Independent Research Project

Independent Research Project                                 Joshua Noble

Merlin Luck – Big Brother Eviction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3N83X0gb_c

Background to Issue

The interaction being examined in this project will involve the 2004 Big Brother eviction, specifically Merlin Luck’s silent protest, on live television.

Big brother is a reality TV show in which contestants live in a house together for an extended period of time while the public watches on and votes for who stays or who becomes evicted. The show was disrupted one Sunday night in 2004 when a housemate named Merlin Luck staged a protest on the live eviction show. As Merlin entered the arena that was broadcasting the live eviction he pulled out a home made banner that displayed “Free the refugees”, in reference to the government policy on refugees at the time. Merlin also covered his mouth with duct tape and refused to speak throughout the entire show.

Introduction

Merlin was displaying a simple message to the general public, through means of protest and the medium of Television, so why is this interaction worth looking at?

This project will break down the interaction to examine the micro level of what exactly is happening. The key areas of the interaction that will be examined include:

-       The use of a banner to portray his message (three words)

-       Merlin’s ‘performance’

-       The use of silence (non verbal communication)

-       Body language

-       Intensity of facial expressions

-       The crowd’s involvement in the interaction

To examine these key areas of interaction, information will be drawn from key theories which include; Symbolic interactionism, Dramaturgy, and presentation of the ‘self’.

It is evident that Merlin’s eviction protest is a piece of naturally occurring data as obviously none of what went on during the interaction was planned or scripted. The audience, host and television editors all have a predisposed idea of what is going to occur in the interaction, but when it goes wrong, people seem out of place and unsure of how to react. It is here we can draw on ideas such as the ‘code of conducts’ or the ‘rules’ that are set in place, and why these are so important when studying the micro areas of interactions.

Interpreting the interaction

There are several reasons we classify interactions such as this, as micro. The particular actions and meanings that are portrayed in an interaction are related to social discourses. But they are not entirely shaped by them; they take their own form within the process of the interaction (Mouzelis, N 2003). Therefore it can be argued that whilst social norms and practices are usually resonated by individuals in an interaction, each interaction can differ in terms of the individual’s subjective meaning and position within these social norms. Interactive uncertainty is prevalent within all interactions and for this reason studying the micro sociology perspective is interesting. Of course the micro and macro are related and influence each other, but the micro characteristics of interactions and participants is what this project is focusing on.

The ‘interaction order’ important when analyzing Merlin’s eviction protest. The interaction order refers to the ‘normative expectations’ that are embedded within roles and positions that people are involved in (Mouzelis, N 2003).  Merlin’s behavior disrupted these norms, he did not play the role that was expected when he walked up onto the stage, and therefore the interaction was seen as a controversy. It can also be argued that Merlin intentionally broke the social rules set in place for his own personal benefit. It is evident that breaking social rules will highlight the interaction as ‘out of the ordinary’ and attract attention. The latter was Merlin’s purpose. The actions that take place within this interaction are definitely dependent on time, place, and audience and how the ‘self’ is presented. To understand this, Goffman’s theory of Dramaturgy is helpful.

In dramaturgical sociology it is argued that human actions are dependent on time, place and audience. To Goffman, the ‘self’, is a sense of who one is, a dramatic effect emerging from the immediate scene or interaction being presented (Ross, D 2007). This can be seen as a metaphor in defining how an individual presents itself to another, based on cultural values, norms and expectations. Relating this to Merlin’s interaction, he is completely disrupting the ‘norm’. The image of his ‘self’ changes and is in direct relation to the protest he is preforming on stage. Without the immediate scene of the interaction, Merlin would not hold so much power. The power stems from the interaction being presented, and how one person’s sense of self is prevalent when breaking norms and social expectations. Usually the goal of performances and presentation of the self is to gain acceptance from the audience, through carefully conducting yourself throughout the interaction. If the actor succeeds, then the audience will view them how they want to be viewed. Usually in the interaction individuals aim to save face, steer clear from unwanted awkwardness and present themselves positively (Kivisto & Pittman D 2007). Merlin broke these rules as he presented himself to the audience as a deviant of social expectations; the response he got was in relation to this. Boos and jeers from the crowd and an awkward TV show host, trying to cool the situation.

This is also evident in Goffman’s outline of obligations and expectations within social interactions. Goffman, E (1967) states, rules of conduct that inform an individual’s behavior do so in two ways: through obligations and expectations. In terms of Merlin’s conduct in the interaction, he did not fulfill his direct obligations as a contender; therefore the expectations of the audience were not met. It is evident that obligations involve a constraint to act in a particular way (1967). Merlin broke this constraint to perform a personal obligation (protest). Generally speaking most actions are guided by these rules of conduct that are usually performed without thinking. They are socially constructed rules in which the audience expects. It then becomes evident that Merlin was met with boos and jeers because the expectations of the audience were not met. Goffman (1967) states that an actor’s pleasant obligation will be met with the recipient’s pleasant expectation.  Merlin disrupted this process, resulting in an unpleasant reaction in the audience.

It is evident that the use of a banner and the taping of his own mouth shut was an effective way to portray the correct message for Merlin. It can be argued that the use of a banner with only three words on it is more powerful in this interaction than words would have been. To explore this idea, the theory of symbolic interactionism will be examined.

Symbolic interactionism refers to distinctive and particular features of interaction that take place between individuals (Roberts, B 2006). Individuals do not react simply to ‘stimulus’ (2006), but ascribe and construct meanings to objects in their social situation. Relating this idea Merlin’s interaction it becomes evident that the banner, with three words on it ‘Free the refugees’, becomes a product of the interaction in which the audience ascribes meaning to, so they can understand the purpose of the interaction. Symbolic interactionism (2006) suggests that an individual’s action is constructed, therefore it can be argued that Merlin had planned the interaction, specifically choosing the objects and symbols he wanted to portray, and making sure the objects portrayed the correct meaning to the audience. Central to symbolic interactionism is the ‘meaningful nature’ of interactions (Dennis, A 2011). Meaning is the outcome of the actor’s interpretations of the settings (2011). Therefore we can argue that the meaning within Merlin’s interaction is constructed and is a product of the immediate setting. Merlin carefully handles and preserves this meaning through the nature of his body language, facial expressions and use of symbols.

To examine Merlin’s facial expressions and body language Goffman’s (1971) theory of front stage and ‘personal front’ can be explored. The term ‘personal front’ refers to the intimate items a performer owns; these are separate from the environment of an interaction or setting. These intimate items involve: sex, age, bodily gestures, facial expressions and posture (Goffman 1979). Throughout the course of big brother Merlin displayed himself as an outspoken, caring and easygoing housemate. This ‘personal front’ that he displayed to viewers and other housemates was expected in the eviction performance, however Merlin adapted his personal front in hope of creating a different appearance. Goffman (1971) also divides this personal front into ‘appearance’ and ‘manner’, appearance in reference to Merlin, is the notions of the self that function at the time of the interaction to display his status, in which he displays himself as the most powerful individual because of this ‘manner’. ‘Manner’ refers to the role the performer is going to play within the interaction (1971). The ‘manner’ in terms of Merlin’s interaction can be seen as the serious, politically motivated, impression he gives, as the audience interprets the symbols. Merlin’s body language once he is on the stage sitting next to the show host, gives the impression that his ‘manner’ gave the impression he was here to portray a message, not simply taking the role of the evictee. Merlin’s ‘manner’ does not allow the interaction to go on as planned, the way in which his facial expressions and body language express his message to the audience, are a complete disruption from the norm. In the end resulting in Merlin being escorted out of the building for the disruption that does not suit the producers of the show.

It is evident that Merlin holds a ‘Situated identity’; this refers to the ‘self that can be identified with the role one is currently playing’ (Brissett D & Edgley C 2006). Merlin is defined by the audience as a protester, because he is defined in the role he is playing at this certain point in time. It can be argued then that if any Australian put big brother on this night, without knowing the context – Merlin would be labeled a protester. Here it becomes evident that there is confusion within the crowd because the audience has built up knowledge of Merlin as a contender, not as a protester. His role has now suddenly changed and the audience quickly makes up their mind to label the role he is now playing, in order to understand the interaction.

Gardner & Avolio (1998) outlines the idea that an actor’s efforts to secure power and effectiveness in an interaction can be termed ‘self promotion’. Images of the self are projected to uphold their competence in the interaction (1998). It becomes evident here that Merlin is effectively promoting himself to gain power and promote the social cause of the refugee situation. In doing so he projects himself as an influential person within the interaction, kids around the country see this message. Even though Merlin is exploiting the situation, it is evident that it is an effective example of ‘self promotion’.

Conclusion

The nature of the Merlin’s interaction informs the response that it gained by the audience at present and also how it resonated through the country as a whole. This nature was serious, but also meaningful, in prime time television, it is out of the ordinary. As Merlin brought this type of interaction to the prime time, the audience met it with different responses.  It is evident that Merlin did not use his pre-existing appearance (or status) within this interaction but challenged the norm by presenting himself as a different identity. It became apparent that the power within the interaction was focused upon Merlin his ‘manner’ was able to assert his role and message as a valid expression of his self, for purpose of a social issue. Through examining ‘symbolic interaction’, ‘presentation of the self’, and ‘dramaturgy’ it becomes easier to understand how and why the interaction is interpreted by the audience and all involved. Also understanding the way the interaction was constructed by Merlin and his role within it, so it portrayed the message that was intended.

Joshua Noble

References

Alexander C, J et.al (1987) The micro – Macro link. University of California Press Ltd 1987

Brissett, D & Edgley C (2006) Life as Theater: A Dramaturgical sourcebook. Second edition. Transaction Publishers, Brunswick. 2006

Dennis, A (2011) Symbolic interactionism and Ethnomethodology. Summer 2011: 349-356 Blackwell publishing UK Oxford

Goffman, Erving. 1967. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor.” Pp. 47-96 in Interaction

Goffman, Erving. 1971. “Performances.” Pp. 28-82 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Kivisto & Pittman D (2007) Goffman’s Dramaturgical sociology. Social Thought, Augustana College.

Lehn, Dirk Vom & Gibson, W (2011) Interaction and symbolic interactionism. Blackwell publishing UK Oxford.

Leslie A H. (2004) Backstage, Frontstage Interactions: everyday racial events and white college students. University of Florida 2004

Mouzelis, N (1992) The interaction order and the micro- macro distinction sociological Theory, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1992), pp. 122-12 University of London

William L. Gardner & Bruce J. Avolio (1998) The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academic Management review Vol 23 No 1.

Roberts, Brian. 2006. “Symbolic Interactionism 2 – Developments.” Pp. 46-61 in Micro Social

Order in Talk

Like many other students, I am also coming very close to the word limit of blogging, I tried to keep them short and sweet but this subject is just too interesting (haha). Anyway.. I will keep this one short.

This weeks topic on the interactions that occur within institutions is interesting, and I have seen it come up in past sociology classes. The order of talk within a university or school has a certain discourse and this is followed by students and tutors alike. Even the non verbal medium of interaction such as body language and classroom layout plays a part in what discourse the institution is following.

'Talk' as the medium that is discussed in the reading as the communication tool, follows certain social rules and regulations by all involved. It becomes evident then if these rules aren't followed, such as screaming randomly whilst in class or having your own conversation with friends, then loss of face will occur.
The reading labels this type of interaction as having a 'ritualistic or uniform' pattern, that is to say, every time we enter an institution (such as uni) we conform to a set of linguistic rules.


References

Benwell, Bethan, and Elizabeth Stokoe. 2002. “Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorials:
shifting dynamics and identities.” Discourse Studies vol. 4, no. 4: pp. 429-453.

Exploring Profanities in Interactions

Fuck, well where do I start

Swearing can have both positive or negative effects on interactions, a lot of this difference comes down to context.
Social identity can resonate through the language used in interactions in social situations, it is evident that class, race and gender can be identified through language use in particular interactions. Therefore using bad language, profanities and expletives can be detrimental to an individuals social identity. If an individual was to swear and use bad language in a job application they would not get hired.. the same goes for constantly swearing in day to day social interactions.

I also believe (probably because I do it) that using profanities whist hanging out with friends in relaxed social settings, like going out for a few drinks, or hanging down at the beach, is acceptable. I mean you can throw a few words around in a conversation with your friends and the connotations do not necessarily have to be the same as when using the same word in another context. The most versatile word - 'Fuck' can be used so many different ways that in some cases its harshness or disrespectable connotations can be dropped. The same word can mean two extremely different things, but in context the prescribed meaning can be identified.

I found an interesting article that outlined the use of 'fuck' and 'cunt' in the Australian trade work place. It was interesting that it outlined why these words lost their connotations of being abusive and offensive nature. Instead they had a rapport-building function within their contexts. They (the tradies) also use these words to differentiate themselves from the rest of society, which i thought was quite interesting as I work at Bunnings and do see a lot of tradies using this type of language... now i know why (Mcleod, L 2011).

References

Link to the above article - http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/384041/McLeod-swearing.pdf

Mcleod, L (2011) Swearing in the 'tradie' environment as a tool for solidarity. Griffith working papers in pragmatics and intercultural communication.

Link to another comment - Week 11 insults

http://ellelawson250.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/a-praise-for-profanity.html?showComment=1349837335082

Link to comment - Internet identity

http://natlombardo250.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/you-blocked-me-on-facebooknow-youre.html

A world online

To be honest I found it hard to read anything for this weeks blog, coming back from the break and its still 28 degrees and sunny, who wants to be inside on the computer?

Well for some people, online interaction is a lot more important than it is for me. I mean I use Facebook just like anyone, but I'm not one to be blogging, tweeting or browsing online forums in my spare time.

The internet has definitely changed how humans interact with one another, there is no way an assignment would have to be done online even 5-10 years ago, and here we are interacting over the medium of a blog.

But is the internet letting people become more connected with each other, or is it isolating individuals to their bedrooms and computer screens?
It would seem that greater access to other people, through mediums such as the internet, would lead to a sense of community, but there is strong evidence that extended use of the internet can actually lead to isolation from the social sphere (Tom, R 2002).
I was sitting at the beach with a few friends and the above idea happened right then and there, whilst we are all sitting together, two out of the three people were on their iPhone, on Facebook? or Instagram? because everyone needs to know how nice today is....

What really interests me is the idea of people changing their identity when they log on to the internet. Their username, picture, bio, everything, is changed to fit someone they are not. This 'performance' of the self is separate to day to day life in the social world. I don't think there could be many benefits from pretending you are someone else though so why do so many people do it? 

I think the internet is a useful tool for use in work, education and social relations to a certain point, however i think authenticity within interactions can only be found in face to face interaction. The internet should be used in conjunction with other interactions, not solely relied upon. 

References 

Tom R, Tyler. (2002) Is the internet changing social life? It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Journal of social issues Vol 58, No 1, New York University

Ross, Drew. 2007. “Backstage with the Knowledge Boys and Girls: Goffman and Distributed Agency in an Organic Online Community.” Organization Studies vol. 28, no. 03: pp. 307–325 

Data Discussion details

My data discussion is tomorrow at 1:30, I have chosen to look at what happened on Big brother in 2004 with the eviction of Merlin. As Merlin was evicted from the house and had an interview with Grettle, he took to the stage, ducktaped his mouth shut and help a sign saying 'free the refugees'. This act was interpreted as political stunt, focused on gaining attention on the issue in the general public. I will be analysing the way in which Merlin broadcasted his message and the reaction that he got both from the crowd and the host.

Focusing mainly on:

• Symbolic interactionism 
• Dramaturgy 

This is a link to the youtube clip I will be showing in class

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3N83X0gb_c

The Code

Unwritten rules of everyday life or 'codes' of conduct in social situations are very important in maintaining civilised interactions. Without these codes would life have any standards? 
The reading about the prison code by Wieder, made me think about a social group that I am a part of that adheres to a certain 'code' whilst taking part in it. I went surfing this morning and thought that it is quite a good example when discussing a place in which you need to abide by the unwritten rules or there will be consequences. Just like the prison code, the code of surfing is known by most members who partake in the sport regularly, these participants would be the 'regular guys', who know the rules. It seems that when someone is to break the rules things can get quite heated, I have seen people get sent in, punched and yelled at for breaking the code in the surf. The code is quite simple and has the same concept of standing in a line, whoever has been there the longest is next, someone cant just push their way in. The same sort of notion applies in the surf, along with a few others that can be seen on this website. 

http://www.surfinghandbook.com/knowledge/surfing-etiquette/



It was interesting to read a few websites and articles that shed some light on the surfing 'code' and came across a few instances in which 'the regular guys' were taking advantage of the unwritten rules. Some of the worlds more popular surf breaks, such as Hawaii, guys actually block everyone else who isnt a local from getting any waves at all, they think that they are entitled to the waves because they live there. Newcomers are not the 'regular guys' and therefore do not have a say in the matter.
It was interesting to see the code become violated in this sense, as it is being disrupted by 'the regular guys', usually it is disrupted by individuals who do not understand the code. 

This concept was quite easy to grasp and I found the reading quite interesting. It is funny to think how unwritten rules can be so important to certain social interactions.

Wieder, DL 1974, 'Telling the code', in Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings, Penguin Education, Hardmondsworth, pp. 144-172

Just a link to a comment

Here is a link to a comment I made on another blog :)

http://juliasoc250.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/social-and-moral-order-in-talk.html?showComment=1347496289698

Ethnomethodology - Week 7

Ethnomethodology

http://pbmo.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/

Outlined by Garfinkel, Ethnomethodology involves the study of everyday interactions by individuals that creates social order. 
I'm not aiming to bore anyone by speaking academically about the word ethnomethodology, the word itself scared me at first, but the concept is much simpler than the spelling. 
Garfinkel believes that in society there are certain rules that create social order within interactions. We follow these rules when we interact with one another in a hope that we maintain a social order. Like i have shown in the picture above, walking into a bathroom and standing right next to someone in the cubicle when there are many free, is not seen as polite or an accepted interaction. Garfinkel explains this concept by conducting experiments in the form of games. Like Andrew did in the lecture - (starting a game of naughts and crosses and then erasing the beginning to start again). The 'fully public' nature of games are represented through a range of basic rules that are to be followed to complete the game. Garfinkel explains that in these experiments, the relationship between the 'rules' and the organised events are strongly cognitive - the rules applied are only relevant to the event that is occurring within the interaction. These experiments are also taken out in the social sphere, I tried the same experiment that was shown in the reading on my sister. Asking more questions than necessary in one interaction makes the other person feel frustrated because their understanding of social order is being taken away. 

I looked at another publication 'Social science and conversation analysis' by David Silverman which also drew on a lot of Garfinkel's work but also gave some insight into conversational analysis's. It was interesting to find the article as it stated that conversational analysis shares common origins of ethnomethodology. Conversational analysis however took a formal approach to analysing micro instances of naturally occurring talk (Silverman D 1998), which will be helpful in researching the further assignments in this course.

Picture : http://www.ourspacer.com/graphics/you're-doing-it-wrong-demotivational-posters/page02/

References 

Heritage, John. 1984. “The Morality of Cognition.” Pp. 75-102 in Garfinkel and
Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. 

Silverman, David (1998) Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity.

Dramaturgy - Week 6 post

Dramaturgy 

My understanding of dramaturgy (after the reading) is that individuals act differently in certain times, places, or to audiences. The sense of self is derived from the scene that is being presented in that certain time or place. 

The lecture on Dramaturgy is the first time I have come across the term, and the concept of social life as 'drama'. It is an interesting concept to consider the social life as a 'performance' of interactions between people. The very first sentence of the reading is important in understanding how interactions happen in society according to the concept of dramaturgy - 'When an individual plays a part he implicitly requests his observers to take seriously the impression that is fostered before them' Goffman (1990). 
My understanding of this concept is that as an interaction is delivered by an individual, he or she requests their audience to react in a certain way. It is interesting to think about what is happening in society when people are acting out their lives in certain ways, to impress certain people or to conform to 'norms' that are socially created. The way in which the 'performer' acts when interacting with other individuals changes through different social settings and thus the individual is just a part of a larger scale 'game'. 

It is interesting to think about what happens when these 'performers' are not involved in any interaction, what is going on behind of this 'stage' in which we all perform? Goffman (1990) explains this as the 'frontstage' or 'backstage'; the backstage involving the interactions in an informal state or even just what we are preparing or thinking about when we are not actually 'interacting' with other individuals (informal dress, sloppiness, joking around). The frontstage is the opposite to this, as individuals play out their 'acts' in reference to the others around them. Goffman (1990) states that the 'front' is 'that part of an individuals performance which functions to define the situation to observers. 

An interesting observation of Dramaturgy would be that of going to the pub or going out for a night out with friends. It is interesting to see individuals who you may know well put on 'performances' so they appear to observers in a certain way. As settings or 'stages' usually stay the same, as individuals walk into these settings they play out different acts to define meaning to their observers. 

References 

Picture - http://losangeles.bitter-lemons.com/2012/02/14/the-dramaturg-the-devolution-of-the-modern-day-theatre-critic/

Goffman, Erving. 1971. “Performances.” Pp. 28-82 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.
Harmondsworth: Penguin 

SOC250 - Week 5 'The self'

This weeks reading 'The nature of Deference and Demeanour' by Goffman combined with the lecture gave an interesting insight into the way in which the 'self' is a social construction. In this blog post I am  just aiming to outline a few points I found interesting as there is quite a bit of detail in the reading. 
Goffman's view of the 'self' as a 'peg on which roles were momentarily hung' stuck in my head after viewing the lecture, I found this interesting as I come home from uni, change clothes and thus change roles as I go to work. The roles I carry out at work are only for the set amount of hours I am there and then these roles are taken away again. The reading explained this concept in more depth as it outlined the obligations I take on as I take up a certain role, I am there to serve customers and my obligation becomes another persons expectation. All this however is momentary and these obligations and expectations change as I change roles when I go home or go to university.

An interesting part of this discussion of how the 'self' should act and what roles are taken in certain environments is when these roles overlap each other. For instance, work functions are notorious for individuals not knowing how to act when their roles are blurred, this can lead to a 'loss of face'. 

As it seems as though all these rules and guidelines for how we act are restricting what we do and say. Goffman outlines these obligations and expectations of individuals as brief moments that involve little to no substance, they serve to define moral and social order and create a flow in society. "The gestures which we call empty are perhaps in fact the fullest things of all" (Goffman 1967). 

In further reading of presentation of the self I read an article 'Karen McCullagh (2008): Blogging: self presentation and privacy' which I thought was quite appropriate in reference to the task of blogging online. It outlines the way in which individuals can change their self presentation through the medium of blogging as the expectations that they might have in everyday life, change once logged on to the internet. 

References 

Karen McCullagh (2008): Blogging: self presentation and privacy, Information & Communications Technology Law, 17:1, 3-23 

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.