Lim, Gaspar, Gotianse, Decena, Ilano, Morado
- What norm did you violate?
The experiment involved a performer walking like an animal on four legs in a public space, thus violating the norm of bipedalism, herein defined as “the act of moving on two limbs (in the case of humans legs)”.
- Describe your breaching experiment in detail. What was the activity and where did you do it?
The first breaching experiments were held on the third floor of Regis Center, as well as the building's first floor lobby. This involved having one group member walk on all four limbs for approximately thirty (30) seconds along main walkways. An additional test was held inside Ateneo along SEC Walk to test for any potential differences in bystander reaction/s given the change in setting.
Regis Center was chosen as a site for 2 out of 3 tests due to the foot traffic and amount of people that lounge around the area. Both the 1st and 3rd floors have tables, couches, and waiting areas that are usually occupied by high school and college students. This made for a testing site that allowed for responses from people of various classes and professions.
The third floor of Regis holds the food court known as “The 3rd”. Due to its proximity to the Ateneo de Manila University campus, this area is usually packed with students and employees on their lunch or snack breaks. Aside from this, the stall clerks from the food stalls allow for a new demographic to come in. The stall clerks appear to be relatively young, mostly in their early 20’s, and represent the younger part of the working population. The people found on the 3rd floor are static, observing either from their tables while eating, or from inside the food stalls.
On the other hand, the first floor of Regis has a more mobile population compared to that of the third floor. While there are couches and chairs along the lobby, observers are, more often than not, passersby than bystanders. The second floor of Regis connects to the overpass leading to the Ateneo campus, so students and employees entering or exiting the campus from Gate 3.5 are very likely to pass through the 1st floor. The demographic found in the area is still mainly composed of students from Ateneo and Miriam, schools that are close to area, but also includes the occasional parents and helpers waiting for their children. The movement along the area is generally faster than that of the 3rd floor, which means that there’s less time for observers to see the experiment as compared to the observers on the 3rd floor.
Lastly, the third area, “SEC Walk”, found in Ateneo, was also chosen due to the volume of people who pass by and stay along the area. SEC Walk connects the three SEC buildings and the CTC building, which is where most of students’ classes are held. Students coming to and from classes in these buildings are bound to pass by SEC Walk, and the benches and tables along the foyers allow for a large part of the student body to pass time while waiting for their classes. This allowed for an abundant amount of responses from passersby and bystanders in the area.
- What were the different reactions? List all reactions you observed. Why do you think others reacted that way? What caused the reactions? Based on the reactions, did the deviant reaffirm/reinforce the existing norms?
One woman who was an employee of one of the stalls at the 3rd Floor Cafeteria was heard saying, "Hala! Tignan 'niyo! Ano 'yan?!" and while moving away from our group member laughed for a short time. Other student groups in the 3rd Floor Cafeteria stopped eating and stared for about two to three seconds at our group member. A group of women students in particular spent slightly more time staring at our group member, and were observed whispering to each other directly after our group members passed by their table.
At the first floor lobby, most of those who were seated stared at our group member and seemed to be puzzled and confused at the situation. One woman who was about to exit the building paused in her path, and slightly moved away, and seemingly to make space and to distance herself away from our group member. She was also visibly shocked, as she gasped and covered her mouth.
In general, the reactions noted from the experiment proper were those of shock, disgust, and enjoyment given the peculiarity and sheer ridiculousness of the situation. Physical reactions ranged from laughter, moving away (or “making space”), and jumping back in surprise. The researchers would say that the reactions only reinforce existing norms (that of people walking “normally”/on two legs rather than four). In both locations, the researchers believe that the norm-breaking was successful.
Some additional observations follow:
For a few bystanders (like one of the males standing up near one of the booths at the 3rd Floor Cafeteria and one of the males waiting for an elevator at the first floor lobby), the reactions died down quickly once they realized that our group member was being filmed. Their reactions died down after realizing that it was not someone seriously doing deviant behavior but rather was doing it for the sake of being filmed, or for the sake of experimentation. The reactions to the deviant behavior itself toned down or disappeared completely after this. This may mean that the act of filming of potentially funny things done by friends is not in itself a deviant behavior. It may be a norm in the modern context that is the product of how videos of "viral" or funny content are posted regularly on almost all social media platforms.
The reactions did not change much even when the experiment was held at SEC Walk. The same general reactions (weirded out, surprise, laughter, whispers) were observed at SEC Walk. The demographic consisted of mixed students and female visitor adults who were attending an event at the nearby Escaler Hall. The visitors' reactions were slightly more visible and exaggerated in comparison to the students' reactions. A similar phenomenon of significantly reduced reactions after realizing the deviant behavior was done for the sake of filming or experimentation was observed. This was more expected, and can be attributed to the fact that most Ateneans, especially those who have taken SA21 in the past, are aware of the existence of the breaching experiment as a class activity. For the students, the deviant act no longer refers to the act itself but the testing of the deviant act, which as an act in and of itself is a widely-known and commonly-held norm for those who have to take SA.
- Aside from norms, what other SA themes are at play for people to react a certain way? Is it a function of gender, social class, values/beliefs of institutions?
Bipedalism as a norm was formed primarily as a result of human evolution and development. From an evolutionary standpoint, evidence of bipedalism can be found as early as 4 million years ago within the Australopithecus fossils (Gray, 2016). Prior to that, humans were suspected to be quadrupeds, or organisms that walked on 4 legs. Biologically, bone structures on the wrist, ankle, and the spine have also evolved to support bipedalism, keeping posture upright and putting the bulk of the pressure on the feet. Finally, following the milestones of human development, walking on 2 legs is considered one of the childhood’s major developments around the time the child reaches 12 months of age (Baby Center, n.d.).
As a result, the researchers did not expect their to be a difference among the responses from the observers. Social class, gender, and institutional beliefs were not expected to play a role in the formulation of the reactions, as the norm formed more as a result of evolution and biology rather than from a difference in social aspects.
It is interesting to note, however, that ann unexpected discrepancy was found upon comparison of the responses between men and women. The reactions of the women were more exaggerated and formed out of surprised as opposed to the more relaxed responses from the men. The reactions from the women were also more prolonged and drawn out, taking a slightly longer time to recover from witnessing the deviance than the males.
- How did you feel about the experiment? How does it feel to deviate from the norms? Were you hesitant about the activity?
The researchers believed they experienced a level of hesitance prior to the performance of the experiment (given its overt ridiculousness and its having to take place along major thorough-ways). Nevertheless, the experiment was able to push through, due in no small part to a “just do it” mindset which the researchers understand is somewhat necessary for anyone attempting to violate a norm for whatever reason—perhaps suggesting that the violation of norms requires some level of breaking away from routine to be done. The researchers also noted feelings of discomfort as the experiment went on, a discomfort only relieved upon the experiment’s conclusion, when the performer was finally able to return to the usual norm of bipedalling. Having to explicitly break the norm was uncomfortable and brought undue attention to the researchers.
- Other observations and analyses that you may have on the activity and on deviance in general?
We recognize the possibility that the reactions elicited from the observers may not have been as authentic as we had hoped.
For one, the actual execution of the experiment may not have looked authentic, as the cameraman was seen following the performer from behind. This could be observed by seeing the responses turning from surprise to a form of understanding (especially from the Ateneo students) once they see the camera. This could have made the audience aware that the group was conducting a social experiment, and that the phenomenon was not a common occurrence. This could have been addressed by hiding the cameraman instead of being visible to the observers.
Second, the time spent and the distance travelled by the performer was short, which could have also reduced the authenticity of the experiment. In all cases, the performer was seen travelling only a few meters before standing up. In the part of the experiment conducted on the 1st floor of Regis, the performer was also seen moving back and forth, as if conspicuously trying to draw attention. This could have given away the experiment as a staged occurrence, given the deliberate and quick execution of the movement. This could have been addressed by drawing out the execution and actually moving along with the crowd to generate a less "fake" simulation. This would also have given the audience more time to respond to the phenomenon as opposed to just seeing the deviance for a few seconds.
Because of this, we found that in conducting social experiments and breaching activities such as these, it is important to create an environment that allows the observers to respond naturally and without the knowledge that the whole phenomenon was being recorded. The goal of the experiment was to see how people would respond to a deviance to the norm, should it happen in real life. The observers’ awareness of the experiment may create bias that will interfere with the elicited reactions, and consequently, the results of the research. Thus, it is important to ensure that the experiment is conducted as subtly as possible so not to interfere with the gathering of data.
Sources:
Gray, R. (2016, December 12). The real reason why we walk on two legs, and not four. BBC Earth. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161209-the-real-reasons-why-we-walk-on-two-legs-and-not-four
Baby Center. (n.d.). Baby milestone: Walking. Retrieved from https://www.babycenter.com/0_baby-milestone-walking_6507.bc
No comments:
Post a Comment