EA little later, he shared the history of the renovations of the house with a professional colleague who received him in his apartment. Against the architects’ intentions, he immediately recognized which walls and which doors had been moved and in what way. Apparently the Canadian-American sociologist Erving Goffman, who would have turned 100 on June 11, had something of a perfect ear for disagreements, for contradictions and inconsistencies. His concept of self-representation is one of the scientific benefits that he gained from this talent.
If there is talk of self-expression in everyday life, then that is not saying anything friendly. Self-portrayal is anyone who smugly violates the ban on self-praise. Things are different for those who present themselves as hard-wearing fellow human beings. But both the show-off and the helpful will commit themselves by their behavior in front of others, and both will have difficulty in breaking the stance once established. If the notorious egomaniac suddenly gives to the helpful, others will suspect that he is only doing this out of calculation, and should the considerate unexpectedly push his way ahead, then his acquaintances will reproach him with his own portrayal history: You’re not usually like that.
You often become the person you initially only portray
Goffman’s concept of self-representation denotes this self-determination through one’s own actions, seen from the perspective of viewers, who draw their own conclusions about the character of the actor. Each depiction of one therefore has an orientation value for the others. For the same reason, it is also defended by them, not only against disturbances and attacks coming from outside, but also against possible withdrawals from the performer himself there is. Because nobody, not even Donald Trump, can openly disregard them without taking all the weight out of their own voice.
One can learn from Goffman that man becomes who he is portrayed to be, not because the portrayal corresponded to his nature, but because others expect it to continue. Even insincere and strategic portrayals, such as being an unconditional lover, must be continued as long as the relationship is to continue, and often this can only be achieved by actually becoming who you initially pretended to be. Maintaining a fake identity is difficult for anyone who hasn’t been trained as a spy.
Similar educational effects also arise in the area of behavior that is particularly honorable because it is not required. The prospect of making a special sacrifice and being commended for it may be attractive. But since the indispensible cannot well be attributed to the norm, to the role, to the institution, it is attributed to the person who then finds himself tied to the level of achievement once demonstrated. Maybe our helper only wanted to be nice once, but that’s exactly what he would have failed.
Now that sounds a lot like the social world is a giant prison where everyone is chained to the rocks of their representational history, but that’s not the case, not in a differentiated and mobile society. Here, most of the performances bind only in front of a certain audience, and by changing the audience one can solve them. Freedom of representation is not only enjoyed by the rich and beautiful, who can say no at any time, but above all by newcomers, whether in school or at work, on the political stage or on a first date. Their past is unknown to their audiences, so here they get more choice than usual about who they want to be and how they portray themselves. And it is not uncommon for them to discover traits in themselves that would astonish their acquaintances.
Other freedoms of representation result from the fact that only a small part of what someone does is attributed to him personally, while other parts are considered to have been caused externally. Since they do not carry an expression value for the person, the person is not bound. Niklas Luhmann explained this impersonal action using the example of the civil servant. He also reliably serves governments he would never elect, but no one dares to accuse him of political inconsistency. “His” action in service is not actually his action.