Tuesday, 1 March 2016

SEARCHING FOR GOFFMAN
All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts.  
              -  William Shakespeare, As You Like It
One of the themes of postmodern philosophy the general public does not want to hear about is the deconstruction of the self.  Your self - the person you think you are from birth to death -  we are told by postmodern sages, is nothing but a socially constructed concept or image or narrative shaped by historical forces and concealing numerous biases and strategies of deception.  The self until recently had been conceived as the independent ‘I’ of Descartes’ “Cogito ergo sum,” the sovereign individual as in ‘rugged individualism,’ the John Galt of Atlas Shrugged, the bearer of the universal human rights and freedoms ensconced in the world’s constitutions and charters.  That sturdy, enduring self or ego, the postmoderns tell us, does not exist.  It’s an illusion.
The theory behind this claim is called social constructionism.  There are at least two versions.  Whereas some postmodern thinkers use deconstruction to expose the self as a creature of Eurocentric triumphalism and male chauvinism, Erving Goffman took a more empirical, sociological approach.  Goffman, termed by some “the most influential American sociologist of the 20th century,” made his mark with a book titled The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.  He argued that humans in social situations constantly position themselves to be perceived by others in the best light possible by taking on roles appropriate for the given social context, much as an actor adopts a persona or mask in a stage production.  Different masks are required for work, parties, official gatherings, school classrooms, etc., sometimes juggled one after the other depending on who is encountered in fast-changing interactions.  Although Goffman did allow that in one’s private life, the masks can be dropped and a person can be herself,  he nevertheless drew the conclusion from his dramaturgical analysis that there is no True Self, no enduring entity answering to the pronoun ‘I.’*  The self just is a collection of masks and nothing more.  Many other contemporary thinkers have taken the same view.  Philosopher Julian Baggini states the  no-self argument with startling candor on Ted Talks.
The first thing to notice about this argument is that Goffman’s conclusion does not follow from his premises.  Granting for the sake of argument that:
People perform various habitual roles in different social situations,
it does not follow that:
There is no such thing as a person’s true self.
Goffman states his argument from an objective, sociological standpoint, but one’s true self, if it exists, will not be revealed by any objective approach because ‘self’ is essentially a subjective concept.  ‘Who am I?’ can ultimately be answered, if at all, only by me.  Objective facts do not lead necessarily to subjective conclusions.  I may infer from Donald Trump’s rhetoric that he is a racist, but that may only be one of his masks.  Perhaps deep inside he is not a racist; only he can know for sure.
A recent lighthearted summary of Goffman’s theory appeared recently on the Aeon Magazine website.  (Press here to see the two-minute video.) It hinted at a second serious flaw in the no-self position.  Who exactly is telling us this story?  A social role called Erving Goffman?  Is Goffman himself communicating behind a mask?  His theory says he is.  Does he actually consider himself to be just a mask labeled ‘Sociologist?’  If so, can we be sure that, behind the mask, he is telling us what he actually believes?  If he insists, “Yes, yes, I am telling you the truth,” can we be certain he has not just put on another mask labeled ‘Truth Teller,’ which conceals another mask labeled, perhaps, ‘Very Insistent Truth Teller,’ and so on?  This is the dreaded quicksand of infinite regress—masks behind masks behind masks indefinitely.  That might suit impish deconstructionists just fine, but Goffman wants to be taken seriously as a sober-minded scientist. Like ourselves, he can’t live with an infinite regress. 
Another big problem.  Can Goffman deny the existence of his selfhood without committing a performative contradiction?  Here’s what I mean.  A performative contradiction occurs when someone states a claim that is falsified by the act of stating it.  For example, if a person says, “I will not mention Susan’s divorce in this conversation,” the contradiction between the statement and the act of saying it is immediately apparent.  (This is different from a logical contradiction, which is a clash between two statements both of which cannot be true.  For example, “Socrates was a Greek,’ and ‘Socrates was not a Greek.’)  Similarly, if Goffman is required by his theory to admit, “I am just a mask,” he would appear to be uttering something equivalent to “I do not exist.”
In order to convince the rest of us that we are something like the Cheshire Cat’s smile, Goffman has to deal with the pesky feeling of ‘I am’ that we all have moment-to-moment at least during our waking hours.  Whenever I wish I can report to myself or to others what I am or what I am doing.  The popular custom of continuous texting gives self-reporting more air time than at any time in history.  A texts B:  ‘What’s up?’  B replies, “I’m fixing dinner.”  Five minutes later, A:  “Hey, I’m watching the hockey game.  What are you doing?”  B:  “I’m eating dinner.”   This “I am” could be prefixed to anything we are doing at any time, and we are convinced that this ‘I’ that I am is the same ‘I’ that I mentioned or felt or intuited five minutes ago or five days ago, perhaps even five decades ago.  Yes, the self undergoes many changes over a lifetime, some quite dramatic, but unless we suffer serious brain damage somewhere along the way, the sense of our core identity over time for most of us is very hard to dislodge, even if difficult to explain. 
Actually, our sense of self-identity needs no theory to support it.  It is a simple feeling of being that is ever present in our waking lives and even when we are dreaming.  “I am” seems to be the enduring background of our entire lives, the organizing principle of all our thoughts, feelings, memories, decisions, and actions.  Prior to any of those activities is this simple ‘I amness.’  Prior to taking on any social role—father, friend, business manager, socialite, cook, etc.— you simply are this ’I,’ the actor who executes the parts in your social drama and the one who is aware of yourself performing the roles.   Without that sense of being you, the agent and experiencer of all the role-changes life requires of you, your social process would be utterly incoherent, something very like insanity.
Although everyone has access to the sense or intuition of their enduring selfhood, that doesn’t mean they understand it or how it works.  Most of the time we identify with a particular role or set of roles that we think define us and are only dimly aware of the foundational ‘I amness’ that provides the ground of all our conscious activities.  If this Self is not a role or an emotion or a thought, what is its function?  An ancient Hindu philosophy, Vedanta, provides the answer:  ‘I am’ is pure awareness, the One who notices or observes or is aware of everything that happens in your life but is not involved or active in any of it.  For that reason, Vedanta calls it the Witness.  The Witness has no thoughts or feelings but is aware of all your thoughts and feelings.  It makes no judgment about what you do but merely observes your actions.  It is not a role that you enact in society, but it sees your roles just as they are.  The Witness, according to the tradition, is your True Self.
Philosophers say that the Witness is ontologically prior to any thinking, feeling, sensing, imagining, or role-playing that you may experience day-to-day, moment-to-moment.  If you were not already aware of what happens in your experiential space, you could not think about what is happening in the experience or have any feeling about it.  For example, while on a walk in the local park, you look up from the pavement and see a rosebush in full bloom.  Just there, in that indivisible moment, you are purely aware of the flowers.  The reaction follows in a flash: “Beautiful!” First the awareness, then the feeling.
This bare witnessing is the reason you can remember past experiences.  During the racketball game yesterday, you were completely immersed in the activity.  You were the player, dodging, leaping, making shots.  At the same time, unnoticed by you the player, the Witness was noticing everything you did and filing it away somehow in memory.  This doesn’t mean you will remember everything - some people can apparently - but without the Witness dispassionately recording your performance, you could remember nothing at all.
All of the foregoing is what philosophy tells us.  But you don’t have to rely on mere speculation to apprehend the reality of the Witness.  You can directly experience your ’I amness’ whenever you have a quiet moment.  It’s not complicated.  Sit in a quiet place, relax, and just begin to notice what comes up - bodily sensations arise, thoughts, feelings, memories - one after another, never the same moment-to-moment.  Let them go; try not to analyze or judge them.  Before long, you will realize that you are not any of those sensations, thoughts, feelings, or memories.  You are the Witness of those, the ‘I am’ that operates above and beyond the stream of ever-changing experience, noticing all of it, recording everything like a video camera, without judgment, without preference, without emotion.  Pure awareness, pure ’I am’ - that’s who you really are. 
The Witness is always on duty, usually in the background, a perspective on all you do but hidden from your ego-self in the stream of everyday experience.  The Witness is not a social role that you can take on and take off. It is not any particular mask that you might use to present yourself to the world.  It is not even your ‘authentic self,’ for that too may be just another mask or a delusional self-image.  

Imagine Erving Goffman searching among his masks for his true self.  Like most of us, he did not know how or where to look.  It was there the whole time, “hard to find, but impossible to avoid.”
____________________________
* For a humorous portrayal of one man's attempt to 'be himself,' watch the video Just Be Yourself  here.

18 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I knew this guy sometime back, who used to often say to me, "I'm just a witness". I love to use this quote with people. It's so non judgemental.
    As for masks or "screens" that people project outwardly to others, everyone's got one. Could be it might be used as a defense mechanism. Will we be accepted if they knew our "true selves"? And what do we think of ourselves personally? Are we good looking enough, smart enough, talented or articulate enough? We put our "best face forward" so to speak. We don't want to turn anybody off upon first meeting do we??
    We do have to be real about it though. Shouldn't pretend to be someone we're not in order to gain something from someone else. Shouldn't hide behind a screen of dishonesty in order to get over on others. I've seen a lot of that in my life's journey. No, you have to live life honestly. And when you do,you won't need to protect and hide your "true self" with a mask and the world might just look nicer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everything you wrote is right on the money. The ‘masks’ that E. Goffman wrote about are indeed defense mechanisms and necessary for our effective functioning in society. We have more than one, by the way – except perhaps for Donald Trump – which we use in different situations. Problems arise when we identify too closely with one of our social roles, e.g. a superstar doctor who forgets that he is also a human being and that others are, too (William Hurt in the 1991 movie The Doctor).

      Delete
  3. Interesting post! There are so many points in this post I like to comment on. But I will just comment on one point for now.


    'performative contradiction' seems like David Stove's (a very interesting Australian philosopher)
    'Ishmael effect'. Also like statements similar to the following statement:
    ‘It is absolutely true that truth is relative’

    -OR-


    ReplyDelete
  4. Mary Hoxer,
    But Goffman is not saying that people are hiding their true self behind masks, he claims that there is no true self at all.

    -OR-


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, we are constantly changing and evolving throughout our life. maybe there's never a true self as he suggests because we're always a work in progress. I don't know. (lol!) I'm just a witness...

      Delete
  5. I agree that 'People perform various habitual roles in different social situations' does not entail 'There is no such thing as a person’s true self.'

    -OR-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you think of the Vedantic claim that the 'Witness' is our True Self?

      Delete
  6. I and my mask are one?
    Masks, like make up, are not worn by everyone. And those that put on masks, like those that put on makeup, don’t always. It can be an occasional or even situational thing. Sometimes the mask, like the makeup, is quite thick, other times just thick enough to cover the most obvious blemishes.
    Most humans want to offer their best selves in situation where they seek to be seen in a favorable light - usually because they see the others in their company as important. Personal I believe this happens most frequently when we want to impress someone of the opposite sex. It is because of this tendency to wear a mask of pretention when we are with others of the opposite sex that I recommended to both my children (and anyone else willing to listen) that they should see their prospective mate, at least once, drunk. Not falling down drunk, but mask removing drunk. Who we are when we let our guard down, is who we really are. And if you have seen someone who is drunk, you have seen a person with his mask down around his ankles. You will also see in this condition, that person is much more than a witness.
    No one needs to wear makeup on a solo hike in the woods. The birds and squirrels don’t care. And likewise, we don’t care so much when we are drunk. Seeing someone without their mask is educational. It can be a shocking experience, but it can also be a non-event.
    Using Goffman’s “logic” I am a sexless being because none of my friends have seen my penis. My mother instilled in me the mask of modesty early on in life, and I pretty much went along with her program and wear pants wherever I go. This tragic loss of my real sexual self has been mostly greeted by relief from my friends. They are quite comfortable having me wear this mask. It appears at least a few masks are preferred in some social settings.
    Mask on! I’m headed out in public!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fairness to Goffman, we should probably use the term 'social role' rather than 'mask.' Masks are used to disguise or conceal one's identity, whereas social roles are not usually thought to do that. For example, in her role as hostess of a dinner party, a woman will usually behave in a way that matches her guests' expectations of hostess behavior and would not usually think she was disguising or hiding something.

      Delete
    2. Can't masks be both social roles and ways to conceal one's identity? I am thinking of Fanon's example of former colonial subjects who adopt the language and culture of their colonial master in order to appear civilized to the latter and superior to their own countrymen.

      Delete
    3. Good example. I agree. A social role can be enacted honestly in one situation, in which case it would not function as a mask. In another situation, the same role could be used to disguise a personal agenda that the individual does not want others to see.

      Delete
  7. I am not clear about the true self question at present.

    But Buddhism has some interesting things to say about it in, "Questions of king Milinda to Nagasena". As you know in Buddhism the doctrine of no-self is central.

    Also, David Hume gives some penetrating arguments on this question in his book: A Treatise of Human Nature(1739), Book 1.4.6 and Appendix.

    -OR-

    ReplyDelete
  8. The doctrine of no-self (anatta) leaves open the possibility that the Witness is not the ultimate ground of selfhood. In fact, some Buddhist teachers have said that the Witness is the last barrier to nondual enlightenment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is the "Witness" a "static" internal observer? Is it unchanging? Is it an "essence?" Is it something which just "is" or is it more like a faculty which we cultivate and develop?

      Delete
  9. The masters tell us: The Witness is neither static nor dynamic, neither internal nor external, neither changing nor unchanging, neither an essence nor an attribute, neither is nor is not. It is not something that can be developed, for it does not enter the stream of time. It is in brief "neti, neti," not this, not that. It cannot really be named, only discovered - which should be easy because it is never separated from you. Say to yourself, "I am." In that moment of "I am" arising in your awareness, who was aware of "I am?" That's the Witness you are looking for but cannot find. Ask yourself, who is it that sees? Who is it that hears? Who is it that thinks? Who is it that feels? "Thou art that," says the Upanishad. Before all seeking, you are already That.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The name of this blog is very special. 'White' for purity and holiness; 'Rock' like the Rock of Salvation or the Rock of Ages.
    A "white stone" is mentioned in Revelation 2.:17; it shall been given by God... That is why He tells us: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness..." A bon entendeur, salut !

    ReplyDelete