We So Close
#INeedMyPersonalSpace #epal #deviance #walanghiya #breachingexperiment
Even in crowded places, an individual has their own implied personal space and it is expected that the people around respect this. An example for this would be in the cafeteria or food court, when all of the tables are occupied and there is one table not fully occupied, one would ask permission before sitting on the vacant seats. A deviant act to this norm would be when one just sits without asking permission. This would be an act of violating the personal space of the one who first occupied the place, and is what we will be looking at in this deviance experiment. Furthermore, we will be analyzing similarities and differences in the reactions we will be observing so that we could try to determine which sociological themes are influential in this particular activity.
Breaching Experiment
Our breaching experiment as invading personal space was done through sitting or standing beside people in the mall without asking for permission. The breaching experiment was done in different levels in terms of gender, age and size of group. The first attempt at breaching was done by standing immediately beside an alone person. Next, by sitting down right beside a person on the benches in a department store even if there is still a wide space that was empty. These methods were considered to be only breaching the norms slightly because the locations where these were done are communal places unlike if a person is at the food court sitting in front of a single table, which is the next level of breaching done.
The food court is a communal place but when a person or group of people sit in front of a table, that table is considered to be “owned” by that person or group temporarily, demarcating that certain table from the rest of the food court. The breaching done was to sit in an occupied table beside or in front of the occupant(s). The experiment was done with people from different genders (male and female)and ages (young adult, adult and senior citizens). The size of the group also varied from a single individual, to a couple or pair and, lastly, to a group.
The activity was done in the mall (Gateway, SM Sta. Mesa, and Robinsons Magnolia) -- in the foodcourt and in places where people often rested. The activity was done in the mall because it is a setting for many activities such as hangouts, family bonding, shopping, eating, and the like. Also, the mall is a place for leisure, and so most people did not rush. These circumstances helped in our activity because there were people of different age gaps, which allowed us to see the differences in reactions; and because there were many people, this allowed a good number of experiments. Also, since most of the people were not rushing, we had the opportunity to ask them about their reactions and debrief them about what happened.
Since we intended to get the reactions of the people, we took a video of the experiment discreetly but for some instances, we were not able to do so.
List of Reactions
In SM Sta. Mesa:
1st: In the communal eating area at the foodcourt, a group member sat beside a girl. Her expression did not change and we did not get the chance to talk to her because she already left.
(By this time, the security guards talked to us and told us that we can not stay in the foodcourt if we do not buy anything; and we also noticed that there were a lot of people who did not buy anything yet stayed there. We thought that they got suspicious of us because we kept transferring tables.)
2nd: In the cyberzone, there was a man who was standing beside the railings close to the escalators. One group member stood beside him. In this setting, there was plenty of space around the railings. There was no reaction, or the man’s expression did not change. We just noticed that he kept on looking away and took out his phone. After the debriefing, the man said that it was okay with him that someone stood beside him there.
3rd: In the shoe section of the department store, a group member sat directly beside a kid fitting shoes. The kid had no other reaction than moving a bit away from the group member to give enough space for sitting.
4th: In the same section of the department store, a group member sat on a bench beside two children accompanied by their mom. With the presence of the group member, the mom immediately reprimanded her children who were behaving badly at that time. The mom continued browsing the shoes afterwards.
In Robinsons Magnolia:
1st: In the food court, a man was sitting alone at a table for four (two tables side by side). A group member took the chair directly opposite him and sat on it in a way that the two ended up diagonally opposite each other. The group member ignored the man and whiled the time reading or checking her phone. The man, in turn, looked away and seemed to use his phone more frequently. Upon debriefing, the man says that he thought the group member “friendly” because she was willing to share tables. 2nd: In the food court, a girl was sitting alone at a table for two. A group member sat on the chair opposite her. The first reaction observed was that the girl peeked at the group member and smiled, almost about to laugh. Then, she continued with what she was doing, which at the moment was texting; and she kept on looking away. She did not have any reaction when the group member left. After debriefing, she mentioned that it was okay with her but if it were other people, they might say “hindi man lang nagpaalam”(she did not even ask for permission). After this, she said her observations they about our group member and they exchanged names.
3rd: In the same setting, albeit a little ways off, two somewhat middle-aged women were engaged in enthusiastic conversation at a table for four (two tables pushed together). When a group member approached their table and sat at the far side, the conversation did not stop, but one of the women immediately reached out a hand to pull their bags, which were scattered on top of both tables, closer to them. No further reaction was observed, but when the group member left, they looked at her retreating figure. Upon debriefing, the women revealed that they were aware of her the whole time, even though they were rapt in conversing with each other. They also commented that she looked like a student, so they reasoned out that there was less danger in the proximity of a stranger. However, their first instinct really was to keep a closer hold on to their belongings.
4th: In the same food court, a couple in their 20’s was sitting on the same side in a table for four. When a group member sat across them on the same table, the conversation didn’t stop but both of them looked at the group member. The couple looked away still conversing but at some points, they again look at the group member. During debriefing, the guy told the group member that it was actually okay and it was just a bit weird, but the girl kept saying otherwise--that the guy was really weirded out by the experiment.
In Gateway:
1st: In the food court, a woman was sitting alone at a table for two. A group member sat on the seat available. She did not have any reaction, and just continued scrolling through her phone. After debriefing, she said it was okay, and didn’t care.
2nd: Also in the food court, a group of three people (2 women and 1 man in their 20s) sat on a table for four. They were engaged in conversation. A group member sat on the vacant seat and just stared ahead. The first reaction observed was that one girl looked at him but after, continued texting and talking with the other people. After debriefing, they said that they did not mind this because they thought that that group mate was Korean and so, thought that it was okay in “their” country to do so. But they also mentioned that if he was Pinoy, they would not be pleased.
Insights
At first, we felt scared to approach and sit beside random people because it was against the norm. We were afraid of what the stranger would say and, how he/she would act. We were hesitant to do the activity, but at the same time excited. Hesitant because we’re going to stray away from the norm and people might not like it. On the other hand, excited because we wanted to see how people would react in situations uncomfortable to them. Then, when we actually sat beside people, it felt awkward because some of them didn’t know what to do. They were confused on why a stranger sat beside them, so they didn’t know whether or not to leave, or just continue with what they were doing.
Most of the reactions we heard from the people involved was that it was okay and that they did not mind. However, their words are contradicted by the shift in their actions once the deviance had taken place (read: looking away, using the phone more frequently, etc.). We cannot tell if they themselves are aware of it. Also, we observed that some people were trying to make a logical explanation of the act of deviance. For example, one man said she thought the group mate was just friendly because she shared the table. Another example is when a girl thought that the group mate was Korean and thought that there was a different norm in their country, and so adhered to this also. Instead of asking him to adhere to the Philippines’ norms, she did not mind the group mate practicing his here. We believe that the people reacted this way because they didn’t expect that some stranger would sit beside them since the table was already occupied. They were probably caught off guard because no one would just sit beside a group without even asking for permission. Because they were not expecting the deviance act, they made up for it by making excuses or rationalizing the act done and this affirms that the norm of personal space is present in society.
During our execution of the experiment in SM Sta. Mesa, security guards reprimanded us by saying that if we don’t buy food, we cannot stay in the food court. Even after we bought food, the security guard still stayed behind us until we left. The security guard’s reason could have been valid but we observed that there were other people who were staying in the food court without buying anything from the vendors. We thought that the security guards reacted this way only towards us because we were moving from one table to another which maybe made us look suspicious, and they were only imposing their role as security guards who keep the peacefulness of the atmosphere and keep away the violators. The security guard’s reaction is also a reiteration that norms can have greater weight over rules. Although not what we were trying to deviate from, the group’s violation of the norm of staying in one place while eating resulted to a reprimanded and being guarded over while the other people violating the rule of not being able to stay without buying from the vendors weren’t.
In comparing and contrasting the set of reactions we have received from the different parties involved in our little breaching experiment, we have noticed two things: 1.) reaction and consequent revelation of thoughts became more defined as the group size grew and 2.) the quality of reaction may be classified within certain age groups, yet we choose to focus on just one.
In the first observation, we have noticed how minimal the reactions were among individuals. Most of them would just devote more attention to their phone/gadget or look away. The emphasis seems to be in avoidance of acknowledgment. It is as if instead of confronting the violator of personal space, the individual would try to make his/her ‘territory’ smaller by drawing his attention to something specific (phone) or looking away. This can also be seen as a sign of retreating. This avoidance is apparent in the reported actions of the people who were sitting/standing when a group member stood/sat near. However, once there are not one, but two people, the reaction changes. There were two instances in the experiment where this happened. In the first, when a group member sat at a table occupied by a young couple who were conversing about marriage, there were confused looks for a bit, but there was no halt in the conversation. In the second, after a similar violation of personal space, the two middle-aged women continued speaking to each other, as well, after making that initial movement of drawing the bags closer. In both cases, instead of making their ‘territory’ smaller, the two people are establishing it by continuing their conversation despite a minor reaction. They still are not confronting the violator, but they’re not retreating, either. (The action of drawing the bags closer seemed more like a protective instinct than a territorial one) In instances where the number of people is three, the reactions differ again; the reaction is more defined. There are two examples of this in the experiment: the woman and her children in the shoe section of the department store and the three people who were seated at a table for four in the food court. The presence of the intruding group member caused an obvious change in the people’s actions. The mom immediately reprimanded her children for misbehaving while the three people seated on the table stopped talking for a while. This type of reaction, though not a direct confrontation, makes the intruder aware that his/her presence is inadvertently causing something. In the mom’s case, her actions of trying to make her children more presentable is a positive effect, while in the group’s case, their halt in conversation indicates that something is wrong and unacceptable; therefore, it is a negative effect. All in all, because individuals tend to retreat, couples tend to hold their ground, and groups tend to react obviously, it seems that the number of people in a party is directly proportional to the magnitude—the quality of being more pronounced--of the subsequent reaction.
Aside from feeling successful after completing the experiment, we felt a kind of relief after deviating from the norm of preserving personal space. This is because no one resulted into doing violent and disrespectful things to us even though we violated their personal space. We realized that the respect that people have for others is far more important than their own concept of personal space.
No comments:
Post a Comment