Human beings learn to act and behave in a variety of ways in society. The various modes of behavior depend on to whom one is speaking and what the objective is. This behavior is learned from nearly the cradle and is negotiated to the grave. In Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self In Everyday Life, we see just how intricate and deeply ingrained this form of face-to-face interaction is between human beings. But is this necessarily how it needs to be and perhaps more importantly, what would it look like if face-to-face interaction operated in a different paradigm. Those are the questions we will examine here and now.

Before we can ask the question of what a different paradigm of face-to-face interaction would look like, we must first examine its mechanics and what it is made up of. To jump straight in, Goffman’s definition of face-to-face interaction is based on the use of the self as a tool in which we negotiate with others. When initiating this intercourse between others, the individual in question will wish to employ a number of tactics to achieve the desired goal. This may run the gamut of a calculative approach to a manipulative one. And while the situation and nature of the other may greatly influence the approach the individual takes, the objective is always the same: garnering a positive reaction from the other. From superiors, equals, and subordinates, the individual is nearly always seeking a positive reaction and reception of themselves from the other.

To grasp this agenda of the individual, we will need to flush out some of the terminology that Goffman uses to describe these kinds of encounters. In fact, encounter itself is a term Goffman uses to define the interplay between individuals when they are in one another’s immediate presence. Here, individuals ply their various techniques of influence on one another in a reciprocal fashion, in hopes of controlling the situation to give off the best possible impression.

Another key terminology point is Goffman’s use of front – a type of self-mechanism that individuals act out their roles in front of others. The front has two designations: the front stage and back stage. In summary, the front stage is that part of the self that the individual seeks to gain a positive reaction from others; where expression hopes to meet the expression given off. Back stage can be conceived of as a private space, where the individual may in fact not be giving a dramaturgical performance, but rather is the closed to what that individual may “truly” be like, in Goffman’s view.

Let us now turn again to Goffman’s view on human interaction and his perception that it is a dramaturgical event or performance. We can assume for the sake of this paper that Goffman’s observation of face-to-face interaction is accurate but now we ask, how would it behave and what would it look like if we were to remove the self from the equation. In its best case scenario, human interaction sans the self would come to resemble infantile gestures, and at its worst, sociopathic. I will now demonstrate my two theories.

It is widely accepted in sociological circles that humans develop their self as they approach adolescence – whether or not we’re “born with it” is a negligible argument. Through observations, we see that infants and small babies initially have no sense of self. They are restricted in their capacity to communicate with others and thus must rely upon a passive form of negotiation. In order to receive care, infants must rely upon the parent to administer care to them. They possess no capacity to manipulate others – certainly not with any sense of ambition. And above all, infants express no notion of belief in their behavior, a key notion that Goffman presents to us: individuals believe that the part they’re playing is important. There is no substantive evidence that infants display such sophistication when they are hungry and crying for instance.

As this relates to human interaction, without the self, individuals lack any sense of ambition, with nothing driving their performances. Social values would be shed and such individuals would have no apparatus to negotiate their needs. Imagine if you will, grown adults who instead of simply feeding themselves, instead cried loudly in public spaces until someone came along to feed them. In fact, it is highly unlikely that any other adult individuals would be able to deduce that they in fact were hungry, creating a highly awkward social situation, not to mention the unlikely event that they would be fed!

In my second alternative, we have sociopathy. A redundant theme throughout Goffman’s work is the idea of social norms, morals and values. Such norms and values are interpreted and negotiated by the self – whether it be the way that Scots from the Highlands would lavish their guests with a banquet-style feast while in downtimes leaving frugally or in how a man might negotiate a romantic or sexual advance with a woman, without which the results could be disastrous.

Imagine if you will, instead of typical dramaturgical methods in which a man my attempt to court a women due to the attraction he feels towards her, he simply takes from her what she desires. Using Goffman’s vocabulary as scaffolding, we may reinterpret sexual crimes as social interactions without the self. No longer disciplined by morals or ethics, the individual without a soul would feel free to maraud, rape, and pillage with no concern for the repercussions of his actions nor would he feel any need to act out his intentions in hopes of acquiring a reciprocated response from the woman in question.

Aside from the more drastic consequences of having no self in face-to-face interaction, it would also prove impossible for the individual to assess their actions and character, let alone improve them, without the self. This form of improvement comes in the form what Goffman terms, idealization. Without the self, the individual would have no method of demonstrating a better-imagined persona. Any such presentations of the individual would be as they are, their flaws laid bare, versus the attempt to exemplify their performance when the self is active and implicated.

From what we have seen and read in Goffman’s work, I must conclude that face-to-face interaction requires the self. That without it, humans would not be able to function as we know and understand today. But that is not to say that human interaction is not without its capacity for darker ends. Examining the motives behind the performances of individuals, we see that their intentions are not always pure and that the self can be susceptible to deceit. Yet this too is not without a benefit, for mixed up with that attempt of deceit is the endeavor of the individual to improve his or herself. That within the individual presenting a take on his or herself that may not be “true”, nonetheless, it is also the avenue of which they might aspire to being a better person. Without the self, we are presented a world in which humans would seem to flail around half-blind, in chaos, having no means of effective or compassionate communication.