Table Of Content72 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015
CONTEMPORARY SOCIAL INTERACTION:
HOW COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES ALTER
GOFFMAN'S DRAMATURGICAL MODEL?
Nguyen Trung Kien
Institute for Development Studies and Assistance (IDSA), VUSTA
Email: [email protected]
(Received: 22 /06/2015; Revised: 22/07/2015; Accepted: 14/08/2015)
ABSTRACT
The dramaturgical model in sociology was developed by Erving Goffman in his famous work
“The Presentation of Self in Everyday life” published in 1959. This theoretical model views social
life as a stage on which an individual plays a role of performer who tries to impress audience
throughout her/his show. This viewpoint is one of Goffman's substantial contributions to
comprehension of social interaction in day-to-day life. However, recent advances in communication
technologies, especially the diffusion of the Internet and mobile phones, have brought many
significant changes to social world. Those changes have led to the demand of revising Goffman’s
theory in order to better capture the nature and rules of current social phenomena. This paper
aims at assessing Goffman’s dramaturgical model by examining contemporary social interaction
based on recent improvement in communication technologies. Four main points in his framework
including the interaction order, self, front, and backstages and frontstages are put into discussion.
By reviewing recent research, the paper suggests some modifications to Goffman’s theory and leaves
some questions for the future research to investigate.
Keywords: Communication technologies, Dramaturgical model, Erving Goffman, the
interaction order, the Internet, social interaction.
1. Introduction Goffman’s dramaturgical model based on his
When an individual bodily presents work published in 1959, it then summarizes
herself or himself to others, her/his show recent advances in communication technologies
begins. Such an individual is a performer who that have an increasing influence on
gives her/his audiences the impression of contemporary social interaction, and finally
her/himself, convincing them to believe in drawing on some latest scholarly studies, it
her/his creditable image. That is how Goffman discusses four main modifications of
views social life from the dramaturgical Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy in order to
approach. In this paper, I would like to argue make them interpret better social encounters in
that the significant improvements in everyday life.
information and communication technologies 2. Erving Goffman and the dramaturgical
have altered Goffman's dramaturgical model. model
This paper first provides an overview of Erving Erving Goffman (1922-1982) is the
73 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015
prominent sociologist of not only the her/his audiences, and such a performance
twentieth century but also the whole history of transforms her/him into ‘a stage performer’
the discipline. In his most-cited book entitled (1959, p.19; 1974, p.124). A performer
“The Presentation of Self in Everyday life” dramatizes her/his acts by trying to give
(1959), he proposes a so-called theatrical expression to her/his observers in order to
framework that regards social life as a stage and persuade them to acknowledge her/his idealized
individuals as performers. He however is not character – the commendable and honorable
the first one to do so. William image of her/himself (see 1959, pp.27; 219).
Shakespeare does. In his famous work, this In other words, the player always tries to show
author (Shakespeare, 1822a, pp. 10-11) the “good” side of her/his personality to the
writes: people with whom s/he encounters. The
All the world’s a stage, perspective Goffman proposes is still relevant
And all the men and women merely player: to analyze social phenomena in contemporary
They have their exists and their entrances; society. In next parts, the paper is looking
And one man his time plays many parts. through recent developments of
And he (1822b, p. 100) presents this idea communication technologies that have
elsewhere: profoundly influenced social world.
What good love may I perform for you? 3. Recent advances in communication
Those quotations from Shakespeare give technologies
us a sense that social life is just a stage in which The late twentieth century has witnessed
human beings are players and the way they love the fourth revolution in information
does not only rely on their naturally instinct but technologies following the three previous
also on what social norms consider as “good ones: writing, the printing press, the broadcast
love”. What Shakespeare implies here can be fit mass media (radio and television)
into the Erving Goffman’s sociological (Macnamara, 2010, pp. 1-2). This fourth
imagination presented in his dramaturgical revolution has happened in three main fields:
theory. ‘micro-electronics, computers, and
In his career, as Branaman (1997, p. telecommunications’ (Castells, 2011, p. 39).
lxiii; see also Manning & Smith, 2010, p. 52) In which, the birth of the Internet, especially
summaries, Goffman has built various models of the diffusion of the World Wide Web and
and employed different metaphors to depict new social media, has given rise to the
the nature of social life, such as drama (1959), connection from computers to computers
ritual (1955, 1956a, 1956b, 1957, 1963, around the world (Castells, 2011, pp. 45-50),
1967), game (1963; 1969). However, the helping turn a one-way communication
dramaturgical framework might be his most system to two-way and multi-way ones.
popular theory. In his most imaginative work Since 1990s, the privatization of the
(1959), Goffman utilizes an array of theatrical Internet has also brought about the spreading
terminologies such as performer, character, of the Internet in human being’s everyday life
team and audience; stage, front region, back (see Castells, 2011, p.65). The number of
region; masks, cues and props; routines and Internet users has noticeably proliferated since
parts; performances coming off or falling flat; its primary form appeared in 1969. According
dramaturgical needs, dramaturgical skills and to Castells’ estimation (2011, p.375), in
strategies; impression management; and so 1973, there were only 25 computers in the
forth. Social life is viewed as a stage on which network; in the early 1980s, the Net was only
an individual tries to give a performance to limited to a few thousand users; however, by
74 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015
mid-2001, this figure grew to around 700 shorten name of ‘Web logs’ proposed in 1997
million users. Other statistics (Miniwatts (boyd, 2006a; Goggin, 2012, p. 22). Some
Marketing Group, 2012) show that by June scholars technically view blogs as “frequently
30, 2012, there were 2,405,510,175 users, updated webpages with a series of archived
accounting for 34.3 % of world population. posts, typically in reverse-chronological
By December 31, 2014, that figure sharply order” (Nardi, Schiano & Gumbrecht, 2004,
increased to 3,079,339,857 users, making up p.222), some call “a social action” (Miller
42.4% of world population (Miniwatts & Shepherd, 2004), others regard as “a
Marketing Group, 2015). That might be said medium” (boyd 2006a; Moor & Efimova,
that more than four uses the Internet among ten 2004). Blog is now based upon various
people nowadays. platforms such as Google Blogger
Consequently, the global world has been (http://www.blogger.com), Wordpress
drawn closer together. This fact somehow (http://wordpress.com), Drupal
realizes what Marshall McLuhan (1964) (https://drupal.org), MovableType
termed “global village” whereby inhabitants (http://www.movabletype.org), TypePad
from all four corners of the world have (http://www.typepad.com), or Gawker
become each other’s neighbors. Based on the (http://gawker.com). The prevalence of social
development of the Internet, the use of social network sites and blogs has offered the
network sites and blogs has become a ‘global Internet users a vast number of chances to
phenomenon’ (Vasalou, Joinson & create their own online networks with the
Courvoisier, 2010, p. 719). Both social feature of interactivity, so to speak, many-to-
network sites and blogs can be seen as new many communication (see Castells, 2011;
forms of mass media based upon the World Flew, 2008; White, 2011).
Wide Web. They are both ‘web-based services’ Moreover, the growth of telephonic
but each aims to different targets. While social technologies has called forth the diversity of
network sites are used to help “users to mobile devices, especially of smart phones.
articulate and make visible their social The common functions of smart phones are to
networks” (boyd & Ellison, 2007, p.211), access to the Internet, to transmit data including
blogs are designed to make users able to text, voice, image, video and so on (Geser,
express themselves (boyd, 2006a) in diary- or 2004). Further, the recent rise of hybrid
journal-style. Social network sites were products such as tablets, notes or ultra- books
started in 1990s, with the launch of makes the access to the Internet even much
SixDegrees.com in 1997, followed by easier and more convenient.
Cyworld in 2001, Friendster in 2002, Since the fourth revolution of information
LinkedIn, MySpace and Hi5 in 2003; Flickr, technologies took place, our society has
Facebook and Multiply in 2004, Yahoo!360, never been the same. The industrial revolution
YouTube, Xanga, Bebo, Ning, AsianAvenue in England a few centuries ago turned social
and BlackPlanet in 2005, Twitter in 2006 (see world into an industrial society, while the fourth
boyd & Ellison, 2007, p. 212), and recently revolution started in the late twentieth century
with Google + in June 2011 (Google, 2015). has reformed extensively social life, as Castells
In which, Facebook is considered as the most argues, to an “informational society”. Many
popular site owing to its number of users (by scholars observe that the informational society
September 14, 2012, this site reached 1 has given rise to many new forms of social
billion monthly active users (see Facebook, interaction. The use of the Internet, especially
2012). ‘Blog’ was coined in 1999 is the social network sites is regarded as the way
75 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015
enabling the individuals to tie themselves to a dramaturgy. In the paragraphs that follow, this
new community and express themselves in paper is going to discuss four main alterations
different ways (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012). to his theory including: the interaction order,
In fact, the use of social network sites has self, front, and backstages and frontstages.
created a new form of community – “virtual The new interaction order
community” (Rheingold, 1993; see Castells, As Goffman declares in his last essay
2011, p.387), whose nature and features are (Goffman, 1983, p.4), the interaction order,
distinct from the “physical community” (see which is “the face-to-face interaction” - a
Reich, 2010). In other words, such social “substantive domain in its own right”, is his
network sites enable individuals to better “analytically viable unit” throughout his
manage and develop their social academic works. Although there are various
relationships. Many studies demonstrate that theoretical models built by Goffman, ‘co-
online social networks are used to connect not present’ or ‘physical’ interaction remains
merely with friends and acquaintances in substantial in his microsociology (1974, p.
existing offline networks (see boyd, 2006b; 495; 1983, p.4; see also 1959, p. 14; 2010, p.
boyd, 2007; boyd, 2004; boyd & Ellison, 6; 1967, p.1). The face-to-face interaction is
2007; Donath & boyd, 2004; Robards & also a cornerstone of his dramaturgical model.
Bennett, 2011, pp. 307-8), but also with According to Goffman, social interaction
strangers (for example, Murthy, 2012, p. 1061). makes sense only if it happens during the
By employing social network sites, it seems physical co-presence of both actors because in
that an individual can make visible her/his such situation, “the reciprocal influence of
social relationships. With regularly updated individuals upon one another’s actions” arises
applications designed in social network sites, (1959, p.26). Put simply, without face-to-face
the individual is able to search, view, review, interaction, the actors cannot utilize his own
invite, even limit or block a contact with “psychobiological element[s]” such as
which s/he does want to connect. Consequently, “emotion, mood, cognition, bodily orientation,
many people nowadays attach their personal and muscular effort” (Goffman, 1983, p.5) to
life to, if not to say, depend significantly on affect the other onstage. In other words, to
their online social network sites (Reich, 2010, Goffman, the face-to-face interaction is the sole
p. 700). In the context of telephonic interaction, form of social interaction that can provide
the exponential increase of mobile phones has sufficient conditions (including body, time and
extremely affected the face-to-face space), which enable the individuals to do
interaction, because users are “vulnerable to face work and impose their impression upon
calls at any of day or night” (Gergen, 2002, pp. others (Goffman, 1955).
237, 40). Technologically speaking, an However, the changes in communication
individual’s personal life and face-to-face technologies in recent decades pose a demand of
interaction can be interrupted by mobile phones extending Goffman’s interaction order into a
anywhere at any time. Consequently, mobile wider extent. There are scholars arguing that
phones and social network sites have grown to mediated interaction can possess the same
become a must-have accessory to modern features as face-to-face interaction does.
human beings’ day-to-day lives. Jenkins’s study (2010, pp. 259-63), for
4. Alterations to Goffman’s dramaturgical example, shows that information and
model communication technologies such as
The changes in social life have deeply telephone and mail, video chat and social
affected Goffman’s theoretical model of networking sites in the twentieth-first century
76 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015
have converted ‘the interaction order’ multifarious interaction. By the multifarious
proposed by Goffman a couple of decades ago interaction, I refer to many forms of
(1983) into a new one. Rettie argues that not interactions built around an individual,
only the face-to-face interaction can create a helping her/him create and impute her/his
mutual monitoring between the interactants, ‘creditable’ image on her/his audiences. This
but synchronous continuous media such as is the new interaction order that is no longer
phone calls and video links can do the same based solely on the face-to-face interaction,
(2009, p. 425). The qualitative study by this but on various forms of interactions including
author also illustrates that even in the mediated interaction and telephonic
conversation on the phone, the users still feel interaction. It is also worth noting that these
that they are ‘face-to-face’ to their friends, forms of social interaction are not isolated but
just only ‘without the face’. This means that the interrelated and interlinked. An individual can
mobile phone’s users can sense the get involved in two or three forms of interaction
“physical person there” in their phone call at the same time or move flexibly from one
conversation (Rettie, 2009, p.430). Of course, form to another. This point was implied by
in both telephonic and computer-based Castells when he argues that in fact, both
interaction, the interactants can be in different virtual community and physical community are
locations, however, as Rettie demonstrates, personal community which is the networks
they can share “a time-frame and mediated built around an individual (See Castells, 2011,
copresence” (2009, p. 425). Other scholars 389). With this central position in such forms of
come to agree that alongside ‘physical’ interaction, an individual is capable of
interaction order that requires the bodily adaptably turning from this form of interaction
copresence, the ‘digitized’ interaction order to other forms in order to best manage her/his
requiring the co-presence in time beside in ideal character.
space, has become significant in current life The multi-faced self
(Jenkins, 2010, pp. 271-272). Put it in another As a consequence of those changes in
way, the temporal copresence can be separated the interaction order, self and its presentation
from the spatial copresence while they are should be also altered. In his well-known
still of equal importance in facilitating work (1959, pp. 244-246), Goffman defines
social interaction. the self of an individual as two related parts, the
The demand of putting mediated and self-as-character and the self-as-performer.
telephonic interaction into microanalysis of While the latter is ‘all-too-human’ self which
social encounter has been proposed by some is attributed by the psychobiological desires
scholars (Jenkins, 2010; Ling 2009; Miller and needs, fantasies and dreams and a
1995; Rettie 2009, p. 421). It may be capacity to learn, the former is the performed
exaggerated to say that, however, social self which is a ‘product’ of the performance
interaction is currently dominated by played on stage. Under the influence of the
computer-based interaction, or by telephonic communication technologies, these both
interaction. Rather, it should be stated that selves are reformed. The self-as-performer is
nowadays personal life is shared and altered because the individual has to learn
entwined by three main forms of interaction: new technologies to express her/himself. For
face-to-face interaction; computer-based example, alongside learning how to express
interaction; and telephonic interaction. They her/himself via bodily gestures, s/he must
together constitute social interaction in learn how to use mobile phone to make a call,
contemporary life to which I would call the how to give a good impression via a phone
77 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015
call conversation or how to create and update conform the social values and “deference
an impressive profile on Facebook or Twitter. rituals” to make her/his image commendable
Furthermore, s/he has also new desires of (Goffman, 1956b). In other words, s/he must
establishing or maintaining her/his networks first understand about her/himself and choose
by using mobile phones or social network the right social values that will make her/him
sites. In other words, mobile phone and/ or become admirable in the audiences’ eyes. The
social network sites s/he uses such as digital and telephonic interaction is no
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or LinkedIn have exception. To integrate into the digital
become parts of her/his show. domain, for instance, the performer must
What we should pay more attention to, develop her/his consistent ‘sense of self’, by
however, is the ‘socialized self’. This self is which others can easily identify her/him with
socially constructed. The transformation of others (Robards & Bennett, 2011, pp. 311-3).
social interaction from the physical interaction Front's alteration
to the multifarious interaction, as I proposed One of the obvious distinction between
above, has given rise to the diversification of the physical stage and the digital and the
‘stages’ on which the self is portrayed. This self telephonic stages is ‘front’. Goffman regards
is not the separated result of face-to-face ‘front’ as ‘the expressive equipment of a
encounters, but rather, the unique product of standard kind intentionally or unwittingly
various forms of social interactions including employed by the individual during his
telephonic, computer-based and physical performance’ (1959, p.32). Front includes
interactions. In each of these domains, the two parts, first is “setting”, involving
individual attempts to persuade her/his “furniture, décor, physical layout, and other
audiences to believe in her/his praiseworthy background items which supply the scenery
figure. That is to say, to comprehend fully the and stage props for the spate of human action
self-as-character, we cannot perceive of played out before, within, or upon it” (1959,
her/him only as what s/he is presented in face- pp.32-33). In the context of telephonic
to-face interaction but also of what s/he is conversation, it can be seen that setting is
depicted in telephonic interaction and constituted by both the performer’s and her/his
computer-based interaction. Therefore, it is audience’s locations where they are making the
proper to say that the performed self, phone call. In this case, the 'scenic' front is not
corresponding with multifarious interaction, is physical setting, but the telephonic setting is
the multi-faced self in the sense that the self created by the phone call between them. This
seems to be divided into different “faces” or telephonic setting is affected by the real settings
“the social positive value[s]” (Goffman, 1955) in which two phone users are staying. For
that are designed to be suitable for each example, the sounds of the television where the
interaction domain. With availability of three individual is standing might go into the
major domains, the individual hence can telephonic setting and affect both phone users.
choose which sphere better delineates her/his In a video phone call, the two actors’ real setting
image. A study shows that the users of social can be their scenic setting. However, this setting
network sites prefer the expression of their is limited by the capacity of the camera built in
‘true selves’ on the Internet to doing so in face- the mobile phones the two using. For instance,
to-face interaction (Bargh, McKenna & if a camera phone can produce high-definition
Fitzsimons, 2002). video, phone users are able to sense better the
Another noticeable point is that in the setting of their interlocutors. In those cases, the
face-to-face interaction, the individual must two actors would like to interact with each
78 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015
other in place that they are able control the real like to present themselves in a desirable
setting so that no unexpected things can fashion.
interfere their phone conversation. The digital personal front is more
In the context of Internet-based diverse than that of the telephonic one due to
interaction, setting is established by different the capacity of creating and maintaining the
applications and platforms. For example, in individual’s online profiles (boyd & Ellison,
Facebook the interaction between the 2007; Dabner, 2012). In an online profile, the
performer and her/his audience occurs in the performer’s personal front consists of
context of timeline whereby they are capable of profile/account’s user name, profile picture,
giving comments and replies in a status update, cover photo; a short introduction about
or in a photo or video posted. In addition, the oneself; some basic demographic
performers and her/his audience can exchange characteristics including birthday, gender,
messages in their chat window. Being different sexual orientation, living location, languages;
from telephonic interaction, the setting in the contact information including mobile phone,
digital interaction is realized by the Internet’s email address, personal website; personal
platforms and applications, that constitute the history; work and education history; hobbies
cyber space in which both two actors share with including music, movies, TV shows; social
each other. relationships including family, friends,
The second ‘front’ is ‘personal front’ groups; widgets, applications and others. The
which are ‘insignia of office or rank; clothing; use of personal profile to express the online self
sex, age and racial characteristics; size and is proven by many recent studies. For example,
looks; posture; speech pattern; facial a survey by Lampe, Ellison and Steinfield
expressions; bodily gestures; and the like’ (2007, p. 440) illustrates that the fields ‘About
(Goffman, 1959, p.34). That is to say, me’, ‘Favorite Music’, ‘Favorite Movies’,
personal front is the face of an individual which ‘Interest’ are the most popular fields preferred
appears before audiences. Contrary to setting, by Facebook’s users to express themselves. In
personal front is subjective because it is stuck addition to text, there are several findings
to the individual’s body or demographic showing that the digital self has been
characteristics. Generally speaking, the increasingly depicted by “explicit” display,
individual cannot alter her/his given or ascribed such as profile picture, photo album (Hum et
statuses such as sex, age or race. However, s/he al., 2011; Zhao, Grasmuck & Martin,
can choose what clothes should be dressed, 2008). Each field of a profile can be regarded
what bodily gestures should be demeaned, as a splitting piece of the online personal
what tone should be addressed. These parts of front. When those pieces mix up together,
personal front can be chosen by the they will tell the audiences a clear story or
individual’s will or achieved her/his effort. film of the individual (see Robards & Bennett,
The expression of personal front in the 2011).
telephonic situation might include the Given the diverse items of profiles,
performer’s voice, the manner of texting social network sites also offer the individual
messages and the use of emotional icons, opportunities for dramatic realization and
photos and videos. If two actors use video idealization on the Internet. This is due to the
call, their physical appearances also play the impression management of online self-
same role as they do in a face-to-face presentation is more ‘controllable and fluid’
situation. In such a case, an individual would (Whitty, 2008, p. 2). This can be understood
by the fact that the individual can control
79 Journal of Science Ho Chi Minh City Open University – No. 3(15) 2015 – August/2015
which items should be published on the Internet chat or photos or videos uploaded or topics
in order to best portray her/his image. In other discussed.
words, their audience might only view the The most remarkable thing that attracts
“good” or “admirable” side of the performers Our attention is the entwinement between
(see Boon & Sinclair, 2009; Lampe, Ellison frontstages and backstages of three domains
& Steinfield, 2007; Nosko, Wood & Molema, of interaction that the actor might involve.
2010) while the “dark” side might be hidden. The actor no longer plays in a sole stage.
This is similar to the case of mobile phone’s Her/his participation in the physical setting,
users where the individual is able to decide to the telephonic setting and the digital setting
give her/his phone number to expected people can coincidence. Thus, it seems that we cannot
or to express her/his voice softer than usual to sometimes draw a clear boundary between
impress the hearers. backstage(s) and frontstage(s). The use of
The mix of backstages and frontstages mobile phone poses a typical case. For example,
The diversification of the social self and an individual is talking with her/his friends at a
the interaction order requires us to reconsider bar and then her/his mobile phone rings. In this
the concepts of ‘frontstage’ and ‘backstage’. case, the individual is currently the performer
These terms are also called front region and who plays before her/his friends as audiences
back region in Goffman’s terminology. A and the space of the bar is the frontstage.
frontstage is where an actor uses to organize However, when her/his mobile phone rings,
her/his show, while a backstage is where the s/he must talk with other friend via her/his
actor rehearses for her/his show but tries to mobile phone, so that s/he has to deal with two
keep it away from the audiences’ eyes. While groups of audiences, one at the bar and one
the frontstage is where the individual gives in the mobile phone conversation. The bar is
the best out of her/him in order to make the frontstage on which the individual gives the
audiences see the desirable/admirable side of show to her/his friend, but it is also the
her/his personality, the backstage is where the backstage in which the individual uses to
individual presents her/his truer self, namely, support her/his conversation with other friend
s/he might behave in a manner s/he never wants via phone call. The mobile phone is the part of
to show in front of others. backstage in the phone call conversation but
In the telephonic context, for example, at the same time appears on the frontstage of the
the back region of the performance is the face-to-face talk. The fact that the mobile phone
current setting in which s/he is staying, that is as a ‘backstage device’ can be brought onto
hidden from the fellow’s eyes. If two phone frontstage of the face-to-face interaction, leads
users use a video call, then the front region ‘what was the frontstage’ – the situation at the
will be the limited part of the setting bar - to being ‘a type of backstage’ of the
appearing in the phones’ cameras. In the case phone call situation (see Ling, 2009, p.278).
of normal calls, the front stage is not visible, The act of talking with other via mobile
because it appears only in the conversation phone before a set of audiences, for instance,
between the individual and her/his audience. forces one deal with two frontstages at the same
In the instance of the Internet, the back stage time, ‘the local one and the telephonic one’
is the same as that of telephonic conversation, (Ling, 2009, pp. 282, 288). This situation can
but the front stage is more electronically be more complicated if the individual
constructed. It is more visible than that of participated in the computer-mediated
telephonic situation, because its situation is interaction while doing other interactions.
defined in terms of status updates or window Imagine, for instance, an individual is talking
