C'mon Guys...

The Washington Nationals: 46-85 (3-7 in the last ten games), in the midst of a losing streak, a whopping 30 games behind, and drawing a tiny number of fans per game. How's THAT for an identity?

I have to say, I feel extremely sorry for whoever is in charge of promoting baseball in DC. Not because it's not a great sport, or that the DC metro area lacks fans of baseball, it's that it has to one of the most challenging jobs around right now. The Nationals' terribleness, coupled with the fact that DC hasn't had a baseball team in 30 years must make promotion difficult, to say the least. Because of the Nats' awful record and overall play, the owners missed out on one of sport's most time-honored traditions of keeping a team popular: Band-wagon jumping!

Now, I've read several blogs stating that the Nationals were trying too hard to push the "DC sports" agenda, and I admit, I found myself being a little cynical as well. But ask yourselves: if the Nationals were good, would we still consider them to be trying too hard? Or would we consider them another link in the proud chain that is DC sports? We would probably just leap up on to that super fun band-wagon (it's a band ON a wagon! What's not to like?) and wear our Nationals hats and our Nationals Shirts and our Nationals underwear.

But because they are godawful, we distance ourselves from them and automatically assume that THEY are trying to overcompensate by playing up DC's illustrious baseball history. Maybe they are legitimately proud about the team's predecessor in DC. Besides, as PTJ quoted, "People cheer for clothes". And if the clothes always said WASHINGTON on them, why does it matter if the team was once in Montreal? The Nationals' roster has players representing every major region in the US and many foreign countries. So, is it wrong that a man from the Dominican Republic wears a uniform with "DC" on it? No? Then, to quote one of my favorite philosophers, "What's up, Doc?". What's the difference between the baseball team that's playing in DC now and the baseball team that played 85 years ago, besides the name? Both teams had players from all over and both played the sport IN DC. Oh yea, I found the only difference: this bad boy. So please, let's stop picking on the Nationals because they suck.

Hows about we pick on a big guy now? Red Sox fans: Ho many of you would like the fact that their team was the last team to integrate, TWELVE YEARS after the color barrier was broken, to just go away? That's what I thought. But it's alright, The Sox are only 6 games behind, so there's no need for that.

Reflection 1!!!!!!!!!!

After a week of talking and discussing the term “identity” we were finally asked to give our own definition of the term and in teams come to an agreement as to what “identity” was. Though the task sounded simple, it was actually a very tricky thing. I observed how many of us had our own view and meaning of what an identity actually was. One of the points that my group made was that an identity was simply “what made you, you”. The statement was so simple but it made me realize something so important. I realized that an identity is kind of like a safe box. By a safe box I mean that an individual gets to control what information, experiences, thoughts, and opinions we get store within ourselves. We get to choose what it is that can impact and mold the way we view our surroundings. PTJ made the point that there are also things we can’t control that can make up and identity such as your sex or ethnicity. But to this fact I must state that it all depends on what the individual chooses. There are some individuals who may choose to not see their ethnicity or gender as part of their identity. Though I do think Goffman can be cynical I must say that he doesn’t do it for a dislike of society’s ways but rather as a way to emphasize how at times being distrustful can alter the way we view ideas and can therefore help us raise questions that we wouldn’t have really pondered upon if we had been good trusting citizens. Going back to the whole baseball conversation in class I hate to admit that I am a bit “Goffman” about the whole baseball identity trying to be established. By being “Goffman” I mean that I am a bit cynical about the project. It feels as if a front of community unity is being created through this whole baseball motif. The baseball stadium seemed to echo a united love for baseball and its history when in reality a not-so-great team doesn’t exactly cause the public to swoon for the sport. Therefore my cynicism founded the question as to why try to unify such a separated area through the love for baseball? Why not create unity by building a library in which people can really become united through their love of learning rather than a sport? Though Goffman was a cynical man, through his book I learned that sometimes a little bit of doubt can beget thoughts and questions that otherwise may not have been asked.

Reflection 1: Acting or instinct?

What is cynical about labeling behaviors as performed rather than intrinsic to human nature?

Well, a question I have is - how can we distinguish the intrinsic quality of human nature, a certain system of behavior, passed down biologically... from a socially acquired "performance"? How are we certain that the examples offered by Goffman are not really just instances resulting from our evolution as a species?

There are two options: either we, as infants and children, in our period of adapting to societal demands and mores, have absorbed the fitting standards for select circumstances. We have learned how to act. We learned that talking bad about the teacher behind her back brings humor to the classroom, engenders solidarity, a warmer atmosphere among the fellow students. We have learned, however, never to say these insults to the teacher's face. Growing up, from cradled infants, to kindergarten toddlers, to children, teens, young adults... we have learned to care for our personal interests.

Or, all our behavior and back-talk, gossip, fronts, is evidence of the homo sapiens' struggle for survival. We need to remain in groups. Hence we act accordingly. We need to self-preserve. Hence we are egocentric and care for our interests. Here, we are on auto pilot.

Goffman's favored term - "performance" - is what befogs me here. "Performance", in context of social activity, to me at least, sounds objectionable. Something bad, bombastic, falsified. Not nice, natural, genuine as innate nature. Even the explanation of intrinsic biology, wild, feral human evolution sounds, well, nicer than having someone lie and "perform" to your face because of developed social standards. Requirements, almost.

If all human behavior, as generalized by Goffman's book, is to be equal - regardless culture, century, personal experience - I judge the "performances" not performances, after all. The theatrical metaphor works quite well within the framework of the book. But, if I am to believe that the majority of manual laborers around the world work harder (or pretend to) once the boss rolls around the corner, and slow down as he exits, I don't consider this a performance. I consider it a "duh" moment. Wouldn't this be typical of a carnal instinct of preserving one's form and physical energy? Need it be termed a "performance"? (Actually, I've no better nomenclature for it myself, but just find it misleading.)

And so, I do find Goffman's terminology slightly cynical. There is no particular slant toward, no saying what is right/wrong in the content of the book. He simply writes what he sees. But the theatrical terms... again, objectionable. Offensive, even.

Reflection numero 1

Since this is my first reflection, I am at the moment hoping that I do this post correctly. I have just finished the Presentation of Self and I have found it insightful but also distressing. Goffman's attitude towards humans is of a cynic nature. I came across this quote in chapter 6. Goffman writes, "In Shetland Hotel, the staff had great freedom in regard to what was put in soups and puddings, because soups and puddings tend to conceal what is contained in them," (224). I found this sentence disturbing because Goffman asserts that humans are able to conceal their true selves from others by putting on a "front." Therefore, I deduce from this that Goffman is drawing a parallel between humans and such foods as "soups and puddings" because there is the striking similarity between these two forms in that they are able to trick others from finding what is actually inside of them. Since Goffman goes as far as making this comparison, even if it is not outright, he relays to us that he is cynical. Goffman does not place trust in the genuineness of human nature, and he believes that every action, either purposely or accidentally, is to elicit a specific response from those that are watching the so- called "performance." Yes, this point of view is interesting, but at the same time I dislike it greatly because it scares me-- it makes me realize that in reality, in the world in which we live, maybe nothing is real. But, I do not wish to believe this because I want to cling to my few idealistic tendencies for as long as they hold true for me in my own life.
Though Goffman did extensive research for The Presentation of Self, (as obviously displayed in the immense amount of footnotes) his documentation is from fifty years ago, and though times do not change that extensively in such a short period of time, I have yet to have firm reason to believe wholeheartedly in Goffman's observations. I will, however, use them as an observational tool, and throughout this Explorations course maybe I will possess more of the gumption toward humanity that Goffman conveys in his book.

PS: I did find this Spanish video on Goffman's life quite interesting, and if you don't know Spanish you can just look at the photos :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxPu6axeq2E

Goffman= Genius or Fool?

Ok, so at first thought I think to myself, “This man is crazy!!” How can he compare the natural transgression of life into death to something as staged and planned as a play? It almost seems as if Goffman mocks death and bestows upon it a certain aura of “unnaturalness” in which death appears as a thing that was planned and not something that occurred. But the more I think about it, and think about it again, I hate to admit it but the man’s right. In a way a funeral is like a play. There are those who give their condolences who truly mean it and then there are those who don on a mask a grief and then give their condolences. I’ve been to my share of funerals and I’ve seen it happen. However, I don’t think Goffman intends to insult or lessen the significance of a funeral but rather accentuate how people act in the presence of others and enforce his thesis that people consciously act in ways so as to control impressions created about them. At the same time, not only are people acting so as to create a controlled impression of themselves but they are also following tradition. By this I mean that we were raised with the idea that funerals are a time to reflect and grieve for the loss of a life. So when people pretend to be morose at a funeral they are in fact following tradition, or the established idea that at a funeral a sullen tone must be created. If we were taught that at funerals one dances and laughs then that is the atmosphere that one would want to create. It all depends on the individual’s take of how a funeral should be treated. So in conclusion, Goffman (as crazy and deluded as he may sound at times) is correct. We treat situations the way we plan them to appear, whether they be sad or happy.

Scanning carrots

Can a funeral be a performance? In a funeral home, a place of business, I quite agree. To believe owners and employees of a funeral home sincerely grieve for each deceased "star of the show" would be quite mitigating. We'd like to be comforted by the fact that the establishment, in its funeral proceedings, is driven by genuine sympathy. A humane approach. But can their undertakings, or exhibited feelings, in a way, be feigned? Can they be staged?

I believe so. During peak hours of work, office employees dazedly stamp envelopes and robotically hand out building permits. With long lines of customers, grocery store clerks frantically scan items and the world around them turns into a mad whirl. Do these employees notice their clients much? Do they show compassion for the weary face, do they care about who the customer is, care about his troubles and woes? No. They just want to get on with it, scan the milk, print the receipt, and take on the next. This might be harsh, but the undertakings of funeral home establishments could function in the same way. Especially, as noted in Goffman's case, if there are two (or more) funerals concurrently taking place.

In all routine, repetition, and constant exposure to something even as weighty as a funeral, even the tenebrous tones of the ceremony and its significance of the end of a human life can be lost. It is possible for the employee to detach himself from the proceedings, mentally, emotionally, and treat all events, tears of the bereaved, as part of a regular work day. Hence, his attentiveness, grief, self-effacement, could be aspects of a well-practiced act.

As grim as this appears, such distant behavior does not strike me as cruel, cold-blooded. There is good, amity, left. Just try walking into a grocery at off-peak hours. The cashier will notice a face, and if chatty, he/she might make pleasant small talk, comment on the rain. Or those carrots you're buying. Without rush, people gain a state of awareness of their surroundings. Perhaps their perception is improved, and with less automation, events and situations gain relevance, the workers' focus, attention.

And in case of the funeral establishment "team", it acquires, just perhaps... a deep respect for the deceased, the circumstance, an unfeigned mournfulness. Solemnity.

Funeral Drama!

Goffman's assertion that a funeral is similar to a play is undoubtedly offensive; the idea that one of humanities' most sacred and somber rituals is nothing but a staged production is definitely upsetting. It's like saying that a marriage is nothing but a game of touch football. But after the initial shock value wears off, the theory truly has merit. Everyone at the funeral plays a part. Mostly, they play the part of a sad person, but nonetheless, no matter what the felt about the deceased, they will be (or pretend to be) sad. Because I wholeheartedly believe in Goffman's contention that the majority of human action and interaction is based upon the desire for positive reactions from others, it makes sense that everyone at the funeral would act as others deem appropriate at a funeral, which is a proper somber attitude. And if everyone is acting a certain way because they are expected to, what makes that acting any different than the acting in a theatrical production? If someone tries to bring up the point that nobody is acting, that everybody IS sad, I would like to invite the objector to research the Irish funeral traditions. A "wake", as they are called, involves its fair share of grieving, but it also involves a huge amount of good ol' Irish merrymaking, including singing, dancing, and of course, drinking.

So, if we examine the two types of funerals, we can agree that the only difference is the expectations of the people attending. In an Irish wake, it is expected of the guest to have a jovial, uproarious time. Because both parties are ACTING in the way that is required by social rules, we can assume that Goffman's theory, however detestable it my be, is indeed correct.

De- Glorifying Goffman

I think that Goffman's view of society is a tad exaggerated. He seems to be so disillusioned with humanity that he views every individual as acting in a specific manner so as to exert a specific response from the others around him. Seriously, people do not think that much about their mannerisms, at least not in today's society. Take for instance my day today. I am too busy (as I am sure everyone else is as well) to even think about what to wear for tomorrow, but isn't appearance a vital factor to Goffman's theory? Therefore, if I do not even want to consider how I will appear tomorrow because I am too busy with schoolwork, how then am I displaying myself? Because I still genuninely care about the way I am perceived, I just do not have an adequate amount of time to execute this, so people will be viewing the incorrect form of me, I guess. I truly am confused by his point of view though.
I think Goffman is just a lonely, angry man with way too much information so he wrote it in this book. Therefore, Goffman's treatment of social situations, though hillarious at some points, is disrespectful. However, most comedic things are disrespectful so he makes sense in this respect. In regard to PTJ's post on the funeral, I think that it is ridiculous to believe that the "star of the show" is in "deep sleep," according to Goffman. When someone dies it is imporant to remember their life and realize that they will never wake up again on this Earth, but rather somewhere else, only to be seen after the passing of oneself. "Deep sleep" implies that everything, even death, is fake, and that death really isn't real, which is not what I believe. Though Goffman takes a new twist on the roles we play in society, it is an all too disrespectful attitude, and some things in life, like a funeral, which also have a religious significanace, should be regarded as scared and not as a mere display of good acting.


-Miranda