FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 1 May 1981 47 FIVE KEY CONCEPTS OF THE DRAMATURGICAL PERSPECTIVE Marianne Hopper, St Edward's University BACKGROUND The dramaturgical and of being on-stage. perspective is one of the theoretic­ Perinbanayagam agrees that al orientations of social psycho­ social reality is not simply like logy. From the early 1900's, sym­ drama, but that it is dram~ (1974 bolic interactionism has been a 533).- Hence, social realitY can prominent theory in the United best be studied in dramatic terms. States. Dramaturgy is usually Brisset & Edgley (1975 7) sum­ traced to the literary critic, marize the dramaturgic perspec­ Burke, who set forth the dramatis­ tive: tic pentad of five key terms: act, 1 I t studies meaningful behavior. scene, agent, agency, and pur­ Meaning is problematic, arising pose. In the dramatistic approach in and through interaction. the most significant term is act. 2 One's sense of individuality is Human behavior is more analyz­ established, not reflected in inter­ able by theories of action than action. by theories of knowledge. Burke 3 Socialization is a process that stressed the symbol-using property furnishes resources for situational of humans, and establised the cen­ variation, rather than mechanisms trality of the question of human for cultural uniformity. motivation in dramatism (1969a). 4 Classical determinism is reject­ Burke distinguishes between ed; the method is prospective action and sheer motion. Human rather than retrospect i ve. relations in terms of action could 5 I t is situationally and cultural­ be called dramatistic (1968 448). ly relativistic. Human interaction is best analyz­ 6 Situations are defined interac­ ed in terms of drama. People tionally, not mentalistically. reach human satisfaction by relat­ 7 The human is fundamentally a ing to one another as if they communicator. were actors playing drqmatic 8 Interaction and situation, not roles. individuals, are the motive base. • Goffman (1959) used the perspec­ 9 Humans are consciously ration­ tive of theatrical performance to alizing, not consciously rational. consider the wayan individual presents self and actions to THE CONCEPT OF MEANING others, and the way the indivi­ Meaning is built up through dual can guide and control the day-to-day interaction with other impressions which others develop. people. 1) Meaning is not given; He described many behaviors that it is not an inherent characteris­ individuals may project or sup­ tic of the actor's world. It is not press while sustaining a perform­ stable and dependable. Instead, ance before others. Goffman pre­ meaning is constantly problematic. sents the theatrical perspective as 2) Meaning -is created by people, a valuable sensitizing device and the meaning of any object is which enables one to detect pat­ continually being re-established terns that might otherwise be miss­ by behavior toward that object. A ed. Cri tics assert that actors do person builds up meaning through not constantly focus on how they day-to-day activity with -others~ are being regarded by others. 3) Meaning emerges from the -be~ The dramaturgical perspective havioral consensus among actors. helps the sociologist avoid assum­ I t arises from at least two actors ing many things that lay persons responding in a similar manner to take for granted. But some social people and objects in their env.ir­ actors do regard certain life situ­ onment. Meaning is vitally linked ations in theatrical terms. The re­ to behavior and to interaction. searcher's task is to determine to • Dramaturgists empha-sLze the in­ what extent social actors are con­ stability of meaning. The social-Iy scious of doing a performance, constructed world is precarious FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Volume 9, No 1 May 1981 48 (Berger 1963 138). Human meaning 71). Berger says that individuals is arbitrary, fragile, and ficti­ constantly remake their own bio­ tious (Becker 1975 62). For Mead, graphies byWorking together the meaning is established when a bits and pieces of completed gesture indicates to an actor and action, and thus create the mean­ to the other, the subsequent be­ ing of their own life. havior of the actor (Strauss 1964 163). Meaning is not an idea, as THE KEY CONCEPT OF SELF traditionally conceived, but is Dramaturgists use the term self implicit in the relation among the rather than personality to avoid various phases of social action. assumptions inherent in personal­ Stone ( 1962 88) interprets Mead i ty theory. They refer te> the self as saying that meaning is only simply as the meaning of the hum­ established when the response an organism (Brisset -e,--Edgley elicited by a symbol is the same m5 3). The self is not stable, for both the sender and the re­ but tenuous and problematic. It cei ve-r, a I though the responses is not inherent in the individual, can never be identical. Therefore, nor an artifact carried from one meaning must be a variable. situation to another. Selves are Stone suggests the concept of outcomes of human interaction. identification as the guarantee The self IS established by- the against non-sense. This term sub­ actions of the individual and by sumes two processes: identification the responsive actions of others. ..2f., and wi th. Stone .. feels that What one does estabIishes who one taking the role of the other is is, and not vice versa. As Burke only one variant,and that identi­ put it, doing is being. fication wi th one another cannot According to dramaturgists, the be made without identifications of self is situationally specific. Dif­ one another. Such identificati'oM ferent situations occasion the are factili-tated by appearance, establishment of different selves. and are accomplished non-verbal­ The self is established in terms ly. Appearance and discourse are of resources and audiences avail­ dialectical processes in social able in the immediate situation. transactions, but appearance is Individuality is a shared, inter­ more basic to the process of con­ acti ve phenomenon. A person's structing meaning. self emerges and is maintained Becker links meaning to verbal through a process of consensua I process: " •• if· we bungle the ver­ validation. Dramaturgists avoid bal context for action, if we de­ construing one's self and one's liver the wrong lines at the society as separate entities. wrong time, we frustrate the possi­ Mead's influence is apparent in bility of meaningful action and this fusion' of self and society, unquestioned motivation." (1975 and it helps to put the dramatur­ 62) GCtf'fman , more than any other gical views in persective. dramaturgist has carefully detai ,~ Goffman argues·: that the very ed those qualities of players and structure of the self. appears in performances which infuse social terms of 'the way' one arranges to life with meaning (1974 4). He present it to others. T heperfor­ accepts Schutz' definition of mean­ mance self is seen as a type of ing: We speak of provinces of image, usually creditable, that meaning and not of sub-universes the individual tries to induce because it is the meaning of our others to hold of- her/him (Goffman experiences, and not the onto- 1959 252). logical structure of the objects • Becker (1975) sees the self as a wh·ich const i tute rea Ii ty (Schutz system of language and ideas ·that 1962 230) • What a person does is in a constant state of modifica­ actually has little meaning - until tion as an ind·ividual interacts the individual actively makes with others. Since the self is pri­ autobiographical use of already mari 11' a linguistic device, an in­ completed actions (Travisano 1975 fallible self is one with complete FREE INQUIRY In Creative Sociology Vol ume 9, No 1 May 1981 49'~ control over words and verbal ex­ (1965) describe the interaction' be­ pression. Becker stresses the ex­ tween the dy:ing patient', the' hos­ pressions one gi ves, as opposed pital staff," and certain o·thers. t6 those one gives off. Stone, on In this situation, the patien't's the other han'a-;-TS,concerned with awareness is seen as ah extremely expressions one gives off, since important element in infH::aerici,ng he sees, the self as' residing in the' nature of the interaction • the meaning of one's appearance. • The: episode is the basic unit of Like Mead, he finds' the me'aning interaction, and the res~lting of appearance in the responses human development is the, product that appearances generate. Stone of successive outcomes of inte'r­ is concerned wtth two such· re­ action. Foote emphasizes th'e uncer­ sponses, which he calls programs: tarr1ty of everyou'tc0!!le of,social 1), responses made about the wear­ interaction, and. stresses the e~­ er of cl'othing by others who ploratory",' formulative, and crea­ review clothing; and' 2) responses ti ve a$pects ." He asserts ~ha t: "' •• made by the wearer of clothing at the' conclusion of any' epi'sode about himself ·(Stone 1962 92). of interactipn, the, position of the Dramaturgists see the creation participants vis-a-vis each other of self as a very tenuous affair is always' and n:ecessari Iy diffet­ wh ich is threatened by the pre­ ent from what it was at its com- sence of others in the social. situa­ mencement." \(Foote1975 27).' , tion. "We have no idea what In stressing face~to-face inter­ w·ords are going to spout forth action, Goffman defines interaction from another's self system." (Beck­ as ttthe reciprocl:d influence of er 1975 58) Foote sees development lnd'ividuals· upon' one another's occurring. as the cumulative pro­ actions when i'n one another's im­ duct of successive outcomes of var­ mediate 'physic'al preserice:" (1959 ious situations.