Ethnomethodology
and breaching experiment - blog entry 1:
Harold Garfinkel (October 29, 1917 – April 21, 2011) was a
ethnomethodologist, sociologist and a professor at the University of
California. Garfinkel is best known for his work on ethnomethodology. Garfinkel
became began to notice throughout his study of ethnomethodology that the
methods people use to allow them to understand the society they live is, are
fixed in individual’s natural attitudes.
By “ethnomethod”, Garfinkel means the means or methods that
individuals use in everyday interactions to create a shared meaning.
Ethnomethodology is the methods that are used to understand the social orders
people use to make sense of the real world; this can be through analyzing their
descriptions and accounts through every day activities. In situations, individuals do not know
meanings in advance, but they make sense of meanings as they go along, and
mutually discover them from situations and others.
Breaching experiment is defined by Heritage (1987: 233) “the idea here is to experiment with ordinary
social interactions in order to highlight the processes that are at work in
rendering them ‘normal’”, overall it is a concept designed to break the rules
of an unstated social role in order to study them. Situations that are seen to
be ordinary are to be disrupted, and to show how subjects respond, this
experiment helps to tell us more about the system rather than observing it in
harmony. Garfinkel noted within his concept that to make social interactions
within individuals ‘senseless’ was to produce shame, indignation, guilt and
anxiety upon the innocent, the unaware who were not part of the experiment.
The
video below shows this concept in practice. This is an interesting video from Nathan Palmer from Georgia
Southern University. The sociologist wanted to see what kind of reactions would
come from individuals that saw his 262 students standing in public places for
15 minutes “doing nothing”. This is an example of a breaching experiment, it
required individuals to have their hands by their side, to be stood completely
still, have an expressionless face. If someone came up to one of the
individual’s and asks “what are you doing”? The individual must reply with “I
am doing nothing” or “nothing”. The individual can’t say any other word’s apart
from those. As well as this, it was important that no one that was involved in
the experiment could block or stand by exits, as this would affect the results
and reactions by other people, and the subjects involved has to be spread out,
cannot stand in a line for example, this meant that it wouldn't be as
noticeable, but also it would look like it wasn't an organised experiment. The
video can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgso3Y-l0h8&feature=youtu.be
This video was interesting and the reactions from other
people that weren't involved in the experiment. The video shows how when
individuals break the norms, how much disturbance is caused. It was an affected
an experiment, because it looked like there was too many people for it just to
be a class of people, but also very random. It shows how we use social
sanctions and norms to constantly help create reality.
The breaching experiment requires the subject to break the
social norms, these can include space norms, touching a stranger, asking
someone “what’s up” in passing and tell them what’s going on. This example will
breach the social convention of asking a question in the form of
acknowledgement. Breaking social norms can make people feel uncomfortable, to
stare, the need to ask questions and anxiety. For example there are no rules
against same sex couples walking down the street, but people still stare
especially if it is in a small town, a lot may feel uncomfortable, and a many
will choose to avoid walking by. Although breaking social norms has no legal
consequences, it can have an impact on an individual’s social life, because
they can get marked as being weird or different and other individuals may feel
uncomfortable being around them.
Photograph one, talking on cell phone, it being upside down
is an example of breaking the social norms. Although it doesn't create much
disruption, it creates confusion upon other individuals, and the need for them
to ask a question, point out the fact that the cell phone is upside down or
simply just look. As well, the individual in the photo has started the
conversation with “good- bye”, rather than “hello”, not the social norm,
therefore creating confusion and disruption in the conversation between the
individuals.
Photograph two is an individual sitting on the floor where
other individuals are likely to walk by and notice. This photograph aims to
confuse other individuals, how they walk past the individual and if they ask
anything. There is two photographs as part of this, one to see from behind, and
one where if a person came in through the door, facial expression looks
slightly scared, and confused. Arms being crossed, shows that I am “doing
nothing”, but from the individual they won’t be entirely sure.
Photograph three, an individual eating food from the floor
outside, and using the knife in the right hand and the fork upside down in the
left hand. This is not the social norm in the way we are meant to eat food.
Photo four, the individual in the picture is eating in the accommodation
building, lying down, whilst eating food, with the fork the wrong way round.
Photo four, the individual in the picture is eating in the student accommodation
building, lying down, whilst eating food, with the fork the wrong way round.
Photo five talking to a wall, being completely still but
using hand gestures, and making noises. This breaks all social norms, as
firstly nobody “normally” talks to a wall. Using hand gestures shows that
anyone who can’t see or exactly what is happening, can tell the individual is
talking or saying something to the wall. The use of noises attracts attention,
and the individual becomes marked as being “weird” or “unusual” by individuals
that are not aware that it’s just an experiment.
Reference
Heritage, J
'Ethnomethodology', in Giddens, A and Turner, J (eds)
(1987) Social Theory Today,Cambridge: Polity Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment