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.