Is it all a lie?
Leadership and Identity as Performance
J. A. McCreery
Many people feel trapped in life, going through the motions in an oblivious daze. They complete their work, compete at sport and interact with friends because that is what is expected of them – without this, what would they be?
Such a thought cuts to the core of Erving Goffman’s social theory, that all interactions are theatrical performances and one’s identity is derived from validation of their act.
When one comes to interact with another, they inevitably extract information about said person. They will note, usually subconsciously, socio-economic status, self-image, attitude, competence, trustworthiness, etc. That information will then be formulated and used to define the situation, enabling participants to know what will be expected of them and their partner. The king walks in with an ‘air’ of power and the peasant scuttles through the side door. This is the essential process by which Goffman proposes social discourse operates.
Some take it further, proclaiming that our roles are set, thrust upon us by circumstance and societal mores. Shakespeare explored this through his pastoral comedy As You Like it (1623):
“ All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts”.
He outlines the seven roles which all will experience:
- Baby; defenseless and innocent
- School boy; ignorant and formative
- Lover; passion bound
- Soldier; blinded by conflict
- Judge; commentator and guider of the world
- Old man; wise, full of wealth
- Extreme old age; again a child
Discussions of identity arise through conceptions that link social validation and support of our identity to our roles. The better one performs, the better the reward. Failure? – Embarrassment, loss of face, humiliation and difficulty sustaining the identity that was most closely associated with the failed performance (Bruce Lambert).
Some posit that to sustain a ‘coherent sense of self’ each of us construct narratives, stories of our lives – the brother, the father, the sportsman, the student, or all at once. It is through these narratives (or roles?) that much of mainstream society says we supposedly find ourselves. But without support or validation of ideals people fall apart; those left in solitary confinement go crazy. Thus, some conclude that the true-self does not exist and is simply an amalgamation of social cues.
These notions are crippling to society in their existential, misanthropic, way. As put by Goffman, “The ‘true’ or ’real’ attitudes, beliefs, and emotions of the individual can be ascertained only indirectly, through his avowals or through what appears to be involuntary expressive behavior.”
When engaging others, Goffman believes a promissory stance is near inevitable, people seeking to convey and imply what they are and how they should be treated. This premise is what allows socio-paths, and worse, to in-part act as functioning humans and fool the world to their apathy.
Perhaps this all stirs thoughts of leadership selection? For me it exemplifies it. Those who choose or look past you have very little idea of who you are, they define you based on your performance – the bravado & charisma you output – granting or removing status through it as justification and establishing one’s role in society. It is the inherent flaw I find in our hierarchical structures and maybe there’s just no solution …