The Penny Lane Experiment

The Penny Lane Experiment
SA21 - B

(Cuevas, Fausto, Juliano, Lazatin, Tan)

THE PENNY LANE VIDEO LINK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElC0yzqh5M&feature=youtu.be

 In For a Penny, In for a Pound: Breaking the Norm

            Society today moves at a fast pace, and innovations are made to make processes faster and shorter and life easier. According to Max Weber’s Iron Cage, efficiency achieved through bureaucratization is keeping us trapped and controls all aspects of our lives, as such we are losing imagination and wonder (Macionis, 2010). There is a specific, efficient way of doing certain things, most especially in fast food chains that prioritizes the efficiency of their system, following the McDonaldization scheme, wherein you get the best results at the minimum amount of time possible. Everything should taste the same, everything is done the same way and every system when it comes to the whole service process, from ordering to food preparation to serving the food is efficient (Leidner, 2007).

            Anything that breaks this norm of efficiency in the food service industry then is considered a deviance. Customers who take too long in picking their orders, customers who take too long in paying even customers who take too long getting their stuff and moving away from the counter is somehow seen as a deviant and viewed with mild irritation from the cashiers to the people lining up behind him or her. Have you ever just stashed away your money haphazardly in your bag to avoid holding up the line? What more a customer paying his Php 200.00 bill with 25-centavo coins?

            The Penny Lane Experiment explores this notion. How would the servers and the people lining up behind us react when we pour down a small mountain of 25-centavo coins to pay for our meal? In our experiment we are going to break the folkway of paying in large bills, so as to make transactions faster. Instead, we are going to pay with 25-centavo coins.

            In addition we will also investigate the dramaturgy that exists between the servers and the customers. According to Goffman, we are all performing specific roles at all times (Macionis, 2010). Food servers are supposed to be courteous and kind to customers, they follow a rule which states that “the customer is king” or that “the customer is always right”, as such is performing their role as a server they act courteously and always with a “happy to serve” attitude. Customers on the other hand must respond in kind to this scene. As a customer they are supposed to be gracious to their servers in the front stage of the dramaturgy for they fear that backstage, the servers will tamper with their food by spitting on it, putting expired ingredients, etc. Deviating from this set scene between a customer and server will overthrow the other performer from his role. For example is a server is rude, the customer drops the impression of being gracious and instead becomes mean and asks to speak with the manager. If the customer is rude, the server will drop the courteous act and may call security on the customer or tamper with the customer’s food. Breaking the norm of paying through paper bills will cause a shift in the dramaturgy that exists between

            We hypothesize that this will be a negative deviance, and expect the cashiers and the people in line with us to have a negative evaluation or react negatively of our non-conformity to the norm.

 The Penny Lane Experiment: Methodology

Figure 1.1 Scheme for Fast Food Chain   

Figure 1.2 Scheme for Restaurant

Two independent variables will be observed during the experimentation process: the attitude of the customers during the Payment and Counting phase, as well as the location or milieu of the experiment. Customers in either the fast-food or restaurant setting will either be gracious, i.e. they help the server in counting or uncouth wherein they leave all the work to the server.

Depending on the differing combinations of the variables, we expect to get variable responses from the servers and the people around us.

Penny Lane In My Ears: Results and Discussion

A. Reactions of the Servers and Why They Reacted That Way

Table 1. Customer is King Theory. The reactions of servers and customers to the different scenarios.

In the experiment, we have observed two general kinds of reactions to the deviance (Table 1). These are Isolated Delegation and Silent Scorning. Note that we have successfully performed two combinations, gracious and fast food as well as uncouth and restaurant. All of these reactions point out to an encompassing fact – the customer is always treated as a king, to their faces or in the front stage at the very least.

a) Isolated Delegation

The isolated delegation is observed in the fast food chain. In this scenario, the 2 customers will courteously ask the cashier if it were alright if they accepted “barya” as the payment. When the order is punched in the system and the cashier tells them how much they have to pay, they will apologize once again for paying with “barya” before pouring down the coins on the counter.

When the coins were poured down the counter, the cashier who was serving the customers let out a cry of surprise. Later, when we asked the cashier if she ever experienced something like this, she said this was the first time someone paid with 25-centavo coins for the whole meal and she was shocked that we did not have paper money, which is then followed by her shock that she would have to count all our coins, as we don’t know how much they are.

 Afterwards, the cashier then turned to her manager for what to do. This is because the manager, based on the standard operating procedure of the fast food chain must deal with uncommon situations, as part of the efficiency process. The manager, once seeing that we presented them with 25-centavo coins was cool about it, not reprimanding us or asking us to leave and merely delegated the task to the cashier we were speaking with, asking her to count our 25-centavos and ordered another cashier to entertain the people behind us and asked us to move to the side of the counter so we can count the coins. Once the problem was quickly resolved, the manager left the stage and went backstage. We believe that the manager did so because it is his SOP to treat all customers kindly, however, we cannot be sure of what he said to the other staff when he proceeded behind the scenes.

 The other cashier immediately entertained the people directly behind us and paid us no mind, as it would distract her from her work and she had to single-handedly keep the system flowing.

This shows the isolated delegation task. Since the presence of the mountain of these coins to pay for our Php150.00 interferes with the efficiency process, they acted in such a way as to a) allow us to pay for our meal without being treated horribly and b) serve the other people in line without a hitch, thus preserving the efficiency system – treat the customers well and serve them fast. One cashier is delegated to us solely in order to help us in our plight.

Since the customers were apologetic and offered to help her count, she treated us kindly in return, continuously assuring us that is was okay for her to count the coins, and even encouraged us that we can keep on counting it, and even started a banter with the customers, asking us how much we ordered before we told her it was just an experiment.

Interestingly, the other servers who would see the customers and the server counting the money would simply laugh and ask questions like “bibilangin mo ba lahat yan”. The laughter we subscribed to amusement at the misery of the co-worker and the sheer absurdity of the situation. In addition, instead of helping the co-worker they would snicker and leave probably glad they are not stuck with that job.

This experiment asserts the McDonaldization norm and the dramaturgy between servers and the customers. The scene between the cashier and the manager is an example of the action of a standard operating procedure within the fast-food chain. When presented with a problem, especially one that ruins the efficiency of the system, the situation is quickly isolated from the general public and addressed by the authority figure – the manager. Once the problem is dealt with, the manager leaves and resumes his supervising capacities. The deviance therefore reinforced the norm of efficiency. Solutions were made to make sure the system functions the same way.

The norm of the dramaturgy between servers and customers also was reinforced. The servers remained courteous, even when they admitted they were shocked and were a bit resentful that they had to count all of those coins. “It’s part of the job”, was the response of the cashier to our question “Is it okay for you to do this?” This indicates that the cashier is playing her role as a server well in the front stage. Backstage however, she was sending shocked glances at her companion but did not say anything mean to the customers. Sarcasm cannot be ruled out here, but the fact remains that they remained courteous reaffirming the norm that the customer must always be treated as a king, whatever the customer performs.

Interestingly, the people in line with us are also reaffirming a norm that people must not be nosy and mind other people’s business especially when it does not affect them. Since the system was preserved and we, the deviants were isolated from the situation, there was no direct effect on them and they paid us no mind. There was not even a hitch in their conversation.

b) Silent Scorning

            Silent scorning occurred in the restaurant setting. Restaurants are less efficient than fast food chains. Their systems are more lenient than the fast food chains as customers do not expect to get their food immediately after they order. It is a more relaxed setting and there is more camaraderie and banter amongst the servers.

            In this scenario, the customers will not even ask the server if it is okay to pay with “barya”. They simply pour down the barya on the bill folder and call the server over. They then ask the server to count the coins since they don’t know how much it is, and they refuse his request to simply go to the cashier since they are not sure how much money they have. They then refuse to help him and resume normal conversation with each other while the server counts beside them.

            Now there are multi-level reactions to be analyzed in this scenario, the reaction of the server when he sees the coins being poured and while he is counting the coins, the reaction of the manager, the reaction of the other staff and the reaction of other patrons.

            Since the efficiency norm governing the restaurant is not as strict as in the fast-food chain, the norm in here is courteousness and paying in bills, especially for a restaurant setting. Initially, the manager and the waiter were chatting and laughing loudly as it was a light hour for the restaurant with only the videographers and the customers as well as a male and female customer pair and one male who ordered food to go. When the customer started pouring the coins on the bill tray, the waiter and manager stopped chatting and stared at the customers with shocked expressions (Fig 3.1), because no one before had ever paid in such a denomination especially a restaurant bill and the waiter, after the experiment admitted that he thought was he really going to count it all? Unlike in the fast food setting wherein the manager was cool as a cucumber and was still courteous in front of us, completing his role in the dramaturgy, the manager is the restaurant broke his role as the courteous server and obviously displayed his displeasure at the event that was happening (Fig 3.2)

 Figure 3.1. The Initial Shock. When the manager and the server heard the coins and saw the 25-centavo coins they were appalled

Figure 3.2 The Managerial Reaction. (Left) The manager observed the scene. (Middle) The manager pointed out the scene to a passing customer. (Right) The manager scoffed at the scene

The manager kept staring and scoffing at the scene that was unfolding, even though he was in direct line of vision of the customers. He even not so subtly pointed them out to the other customer and was obviously looking at them with scorn. This is probably because he found the scene absurd and thought that the customers (who were 2 well dressed, English speaking boys carrying gadgets) were giving them a hard time intentionally. However, though the manager was scoffing and breaking his role as a manager, he did not directly engage the customers, as such he was still maintaining a backstage appearance. He was not directly involved in the front stage.

            Eventually, the manager stood up and went to the kitchens where the kitchen staff were also watching the scene with fascination. They were laughing, at the expense of their co-worker, since they were not directly involved in the act itself, similar to the co-workers of the server in the fast food chain. No one also went out of their way to help the server.

            On the part of the server, though he exhibited a shocked expression during the first sight of the coins (Fig 3.1), once he entered the front stage, i.e. entering the scene as a waiter to the customers, he immediately took on a neutral expression and though his displeasure is radiating off him in waves, he does this without voicing his displeasure, which is where silent scorning comes in (Fig 3.3). His scorn is in his body language, he was frowning, he tucked his hands in the crook of his arms and asked if he can bring the coins to the cashier.

The Stoic Server. (Left) The waiter kept his hands tucked against his arms almost averse to touching the coins. (Right) The waiter kept a stoic face while counting the coins, refusing to look or speak to the customers

             However when the customers insisted he stay there and count, he still followed their orders and counted. Since the customers were not courteous and resumed conversation and let him count the money, he was not the usual courteous waiter, he did not smile or form a banter with the customers, instead stood their silently and sullenly.

            This silent scorn still shows that the waiter is still playing a role. Despite his obvious displeasure, he was still respecting the customer’s wishes, which proves the customer is king theory. Even though he was showing displeasure, he dare not say it to the customer due to the norm that the server respect the customer. However, whereas the fastfood server did not show scorn, the waiter obviously did. This is probably because of the uncouth behavior displayed by the customers, i.e. refusing to help him or allow him to get help by taking the money to the cashier.

            Once again, the other customers not being directly affected by the situation had no reaction.

            This interaction, more than the efficiency system, affirms the norm that people eating in restaurants are expected to carry paper bills and not a paper bag filled with 25-centavo coins. Deviating from this norm caused shock and laughter to ensue.

            On the side of dramaturgy it also affirms the fact that customers are expected to treat the servers graciously to get them to be courteous. If a customer is uncouth, the server will still treat him or her with respect but will also fail to be courteous, remaining stoic and displaying his or her displeasure.

B. A Rehash of the Social Concepts At Play

            The one variable that was not discussed in the above section was gender and in addition class, as these were more constants than variables. In the fast food chain, the two customers that were gracious were 2 females. As the females were very apologetic and acting helpless, the staff looked on with them with more amusement and even smiled and laughed at them during the ordeal. At the end of the experiment, when the servers were informed of the process, they simply laughed it off and smiled. The uncouth males however, were treated with scorn and stoicism instead of amusement.

            Two social concepts are at play here, that of gender and that of values. Note that in the dramaturgy, the folkway of being gracious to your servers is a community belief, especially in such a location as the Philippines. It is a value that we practice “bayanihan” and being kind to other people. Since the female deviants maintained this folkway and only broke the norm of paying in bills, they received the same response as a conformity to the norm will create, as such this is more of a positive deviance wherein non-conformity to the norm is accepted positively since the greater norm, the value of being gracious is maintained.

            In another sense, females are given more lenience in society when it comes to absurdities and idiosyncrasies. Female drivers for instance, are given consideration when they cause road accidents, probably due to the helplessness that society attributes to the females. This “damsel in distress” belief of society is definitely at play in this current scenario. The servers must have thought these two helpless females who blush easily must have made a mistake that caused them to have so much coins. Due to this innate helplessness, they were treated with kindness.

            The uncouth males on the other hand, were not given so much leeway. Their deviance was considered as more of a negative deviance as there was a negative response to their unconformity to the norm of paying in large bills since they failed to follow the larger belief in practice, that of being kind to your peers.

            In addition, males are typically viewed as pranksters in society. Whereas the females simply appeared helpless, the males appeared like, for a lack of a better term, douchebags, especially since they did not help the waiter and insisted they stay there. The manager and the waiter probably thought they were pranking people for the heck of it.

            On the other side, the gender of the servers may have also affected their reactions. Females are generally kinder, more open and would easily laugh situations off, as the server in the fast food chain was a female server. Males are typically more serious and impatient, they usually try to find the shortest and easiest way possible to do a particular job as such they are more easily aggravated by situations such as this (Will, 2013)

            Basing from these 2 social concepts, a deviance may be taken positively as long as the deviant still observes the greater social norm and is aided by a general sense of helplessness and the notion that they do not know what they are doing. As such, even though we say that ignorance is not an excuse, society makes a great leeway for it. This of course is based on the context or the society wherein one is. In the Philippines for instance, since we value kindness more than efficiency, the deviant behavior of breaking a norm is accepted as long as the belief is maintained.

            In a similar study conducted in the United States, the experimenters received much more scorn. There was no delegation of task to address their need and the scorn was more pronounced. Multiple times, security personnel were called to take them out of the establishment where they conducted the activity, even though they treated the servers with courteousness (Yan, 2010).

            Lastly, the constant of social status is also at large. The group was well-dressed, or dressed as typical Ateneans, complete with ID’s identifying us as such. We had gadgets with us for recording purposes and spoke in English. The server in the fastfood said she really thought we did not have paper bills and that shocked her the most. The manager and waiter at the restaurant were shocked that coins were being poured from an Apple store paperbag. The initial shock factor in play at the deviance is largely attributed to the social status. No one expects people from the middle and upper class to be carting around 25-centavo coins. People expect them to pay with cash or credit cards.

5. Trip Down Penny Lane: Reflections on Deviances

            As a group, we generally felt awkward, embarrassed and ashamed of performing the deviances. Why? Let us break it down.

Prior to the Penny Lane experiment we have tried the “Pandamonium” experiment wherein we talked using animal sounds as humans perceive them, i.e. arf-arf, meow-meow, baa-baa, etc. loudly to speak with each other in different places. During this experiment we felt embarrassed because we looked silly and people were staring at us probably thinking we were crazy or a couple of pranksters. We felt even more embarrassed because this is a place we frequently visit and there are a few people we know within the place. We were victims of the Panopticon, wherein we feel like everyone is looking at us and we should not be acting in this disgraceful way because other people may judge us for doing this crazy things.

After this failed experiment, we did a sniffing experiment wherein we went up to random people and told them they smelled good. This was even more difficult for us, because in addition to acting stupid, people may look at you and label you as a slut or “malandi” by using the sniffing to “hit on” other people. It was also embarrassing talking to strangers you did not know because it was like you are coming on too strong, and it violates a central but usually unnoticed norm – you don’t speak to anyone unless you have been introduced by a common acquaintance which may seem so rustic and Medieval, as if we still lived in the times of Mr. Darcy, but it is a norm that governs us all today. We don’t like to be labeled as “FC’s” which stands for “Feeling Close” so we avoid making any unbecoming actions towards people we don’t know. This is such a severe norm that we feel awkward riding in elevators with strangers!

Finally, our last failed experiment is a dance off in a public space. This runs on the same principles as the first two experiments which revolves around the Labeling Theory. We do not want to be deemed deviants by people, we do not want to be viewed as silly or crazy, as one usually is when one violates a folkway, however the people still ignored us, but their “no reaction” is a reaction in itself which showed us that even the people around us are afraid of being labeled as deviants and though they may be curious enough to stare at us when we perform the experiments they have no blatant reactions, choosing to look away and refuse to look at us because they are conforming to the norm that people should mind their own business and not be nosy.

The Penny Lane Experiment basically runs on the same theme, we are embarrassed to do it because we are afraid of what people will label us if we do this particular act. In addition, there’s also a value system running within all of us, that we should be kind and gracious to our servers. All of us felt guilt, which is a very strong social control against any deviances. We are socialized to be kind to the people who serve us and here we are making their work even more difficult by asking them to count a mountain of 25-centavo coins. Being a deviant is the hardest because of this guilt that has been socialized into all of us at a very early age. We are controlled by society by this guilt in order to make sure we conform to the  rules of society and instead we end up breaking them, we end up not feeling good about the whole ordeal.

In addition to the guilt, embarrassment also plays a role because we are technically doing a very silly thing. Who would pay a bill with all 25-centavo coins? People would label us as stupid people as there are so many alternative ways to deal with the coins, like having a bank change them instead of paying with them directly.

We were embarrassed as well because we caused an inconvenience to other people. Being an inconvenience creates a debt of sorts between the inconvenience and the one inconvenienced. Filipinos hate it when they feel like they owe someone, especially is the debt is not material but is abstract or what we call “utang na loob”. This is an overwhelming concept in the Philippines, which is evident in all aspects of society. This means that you have to compensate for the inconvenience you have caused. All of us left tips at the fast food chain and the restaurant from sheer guilt and embarrassment caused by our great inconvenience.

Pity also made it difficult for us to perform the deviant act. This particular Filipino value of being a community instead of being individualistic, of being socialized to avoid selfishness and always consider others makes it difficult for us to be deliberately rude and break the gracious customer norm and our role as a customer in the server-customer dramaturgy. We sympathize with the cashier who has to cater to us because we would not want to be treated the same way, not because we are good people but because we are socialized to act this way. To violate this socialization that has been so much a part of our presentation of self that we hardly even notice that all our actions and decisions are influenced by this socialization is difficult. To go directly against our beliefs that had been the norm we got used to made being deviant even more difficult.

6. From Penny Lane: Insights on Deviance in General

            The experiment gave us new insights on two sides of the same penny, social control and conformity and deviance. In the Filipino society, the same deviant act can be received in differing ways based on various external factors predominantly gender, social class and conformity to a larger, more important norm that is present in society, which is why the response to a deviant act varies as well. This shows the Labeling Theory at play. An act or a person becomes a deviant only when people label them as such. If one performs what is considered a deviant act, i.e. they break a norm, however, he or she is not viewed as deviant then one will not be considered a deviant.

            In our experiment for instance when customers were courteous, maintaining the norm in their role as a customer, the server maintained his or her role as well. Though the deviant act of paying with 25-centavo coins was done, the gracious customers, to some degree were viewed as less deviant than the uncouth customers. As such the same deviant act is done but one conformed to the greater norm: acting graciously and the other did not. As such the courteous customers were perceived as positive deviants, i.e. their deviance is accepted with approval whereas the uncouth customers were negative deviants, i.e their deviance is accepted with scorn.

            On a larger scale, this particular difference in labeling a deviant act is observed commonly in politics. When Corazon Aquino lead a revolution against Ferdinand Marcos, she was committing a deviance, going against the norm that people should support their President, however, since Aquino upheld the Philippine value of freedom that is ingrained in the society due to the many years under colonial reign, lead the people to support her deviance for the sake of freedom. We do not even think of Aquino’s People Power Revolution as a deviance! The revolt of the armed people’s group such as the NPA or MILF and MNLF on the other hand are greatly viewed as deviances since in threatens the greater value of freedom.

            In addition, all of us are perpetually governed by social controls, even if we are not aware of it. Most often, more than fear of the law or sanction, we ourselves become our greatest social control due to guilt and embarrassment. We constantly live in a Panopticon, we believe that all eyes are on us, that we are constantly being watched and so we play a role in the dramaturgy of life. We dislike the notion of being viewed as deviant, we are embarrassed to be labeled as certain derogatory remarks that have been socialized in us to be viewed as bad. We hate being called fat, dark-skinned or dumb. When we hate someone we call them squatter, disgusting, bacteria, vile, etc. We have been socialized to avoid doing things that will cause us to be labeled as such. These things are not natural. In the days of Marilyn Monroe, fat was voluptuous. Dark skinned in western countries is either a tan or olive skin that glistens in the sun. Others may consider people we label as “dumb” smart. It all depends on how we label people and traits, and based on how we label others, we impose restrictions on ourselves to avoid being on the receiving end of the labels. We always conform to the norm, be it in the simplest things such as fashion – no one dare wear bell-bottom jeans and have hairstyles like a mullet or an afro that was quite fashionable in the 80’s in this generation. We do not notice this, but what we like is usually what society dictates that we like. In the same way it follows that what we do is what society asks us to do. Being gracious as a customer, being an obedient daughter, listening to the professor in class, etc. Deviating from this norms is difficult not just because we fear the sanctions that come with the deviances but because we fear the labels other people might put on us and so we restrict ourselves to ensure that we present ourselves in the way we want to be seen. We want to play our dramaturgical roles perfectly, that deviating from the script that has been ingrained in us through our socialization causes anxiety and guilt. Guilt in this sense is not moral, it’s not because you are doing a bad thing. You are guilty because now other people may judge you for your actions and you can be labeled as something you really detest.

            There is however, a certain exhilaration that comes whenever one commits a deviant act. Imagine cutting a class when you know your professor does not count attendances and you can easily catch up with that lesson and it would not impact your grade in anyway. Without the consequences of social controls, deviances would be rampant and we would be thrown into a state of chaos. If there is nothing to fear, no society to limit us in our freedom, chaos would reign and then we would not be truly free.

            Society exists to keep this exhilaration at bay. It was embarrassing to pay with coins sure, but it was also fun. It was like knowing an inside joke and laughing at the sheer reactions of the people around you, especially since at the end of the experiment, we made it absolutely clear that we did this for the sake of knowledge so no harm to our prides or our roles as students of the Ateneo was harmed in anyway.

            In the end it was quite enlightening to be a deviant for the day, to see what it was like to not conform all the time and to understand the importance of the restrictions society imposes on us for our own freedom, limited though it may be. It is society in the end that makes us human, deviants or not.