Breaching Experiment: Singing at the LRT

De Guzman, Fauni, Gacis, Olaño, Racoma, Serafica

SA 21 - E       

Ms. Emily Roque

Breaching Experiment: Singing at the LRT

1.) What norm did you violate?

The group violated the norm of remaining as silent as possible and of avoiding loud conversation (and thus singing) as a courtesy to the other passengers riding in a public utility vehicle, particularly the LRT train. In general, we breached the standards governing behavior on a public transport system.

2.) Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?

We did the experiment three separate times. The first was when we rode the LRT from Katipunan to Cubao. Upon entering the train, we sat/stood away from each other. At one point, one of us started to sing “A Thousand Miles,” and the cue was followed by everyone else. The second time we did the experiment was at the LRT train station of Cubao. At first, we were far away from each other, and then one of us gave the cue by screaming, “Wildcats!” After that, we started singing “We’re All in this Together.” When everyone else followed, we moved towards each other and stayed in a circle. However, we were just at the start of the song when the security guard started whistling at us and asking us to stop. The third time was when we were on our way back to Katipunan using the LRT, as well. A procedure similar to the first one was followed. This time, we were able to sing until we got off the train.  

3.) 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 reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

“A Thousand Miles” inside the LRT train

• people stared at us from the moment we sang until the moment we got off
• some smiled and laughed
• most did not mind us

“We’re All in this Together” at the LRT station

• people kept glancing when we were “practicing”
• the guard blew his whistle several times when we started to perform

“You Belong with Me” inside the LRT train

• people clapped and cheered
• someone disapproved, yelling “HOY!”

There were three general reactions for the breaching activity: (1) approval, (2) disapproval, and (3) indifference. Very few approved (by means of clapping and cheering) — this reaction was probably triggered as the deviance seemed to be a spectacle as it does not happen on a regular basis. Others, on the other hand, disapproved (by means of blowing a whistle and pagsisita) — there are some norms that are strictly enforced; given that deviance “violates” social norms, specifically in behavior in public places, deviance is deemed to be unacceptable. Most remained indifferent to the experiment and were just mere observers — this may be due to how people do not tend to meddle with others’ business; they do not express what they may be thinking. Given these reactions, the deviant act both does and does not reaffirm existing norms.

4.) 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 & poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.)?

For this deviant act, we noticed that gender did not seem to affect the reactions the people had towards the group. Neither man nor woman displayed any response specific only to their sex. Thus, we see that there are two main sociological dimensions through which the reactions may be analyzed: the culture or beliefs of LRT commuters (an institution in itself) and the social roles of these individuals within this LRT community. Both influence and are influenced by the norms present in these areas.

The convention of public behavior consists of the concepts of personal space, acceptable mannerisms, and appropriate outfits, and the perceptions humans have towards one another in this communal sphere have since adapted to accommodate these rules. Specifics of such standards may differ depending on the area, but there are some that tend to remain the same regardless of the location. Examples include remaining silent, avoiding eye contact with strangers, and maintaining a sense of physical and emotional privacy, even when circumstances make it difficult to do so (ex. dense crowds during rush hours). These concepts were demonstrated by the spectators’ general reactions, as most of them upheld the established type of conduct inside the train and at the station, despite the deviant act being performed. There were the occasional smiles and the turning of heads to denote attention, yet no individual truly abandoned the concepts of conventional public behavior.

Additionally, the social roles these people had or perceived to have as LRT commuters stem from the aforementioned concept, as the components of it dictate how they must carry themselves in the public sphere. Roles that community members may have overlap with those they hold in their daily lives, such as being students, parents, and workers, and these may be evidenced by the existence of uniforms, particular gestures, and possessions (ex. gadgets being used inside the train). However, these aspects of the individuals’ selves are unified by social conventions present within the LRT trains, as they take on new roles as the commuters. Abiding by these standards allows for the preservation of these people’s personal roles in a public sphere and thus also helps them decide on the appropriate responses to this kind of deviant act, which, as demonstrated during our encounters, is to remain quiet.

It was previously mentioned that the clapping and the yelling occurred during our third attempt. Taking into account the above sociological dimensions, such reactions respectively demonstrated the brief rejection of behavioral conventions and the strict, personal reinforcement of them, as if the individual took matters into his/her own hands. As previously explained, applauding as a means of approval indicated that the participants viewed the activity as mere entertainment, and this showed that they were willing to momentarily disregard the standards in order to express their views on the deviant act. Reasons for these could be attributed to the age of the riders (ex. school-aged individuals tend to be more receptive to entertaining acts) or to the social factors present in their lives (ex. media- and entertainment-centric culture of the youth and even some adults), resulting in leniency with regard to their actions. To contrast this is the scream done by another passenger — it portrayed how accustomed an individual was to the norms of public behavior, to the point that he/she was willing to take on the role of the “security guard” in order to uphold the typical attitudes of LRT commuters. This and the forceful, repetitive whistling of the real guard were the firmest or most unyielding reactions the crowd had towards the performances.

5.) 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?

The group’s deviance activity was something that was definitely out of everyone’s comfort zone. The group had mixed emotions towards the activity. At some point, the members felt excited, anxious, scared, and nervous. It was something new for them so they did not know what to expect from the crowd.

At first, during the planning stage, they were expecting that the activity would be embarrassing but they still had some courage to do it. However, as they entered the LRT, their confidence slowly went away as they tried to finally put everything into action. Nonetheless, they were able to execute the activity properly. At the end of everything, the group always tried to run away because of the shame they felt after what they did.

During the whole process, they did not feel anything besides fear, embarrassment, and lack of self confidence. It may be embarrassing and scary to deviate the social norms, but there was this sense of fulfillment of being able to do the things people do not normally do on a daily basis.

6.) Other observations and analyses that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.

The group’s deviance did not elicit many responses from the target audience. The reactions gleaned were very limited and, in some ways, expected. For one, the security guard was quick in calling us out. It was no surprise given that the LRT management takes breaches — be it big or small —  in normal operations very seriously.

Most LRT passengers were too distracted to react to the deviance. Many passengers were just looking, some were sleeping, and others were busy conversing. The lack of responses on their part may be attributed to their attitude of just wanting to get by.

The deviant act in itself was not so shocking but it was clearly challenged by the fact that not too many people reacted. This leads us to question the people’s mindset towards deviant acts. It may be that today’s generation is more open to new things and ideas as compared to the past generation that heavily imposed social norms and rarely challenged traditional thinking.