Independent Research Project

Soc250 Independent Research Project

Without Prejudice?

Data Presentation Link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8RHxv0bxzo&feature=related

The way in which the game show ‘Without Prejudice’ is set up transcribes what will happen in the interaction. The objective of the game show is for five random people to decide which one of five strangers deserves to win a sum of money ($25 000) based on the impressions they give during six different ‘rounds’. The first ‘round’ is called ‘first impressions’ and to give the show some credibility is allegedly based on psychologists understanding that we make our first judgements of a person within the first fifteen seconds of meeting them (Games Show NewsNet, 2007). The interaction is staged so that the contestants coming into the show have to present themselves, so that they come across as a ‘sincere performer’ (Goffman, 1971, p. 28). The five panellists then act as the audience, having to judge whether or not they believe the performance given off by the contestants. If they do believe the first impression given off by the contestants then they are more likely to allow them to continue on to the subsequent rounds.

The interaction of focus here comes from the very first round of ‘first impressions’. In this particular episode of the show there are the five panellists: Julie-Christie Neal, R. Jay Fullmer, JJ Snyder, Dave Boulanger and David Rhodes. The contestants are Jack Bennis, 25, Nancy Heinbock, 74, Michael Graham, 27, Marline Gonzalez, 36 and John Jennings, 38. The host is Dr. Robi Ludwig, a psychologist (Games Show NewsNet, 2007). In this particular interaction one of the panellists, R. Jay’s first impression of contestant Michael Graham causes an uproar when he says ‘I don’t like him on the fact that he is black’. The interaction within the data is therefore the racist remarks said by A. Jay and the reactions of the other panellists as the interaction breaks free from the ‘game show’ setting.

In this piece of data we are presented with a micro interaction between A. Jay and the rest of the panellists. The conversation between five random strangers has had the power to affect macro phenomena. Because this interaction took place on a television show in front of cameras it has resulted in far-reaching reactions from other people and as such had an effect on macro interactions. Mouzelis (1992) believes that ‘institutions and interactions can be both macro and micro (Mouzelis, 1992, p. 126)’. In social life these situations mean that one must always take into account the ‘social positional and dispositional, but also the situational dimension of social life (Mouzelis, 1992, pp. 126-7).’ This means that the social positions and dispositions are not moulded by particular actions, rather they are achieved through the actual process of interaction itself. In this particular case the social positioning of A. Jay is not defined by what he has said and the way in which he has acted towards Michael, rather it is defined by the interaction with the other panellists and their reaction to his blatant racism towards Michael. The very name of this particular YouTube video ‘One of the most racist moments on live television’ positions A. Jay as a racist in a setting far from the confines of the micro interaction between A. Jay and the other judges.

Goffman (1971) understands life to be a performance. He believes that there are two ‘regions’. These are defined as venues for performances. The ‘front-region’ is often where formal performances take place, where performers make contact with the audience and are governed by certain rules of conduct. The ‘back-region’ is therefore that which is ‘hidden’ from the front region and often contradicts what is said or ‘performed’ in the front-region (Ross, 2007, pp. 314-5). This exchange between A. Jay and the other judges takes place in a front stage setting. It is ironic as the show is called ‘Without Prejudice’ and is about making a judgement based on how the person presents themselves in that particular setting. This sort of behaviour is usually left for the ‘back-region’, as it is criticising a person’s performance to their face- something that is not usually done in such a front-stage setting. In this case however the creators of the show are bringing the back region forward into the front region in order for it to be used as entertainment. Despite the fact that the show is set up so that the ‘judges’ give their opinion on their first impression of the contestants there is still some sort of boundaries that cannot and should not be crossed in such a formal setting. A. Jay does however cross a ‘sense-boundary’, which is not necessarily a physical boundary between the front and the back regions (Ross, 2007, p. 314). What ensues is the rest of the panel being pulled out of their performances as judges in order to question and correct A. Jay on what he has just said. When it is his turn to judge Michael, A. Jay says ‘I don’t like him on the fact that he is black, absolutely not.’ Here the boundaries clearly break from what should be seen in the ‘front-region’ of the show and behind the scenes. After an outburst of disbelief David says ‘We rode in yesterday together so am I to assume based on what you just said that you don’t like me coz’ I’m black?’ after some more exclamations of disbelief from David, A. Jay replies with ‘It doesn’t matter if we rode in or not, it doesn’t matter, I don’t know you from anybody, okay? Yeah we shared the same cab, but you know what? My personal beliefs and my personal experience, I don’t like ‘em, never have and never will.’ It is precisely this sort of behaviour that should be left to the literal backstage of the show. It is not something that people expect to see on a television show, even on a television show where the primary aim is to judge somebody based on who they are and how they present themselves.

Within his understanding of life as a performance and the front and back regions of that performance, Goffman speaks about the presentation of self and impression management. The term ‘impression management’ refers to the ‘self-presentational behaviour (that) connotes disguise or distortion (Tseelon, 1992, p. 117).’ In other words a person employs certain kinds of tactics in order to manipulate or control their behaviour. As a result of this type of behaviour a person is able to express a sense of ‘contrived insincerity’. Nihei and Sato (2009, p.267) say that deception is often used when there is a motivation for people to manipulate their impressions of themselves. In the context of this show the ‘motivation’ for such behaviour could be the $25 000 price money, however the contestants do not have the opportunity to employ such tactics as the judges are only presented with a picture of the person, their name, age and where they come from. The only form of impression management that is used what they are wearing. In this case Michael has given the ‘wrong’ impression to Dave who says ‘Michael he seems like a cool guy, he can’t really dress, but other than that...’ Even Dave is doubting this impression of Michael, and we can tell by his hesitancy. In A. Jay’s case he is not employing the use of impression management. He appears not to disguise or distort his disgust so that the other panellists like him, rather he appears to be giving a sincere performance where he is ‘fully taken by his own act (Goffman, 1971, p. 28).’ We are able to take his performance as sincere as he brings forward his beliefs and contextualises what he is saying. For instance A. Jay says ‘based on the experiences and the people I’ve worked with and where I come from, um, I’m sick and tired of people thinking, specifically I am mentioning black people, thinking we owe them something.’ This gives some context to his comments, making us consider that he truly believes what he is saying.

As well as impression management in the concept of the ‘presentation of self’ Goffman also looked at ‘Facework’. This ‘Facework’ has to do with the things we employ in order to develop or maintain our ‘selves’. Within this ‘face’ is a relational and interactional concept where by the social self is ‘interactionally achieved in relationships with others (Arundle, 2006, p. 193)’. A person is able to either have a positive ‘face’ or a negative ‘face’, which a person has, depends upon whether they are connecting on the same level as everyone else or if there is a separation from them (Arundle, 2006, p. 193). Face is ‘lost’ when an individual fails to meet those requirements considered essential ‘by virtue of the social position he occupies (Ho, 1976, p. 867).’ In the data clip it is therefore clear that A. Jay has ‘lost face’. In this case A. Jay is expected to act in a certain way because the ‘social position’ he is in is one of power- due to the fact that he is on television. We can see he ‘loses face’ when the rest of the panellists react the way they do towards A. Jay after he has insulted Michael because of his colour. JJ reacts with her jaw dropping and touching her face like she is stressed or in shock and is generally silent throughout the interaction that follows. Dave reacts in silent disbelief, before calmly asking questions, whilst Julie-Christie reacts in complete disbelief, asking ‘are you even serious right now!?’ The strongest reaction by far is David, a black man who feels as though he too is being personally attacked by A. Jay because of his skin colour. He too reacts in disbelief and before realising that A. Jay is being serious looks almost amused. His face conveys a range of emotions from surprise, to shock, to almost bemused and weary, to looking like he is in physical pain whilst rolling his eyes and sighing. These reactions by fellow panellists are what causes A. Jay to have a negative ‘face’ in this situation. It is clear that A. Jay has said the wrong thing in the wrong setting. That sort of comment has no place on a television show, even a television show about judging people. In this interaction A. Jay does not even try to ‘save’ face once it is clear that everybody understands his remarks to be inappropriate he becomes defensive and the interaction begins to get out of hand.

After A. Jay makes his initial comments about Michael there is an apparent shift in power. As the host of the show Dr. Ludwig primarily holds the power in the interactions, able to direct the conversation and opinions around the room and from one judge to the next. However, after A. Jay’s racist comments against black people she directs the conversation to David the only other black person in the exchange as though he has some sort of right to react or say something on behalf of Michael (who is unable to defend himself due to the nature of the show) and all black people. By the end of the interaction David has developed an argument, saying ‘…so stupid, even if you didn’t believe it, do you think I’m going to stand up here and say I’m not going to give some money to someone because their white? Some things are better left unsaid, rather than have people realise what an idiot you are!’ This remark is met with resounding nods and a chorus of ‘I agrees’. We are able to see that David has gained the power in this interaction so that he is able to ‘shut down’ A. Jay. Just after this however the interaction begins to get out of hand and Dr. Ludwig has to step in to try and take control of the situation, she says, ‘Okay let’s stop, wait, wait, wait, we have plenty more to discuss…’ This results in a shift in power back to the primary focus, which is ‘doing’ the game show.

This piece of data presents us with a micro interaction between five judges and when one judge steps outside what is expected of him we are able to witness the interactional fallout. Not only are we able to see the power that a micro situation is able to have on the macro world- in terms of the very name of the YouTube video itself and the fallout the reactions of the other panellists have managed to create, but we are able to distinguish between the ‘front-region’ and ‘back-region’ in everyday life. In A. Jay’s case he lost face and should have left his comments to the ‘back-region’ so as not to disrupt the flow of the ‘front-region’ that is a television game show.

References:

Arundle, Robert. 2006. ‘Face as Relational and Interactional: A communication framework for research on face, facework and politeness’, Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 193-216.

Game Show NewsNet. 2007, Without Prejudice [Home Page, Online] Available http://www.gameshownewsnet.com/prime/withoutprejudice/071707.html [Accessed 31st Oct, 2012].

Goffman, Erving. 1971. ‘Performances’ in the Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth:Penguin.

Ho, David. 1976. ‘On the Concept of Face’, American Journal of Sociology, vol 81, no. 4, pp. 867-884.

Mouselis, Nicos. 1992. ‘The Interaction Order and the Micro-Macro Distinction’, Sociological Theory, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 122-128.

Nihei, Y & Sato, T. 2009. ‘Contrasting Tactics in Deceptive Impression Management’, Social Behaviour and Personality: an international journal, vol. 37, no. 2, p. 267.

Ross, Drew. 2007. ‘Backstage with the Knowledge Boys and Girls: Goffman and Distributes Agency in an Organic Online Community,’ Organization Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 307-325.

Tseelon, Efrat. 1992. ‘Is the Presentation of Self Sincere? Goffman, Impression Management and the Post Modern Self’, Theory Culture Society, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 115-128.

Week 11- Profanity

This week I commented on Jess saunders blog. Here is the link(:
http://jesssaunders250.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/week-12-profanity.html?showComment=1350556280992#!/2012/10/week-12-profanity.html

Week 10: Online Communities

Ok so this week I had my presentation (the link for which should be able to be found on Chloe’s blog) and the specific reading I did was on the Knowledge Boys and Girls and Organic Online Learning Communities (OOLC). I found this a really interesting topic as it demonstrates the alternative ways in which technology can be used as a learning tool outside of a specific learning institution. Basically an OOLC is an online community that occurs outside the formal framework of a learning institution, such as a university. This reading focussed on a case study of the Knowledge Boys and Girls (hopeful London cab drivers undertaking the extensive training course required to become a cab driver) and their specific OOLC that takes the form of CabbieCall, where they can come and ask questions of other Knowledge Boys and Girls. It speaks about the OOLC being a sort of ‘back region’ to their ‘frontstage’ performances (Goffman). They can come online and not be governed by the rules of conduct of the front region and not be worried that something they say will affect their life outside the OOLC.

In an article by Ho Kyoung Shin and Ho Kyung Kim looks at examining identity and organisational citizenship behaviour in computer mediated communication, like virtual communities (such as Cabbiecall). Shin and Kim state that participants interact to provide specific knowledge to each other that enables them to learn from each other and build up their collective knowledge. In the case of the Knowledge Boys and Girls this was the ‘Knowledge’ needed to become a London cab driver. The results from Shin and Kim’s paper found that people are more likely to contribute to this collective knowledge if their identity can be protected. Self-presentation is therefore an important key for contributing knowledge online.

References:

Ross, Drew. 2007. “Backstage with the Knowledge Boys and Girls: Goffman and Distributed Agency in an Organic Online Community.” Organizational Studies vol. 28. , no. 3, pp. 307-325.

Ho Kyoung Shin and Ho Kyung Kim. 2009. “Examining identity and organizational citizenship behaviour in computer-mediated communication”. Journal of Information Science vol. 36 no. 1, pp. 114-126.

Week 9- Accomplishing Socio-cultural identity in talk- Bloody hell!

This weeks reading by Wierzbicka looks at the cultural scripts around the word bloody. She explores its usage in a variety of different ways, such as a mild ‘swear’ word to being used in everyday conversations. She follows how the word has evolved from something used by the lower classes of society to evolving into our everyday Australian rhetoric. In today’s society the word bloody has been embedded into the language so much so that we hardly even notice it when it is used as a ‘swear’ word and even less so when it is used in a different context such as ‘how the bloody hell are ya!?’ I myself have found that I tend to used bloody more to expel frustration at a situation, and rather than employing the use of a much harsher expletive I’ll exclaim something along the lines of ‘bloody hell!’ The most interesting part of the use of the word bloody for me is how it can be used as a sign of being equal with someone, such as politicians wanting to appeal to the lower socio-economic classes.

Cliff Goddard also looks at cultural scripts in language and he says that the goal of looking at language in this way allows one to look at speech practices from the perspective of the speaker themselves. In using this approach we are able to understand that despite speaking the same language there are different variations of the same language and within those different variations are culturally specific words and phrases that demonstrate different meanings. This is demonstrated in Wierzbicka’s article when she looks at the cultural significance of ‘bloody’ and the range of ways in which it is used.

References:
Wiezbicka, Anna. 2002 "Australian Cultural Scripts- bloody revisited." Journal of Pramatics 34: pp. 1167-1209.
Goddard, Cliff. 2009 Cultural Scripts in "Culture and Language Use" by Senft, G. Ostaman, J. & Verschueren, J. (eds.). John Benjamans Publishing Comapny: Amsterdam.

Week 8

This week i commented on Tiana Vitlic's blog on Codes. Here is the link.
http://soc250thoughts.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/week-8-code.html?showComment=1350554980243

Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology

This week my post is a comment on Alison Bell's blog, here's the link, hopefully it works!(:
http://ab503.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/week-7-garfinkel-breaching-experiments.html?showComment=1346904900635#c4315015350568023130

Goffman's Dramaturgy

So this week's topic was Dramaturgy- this is where Goffman believes that we are each a part of a performance and life is one big stage, where 'on stage' you act in a particular way so to be seen in a certain way. Similarly 'off stage' one also acts in a particular way, this is more closely to how one really thinks and feels, but cannot communicate whilst acting a particular role. For example at work someone may be really nice and polite to all customers no matter how rude they are, but as soon the customer leaves they go out the back or to the lunch room and bitch about how horrible that particular customer was. Unlike I think many of my fellow sociological students in this course I at first found this concept hard to follow, however once I have sat down and really looked at it I can see how easy it is to apply to real life, because every day we play different roles when we are with different people and in different situations, but then we come home and can be whoever we are and take care of those things 'backstage' that allow us to put on our 'performances' each day.

In trying to understand Goffman and his metaphor of Dramaturgy I came across a paper by Giddens (On rereading the Presentation of Self: Some Reflections, 2009), and far from making the analogy any clearer it instead may me question the validity of purely thinking of life as performance. Giddens says that the theatre is all about the make believe and is 'meticulously' prepared beforehand, and that in 'real life' things are in fact 'real' and that sometimes the performance is not very well rehearsed. I found this interesting, whilst I agree that we all play different roles throughout our day to day lives. in reality we have no 'rehearsal' before going out and performing these different roles and I believe it is this 'lack of' rehearsal that makes up our frontstage performances.

Data Presentation!

Here is a link to the youtube video I shall be analysing for my data presentation(: I'm horrible at technology, so hopefully this works!(:

Week 5 post- Goffman

Fitting in with the apparent theme... I also have no idea what i am doing with this whole blog thing and I'm not sure this will even post in the right place... but here goes nothing!

This weeks reading is 'The Nature of Deference and Demeanor' by Goffman and focuses on the individual and how the individual or 'self' comes to be produced in certain interactions through specific social processes.

One way in which a 'self' is established in the social world is, according to Goffman through deference. Deference is the action through which something is symbolically conveyed by way of its appreciation between one individual and a recipient/s, there by affirming the relationship between the individual and the recipient. This affirmation can be through gestures, rituals, or a symbol that the recipient has taken to mean an affirmation of a particular relationship between themselves and the individual. It is the deference between individuals that Goffman is interested in this article.

Demeanor on the other hand is that 'ceremonial behavior' of an individual who expresses who they want to be seen as 'being' through the way in which they dress and present themselves. This 'presentation of self' therefore allows an individual to have a sort of control over the way in which society perceives them to be, through presenting themselves a certain way. This however is also coupled with the interaction of the individual with society as one cannot establish a certain kind of 'self' without others affirming that they perceive that a specific individual possess the certain kinds of attributes that they are displaying.

The relationship between 'Deference' and 'Demeanor' is where the act through which an individual conveys or does not convey deference to other individuals, and as a result of this lack of deference expresses that they are not of good demeanor (or vice versa). For example using patient-doctor relationships, a doctor may have a complain that his patients do not bath before coming in for an examination- where bathing is a kind of deference to the doctor. In this same way not bathing means that the patient is presenting themselves with an unclean, unkempt demeanor.