Erving Goffman
Biographical Sketch
Through a microsociological analysis and a focus on unconventional subject matter, Goffman explores the details of individual identity, group relations, the impact of the environment, and the movement and interactive meaning of information. He focused on the ways people “frame” or define social reality in the communicative process. His perspective provides new insight into the nature of social interaction and the psychology of the individual. Before we go into the details of his work, let us have a look at his life, the social context, and the intellectual influences that bear on his writings.
Goffman was born in 1922 in Mannville, Alberta, Canada, to Max Goffman and Anne Goffman. The Goffmans belonged to Ukrainian Jews who were part of the great flow of Jewish migration from Russia to Canada in the early 20th century. Goffman attended St. John's Technical High School in Winnipeg and later enrolled at the University of Manitoba. He left his University studies to join the film industry for the National Film Board of Canada, established by John Grierson. Goffman met Dennis Wrong, a renowned North American sociologist, during this time.
This meeting inspired him to join the University of Toronto, where he graduated with a B.A. in sociology and anthropology in 1945. Afterwards, he moved on to the University of Chicago and received his M.A. and Ph.D in sociology in 1949 and 1953, respectively. While studying at the University of Chicago, Goffman did field research in the Shetland Islands. The research conducted here inspired Goffman to write his first major work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. After graduating from the University of Chicago, Goffman served as a research fellow at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda from 1954 to 1957. Participant observation done here led to his essays on mental illness and ‘total institutions’, which came together to form another one of his works, Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Subsequently, Goffman was a professor in the sociology department at Berkeley from 1957 to 1968. After Berkeley, Goffman became a professor at the University of Pennsylvania until his death in 1982.
Introduction
While Erving Goffman does not provide a formal or systematic theory of institutional theology, his micro-sociological analysis of everyday interaction, dramaturgy, and ritual order offers a profoundly significant framework for interpreting religion. By examining his seminal works, particularly The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) and Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (1967), we can conceptualise religion not merely as a macro-level institution, but as a deeply embedded system of symbolic action and ritualised behaviour. Goffman’s approach shifts the sociological focus from broad collective representations to the intimate, micro-level processes of interaction where sacred meanings are actively constructed and maintained by individuals.
1. Dramaturgy and the “Idealised” Performance
The foundation of Goffman’s framework is his dramaturgical perspective, which argues that social life operates like a theatrical performance. In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman explicitly states that his study adopts a “theatrical performance” perspective, where individuals are constantly engaged in presenting themselves in everyday situations (Goffman, 1959, Preface, p. xi). He further explains that individuals attempt to carefully guide and control the impressions that others form of them during these interactions (Goffman, 1959, Preface, p. xi). When applied to the sociology of religion, this means that religious actors, such as priests, shamans, and everyday devotees, perform highly structured sacred roles. Ritual spaces like temples, mosques, or churches function as the “front stage” where these polished, idealised performances occur, while private doubts or less formal beliefs correspond to the hidden “back stage.” Religion, in this light, is interpreted as a structured, cooperative performance of sacred meanings where participants consciously enact socially recognised moral roles.
2. Impression Management and Symbolic Communication
Central to this performance is the “definition of the situation” and how individuals communicate within it to sustain a religious atmosphere. Goffman emphasises that successful interaction depends heavily on how individuals define a given situation, arguing that prior information about a person helps to define this situation and guides expectations of behaviour (Goffman, 1959, p. 4). Goffman (1959) argues that individuals actively attempt to influence others by controlling the definition of the situation, noting that “this control is achieved largely by influencing the definition of the situation which the others come to formulate, and he can influence this definition by expressing himself in such a way as to give them the kind of impression that will lead them to act voluntarily in accordance with his own plan” (pp. 3-4). In religious contexts, group rituals serve to create and sustain a shared definition of sacred reality. Participants utilise what Goffman identifies as two distinct forms of communication: “expressions given,” which are intentional communications like reciting prayers, folding hands, or kneeling; and “expressions given off,” which are unintentional signals such as a visibly sincere emotional state or a trembling voice (Goffman, 1959, p. 4). Because true inner intentions and authentic faith are not directly observable, individuals must rely on inference drawn from outward expressions, as “the ‘true’ or ‘real’ attitudes, beliefs, and emotions of the individual can be ascertained only indirectly, through his avowals or through what appears to be involuntary expressive behavior” (Goffman, 1959, p. 3). Faith itself, therefore, becomes a symbolically communicated reality where believers manage impressions to appear authentically devout to their community.
3. “Face” and Interaction Rituals
In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Goffman transitions his focus to the highly structured nature of face-to-face encounters, defining the subject matter of sociology as the actual events that occur during co-presence, involving gestures, speech, and bodily expressions (Goffman, 1967, p. 1). He emphasises that all social interaction is governed by a strict normative order that shapes behaviour (Goffman, 1967, p. 2). In this order, Goffman introduces one of his most vital concepts for understanding the modern sacred: “face.” He defines face as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact.” (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). Goffman (1967) explains that individuals tend to experience an immediate emotional response to the face that social interactions allow them to present; their feelings become attached to this face. If an encounter supports a person’s long-held self-image, it may elicit little emotion, but when the image is better than expected, the individual may “feel good,” while unmet expectations may lead them to “feel bad” or “feel hurt.” This attachment to a particular face, along with the ease with which it can be disconfirmed by oneself or others, underscores why participation in social encounters becomes a significant commitment (p. 6). Goffman further notes that, although one’s social face may feel like a most personal possession and the centre of security and pleasure, it is ultimately “on loan” from society and will be withdrawn if not properly maintained. The approved attributes associated with face can make “every man his own jailer,” creating a fundamental social constraint (p. 10). Thus, individuals become deeply and emotionally invested in their “face,” making its maintenance a central, almost religious concern in everyday interaction (Goffman, 1967).
This concept of face allows us to see how everyday interactions contain profound ritual elements such as respect, politeness, and deference, which directly mirror religious forms. In the modern, secularised world, the individual self is treated as morally significant and sacred. Maintaining another person’s dignity and protecting their “face” resembles the careful protection of a sacred religious object. Conversely, social violations that cause shame, embarrassment, or a loss of face function as modern forms of ritual pollution or sin. Thus, formal religious rituals are not entirely separate from ordinary life; rather, they are intensified, formalised extensions of the everyday interaction rituals that govern human co-presence.
Conclusion
Although Erving Goffman did not formulate a direct theory of religion, his conceptual arsenal provides a powerful analytical framework for understanding the mechanics of the sacred. Through dramaturgy, impression management, and interaction rituals, religion can be understood as a highly structured system of interaction in which individuals perform moral roles and uphold symbolic meanings. Goffman’s work reveals that the sacred is not confined merely to formal institutions, but is deeply embedded in the everyday, ritualistic maintenance of social order and individual dignity.
Post a Comment