Tuesday, September 30, 2014

The Awkward + Wrong Way

Crisologo, Allyanna
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