Huh. Well you give me more credit for beauty than I had meant to attempt with that post. But, yours in turn, was much more beautiful. I am intrigued by your no photos policy. Just today, orgtheory was posting about the power of photos. I agree I suppose for presentations. But I never liked the picture is worth a thousand words saying. Because a picture is frozen, just a moment, and you lose so much meaning without the movement of interaction. Whereas words allow the flow of pictures, if written well.
My no photos policy may in fact be post hoc rationalization of why I didn't whip out my camera at every single turn last weekend. Do I regret it now? Only slightly, because I usually like taking pictures on our few escapes.
But it just felt, that weekend, like I really wanted to enjoy the moments and not stage them (I am not good with candids; we always have this pose of standing together and taking pictures of ourselves with our arms extended and so we have big heads and little background). So we napped underneath a tree after our picnic. Then at the bizarre zen retreat nekkid hot spring thing, there were no cameras allowed, and we couldn't even really talk out loud, so we just were together, silently. I am not a big fan of whipping out my camera in restaurants unless it's a blog meetup, and so that was just a nice quiet dinner too. I dunno--it felt good to go with the moments, and as you said, now I have a narrative rather than a spliced series of stills.
And don't sell yourself short--I loved your post. I really loved that anecdote about your friend, and how you asked for his permission. So often I am so extravagant with details about my intimate relationships, and you reminded me of why they are so intimate. Why TBF is the best friend, and Amber is TL.
Admittedly, though, I jazz up my powerpoints. Not insanely though. And I don't animate things much. That's just for show-offs!
Also, I guess it is weird that I never wanted to stop a moment and take a picture or pull over and capture some awesome vista because we were traveling through one of the most scenic areas of the country--and this was my first time ever there! At first I thought "a vineyard is like any other" and I have traveled through other vineyards, but this one really was breathtaking. And it was my first time. And yet, no pics.
I wonder if Anomie isn't wrong, saying that there is no backstage, that it's just a fairytale. I wonder if the backstage is the production of memory, which is half-invention, half-experience. Half what happened, and half what we want to have happened. How we want to tell the story determines in part in how we live it.
I think it depends on how you conceptualize the backstage.
In Goffmanian (is that even right? Goffmanesque?) terms, the backstage is simply what you attempt others (can be different others at different times) from knowing, while encouraging other impressions to form. You wrote about it once, I think on scatterplot... how you didn't want to admit to bad habits? I don't remember which post. Those habits, or whatever, that you want to hide from the people (academics?) who read your posts, is part of your backstage. At least the backstage you have for those individuals. You may wish to share those same details with others.
If you are thinking of a backstage in terms of hiding who you really are, then perhaps it is a fairytale. That is not what I meant by a backstage. I mean more of a place where I don't have to be constantly concerned with impression management--as you have to be when on stage. To the extent that is possible is still questionable to me. And, I'll address that more as time goes on. Hell, perhaps I should just blog about the differences in the ways we are using the term.
That would be a super post. I am beginning to grasp the Goffmanian (I choose that one!) concept, but I see now what WickedA was saying.
You would think a pseudonymous blog is where you can let go of impression management, but no--not if you've come out to so many people, as I have (but no regrets, I have good friends and supportive contacts). Even if I had stayed totally pseudonymous, I still have a sort of persona I put forth on my blog as a progressive academic committed to certain principles. It took me a long while before I would admit to enjoying "domestic" hobbies, because I was afraid that would undercut my feminist arguments to the idiots out there who believe that it's one or the other. For a long while, I would not admit to having a personal life, because I worried that it would be too intimate and undercut the serious tone of other posts I do on employment law.
That backstage is darned elusive, I'll tell you. I am wondering where, exactly, is the division between front/backstage in our increasingly interactive, iterative society? If I lived in the woods like Thoreau, maybe. But so much of life is out there ready to be interpreted, thanks to social networking sites, blogs, emails, etc. It's hard to manage everything, much less keep a certain part from being a zone free of impression management--so much is out in the open, ready for impression-taking.
Truly, I am glad now to have quiet, un-blogged, undocumented moments! I always tell my friends that the blog looks like I am sharing, but I'm not. It's my own form of impression management to share a few details or toss a red herring or post about X when my mind is occupied with Y, and that the real story must be gotten by phone or email.
Well, and the irony of it all, is that even being pseudonymous is not really being fully backstage. I am managing the impression you develop of me by controlling what I say so you can't figure out who I am. There are times that I include a detail, think that maybe it is too much, and so go back and delete it. Because of that very concern. Truly, how is that backstage? And yet, another post I had planned. See, this is the problem with blogging that conversations do not have. I worry about the length of my posts. I have some REALLY long posts that I don't think anyone reads. So that makes me cut out things that really need to be discussed.
I wrote about Goffman. Well, really, I copy and pasted from a paper I wrote, edited for amount, and added a last paragraph. But, I am planning on writing more on this as I go.
This is so super interesting. I remember learning about Goffman in college. Aw, it all comes full circle.
Dont' be afraid of super long posts. I post them anyway (and darn it, Blogger doesn't have that "fold" function), and figure people skip what they don't want to read. You would be surprised, though, how loyal readers can be, and how awesome.
I love that there are other female pseudonymous bloggers out there struggling with symbiotic interactionism. The stuff I do is mainly in the employment context, of course, but I often do meta-blogging posts on performance in the blogosphere, particularly because there are not that many women law bloggers out there maintaining their own blogs. It's always dicey to decide how to present yourself, particularly when you're representative.
Also: man, I wish I was going to ASA 2008.
2009 Atlanta
Hell, we'll be going to ASA into perpetuity. Unless I too drop out to become a weaver. Or, join that NASA study. Damn, that's tempting. Of course, Anomie is going to be hugely successful selling those voodoo dolls. So, I'm not sure if she'll stick around either.
Still, if you can swing the airline ticket, we can get you the 10 pass, and you can sneak into receptions almost every night to eat (TONS of free food at ASA... Why do you think I go? It's not to present my crappy paper, I'll tell you that much).
rather 2010
2009 is San Fran, which I believe you already knew.
I think it's past my bedtime.
See, I think both definitions of backstage are fairytales:
1. Backstage as when you stop managing your impression to others: doesn't exist because we are always managing our impressions, even to ourselves. Even when alone, we have an internalized other we're acting towards--a peanut gallery in our heads (It's really bugging me that I can't find the citation for this idea. I didn't make it up on my own). That's why so few people are comfortable walking around naked in their own homes. Or won't sing, even when alone. Or control their daydreams.
2. Backstage as when you can be your true self: we have no true self. We are socialized into being and constrained by the etiquettes, morals, and norms that we have internalized. The self is fluid and varies with time and space.
Maybe there are specific backstages for our specific identities. So, I'm backstage in my mom identity, but frontstage in my blogger identity, etc. In that sense, we're always backstage and always frontstage. Perhaps it's more of a continuum based on how many identities are taking the back burner at the moment.
I had a wicked case of insomnia last night, and my head is fuzzy. But, I really don't think that we are disagreeing. Rather just emphasizing different points. With Goffman, even when you are in the backstage you are still often attempting to manage impressions. It's just a different type of impression. Front stage, you are trying to manage the impression of the audience. Backstage, the audience becomes your teammates (your husband, in the previous example).
I think it is a matter of degree. Or like you said, a continuum. It's our perception of how much we are managing our impressions that matter. Even if we do not have a true self, most of us believe we do (believe we have an authentic self). Part of this perception are our imperfections. I think another part is allowing access (at least in the US) to our bodies and its natural functions. Allowing someone to know about those perfections is signaling to them that we are allowing them into our backstage. I don't think it's a matter of letting them see our "true" selves beyond perhaps the perception (both from self and other) that this is the case.
I feel like I'm not explaining this well at all.
I feel inspired to go back and reread Goffman in light of all this backstage talk. This is exactly the kind of inspiration that I was hoping for when I started blogging, though 
.
Another interesting way to look at the backstage is to examine differences in people and how much backstage they have. In a way, one could define Asperger's as a backstage deficit, or an inability to maneuver multiple stages.
This is fascinating. I am going to pick up a copy of that book for the first time in years. This is exactly what I hoped blogging would do--make me think, want to learn, engage in an interesting conversation with others, pick up a new book. Not that I don't already have too much to read, but this is the fun part of academia.
I love Goffman, but I rely more on his seminal work on stigma, which is a huge part of my own research (on pain).
What I love is that I just wanted a name for my blog. It was really that concert I went to that made me think... hmm, they had no backstage... I have no backstage... I need a backstage dammit! I'm gonna think more and post on those two definitions by Anomie. Perhaps I need to nap and then do some "real" work first though. Love the idea of a "backstage deficit." I was part of an affect control theory teleconference oh so many years ago. A therapist was there, and she was commenting that ACT (Interact) could be utilized to train people how to behave (what to emote, actions to chose) to be normative--how to put on a front. Now, that is one theory with some evil evil potential.
Commenting by HaloScan
