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.