Introduction
The concept of the self is a cornerstone of sociological inquiry, shaping our understanding of how individuals interact within society. This essay compares the perspectives on the social self as articulated by Charles Horton Cooley, George Herbert Mead, and W.E.B. Du Bois with Erving Goffman’s notion of the performed self. While Cooley, Mead, and Du Bois emphasise the self as a product of social interactions and internalised societal influences, Goffman presents the self as a dynamic performance tailored to specific social contexts. The central question this essay addresses is whether Goffman’s view is fundamentally different from the earlier theories of the social self. Through a comparative analysis, I will explore the key similarities and differences between these perspectives, arguing that while Goffman’s approach shares some conceptual overlap with the social self, his focus on performance and impression management marks a distinct shift in understanding identity. The discussion will first outline the frameworks of the social self, then examine Goffman’s dramaturgical model, before concluding with an evaluation of their differences and similarities.
The Social Self: Cooley, Mead, and Du Bois
The concept of the social self, as developed by Cooley and Mead, underscores the idea that identity emerges through interaction with others. Cooley’s theory of the “looking-glass self” posits that individuals form their sense of self based on how they imagine others perceive them (Cooley, 1902). This process involves three stages: imagining how one appears to others, imagining their judgement of that appearance, and developing feelings such as pride or shame based on this perceived judgement. Cooley’s perspective highlights the relational nature of identity, suggesting that the self is inherently tied to social feedback.
Similarly, Mead’s theory of symbolic interactionism argues that the self develops through social processes, particularly through the internalisation of the “generalised other”—the collective attitudes and expectations of society (Mead, 1934). Mead distinguishes between the “I” (the spontaneous, individualistic aspect of the self) and the “Me” (the socialised aspect shaped by societal norms). For Mead, the self is not a static entity but a product of ongoing interaction, where individuals continuously adjust their behaviour based on social cues. Both Cooley and Mead, therefore, position the self as a socially constructed phenomenon, deeply embedded in interpersonal relationships and cultural contexts.
W.E.B. Du Bois adds a critical dimension to the social self through his concept of “double consciousness,” primarily developed in the context of African American identity (Du Bois, 1903). Du Bois describes this as a sense of “twoness,” where individuals experience their identity through their own perspective and through the often prejudicial gaze of a dominant society. This duality illustrates how social structures, particularly those of race and power, shape the self in ways that can be conflicted or fragmented. Unlike Cooley and Mead, whose theories apply more generally, Du Bois focuses on how systemic inequalities influence the social self, revealing its vulnerability to external oppression. Collectively, these theorists present the self as a product of social interaction, shaped by reflection, societal norms, and structural forces.
Goffman’s Performed Self: A Dramaturgical Perspective
In contrast to the internalised and reflective nature of the social self, Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach frames the self as a performance enacted for specific audiences (Goffman, 1959). Drawing on the metaphor of theatre, Goffman suggests that individuals engage in “impression management,” presenting themselves in ways that align with social expectations to achieve desired outcomes. In this view, life is akin to a stage where individuals are actors, performing roles in “frontstage” settings (where they are visible to others) and retreating to “backstage” settings (where they can relax and be authentic). For instance, a lecturer might adopt a formal demeanour in the classroom (frontstage) but express frustration or humour privately with colleagues (backstage).
Goffman’s model implies that the self is not a fixed or authentic core but rather a series of masks tailored to situational demands. This perspective diverges from the notion of a stable self shaped by internalised social norms, instead emphasising agency and strategic behaviour. Importantly, Goffman does not deny the influence of society; rather, he focuses on how individuals actively navigate social interactions through performance. His work suggests that identity is fluid and context-dependent, raising questions about authenticity and the extent to which a “true” self exists beyond performance.
Similarities Between the Social Self and the Performed Self
Despite their differences, there are notable similarities between the social self and Goffman’s performed self. Both perspectives acknowledge the centrality of social interaction in shaping identity. Cooley’s looking-glass self and Mead’s generalised other align with Goffman’s recognition that individuals are attuned to how others perceive them, adjusting their behaviour accordingly. For example, just as Cooley argues that we imagine others’ judgements, Goffman’s impression management involves anticipating and responding to audience reactions. Furthermore, Du Bois’s concept of double consciousness resonates with Goffman’s idea of performing for a particular audience, especially when individuals must navigate conflicting social expectations (e.g., presenting oneself in ways that counteract stereotypes).
Additionally, both frameworks highlight the relational nature of the self. Whether through internalised norms (as in Mead’s theory) or situational performances (as in Goffman’s), the self emerges in dialogue with others. These shared elements suggest that Goffman’s view is not entirely disconnected from earlier theories but rather builds upon the foundational insight that identity is inherently social.
Key Differences: Internalisation versus Performance
However, significant differences exist, primarily in the mechanisms through which the self is constructed. The social self, as articulated by Cooley, Mead, and Du Bois, is deeply internalised; it involves a reflective process where societal influences become part of one’s inner identity. In contrast, Goffman’s performed self prioritises external presentation over internal consistency. While Cooley and Mead suggest that social interactions shape a relatively stable sense of self over time, Goffman argues that the self is fragmented across contexts, changing with each performance. This raises a fundamental question: if the self is merely a series of performances, as Goffman suggests, does a coherent, authentic self even exist?
Moreover, Goffman’s emphasis on agency contrasts with the more deterministic undertones of the social self. For instance, Mead’s generalised other implies that societal norms are internalised and guide behaviour almost automatically, whereas Goffman portrays individuals as strategic actors who consciously manipulate their presentation. Du Bois’s double consciousness also differs from Goffman’s model, as it reflects an internal conflict imposed by systemic inequality, rather than a deliberate performance chosen by the individual. These distinctions suggest that Goffman’s view is, at least in part, a departure from earlier theories, focusing on surface-level interactions rather than deeper psychological processes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the social self (as developed by Cooley, Mead, and Du Bois) and Goffman’s performed self share a common recognition of the social foundations of identity, they diverge significantly in their conceptualisation of how the self is formed and expressed. Cooley, Mead, and Du Bois frame the self as a product of reflection, internalisation, and structural influences, whereas Goffman highlights its performative, situational nature through impression management. Arguably, Goffman’s view is fundamentally different due to its focus on agency and fluidity, challenging the notion of a stable, internalised identity. However, the overlap in their emphasis on social interaction suggests that Goffman’s theory may be seen as an extension, rather than a complete rejection, of earlier ideas. This comparison underscores the complexity of the self as a sociological concept, inviting further exploration into how internal and external forces interplay in shaping identity. Indeed, understanding these perspectives offers valuable insights into the dynamic nature of human interaction and the multifaceted construction of the self in modern society.
References
- Cooley, C. H. (1902) Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Scribner’s.
- Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903) The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co.
- Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
- Mead, G. H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
