In the final lecture for this subject, my fantastic lecturer Andrew Whelan wrapped up "Everyday Interaction" which was a subject that looked at microsociology.
This was my first sociology class, but it's something I have been interested in for a long time.
From this subject I have mainly taken away that sociology is like an infinite onion.
Someone peels back a layer of the onion, holds it up to you and says "Look, this is the real onion!"
And we all "ooh" and "aah" at the truth hidden under that masking layer.
We finally wrap our heads around one layer, say Marxism, and then someone peels back that layer and says "No guys, if we peel of this layer, THIS is the real onion!"
Just when we feel like we've torn off enough layers and are staring in the face of truth, Goffman comes along and tells us all the layers are just performances and nothing is real... so we just keep on peeling in the hope of finding something real to look at, but I'm not sure anyone has reached the final layer of the onion yet, if there even is one.
All I can say is that I have only started peeling my sociological onion, and I've found each layer fascinating. Just when I think I've peeled enough, another layer is peeled off and my mind is blown all over again.
Hey Claire, I found your comparison between Australia and Canada really interesting. Are you from Canada? I noticed a big difference between the use of swearing in Canada and Australia when I was exchange near Toronto last year. I don't swear much at all by Australian standards, but in Canada some words that I didn't even think were offensive got a comment! The word "piss" is one that I found people got really offended by in Canada, while in Australia it's pretty commonplace. It's also interesting that you pointed out how words can gain and lose significance so easily. I wrote about it a bit in my post, but when I was young I though "shit" and "bloody" were the worst words in the world, but the more people use them, the more familiar they become. I wonder if we will keep inventing more offensive words once we get used to the current ones so that we never run out of ways to swear...
This week’s topic is a good opportunity
to start applying some theories to the data I have chosen to research for my
major paper. Just in case you missed my last post, I am researching a
news interview when a man named Guy Goma was mistakenly interviewed as an
expert on live TV, when he was really in the BBC studio for a job interview.
This
interview took place on the BBC, which is an institution in Britain. Now the
BBC is not just an institution, but an Institution. Now that might not seem that different, an
Institution with a capital “I” is more than just bricks and rules, it’s a set
of practices and ideas surrounding what it actually is. The BBC is seen as a cultural success in
Britain that manages to beat commercial stations in ratings and so to be
associated with the Institution of the BBC is loaded with cultural meaning (Engel
2011). Anyway, the Institution or
structure that is really dictating what happens in the Guy Goma interview,
besides being on the BBC, is the news interview, specifically interviewing the
expert. This clip really exposes the
strict format of the news interview, as even though Goma is not an expert in
Apple Corps. he can read the interview format from the setting and way the
questions are framed, and amazingly knows how to perform the role of the
expert, even if he is not one.
The
news media interview is a complicated communicative encounter. The news media interview is characterised by
a set of generic markers that determine both the roles of interviewers and
interviewees – the modes of address, the proxemics of the interview, the
structure of questions and answers – and the limits within which each of the participants
can negotiate the constraints of those roles (Craig 2012, p. 76).
In
this clip it is clear that Goma is in an interview setting, and although his
initial facial expression reveals that he knows something is amiss, his
interaction with the Institution fasciliates a performance of an expert. It always seems to come back to Goffman doesn’t
it? Goffman said we are always
performing different versions of the self and that we perform a role for the
benefit of others and expect them to believe accept our performance of
authentic (Goffman 1971, p. 28). Goma’s case might seem like a clear
illustration of this, a man tries to fit into a situation save the face of the
interviewer by playing the part that is expected, but I think there is
something deeper going on here. Goma is
performing his own self, a man who was meant to go to a job interview but ended
up on live TV, but he is also consciously performing a version of self dictated
by the Institutional setting at the same time.
References:
Craig,
G 2010, ‘Dialogue and dissemination in news media interviews’, Journalism,
vol.11, no.1, pp75–90, accessed 17/10/2012, doi:10.1177/1464884909349582
Trying to find naturally occurring data to analyse is not too tricky in a world where a lot of stuff gets recorded and posted online. I was wracking my brain for weeks trying to think of some piece of data I could analyse through the microsociological frameworks I've been learning about when I finally remembered something perfect! A few years ago I remember seeing on the news that a man at the BBC for a job interview had mistakenly been interviewed as an expert on live television. I quickly hit YouTube with some keywords in mind and without too much trouble found the footage of Guy Goma, a man applying for a technical support job being interviewed as Guy Kewney, expert on the Apple Music court case. The facial expressions made by Goma when he realises the mistake that has been made is almost enough to analyse, but the whole interview gives some really interesting insights into the construction of the interview format, social breaching, Goffman's ideas about performances and the concept of self.
Swearing/profanity/cursing/cussing,
whatever you call it is a pretty fascinating phenomenon. I distinctly remember the first time I told a
joke with a swear word in it. I had
overheard my dad telling it to his friend.
I thought it was the rudest and dirtiest joke because it had the word “bloody”
in the punchline. The joke was:
A woman is at a supermarket
and loads her groceries onto the checkout.
She buys one carrot, one sausage, soup for one, one potato and one bread
roll. As the cashier scans all the items
he says to the woman, “I bet you’re single”, and the woman says, “Why yes I am,
how’d you know?” To this, the cashier
replies, “Because you’re so bloody ugly.”
In hindsight, it’s a terrible
joke. It’s not funny and rather sexist,
but it was the first time I think I ever swore.
Back to swearing! When you’re
young being allowed to swear means being grown-up and we long to be part of
that community. When we’re older,
swearing, when used appropriately might help us fit in with different groups of
people by making us seem “real” and not stuck up. When used inappropriately it might make us
seem rude or crass. I personally love
swearing. I don’t swear a lot at all,
but I choose my moments. I swear to make a point that I am really angry or hurt, and sometimes I swear when I want to prove that I’m, for want of a better word,
tough. This is usually with my dad and
brother, but also if someone makes a comment about women not being able to
swear.
The gender divide in coarse
language really interests me. Why are men perceived to swear more than
women? As I said before, I don’t swear
much and many people in Australia are shocked if I ever do swear. That’s why I found it really strange that
when I was in Canada people said I swore a lot “for a girl”.
From a feminist perspective,
it can be argued that women are denied power by not having strong words,
including swear-words in their feminine vocabulary (Lakoff 1973, p. 51) as humans are socialised to expect men and
women to behave and speak in certain ways deemed appropriate to their sex
(Lakoff 1973, p. 53). Lakoff explains
that women are faced with a difficult situation:
So a girl is damned if she does,
damned if she doesn't. If she refuses to talk likea lady, she is ridiculed and
subjected to criticism as unfeminine; if she does learn, she is ridiculed as
unable to think clearly, unable to take part in a serious discussion: in some
sense, as less than fully human. These two choices which a woman has - to be
less than a woman or less than a person-are highly painful (Lakoff 1973, p. 48).
Now we need to remember that Lakoff
was working in the 1970s and was influenced by the full swing of second wave
feminism, but I think she definitely has some good points. Some more recent psychological scholarship
has proposed that biological or genetic influences may also have a role in
explaining observed sex differences. Ginsburg,
Ogletree & Silakowski argue that from a Darwinian perspective vulgar language
usage might be tied to aggression threats, dominance displays, or group
cohesion on males (2003, p. 112). In my opinion, even if biologically male traits
started people swearing, it has certainly become a social and linguistic
tool. Swearing feels a little bit naughty, and can be used to signal that you’re really angry or hurt or even to lighten the mood. I’ll leave you with a youtuube video that
illustrates rather nicely how profanity can bring people together.
References:
Ginsburg, H, Ogletree, S and Silakowski, T 2003, ‘Vulgar Language: Review of Sex Differences in Usage, Attributions, and Pathologies’, North American Journal of Psychology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 105-115, accessed 2/10/2012, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/docview/197982883
Posts
