Performances on the web

Erving Goffman coined the term "dramaturgic action" to refer to the fact that our actions in a social context always become visible for the others. There´s always a sense of being observed by others present in our behavior.

I will consider the way in which the individual, in the situations of her everyday life, presents herself to others and presents her activity to others, and the ways by which the individual guides and controls the impression she causes in others and the kind of things she can do or cannot do to keep this representation to the eyes of the others.

I think this idea of represented behavior sometimes is too powerful as to determine a censorship in our actions or statements. Particularly in the internet, the exposure is absolute, but how does this influence in our actions?

Sigmund Freud also talked about the ideal-ego, as a representation of the image I would like the others to perceive of me and that can be a source of censorship for the individual.

Comments

[Trevor]

Hi Felix - an interesting topic. I guess we all have to be careful what we write now the internet makes us all very accessible. I see the internet as an opportunity rather than a threat. Providing we always tell the truth and are not personally insulting or rude to another person I think there are endless positive outcomes. I always favour personal and individual censorship.

[Omara]

In humble opinion Freud's theories are obsolet. As for referring to that sense of being observed we know rather well that it is present in our culture from the Classical times -the famous classical tragedy used it a lot- and would be equivalent in the Occidental imaginary to God's eye, that watches everything we do.

I find it very useful, it maintain us aware that we are part of a society - most important, that our ultimate goal is to serve it-. We won't even be who we are out of it, therefore it's positive that we are kind of "taken care of", but I'd rather see it as a two way process.

On the internet, well, just the same, ain't it?

[Troy Worman]

Felix,

This is a very thought-provoking post.

We are branded continuously by our actions. If we are conscious of this, as Goffman asserts, and we act to censor ourselves, then we are continuously branding ourselves.

It sounds like a lot of effort.

But if we are simply ourselves, if we act with integrity, the branding effort, the development of our reputation, is more natural. This is the stuff of time gone.

Certainly, in politics...

Men of history were men of character. Whether or not that character was good or evil is of no consequence here. They were true. They were transparent. When they spoke, we understood them precisely.

Now, we debate the meaning of words and there intent is malleable.

...

[Felix Gerena]

Wow. Thanks a lot, Trevor, Olivia and Troy. Three very different opinions from just one single post.

I think having a sense of inner censorship is almost unavoidable. There is always a sense of we or what Lacan would call the pressence of "the other" in our actions. This can be a sense of correctness as in Trevor´s suggestion, can be a sense of mutual recognition as in Olivia´s opinion and the effort it demands to keep up to our own brand´s quality requirements as Troy has stressed.

There´s one thing I´d like to point out here. What would our writing be like if we had a different sense of censorship? Would it be just wilder or it could have a quite reasonable shape, though a different one? Have you ever tried to loosen up those ties with your inner "other"?

[Omara]

Why censorship and not style? I have tried yes , I still need more practice into it.

[Steve Sherlock]

Felix, et al, it might be censorship if viewed as negative. It might be style viewed as positive. Either way, I think it is important to consider.

I use a quote I find as part of my signature for internal emails at work. The current one happens to be in this same subject area.

"Our example to our children, to our families, and to the world around us is constant. The question is not whether or not anyone is watching, the question is what are they learning as they watch." Kirk Weisler

[Felix Gerena]

A good quote, Steve. Umberto Eco, the famous writer and semiotists called every art work an open work, for there can be an infinite number of different interpretations of the same work.