I believe it was Shakespeare that said “all the world’s a stage.  And all the men and women merely players.”  This is precisely what Goffman is saying in The Presentation of Self.  We are all actors on this stage.  We merely play characters for both our own and the benefit of others.  The stage being the interaction between people. And interaction as Goffman describes it is “the reciprocal influence of individuals upon one another’s actions when in immediate physical presence” (15).  Is it possible not to play a part?  Is it possible not to be a character? Is it possible to be someone outside of the society? Delueze argues that the only people who get outside of society and the only people who are true individuals are the insane.  One of the arguments made in “The Loss of the Creature,” is that we are not individuals yet creatures made in society for society and the way society sees us changes us.  It changes the thing, and thus the thing is lost. 

So is everything we do for the benefit of the play? For the benefit of being treated or applauded in the way we want to be?  I don’t think Goffman attacks this problem head on.  I am not sure it can be tackled head on but what he does say is that “society is organized on the principal that any individual who possesses certain social characteristics has a moral right to expect that others will value and treat him in an appropriate way” (14).  I think what he is saying here is that we act certain ways in order to get certain responses.  I can buy into this.  But how does this effect ethnography? 

It has an extreme effect on it.  People interact and act differently when they know they are being watched.  They want that response, whatever it may be.  An so to does the observer.  I noticed while doing observations and being put into groups with students that I acted quite a bit differently than I would normally.  Normally, I fight for my position and want my point to be heard.  I want to be right, and the response I want to get is the acknowledgement of that supposition.  However, in when observering in group situations, that was not the case.  I didn’t want o push my beliefs.  Why?  Possibly for fear of being pushed outside of the heard possibly because my beliefs were entirely different from theirs.

In this program, we have talked quite a bit about code switching.  And what is code switching and using the correct discourse for the correct community if nothing more than acting.  So does that mean that people who code switch are better actors than others?  Or does it simply mean that they have the life experiences to play the character of themself in the play?  I think it is the latter.  Most people I feel have multiple selves.  They play many characters, all of which contribute to who they are.  “The self is a product of all these arrangements, and in all of its parts bears the marks of this genesis” (256). 

We are put together with many different parts many different pieces and are many different people all in one.  Goffman wants to argue this point he does not want to equate the characters with our true identity.  But I ask you this.  Who is Clark Kent?  Who is Superman?  Are they one in the same?  They share the same body, but are different characters.  What is Superman like when he is in his fortress of solitude?  This is the question we need to answer, but it cannot be answered because we may never know if a tree makes a sound in the woods if no one is there to hear it because it cannot be heard.  Likewise, we may never truly know ourselves unless we detach ourselves from ours social constructs.  This is a truly difficult task; one I argue can only be done by imbibing high powered hallucinogenic like mescaline or peyote or by getting so deep into meditation that we transcend ourselves.  I have only done the former and I can tell you that it only works till you come down, and then you enter the socially constructed world of acting an