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
