Goffman's Explanation Of First Impressions

In any face to face engagement between two or more people, each participant has a role to play, a role in which their aim is to express themselves in the most positive manner. Goffman’s explanation of the term co presence highlights the way by which people semi-consciously engage in the mutual monitoring of each other throughout an engagement based on variation of expressions given off. Social interaction is the essential aspect of the humanisation process and as a consequence, much relies on the ability to present oneself positively. This presentation of the self however hangs on the aesthetic portrayal of the face, a portrayal that can be altered, made up and transformed to the detriment of the owner. “There is no question that appearance

Simmel stated that there is aesthetically no other part of the body than that can so easily be destroyed and yet so visibly noticed than the face. In light of this, if a person suffering from acne is in the presence of others he will be conscious of the exposure of his stigma and the degree to which it is notable. Goffman’s analysis of interaction highlights the importance of first impressions in co presence engagements as they are most often the ones that last. (Goffman) Due to its temporality, particularly that of those at adolescent age, acne is an example of a minor stigma and hence depending on the social situation and the context in which the interaction takes place the stigma may have little affect on the situation. In spite of its temporal existence however, it is often the more minor physical defects that have the greater affect on the persons life. (Macgregor as cited in Finkelstein 1991) It has been highlighted that the degree to which an individual feels “helpless about their condition” (Murray) depends whether the interaction is “with their own kind.” (Comer) This idea of impression management is also affected by the individuals belief of the beauty mystique. If a person subconsciously buys into the theory that the more attractive they are, the more likely he will be attributed characterises

On the other side of the coin, we can take away from the face rather than adding to it. Taking the example of facial cosmetic surgery, an alteration is made, but the alteration is intended to be hidden. As the outcomes of these two forms of facial adjustments carry different attributes, they carry with them different forms of stigma so hence, the degree of precarity in the engagement will depend on the other participants prerogative. Rather than being interested in the content of the conversation Goffman focused on the demeanour and behaviour, seeing communication as the behaviour. Cosmetic procedures were procured as a result of social expectation to encourage beautification. Moving beyond the temporary fashioning of ’make up,’ cosmetic surgery may permanently alter a persons visual appearance, the risk however is whether the other participant can tell that any alteration has taken place. Goffman defined face engagements as “two or more participants in a situation joining each other openly in maintaining a single focus of cognitive and visual attention.” (Goffman 1963: 92) Within this attention period, the eye cannot help but study the other participant, creating an image of the other semi consciously. In any given interaction whereby one individual has been subject to cosmetic surgery and the