Goffman Conformity

I look at myself and I list attributes: I am a Latina, American, Guatemalan, a college student, a learner, a daughter, a sister, a niece, a cousin, a lover, a girlfriend, loud, quiet, smart, naive, a fighter, submissive and yet dominant. The list goes on. I differ depending on where I am and who I am with. Goffman writes about people’s performances, “At one extreme, one finds that the performer can be fully taken in by his own act; he can be sincerely convinced that the impression of reality which he stages is the real reality...At the other extreme. we find that the performer may not be taken in at all by his own routine” (17). He breaks down our character, acknowledging it changes depending on where said person is, who they are with, if they

We manipulate people to see us as a version of ourselves--a character, a mask. Dramaturgy allows our self to be a performance. This makes me think of the study, or experiment rather, conducted by a Stanford University Professor. I was first introduced to the Rosenhan experiment (appropriately named after the professor conducting the experiment) when learning of deviance and conformity in another Sociology class. I will more so be focusing on the first half of his experiment. He admitted himself and a slew of others to be “pseudopatients.” They feigned auditory hallucinations to be admitted into different psychiatric hospitals around the United States. After being admitted in these hospital , the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had no longer experienced any more hallucinations. Of course, the staff did not believe them and the pseudopatients were forced to take antipsychotic drugs. The pseudopatients were not even in the psychiatric ward for a month, but upon release, all but one (7:1) were diagnosed with schizophrenia. Therefore, did the pseudopatients adopt a new character as their performance went on? Was it the factors of their surroundings that cemented their psychosis? Or rather, was the experiment a dud and the doctors used not really understand and were quick to diagnose because of their predisposed

Traditionally, dramaturgy does not involve perceived roles of which people dominate and seek power. Rather, they happen in everyday cases, like a person having different interactions with: their teacher, their mom, their best friend, their mortal enemy, their significant other, their neighbor, their boss, their child, etc. These interactions are described as one’s roles. I cannot help but be in agreement with Goffman because I acknowledge the differences in the way I act, though I am a bit cynical about the fact there is no real “core” to people. However, I wonder if our roles are considered too “extreme.” If people are never truly “honest” let us say, for lack of better words, then how are agreements met? How can people trust one another? For this example, let us look at one of the most common traits of psychopaths. They are charming. This is also known as superficial charm. Serial killers who are psychopaths often elude charm to try and trick their prey. A good example of this would be Ted Bundy, one of the most charming serial killers in the United States’ recorded history. He confessed to mutilating and raping thrity women both in life and death, though the number could actually be higher. When he committed his crimes, Bundy always dressed as a man who needed help, wounded by circumstance. Either he would dress himself in crutches, a cast, or a sling. He