Dramaturgy is a sociological perspective that uses an extended theatre metaphor to make sense of social interactions. Goffman writes about the understanding of self as separated between front stage and back stage performances. In the front stage is the self we present to others, our ‘face,’ and the back stage being the private self – allowing one to ‘step out of character’. In respect to managing one’s front stage behavior seeking information is essential. Seeking information fixes the coordination problem by establishing the parameters of different interactions based in context.
These can certainly be understood as ideal types as managing impressions is not something that necessarily comes naturally to everyone – or in other terms is experienced differently by some. The resources within the performers control explicated by Goffman: props, personal appearance, and mannerisms are not possessed by all individuals. While it is an ideal type that is a useful framework for understanding social interactions, Autism is a complication to this sociological perspective.
It’s not that performers who may be autistic can’t perform impression management but that they enact this method differently. Autism is characterized by impaired social interactions and communication. By definition, autistic actors perform outside the typical expectations and understanding of impression management.
The audience then interprets their front stage performance as unusual or uncomfortable – or outside the established norms. The front stage shouldn’t be conflated with the back stage of autistic performers. It’s not that they don’t manage their impressions but rather their understanding of what is normal and acceptable is different.
Often the language of ‘high functioning’ autistic individuals is used – especially in the definition/comparison to Asperger Syndrome. Asperger is characterized as a lack of development in language and cognitive development or less severe than a condition in the Autism Spectrum. While the scaled classification is useful for treatment techniques, this language and thus conception is used to outcast low functioning individuals. Those less able to understand or adhere to the norms of their front stage and impression management as seen as lower functioning individuals.
Using this framework in a different way, one could make the argument that this language is highly problematic. Rather than ranking the level of functioning of autistic individuals – this can be seen as simply different ways of functioning – different ways of managing impressions. With a lower ability to seek information regarding how to treat others or how to present oneself, Autistic performers learn and adapt to responding to their environment in a different fashion.
This is not to undermine the experiences and condition of Autistic individuals, though. While their neural development is an issue that causes them to be social outliers based on their inability to seek information and show a ‘face’ and other accepted practices, this argument seeks to validate their experiences as different but equal. Their understanding of social interactions is outside of neurotypicals, or people of ‘normal’ neural development, rules and guidelines for social interactions.
These can certainly be understood as ideal types as managing impressions is not something that necessarily comes naturally to everyone – or in other terms is experienced differently by some. The resources within the performers control explicated by Goffman: props, personal appearance, and mannerisms are not possessed by all individuals. While it is an ideal type that is a useful framework for understanding social interactions, Autism is a complication to this sociological perspective.
It’s not that performers who may be autistic can’t perform impression management but that they enact this method differently. Autism is characterized by impaired social interactions and communication. By definition, autistic actors perform outside the typical expectations and understanding of impression management.
The audience then interprets their front stage performance as unusual or uncomfortable – or outside the established norms. The front stage shouldn’t be conflated with the back stage of autistic performers. It’s not that they don’t manage their impressions but rather their understanding of what is normal and acceptable is different.
Often the language of ‘high functioning’ autistic individuals is used – especially in the definition/comparison to Asperger Syndrome. Asperger is characterized as a lack of development in language and cognitive development or less severe than a condition in the Autism Spectrum. While the scaled classification is useful for treatment techniques, this language and thus conception is used to outcast low functioning individuals. Those less able to understand or adhere to the norms of their front stage and impression management as seen as lower functioning individuals.
Using this framework in a different way, one could make the argument that this language is highly problematic. Rather than ranking the level of functioning of autistic individuals – this can be seen as simply different ways of functioning – different ways of managing impressions. With a lower ability to seek information regarding how to treat others or how to present oneself, Autistic performers learn and adapt to responding to their environment in a different fashion.
This is not to undermine the experiences and condition of Autistic individuals, though. While their neural development is an issue that causes them to be social outliers based on their inability to seek information and show a ‘face’ and other accepted practices, this argument seeks to validate their experiences as different but equal. Their understanding of social interactions is outside of neurotypicals, or people of ‘normal’ neural development, rules and guidelines for social interactions.