1. What norms were violated?
It is expected for people to behave normally and in a way that is non-cultic, in public spaces. People would just walk, stand, and sit quietly in public. There is also the norm of not making animal sounds loudly in public, especially if you are not a child, baby, and/or toddler. In this experiment, the type of norm that was violated is Folkways.
2. Describe the breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity? Where did you do it?
The activity basically was to squat and make animal noises in public. The participants, in groups of 3, first walk together (but with enough distance between each other that it did not make it look like they know each other) towards a crowded place. The person in front would then suddenly squat down and make the sound of an animal of his/her choosing. The other two would follow his/her lead. They then form a circle while squatting down and making animal sounds and swaying side by side. After 5 seconds of doing this, one of them cues them to stop, and they all stand up and walk away like nothing happened. The experiment was done outside the Katipunan LRT Station, and U.P. Town Center.
3. What were the different reactions of 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?
[Documentation]
Upper class
The first time the experiment took place in U.P. Town Center, onlookers merely glanced at us without a change in expression as we squatted down and made loud animal noises. The second time the experiment was conducted, it garnered a slightly different response: while people mostly just glanced at us like earlier, there were a few others who made confused faces and looked around, repeatedly staring until the experiment was over and we all parted ways.
Lower class
The reaction given to the two groups of 3 who did the experiment were the same. In both instances, passersby merely looked at us. While a couple made brief faces of confusion, most just hurried past us. This could be due to the fact that most people headed for the LRT were rushing, in contrast with the people in U.P. Town Center, where they were lax and not pressed for time.
We were not granted permission to conduct the experiment inside the LRT station. We first wanted to conduct the experiment inside the LRT station so as to have access to a greater amount of people, since we were gonna be documenting it, we first asked permission from the guards. The guards redirected us to the officer inside the ticketing booth who obviously was very hesitant when told about what we were going to do. He politely declined us as he said that what we’re planning to do might affect/offend other passengers which in turn, would put their station in a bad light. This reaction can be attributed to the perceived negative connotation of breaking norms. The officer did not allow us, as he was scared of the possible repercussions that it might have to their image.
We also had to repeat the experiment a few times. People were either too busy to pay attention to the spectacle we were creating before them or were desensitized and not bothered at all by the fact that we were breaching norms right in front of them.
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 & the poor), values/ beliefs of the institutions (religions, family, peer group, etc.) [You could compare reactions according to gender, social class, etc. That would be more interesting]
Sociological themes at play that of different social classes. As mentioned earlier, more people were able to react to our experiment when we were in UPtown Center likely due to the fact that nobody seemed to be pressed for time. Those headed for the LRT and commuters passing by were busier than the relaxed mall-goers of UPtown Center and therefore did not have the time to spare to stop and have a proper look at what was going on.
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?
Before doing the experiment, some of us in the group actually felt anxious. We were also very cautious as to what to do in the experiment because we had so many ‘what ifs’ in our discussions, or others might get angry at us. This can actually be traced back to the idea of self-control and internalization, wherein we, though trying to deviate from the norms, still try to conform to it. There is also the idea of informal control in which we are concerned of what others think of us. Social control is present, because we are afraid of the other forms of negative sanctions that might occur like being shamed. Despite, the other members in the group were willing to do the breaching experiment, and found it exciting. Swaying away from the norms can affect a person’s self-concept of his or her self.
We felt embarrassed and little frustrated after conducting the experiment. It was the idea of secondary deviance that brought us embarrassment, because we were publicly breaching norms and allowing ourselves to be judged by onlookers. The frustration came from the fact that despite everything, it seemed like the reactions we received were not enough; like we embarrassed ourselves for nothing. It was only later on, when we reviewed people’s reactions to our breaching of the folkway norms, that we felt better about it.
6. Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.
We felt embarrassed and little frustrated after conducting the experiment. It was the idea of secondary deviance that brought us embarrassment, because we were publicly breaching norms and allowing ourselves to be judged by onlookers. The frustration came from the fact that despite everything, it seemed like the reactions we received were not enough; like we embarrassed ourselves for nothing. It was only later on, when we reviewed people’s reactions to our breaching of the folkway norms, that we felt better about it.
6. Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.
· frontstage vs. backstage self - Though our frontstage selves made us seem like we were crazy, our backstage selves were completely sane because we knew our only intent was to experiment.
· sanctions - While conducting the experiment, one cannot help but feel anxious about the sanctions that one’s actions might bring about, whether it’s reprimanding from the local authorities or being judged by passersby
· reinforcements - when the guard didn’t allow us to conduct the experiment because he didn’t have the authority to grant us permission (he needed the approval of his superior)
No comments:
Post a Comment