Goffman in “Asylums” aims to discuss the uneasy construction of “the Self” through the oppression of societal total institutions (mental hospital in his article). He first defines Total Institutions as “places of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed formally administrated round of life” (492, emphasis mine). When reading this, I cannot help but to notice his choice of his terminology. The presence of the words “cut off” and “enclosed” in the sentence portrays a negative implication regarding the notion of Total Institutions. His definition implies that total institutions are something set apart, pushed beyond the outskirts of societal functionality, a nucleus for absolute administration. As this definition is written right at the beginning of his article, it is clear that Goffman is attempting to grasp the notion of Total Institutions as problematic in which this type of totalitarian government envelops all thoughts, feelings and actions. In his article, he aims to pursue that one’s “Self” is undoubtedly the product of societal influences (the total institutions which strip the inhabitants away from any kind of portrayal of their true selves).

It is through this kind of identity-suffocation phenomena that the individuals are subject to the Mortification of Self, referring to the “process of ‘killing off’ the multiple selves possessed to prior to one’s entrance into the total institution and replacing them with one totalizing identity over which the person exercises little, if any, control” (492). As a result, Goffman implies that once the person is subjected within a Total Institution, the identity he or she once was will eventually erode as time progresses, intensifying the feeling of loss.

As a UBC student, I do believe that that the university is a total institution. I agree with Goffman when he states that these total institutions are “cut off” and “enclosed” when applying to UBC, in which the location of the campus is disconnected from the main cities of Greater Vancouver (such as Burnaby and Richmond). I also agree with him when he mentions that these total institutions are “formally administered round of life” (492), stated in his definition. In relation to conversing about our university campus, students are attending school under strict regulations of a campus wide government in which we must comply to. Not only subjected to students, but faculty members, office administrators and everyone else working within this circle of “residence”, is administrated under the umbrella of our UBC government, the AMS. Under circumstances in which one fails to follow the policies, consequences are put through to reinforce the established laws within the university.

Furthermore, Goffman reasons that individuals who fail to comply within the restrictions of the system are attempting to preserve their self-identity. This inability to obey to the institution’s demands represents the notion of Secondary Adjustments, in which the “individual stands apart from the role and the self that were taken for granted for him by the institution” (493). Goffman refers this means of preserving the patient’s self – identity as relying on “tearing up his mattress, if he can, or writing with feces on the wall” (500).

Goffman’s perspective is that it is through the totalitarian notion of an institution (a mental hospital), in which the patients are under continuous oppression from the authority of the hospital. Due to this, it is at this peak moment where sudden outbreaks of violence or cracks of disobedience come to light for reasons of redemption and re-identification of themselves as humans, not as patients. However, I believe that as students of UBC, it counters Goffman’s idea. Instead, I see UBC as a place of self-cultivation, not self-depletion. I cannot argue against the fact that UBC is not a total institution, but I can argue that UBC does not comply with the rules in which Goffman states in reference to patients struggling to reclaim their lost identities. UBC is a place where students come together to mindfully concentrate on their interests, to mindfully learn from academic scholars within their realm of studies, to mindfully open up their horizons to greater possibilities and to obtain unique skills (academic studies, clubs, sport teams). Therefore, UBC is a foster home which allows students to form a type of “self” through the growth of academic knowledge and personal developments. It is through this notion which the campus, in turn, forces individuals to reach out and claim their student identities. Goffman’s iteration suggests the power of the asylum which not only restricts the patients to reach out, but instead pushes the patients deeper into complete control.

Both are total institutions with power in place, but the core difference, thus, is that there is no history of loss identity for UBC students, while the imprisoned patients are individuals who have lost their past identities due to the simple entry into the absolute governance of the asylum.

From freshman year to my current status as a third year undergraduate student, I have undoubtedly grown from the very first day of school as a sophomore. These few years I have opened up my mind into numerous directions and learned countless experiences, all of which have constructed and reconstructed my identity as a whole.Therefore, Goffman’s definition of total institution leading to the withdrawal from the authentic self, is the product of the “enclosed, formally, administered round of life”. His notion can be accepted in the context of the clear power dynamics between doctor-patient relationships. However I feel that what Goffman is missing is that he generalizes much of the idea of total institutions as something empowering in all kinds of institutions. It is clear though, when thinking about UBC, that in fact not all institutions with class of elites run the same governance as total institutions. I believe that all institutions run differently. Moreover, not all are conditioned under a single definition of “Total Institution”.

References:

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and other Inmates. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.

Last month, I attended a Fashion Show for my very first time in my life. In a nutshell, the experience was interesting and I would say,  a little bit shocking. I did not have any expectations prior to the show and was extremely excited to be able to attend such a glamorous event.

Let’s start from the beginning.

I entered the venue just in time for the first show to begin. I walked towards the standing crowd which  hovered around the photographers and the VIP seats in the front row beside the bright runway. I instantly eyed an open space at the benches for me and my friend. We quickly squeezed between the sea of people , trying to get to our spots before anyone tried to take it. Just as we sat down, the lights dimmed and music started to boom the entire room. The first model appeared wearing a shiny silver suit. She strutted until the end the of runway, posed for the photographers, turned around, and walked back towards the screen. Sitting in the second row, I could see her face perfectly clear. Every model’s face I witnessed were interestingly all very similar. Caked on layers upon layers of foundation, mascara, eyeliner, eyeshadow and lipstick, it seemed to me that every model portrayed a homogenized, mainstream look. Her face was emotionless, blank, a Blasé attitude was depicted through her facial expression.

In relation to identity, the self and society, it became extremely clear to me that the true model’s identities  on the runway were veiled from the layers of makeup and the sparkling suits. The moment each person stepped onto the runway, a certain kind of portrayal was evident to the audience (that an individual who was chosen to model a particular designer’s novel collection of clothing, was solely determined based on the model’s “look”). Throughout the 20 seconds in which each model was able to struct and show the entirety of an enlightened outfit, I could feel that the individual was constantly bombarded with judgments drafted  by every attendee, however, not only commenting on the clothing design, but critiquing the model as an individual.

As the model flowed down the runway  with their signature walk, I watched the audience’s heads turn as the model passed them. People were constantly scanning the model from head to toe,  assessing their walk, their posture, their physique, their potential of showing off the pompous outfit in a right matter.

After watching a couple of models walk up the down the platform and also observing the front row fashion designers with cat eye glasses, fire red lipstick sitting upright in their seats with their lips pouting, scanning the model’s bodies, it suddenly struck me that the models were completely divorced from their true, in-born identities. Throughout the two hour event, I came to the realization that these model’s identities, or “the self” was heavily composed and produced of the exaggerated makeup, the volumous hairdo, and their extravagent outfit of today’s modernized high fashion (though some of which is debatable in aesthetic appeal, I would argue). It is through the confined space of the runway, the bold lighting on their faces, and the hundreds of people observing, that each model’s self/identity was not only controlled, but restricted within the tangible and intangible spacial dynamics. It is through the makeup, the hairdo, and the clothing that DEFINED who the model was on stage as an individual.

In retrospect, not only does it mean that your identity is shaped by the materials the model is wearing, but it is also shaped by the institutional organizations of the Fashion Show, as well as the people who were watching, observing their every move.

This inescapable concept of the “self” as the core production of others around you, is thus suggested in Smith’s 1987 The Everyday as Problematic. Smith raises the notion of “norm” in certain settings, as “teachers learn a vocabulary and analytic procedures that accomplish the classroom in the institutional mode… analyze and name the behavior of students as “appropriate” or “inappropriate”(573). What she is noting is that these ideologies provide procedures for what goes on, and as a result, provides the notion of observable -reportable within such settings (573). Therefore in relation to the fashion show, Smith’s ‘observable-reportable’ idea of the teachers relates to this type of procedure controlled by the fashion designers sitting in the front row seats. It is through the internalized process of labelling “pass” or “fail” towards the models that form the identities of these faces.

Everyone’s identities are sociall constructed by others around us. The creation of a false facade is unavoidable and real. As a UBC student, your sex, your faculty,  your major, the clubs you partake in, all define your identity. And within each aspects listed, there are social relations that develop. Professors, peers, friends and family all determine your identity as a whole. In some aspects, it controls you and takes over your identity without your consciousness.

I constantly question:  How does one enable him/herself to meander through society without feeling watched or judged? How can somone comply to a “self” when the “self” is controlled by external dynamics?

References:

Smith, Dorothy. (1987). The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Lebanon, N.H: University Press of New England.