Just Stretching: An Independent Research Project
The data, I
have chosen for this independent research project is a breaching experiment.
Whilst some components of the data are scripted on the side of the
experimenters, my focus is on what breaching experiments do best. What they do
best is to break the social order, organisations and scripts, thus exposing
concepts and theories at a micro-sociological level. Therefore, while some of
this data is scripted, it doesn’t matter because my focus is on the naturally
occurring data that is produced as an end result of the experiment. The
breaching experiment, ‘Just Stretching’, is set in an average supermarket. The
participants are stretching in an institutionalised space, interrupting the
social order. As a result many interesting reactions are recorded of subjects
reacting to the breach. I’ve analysed the exposed phenomena shown by the data
through observations and further research.
Sense-making
is an innate reaction to any and all social situations, especially valuable to those
where a social norm(s) have been broken. Actors take the situation at
face-value, ‘as they see them, so they are’ (Hertiage, 1984, p.77), as well as
‘normal patterns’ and ‘usual occurrences’(Hertiage, 1984, p.77), to apply sense to the situation. Dervin(1983)
called it the filling of the ‘cognitive gap’ and it allows individuals to
experience relatively new situations without suffering shock and with a
fragmented script with which to form actions. At the very least, this process
alerts individuals and actors to flee from situations that presented abnormal
patterns of behaviour or red flags that read danger.
In the data,
two women are presented with same situation, two young men stretching on
opposing sides of a fairly large aisle. The first woman decided ignore the
young men’s breaching actions treating them as situation that only required
‘side’ involvement (Goffman,1963, p13-22). She most likely understood that
their actions were slightly problematic but otherwise harmless, and choose both
not to shift her main focus and to use strategic indifference (which will be
explained later) to maintain her focus on shopping activities. The second
woman, using her sense-making abilities, took the situation at face-value and
decided to flee from the interaction. Either faced with a lack of information
or red flags, she took the flight response to breach of social order.
Another interesting reaction to the breaching
of social norms was to ‘normalise the discrepancy’. Heritage(1984) talks about
this as a reaction to a tic-tac-toe experiment in which participants cheated.
Subjects either rejected the new game-play or sort to normalise the discrepancy
by cheating also. By doing this they sort to legitimise the new game-play by
recognising the observed actions as ‘legally possible events’(Heritage, 1984, p.79).
This reaction seemed parallel one of the women at the supermarket where the
Just Stretching experiment took place. She was interested and wanted to engage
in the observed behaviour that was clearly in the breach of the social
organisation and uses of the supermarket. By feeling motivation to attempt to
participate in the disruptive behaviour, she was ‘normalising the discrepancy’.
Even if this meant also attempting to change the social order of a fairly
institutionalised setting on however a small scale.
In Goffman’s
seminar piece, ‘Behavior in Public Spaces’ in 1963, he talks about ‘Unfocused
Interactions’. Unfocused Interactions are those interactions that not the
subjects of a singular focus but rather of spilt focuses as either the ‘main’
or ‘side’ interaction. The idea is that individual in having the brain space to
multi-task, can divide focus in interactions, for example a student can listen
to a teacher and make doodles on their notepads at the same time, unequal
attention is given to both but nevertheless it is spilt. Goffman(1963) asserts
that unfocused interactions pre-dominate urban spaces where strangers negotiate
interactions. Strangers may never speak but “silent bargains” and “implicit
negotiations”(Strauss, 1978, p.224) are constantly occurring and it is here
where strategic indifference comes into play.
Strategic
Indifference is the observable ability of an individual to use indifference in
unfocused interactions to avoid others, who have capacity to impede and
interrupt current proceedings. It could be seen as uncivil inattention to
Goffman’s (1984) ‘civil inattention’ in that a step is skipped. Instead of
first recognising others by giving them person-treatment i.e. looking them in
the face, gesturing ‘hello’ or smiling, instead the ‘other’ is avoided, ignored
and not recognised as a person. However in modern-times, its different than
that, the individual using strategic indifference is pretending not that the
‘other’ is not a person but that they don’t appear on their radar cause they’re
too busy or completely oblivious to what is going on around them. It can
sometimes be believable though what with individuals pre-occupation with stress
and woe these days. In any case, it may seem rude but it serves a purpose. The
first woman from the data who used strategic indifference when faced with the
two participants stretching in the aisle, had good reason to use this reaction.
Understanding, that while she wasn’t engaging the participants with any large
amount of focus that they didn’t pose a threat, decided to continue that
disengagement as it was strategically useful to continuing her activities. The
participates then read her ‘body idioms’(Goffman, 1963) that she’s purposefully
‘giving off’, and implicitly agree not to further impede her activities.
Sense-making
and strategic indifference are both reactions observed in persons in the
supermarket where the data takes place. Whilst sense-making seems innate and necessary
to survival, the strategic indifference seems performed. Goffman argues that
‘body idioms’ can be purposefully or inadvertently given off and this could be
equally true with reactions. Whilst some are the product of subconscious
activity, others are performed as a result of an individual’s cognitive
processes that have deduced a course of action that is useful to dealing with
the current interaction. Reactions are mostly perceived as back-stage behaviour
is individual caught off guard and thus produces a real response to the
interaction. However, from the time we are born, we observe others behaviour
and become skilled in the art of ‘impressions management’ (Manning, 2008,
p.123). Subsequently, it would make sense for individuals to reproduce
behavioural responses that ended in a favourable result such as witnessing
others use strategic indifference. Individuals may not have all the information
about the situation but they are not inexperienced. In this way, interactions
could be a constant battle or power struggle to see which person picks the best
actions and reactions.
Power
struggles at first seems very evident in my data. Since Foucault states power as ‘exercised,’ and existing ‘only in
action (Foucault,1980, p89), it would seem that data that exposes
actions and/or reactions would be perfect to view power at a micro level. If a respondent uses strategic
indifference as a response to a breach, it would seem like they are retaining power
and not giving it away. If a respondent tries to make sense of a breach, they
are then using observed, previous knowledge to empower themselves in the
interaction.
However from Mayes (2010), we see that power shouldn’t be viewed as a
phenomenon that can be taken and given off easily. Rather power is as Foucault
suggests is
‘an
unstable, fragmented phenomenon based on institutional relations involving
different levels of knowledge and expertise, and created and sustained through
micro-level interactions’(Gore 1993)
Since power is as well
‘exercised’ then it does involve agency. Agency of which is subject to the
knowledge base that the individual has and what knowledge they are able to
observe in the interaction. So when we
look at the reactions in the data, we see people exercising power that is
controlled by agency and that cannot be taken by others. Reactions are people
exercising power of which they can choose to empower themselves or not, through
agency.
In talking about power at a micro-level, I came across Strauss’s
Negotiated Order. This approach takes all social order as negotiated order and
theorises that big to small scale negotiations effect social order and change.
Social organisation is contingent upon negotiation to accomplish any time of
working system even with social front or script. Therefore the ability to
complete any task that requires face to face interaction, even at the smallest
scale, relies on negotiation. The reason this ties in with power is that
interaction involves two or more people, and while we may have set reactions,
just like the first woman who used strategic indifference in the data when face
with two young men stretching in the aisle, they rely on a negotiation with the
other party. Strategic indifference only works to allow a person to avoid
another and thus continue with their activities, if the other person agrees to
the limited interaction or doesn’t notice them either i.e. if those stretching
in the aisle were to greet the shopper and then engage them in conversation –
then the reaction fails to serve its intended purpose. In that way, on however
a small scale, the shopper has exercised agency and power and has failed. These
almost invisible negotiations that Strauss(1978) calls “silent bargains” and
“implicit negotiations”(Maeder & Nadai, 2008, p.4). Reactions like
strategic indifference rely on a silent bargain, ‘you leave me alone and I’ll
leave you alone’. Negotiations are fundamentally a struggle for power. Thus
Strauss’s Negotiated Order theory, illustrates that everyday interactions at a
micro level entails a struggle for power.
Another part of the interactions that was interesting was the use of
humour on the side of the students hosting the experiment. While they did not
detail to others the reason for actively stretching in the supermarket, they
did laugh quite a bit when asked. One reason for this could have been that they
found the new situation humorous in its capacity to disrupt actions of others,
even at a very small scale. Another reason might have been a way to communicate
they understood that they were breaching the social order of the interaction.
By laughing, it signalled that they are of sound mind and this is not behaviour
that they are typically comfortable with. Futhermore, Kuipers (2006) states that laughter not only breaks down barriers with strangers and
unite people of different hierarchical positions. Therefore, laughter could
have been used by the students to decrease the likelihood of ridicule from
strangers for their breaching behaviour.
In conclusion, my data presented a way to observe many different and
interesting concepts from the field of micro-sociology. Reactions from
individuals at the supermarket presented both innate and performed strategies
to dealing with everyday interactions. Sense-making devices used by individuals
allows us to face new situations using prior knowledge, observations and
experience with without we couldn’t face simple tasks such as shopping at the
supermarket. Using these devices, individuals can enact the best tactical
reaction, such as normalising the discrepancy and strategic indifference, to
deal with unfocused or focused interactions from the strange to the everyday.
Power is exercised through action, and it observable in my data. However, it
can be hard to discern how it works because of its nature as phenomenon. What
we do know is that power is governed by agency and therefore suggests that is
cannot be taken or given away easily unless the individual decides to.
Although, Strauss’s negotiated order indicates a struggle for power from micro
to macro interactions. Finally, humour is observable in the data and has many
uses just like swearing does and in this case was a way for students to motivate
others to laugh with them. Thus, communicating without words to others their
sanity and willingness to conform to everyone else.
References
Dervin, B.
(1983). An overview of sense-making research: Concepts, methods and results.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association. Dallas, TX.
Foucault, M 1980, Power/Knowedge, Harvester Press: Brighton
Goffman, E 1963, ‘Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social
Organization of Gatherings’, New York: The Free Press.
Goffman,E
1971, ‘Performances’, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth,
Penguin,, pp28-82
Goffman, E. (1984) 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth: Penguin
Gore,
J 1993, ‘Struggle for Pedagogies: Critical and Feminist Discourses as Regimes
of Truth’, New York: Routledge
Heritage, John. 1984. “The Morality of Cognition.” Pp. 75-102 in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Kuipers, G 2006, Good Humor, Bad Taste: A Sociology of the Joke, New York, NY:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Maedar, C & Nadai, E 2008, ‘Negotiations at all Points? Interaction and Organisation’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, Art. 32, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/337/735
Manning, P 2008, Goffman Encyclopaedia Soc Theory, accessed 28/10/2012,
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdanm.ucsc.edu%2F~abtollef%2Fphysical_poetry%2Fgoffman%2520encyclopedia%2520soc%2520theory.doc&ei=usiRUOqAFIyviQfW9oDYDA&usg=AFQjCNG3pYV4tPMnRjkxutJpBH4frIzzYg&sig2=9QlqY3QOppl6Gev8gW6X_A
Mayes,
Patricia. 2010. “The discursive construction of identity and power in the
critical classroom: Implications for applied critical theories.” Discourse
and Society vol. 21, no. 2: pp. 189-210.
