'Garfinkel your life away'

‘Garfinkel your life away’ (Tumblr 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryb2WawuV4g

The vibe that I get from this reading is that Garfinkel is challenging the ‘institutionalised norms of conduct’ and the formula of ‘recipe knowledge’. This video shows a teacher who is trying to encourage his students to ‘Carpe Diem’ or ‘Seize the day!’. Do we each need to undertake Garfinkel experiments and indeed ‘seize the day’ by changing the rules in order to understand the rules? I did.

In class today we were part of a secret experiment of causing ‘interactional breakdowns’ (Heritage 1984, p 81) through specifically performing an action that broke the rules of a game by which we live: it took form in the tapping of a pen – constantly. It was through being a rule-breaker that I understood how strongly the rules are embedded within each of us. One girl who was sitting next to me kept glancing between the pen and my face, back and forth, but said nothing. Another girl did not say anything until she was told that the experiment took place and it was after this that she admitted she was going crazy when the pen was being tapped. Interestingly enough, she became the ‘lay functionalist’ who continued to perpetually create the continuance of an ‘existing symbolic order’ (Heritage 1984, p 97).

I personally think Garfinkel was not all too kind on his subjects through his experiments: Heritage refers to the ‘victims’ of the experiment (1884, p 80). Victims, they certainly were, as I discovered through my role in the class experiment.

Consequently, we can clearly see why the rules of ‘seizing the day’ and of challenging institutionalised norms of conduct are often created – things will break sometimes. However, sometimes the rules of the game need to be broken in order to expose the ‘presupposed underlying patterns’ (Heritage 1984, p 84) that we interact within.



References:

GreenDaleDaily 2009, Community: Stand On Your Desk!, accessed 05/09/2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryb2WawuV4g.

Heritage, J 1984, ‘The morality of cognition’, in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp75-102.

Unknown 2012 ‘Stand backwards in an elevator’, weblog post, Betty Louise Plotnick, April, accessed 05/09/2012, http://maraglen.tumblr.com/post/19358031575/stand-backwards-in-an-elevator.

Goff - 'man makes the bed he is sleeping in’

This week I commented on Lauren's Blog. To find it follow the link! http://lfwj753.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/weekly-research-all-worlds-stage.html

Goffman's presentation of the self: In action

First blog up! Today’s topic is Goffman and the presentation of the self.

Goffman presents an interesting idea about obligations and expectations (Goffman 1967). We obviously have a role to play within the rules of conduct that occur. Goffman makes the interesting point that the substantive expressions and rules are embodied within our morality, law as well as ethics, whereas he refers to ceremonial rules as etiquette (Goffman 1967). Often people lack the knowledge about a role or etiquette, but I find it harder to justify when people do not know the basics of ethics within our society. If we act outside of the substantive rules and hence obligations then we can be ostracized or ‘lose face’. However, I think there is a difference with the ceremonial rules of etiquette because these rules can be more relative to each person.

An example of this in action on presentation of the self and roles that we play, I work in a café where the base for many micro interactions occurs. A family friend came in to buy a cake one day and requested something really unhealthy and bad (i.e. consequently yummy). When I responded with ‘Oh this one is not good for you at all’ – pointing to a delicious piece of vanilla slice – she exclaimed that I ‘Wasn’t meant to tell her that!’. Apparently I had crossed a boundary and exceeded her expectation of a role that I needed to play. I was just being honest but she was quite offended. We proceeded to have a conversation about social rules and the obligations and expectations of social conduct. It was not proper etiquette on my part to continue in the honest nature of the conversation and I lost face, as well as embarrassing her and she too lost face. Goffman’s theory wins out in this situation!


Reference: Goffman, E 1967, 'The nature of deference and demeanor', in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Pantheon Books, New York, pp47 - 96.

Hello everyday interactionists!

This is my blog. For SOC250: Everyday Interaction. My name is Stephanie and I love Sociology. Enjoy reading!