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).