisitive extrovert behaviors may have been admonished. People take advantage of shy people so don’t be a victim. Good luck and there is nothing wrong with changing even when this surprises those around you.
Its crazy because when I first read his book I did not agree with him. I just thought that he over thought life to much. But then I applied it to my own life and realised actually there is so much truth to it. I was being ignorant towards it because I didn't regard myself as a 'fake' person, but its not about being a 'fake' person lol it legit 'presentation of oneself'. In different social interaction we must convey a different side to us e.g. at work !! I think his study is completely genius :)
I don't know. Such as researches say, the idea of self is a 'conceptual morass'. Yes, we do adapt changes or enact differently with different specific people, but the term masking ourselves feels too,,,, robotic or lifeless. i am still doubtful of goffman's idea. We may change ourselves but it does not mean that those selves that we portray to others are not part of who we are. If one is to live in isolation, thus have nothing to perform to, does it mean he/she has no self anymore??????? i am so confuseddd. can anyone like correct me or something? I might have taken this idea in a wrong perspective
@@shainehood1157 Goffman had Frontstage and Backstage. Fronstage is where you perform you self like being a student, Backstage is where you don't act also it also where you practice your role. If you are in isolation let say alone inside your home, You are in your Backstage, Your self doesn't perform such as being an employee or a student but it also where you practice being a employee or a student ( we may not aware that we practice ourselves like choosing what to wear, talking your self in the mirror, choosing of food etc.) In Sociology your self is shape by the society that you live in. Biggest factor in shaping your self is Culture and Institution. There is no true self because it varies between the interaction that you had. And you will not know your self if you didn't interact
What about loners, those who seek relief in being free of social roles for long periods -- does the true self manifest under such conditions? Some people become neurotic, others depressed, others satisfied - but a balance is necessary: solitude to re-acquaint with self and socializing to become the other personas one has fabricated -- like it is said, "learn another language, get another soul" or something like that -- we mature and grow personally by virtue of our interactions (if they are affirming), or else we become static or even diminish if those roles are self-damaging or limiting. But we're made to associate, to be in relationship with others, we are a social species
I was never shy, it’s a mask to make sure I don’t hurt someone. If I’m wearing a mask it’s only cause I think someone doesn’t want me to be honest. I couldn’t shake the feeling and it into my other lives. Others didn’t know me deeply and I couldn’t get myself back. This is something no one person could do unless they knew what I needed
I would contend that we are everything, that are true roles are the amalgamation of the source of all the essences of consciousness behind roles. If you live a role someone else invented for you, yes, you haven't found yourself.
Nothing morally wrong with wearing that kind of 'mask' demanded by the situation and society's expectations. It is similar to climatic adaptation e.g. clothing change when the seasons change. What is wrong though is believing there is a fixed and permanent self or starting identifying with one particular mask thinking it is our self (e.g. someone is a boss at work continues as boss at home). The self is not unitary. It is multiple.
i came from the song dramaturgy and this being the reference. I think hes right that we treat everyone differently, but it doesnt mean we put on acts to treat people, we treat or respond people by how we feel towards them. There are some foot prints of our independent selfs behind all the "masks" like we all have our own emotions, thoughts and personality. When we interact with other people we treat each more or less differently but it doesnt mean for each person we "act" or put up a fake personality for each. These are just my thoughts
B R U H! Just go to the end of the video where it shows it, take a screenshot and print it. I know i'm 5 years late in answering the question, but surely you could have done something like that at the time.
So not following his expressive order (meaning you present a different self to different people without the will to hold on to one "character" as much as possible) means you are a hypocrite And I just realised that the word hypocrite is a synonym for "actor" in Greek (for example when we say "he is studying the art of hypocrisy" we mean he is studying to become an actor) (of course, the word is mostly used in its negative connotation. I just like the relation of the word and of Coffman's ideas to theater)
Equality means that despite your inferiority you're going to be accepted and brought along.That doesn't work in hedonistic world where the pursuit of happiness is the priority. Conflict is inevitable.
Also, I only put up a mask for girls interested in me. Not anyone else. With everyone else I was the same except my family. It’s cause I have to put up a mask for the girls and my family. I couldn’t tell my family the truth because I was using duty to justify my feelings. Before the girls I never worried about mixing up my duties with feelings. Once I started I couldn’t stop, no one know me so I couldn’t get help and I definitely needed a lot of help. I knew that and I did what I could to make sure no had to take that on. It didn’t work out that way
I love Goffman, but doesn't this just seem like "common sense"? Also, do you believe that it takes a certain "sensitivity" to be aware of these things in the moment? If one does reflect on these things can ones normative mentality breakdown?
Your questions are all logically intertwined into the other. I would agree that this is 'common' knowledge, but only because it's being explained so succinctly as it is here. What makes this more complex is the 'sensitivity' you mention. To be sensitive to one's own many performances doesn't necessitate a breakdown from a 'normative' mentality but, i would argue, a greater competency for influencing and managing one's many masks. Goffman isn't as reductionist as explained here, and his works are much more extensive if we look into 'Interaction Ritual' and 'Deference and Demeanor', which both elaborate more on the mechanics of presentation.
a lot of things you learn where not ''common sense''. many woman died in pregnancy and people didn't know why until they learn that they died because of doctors didn't wash their hands. Today this is common sense, but that wasn't always the case.
But how would Goffman explain the outsider, the radicalized and extremist persons behavior? One whom create their identity as being different, opposite or anti-structicalist? Any suggestions?
I disagree fundamentally with Goffman - who died aged just 60 - here I believe the 2.0 evolution of this correct ✅ perspective is to recognise, take a perspective on each role and its true purpose and link with our inner self, strip back and integrate ourselves into our whole Goffman needed a Vipassana
Okay hold on. Wait wait. We've got to do the Shakespeare dirty jokes before we start on the philosophy, OK? Let me have this. All the world's a stage - In context, Willy Shakes is punning. He uses the metaphor of a stage because fourth wall breaking, but also using "stage" to mean "a temporary state, a phase." The line goes on to talk about life stages. Another pun, since the play was staged at the Globe (all the world). I'm not a Shakespeare person myself so I don't have a source available but there is NO. WAY. that shakes was not using innuendo when referring to each player's entrances and exits. ...Okay, I managed to find a little more info, and apparently Willy used "play" for doing-the-do and "parts" is... self-explanatory. I just need to set the tone here as very eyebrow-wiggling before we try to take it seriously. Coolthanks Okay, so like yes we perform roles and code-switch when around different people based on our previous interactions with them, what we believe is culturally appropriate, and how we want to be perceived. Oh just dropping that controversial bit in the last few seconds? Okay! Lol. I would argue that our "selves" are still based on our self-concept, whatever that is, unless we are intentionally deceiving someone. Example-- Someone writing in a diary. No one else is supposed to read this diary and, in fact, never will. But that diary's entries still reflect the character and personality of the person writing it. That's because we have a social conception of ourselves--we want to play a role for our own benefit, a role less specific than the roles we take in social interactions. We want to embody the traits we value and we try to perform those traits even when no one else is around. At least, that's my knee-jerk reaction to this idea. I've joked with a friend that "your real personality only exists when you are halfway between sleep and wakefulness, so long as you aren't picturing anything. that's the real you" Because trying to construct a real self external from the roles you play is ignoring a big part of who you are
He is not quite right. Of course we adapt our behaviour to the situation and people we are with. But people alone vary in their behaviour. Some will be cruel and indifferent to their pets others will be doting etc . Shakespeare is correct but Goffman has slightly misunderstood -probably in eagerness to come up with a sociological theory.
There is no true self, the roles are the performer. So is this widely accepted as a fact? I mean is it empirically proven, or just philosophical? thanks
This runs contrary to some personality theories like the trait theories of Cattell, Allport, Costa & McCrae and the theories of Horney and Rogers. It would be fascinating to connect Goffman to Jung's archetypes though.
are you sure? so if you curse with your friends you also curse with your parents? what a household lol. is what you do when you're alone the same thing you do when with others?? i doubt it. YOU'RE AN ACTOR
Because of my being shy and not bold enough to stand up for myself, I've many times been told "just be yourself!" This is one more ocassion in which I find a philosophical argument that turns out to support my position: being myself means being shy and cowardly; I mustn't be myself, I must change that self of mine!
I usually have this argument in my head when people tell me this, "but i am being myself!!!"
The trick is to not feel bad about being shy. Don't feel bad about any masks you wear. Just wear those masks, and let things happen as they may
Manuel Lujan have you ever thought that maybe that your true self is not shy and cowardly, and the prsona that you are identified as is just an socially acceptable programming that you have gained as a child because of the environment you were born in, and your true self doesn't even knows shyness or cowardice and it is just fear that is causing you to keep being this persona that you are identified currently? you should read Carl Jung.
Yeah, Goffman probably wouldn't tell you to 'just be yourself', as there is no self in that sense. You only play roles. So your 'self' changes from situation to situation. You might not be shy when having dinner with your best friend or mother? Because our 'self' changes depending on the situation we're in and what role you're supposed to play in that situation. If someone is telling you to "just be yourself", they might be taking a dominant role in the sense that they're telling you what to do, then your role would be more quiet and shy as the 'dominant' role is already taken. So Goffman would probably say that you ARE in fact being yourself as shy and quiet when being around people that are forthcoming and 'dominant'. But if you meet a person that is more shy and quiet again, you might take a role that's more talkative?
There is limited reward to being shy - this is condition from childhood where displaying certain reserved behaviors might have been rewarded and open inquisitive extrovert behaviors may have been admonished. People take advantage of shy people so don’t be a victim. Good luck and there is nothing wrong with changing even when this surprises those around you.
Wow whoever animated this is amazing!
Yea and the sound effects as well crazy
Its crazy because when I first read his book I did not agree with him. I just thought that he over thought life to much. But then I applied it to my own life and realised actually there is so much truth to it. I was being ignorant towards it because I didn't regard myself as a 'fake' person, but its not about being a 'fake' person lol it legit 'presentation of oneself'. In different social interaction we must convey a different side to us e.g. at work !! I think his study is completely genius :)
I don't know. Such as researches say, the idea of self is a 'conceptual morass'. Yes, we do adapt changes or enact differently with different specific people, but the term masking ourselves feels too,,,, robotic or lifeless. i am still doubtful of goffman's idea. We may change ourselves but it does not mean that those selves that we portray to others are not part of who we are. If one is to live in isolation, thus have nothing to perform to, does it mean he/she has no self anymore??????? i am so confuseddd. can anyone like correct me or something? I might have taken this idea in a wrong perspective
@@shainehood1157 Goffman had Frontstage and Backstage. Fronstage is where you perform you self like being a student, Backstage is where you don't act also it also where you practice your role.
If you are in isolation let say alone inside your home, You are in your Backstage, Your self doesn't perform such as being an employee or a student but it also where you practice being a employee or a student ( we may not aware that we practice ourselves like choosing what to wear, talking your self in the mirror, choosing of food etc.)
In Sociology your self is shape by the society that you live in. Biggest factor in shaping your self is Culture and Institution. There is no true self because it varies between the interaction that you had. And you will not know your self if you didn't interact
How could you not believe it? You don’t see people acting an ass all day long.
What about loners, those who seek relief in being free of social roles for long periods -- does the true self manifest under such conditions? Some people become neurotic, others depressed, others satisfied - but a balance is necessary: solitude to re-acquaint with self and socializing to become the other personas one has fabricated -- like it is said, "learn another language, get another soul" or something like that -- we mature and grow personally by virtue of our interactions (if they are affirming), or else we become static or even diminish if those roles are self-damaging or limiting. But we're made to associate, to be in relationship with others, we are a social species
"juggling masks" has got to be one of the most delightful mixed metaphors that I've yet encountered.
I was never shy, it’s a mask to make sure I don’t hurt someone. If I’m wearing a mask it’s only cause I think someone doesn’t want me to be honest. I couldn’t shake the feeling and it into my other lives. Others didn’t know me deeply and I couldn’t get myself back. This is something no one person could do unless they knew what I needed
We're all performing and sometimes it's hard not to get caught up
I would contend that we are everything, that are true roles are the amalgamation of the source of all the essences of consciousness behind roles. If you live a role someone else invented for you, yes, you haven't found yourself.
Wonderful exit, Stephen.
Nothing morally wrong with wearing that kind of 'mask' demanded by the situation and society's expectations. It is similar to climatic adaptation e.g. clothing change when the seasons change.
What is wrong though is believing there is a fixed and permanent self or starting identifying with one particular mask thinking it is our self (e.g. someone is a boss at work continues as boss at home). The self is not unitary. It is multiple.
Thankyou so much , interesting video 😀
Very beautifully explained ❤
This helps! Thank you!
i came from the song dramaturgy and this being the reference. I think hes right that we treat everyone differently, but it doesnt mean we put on acts to treat people, we treat or respond people by how we feel towards them. There are some foot prints of our independent selfs behind all the "masks" like we all have our own emotions, thoughts and personality. When we interact with other people we treat each more or less differently but it doesnt mean for each person we "act" or put up a fake personality for each. These are just my thoughts
Thankyousomuch
Great job capturing this theory!
Goffman is spot on
He isn't
is there any way to buy these great sheets in print?
EatCraps great question. i want one now, thanks.
B R U H! Just go to the end of the video where it shows it, take a screenshot and print it. I know i'm 5 years late in answering the question, but surely you could have done something like that at the time.
oh love this video!! I AGREE WITH HIM!!!
Very interesting
So not following his expressive order (meaning you present a different self to different people without the will to hold on to one "character" as much as possible) means you are a hypocrite
And I just realised that the word hypocrite is a synonym for "actor" in Greek (for example when we say "he is studying the art of hypocrisy" we mean he is studying to become an actor) (of course, the word is mostly used in its negative connotation. I just like the relation of the word and of Coffman's ideas to theater)
Is that the Stanley Parable narrator?
Equality means that despite your inferiority you're going to be accepted and brought along.That doesn't work in hedonistic world where the pursuit of happiness is the priority. Conflict is inevitable.
Great!!
"We all wear masks, metaphorically speaking" THE MASK
Also, I only put up a mask for girls interested in me. Not anyone else. With everyone else I was the same except my family. It’s cause I have to put up a mask for the girls and my family. I couldn’t tell my family the truth because I was using duty to justify my feelings. Before the girls I never worried about mixing up my duties with feelings. Once I started I couldn’t stop, no one know me so I couldn’t get help and I definitely needed a lot of help. I knew that and I did what I could to make sure no had to take that on. It didn’t work out that way
no CC??
soicology is badass for not using the psychological innate self lmao
Stewart Lee, would’ve liked that.
i went here because of our mid term exams
Is mine turn now
@@yudaniel1638 same reason im here right now lol
@@danitzaruaa.5736 I got A grade of sociology. Good luck dude
I love Goffman, but doesn't this just seem like "common sense"? Also, do you believe that it takes a certain "sensitivity" to be aware of these things in the moment? If one does reflect on these things can ones normative mentality breakdown?
Your questions are all logically intertwined into the other. I would agree that this is 'common' knowledge, but only because it's being explained so succinctly as it is here. What makes this more complex is the 'sensitivity' you mention. To be sensitive to one's own many performances doesn't necessitate a breakdown from a 'normative' mentality but, i would argue, a greater competency for influencing and managing one's many masks. Goffman isn't as reductionist as explained here, and his works are much more extensive if we look into 'Interaction Ritual' and 'Deference and Demeanor', which both elaborate more on the mechanics of presentation.
a lot of things you learn where not ''common sense''. many woman died in pregnancy and people didn't know why until they learn that they died because of doctors didn't wash their hands. Today this is common sense, but that wasn't always the case.
Coursera course "Leading transformations: Manage change" brougth me here !
is it just me or someone came here after watching that Mindhunter's scene?
erving is a loooordddd!! classic dawg
But how would Goffman explain the outsider, the radicalized and extremist persons behavior? One whom create their identity as being different, opposite or anti-structicalist? Any suggestions?
this doesn't apply on luffy
I disagree fundamentally with Goffman - who died aged just 60 - here
I believe the 2.0 evolution of this correct ✅ perspective is to recognise, take a perspective on each role and its true purpose and link with our inner self, strip back and integrate ourselves into our whole
Goffman needed a Vipassana
Dramaturgical account of human interaction, we display a series of mask in enacting roles and staging how we appear
legenda!!!!!111
Wait Does't he say that we play multiple roles in life ?
Schrodinger's identity
2C?
Okay hold on. Wait wait. We've got to do the Shakespeare dirty jokes before we start on the philosophy, OK? Let me have this.
All the world's a stage - In context, Willy Shakes is punning. He uses the metaphor of a stage because fourth wall breaking, but also using "stage" to mean "a temporary state, a phase." The line goes on to talk about life stages. Another pun, since the play was staged at the Globe (all the world).
I'm not a Shakespeare person myself so I don't have a source available but there is NO. WAY. that shakes was not using innuendo when referring to each player's entrances and exits. ...Okay, I managed to find a little more info, and apparently Willy used "play" for doing-the-do and "parts" is... self-explanatory. I just need to set the tone here as very eyebrow-wiggling before we try to take it seriously. Coolthanks
Okay, so like yes we perform roles and code-switch when around different people based on our previous interactions with them, what we believe is culturally appropriate, and how we want to be perceived.
Oh just dropping that controversial bit in the last few seconds? Okay! Lol. I would argue that our "selves" are still based on our self-concept, whatever that is, unless we are intentionally deceiving someone. Example-- Someone writing in a diary. No one else is supposed to read this diary and, in fact, never will. But that diary's entries still reflect the character and personality of the person writing it. That's because we have a social conception of ourselves--we want to play a role for our own benefit, a role less specific than the roles we take in social interactions. We want to embody the traits we value and we try to perform those traits even when no one else is around. At least, that's my knee-jerk reaction to this idea.
I've joked with a friend that "your real personality only exists when you are halfway between sleep and wakefulness, so long as you aren't picturing anything. that's the real you"
Because trying to construct a real self external from the roles you play is ignoring a big part of who you are
In daily life we need that performing otherwise we can not complete our day unless serious way 😋
soci 250 whoooo
Ratko Mladić has let himself go.
Is there an actual name for this? it seems like there would be
dramaturgy
Dramaturgical perspective that consists of front stage and back stage perfomance
Old town road
"My life is a 🎥"
He is not quite right. Of course we adapt our behaviour to the situation and people we are with. But people alone vary in their behaviour. Some will be cruel and indifferent to their pets others will be doting etc . Shakespeare is correct but Goffman has slightly misunderstood -probably in eagerness to come up with a sociological theory.
I am watching you dewar
Nathen Coves
Coursera brought me here
ek video hindi me bhi upload kijiye please
Sounds like he would have liked Stewart Lee
The Mask - Jim Carrey
This is fantastic. Never thought of the Mask as an example of Goffman's theories. But this makes complete sense.
So it's philosophically telling me everyone is an NPC ?
Ok
Stewart lee has let himself go.
There is no true self, the roles are the performer. So is this widely accepted as a fact? I mean is it empirically proven, or just philosophical? thanks
Galliano Marr there are many empirical studies using this as a theory studying for example how people present themselves on social media and so on
This runs contrary to some personality theories like the trait theories of Cattell, Allport, Costa & McCrae and the theories of Horney and Rogers. It would be fascinating to connect Goffman to Jung's archetypes though.
Robinson Jessica Hernandez Angela Robinson Sarah
It's masks all the way down, AND all the way up.
yeyeyeeye
Buraz al mi je ovo pomoglo na ispitu sto britanci ne odrade celu skriptu 😂
no solution lol
Its just copying from Erasmus. Not cool, and original!
Blackadder!!
Basically just wear the mask to survive emotional abuse by society
Uofr
I don't agree. I'm the same person with everybody.
yeah, kind of
are you sure? so if you curse with your friends you also curse with your parents? what a household lol. is what you do when you're alone the same thing you do when with others?? i doubt it. YOU'RE AN ACTOR