Dela Cruz, Reyes, Roque Deviance: Breaching Experiment
SA21-P
Introduction
Introduction
Norms define how to behave in society . It defines certain behaviors, beliefs, and conduct as good, right, and essential which makes most members of the society conform to them. Based on Wes Sharrock’s book Understanding Modern Sociology, no individual or action is inherently deviant. What makes it as such is based on its social response or so called “societal reaction". The characteristics of the deviants is not what makes it as such but deviance is relational to norms (Macionis). Most sociologists find that deviant labels are done through everyday social life by creation of expectation in people’s minds.
Norms can be formal or informal. Informal norms are those casual behaviors (unwritten) and are widely accepted. Most of it is learned at a young age through direct instruction, imitation, observation, socialization and reinforced through sanctions (Reading: Social Norms). One specific example of such norm is maintaining proper distance with others, especially with strangers. Personal space is an expected behavior and unwritten rule society teaches its members to conform to. The inability to do such norm merits a negative sanction in order to control the behavior of people. Controlling this practice are done in several ways.
In this breaching experiment, the group tried to deviate from the norm of personal space to observe and compare the different reactions of people in a specific location. It aims to show how importance of conformity in norms and the sanctions it follows when one violates it. The experiment is to pass in between a pair or group of people while saying “excuse me”. The violators tried out several scenarios like pretending to be in a rush and walking while talking. The goal is for the couple or group to separate and give space for the violator while they were either talking, walking together, and/or holding hands. This was done in UPTC Katipunan on April 29 from 1pm-5pm. The reason for such location is the population density which was affected by several external factors. The mall was relatively dense because of: 1) the showing of a very popular film (Avengers: Endgame), 2) it was peak hour for several people, and 3) it was strategically placed between universities, companies, and entertainment establishments.
Breaching Experiment Observations
What are the expected reactions that you will obtain from people?
Based on the initial discussion, the group expected the same reaction from people, regardless of social context and location, to look back at the deviants with a confused reaction. The reaction ranges from confusion, bewilderment, to annoyance. However, based on the experiment proper, the group garnered different reactions from different categories of people.
HIGHLIGHTED REACTIONS
Female
|
Male
| |
Young (3-16)
-With family
Located at entertainment establishments with family or friend (playing)
|
No reaction
Thought the deviants approached them to ask a question; interpreted “excuse me” as a beginning of a question
|
No reaction
|
Young Adult (17-24)
-With romantic interest
Located at entertainment establishments with girlfriend/boyfriend (playing with phone or hanging out in the cinema)
|
Did not want to separate from the person she was with
|
Did not want to let go of the hand of the person he was with; did not let the deviants pass in between them
|
Adult (25-40)
Working Adult
-With Colleagues
Busy with conversing with colleagues and friends
Parent/s
-with children
Held hands and/or looked after child/children
|
Gave way automatically while they continued conversing
Looked back at the deviants with a confused/bewildered expression
|
Gave way automatically while they continued conversing
Looked back at the deviants with a confused/bewildered expression
|
Late Adult (41 onwards)
-With romantic interest
Located at entertainment and food establishments with husband/wife (playing with phone, hanging out in the cinema, lining up)
|
Looked back at the deviants with a confused/bewildered expression
|
Looked back at the deviants
|
Member
|
Tasks Assigned
|
Tasks Accomplished
|
Other comments
|
1 Dela Cruz, Alecx
|
Breaching Experiment, Video editing
|
Breaching Experiment, Video editing
| |
2 Reyes, Wiona
|
Breaching Experiment, Paper
|
Breaching Experiment, Paper
| |
3 Roque, Sofia
|
Breaching Experiment, Paper
|
Breaching Experiment, Paper
|
Why do you think they reacted this way?
There are many possible reasons as to why people from different age groups had different reactions. The young people, particularly the children, may not yet have a full understanding of the social norms of their environment; norms may not have been fully instilled on them yet. On the other hand, the working adults, who gave way, may have reacted as such because of their preoccupation towards their company. The group also believes that such reactions occurred because of the location. Because walkways are generally more crowded than open areas, it is possible people may find it socially acceptable to give way to other people. This can be seen by comparing two locations, both in UPTC Katipunan, that the group observed at: walkway towards the mall versus cinema area. Lastly, another possible reason for those who reacted is that these people may not have been used to seeing people deviate from the norm regarding personal space.
Analysis and Application of Concepts
What caused these reactions? Did the deviant re-affirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?
Personal space norms are adaptive which society strengthens by conforming to it and sanctioning violators. One reason why people from the same social context and location mostly had similar reactions may be due to the influence of their peers. Theories in sociology is open to this possibility. In the Differential Association Theory by Edward Sutherland, he states that the tendency of a person “towards conformity or deviance depends on the amount of contact with others who encourage or reject conventional behavior” (248). The age groups with the strongest reactions, may not have been used to seeing people deviate from the norm because they have been surrounded by peers who conform to the norm. Excluding the children, who may not yet have a grasp of norms, the age groups who had little to no reaction, may be surrounded with peers who both follow and do not follow the norm. They may also be surrounded by peers who do not outright condemn deviation from certain norms. As a result, they may not have reacted that much because they might have already experienced people deviating from that norm or they thought deviating from that norm is not a big deal.
“Norms define how to behave in accordance with what a society has defined as good, right, and important, and most members of the society adhere to them” (Reading: Social Norms). One reason why a lot of people reacted is because the norm of maintaining proper distance from a person exists. For a lot of people, maintaining proper distance for one another is seen as something part of moral conduct and social etiquette. The group deviated from that norm, an action that a number of people may not have been accustomed to. As a result, there were people who looked at the deviants with a confused or a bewildered expression. In addition, there was a pair that did not let the deviants pass in between them, which might be because they assumed that the deviants would not do so.
The act of maintaining proper distance from a person and not violating their personal space can be considered an informal norm, “casual behaviors that are generally and widely conformed to” (Reading: Social Norms). Informal norms are learned through imitation, socialization and observation learned and instilled from an early age. Agents of such norms come from different groups like family, friends, etc. Other norms in this category are taught directly. Because of this, informal norms extend beyond personal relationships. And since informal norms extend to other social relationships, “most people don’t commit even benign breaches of informal norms. Informal norms dictate appropriate behaviors without the need of written rules” (Reading: Social Norms). Since the act of maintaining a proper distance from a person is considered as an informal norm, it is likely that adherence to this norm has spread throughout various social relationships across different social context and location.
Through the act of deviating from the norm in this experiment, we were able to see if the norm indeed exists and if people still conform to it. If this act is analyzed from the perspective of Structural Functionalism, we can apply the basic insight of Emile Durkheim on the functions deviance. Durkheim states that one of the purposes of deviance is to affirm the existence of cultural values and norms (Macionis 243). It helps define social norms in order to create stability and solidarity in society.
In this experiment, the deviants were able to affirm and reinforce the existence of the norm by deviating from it. The fact that the deviants were able to garner several reactions during the experiment shows that the norm exists and is expected to be followed. And violation of such norm results to a negative sanction, a punishment for breaching the norms. Based on the group’s observations, the sanction for violating the norm were informal. The use of sungit and simangot were common to show disapproval of such deviance. This is the unconscious way of society to control your behavior and attempting to make you correct it by conforming to the norm.
Aside from the norms, what SA themes are at play for people the 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.).
From the way the people reacted during the experiment as well as the differences in their reaction, the group was able to see how the lifeworld of a person may have influenced aspects of their life chances, such as behavior. Factors of social location such as age and age group have an effect on how the person might behave or react to a certain situation. There is a function of age and age group that is present with regard to the responses on the deviant act of the group. People from the same age group behaved and responded in a similar manner during the experiment.
Conclusion
In this breaching experiment, most people responded through discomfort showing how much society depends on this norm. By violating this unwritten rule, people are pressured to react as a way of social control, whether done consciously or unconsciously.
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 felt ready to do the experiment at first. However, as we approached our first pair, the members got too nervous to the point where we could no longer bring ourselves to continue with the experiment. Even after a few successful trials, there were still times wherein the members would get too nervous to approach the people.
The members being nervous can be explained by the effect of social controls, particularly self-control and informal control. From the class lecture on deviance, members learned that self-control involves internalization, when individuals accept the norms and values and make conformity to these norms part of their self-concept. There was a big temptation to conform to the norm. As part of society conditioned to conform and reinforce the norm, the group have internalized to itself the norm of not passing in between a group or a pair of people. Instead, the socially acceptable implication is for a person to avoid others and keeping a “safe distance” from them by either choosing to walk to the other side or waiting for their turn to pass. The group was also concerned that the other people would find the behavior awkward. This is an example of self-control, which involves the exercise of self-restraint because of what others might think making the deviant feel shame and guilt (Macionis 240). On the other hand, a more explicit sanction under the informal control would be gossiping, simangot, and sungit.
After a while, the members no longer felt nervous and overly conscious. The group was eager to see what the reactions of the people were upon passing in between them. More importantly, the members encouraged each other to perform this deviance (deterrence theory). After deviating from the norm at the end of the entire experiment, the group somewhat felt relieved since we were finished with the experiment and that we may not need to do the experiment again.
The group was hesitant to do the activity at first because of how the people would react. Again, this is the effect of informal controls. In addition, the members also hesitant because we were shy to approach people whom we did not know.
Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general.
Using the Structural Functionalist perspective, the group also reflected on other possible points of interest this norm of personal space may imply. The assumption of this perspective is that norms help control social behavior for society to work together and create stability through solidarity. First, not having personal space increases risk of illnesses being passed on easily. Second, uniformity would be harder to achieve because of colliding between people (this may possibly be also why people are becoming more aware of escalator etiquette). It is an attempt to control social behavior and have a shared rule of conduct among everyone. Meanwhile, looking at the other side, if notion of personal space is unaccommodating, human touch would never be satisfied and people cannot fit in small spaces like elevators, public transportation, etc.
Conclusion
To summarize, the group violated the norm of personal space by passing in between a pair of people or a group of people. The results showed that people from the older age groups generally reacted more compared to those in the younger age groups. Common reactions include looking at the deviant with a confused or bewildered expression as well as making eye-contact with the persons whom the people were with. The group also observe that it is more socially acceptable to invade personal space in a populated environment since people tend to give way automatically.
The group realized the extent of how social control affects their actions. A lot of times, the members of the groups were too nervous to do the experiment. This was because they have already internalized the social norm that we are expected to conform to. This realization made the group become more mindful of how social control has affected the way they respond or choose to react to other situations as well.
Sources
Macionis, John J. “Deviance.” Sociology, 16th ed., Pearson - Prentice Hall, 2017. pp. 238 - 268.
“Reading: Social Norms.” Lumen: Introduction to Sociology, https://courses.lumenlearning. com/atd- bhcc- introsoc/ chapter/social-norms/. Accessed 1 May, 2019.
Sharrock, Wes W., et al. Understanding Modern Sociology. Sage, 2003.
Group Task Report
Member
|
Tasks Assigned
|
Tasks Accomplished
|
Other comments
|
1 Dela Cruz, Alecx
|
Breaching Experiment, Video editing
|
Breaching Experiment, Video editing
| |
2 Reyes, Wiona
|
Breaching Experiment, Paper
|
Breaching Experiment, Paper
| |
3 Roque, Sofia
|
Breaching Experiment, Paper
|
Breaching Experiment, Paper
|
No comments:
Post a Comment