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
