Jon
Let me take a go at #1):
Goffman's contribution was the application of what is but a metaphor, but an
ingeniously insightful metaphor possessing great analytical capacity. The
idea of presentation of the self is more than theatrical, for it harks back
to the ethological. His description of people who pass on a city pavement
and "lower the eyes" like passing cars dimming the lights to show no intents
upon the passersby is an aspect of presentation that is so blatently
ethological, that it brings to mind the displays of wolves in the pack to
show submission or dominance.
However, humans are capable of symbolic ethological behavior, thus
possessing a level of ethological behavior that is not "hardwired" like that
of the wolves. Because of this symbolic ethological behavior, we can engage
in the Meadean mind manifestation called action. We can be direct or
indirect, open or manipulative, and create varieties of behavior no other
creature is thus capable.
Yet we recognize this ability of presentation symbolically as a metaphor for
theater, but the theater is 'merely' recapitulations of possible and usually
probable human action discursively presented, which, in turn, can become
templates of actual human interaction. Who has not used a line from a play
or a movie; who has not imagined himself or herself a character in a play?
Human empathy is not restricted to "real" others. So the metaphor is not a
one-way street, only the art is recognized as it appears beneath the
proscenium arch because it is presented as art, and we may fail to recognize
the art of interaction, the ongoing presentation in the everyday life of
humans. (I could go on about the engagingness of theatrical production, but
it would not be necessarily responsive to the question.)
However, the implication that it is "only a metaphor" can be taken to mean
that it is a substitution for analysis. Certainly discussing interaction as
presentation denudes action and emphasizes that purposeful aspect of human
behavior that makes it action, for a presentation in an in situs interaction
is sort of like a performance, however, unlike the theater, this
presentation has a truth that is personal to the presenter where a
theatrical performance avers the personal truth of one character for the
collaborative truth of the entire theatrical production.
Again we can ask, "Is there no collaborative truth in the personal
presentations of the participants engaged in situs interaction?"
There is no director, per se, in interaction. The lines we say are of each
our own creations drawn with the individually-expressing artful abilities
from our personal experiences energized by our own motives towards the
purposes to which we present ourselves in interaction. However, since we
are all presenters in an in situs interaction, we share a mutual purpose: To
make this interaction real.
Because there is not director, per se, this purpose guides us as we ad hoc
our ways to interact in the mutual and collaborative creation of the reality
of this in situs interaction. There are rules, unnoticed, tacit, and
unnoticible that guide us through the interaction, rules internalized as
part of the socialization process of life as we learn to carry on
conversations, play with playmates, understand the differences between the
playground, the home and the classroom, for instance, and understand the
different presentations apropos to different siti. We learn it by
apprehending the rules of interaction and negotiation. Thus, even if there
is no director, we do have collaborative and mutual direction in the
creation of the in situs interaction.
So to the metaphor must be added a note that what is up front and what is
behind the scenes are present in interaction, however, this metaphor, useful
and insightful as it is, should not fall prey to the error of reification.
Our purpose is not understand theatre but human action.
Jerry Blaz
Jerry Blaz/The BOOKie Joint
7246 Reseda Blvd.
Reseda, CA 91335
(818)345-2983/(818)343-1055
ffdog@earthlink.net
Outside of a dog, a man's best friend is a good book.
Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.
G. Marx