Creating Youth and American Identity, and Presentation of Self

Erikson/Goffman

Group 11

Nick Buonassisi - pages 259-260, paragraphs 1-5

The adolescent segment in life between childhood and adulthood is a challenging and confusing stage every young person must face. Erikson claims that the uncertainty of social values, morality, and individual identity are difficult for the youth to embrace when developing personal growth and relationships amongst their community. "In searching for the social values which guide identity, one therefore confronts the problems of ideology and aristocracy, both in their widest possible sense which connotes that within a defined world image and a predestine course of history" (Erikson p. 260). Young people struggle to define themselves and search for an identity due to the cruelty of exclusion and segregation between minority groups and people who are 'different.' This is the product of internal doubt that causes the youth to over identify themselves resulting in a total loss of identity. According to Erikson, the outcome of this is creates, "much discomfort by forming cliques and by stereotyping themselves, their ideals and their enemies" (Erikson p. 260). For adolescents to cope with these repercussions they become more susceptible to falling in love in order to find and identify themselves. This attempt at defining themselves projects an ego image that young people unknowingly develop, this reflects their social values which helps them to succeed in the further stages of life.

Stephanie Payne - pages 260-261, paragraphs 6-9

Erikson begins explaining his concept of the American Identity by discussing the dynamicity of individual’s national characteristics derived from history to construct their self-built ego. He specifies that these areas of self and identity stem on the extreme counterpoint ends of civilization, relying on polarities such as “open roads of immigration and jealous islands of tradition; outgoing internationalism and defiant isolation; boisterous competition and self-effacing co-operation; and many others” (Erikson, pg. 260). Erikson elaborates on American Identity as the formation of self-identity and ego through conscious autonomous choice. Erikson henceforth means that with the knowledge and comprehension of the societal history with the similarities of the extreme contrasts and abrupt changes, an individual can consciously make decisions for themselves and will only do so by their own free will with the reassurance that it was their own idea. The example that he uses is the concept of the migrant and the sedentary man, where “the migrant does not want to be told to move or, nor the sedentary man to stay where he is; for the life style (and the family history) of each contains the opposite element as a potential alternative which he wishes to consider his most private and individual decision” (Erikson, pg. 261). If the man believes it was his own idea, he will do it. However, if the man has cause to think it was somebody else's idea or an idea paved from society, he will have less desire to do it, if he even does it at all.

Luke Lockhart - page 261, paragraphs 10-13

The end of Erikson's analysis on American Identity he points out that Americans lives with two sets of "truths". A certain set of religious beliefs and a set of slogans that influence how people act and make decisions. Two of the most sweeping slogans being "Lets get the hell out of here" and Lets stay and keep the bastards out" These two slogans influence people to following the slogan whether they fully agree with it or not. These influences can sway American democracy and have a big effect on how society functions. Status expresses all the different levels that these influences can have and can have a different relativity in a mobile society where it represented more of an escalator rather than a platform for each level of status. He concludes that all countries tend to hurt themselves in their own way and that America needs to move past this to reach their full potential.

Comment: (Alexis Wolfe) I found it fascinating that Erikson seamlessly captures the nuanced tensions that tear through the American populace today. One might see the polarization of the American populace as a reaction to an identity crisis of the nation itself as dynamic ideological contrasts that previously signalled the plurality of American society now operate as divisive and rigid borders demarcating "us" vs. "them" (politically speaking.) In terms of the isolationist vs. globalist debate amplified across America, Erikson's "immigration vs. tradition" "internationalism vs. isolationism" and "cooperation vs. competition" contradictory slogans reveal that now, perhaps more than ever, Americans are divided to the core of their belief structure on the guidelines for an imagined American future. Erikson also usefully points out that it is indeed one's structural/social location that decides how his ego navigates the extreme contrasts and abrupt changes characteristic of American ideology - he writes, "the result (of these contradictory slogans) on individual ego depends on coincidence of nuclear ego's stage and critical changes in family's geographic and economic vicissitudes." (260) I also think that the "adolescent mind" as an "ideological mind" (searching for ego identity) spills over into all age demographics in the post-modern era. With the shifts in media consumption and centrality of social media as a space for political commentary - the remarkable "clannishness" that Erikson describes certainly can be traced through the echo chambers of the online realm. The key crisis for the post-modern self is the inflation of the ego and dissolution of the self completely - this is why we see the constant need for individuals to assert their "cooperation or competition" position incessantly through virtue signalling online in order to assume some semblance of a coherent identity - not unlike the techniques developed by adolescents seeking to fit in via overidentification with idols, seeking affirmation from peers and participating in social rituals. Just as Erikson highlights, the self-contradictions of American history expose the youth to an emotional and political short circuit and endanger dynamic potential -which is, I would argue, exactly what we are seeing today as complex global phenomena get reduced down to their simplest parts and produced through an ideological narrative for which individuals can align with, without ever thinking through the steps it takes to get there, but only because it fits well within their belief structure installed by the mainstream media (propaganda) complex. For the systems of power and immense wealth inequality to maintain itself, the working class must be splintered and their antagonisms directed towards each other - thus, the dynamic potential of America is weaponized as each extreme sees an opponent in its opposite.

Simran Dale - pages 264-265, paragraphs 1-4

In this excerpt from Presentation of Self, Goffman discusses individuals and the concept of self, how it is presented and the social processes and meanings behind this presentation. He is careful to distinguish between impressions or presentation of morality and internal beliefs, where he describes how the individual works to put forth a particular presentation of the self that meets the moral standards of their society. The act of performing is given more weight rather than the actual realization of these moral standards. He uses the example merchants of morality (pg 264) to explain this notion, stating that the emphasis is put on the goods themselves rather than the individuals involved in the interaction which illustrates how the primary concern then revolves around the performance and not the meaning. Goffman goes further than simply recognizing the idea of presenting the self and says that we must look at how our society sets up the stage for these presentations of self. He describes the individual as comprised of two parts: the performer and the character. In his analysis of the character, he states that it is related to the self in some ways yet is distinct from it at the same time. The performance of the self-character as he calls it works to put forward a particular image to others, to guide how they should perceive you. This image of self, though it is about the individual, does not encompass the entire essence of the individual, rather it comes from the actions and behaviours used to present the image and the interpretations it evokes from others. Here Goffman describes the self as a product and not as a cause, where the self cannot be then thought of as organic because it is the result of a dramatized presentation (pg 264). Goffman states that the issue then becomes whether the performance can be deemed credible or believable by those it is shown to. A simple example of Goffman's notion of presentation and the careful curation of a particular version of one's self can be the use of social media today and our ability to perpetuate the self image in any way we desire. A lot of the time a great deal of importance is given to the act of presenting the right self image rather than engaging in meaningful and transparent communication and interaction with others.

Comment: Diana Choi

I completely agree with you on the way people on social media present themselves that are most desirable and acceptable to others - where online is considered their front stage. Through validations from their peers, social media influencers try to maintain such a desirable presentation even in the backstage/offline to other audiences. Furthermore, social media influencers' identities become a routinized aspect of everyday lives that they are no longer aware of.

Gurjot Kang - page 265, paragraphs 5-8

Goffman continues by explaining that how one presents their Self is reliant on how they believe they will be perceived by others. He equates the Self with a character, the life one is living with the stage, and society as the audience. One’s performance is based on what the audience expects to see, and therefore one must perform in accordance to the limits of their character. Goffman (pg 265) describes that not only does one “perform” in accordance to what their place is in society, but that they also possess the ability to evolve and adapt. While one’s social standing determines how their behaviors and actions will be perceived by society, it does not necessarily mean that the person is restricted in only behaving within those parameters. In contemporary society today, social media has become a platform through which individuals portray a certain image because of their association with a particular network or organization. Women that have appeared on the television show the Bachelor are suddenly promoting ads on their social media pages, and their popularity as a contestant becomes dependent on the amount of followers and ads they have.

Zoe Rodriguez - page 265, paragraphs 9-12

Goffman admits freely that the analogy he uses of a theatre production, with all its’ relevant terms and expressions, i.e. audience and props, is somewhat of a cliché and stresses that it should not be interpreted as literal. This has the effect of demeaning the analogy, however I disagree. I think that the analogy itself is powerful, a relatable and a simple way to put forth his explanation of the construction of the self. Most people understand the nature of an analogy and will simply use it to aid their understanding of what Goffman is trying to say. He determines that the differences between an actual stage and the imaginary one representing the ‘structure of social encounters’, is that on a real stage nothing is real and therefore whatever takes place on it is meaningless in reality. Meanwhile the imaginary ‘stage’ in Goffman’s analogy is reality itself; the roles, interactions and illusions are real and have real consequences. Aside from this, there are also similarities between the two types of stages; Goffman talks of the ‘real techniques’ of both the literal actor on a literal stage, as well as the normal everyday individual on the imaginary stage constructing an image of himself to project to the world; the latter uses these techniques to ‘sustain real social situations’. Perhaps they are only considered techniques when the illusion or ‘role’ is carried out successfully (on both real and imaginary stages) i.e. believed and accepted by other individuals. If the illusions or performed roles are not believed, then neither the performer on the actual stage or the performer of the analogy is adept at upholding the pretence necessary for both their respective instances. In essence, the actual stage and the imaginary one are not too different from one another; the theatre is a form of entertainment and escapism and the performances we as individuals carry out everyday in real life social encounters is another possible form of escapism, though perhaps it is more a form of survival.