Symbolic Interaction and Dramaturgy of Mead and Goffman Essay

George Herbert Mead

George Herbert Mead addresses the theory of self in his social psychology concept that covers human social interaction and symbolic interaction. The essential tenets underlying the symbolic interaction method, based on Mead’s approach, are as follows: people utilize symbols as a means of communication within their social settings; through social interactions, the self is created; and social order is built based on individuals’ utilization of role-playing (Schneider, 2006). “The self” is a vital concept within the symbolic interaction context. Mead notes that “the self” cannot be a fixed entity; instead, it changes through time due to social interaction.

Self-awareness is achieved through social involvement, and “the self” cannot exist separate from social interaction. Instead, it results from individuals’ many roles in various social contexts (Schneider, 2006). Additionally, individuals communicate through symbols, and as Mead note, a symbol may be any item that signifies anything else; for instance, a flag symbolizes a particular nation. It is vital to understand that social order is established through role-playing (Schneider, 2006). In Mead’s perspective, role-playing builds social order, and individuals acquire the various roles, for example, gender roles required of them in different social situations, and afterward execute them. Acting out these multiple roles contributes to the perception of order.

“The self” cannot be static as it changes due to social interactions. And as mentioned, it cannot exist separate from social involvement; however, it is created due to how individuals engage among themselves over time (Schneider, 2006). This concept can be explained through personal identity changes that a person undergoes throughout life. For example, when they are seven years old, people’s identity cannot equal their identities when they are twenty-seven. This is contributed by the fact that peoples’ identity is constantly growing and changing as they interact with others and society and the various situations they undergo. This illustration gives the idea that “the self” cannot be constant but changes throughout life.

Additionally, Mead believes that “the self” development process involves the “I” and the “me.” The “me” “is the organized set of attitudes of others which one himself assumes.” On the other hand, the “I” is how an individual reacts toward “me” as an “I” (Schneider, 2006). Understanding the phases of self, “I,” and “me” can help understand the fundamental notions behind symbolic interactionism. Humans connect with everything depending upon the interpretations they assign to them. Given the idea of “the self,” individuals react to the presumed attitudes they have toward other people, the “I” to “me.” Besides, the meaning a person attach to objects is derived from their relationships with society and others— the transformation of “the self” within the paradigm of “the self” has always been impacted by social dynamics. Lastly, humans always interpret things’ meanings when interacting with them in certain situations (Schneider, 2006). According to Mead’s view of “the self,” the interplay involving the “me” and the “I” is an individual’s thinking pattern, and they perceive things relying on these same patterns.

Erving Goffman

Goffman’s work exemplifies essential aspects of the symbolic interaction approach by focusing on how individuals use symbols to connect. His approach additionally highlights the significance of the social environment in affecting relationships. Goffman’s point of view stresses the importance of the social environment in shaping how individuals interact with one another (Serge, 2014). For instance, his approach to the reality of social construction reveals how humans use symbols to form a common understanding of reality. Goffman’s investigation of facework reveals how individuals utilize symbols to influence their relationships with others. His investigation of stigma shows how individuals use symbols to classify and distinguish others (Serge, 2014). The entirety of Goffman’s work emphasizes the importance of social context to influence interactions.

People connect with objects depending on the meanings assigned to them. In dramaturgy, an individual behaves or reacts to what they perceive to be appropriate from others surrounding them; impression management. Among essential aspects of symbolic interaction, the viewpoint is the belief that people utilize symbols to develop a cohesive knowledge of the imaginary or socio-cultural world. Goffman explicitly shows this through the social creation of reality (Serge, 2014). Goffman, for instance, describes ways individuals utilize language to gain a consensus world understanding. Besides, he discusses how people use apparel and related symbolism to communicate a consistent understanding of the universe.

Furthermore, Goffman notes that the meaning we attribute to objects is derived from our relationships with people and society. Individuals understand what is and is not acceptable because of their daily encounters with the community (stage). Likewise, a person interprets objects meaning while interacting with them in certain situations. As a component of “the self,” humans possess impression management, front and backstages (Serge, 2014). People apply front and backstage to govern their behavior or actions depending on where and with whom they associate in society.

My Stance Regarding a Person’s Immutable, Unchanging Self

In my whole view, “the self” cannot be immutable or unchangeable, and it would be unreasonable to assert that people possess an unchanging, immutable self. When considering themselves, humans often contemplate their character, dislikes and preferences, and additional distinctive characteristics. These unique identity features tend to stay reasonably stable over time (Serge, 2014). Additionally, individuals’ actions typically mirror their inner self-concept and impact their lives. People considering themselves gentle and sympathetic, for instance, are most likely to respond gently and sympathetically, even while under pressure. As a reason, it is reasonable to argue that human’s concept of self remains relatively consistent over time.

Additionally, dramaturgy demonstrates how adaptable or changeable the human self is based on who or what is around them. Every individual possesses two stages, the front and back, which dictates their interactions. The frontstage, known as impression management, manipulates other individuals’ impressions by acting per whatever we believe is appropriate conduct. On the other hand, we possess a backstage known as the genuine self, which we exclusively exhibit to individuals we feel comfortable talking to or being around (Serge, 2014). Goffman thinks that the human self cannot be stable but instead redefines itself regarding the various social situations individuals find themselves in within their environment. The self is a compilation of many “selves” contrary to the belief that it is a single entity. These “shelves” are triggered based on a person’s environment and the people interacting around them. For example, a person’s behavior and attitude will vary considerably at home and work. The work environment will activate a unique “shelf” similar to a home setting (Serge, 2014). It is probable to conclude that human self-identities cannot remain static; however, they change and evolve throughout time. This implies that, contrary to popular belief, people’s identities are dynamic, fluid creations formed through the many social circumstances they engage.

References

Schneider, M. A. (2006). The theory primer: A sociological guide. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Segre, M. S. (2014). Contemporary Sociological Thinkers and Theories. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.