I was sitting in an undergraduate sociology seminar, and the professor casually dropped this idea into conversation like it was the most obvious thing in the world. My immediate reaction was confusion, maybe even a bit of defensiveness. What do you mean performance? I am not acting.

This is just who I am. But the more I sat with the concept, the more I realized how much of what we consider natural or essential about ourselves is actually something we do rather than something we inherently are. Explore how our daily actions and behaviors shape identity and social reality through the sociology of performance and performativity in everyday life.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The sociology of performance and performativity has become one of the most fascinating lenses through which we can examine human behavior and social interaction. At its core, this field explores how our identities, social roles, and even our sense of reality are constructed through repeated actions and behaviors rather than existing as fixed, pre-determined qualities.

When we talk about performance in this context, we are not necessarily talking about deliberately putting on a show or being inauthentic. Instead, we are looking at how the things we do consistently create and reinforce who we become.

Erving Goffman laid much of the groundwork for understanding social performance back in the 1950s with his dramaturgical approach. He suggested that social life could be understood as a series of theatrical performances where we present different versions of ourselves depending on our audience.

Think about how you behave differently at a job interview compared to how you act when you are alone with your closest friend. The shift is not necessarily dishonest. It reflects the complex reality that we inhabit multiple social roles simultaneously and must navigate between them with varying degrees of skill and awareness.

What strikes me most about performance theory is how it challenges the notion of a true or authentic self waiting to be discovered beneath all our social conditioning. Instead, it proposes that the self is something we actively create through our daily performances. Every time you walk into a room, choose your words carefully in a conversation, or decide what to wear, you are engaging in identity work. You are performing a version of yourself that makes sense within that particular social context.

Judith Butler took these ideas even further when she developed her theory of gender performativity in the early 1990s. Her argument was radical and remains controversial in some circles today. Butler claimed that gender is not something you are but something you do. Through repeated acts, gestures, and stylized behaviors, we bring gender into being. A woman does not wear a dress because she is a woman. Rather, the act of wearing a dress, among countless other gendered behaviors performed over a lifetime, constitutes what we recognize as womanhood.

This distinction between performance and performativity matters more than it might initially seem. Performance suggests a degree of choice and conscious decision making. Performativity, on the other hand, emphasizes how these acts become so normalized and habitual that they appear natural or inevitable. We rarely stop to think about why we shake hands when we meet someone or why we arrange our bodies in certain ways depending on whether we are in a formal or informal setting. These performances have become so deeply embedded in our social fabric that they feel automatic.

The sociology of performativity also helps us understand how power operates in society. When certain performances become normalized while others are marginalized or punished, we see how social hierarchies are maintained through everyday interactions. Consider how professional behavior is defined in most corporate settings.

The expectations around dress, speech patterns, emotional expression, and even physical presentation often reflect the norms of dominant social groups. Those who cannot or will not perform according to these standards may find themselves excluded or disadvantaged, not because of any inherent lack of capability but because their performances do not align with what has been deemed acceptable.

I find myself thinking about performativity whenever I catch myself adjusting my behavior in subtle ways. Why do I moderate my tone in certain professional emails? Why do I feel the need to perform competence in particular ways during meetings? These questions are not invitations to paranoia or excessive self-consciousness. Rather, they open up space for examining how social expectations shape our daily lives in ways we might not fully.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Reference

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre.

Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Bobbs-Merrill.