Goffman’s Backstage Revisited: Conceptual Relevance in Contemporary Social Interactions

Abstract

Goffman’s analytical proposal for the interpretation of situations of interaction was, according to the author himself, expressly formulated for face-to-face situations with the actors physically present. This conceptual paper aims to analyse some highlights specifically about backstage – its conceptual meaning and its potential heuristic relevance for the interpretation of social interactions in the contemporary world. For this purpose, a documentary selection geared by the concept of backstage was carried out, which allows considering that the sociological understanding of the interactions that take place in an online context could be deepened with an enhancement of Goffman’s theory considering that there is a tendency to a greater plasticity in the presentation of the self in this type of interactions with a greater identity flow.

The virtual stages of hate: Using Goffman’s work to conceptualise the motivations for online hate

“…Goffman’s (1959) theory of human interaction and behaviour was exclusively based on the analytic interpretation of face-to-face situations where actors are physically co-present. Despite this, a number of scholars have applied Goffman’s work to online spaces in a bid to critically understand online behaviour (Aspling, 2011; Bullingham and Vasconcelos, 2013; Merunkova and Slerka, 2019; Serpa and Ferreira, 2018). Fewer studies, however, have specifically employed Goffman’s theoretical model to critically understand, and theoretically underpin, the motivations for online hate speech (Hylton, 2018; Hylton and Lawrence, 2016; Hynes and Cook, 2013; Kilvington and Price, 2019).…”

“…Although individuals often use virtual frontstage spaces to purport an idealised version of the self (Merunkova and Slerka, 2019; Miguel and Medina, 2010; Moore et al, 2017; Serpa and Ferreira, 2018), we must consider the influence that anonymity, invisibility, dissociative imagination and spontaneity have upon performances (Brown, 2017; Farrington et al, 2015; Kilvington and Price, 2017, 2019; Suler, 2004). Online derogation is not just reserved for virtual backstages; it has saturated virtual frontstages as publicly visible online hate speech continues to increase (Cheng et al, 2017; Kilvington and Price, 2017, 2019).…”

“…Performances are constructed with an awareness of societal and institutional expectations. In other words, interaction relationships are ‘organised in particular by the use of shared resources and communication rules’ (Serpa and Ferreira, 2018: 74). These rules are learned through repetition by drawing on factors that already exist within our repertoire.…”

“…Backstage interaction is antithetical to frontstage performances. Serpa and Ferreira (2018: 76) state that ‘This is a restricted area, not in the public domain and without access to viewers’. In short, when the curtain comes down our public mask is removed.…”

“…The reliance and desire to communicate online has facilitated an ‘addictive call and response’ feeling (Manghani, 2009). Serpa and Ferreira (2018) state that social media relies on immediate reactions and that if one has less time to think, then it enhances one’s chances of posting something hateful. For Brown (2017: 304), ‘the Internet encourages forms of hate speech that are spontaneous in the sense of being instant responses, gut reactions, unconsidered judgements, off-the-cuff remarks, unfiltered commentary, and first thoughts’.…”