Dramaturgical
Theory Cast:
Janelle Kluczynski
Toni Rence
Sam Savaglio Rod Strutz
Act I.
Key Individual:
Erving Goffman (1922 – 1982)
 Main theorist of the Dramaturgical Theory
 Schooled in symbolic interaction theory
 Extended Mead’s basic insights by viewing everyday human behavior as distinctly
dramatic, or theatrical
 His works include:
›
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1956) (1959)
›
Behavior in Public Places (1963)
›
Relations in Public (1971)
›
“Role Distance” (1961)
›
“Where the Action is” (1967)
 Developed theoretical insights into the drama inherent in routine social life
 Skillfully observed and theorized how people perform in everyday life
 Once wrote that “it is social situations that provide the natural theatre in which all
bodily displays are enacted and in which all bodily displays are read.”
›
Emphasizes Goffman’s focus on how physical, or bodily, actions are used per
formatively to craft and project impressions of individuals and to define the
nature of particular situations.
 His theorizing provides a basis for understanding human interaction in everyday
life
Act II.
Definition of Dramaturgical Theory:
Dramaturgical theory relates ordinary social interaction to theatrical performance where the
setting or the situation is viewed as a stage. Everyday people named the actors are performing
out their actions as a play in front of other people known as the audience.
Key Concepts:
Front Stage—The parts of the communication that is visible to the audience. This is the part of
the communication that the audience can see and make the judgment as to what is being
communicated by the actor.
Back Stage—This is the place where the actors can act in ways that might undermine their front
stage performances.
Impression Management—Process of managing setting, words, non-verbal communication and
dress in effort to create a particular image of individuals and situations.
Criticisms of the Theory:
It lacks clarity of its purpose because to some critics it is unclear whether this theory is
describing real life of a simple metaphor. “Is the theater aspect just simply providing a metaphor
to relate to human performance is everyday life, or are we acting performances every day?” The
theory is more speculative than empirical because it is hard to tell if someone is acting or being
themselves so how are we ever sure? (Wood, 2004, p.123). Wood asks, “How would someone
know if we were performing a role instead of being an authentic unplanned self? (p. 123). It has
also been said that the uses vary too much for it to be considered a theory. “Some critics think
that the diversity of disciplines employing a dramaturgical perspective suggests that dramaturgy
is not a unified theory. Instead some critics argue that dramaturgical scholars are an interest
group loosely unified by a shared metaphor (life is drama), but not an integrated consistent
theory. (Wood, 2004, p.123).
Act III.
New Concepts Learned:
Theatrical Metaphor—Extended metaphorical description that explores social world as if it were
a theatrical performance and questions the idea of personal identity. Tom burns compares it to a
Russian doll that we are like a series of selves, one inside the other.
SIAC—The first component of this is situational property which says that meanings and actions
are derived from the context in which they are used and that people must have knowledge of a
certain situation to understand behavior. The second component is involvement which is the
capacity to give or withhold proper attention to a certain activity. Next is accessibility which
means being accessible to friends and strangers and keeps us members of a common social
world. An example of accessibility would be a common courtesy such as telling time or giving
directions. The final component is civil inattention which is a willingness to be seen, a sign of
deference or respect we give to and owe from strangers. An example of civil inattention is when
one is in an elevator with another person, they would avoid making eye contact.
New Dramaturgical Principles—The first new principle is that of performances are usually done
in teams. They can be compared to secret societies and run by directors or the leaders of the
social group.
The second new principle learned is regions. Regions state that there are front and back regions
and a “guarded passageway”. The front region is where there must be an agreement between the
team and the audience that what is portrayed is actual reality in order for the performance to
succeed. Everything that is performed in the front region is rehearsed in the back region. The
guarded passageway is what connects these two regions. All of the regions allow the teams to
keep secrets.
The third new principle is discrepant roles. People with discrepant roles try to gain access to
team secrets by pretending to be part of the team by attempting to gain access backstage. Most of
these people do get the right to come backstage but abuse the privilege for their own gain.
Examples of discrepant roles would be an informer, confidant, colleague, mediator or servant.
The final new concept of SIAC is communication out of character in which performers disclose
information which damages their face. There are four out-of-character outbursts which include
treatment of the absent, staging talk, team collusion, and realigning actions. Treatment of the
absent involves uncomplimentary role-playing or terms of reference. Staging talk is meant to
assure others that everything went well. Team collusion allows the audience to have a special
relationship with the team where they get to understand what is being communicated. Realigning
actions is a recourse to humor not meant to offend. For example telling someone it was just a
joke and not meant to be serious or hurtful is an example.
Application:
Our application of this theory is that we will be performing a skit that will show everyday people
in an everyday situation and how they act. We will be demonstrating front and back stage
behavior showing a humorous example from everyday life where a teacher and student are
meeting to discuss a grade. In the skit, how the two act toward each other is far different than
how they act when they are talking about the other person. The front stage is present when the
two actors are meeting with other and the back stage is far different when they meet with peers
after their discussion.
Evaluation:
Scope—This theory is both broad and narrow.
Testability—This theory is testable because it shows how people act in different stages and
situations
Utility—Yes, this theory is useful
Simple—No, because this theory can be very complex between front and back stages
Huerism—Yes, as we have demonstrated this theory promotes new thinking
References:
Albas, C., & Albas, D. (2007). Cognitions, emotions, and identities. Contemporary
Sociology, 36 (6), 553-555.
Burns, T. (1992). Erving Goffman. London: Routledge.
Capella, J. N., & Schreiber, D. M. (2006) The interaction management function of nonverbal
cues. V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The sage handbook of nonverbal
communication (pp. 361-364) Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications Inc.
Damon, W. (2006) Socialization and individuation. In G. Handel (Ed.), Childhood Socialization
(pp.3-6) Piscataway, NJ; Aldine Transaction.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings.
New York: The Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1969). Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gronbeck, B.E. (1980). Dramaturgical theory and criticism: The state of art (or science?).
The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 315-330.
Manning, P. (1992). Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Schwartz, B. (1981). Review. The American Journal of Sociology, 87 (1), 201-204.
Wood, J. (2004). Communication theories in action: An introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA,
Wadsworth.