Emersonian Private Behavior in Goffman’s Analysis
When Erving Goffman wrote The Presentation of Self in 1956, his intention was to help people learn techniques that would help them sustain favorable impressions communicated to others in any social situation, including contingencies that he believed common enough to apply to many people (15). Little did he know perhaps that decades later, his theories will continue to hold interest in the field of sociology. In fact, as early as 1970, Joan Emerson wrote her own expanded exploration of the Goffmanian theories in her classic article “Behavior in Private Places”. In the following pages, a brief exploration of the similarities and differences of their understanding of the common theme of reality definition and the concept of performance.
Of the various Goffmanian concepts and generalizations mentioned in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, the primary concept, which Emerson had apparently concretized in his Behavior in Private Practice was the concept of “definition of the situation” (Goffman 6) and referred to as the “definition of reality” (Emerson 247) or specifically, in the illustrative example used, the “medical definition” (249).
However, both differed in the perspectives from which they approach this definition. While Goffman approached the “definition” in an individualistic manner wherein each person has his own “definition of the situation” (Goffman 6), Emerson approached it collectively through the perspective of Berger and Luckmann as a “social consensus” (Emerson 247). For Goffman, there is no such thing as genuine “social consensus” or collective definition of the situation. Instead, the situation is defined differently by each individual in a social encounter and whatever consensus the group ‘agreed’ to in that social encounter only constitutes a “veneer of consensus” (Goffman 9), which is not a genuine consensus but a temporary acceptance of what the individuals superficially agreed to make the encounter smooth. In effect, there is only a “working consensus”, which is only temporarily honored.
Goffman (9) reasoned out that genuine social consensus is not possible because, first, individuals have diverse definitions of the situation and, second, they commonly conceal their personal wants behind a statement that create that veneer of consensus over asserted values, which they felt obliged to give lip service. To make that veneer of consensus take place and that no open contradiction will occur, individuals in a social encounter project a version of their individually diverse definition of the situation that are sufficiently attuned to what the others can project from their own respective definitions. Thus, participants in the social encounter seeks either to manipulate the others or uncover the others’ manipulation by searching for behavioral incongruence in areas they “have little concern or control” (7).
Conversely, Emerson, together with Berger and Luckmann, believes in a genuine social consensus wherein individuals can genuinely accept and hold a “common belief without question” (247). Thus, the definition of reality, instead of being irreconcilable, can and does solidify into a commonly believed consensus through a process of genuine intervalidation from individuals and events, not motivated by deception and related negative motives. Moreover, while Goffman insists that the common motive in a social interaction is to avoid overt contradiction, Emerson believes that contradictions or counter-themes are necessary in the process of continually validating reality in the situation. In fact, the stability of the definition of reality in a situation is determined on the probability of intrusions disconforming events.
Moreover, while Goffman assumed a single-level of reality in the definition of the situation, Emerson recognized a definition of reality that has both dominant and contradicting components, which are both necessary in upholding a collective social definition of reality. Consequently, Goffman tended to view the inherent incongruence in situational definitions as an incongruence of motive and reality while Emerson viewed such seeming incongruence as an inherent part of the necessary contradictions in the definition of reality. Thus, while the rejection of contradiction in Goffman was motivated by fear of conflict or non-smooth “working society” (9), the acceptance without question in Emerson is understood as a product of an internal process of recognizing both the dominant and the counter themes of the definition of reality (248).
Nevertheless, both Goffman and Emerson agreed in their understanding of performance as a pre-established pattern of action, which is intended to influence the behavior of all participants in the social interaction (Goffman 15-16; Emerson 248). While Goffman was not clear on the level of authenticity of this performance, Emerson made it clear that true conviction on the trueness of the common reality is necessary for its success. Moreover, Emerson concretized this concept of performance in the use of medical definition as an extant reality in the doctor-patient interaction during a gynecological examination in a medical setting.
There are central congruencies in the Goffmanian and Emersonian definitions of reality in social situations, including the successful maintenance of social performance. However, clear divergence exists in the manner they approach the concept of definition from Goffman’s largely individualistic and less optimistic perspective to Emerson’s collective and evidently optimistic direction. It is evident though that, in the specific definitions of the situation or reality that each person holds in their various social interactions, both thinkers agreed that such definitions gradually consolidate as continual adjustments are made with their earlier impressions.
Works Cited
Emerson, Joan P. “Behavior in Private Places: Sustaining Definitions of Reality in
Gynecological Examinations.” (74-97 [247-260]). In: P. Dreitsel (Ed.), Recent Sociology. New York: Macmillan, 1970. Print.
Goffman, Erving. “Introduction.” (1-16). In: E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1956. Print.
