ROLE THEORY claims that social roles define us and prescribe how we are supposed to act in various social settings. This concept assumes that social roles are a sort of social SCRIPT or “social recipe.” There are recipes for every social role. And there are social roles for every social situation. For example, people are supposed to cry at a funeral. Likewise, people are expected to laugh and be happy when attending a comedy show. It would seem odd if a person was laughing at a funeral. It would also be peculiar for a person to be crying during a comedy show. Put simply, social recipes define what social behavior is appropriate to the social situation at hand.
These ubiquitous social roles are everywhere and affect our daily lives on a situation-by-situation basis. However, we’ve become so used to these role requirements that we hardly notice them any longer. We just take them for granted and enact them in a taken-for-granted manner. Eventually, most of us act out our roles on autopilot. Most people just move through their day acting according to the social expectations required of them.
Goffman agrees that people “role-take.” Yet, he also adds that actors also “role-make.” That is, they act according to the role expectations thrust upon them by society. But he argues that actors take the role enactment further by putting their own “spin” on the roles they adopt. This was the difference for Goffman; and this is the most important part of his thinking. In short, Goffman’s thinking stood Role Theory on its side. Instead of roles prescribing our behavior, Goffman claimed that, taken together, the different social roles constituted a pool from which people could choose to enact in any given social situation.
People chose a social ROLE as they would an item of clothing. They chose from a variety of possibilities.
Therefore, instead of a social role defining how a person should act, Goffman claimed that actors first chose the role they feel like enacting. They could choose any given role from a variety of possibilities. This process is similar to going to your clothes closet and choosing an outfit to wear. But in this case, you chose a social role to enact. Many roles exist to choose from. However, once chosen, enacting a role is an art in itself.
Goffman claims that a person is confronted not just with the role defining their behavior, but rather a person chooses a role they wish to enact and then use a variety of methods to successfully perform that chosen role. This type of thinking turned Role Theory on its side. Instead of a role prescribing all social actions, Goffman’s dramaturgy theory asserts that a person chooses from a variety of roles and then attempts to successfully enact the role in a believable way so that others in the social scene believe it. And if the audience members do believe the act is authentic, the actor will get the desired social outcome they were aiming for.
This conceptual scheme can be illustrated by using the following example. Say that a middle-class man chooses to impress his date by enacting the role that defines him as a wealthy individual. If he is successful at using his available resources to make his date believe in his role performance, the outcome will be that his date will treat him as though he is rich. However, if the man is not a good actor and trips himself up along the way by providing his date with clues that he is not wealthy; his date will see through his act and treat him accordingly.
Goffman went on to show how during all types of social interaction between two or more individuals, each “side” will engage in strategic interaction. Each “side” will attempt to emphasize or highlight information that will help them pull off their act. On the other hand, each “side” will also attempt keep secret any information that will possibly spoil their act. Thus, each “side” will be attempting to con the other side into believing their role is genuine. They will do this while simultaneously trying to glean clues that the other “side” may not be exactly what they are trying to get the other “side” to believe they are. Hence, the term strategic interaction.
Also remember that Goffman claimed social life was similar to a role a person enacts during a theatrical performance. For example, we have to present a certain image for our kids. We have to present a certain image for our bosses at work. We have to present a certain image for our significant other. In other words, people have to engage in the actual performance of the role they’ve decided to present to a specific, targeted audience. Not to mention that this is an on-going activity. We have to continually perform different roles such as: mother, daughter, sister, student, club leader, etc. In fact, during most of their social interactions, people are performing some sort of role for a specific audience.
If a person is good at enacting a role, the performance is likely to be believable and the person enacting a role will get the outcome the act was designed to bring forth. On the other hand, if the person is not good at enacting that role, the performance will likely suffer, and the desired outcome will not be forthcoming.
Goffman admitted that all of us performed some sort of role during our daily lives. But he also admitted that some people were more talented at performing some roles than they were at enacting other roles. Goffman’s claim speaks to factors such as an individual’s skill at acting; their ability to manage a constant flow of strategic information; and the resources available to them in the way of props or social clout. On other words, when people perform their roles, it isn’t a “one size fits all” sort of phenomenon.
