SA 21 M - C. Baraquel, I. Cua, L. Dimalanta, J. Lapuz, J. Ochosa, B. Palma, V. Tan

Baraquel, Cua, Dimalanta, Lapuz, Ochosa, Palma, Tan

SA 21 M

Ma’am Sarmiento

05/07/19

Breaching Experiment Report - Norm of Gender Relationships

1. What norm did you violate?

Through this breaching experiment, the group violated a commonly held mores norm that affection and relationships must be heterosexual in nature only. It is considered as a mores norm as it touches on moral significance, on if being in a type of relationship that is not heterosexual in nature is considered “right” or “wrong”. According to Pew Research Center, the Philippines is considered one of the most gay-friendly nations in the world (Tubeza, 2013). While this would suggest that anything deviating from heterosexuality would not be considered deviant behaviour, one of the limitations argued by Filipino gay groups is that the study did not ask about what the participants’ preconceived notions were of homosexuality, and about homosexual relationships. The participants were asked only if they accept a gay person alone, but not in a relationship with another gay person (Tubeza, 2013). When taking that into consideration, many Filipinos still feel uncomfortable with the idea of a homosexual couple, whether it be male or female, due to the Catholic Church’s stance towards homosexuality, which the Filipino population is overwhelmingly a part of (World Factbook, 2019) (Vatican Archive, n.d.). Durkheim’s Four Essential Functions of Deviance further validates the idea of homosexual relationships as a deviant act as Macionis (2017) states that deviance affirms cultural values and norms, responding to deviance clarifies moral boundaries, responding to deviance brings people together, and finally, deviance encourages social change.

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

The breaching experiment was designed to test people’s reactions to becoming accessories to homosexual couples’ affection. Their reactions were used to gauge the attitude of these people towards homosexual couples and to identify whether the norm of limiting relationships to heterosexual couples is slowly being broken or not.

The experiment was held at Riverbanks Marikina Mall at 2:00 PM, which gave the group a good mix of students who are on summer vacation, working class people on their breaks, and retired people who want to spend time out of their homes. The mall is also located near major roads in the Marikina area, making it a heavily congested area as a lot of public utility vehicles (PUVs) pass through or drop their passengers off in the mall.

The group consisted of 5 male and 2 female members. The group was split into three pretend couples (one heterosexual couple, one lesbian couple, and one gay couple), while the other two were tasked to record and oversee the process of the breaching experiment. Because of lack of female members, as one was already in the heterosexual couple, a female friend from outside the group was asked to take part in the experiment as one half of the lesbian couple. The tasks of the partners was to pretend they were on a date either at the foodcourt or the arcade (TimeZone). From there, they would approach a random passerby to take their picture as a way of documenting or keeping memories of their date. One of the members of the group not part of the couples had to take videos of the couples doing the experiment in order to record their facial reactions and body language. In order to clarify that the couples asking strangers to take pictures of them were in a relationship, the dialogue implemented in asking for pictures needed to specifically state that they were together (e.g. “Hello! Can you take a picture of me and my boyfriend/girlfriend”) and the pose that they were supposed to do in a picture showed that they were physically comfortable with each other through hugging, linking, or holding hands. The comments and reactions of the strangers to the request of the partners were then recorded for analysis and bridging topics discussed in class. Altogether, ten trials were performed. Two were executed by the heterosexual couple as a means to gather the reception of people towards the norm, and four trials each were performed by the homosexual couples.

In doing the experiment in a public setting, the group was also able to observe the reactions or comments of the people passing by the couple who were taking the pictures; this takes into account the people who witnessed the homosexual or heterosexual affection instead of basing the observations only on the person who took the photo. The group was able to engage the audience to homosexual couples by way of asking them to take pictures of couples.

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?

TRIAL SET	AGE	GENDER	SOCIAL BACKGROUND	REACTION
Male-Female	30-35	Male	Middle to Upper Middle Class	Failed experiment -- The man was on his phone and looked like he was merely out to do some errands. He said he had somewhere to go before going away fast.
Male-Female	20-25	Female	Upper Lower to Lower Middle Class	Successful experiment -- The woman was surprised at first because she was staring in a different direction and had not seen the couple approaching her for the picture. Nonetheless, she agreed and laughed a small and bashful laugh when the two members explained that they were a couple.
Female-Female	40-50	Female	Lower Class to Middle Class	Failed experiment -- The woman gave an irritated expression and an impatient grunt. She walked away very briskly.
Female-Female	20-30	Female	Lower Class to Middle Class	Successful experiment -- The woman looked surprised but willing to carry out the experiment. She had a pleasant look to her face and a welcoming tone to her voice. She was with her daughter who looked excited to see the partners, and her mother smiled as they left to continue walking around the mall.
Female-Female	60-70	Male	Lower to Middle Class	Failed experiment -- The man laughed awkwardly and pointed to the people in-charge of taking the videos to do the task. Seconds later, the group overheard the man’s friend mutter “Tatadjakin ko mga ‘yan! Hindi taga-dito mga yan!” (I’ll kick them! They’re not from here!)
Female-Female	30-40	Male	Middle Middle Class	Successful experiment -- The man was with his wife and son, who were busy playing with the arcade games. When approached, he had a kind demeanor and was very enthusiastic about the experiment. He suggested that the couple do a “wacky” shot as well after taking a normal couple photo.
Male-Male	30-40	Female	Lower Middle to Middle class	Successful experiment -- The woman was willing to take a picture and even offered to take another one. When asked by the actors if the picture was cute she replied with “Cute naman po”.
Male-Male	20-30	Male	Lower Middle to Middle class	Successful experiment -- The man was able to take the picture even though visual discomfort is seen. The man stayed quiet throughout the experiment. The man accompanying him was also shocked and kept quiet.
Male-Male	20 to 30	Female	Middle Class	Successful -  The woman was surprised at first and joked that the experimenters wanted a picture with her and them rather than them alone. She initially showed discomfort, but smiled and took multiple pictures as well as being
Male-Male	30 to 40	Male	Lower to Middle Class	Successful - The man was initially confused at the request, with slight discomfort at the mention of “boyfriend and I.” When taking the picture, the man showed no overt reactions, and when handing the phone back and had smiled when the experimenters had thanked him.

The results of the experiment validated the existence of norms within the spectrum of sexual orientation and relationships. Prior to the experiment, the expectations of the experimenters were that the audience would be more accepting to the heterosexual couple as compared to the homosexual couples.

The reaction towards the heterosexual couple was a lot more welcoming. One person turned down the offer of taking a picture, but he did so because he was busy and didn’t seem to have a problem with the couple. However, the same experience or range of responses could not be said for the homosexual couples. Out of the 4 trials for the lesbian couple, there was a 50% success rate, with 1 man and 1 women being willing to take the picture of the couple, with the same being said for being unwilling to take the picture. The female and female couple received more blatant comments regarding their sexualities. The older people who participated in the experiment were a lot more dubious and hesitant when it came to obliging to the request of the couple. The partners for the female and female relationship also noticed that they would laugh awkwardly or make snide comments about them. In comparison, the male and male couple had a 100% success rate for people taking the pictures, however it was not without some apprehension by the participants. All four requests asked by the male and male couple were received with immediate reactions, with the overt affection such as hugging and hand-holding receiving some slight discomfort and confusion. The experimenters also noticed  that apart from the people taking the photo, passersby would also react to the male and male couple through overt or subtle facial reactions, similar to the participants by looking in disgust or confusion.

Altogether, the heterosexual couple seemed to be something common for the audience while the homosexual couple had mixed responses regarding their relationships. It was unfortunate that the expected outcomes were reaffirmed, showing that the people are not as accepting to the LGBT community yet. There are multiple factors to explain as to why this behavior is still in act among the Filipino society; however, a major factor is contributed to the existence and strength of religion, particularly Catholicism, within the country. (Human Rights Watch, 2017). More than 80% of the country are Catholics (World Factbook, 2019). However, until today, the Catholic church in the country continues to show little to  no support for the LGBT community, highlighting the fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin through Leviticus 18:22 which states that: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev 18:22 King James Version). This then shapes the perception that most Filipinos have on the LGBT community and have then further associated homosexuality as bad and a sin, while heterosexuality is the norm that allows people to further do God’s will.

4. Aside from norms, what SA 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 be more interesting--and might obtain a bettergrade! :)]

This experiment did not warrant a clear cut trend that shows uniform reactions by the respondents based on age, gender, or social class; however, the discrimination towards the LGBT roots back to these factors that may also have influenced not all, but some of the audience in this experiment.

Social Class

Social class is a factor in this breaching experiment because Riverbanks Marikina Mall’s target consumers are those part of the lower income bracket, and as a result, most of the participants were part of this income bracket. It is a common mindset among people of this income bracket to see gay couples as weak, not wanting to achieve more out of life, and generally, an image they would rather not see. A study by Barrett and Pollock (2005) proves that LGBT in the working class are less inclined to be more accepting of their identity because of the lack of resources and attention they could give towards their sexuality. Similarly, it could be said that non-LGBT in the working class do not give much thought to the LGBT community because of the tough living conditions that they are forced into. They simply do not have the time to understand the plight of the LGBT and are thus forced to think based on what is conventionally taught to them in school and in church. On the other hand, members of the upper class who may or may not be part of the LGBT community have more access to media, education, and ideas that allow them to understand the LGBT community outside of what is conventionally taught. They also have more time and luxury to explore their identities, which makes them more accepting of the community and visible to other members of the society.

For example, in the case of the lesbian pair, there were participants from the low to middle classes that viewed them as “butch”, “tomboy” or any other slurs that pertain to being a lesbian. To the general public, they are the same as gay couples, if not worse in their eyes because gay couples are represented in media more, unlike lesbian couples which makes them unfamiliar to the concept of girl to girl relationships. The upper classes, however, might more inclined to have open minds because they are exposed to more media that portray lesbian characters of couples. Although people of the higher social classes are more accepting because of the media available to them, the lower classes have yet to change their negative perceptions into more positive ones.

Nonetheless, it is safe to say that no clear cut trend was made in the experiment because the cleaning lady who happily agreed to take the picture is the outlier in this case, because she treated the gay couple normally.

Gender

The gender of the participants have mostly garnered different results from one another. This was especially evident in the reactions towards the male homosexual couple. In their trials, male individuals tended to have a more negative reaction when the gay couple started holding each other’s hands. They would begin to smile awkwardly or show visible discomfort on their faces. This is due to the “masculinity” that is popular amongst men of the lower classes (Sanchez et al, 2009). This masculinity requires males to act a certain way such as the restriction of showing emotions or wearing bright and colorful clothes. Men who do not uphold this standard are seen as weak or “gay”, even if they are not. Females, on the other hand, tend to reacted more kindly and reasonable to gay couples. The women are usually are willing to perform the experiment and listen to the couple’s requests.  The females usually smile and give very friendly reactions to the couples. They appear to be more open about these matters; perhaps it is because they are not often held to societal standards regarding perceived strength or reputation as much as males are.

Age

The first documented movement for LGBT rights was held on 1924 when Henry Gerber started the society for human rights (CNN Library, 2019). This gives people an idea on how young or recent the movement to cease discrimination against the LGBT is. As such, it is no wonder that the younger the generation is, the more accepting they become to the LGBT community because of more and better chances or portrayals for LGBT visibility.

The experiment was able to show this when those in the 20-30 or 30-40 bracket were shown to have a kinder approach to the homosexual couples asking for pictures as compared to the 60-70 age group that outwardly expressed their distaste for homosexual couples. Not saying that the sense of toleration some showed in the younger age bracket was acceptable as an indication of LGBT acceptance, but it exhibited that younger age brackets were more tolerant as compared to those in older age groups.

Religion

As mentioned above, religion also plays a big role in the reactions to the experiment because the Philippines is a dominantly Catholic country, and it is against the Church’s teachings that two people of the same gender are to engage in romantic relationships. (Human Rights Watch, 2017) These teachings ultimately influences the masses’ perception of same-sex relationships, or may give them the wrong impression on how a same-sex relationship could work. Other sects under Christianity also have many teachings that forbid same-sex relationships, which ultimately adds to the negative reception same-sex couples get on the daily.

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, most of the group were anxious to continue because it meant going out of our comfort zone, especially those who had to portray same-sex couples. When one deviates from the norm, they feel out of place in society and judged by fellow citizens. The location is also another cause for anxiety. Riverbanks was a foreign area to most of the group and no one knew what to expect due to the unfamiliarity. The group was also afraid of randomly lending their phones for pictures, as the phones might be snatched or taken away while they are with the stranger for picture-taking. In terms of executing the experiment, the locations used inside was a food court and an arcade. Asking people felt like intruding inside their personal space to ask for a favor. Aside from this, some of the group felt pressured due to the stigma of same-sex relationships being looked down upon in the Philippines. Rejection anxiety was also felt and dissuaded group members to ask strangers for fear of rejection, as well as to continue asking strangers after repeated failed attempts.

A group member was scared of the worst case scenario: getting arrested for causing a public disturbance. There may not be any guards in the immediate area, but this particular member was reminded repeatedly by his mother that Filipinos have a penchant for being “usiyoso” (not minding their own business). This was a potential hurdle the group would have to face (i.e its actions attracting a sizable civilian audience who would then draw in a security presence) and the group member kept this fear firmly in mind as his group conducted the experiment. Now that the experiment is over, he can safely say that these fears were (in that instance) unfounded.

It was very hard to have people participate in the experiment because many of them were either busy, in a rush, or did not want to be disturbed when we asked them. This minimized the options the group had for the experiment, which resulted in having to take a longer time doing the experiment. This general feeling of apathy on the part of the mall goers, however, ensured that the group was not really bothered by law enforcement for the duration of the experiment. It was both a blessing and a curse for the group.

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

On the nature of deviance it would seem that attempting to remove it directly is impossible. In the context of relationships, the group believes that the norm that only those heterosexual in nature have the right to become couples is a norm that should be removed and expanded to include those in homosexual relationships or any others in the gender-sexuality spectrum. However, supporting deviance and attempting to crack down on it could have the effect of increasing participation in it, with the former procedure making the deviant act mainstream (and thus, the new norm) and the latter procedure forcing the deviant act underground (attracting a rebellious subculture around it that only grows more vocal as time passes in promoting it). Having said this, deviance could be an endless cycle as norms and their violations trade places between culture and counterculture status. Given the human desire for individualism,  all that is accepted will eventually be questioned, and all that is questioned will eventually be replaced, only for the replacement to be rebelled against once more. Nonetheless, it is still acknowledged that there are norms that should be replaced or widened, and in order to execute this properly without producing the aforementioned negative consequences of overthrowing norms, there should be proper transitions between the norms and the new norm that should be held in place. For example, more institutions such as media and literature should slowly become more inclusive in their representation of relationships. In turn, when they are recognized on a more public sphere, other institutions such as companies and schools could acknowledge and accept non-heterosexual couples and relationships.

REFERENCES

Barrett, D. C., & Pollack, L. M. (2005). Whose Gay Community? Social Class, Sexual Self-Expression, and Gay Community Involvement. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 437-456. Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2005.00021.x.

Bible Gateway passage: Leviticus 18:22 - King James Version. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+18%3A22&version=KJV

CNN Library. (2019, April 1). LGBT Rights Milestones Fast Facts. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/lgbt-rights-milestones-fast-facts/index.html

Dowell, L. (2005, February 17). New People's Army Recognizes Same Sex Marriage. Retrieved May 7, 2019, from https://www.workers.org/world/2005/npa_0224/

Macionis, John J. “Deviance.” Sociology, 16th ed., Pearson - Prentice Hall, 2017. pp. 238 - 268.

Sanchez, F. J. (2009). Reported Effects of Masculine Ideals on Gay Men (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2902177/

Sparknotes - Deviance Summary. (n.d.). Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.sparknotes.com/sociology/deviance/

The World Factbook: Philippines. (2001, November). Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/print_rp.html

Last Updated on May 1, 2019

Tubeza, P. C. (2013, June 8). PH ranks among most gay-friendly in the world. Retrieved May 7, 2019, from https://globalnation.inquirer.net/76977/ph-ranks-among-most-gay-friendly-in-the-world

The Daily Inquirer

Vatican Archive - Homosexuality. (n.d.). Retrieved May 7, 2019, from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Whitaker, R. J. (2017, August 23). What does the Bible really say about same-sex marriage? Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-23/same-sex-marriage-what-bible-has-to-say-robyn-whitaker/8831826

World Report 2019: Rights Trends in Philippines. (2019, January 22). Retrieved May 6, 2019, from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/philippines