SOC250 Final Research Report: Breaching Societal Norms

Everywhere interactions occur in a number of different formats.  In this naturally occurring piece of data, the interaction between three people demonstrates an obvious difference of opinion and an increasing power struggle.  Although we refer to this data as ‘naturally occurring’, most interaction – including the interaction of this analysis – are partially predetermined, whether it be intentional or not.  As discussed in Randall Collins, ‘ Interaction Ritual Chains’, “Under certain circumstances, individuals may plan ahead, deliberately thinking through possible interactions” (2004, p. 158).  In this interview situation it is clear that Fox News, and the reporters, have preconceived ideas of Shirley Phelps Roper, member of the Westboro Baptist Church, and how they will approach the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yES1izpdf0

This particular interaction for analysis exists in the format of a YouTube clip, presenting the interaction between the interviewer, Fox News, and an interviewee, Shirley Phelps Roper.  The first indication of a dispute stems from the initial intentions for having the interview.  It is clear that Fox News has preconceived intentions for interviewing Roper, as the bias opinions of the interview are made known within the introduction.  The interview has not been set up as a traditional interview, where the interviewer asks questions and allows the interviewee to answer.  Instead, this interview has been set up as an opportunity for Fox News to criticize Roper for her considerably outrageous beliefs and behaviours.  These intentions of the Fox News station are shown in how the reporter sets up the interview with Roper, introducing the story as thought Roper and her church are the cause of confrontation. 

This interaction, as do most (Mouzelis 1992), presents both a micro and macro perspective.  From a macro perspective, Fox News is a station viewed by millions of people all over the world; therefore, a number of people are likely to view this video.  Also, with new forms of online media, such as YouTube, coverage is shared across time and space more easily, with an extended shelf life.  The ability to share and spread information online broadens the audience, and the number of times one video is viewed over time increases the number of overall views.  Although some remained online, the controversy seen in this video led to the removal of most videos from YouTube indicating the potential impact this video had.  This particular clip titled, “A very mad pissed off Fox news reporter! Interview with the Westboro Baptist church”, has had 1, 245, 900 views, showing the number of people who have become not only informed, but also personally involved.  As demonstrated in Appendix C, a number of people have chosen to post their personal opinions after viewing the clip.  This shows how YouTube is provided a platform for viewers to engage in the news they are watching.  From a micro perspective, this interaction has taken place between three people, two interviewers and one interviewee.  The interaction is intended to take place in a question/answer formant; however, has developed into an attack on the interviewee and her beliefs, behaviours, and opinions.  Discussion of a controversial topic, religious beliefs, has led to a dispute, and an obvious power struggle between those involved.  All members of the interaction are attempting to get their point across, but with differing opinions and overt disagreement, discussion leads results quickly in arguing. 

As mentioned above, the traditional format for an interview is question/answer.  The interviewer is supposed to have the intention of gaining information and insight into the interviewee’s story or situation.  In the case of this interaction the interviewers intentions are clearly past merely gaining information.  Instead, the interview appears to be set up to interrogate Roper, and to criticize her beliefs and actions, sharing them with the world.  As discussed by Sarangi and Roberts, “institutional rules and procedures partly derive their legitimacy through clients’ recognition of and willingness to abide by a set of institutional routines” (1999, p.4).  A live news interview, broadcasted for the world to view, would be considered a ‘frontstage’ setting with certain rules and expected behaviour.  The general rules for a news interview could include: speak when spoken to, ask questions and answer questions, respect the other person, no swearing, no interrupting, remain calm and collected, etc… In the case of this interaction, the rules of a professional news interview are broken.  Both the reporters and Roper demonstrate ‘backstage’ behaviour, such as, raised voices, disrespectful language, disrespectful hand gestures, and interrupting as demonstrated in Appendix B.  At the very beginning of the interview the reporters change the rules of a traditional interview style.  At first Roper maintains composure and only speaks when she is spoken too; she doesn’t interrupt, and listens to the reporters even when they interrupt her.  Her manner is calm, and not aggressive.  It is clear that Roper has a preconceived notion of what a traditional interview is meant to look like, she has an idea of what is socially acceptable whilst being interviewed on live television.  As discussed in the article, ‘Ritual Communication’, “these formulaic practices of everyday life claim to be based on a specific moral poetics in representing value judgments that control and legitimate social behaviour in present-day contexts, offering strategies for dealing with recurrent situations” (Senft & Basso 2009, p. 11).  On the other hand, the reporter begins the interview showing his obvious bias against the beliefs of Roper, and introduces Roper and the story as though she is the ‘bad guy’.  In breaking the rules of an interview, the reporters give Roper permission to act differently than what is normally expected; therefore, as the interaction continues, Roper stoops to the reporters level and begins to interrupt in self-defense.  Emotional energy, derived from certain interaction rituals, is the central motivating force for individual behaviour (Collins 2004).  When the interaction rules are broken, the emotional energy changes and so does the interview.  In a ‘frontstage’ setting, on live news, insulting the guest is not considered appropriate behaviour.  As demonstrated below, the reporter outright insults Roper in this particular interaction.

            1:35           

Reporter One: (*interrupting*) Yeah, you’re obviously a nut. Um, alright, now look. You want to make your political and religious point, and you want to inject pain and heartache. I can’t think of. Ma’am I’ve got to be honest, we’ve had a lot of nutty people on the show over the years. You are as mean and as sick and as cruel as anybody that I’ve ever had on this program. And the fact that you use religion to justify your hatred this way it’s frankly, it’s mind-numbing.

3:33           

Reporter Two: You are an abomination; you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are an embarrassment to the nation. The way you behave towards soldiers who risk their lives for this country (*pointing finger*). You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

3:50           

Reporter Two: (*interrupting*) You know I’m glad to have you on television, because as (name) said Shirly, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and you need to be disinfected. This is sick the things your doing. How dare you do this (Roper is speaking at the same time) to the families of our soldiers, and to other Americans, how dare you (*pointing finger, raising voice*)

Within this interaction there are a number of societal expectations that are breached.  First of all, in the introduction of the story, the reporter discusses the inappropriate behaviour at a funeral.  Society has a certain set of rules of behaviour when attending a funeral; Roper and fellow members of the Westboro church break these rules by protesting outside of the funeral ceremony.  These actions are what initialize people’s disgust and disagreement with Roper’s behaviours and beliefs.  She has broken the rules, and has conducted behaviours that is not socially acceptable.  Another case, which demonstrates a breach in what is socially acceptable, is the way both the reporters and the interviewee behave on live television.  Society expects that people maintain a certain level of professionalism and composure when video tapped for live television; however, in this video clip the rules of acceptable behaviours are broken.  Also, in the case of news broadcasting, an interview is meant to be objective and informative.  As Mouzelis discusses, “…although the meanings of particular actions are quite obviously related to social positions and dispositions, they are not molded by them entirely.  They take their final shape in the very process of interaction” (Mouzelis 1992, p. 127).  This particular interaction steps away from a professional interview and becomes a dispute, discussing subjective opinions of a controversial topic.  Finally, the impression the reports make is not professional.  Considering this interaction has taken place in their workplace, the reporters are not following the socially expected behaviour of a workplace.  Both reporters have allowed their subjective opinions to show, and have made a personal attack on the interview.  

           

REFERENCES

Collins, R 2004, ‘Interaction ritual chains’, Princeton University Press.

Mouzelis, N 1992, ‘The interaction order and the micro-macro distinction’, Sociological Theory, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 122-128.

Sarangi, S., Roberts, C 1999, ‘The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings’, Talk, work and institutional order: discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, viewed 11 September 2012, http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=e_tFXRJXPxgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Sarangi+%26+Roberts+&ots=LupItODdhN&sig=LlVOLZNtSn8Qd9uqpyTFifIrfqo#v=onepage&q=Sarangi%20%26%20Roberts&f=false

Senft, G,. Basso, E 2009, ‘ Ritual communication’, Wenner Gren International Symposium.

APPENDIX A

Description of YouTube video clip

 

APPENDIX B

Partial script of YouTube video clip

1:35           

Reporter One: (*interrupting*) Yeah, you’re obviously a nut. Um, alright, now look. You want to make your political and religious point, and you want to inject pain and heartache. I can’t think of. Ma’am I’ve got to be honest, we’ve had a lot of nutty people on the show over the years. You are as mean and as sick and as cruel as anybody that I’ve ever had on this program. And the fact that you use religion to justify your hatred this way it’s frankly, it’s mind-numbing.

2:30           

Reporter One: (*interrupting*) Hang on a second, I know. I got a question for you…

2:47           

Reporter Two: Hey Shirley, it’s (name of reporter). What’s the matter with you?

3:08           

Reporter Two: (*holding hand up*) Hold on a second…Shirly, can you hear me okay?

3:33           

Reporter Two: You are an abomination; you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are an embarrassment to the nation. The way you behave towards soldiers who risk their lives for this country (*pointing finger*). You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

3:50           

Reporter Two: (*interrupting*) You know I’m glad to have you on television, because as (name) said Shirly, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and you need to be disinfected. This is sick the things your doing. How dare you do this (Roper is speaking at the same time) to the families of our soldiers, and to other Americans, how dare you (*pointing finger, raising voice*)

4:05           

Roper: How dare you fail to obey the commandments of the lord your god and bring his wrath down…(*continues talking, raising voice*)

Reporter Two: (*interrupting*) Excuse me, Miss Phelps, yeah… (*interrupting, speaks over Roper*) I don’t respond to you, I don’t have to answer to you. I answer to the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (both individuals are speaking over one another).

            Roper: (*raises voice*) How dare you invoke the god of…

Reporter Two: Mhmm, let me ask you a question (*hand gestures to indicate, stop talking. Roper continues to talk. Reporter nods head*) Mhmm. Yep. If you could just stop your rant for one second. Let me ask you a question. If your church, if your so popular… (*Roper begins to talk, Reporter cuts her off, hand gesture to indicate, stop talking*). Let me get my question out (*asks question, Roper replies*)…. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

5:08           

Reporter One: (reporter one returns). Alright, I got a last question. I got one last question…What are your sins?... (*Reporter and Roper continue to speak over one another, Roper’s voice begins to get louder and more assertive, Reporter nods*)

APPENDIX C

Comments viewed below YouTube video clip

Response to: Lucy Hanigan's, Computer Mediated Communication

Lucy, at one point in your post you said, “It is interesting to see first-hand how people manipulate their identities through CMC, like Facebook with the intention of creating a “socially desirable self”.  I too am fascinated by online identities and the potential for people to appear differently online then they would naturally in real person.  CMC has provided so much opportunity for our modern world, making it possible for us to be part of an online global village. Facebook, and other online outlets, make it possible for interaction over time and space, eliminating the need for face-to-face interaction. Although this has primarily been a positive thing; such as, allowing people to communicate with others when they cannot physically be together, there are also negative aspects to CMC outlets. As mentioned above, CMC outlets give people the opportunity to manipulate their identities in order to appear the way they want to. This can be harmless in certain situations; for instance, a teenager who prefers to come across as cool and popular, rather than nerdy. However, there are also opportunities for people with the wrong intention to appear differently than they truly are. This aspect of CMC presents a risk to all those who participate in online interactions. It is important to be mindful of ‘who is on the other side’, and to be aware of how you are presenting yourself, and the information you are voluntarily giving to others. 

Reponse to: Alexandra Coulton's, Week 11. "Where is what and the missing this"

It is interesting when we stop to think about the various conversations we have participated in without actually acknowledging the logistics of the interaction at that time. Institutional settings provide an interesting case for observing everyday interaction, as like you said, conversation is often used to frame hidden questions or prompt particular responses. Professionals often use various strategic methods in conversation to extract the information they need from people. These methods, whether used in a doctor-patient relationship, or a CEO-employee relationship, have the potential to go unnoticed by people. I find it fascinating how many conversations people have participated in, and will continue to participate, where they are not fully aware of the structure of conversation, and possible motivations of the other person.  In an institutional setting, it is easy to manipulate interaction or conversation in order to succeed in the particular goals.  Another example of certain institutional talk could be in an education facility for younger children. There are certain tactics used to ensure that students are well behaved, and aware of the authority figures they must adhere to.  Also, these tactics can be used to guide students in the requested direction, and maintain overall order.  

Reponse to: Week 7. Moral Interactions

In reading your blog post, I took the time to reflect on some of the social situations I have been in, where I would tend to behave differently depending on the moral context.  Your example of church, as a social situation where it is not moral to swear, made me think of my childhood as a sort of conditioning for how I behave depending on the situation.  Growing up I went to church every Sunday, which meant that at a young age I was taught how I was expected to behave in that particular space.  The interesting thing is, I don’t remember a specific time where I was told, “Claire, this is how you are meant to behave when we are at church. You are supposed to sit quietly and listen. You are not meant to answer questions, or put your hand up like in school. You are to speak to the other people in the church before and after the service, but not during”.  These were all things that I must have observed, or were implied, and I automatically followed them.  Those were the church codes that I was expected to know and abide by, but not necessarily understand.  There are a number of social situations we find ourselves in where we are expected to behave a certain way, and sometimes we don’t even question why it is that way, we just follow. 

Week 10: ‘Cunt’ – it’s an Australian thing

Profanity and ‘rudeness’ – its all a matter of relevance.  Yes, we can agree that there are certain words (or expletives) that are virtually universal with a majority understanding of its offensive connotation, such as fuck.  But, as we have discussed throughout the semester, it is a combination of the individual and society that attribute meaning to everything – profane words included. 

At some point in history it was decided that the word fuck was a “bad” word, an offensive word, and a word to avoid if possible.  Who made that decision, and why did it stick?  Well, it partially did.  Words can gain significance just as easily as they can be diluted of significance.  Some people throw the expletive fuck around without concern, because it does not have the same negative impact to them in their particular social context as it might to another person in a different social context.

Like fuck, there are a number of expletives and profane phrases used in language that have a different significance depending on the context.  Meaning is applied, meaning can change, and meaning varies depending on cultural significance.  An article by Anna Wierzbicka discusses how, “cultural norms reflected in speech acts differ not only from one language to another, but also from one regional and social variety to another.  There are considerable differences between Australian English and American English…” (Wierzbicka 1985, p. 146).  The expletive ‘cunt’ is not one that people often say in Canada.  It would be considered very offensive to call someone a ‘cunt’; therefore, most people avoid it.  Whereas, in Australia I have heard the word thrown around much more liberally.  At first I was surprised, but now I have adjusted.  Why have I adjusted to the use of this word, a word that I have previously found very offensive?  Well, like I mentioned above, words can lose significance just as easily as it is gained.  We as individuals, and as part of society, apply meaning to words, which makes it possible for us to change the meaning, and change our personal understanding of the word.  For me, ‘cunt’ has lost its offensive significance and has become not so inappropriate in certain contexts (while in Australia).

Wierzbicka, A 1985, ‘Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 9, reviwed on 14 September 2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378216685900232#

Week 5: Always “on” (stage)

This week’s topic, Dramaturgy, provides an interesting perspective on social life.  More specifically, this concept is one way in discussing what makes people ‘do those things they do’.  Goffman introduces three dimensions of social life, one of which being, “life is like a drama”. 

Life is like a drama, a performance, a show.  So, how do we determine when we are “on” and when we are “off’? Then we might ask, are we ever really “off”? 

Social life as a drama implies that all actions in the presence of others is a performance, and therefore, introduces ‘frontstage’ and ‘backstage’.  The example used in class of a waitress, in relation to the ‘continuum’ of stages, was of particular interest to me, as I happen to be a waitress.  An article by Sarangi and Roberts states, “institutional rules and procedures partly derive their legitimacy through clients’ recognition of and willingness to abide by a set of institutional routines” (1999, p.4).  I can agree that there is a certain level of “performance” depending on the context I am in.  When I am required to be on the floor serving customers my manner or behaviour is very different from when I am in the back chatting with fellow waitresses.  There is a certain level of professionalism expected of me when I am at a table.  I am required to be attentive and respectful of my customers from the moment they walk in the door until the moment they leave.

Even within this particular stage of customer interaction there are varying levels of behaviour.  My general manner would change depending on the type of restaurant I am a waitress in.  Also discussed in the article by Sarangi and Roberts, “the orderliness noticeable within on institution will differ from that of another as these are tied to different ideologies and rationalities” (1999, p.4).  For example, my ‘frontstage’ manner will look different in a fine dining restaurant compared to a pub or bar, as these two types of waitressing situations pose different contexts.  This will also affect the ‘backstage’ manner that will likely occur after hours. 

Sarangi, S., Roberts, C 1999, ‘The dynamics of interactional and institutional orders in work-related settings’, Talk, work and institutional order: discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, viewed 11 September 2012, http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=e_tFXRJXPxgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Sarangi+%26+Roberts+&ots=LupItODdhN&sig=LlVOLZNtSn8Qd9uqpyTFifIrfqo#v=onepage&q=Sarangi%20%26%20Roberts&f=false

Week 4: My Role Can Change

Erving Goffman’s view of the self presents the concept of individuals having different ‘roles’ in society.  As a result of these roles, we as individual are likely to act a certain way depending on the situation.  We discussed in class some of the different roles a person may be expected to adhere to in their everyday life.  As a student I have a number of social roles in which I “act”.  First of all, as a post secondary student I am expected to obtain a certain level of professionalism with my professors, yet in the same environment, I can be more relaxed with other students in my class.  At my part time job I am required to be early, in uniform, and respect the employment guidelines of my workplace.  In a different context, at a party with my friends for example, I am still a student but, the role I am in changes. 

Our roles are depicted depending on the social context we are in, and the derived expectations that particular context encourages.  In the lecture, we discussed Goffman’s suggestion that these different roles provide us with our identity.  Gross and Stone’s article states the implication that, “identity establishes what and where the person is in social terms.  It is not a substitute word for “self”. Instead, when one has identity, he is situated – that is, cast in the shape of a social object by the acknowledgement of his participation or membership in social relations” (1964, p. 3).  Our identity is generated through our roles, which is why we can encounter a conflict of roles, as Goffman discusses.  There are a number of situations that could foster a role confliction.  For example, I mentioned the level of professionalism I am meant to uphold while at university in the presence of my professors.  If I were at a local pub with my friends, probably not sober, and I ran into my professor while getting drinks at the bar, I might feel conflicted in the way I am expected to act.  The way that I behave with my friends differs from the way I behave in front of my professors – therefore, my role changes.

Gross, E., Stone. G.P 1964, ‘Embarrassment and the Analysis of Role Requirements’, The American Journal of Sociology, vol LXX, no. 1, viewed 11 September 2012, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2775007?uid=3737536&uid=2134&uid=374782503&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=374782493&uid=60&sid=21101319824357

Week 3: Symbolic Interactionism

How is it that we, as human beings part of society, can feel a connection with a materialistic object? 

We often discuss the level of interaction people have with one another, but the interaction people have with certain material possessions/objects is also of interest.  A human’s tendency to use symbols to communicate is one of the unique principles of Symbolic Interactionism.  People often attach meaning to objects, and these objects become a symbol of communication, used as an expression or extension of ones self. 

I have a pair of earrings that I wear almost everyday. To me it is not about the earrings; it is not about the monetary value, or the brand of this piece of jewelry.  Instead, I have a connection to these earrings because of what they symbolize to me.  The earrings have meaning because I have labeled them as valuable – a reminder of the love my grandparents have for me, and me for them. 

In some cases this connection, or attachment, to a material object(s) may be considered a negative thing – deemed materialistic, which often draws a negative connotation.  The reality is, whether it be materialistic or not, almost all people have some type of special connection with a possession of theirs (object).  This is true because we as individuals, and as a society, have applied meaning to things over time – giving them a value. This also explains why this particular pair of earrings means more to me than another pair that could be very similar.  It has been argued, “From a symbolic interactionist perspective, materialism is neither positive nor negative in society. In fact, from this perspective, defining self through symbolic interaction with objects is a natural and pervasive part of socialization” (Claxton & Murray 1994, p.422).  Objects can also have meaning to individuals despite the sentimental value; perhaps that favourite pair of shoes that make you feel prettier, or the hat you always wear to parties.  Some people identify themselves through their possessions (objects), which give these objects meaning, and “over time, symbolic meaning is transferred from society to objects, then from objects to individuals” (Claxton & Murray 1994, p.422). 

Claxton, R.P., Murray, J.B 1994, ‘Object-Subject Interchangeability: A Symbolic Interactionist Model of Materialism’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 21, viewed 11 September 2012, http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=7628