My Performed Identity

In his work on dramaturgical society, Erving Goffman describes the performative aspects of our conception of self in everyday interaction. "[The individual] was viewed as a performer, a harried fabricator of impressions involved in the all-to-human task of staging a performance; [but also] a character, a figure, typically a fine one, whose spirit, strength, and other sterling qualities the performance was designed to induce" (Goffman 252). Under this interpretation of social interaction, a great deal of importance is placed on the roles that we play in the everyday setting. However, what would be the effect of playing an uncomfortable or unnatural role for a long period of time? How could such roles play out in the formation of personal identity? Goffman argues that there is no essential self or identity, saying "The self, then, as performed character, is not an organic thing that has a specific location, whose fundamental fate is to be born, to mature, and to die; it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented" (Goffman 252-3). In addition, he holds that "he and his body merely provide a peg on which something of collaborative manufacture will be hung for a time. And the means for producing and maintaining selves do not reside in the peg; in fact these means are often bolted down by society" (Goffman 253). Here is where I begin to have problems with Goffman's conceptions of personal agency. While recognizing the importance of situational factors, I can also remember the purposeful construction and maintenance of various identities that I imagine most people engage in during adolescence. What follows then is a half-narrative, half-analysis of my adolescence, focusing on the aspects of agency and situational constraints in my identity performances. So who is Jeremy Cover? And how the hell did he turn out that way? By running back through my memories of a fractured and often painful high school experience, some things began to come clear. There were certain times during this period that I felt myself playing different roles, acting completely different from one group setting to the next. I believe that this is an essential part of self formation, a phenomenon of experimenting with various roles or identities in order to find one that we feel fits the best. It was not just the norms of the situation that demanded these different performances, I too placed a priority on having compartmentalized myself and adapted to each situation. The only problem for me was that none of my performances felt natural, or even enjoyable. It also left me in the position where I could only act like I actually wanted to by myself and with a few friends. I had to change something, and felt like college was the perfect place to do so. With the change in situational norms and practices, there would be more latitude to create a comfortable performance and role. I do see myself now as more true to one identity, as I am able to present a much more natural and consistent performance of self across situations. This, however, is not the whole picture. At the same time I was wrestling with my own changing identity, there were both structural and physical limitations on the type and character of the identity I have become. Here the ideas of Emile Durkheim concerning differences between societies and what keeps them together are instrumental for a better understanding. I grew up in what I consider to be a small town environment in east Texas. Its description would be similar to a Durkheimian conception of a premodern society, one in which mechanical solidarity meant a strong shared system of values, a limited set of social roles, and an emphasis on conformity in maintaining social order. In such a society "originality is not simply very rare, but it has no place" (Durkheim 135). He describes the role of the individual in such a society: "the individual, being like others, is given no leeway to depart from their collective practices. …