Drama as Life: The Significance of Goffman's Changing Use of the Theatrical Metaphor

Abstract

In this paper I discuss three elements of Goffman's work, all of which have been influenced by his view of the role of metaphor in sociology. The first element is his substantive account of face-to-face interaction. At different times he has described everyday behavior in terms of many different metaphors, although the theatrical metaphor is probably the most important of these. One tendency (among others) in his early work is to see face-to-face interaction as a zero-sum game in which individuals manipulate their performances: each person hides behind a persona (etymologically a mask). According to this account, we are all cynical actors who practice impression management in the pursuit of personal gain. In his writings in the 1960s and thereafter, Goffman placed less and less emphasis on the cynical aspects of impression management and focused more intensely on the importance of trust in everyday encounters. Trust is evident in the rituals that allow routine interaction among strangers in urban settings. Goffman's analysis of the trust displayed in urban anonymity required him to distance himself from the theatrical metaphor. Caution is needed, however. This brief description of Goffman's early work is an oversimplification. To do full justice to his thought we must consider the impact of Durkheim on his work, as Randall Collins has suggested, and also his debt to Simmel (see Smith 1989). Elements of an account of ritual are present in his doctoral thesis and thereafter. In this paper I want only to show that one tendency in his early work-to view people as cynical manipulators-is influenced by a dramaturgical metaphor which itself is used later to challenge this model of human behavior. The transition actually occurs in Goffman's revisions to the second edition of Presentation of Self (1956, 1959). The second aim of this paper is to consider metaphor as a key to Goffman's often puzzling methodology. For understanding of this method, I am greatly indebted to earlier work by Baldamus (1972) and Williams (1988). Combining their work with Goffman's allows us to understand possible connections between social theory and literary theory.