Acero, Ang, Lim, Peralta, Wada, Tan
Breaching Experiment
- What norm did you violate?
The group violated the norm wherein we only share food that we’ve eaten or are currently eating with people we know or are familiar with. Aside from the sharing of food to our less fortunate countrymen begging for food, people frequently only share their food with friends and family, since these are people they are comfortable with. Thus, partaking of food already eaten by a stranger is very much considered a deviation from this norm. The norm can be classified as folkway since it’s a behavior expected from people in everyday life, experienced in the routine and casual interaction between people.
- Describe the breaching experiment in detail? What was the activity? When did you do it?
The group conducted the breaching experiment in UP Town Center on April 26, 2019 at around 3:30 pm. For the breaching experiment, the group purchased milk tea from Gong Cha and split into two groups. The first group consisted of males and conducted the experiment on males while the second group consisted of female members and conducted the trials on other women. For the experiment, one person from each group would approach people randomly, asking them if they want to drink the group’s milk tea that has already been drank from. The others would video and document the experiment from afar.
- What were the different reactions of the people? List all possible reactions 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?
The women approached appeared to be in their late 20s to early 30s. They also had only one to two co-workers or friends with them. The men approached were roughly in the same age, young adolescents in their early 20s, and middle-aged men in their mid-forties.
Reactions of the Women
|
Reactions of the Men
|
|
|
Did the deviant act re-affirm/reinforce the existing norms based on these reactions?
Out of all the the 16 trials, only one person accepted to drink the milk tea that was already drank from. Many, if not all, of the declined trials involved the declining party to quickly walk away or move to a different location after the experiment. It may be a sign of weariness since there are a number of modus operandis in the Philippines that would involve distracting the victim before stealing such as Dura Boys and Laglag Barya Gang (Canlas, 2015).
For the women, all the test subjects declined due to a general sense of caution. The woman who didn’t stop walking and the three that stepped back to be beside their co-workers may have felt uncomfortable when our group member offered the milk tea. Three ladies we approached on separate occasions who reacted this way may have been weary about the stalls they were manning since they had products were exposed and only had one or two co-workers with them. On the other hand, the staring and whispering done by some of the female test subjects may have been because strangers would not usually offer food unsolicited.
For the men, 9 test subjects quickly declined our deviation and most continued to be wary of the situation that had just transpired. 4 of the test subjects actually stared at the member conducting the experiment for a while before walking away. We believe that this staring back was a sort of sanction in of itself since the team member was negatively labeled in the perspective of the test subject. It was also interesting to note that 1 male test subject was open enough to accept to partake of the milk tea that the group already drank. However, while he did accept to drink, the test subject wasn’t actually able to drink the milk tea since he wanted to only take the drink once we’ve finished most of it (“Ah, sige. Pero uminom ka muna. Tirhan mo nalang ako.”). The group unfortunately was unable to find the subject again when we were able to finish his request.
A general response observed by the group was that test subjects who declined the drink by using excuses were trying to be polite. Excusing oneself when declining by saying “Ah. Hindi ako umiinom” and “Ah sorry. Busog pa ‘ko eh.” instead of merely rejecting the offer is one way to avoid hurting the feelings of someone offering you food.
Though it wasn’t a direct reaction in our experiment, our group foresaw some possible extreme reactions that kept us from deviating too much. Our group actually wanted to pursue further experimentation by switching the genders of our experimenters and subjects to see what would happen if men offered milk tea to women and vice versa, we refrained from doing so due to possible repercussions. In particular, we foresaw that the possibility of our male experimenters being sanctioned with some kind of harassment case because we live in a society where the disrespecting of women’s personal space is punishable by law. The fear of this formal sanction that would likely put some of us in jail is what prevented us from deviating too much from the norm, further reaffirming our adherence to these constructs. Not only that, but the disrespecting of women’s personal space can be seen as a form of mores. Mores are norms which have moral significance, and is important in distinguishing what is right and what is wrong (Macionis, 2017). In this case, the action of violating a woman’s personal space may be seen as immoral. As a result, the group had to exercise self-restraint for this scenario, which is a form of informal control.
- Aside from the 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 (norm of the rich & the poor), values/beliefs of institutions (religion, family, peer group, etc).
Aside from the norms, one SA theme that could be at play is social control. Social control happens when society rewards or punishes people who either follow or break the rules of social life (Macionis, 2017). The people we approached that reacted negatively through staring, whispering, stepping backward, and not stopping to talk may have been employing these behaviors because they unconsciously wanted to "punish" us for our lack of informal control. Others possibly perceived our social experiment as a manifestation of our inability to control ourselves to conform to an everyday norm despite what others might think about our actions. These small actions are sanctions which function as a form of social control in order to manage the thoughts and behavior of people (Macionis, 2017). The form of punishment we received came in the form of light negative sanctions that would signal the exhibition of deviant behavior.
The women were all evidently part of the working class since they were manning stalls in the mall and some were on break while wearing their uniforms. As stated earlier, those that moved towards their friend or coworker were mostly saleswomen. Their being in the working class and currently on shift affected their reactions since a stranger offering unsolicited food could be viewed as a modus operandi that would put their safety and their items in jeopardy.
One function that could have also affected the way the people reacted is how Filipinos value food as graces. Instead of outright rejecting us, some people would give polite excuses. This possibly springs from Filipino culture of hospitality and food as grace. The outright rejection of food given for free may be seen as disrespect or refusing to receive grace.
Another is that growing up, we have always been constantly reminded to not accept food from strangers. With that, food sharing is a norm seen among family members and close friends, but among strangers, it is seen as out of the ordinary. This long-term reminder of having to be cautious when offered food together with the out-of-ordinary expectation of sharing with strangers triggers the fleeing reaction of most individuals (Cole, 2011).
On a different note, being offered leftovers or half-eaten food can also be viewed as socially degrading and even offensive. It leaves an impression of being looked down upon to the point of needing handouts (Clarke, 2017). To be given the leftovers of another person is a blow to the recipient's pride which is probably a big factor why many people just opted to just decline.
- How did you feel when you did this experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms?
The group generally felt nervous because we were thinking about how the people would react, knowing that we’re deviating from a norm deeply rooted in society. The group also felt shy in doing the experiment since other people would be looking at us before and after we approach the chosen subject. They would usually whisper while staring at whoever from our group approached them and this, being an example of a mild negative sanction, made some of us uncomfortable.
However, after some rounds of doing the experiment, we felt more confident in approaching people since we had an idea of what to expect in their reactions such as a laugh, the staring, and the whispering. Our sense of informal control weakened because we felt that their reactions to our experiment wouldn’t affect us harmfully or personally in the long run. The group also felt a general sense of fun since the Breaching Experiment gave us an opportunity to really deviate and go against the status quo. Once we became more confident in our trials, it also became fun to really observe the different reactions of the test subjects.
- Other observations and analysis that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general
After the experiment, we realized that we made a mistake in avoiding asking the opposite sex. Our internal fear of being blamed for sexual violation got the better of us. It goes to show that the perception of one’s own social location and community on norms and deviance holds a huge role in an individual’s actions. Reflecting upon this, the Ateneo community strongly stand against sexual harassment. For women, small acts, such as being asked to share food, is sometimes misinterpreted as being “hit on” by a male. Although our experiment was made towards a non-Atenean community (or individuals with social locations different from ours), our fear of violating a mores norm in the Atenean location made us choose not to go in this direction.
Similarly, after receiving different reactions, particularly the man who accepted the drink versus those who tried to get away with an excuse, it can be seen that we all come from different social locations, where a deviant action for one, may not be a deviant action for another. This concept can be viewed to understand the rationale behind bad behavior. What one community perceives as bad, may be normal for another community, simply because of different values and beliefs.
References
Canlas, K. (2015, August 12). Be Mindful of These Modus Operandi of Common Crimes According to PNP. Retrieved from https://www.wheninmanila.com/be-mindful-of-these-modus-operandi-of-common-crimes-according-to-pnp/
Clarke, K. (2017, July 14). Would you say it's rude to offer someone leftover food? Retrieved from https://blogs.khaleejtimes.com/2017/07/14/would-you-say-its-rude-to-offer-someone-leftover-food/
Cole, G. (2011, December 18). Random acts of deviance. Retrieved from https://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/random-acts-of-deviance/article_4baaf10e-27a0-11e1-94f9-001871e3ce6c.html
Macionis, J. J. (2017). Sociology(16th ed.). Harlow, England: Pearson.
Group Task Report
Member
|
Task
|
Task Accomplished
|
Acero, Raymond
| 1 | 1 |
Ang, Kandice
| 2 | 2 |
Lim, Valry
| 3 | 3 |
Peralta, Elijah
| 4 | 4 |
Tan, Chantelle
| 5 | 5 |
Wada, Tetsuya
| 6 | 6 |
No comments:
Post a Comment