SA 21 G - Walking Backward

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ATyuSIL3nw&feature=youtu.be

SA 21 G Breaching Experiment

Aquino, Dela Torre, Li

1) What norm did you violate?

The norm violated in our breaching experiment is walking forward. Typically, a person would walk forward so as to see people or objects that would block his path. It is very peculiar to walk backwards, because it shows a complete disregard for bumping into people. More importantly, it is dangerous not just to the people who may bump into the person walking backwards, but to the person himself.

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

The experiment was conducted at the overpasses along Katipunan (i.e. near Gate 2 and Gate 3.5), and other public spaces such as McDonald’s Katipunan, Jollibee Katipunan, and Regis Center. A member of the group was tasked to walk backwards while people passed by. The other members of the group took note of the people’s reactions by discreetly (i.e. from the side) taking a video of the event for documentation.

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 re-affirm/ reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

• Gate 2 Overpass
• The reactions of the people at Gate 2 were varied. While adults (those who looked like they were around 30 years old and above) didn’t seem to care. They were also busy minding their own business or just looking straight ahead. The younger patrons looked more confused. One girl even tapped the person performing the experiment as if to say, “what are you doing?”. There was also a group of girls who were observed to be whispering and laughing, while looking at our group mate.
• Jollibee Katipunan
• At Jollibee, since our group mate was entering through the door backwards, people showed more shock since it was strikingly more dangerous than just walking along a path. There was a girl about to go out from Jollibee when our group mate went in. She almost got bumped, had she not moved backward also to accommodate his entrance. She also looked confused and annoyed. A similar reaction was observed in the woman wearing pink who was going inside Jollibee.
• McDonald’s Katipunan
• The people in McDonald’s didn’t seem to care except for two particular incidents. There was this couple, who looked back and cursed at our group mate, and a lady who condescendingly said, “tumingin ka naman, kuya”.
• Regis Center
• A group of college girls looked weirded out by our group mate. Our group mate also  bumped into a girl, who looked appalled but later on just laughed it off with her group of friends. There was one girl in the group who also copied our group mate’s action, as a way of mockery.
• Gate 3.5
• Perplexed reactions were observed from the patrons at Gate 3.5. Some construction workers and students gave puzzled glances at our group mate, but it was only a short glance. Ateneans who seemed to recognize our group mate and our experiment (since they were aware that this violation of a norm was probably being done as an experiment for SA21), pretended to be “innocent bystanders” and reacted in a humorous way by making a funny face at our group mate.
• 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?
• The reactions were probably caused by the fact that a norm was being violated. People are not used to seeing deviances in behavior. The society seems to have an affinity for order, as well as as actions that reflect its culture (including beliefs and values). Walking forward, for instance, may be reflective of one’s value for safety as well as respect (not bumping into people). The deviant act re-affirmed this norm based on their reactions.

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 institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc.). [You could design the experiment based on these sociological themes. For example, you could compare reactions according to gender, social class, etc. That would more interesting--and might obtain a better grade! :)]

Sociological themes:

Social class

• People knew we were students because of what we wearing, and the our whole appearance. Students who saw the odd behavior would have automatically thought that we are also students who are filming for a certain class, or doing an SA project.On the other hand, a beggar or a squatter who would walk can be mistakenly judged as intoxicated or high on drugs. Therefore, due to the difference in social class, the degree of suspicion from bystanders were different.

Values

• The lady who was bumped by our groupmate, and condescendingly reacted may have felt that he was being rude especially since our proponent did not even say sorry. She may have thought that our groupmate didn’t have manners and was not educated properly by his parents.

Experiments:

Social Class

• The group could go to a place far from katipunan where students would not normally be present. At the same time we could dress him up with ragged clothes and make his whole body look dirty before he walks backwards. This would definitely raise more perplex and various reactions from the people in the area because it would not be a normal sight to see a dirty man facing the opposite direction, walking like he didn’t care.

Values and beliefs

We could add three more scenarios to the original experiment that could possibly produce different reactions from the people.

• Our proponent could walk backwards while holding hands on a prayer position. This would automatically change the way people could perceive the experiment because of that one symbolism alone. They could actually be less weirded out but more understanding if that were the case.

• He could also run backwards and at the same time shout excuse me while running. Although a bit dangerous, it would be interesting to see the different reactions that onlookers would generate. The mixture of politeness to actually say excuse me and the back peddling of the student can show both values and deviance from the norm.

• Lastly, a larger group such as 5 can all walk together backwards, while other groupmates who are spread out in the area would act as bystanders. When the group starts to walk, the other groupmates would also initiate walking backward towards the group. The group would let their actions be noticed and approach unknowing civilians to see whether or not they would follow. Similar to a flashmob, bystanders may also come and join because the presence of a group would make it feel like they are not violating a norm.

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?

During the experiment, we felt a bit self-conscious violating a norm. It felt out of place to do something deviant. We were hesitant to do the activity at the start, feeling embarrassed that people might judge us and think we were weird.

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

We also observed the differences in the reactions based on age group and gender. Whereas the younger patrons reacted in a more perplexed way, the older patrons didn’t even seem to care. This might be because younger people are more used to seeing people conform, as they themselves feel pressured to do so. When people get older, they are less scared to deviate from the norms. In terms of gender, when our group mate was entering the doors backwards, the males had a bolder, more violent reaction (i.e. cursing) whereas the females displayed a more shocked, held back reaction (i.e. stepping aside to let our group mate in). Another factor we observed was whether the patrons were alone or in groups. Bolder reactions were observed when the patrons were in groups (i.e. longer stares, laughing, mockery).

Eyebrow On Fleek

Proposal

1) What is the norm that you intend to deviate from?

The norm we deviated from are the standards of appearance in today’s society. Well-groomed eyebrows is something that is very popular for today’s generation. So we intend to deviate from that norm by doing this unibrow experiment.

2) What is the breaching activity that you will do? How do you propose to go about it? Describe in detail.

We will draw a unibrow on the deviant using makeup. Then he will walk around populated places and observe the reactions of those around him, according to gender. The researchers would position themselves at selected vantage points in the area in order to get good views of people who would react to the deviant. For example, the balcony or the bottom of an escalator. We will have the deviant go in populated places such as escalator areas, and the corridors where people could be seen walking along or window-shopping, or in the shops themselves. Then, we secretly record the reactions of the people (both males and females) as they pass by the deviant.

3) Where do you propose to conduct this activity? Why do you intend to do it in this area? Better outside ateneo and in areas where you won’t violate laws.

We will test areas in UP Town Center for the breaching experiment. It is a busy public place and will allow us to find larger crowds of people from both genders, in different age groups, status, and occupations. By having a variety of respondents we will be able to determine which group had the strongest reaction to this deviation. Also, UP Town Center is quite large which allows us to easily film from many different angles.

4) What are the expected reactions that you will obtain from people?

Our expected reactions are for people to stare and whisper to whoever they are with. They may turn around and do a double take when they see the test subject walk by. The younger participants may laugh because they are usually the ones who are more concerned over appearance and tend to ridicule those who look “different.”

5) Will you document this activity? If yes, what materials will you be using? Record or take picture/video.

We will record using our phones by taking pictures and videos.

Report

1) What norm did you violate?

Conventional aesthetics in our society today shape the physical appearance one needs to have in order to at least not be singled out. In the breaching experiment, the norm that the researchers violated was that of aesthetics or standards of appearance. Specifically, one of the researchers, who will be entitled the ‘deviant’ throughout this report, drew on a unibrow and walked around in a public area, and we observed people’s reactions, depending on their gender.

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

Different areas of UP Town Center acted as the “testing grounds” for the breaching experiment. Generally, the rest of the researchers would position themselves at selected vantage points in the area in order to get good views of people who would react to the deviant. The particular areas in the mall wherein the researchers commenced the experiment involved the escalator areas, and the corridors where people could be seen walking along or window-shopping, or in the shops themselves. In short, populated places. Reactions were noted as according to gender.

In the escalator areas, the researchers positioned themselves behind the deviant going up/down the escalator, and at the balcony to get different angles. They then secretly recorded the reactions of the people as they passed by the deviant. Along the corridors, the researchers positioned themselves again a little distance behind the deviant as he was walking, and, when applicable, at the balcony above that certain corridor and recorded reactions. In the shops, the deviant pretended to be looking for something in the store and asked the salespeople. It was harder to monitor reactions in the shops because of the smaller space, and almost every action, video-taping included, was seen by the salespeople, so the researchers focused less on these areas.

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 re-affirm or reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?

We observed that most people reacted “negatively” when they saw the unibrow that we put on one of our members. As very few people ignored the deviant, some tried not to look or stare when they saw him. However, some could not help but make a double take and look if they saw the right thing. Some openly stared and laughed in front of him. This is what we mean by a “negative reaction,” in that people reacted to the deviant as a subject of ridicule, because something as trivial as the shape of his eyebrows were found to be unusual. Another common reaction we found was initial shock but trying to seem like they saw something normal. Most of the sales ladies and salesmen tried to keep a straight face while talking to him. We also positioned ourselves strategically by walking behind the deviant. We observed that most people would react when he has already passed them. They would laugh or point at their friend to look at him.

These people reacted this way because it is very uncommon nowadays to have a unibrow. A lot, especially those from the upper class, are particularly careful about how they look like, to the extent of the shape of their eyebrows. Therefore, by deviating from the norm of having normal-shaped eyebrows, people consider this funny or weird.

This deviant act reaffirmed the norm pertaining to that of standard physical appearance because most respondents “negatively” reacted and did not immediately accept how the deviant looked like. It shows how there is still a socially acceptable physical appearance that almost everyone follows.

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

We were careful to note people’s reactions based on their gender. Although both male and female reacted negatively, it was the females who stared more and openly reacted to it. Most of the females looked for longer periods of time, from both the younger and older groups, and sometimes have confused looks on their faces. They immediately react after staring by either incredulously talking about it to their friend or outright laughing with them.

The males, on the other hand, laughed more than stared, but this was observed more from the younger groups (around 18 to late 20’s), especially when they were with their friends. There seemed to be those who did not laugh however, and simply stared. These seemed to be more in control in keeping a straight face. This is especially true for the older males (middle aged to seniors, especially those with kids), who also stared, but did not really give the deviant a second glance.

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?

This particular breaching experiment was very interesting for various reasons. As the deviant, I was hesitant at first to be the one with the unibrow drawn on, because the place of the actual experiment was in UP Town Center, which is usually where people I know hang out. Aside from that, more than being hesitant, I was more curious and excited to see how mall-goers would react to seeing a person with a unibrow.

As for the results of the experiment, I found it to be really amusing. It’s not everyday one sees a person who is extremely beyond the norms of beauty or aesthetic. In all honesty, I felt like a celebrity with my unibrow on. I felt as if once a person was able to see my face, he or she would try their best to catch a second glance and if not, explicitly stare. Furthermore, I felt as if I were the topic of their conversations as I tried to really observe how people would react. Some of them even try their hardest not to laugh, and this was apparent when we visited different stores. Walking through the busy parts of the mall, it was quite an experience to see people of different ages, gender, and whatnot react to this unusual sight. It just goes to show that not being conventional or different attracts a lot of attention and to a certain extent, may even cause humiliation.

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

Norms are present in any society and deviance involves behavior that violates those norms. The perceived level of seriousness of the deviance is dependent on the type of norm violated and the social significance of that norm. Deviant behavior is relative within a society. An act may be deviant in this particular society but normal for another.  Deviance is oftentimes stigmatized and negative values or connotations are assigned to the individual(s) engaging in the behavior. Fear of the effects of stigmatization may or may not preclude deviant behavior.

SA21 A - U Lookin' Good, Man

Mia Ahorro | Miguel Kalagayan | Jeff Soterana | Dianne Tapia | Kali Vidanes

VIOLATED NORM

The group violated the norm of makeup as being a women’s product by having men test out makeup at different makeup shops.

THE EXPERIMENT

Three makeup stores in UP Town Center were visited by the group. In each store, a pair of boys from the group would test out makeup and engage the salespeople. Only one type of makeup was requested by the pair in each of the stores they went to. Specifically, they requested for Concealer when they were in Metro Department Store, Lipstick from Watson's, and Mascara from The Face Shop. Meanwhile, one incognito group member observed the reactions of the salesperson during the transaction, and after the transaction, when the pair of boys have left.

The pair of boys who engaged with the salesperson facilitated the exchange in the same general format. Boy 1 would ask the salesperson what selection of makeup they have, depending on what he is looking for (Concealer, Lipstick, or Mascara). He would then request to sample the make-up, and ask boy 2 what his opinion is. They would also ask the salesperson what her opinion is, and would proceed to end the transaction saying that they will browse through other shops.

THE EXPERIMENT: REACTIONS

Metro Department Store

The saleslady of Metro Department Store who attended to Kali and Miguel assisted them comfortably. She did not have a judgmental look on her face as the group would have expected, nor was she questioning why the boys were requesting for concealer. When Miguel was struggling to place concealer on his jaw, she gladly took over and applied the concelaer to him herself. After Kali and Miguel have left, Jeff proceeded to interview the saleslady in a discreet manner, asking her what the exchange was about. The saleslady explained that she had thought Kali and Miguel were stage performers looking to buy make-up, which would probably explain why she had thought the transaction was completely normal.

Watsons

Kali and Jeff went to Watsons and attempted to try out Lipstick. Jeff and Kali, pretending to be cousins, had Jeff try out lipstick (which was Jeff’s supposed lifelong dream), and they ended up asking for help from a clerk. The clerk was very kind and open in assisting the both of them, although holding back giggles, was able to assist Jeff in picking out a lipstick that she thought would match his skin color. While she went to the backroom to fetch another tester, our incognito observer saw people staring at Jeff and Kali from afar, most noticeably another clerk just trying to hold back subtle laughter. After the clerk returned, Jeff tried the lipstick on, with the clerk smiling throughout the ordeal. Kali was asking the clerk if the lip color suited Jeff and she chuckled and agreed. After that, Kali and Jeff politely bid goodbye to the clerk and thanked her for helping Jeff with his lipstick. The two left the shop, while the clerk was smiling.

The Face Shop

Miguel and Jeff went to The Face Shop and browsed through a selection of Mascara. They requested for the cheapest one, and the saleslady gladly obliged. However, she began to have a puzzled look on her face when jeff requested to try out the Mascara. At first she was hesitant, wondering if the boys were really serious. As she applied the make-up on Jeff, she had a poker face on which was a mixed signal between slight anger and indifference. Most probably because she did not think the boys were serious about buying anything, and was just wasting her time. The boys left the store with the salesperson giving a curt nod, and proceeded to go back to the counter.

SOCIOLOGICAL THEMES:

The most apparent theme present in this sociological experiment is gender roles and how make-up is traditionally known to be a women's product. As a result, the group found that in two of the three stores they went two, they were met with odd looks and supressed giggles. In part because of the absurdity behind men trying out make-up, in part because they hinted that they won't be serious about such transactions. However, the reaction of the saleslady in the first store proves to show that the gender stereotype behind make-up isn't all absolute and that it evolves with the changing times. Of the three shops, she was the only one who acted as if the transaction was completely normal. That even among men, looking to conceal blemishes on one's face, at least to her, may completely be part of the norm.

REACTIONS FROM THE GROUP:

The group was mainly okay with doing the experiment. Of course there were reservations about going into a makeup store and trying on makeup for the men, but that is another sociological norm that our experiment has broken even within the group. It was hard for us to put a straight face on and act through the whole ordeal, but seeing the norm being broken, and the clerks’ reactions really was a huge thing for us as we were able to see what it was like to breach and shatter a norm in public.

Breaching Experiment: Pakak and Papak! Eating condiments as is

Asuncion, Gomez, Luna, Ng, Pojol
SA 21- E

What norms did you violate?

The norms violated are the use of mayonnaise as a condiment and the use of utensils in eating sticky and colloidal food.

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

The group obtained a jar of mayonnaise and replaced its contents with plain yogurt to resemble the original content. They entered shops (7/11, BonChon, Coco) with one holding an open jar of mayonnaise. They fell in line to order while eating the “mayonnaise” straight from the jar using their fingers. People looked at them believing they were eating mayonnaise and were somehow grossed out.

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?

• 7/11

-The clerk laughed when Sam tore the sandwich spread sachet open with her mouth and ate it right after it paying.

• BonChon

-A customer used eye contact to signal to his friend, directing her gaze towards the ongoing deviation.

-The cashier clerk took Sam’s order with a straight face she tried to be professional.

-Many were obviously curious or surprised but tried to hide and ignore it; some looked away and went about their business as usual.

• Coco

-One barista dilated her eyes when she saw Rick and Steve finger licking the mayonnaise from the jar

-The other barista chuckled when Rick asked for tissue because his hands still had mayonnaise

-Many of the people in coco got distracted as soon as Rick and Steve entered holding the mayonnaise jar and taking finger dips from it but after a while they returned back to what they were doing

-A student stared at Rick and Steve and tried to look away when they looked at him

-Some seemed grossed out and their faces turned sour

-The girl beside Rick and Steve grew uncomfortable sitting beside them and stood up, took her order and immediately went out of the shop

-No one pointed a finger or directly pointed at us to get our attention, everyone tried to hide their reaction or at least not become so obvious

There were mainly two sets of reactions: discomfort and unfamiliarity, and blase. Many of the audience were curious or surprised as to why we were doing the acts. They were intrigued with what was happening because the act was not commonly done especially in public. Some smiled and smirked, maybe because they were surprised or found it funny or maybe because they know it must be an experiment of some sort--there must be something behind the act or else it would simply be crazy. Others seemed uncomfortable seeing someone eat mayonnaise as is, especially with his finger, and in public. Perhaps they could imagine the taste of the mayonnaise itself and the sour creamy flavor in their mind elicited a “yuck” feeling. They were uncomfortable to the point that they would just look away or isolate themselves far from the commotion. The other general theme of responses was blase or somehow being naive or unimpressed with what was happening, probably because they know that it was just an experiment or they were too busy.

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.)?

Aside from the norms, the themes on Food and Food Sharing, Health and Wellbeing, and Hygiene/Sanitation were violated because of 1) the mere eating of mayonnaise as is 2) using one’s fingers 3) in a public place while 4) sharing it with someone else. Mayonnaise is high in cholesterol so it is not generally recommended to be eaten as snack or pastime food. It is unhygienic to eat with one’s bare hands, dipping the finger into the jar then to the mouth and vice versa. Mayonnaise is also commonly found in the cupboard or table together with other condiments so it should not be eaten and carried anywhere else especially in public places like ice cream. The practice of eating mayonnaise is with a utensil and is used as either sandwich spread or ingredient and not as is. It is also not like chips to be shared and feasted on by friends. It is simply not a finger food.

In this experiment, the function of maturity as values/beliefs of institutions is called into play. This is because it has been thought to be normal for someone to be raised knowing what to eat and how to eat it. Included here is the use of food as a condiment or as a meal on its own. The Filipino concept of “Papak” is a childhood practice wherein children take to eating food as it is; without cooking it or combining it with complementary ingredients (e.g. eating milo or milk powder instead of dissolving it in water as drink, eating raw noodles, eating the viand without rice). Often, this act would be corrected as one ages because food have their norms too.

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?

From the very beginning, the researchers were nervous about performing the experiment. It was embarrassing to perform in public. We, ourselves, were not used to eating mayonnaise as it is, since it is not meant to be eaten as a meal on its own. We couldn’t endure eating the mayo itself, so we replaced the contents with plain yogurt which we could endure better. We had to decide on who would be the actors. After a while when we grew used to it. Then we were more comfortable doing the “act” and observing people’s reactions. Deviating from the norms made us feel ashamed. We were conscious of the judgement of the other patrons that was both a response and a sanction.

Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.

In this experiment, it was noteworthy that no one ever called our attention or apprehended us for our unusual actions. We received odd looks and were potentially judged by others. However, for the most part, our actions were tolerated. The norms we violated were light and were not given substantial sanctions.