Garrido, Miko
Membrere, Bren
Oquendo, Noel
Uy, Kim
Yanela, Roy
"The Awkward + Wrong Way"
Talking to Random Strangers + Going and Eating in Jollibee
What norm did you violate?
Our group decided to violate or deviate from several norms.
First, the norms governing our expected behaviour with regard to
strangers--that is, of course, not to engage them in a conversation, with the
exception of questions regarding the generic (navigational, commercial, etc).
Expected patterns of behaviour tell us that friends and, perhaps, acquaintances
are the only appropriate objects of a “chat,” and that any deviation from this
category would result in what many of deem as “awkward,” “inappropriate,” or
even “rude” behaviour.
Secondly, Our group also violated the norms of behaviour
enforced when in a public space, particularly the space of a fast-food
establishment, such as Jollibee. A team member walked into the shop wearing
only a towel and a shirt and ordered spaghetti, which he promptly ate using,
with no aid of utensils, his bare hands. This violated, first of all, the norms
of dress which govern our selection of clothing, as well as our perception of
others who are wearing a certain fashion (clothing expected in a bathroom of
privacy, in this case). This activity also violated norms of behaviour
regarding the culinary, using not utensils for a food such as spaghetti, and
rather opting to make use of one’s bare hands.
Describe the breaching experiment in detail.
What was the activity? Where did you do it?
Our group did the first activity at both Starbucks and
Jollibee. At Jollibee, there was a couple from the Ateneo who were eating when
one of our members sat next to them, in close proximity particularly to the
female, and started to act as if she knew them both very well. She kept on
asking several questions and even asked her if they were best friends already
after the conversation. Our group mate then sealed the conversation with a hug.
The couple began acting with evident inhibitions, yet still responded to
questions and comments, even those regarding personal details (e.g. school year
level).
At Starbucks, another one of our group mates went over to a
group of seniors in the smoking area and greeted them enthusiastically
pretending like she knew them. Our group mate said “Long time, no see!”. The
response showed hesitation simply because they didn’t know her, but, upon
demanding a selfie, the two seniors were very much participative and allowing
of the intrusion. When our groupmate left, there was a visible scowl on the
female’s face, showing some contempt for the intrusion, despite appearing
friendly and enthusiastic for the selfie. The third attempt for the first
experiment at Starbucks involved an older man who appeared to be working on his
laptop. Our groupmate came in and tried to spark a conversation. The man became
very uncomfortable, but he still replied to all of our group mate’s questions and
tried to be friendly. As a minute passed, however, the man showed signs of
irritation, and finally demonstrate this explicitly when he demanded to know
how long the awkward situation would last.
The second experiment took place in Jollibee as well. Our
group mate walked in wearing just a towel, slippers, and a shirt. He then went
up to the cashier to order spaghetti. Aftwerwards, he went to a vacant table proceeding
to eat spaghetti with his bare hands, until he decided to ask someone where the
utensils were.
What were the different reactions of the people?
List all possible reactions you observed. Why do you think they reacted this
way? What caused these reactions? Did the deviant act re-affirm/reinforce the
existing norms based on these reactions?
Stranger 1 (Freshies): uncomfortable, somewhat responsive
to questions (even rather personal ones)
Stranger 2 (Seniors): initially, and only slightly,
unconformable, eventually enthusiastic, even to the idea of taking a selfie
with the intruding party
Stranger 3 (Adult): initially welcoming, but irritable over
time
Towel Activity: Staring from people around, laughter, and helpful
when asked where to get utensils to eat “properly” but laughed afterwards.
We think with Stranger 1, people acted so because they did
not want to seem rude to our groupmate, try as much as possible to be “good,”
according to the set of norms regarding hospitality and friendliness. This is
the same for Stranger 2 and 3 as well. Their surprising accommodation of our
groupmates is an indication that the strangeness of the situation did not call
for a measure of their own becoming rude. An exception to this is Adult 3, who,
although was friendly at the first instance, because irritable as time
progressed. An explanation for this is the nature of his activity when our
groupmate began an intrusion. He was most likely working on something important
on his laptop, and did not find the interruption helpful.
These reactions reinforced the norms regarding being polite
(that we ought to accommodate others to an extent, even when they are
strangers). It is interesting to note that the Stranger 3 (the Adult) target
decided to do away with this norm partially, and this reinforces a new norm
that an interruption of meaningful production (as he was the only one not with
others and working on something), or perhaps solitariness, gives him some kind
of grounds to act “rude”. The Stranger experiment also reinforced, without
fail, the norm of distance with strangers, as the target people all displayed a
significant degree of awkwardness.
The Towel Activity saw people laugh at our groupmate on
sight. A “lola” was noted to laugh constantly while looking at him dressed up
in a “not normal” manner. A few also pointed fingers. Furthermore, he was also
eventually given help when he asked where the utensils at Jollibee were. These
reactions reinforce the norm of dressing in a public place according to a set
of expectations. Our groupmate became a laughing stock because he deviated from
these expectations, applying expectations of dressing to a fast-food
establishment what one would normally apply to the bathroom in the privacy of
one’s own home. This also pushes the notion of the norm further, connoting that
there is a norm against, perhaps, against appearing to dress as though one were
at home. In fact, if we may take a linguistic turn, the word “homey” actually
means a quality of unattractiveness. The norms of regarding culinary habits
were also reinforced, and even to such a point that a stranger broke the norm
of distance to strangers momentarily and partially because this norm now
authorised her to act and help the deviant to comply again with the norm of
eating correctly.
Aside
from the norms, what sociological themes are at play for people to react in a
certain way? Is it a function of gender (gender norms, roles), social class
(norms of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion,
family, peer group, etc.).
In relation to the experiment done, we see that there was a
bit of variation that come into play in the reactions of the people around. For
the first experiment, we see that the students that come from the same
university as us seem to be very open and friendly despite the awkward
situation at the beginning. However, for the working adult whom we approached
on our third attempt, there was a difference in his reaction. He was first
awkward, then comfortable but then, he eventually started becoming irritated.
This shows that an adult’s role being someone who is busy and who is in
Starbucks for work (working on his laptop), he had no time for any
interruptions as he may be a very busy man compared to the students who were
mainly there for conversations with friends.
Furthermore, we believe that an interesting sociological
theme at play here is social class. Every single time the in the Stranger
experiment, it was very much obvious that our groupmate was a student from
Ateneo. Hypothetically speaking, what might have had happened if we got an
older man, dressed him with makeup to make him look exceptionally dirty and
wearing torn pieces of clothing, and made him interact with strangers?
Most likely, and this does indeed occur, he will be dismissed, often by
official staff. The very sight of such a man entering a Starbucks would be
sufficient grounds for his removal from the premises. The same idea applies to
the Towel Experiment. Despite being in a towel, our groupmate appeared very
well-kept.
How did
you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the
norms? Were you hesitant to do the activity?
Prior to doing the experiment,
our group thought hard on the possible ideas for our breaching experiment. We
thought of extremes and those, which may not have an effect on people. Until,
we came up with our current breaching experiment idea.
The experiment was really awkward and embarrassing; there
were several times when we found it really awkward to do the experiment because
people may find us weird or they might get irritated. It would take a lot of
guts for someone to simply walk up to a person and disturb them from whatever
they are doing. Even more to walk inside a fast food establishment on dinner
time with a towel on the waist and eating spaghetti using our bare hands. It
was hard to deviate from the norm simply because a lot of us were concerned
with how people will perceive us, which is what people often get worried about
in reality.
Once the breaching experiments were done, it was hard for
us to make a paper and compile the videos without having to laugh because of
the reactions given by these people who were around and those that we
approached. We were forced to imagine ourselves in their shoes – that if a
breaching experiment like that was done without us knowing then, we might have
given the same reactions or even worse.
Other
observations and analysis that you might have on the activity and on deviance
in general?
An important think to note about
our second breaching experiment is that we had to tweak it in order to gain
more reactions from the people. Our first plan for it was to go to Starbucks
with the same towel on the waist while going up to the cashier to order a
drink. However, this did not gain that much attention. We think that this is
because of the location of where the experiment was done. In a place like
Starbucks where everyone is busy studying and talking, sometimes, they do not
notice the things that our going on around them such as our group mate who was
doing the breaching experiment. An added factor may have been because our group
mate was not able to interact with people. Furthermore, a factor that have
affected the reactions was because most people in Starbucks were from Ateneo
who were familiar with breaching experiments which were maybe done several
times already in Starbucks. Thus, we decided to tweak it to our current
breaching experiment, which undoubtedly gave us more reactions compared to the
first plan.
Deviance means breaking or
deviating away from the norm. From the definition itself, you tend to ask
yourself, why do people need to break the norm when these are what people
perceive as normal? Because of this question in our head, our group were very
hesitant to do the breaching experiment, afraid that we were going to be judged
and perceived differently. However, that was the point of this activity. We
were tasked to do this in order for us to try something we have never done
before and obtain reactions across different genders, social classes, etc. This
breaching experiment is a very interesting activity where we see what is normal
nowadays to the modern society and what is not. Hence, in the end, all of us in
the group were happy, despite the embarrassment, that we were able to do
something that we haven’t done before.
Watch the Video Here!
No comments:
Post a Comment