The self and others

The presentation of the self

The management of the self
Ervin Goffman
• Focused on how people present themselves to others
• Saw behaviour as performance put on for various audiences
• The body can be managed in various ways to construct
versions of the self.

Maintaining authenticity
• The use of certain rules and symbolisms to classify ourselves
(and others).
• Embarrassment – conflicts between selves (examples)
Facework – the beginnings
Ervin Goffman (1922 – 1982)

• Studied face to face encounters in

Canada, USA and UK then constructed
Rich descriptions from which he established
Conceptual frameworks.

• Established face to face interaction as a domain of study

• Goffman’s face theory shed light on how public images are

constructed and the strategies that are used to maintain and
restore their own and other’s images.
Interaction as ‘drama’
• Goffman uses the metaphor of drama to describe the way we
interact in everyday life
• Interaction is like a performance with each person playing a
particular part – delivering lines, using costumes and props
etc.
• We structure our actions in order to perform certain roles
Common uses of ‘face’
“She/he was trying to save face”

“Egg on your face”

Saving face is the preservation of dignity and the avoidance of

embarrassment and shame
Face

“Almost all acts involving others are modified, prescriptively or

proscriptively, by considerations of face”
(Goffman, 1967: 13)

“To study face-saving is to study the traffic rules of social

interaction” (Goffman, 1967: 12)

Face is collaboratively maintained and defended within the

context of social interaction. It is therefore an important part of
everyday communication.
Face
What is face?
“Face is an image of the self delineated in terms of approved
social attributes” (Goffman, 1967: 5)

“The public self image that every member want to claim for
himself” (Brown and Levinson, 1987:61). This encompasses the
want to be unimpeded (negative face) and to gain the
appreciation and approval of others (positive face) (Haugh,
2009)
Loosing Face
Face is lost when the state of being ‘in face’ is disrupted or when
a person is not able to put forth the image that is desired or
expected.

Wrong face /loosing face:

• Information/action discredits the image that is being put
forward
• When information is revealed about an individual that can not
be integrated into the line that is being sustained for them or
• When a person adopts a line that is unexpected or
inappropriate for the situation. (ie: a prank)

*Examples
What happens when we loose
face?
• We become flustered and embarrassed

• We may be unable to legitimately

uphold the image that we desire to
put forward.

• We use facework to maintain integrity of our face

• Others participate in our efforts to maintain/save face

(examples).
Facework
• The actions taken to ensure that the flow of events are
consistent with face.

• Facework is the counteraction of events and instances that

threaten face (equivalent to tack or social skills).

• The controlling of embarrassment and the embarrassment of

others (poise) is a big part of facework.
Kinds of facework
Avoidance

A persons avoidance of topics and activities that are inconsistent with the
line being taken – that threaten face.

Example:
Maintaining composure and supressing the display of feelings until you gain
a sense of the line that others are taking – to see whether or not our view
will be supported.

Even when an incident occurs, a person can still pretend that face has not
been threatened in order to protect face.
(Ie: non-acknowledgement of stomach rumbling)
Others may also assist in the maintaining of face by ignoring the incident in
question.
Kinds of face work
Correction

When participants fail to prevent a face-threatening occurrence

and it is difficult to overlook then steps are made to correct its
effects.

Once the threat to face has been acknowledged, steps are put
in motion to re-establish ritual equilibrium.
Step 1 – the challenge
Step 2 – the offering
Step 3 - acceptance
Step 4 – thanks
Facework and collaboration
• Within everyday interactions involved the upkeep of ones
own face as well as the protection of that of others. This is
done simultaneously.

• Facework is a collaborative process, - it is a reflection of the

willingness of individuals to abide by the ground rules of social
interaction.

• Example: reciprocal self-denial (Goffman, 1967)

Developments in facework
Key Criticism of Goffman’s conceptualisation of facework
Face is based on Western perspective of interaction -
ethnocentric (Haugh, 2009)
• Individualistic
• Focused on imposition avoidance
• Focus on threat to self image as the core motivation for
facework

Tension within the field between:

1. Perceptions of face as a cognitive state that motivates
certain behaviours
2. Perceptions of face as a shared cultural construct and shaped
by cultural norms.
Pair activity
• Think of an embarrassing or potentially embarrassing situation
that you have encountered and discuss how you and others
attempted to save/maintain face.
Politeness theory
“Second generation rendering of face and facework” (Metts and
Cupach, 2015: 238)

Explains the way in which we protect face and manage facet

threatening situations through politeness.

• Negative and positive face

• Negative and positive politeness

• *Example – request for lecturer to reconsider grade

(Look at Littlejohn, Foss and Oetzel, 2017 chapter 4)
Attribution theory

“The underlying causes of events, especially the motives of

other persons, are the invariances of the environment that are
relevant to [the perceiver]; they give meaning to what he
experiences” (Heider, 1958: 81)

What is Heider saying here?

Do you agree?
Attribution theory
• Attribution is concerned with the ways in which people
analyse and explain behaviour. More specifically, how we
arrive at causal explanations for behaviour.

• As human beings we are always looking to make sense of the

world and to establish cause and effect relationships in
behaviours - ‘native psychologists’.

The cause that we attribute to a behaviour influences the

meaning of the action and consequently how we respond to it.
Attribution therefore shapes interaction.
Attribution theory
3 step process of attribution:
• Observation
• Assessment of intent
• Attribution about source of motivation (internal/external)

Guidelines of attribution (Kelly)

• Consistency
• Distinctiveness
• Consensus?

Fundamental attribution error – attribution tendencies

Process of attribution
CONTEXT
(Preconceptions)

Observation
Consistency

Assessment of Distinctiveness
intent
Consensus?

Attribution
Attribution and interaction
“Every comment a person makes and every action a parson
performs can be subject to attributional analysis, by self and
others. The outcome of this analysis has potentially significant
implications for how people think about one another and for the
nature of how we respond to another’s actions”
(Spitzberg and Manusov, 2015)

“When we provide attributions for others communication (or

other behaviour) it may affect how we view the other person
and his or her behaviour. Even more notably, it may also affect
our communication towards them”
(Spitzberg and Manusov, 2015)
Attribution in action
Examples:
Is the person being
deceptive?

Yes No

??? ???
Attribution in action

Was the lie self

serving/relation
ally motivated?

Yes

??? ???
Attribution in action
Teacher misbehaviour and student attribution (Kelsey et al, 2004)

Results:
Students more readily assigned causal attributions of internality rather than externality.

Students associated internal attributions with consistent misbehaviour.

Attribution process influenced by degree of consistency.

Context:
Mediating factor of attribution: immediacy of teachers
Teacher immediacy framed students perceptions of teachers.

Effects of attributions:
When teacher behaviour was attributed to internal causality student judgement of
teacher effectiveness and student motivation adversely affected.
Attribution in action
Students evaluation of marketing professors

Findings:
• Relationship between grades and attribution complex
• Number of factors that mediate attribution and the evaluation of
professors.

Context
• Expectations of students impacted on cognitive process used to
evaluate professors.
• Whether or not professor seen as caring affected attribution

Effects of attributions:
• Professors who give similar grades can be evaluated differently
Key sources
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. and Haugh, M. (eds) (2009) Face
communication and social interaction. London and Oakville:
Equinox publishing Ltd.

Goffman, E. (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face

behaviour. England and Australia: Penguin books.
http://hplinguistics.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/38289359/Gof
fman,%20Erving%20'On%20Face-work'.
pdf

Kelsey, D. M. et al (2004) College students attributions of teacher

misbehaviouirs. Communication Education. 53: 1. pp.40-55.
Key sources
Littlejohn, S. W, Foss, K. A. and Oetzel, J. G. (2017) Theories of
human communication (Eleventh Edition). United States:
Waveland Press.

Metts, S. and Cupach, W. R. (2015) Goffman’s dramatic approach

to interpersonal interaction. In Braithwaite, D. O. and Schrodt, P.
(eds) Engaging theories in interpersonal communication :
Multiple perspectives (second edition). California, United
Kingdom, India and Singapore: Sage.