Link: http://cheezburger.com/6529091072
So
what I got from the reading and lecture this week is that society is
essentially fabricated. That is to say we interpret meaning (of conversations,
objects, etc.) based on a ‘documentary method of interpretation’-comparisons or
a process of recognition based on a basic script, seen as universal despite having relatively no foundation.
I
know I reference Facebook a lot but I feet that the link above exemplifies both
Garfinkel’s breaching experiments and the subtexts of conversations (generally
studied in conversation analysis) discussed in the lecture. For the
former, consider the line “are you referring to carbonated drinks of frosty
malty beverages?” which is responded to with “uhhh beer?” The responder is
confused because he expects a level of mutual understanding between himself and
the other interactant. We should also note the title of the link-‘The truth
behind these stories’. The edit of ‘what actually happened’ suggests a subtext of what is occurring in the conversation.
An
editorial from Stokoe and Weatherall (2002) explores the debates of
Conversation analysis (CA) and Membership Categorization Analysis (MCA) relational to feminist investigations of how gender affects interactions. This corresponds with our previous studies of Goffman in that the self is contextually produced through performances or interactions with others. A study by Goodwin on female conversations in the
playground identifies that “interactional workings of power…can be traced and
made visible as participants’ concerns”
(in Stokoe and Weatherall 2002, p709). This enforces that Conversation Analysis
can reveal both power relations and the individuals’ concerns. These elements
of conversation are recognized in Tanaka and Fukushima’s study of Japanese
workplace relations as “sequence, grammar, semantics and prosody” (in Stokoe
and Weatherall 2002, p709). By focusing on these elements in a conversation we
may reveal issues of power relations, individual sentiments and the documentary
process in communication.
References
Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’,
in The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp28-82
Heritage, J 1984, ‘The Morality
of Cognition’ in Garfinkel and
Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp75-102
Stokoe, E & Weatherall, A
2002, ‘Gender, Language, Conversation Analysis and Feminism’, Discourse & Society, vol. 13, no. 6,
pp707-713
Wow! Your blog is so informative! When I first looked at Ethnomethodology I found it quite daunting to be honest, but I guess the meaning isn’t as complex as I first thought. There are some unwritten rules and previous knowledge that we just expect people to follow without them being explicitly set out. When you said that society is essentially fabricated you really got me thinking, everything we do is based on some understanding of what we think we are supposed to do or say in a certain situation and when we break out from this social script we are questioned, as the experimenters were in Garfinkel’s breaching experiments. Thinking about it there are so many situations where this could be applied and I really like your example, I had a good laugh. It kind of made me think about ethnomethodology in a different kind of way. Instead of saying something and assuming that the person you are saying it to understands through unwritten social rules or previous knowledge, this person is being overtly specific, ‘carbonated drinks of frosty malty beverages’ instead of ‘beer’. This then breaks out from this unwritten social script, making the ‘stranger’ feel uncomfortable and frustrated. It also made me think of all the crazy subtexts in conversation we could have on a day to day basis.
ReplyDeleteYour second paragraph reeeeally got me thinking. I never would have made the connection of Goffman’s presentation of self in relation to ethnomethodology like that, but you are right the self is contextually produced. I guess in the same way we assume by the way of these unwritten societal rules that somebody already knows the context with which we are referring, so we do not explicitly state it.
Thank you for a very thought provoking blog!
Ethnomethodology did seem quite intimidating at first, but I think what you said about these meanings and scripts supposedly being universal "despite having relatively no foundation" is very true! Its a bit less daunting when you remember that no norms, meanings or expectations are real. They are all constructions, which means they are subject to rejection and change. Just like a fad in fashion, something that seems so structured and definite one month may not be cool or normal anymore the next. I enjoyed the first link as well! It is a very good example of breaching and subtext as well as a good laugh. It is a good example of how the social rules in this conversation are entirely contextually determined. This means that breaching isnt necessarily universal. If the context is a casual conversation among bro's about drinks requiring a relatively low sophistication of vocabulary then the stranger is in the 'right' socially and the narrator is the one breaching. However, on the other hand, if the context is a formal, sophisticated conversation about business between colleagues then the narrator is the one with the social expectations that are being breached by the stranger. Now the question is: how is the social context determined in such a situationally flat medium such as texting? I would say that because the stranger is the one who texted first, clearly establishing that his motive was for drinks while simultaneously presenting the level of grammar and vocabulary he was expecting in return, that he/she established the context with the first message. Also, you emphasized that the web link is titled "The Truth Behind These Stories", and the "What Actually Happened:" section is suggesting a conversational subtext to the conversation. Is what the narrator exaggerates/imagines the conversation as in the first post the subtext or is what actually happened the subtext? I would argue that the exaggeration in itself is breaching because it violates our "universal" social expectation that what this person is saying happened, is the truth. Anyways, thanks again for the fun, informative post!
ReplyDelete