My Independent Research Project: Everyday Interactions with Big Time Rush

Big Time Rush Ustream (actual footage starts approx 3:30)

Bigtimerushofficial 2011, bigtimerushofficial live recorded on 11/9/11, 10/11/11, http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bigtimerushofficial.  

November 9, 2011.

Word count: 2,038

Video: This is the data for analysis. Starts at approximately 3:30. 

There are two different approaches to looking at sociology. The most commonly used and well known is the macro, which is defined by its wider perspective on major issues or structure. This paper, however, will focus on micro sociology, an approach more focused on the interaction systems in everyday life or agency (Mouzelis, 1992). These micro sociological frameworks can be seen throughout small, regular exchanges with people. I will be using a piece of data posted on the internet by a boy band called Big Time Rush who throughout their dealings show some breaches in the ‘rules’ of social interaction.

The video was a live stream chat that was originally intended to inform the bands fans of their tour dates and to relay information about their new movie. However, the bands members, Carlos Pena, Kendall Schmidt, Logan Henderson and James Maslow began conversing with each other unaware that the live stream recording had already begun. Everything that was being said was being directly shown to thousands of people. This data was chosen because the way the band members behave is so out of their perceived character it seemed like an interesting occurrence to analyse. Tension and an argumentative nature are heavily apparent and it is clear to see where the alliances are. Essentially things go awry. What makes this so interesting to analyse is that examining these instances brings forth ideas that more or less go completely unnoticed when everything goes how it is suppose to (Tannen, 2009).  This video gives insight into the micro sociological aspects of dramaturgy, presentation of self and expletives, epithets, profanity and rudeness that I will be discussing further.

One of the main concepts evident in the video is that of dramaturgy. Goffman (1971) assumes that everyone is playing a role. In turn, other people are expected to believe these attributes are directly representative of the person’s character. Prior to the misshapen release of the video, the band members played a role that everyone believed to be who they really were. Even those who had not directly witnessed the members behaving in any role most would assume the typical character of a boy band member. That is clean cut, responsible, ‘nice’ young men. Goffman (1971) distinguishes two personas, the backstage and the frontstage. These roles they play are more prominent in the front stage arena, and it is evident that there is role distance in the backstage arena. The video has poor lighting and sound indicating that it was not something meant to be seen, hence in a backstage arena. Another indicator of the backstage aspect is the way the members behave. There is significant role distance. They complain and insult their production team in quite emotive language. Pena says “Production fucked it up, production is bitchin’ us out, so fuck production” (4:48). Normally, when he is acting in his role as boy band member, his exchanges are more calm, polite and typical for what kind of person people perceive him as. Goffman (1971) also talks about the preparation that goes on backstage in order to present to the front stage. Towards the ending of this data (10:00-11:00), the band members are seen preparing to act in a front stage setting. They attempt to calm themselves down and prepare what they are going to say. This is the switching period in between the two personas. It is also interesting to note that in the later scheduled live chat made for the originally intended purpose, the frontstage they were preparing for was clearly presented how it should have been. Unfortunately for the band members, their preparation was also shown.

Gronbeck (1980) suggests that according to Goffman’s model of life as a drama, there can be a simple breakdown of all interactions into several categories. These are the actor, the spectator, the script and the social meaning. In this interaction, the actors are Big Time Rush; the spectators are those viewing the chat. The interesting thing about this interaction is that they do not seem to be acting upon a script. Whilst there was an intended script for the scheduled chat, this interaction has been caught in the backstage and therefore the actors are not relying on a script. This being where the social meaning ends up being derived from causing social chaos.

Aspects of dramaturgy link into the micro sociological concept of presentation of self. Zussman (2005) describes the self as a permanent part of a person that is independent of their behaviour or personality. I understand this as there being almost two selves. One to display to the outside world and one that is the true self. In this video, the band members are displaying a closer depiction to their true selves as opposed to their ideal selves which is to uphold the image of a boy band member. Most parents would not want their children repeating phrases such as “they didn’t give a shit about us.” (4:25) Because of this, the band members are required to create an ideal self that puts out a different image, one of behaving correctly and doing the ‘right’ thing.

The band members in this video are clearly directing their anger at their production team which to some extent are their superiors, or at least have some kind of power over them. What is interesting about this is that according to Goffman (1967) there is in a sense an unwritten law that dictates how we behave towards these superiors. What he terms deference. Interestingly in this data, the band members are breaching these ‘rules’. This behaviour is most likely directly linked to the fact that they are in a backstage atmosphere and so are under the impression that they are not being heard by these superiors.

Goffman (1967) also talks of facework, which is the collective effort we produce to create a self and how everyone’s main goal is to be in ‘good face’. In the video, the band members have been put in ‘wrong face’, because they are behaving in a way that is inconsistent with their roles. Throughout the video though as well as after there were multiple attempts to save face. In the video when Pena and Schmidt are consistently saying rude things and complaining about their production team, both Maslow and Henderson attempt to get them to stop. Henderson says “I’m worried this thing is on” (4:33), followed by Maslow saying “Be careful, Ustream makes me nervous” (4:53). These are clearly attempts to get their band mates to restrict themselves from saying anything further that is going to get them in trouble or continue to put them in wrong face. Henderson also attempts to diffuse the situation when Schmidt claims he just wants to fire everyone by saying “Dude, we’ve got one day left” (8:01) trying to get everyone to just calm down and focus on the purpose of the intended chat. Not only do the other members themselves try to save face, so does part of their production team. The band members are on the phone to one of their team telling them what needs to be said in the chat, when she is quick to remind them “Guys, make sure to turn off the chat when you’re done” (6:52). Whilst she is unaware that she is making an attempt to save face that is in a sense what she is doing. Unfortunately for the band, she reminded them to turn it off when they were done and not make sure it is not on before they started talking, thus failing to save their faces. The final attempt at a face saving act is conducted after the conclusion of the video. Whilst not directly part of the data itself, it is important to note that following the broadcast of this video, it was immediately taken down so nobody who had not already seen it could. However, once again unluckily for the members, their fans had been directly downloading it to their computers and there was multiple YouTube re-uploads so everyone who had missed out could see still see it.

Presentation of self also includes the concept of obligations and expectations. Goffman (1967) defines obligations as guides for action and expectations as behaviours and actions expected of us. Big Time Rush had an obligation to report to their fans all the details about their approaching tour and the release of their movie. They also had this similar obligation to their management team. They did this with the expectation that their staff were going to provide them with the means and permission to fulfil this in a way they so chose. It is evident, from the argumentative nature of the data that these expectations were not met. Throughout the entire video, it is evident that the main cause of their frustrations were due to this. Interestingly, despite their expectations not being met, they still conducted the scheduled live chat that fulfilled their obligations, albeit after a stressful 11 minutes.

The final aspect of micro sociology that is clearly evident in this data is the use of expletives, epithets, profanity and rudeness. There is clearly an overuse of the word ‘fuck’. In two instances the word is repeated at least twice in a sentence. Pena with the “production fucked it up…” mentioned earlier and Schmidt says “Fucking Sera and her smartass fucking mouth” (4:30). Both these sentences would have equally as easily got their message across without the use of fuck or its variants (fucking), by either eliminating the word completely or replacing it with a more dignified word. The overuse of the word ‘fuck’ indicates how it has lost all meaning. As Reno (2000) puts it, it has become a Broadway term. It is no longer a form of rebellion, but a word in commonplace language.  

Being part of and working as a band is technically a workplace. Baruch and Jenkins (2007) claim that swearing in a workplace can actually have a positive effect on the way a business is run. In terms of my data, the members swearing with each other creates solidarity and improves social interactions with each other, their business being their band. Contextually though, the members are not in their workplace. They are in a forum where their fans and production team can see and hear them. I compare this with Baruch and Jenkins’ claim that workers should not indulge in the use of taboo language outside of their business, so customers, in this case the boy’s fans and production team do not see them acting this way. The reason for their swearing is also an interesting item to question. At first glance of the data, it is apparent that the main goal of the interaction is to complain, “You know what would’ve been easier, doing it in the fucking hotel” (7:49) “nobody cares” (7:43). Alicke et al. (1992) assert that the purpose of complaining is simply to vent frustration and to solicit sympathy. Rather than what one would expect the purpose to be, that is change an existing state of affairs that one is not happy with. This reasoning seems consistent with the data. They are very clearly frustrated and are venting. Even though they are under the impression they are the only ones who can hear, they are trying to solicit some sort of sympathy, noted with the response of one of their friends in the background trying to calm them down and comfort them. They are expressing exactly their feelings in the moment. This is what Miller (1998) claims is the main reason for using profanity. She claims that saying certain words or sentences to describe a feeling just are not enough and the use of words like fucking make it a more accurate description of the intended emotion.

In conclusion, an unintended live chat featuring a boy band who is extremely frustrated with the people working with them not only provides humour but also insight into what happens when social interactions go wrong. Using micro sociological aspects including dramaturgy, presentation of self and expletives, epithets, profanity and rudeness it was interesting to deconstruct an 11 minute piece of data (only 5 of it actually showing any interaction) into having so much meaning in a sociological context.

References

Alicke, M, Braun, J, Glor, J, Klotz, M.L, Magee, J, Sederhoim, H, & Siegel, R 1992 Complaining behaviour in social interaction, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 11. 25/10/12.

Baruch, Y & Jenkins, S 2007, Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture: When anti-social becomes social and incivility is acceptable, Leadership and Organisation Developmental Journal, 28, 6, 492-507, 25/10/12

Bigtimerushofficial 2011, bigtimerushofficial live recorded on 11/9/11, 10/11/11, http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bigtimerushofficial.

Goffman, E 1967, ‘The nature of deference and demeanour’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Pantheon Books, New York, pp47-96.  

Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp 28-82.

Gronbeck, B 1980, Dramaturgical theory and criticism: The state of the art (or science), The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 315-330, 25/10/12

Miller, S 1998, Why I swear by $#@%ing swear words, Cosmopolitan, 225, 5, 64, 24/10/12.  

Mouzelis, N 1992, The interaction order and the micro-macro distinction, Sociological Theory, 10, 1, 122-128.

Reno, M 2000, Fuck. Ms, 10, 4, 11. 23/10/12.

Tannen, D 2009, Framing and face: the relevance of the presentation of the self to linguistic discourse analysis, Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 4, 300-305, 20/10/12.

Zussman, R 2005, The Self, Contexts, 4, 2, 48-50, 20/10/12 

Fuck, Fuck, Fuckity Fuck

Fuck. One word that has so many different meanings. I find this particular word one of interest. Not just because it can be used for so many different purposes and with different connotations, but because of the way the word has, I guess, evolved over time. It seems like it has lost all meaning as a profanity. To me, it seems like a word used in day to day chatter (well for a lot of people at least). I often use ‘fucking’ both when I am mad and when I am happy. Sometimes, I am completely unaware of it, it just comes out and the interesting thing is most of the time whoever I am talking to doesn't really notice either. I didn't even have any hesitation to write it in my blog this week, because it’s really lost all value.

Reno (2000) calls the word fuck, the ‘Broadway’ word because of all its different meanings. She also compares the use of fuck of when she was a child (in the 60’s) and how it was considered a very masculine thing to how most people approach it today. She states that she now uses it on a regular basis and it seems to lack its shock value now.

To illustrate the casual use of fuck, here’s some Kingsley and Jenna Marbles, who frequently swear in their video’s, yet nobody gives a fuck (see what I did there)

And so concludes my last blog post for this subject, it’s been swell J But….

Reno, M. (2000) Fuck. Ms, 10(4), 11. 

You blocked me on Facebook...now you're going to die

The first thing that came to mind when doing this topic, was none other than PlasticBieber. One word: TROLL. At the height of her trolling, she told everyone she was an 11 year old ‘Belieber’ (that is die hard Justin Bieber fan for those living under a rock) that basically insulted everyone that wasn't Justin Bieber, in particular the boys of One Direction. Her twitter has now been deleted, mind you after racking up something like 77,000 followers. But I managed to find this screenshot of some of her tweets. It’s a little cut off, but you get the idea.

It turns out, the girl, Jessica, is actually an 18 year old girl that really doesn't care much for Justin Bieber and just did it for a laugh. The point I’m trying to make is, for a considerable amount of time, nobody actually knew who this girl was, they just knew her as PlasticBieber, her twitter name. She was anonymous. Would she have said those same things if she had to have her full name posted, a picture of her (her display picture was Justin Bieber)? Probably not.

This also brings light to the concept of cyberbullying. Whilst, majority of her tweets were directed at celebrities, there was also a lot of racist and other discriminatory tweets. Had twitter been moderated then, it’s highly likely that she would have gotten banned from the site…maybe that’s what happened when they started moderating, who knows. But the point I’m trying to make here is that pretty much the entire purpose of her twitter was to bully people, whether they be famous or regular people. With computer mediated communication, things like this become so much easier, because there is very little consequence. 

Bloody Hell!

The first thing that came to mind when listening to the lecture of this topic was my experiences at WYD08 in Sydney. One of the things my friends and I did was eavesdrop on people’s conversations (in a non-weird way) to see where they were from to determine whether we would strike up conversation with them. It so happened that the group of people we ended up spending majority of the week with were from the US. What I noticed throughout the week was not only how blatantly Bogan I was, but there was just so many things that got lost in translation even though we both speak English. I remember my friend trying to trick other Australians into believing she was also from the US. The funny thing was, everyone was completely convinced…until she called McDonald’s Macca’s. The illusion was completely shattered because everyone automatically knew she was in fact Australian (and she still is). And everyone now saw her as a bogan, much like these foxy ladies....

To accompany this, I found an article that talks about slang and how we find that having just simply a language is not enough for us, that we somehow want to make our ways of talking even more specific to our subculture, for example, not just Australian, but Australian surfie's. Interestingly this article says that it takes a slang word about ten years to become a part of the Oxford dictionary. There are some words I am curious if they will ever make it. Reid, R. (2006). Setting the Slang. Campaigns and Elections 27(1). 10. 

I also found the concept of hedging interesting. I do it all the time and didn’t actually think there was a name for it. I find it so difficult to say a whole story without saying um…I never understood that the purpose of me doing so was just so people would know not to interrupt me. But when I think about it, I do generally assume when someone says ah….or stutters that there not actually finished talking. All these topics make me so self conscious when I speak and now I pay attention to what I say so much and I hate it!

Lastly, the reading just made the word bloody lose all meaning, I read it that many times, the word just started to sound weird. But I did find it interesting the different connotations placed upon it across different cultures. I didn't think it right to talk about the word bloody without including this gem

Group Presentation Nat, Nick and Kye

#Slidesharefail So I had to upload a print screen of my group presentatoin slides

Social and Moral Order in Talk

If you’re a girl, you’ve probably been angry at a friend if she’s ever put ‘dicks before chicks’ or if you’re a guy, if your mate put ‘hoes before bro’s’. Why is that? Is there some law that says you can’t do that? No, there isn’t, it is simply what one would refer to as either girl code or bro code. That is, whilst these ‘rules’ are not specifically written down anywhere, if they are broken, the person that broke them is going to be somewhat frowned upon. That has to do with this week’s topic, The Social and Moral Order in talk. I’m doing my group presentation on this topic, so I actually spent some time delving into in a little more depth.

In the reading, Weilman refers to the convict code and how the convicts had these unwritten rules, the most important one being ‘don’t snitch’. What I found interesting is that clearly these people had difficulty abiding by actual laws; however, they didn’t have as much of a hard time following the rules of a social code. I was always aware there were these social codes, but never really understood that there was so many different social codes that I clearly am not involved in. I found this article that talks about the technical code and how we behave on the internet. Flanagin, (2009) says that with the emergence of things like the internet, our codes become different to what they are in face to face interaction. I find this interesting because there seems to be two separate social codes for face to face and over a screen. I’m hoping this information may be consolidated with the stuff we learn in the mediated identity topic. My group and I found this video that shows someone not knowing the social code.  It’s Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory being is awkward, socially inept self. Enjoy

I also found the concept of method of interpretation quite interesting. Every time I’ve always thought “that doesn’t make sense”, I have somehow tried to twist around in my head to make it make sense. When someone has done something that seems out of the norm, I have never personally just said “that was just not normal”, I have always tried to justify what they did. I don’t know if this is going into unchartered and gross ground, but every time a female around me is snappy, I always think in my head “it must be that time of the month”, because she doesn’t normally interact like that.  And I am often met with that same response when I am a little bit snappy. Because it wouldn’t make sense for someone to JUST BE snappy, would it?

Wieder, DL 1974, 'Telling the code', in Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings, Penguin Education, Hardmondsworth, pp. 144-172

Flanagin, A., Flanagin, C., & Flanagin, J. (2009) Technical code and the social construction of the internet, New Media and Society, 12(2), 179-196. 

I made a comment this week

Ethnometh-a-what-a?

When discussing the topics at the beginning of the semester, this was the topic that looked the most daunting to me. At first glance of the word I was like WHAA!?!

Upon actually learning about it though, it doesn’t seem so confusing.  Quite surprisingly I actually found it a little bit interesting. So basically this Garfinkel guy conducted what he called breaching experiments, where he essentially broke those rules that aren’t necessarily explicit but are those that help situations make sense. Unlike someone like me, who would do something like that just for shits and giggs, he actually had a pretty valid reason for doing so. Reason being was to see how people would react to these unwritten rules being broken. Turns out majority of the people at least made some acknowledgement of it, whether it be adjusting what they themselves were doing or blatantly asking him something along the lines of “Like, what the heck are you doing bro?” This experiment was based on a game and not a real life situation and Garfinkel acknowledged that the results of this experiment don’t necessarily parallel exactly to regular human life. This is because breaking the rules in human life, could possibly lead to more consequences. Despite this, it’s still a rather interesting thing to think about.

I found this little gem that basically hates the whole ethnomethedology concept. Though I don’t agree with it, I found it interesting the points it brought up. Gordon (1976) (so yeah, a little bit outdated) basically says that the concepts underlying ethnomethedology are created based on misinterpreted information and more specifically the ‘mistaken’ reliance on phenomology. Also according to him it is based too much on subjectivity. But I think subjectivity is the case with a lot of things regarding micro sociology, because in a sense that is one of the features that make it micro. Don’t mind me casually undermining a scholar. Badass over here.

My final thoughts are that whilst ethnomethedology looks like some scary word that makes you want to throw up when thinking about writing about it, it’s actually rather simple (I think, if I understood it right) and interesting. 

Also felt the need to share the love this week with a comment at http://eyeonpeople.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/breaking-rules-of-reality.html?showComment=1346833044419#c8701815932147228822

Heritage, John. 1984. “The Morality of Cognition.” Pp. 75-102 in Garfinkel and Ethnomethedology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gordon, R. (1976). Ethnomethedology: A Radical Critique. Human Relations, 29(2), 193-202. Doi 10.1177/001872677602900208

My Independent Research Data

Whilst I'm here, I figured why not also post my Independent Research data, seeing as how one of the main aspects I will be analysing is dramaturgy and how front stage and back stage persona's differ. So here it is......

Please note that the first like 5 mins is just blank screen, I just don't know how to cut videos. 

Dramaturgy

This week’s topic was Dramaturgy and a lot to do with Goffman’s comparison of life as a drama. Goffman saw social life as almost like an act or a game. A domain where you play by the rules, like having a job or paying taxes. If you successfully perform these aspects of life, you metaphorically ‘move up a level’. With the idea of social life being like a drama, one of the things Goffman is implying is that in any kind of interaction you have, one of your main goals is always to make a good impression. What I found interesting is the etymology of the word person that Andy told us in the lecture. ‘Person’ comes from the word mask, which is indicative of the fact that we all have dramatist persona’s, that we act how we want people to see us and according to our roles, especially in a front stage setting.

The front stage/back stage concept is also one of the things that I found particularly interesting. The fact that most people can change their persona’s completely by just walking through a door (whether it be a physical or metaphorical door). The example Andy used in the lecture was where the waiter when speaking to the diners says things like “Would you like a glass of wine” or “I recommend the chef’s special, it is really good”. They will speak like this to the diners whether they like the people or not, because this is their front stage. However, if they do not like the people they are waiting on they are likely to walk into the kitchen and say something along the lines of “Table 3 are horrible people, I feel like spitting in their food”. They are comfortable to say this in their backstage arena because it helps them maintain face. 

Goffman, Erving. 1971. “Performances.” Pp. 28-82 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

I also made a comment this week. Here's the link: http://nikhailmaestassoc250.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/blog-2-soc-250.html?showComment=1346201605441#c2806005335953943827

ME, ME, ME- Presentation of Self

This week’s topic is all about the presentation of the self. In particular Erving Goffman’s Nature of Defence and Demeanour (1967). Basically, in both the reading and the lecture the self is described as something that is completely socially constructed and managed through social processes. Although the reading, I believe, explains a rather simple concept in unnecessary detail, what I found particularly interesting was the importance placed on maintaining or saving ‘face’, especially Goffman’s reference to one’s obligations, that in order to uphold their image, people have to sometimes do things they really do not want to do. What I find interesting is that more often than not, people will fulfil these obligations, not because they have to, but because they do not want to tarnish their image. For example, I myself have gone to a party I really don’t want to go to just to ensure everyone does not think I’m like an old Grandma

.

Some of the stuff Andy mentioned in the lecture also struck me. I always knew that embarrassment was a horrible thing for almost everybody, but never realised that it is actually an aspect of oneself that sociologists actually pay attention to. When you think about being embarrassed more deeply and realise that it is a complete loss of dignity, it becomes more obvious that humiliation actually tarnishes the sacredness of the human self. The fact that we (well, me personally anyway) spend time thinking about avoiding those awkward moments in social situations indicates the importance of avoiding social shame in order to maintain our selfhood. This topic has sort of made me realise that every time I have worried about falling over and making a fool of myself, it is completely warranted, so thanks Goffman :)

Now in my attempt to make my blog look pretty, I give you a visual representation of someone losing face and being profusely laughed at. He fell…on slime…on a game show….on T.V. Please note, the one laughing is also my future husband. 

Goffman, Erving. 1967. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor.” Pp. 47-96 in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.

Blehhhhh! I don't know how to use this thing.....I'll work it out. Enjoy this gif representing my frustrations with this right now