Presentation of self in virtual world.

Post Reply New Topic

NYTimes Article

Very interesting article. Discussion should follow

I hadn't heard of Goffman before. I always see NTs as actors.

This is on Goffman from Wikipaedia:

"A major theme that Goffman treats throughout the work is the fundamental importance of having an agreed upon definition of the situation in a given interaction, in order to give the interaction coherency. In interactions, or performances, the involved parties may be audience members and performers simultaneously; the actors usually foster impressions that reflect well upon themselves, and encourage the others, by various means, to accept their preferred definition."

"Goffman acknowledges that when the accepted definition of the situation has been discredited, some or all of the actors may pretend that nothing has changed, if they find this strategy profitable to themselves or wish to keep the peace. For example, when a lady who is attending a formal dinner--and who is certainly striving to present herself positively--trips, nearby party-goers may pretend not to have seen her fumble; they assist her in maintaining face. Goffman avers that this type of artificial, willed credulity happens on every level of social organization, from top to bottom."

For Goffman who has been a really consummate portrayer of human relationships, a bright spot in the drab sea of sociological academia, intercourse between humans was dominated by the need to put up a face, an appearance, to avoid tensions that might derive from unintended slights on other people’s face. In Encounters there is a very amusing narrative of what happens in a surgery room during an intervention between a surgeon and his staff (interns, nurses etc.), where it appears that preoccupation for technical adroitness must be accompanied by a great attention for keeping a smooth atmosphere among people present.
Now in the web many factors of the relationship change. The “face” is even more manufactured than when people are physically present and it would be interesting to better understand how.

Goffman was a Canadian anthropologist who left a deep mark in psychiatric thinking and sociology. He analyzed frames, as metacommunication (communication about communication, like “quoting”, punctuation in writing, use of capital letters or italics).

The frame is, in a way, the definition of the situation. You may be able to see the frame, while the other has not this capacity. This produces a disequilibrium. In most communication between parent (or carer, or teacher) and child the parent is much mor in control of the frames than the child.

To Postperson: I also have become a pillow for a little dog.

Then along come the Aspies (spoilsports that we are) insisting that the emperor is, in fact, starkers, and refusing to play the game.

Funniest reader comment after the article:

Article that's linked to is interesting-the possibilities are intellectually dizzying to ponder, as to how one might encode oneself-or decode another person. My custom title on another forum is "personality-free for my protection", have conflicted feelings about being online at all. No idea how my presence comes across to other people offline, even less of an inkling how I might seem to a group of strangers I've never met. Have never gotten to know anyone from online that I then met IRL, I don't think.
Only been using computer for few years, so all these high-tech methods of creating relational systems are new areas in which I'm quite cautious. I mostly try to avoid doing things that seem attention-getting online (like using smiley icons or posting pictures of myself), just because those aren't things I want to do. I use WP to exchange information/opinion with others who wish to do same-not quite what I'd call "social", though it's more social than 'lurking' (only reading, not writing).

I strongly recommend Steven Pinker's "The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature". It was mostly boring for first half, but the second half was some great material-on taboo words, face-saving, names, and the hidden meanings (implicit assumptions) behind/beneath them. Certain Goffman's work is referenced in it, too. There was Book TV segment recently where Pinker did presentation of book outline with examples-it was both entertaining & educational-in case anyone has chance to catch a future rebroadcast.