In recent years the
upsurge in talk show and reality type programs has been a cultural phenomenon,
and the social interactions that occur within these programs, demonstrate an
extensive array of sociological concepts. Reality television and talk shows programs
provide an insight to how social order is reflected in the deference and
demeanor of social actors, the importance of social norms in maintaining social
order and how individuals utilise symbols to convey thoughts and emotions. Kjus
(2009) discusses how reality and
talk show programs invite ordinary people to the studio to discuss social
issues and values, in order to gain the interest of the audience. As a result
there is an increase in the possibility of inaccurate presentation on such
programs, as they are devised primarily to entertain rather than accurately
represent the true self (Kjus, 2009). The success behind reality and
talk show programs stems from their ability to exhibit everyday social
interactions amongst ordinary people, with which the audience are able to
identify as their equals and are able to relate their own lives to, rather than idealised celebrities. The fundamental objectives of talk show and
reality type programs is to maximize
ratings and revenues, this is typically achieved by providing viewers with a
source of entertainment, as opposed to advocating social responsibility. Being
a profit driven commercial business, reality television and talk show programs
that claim to capture real situations and social interactions, are more often
than not a highly artificial product, manufactured in such a way that will
entertain and intrigue viewers rather than present natural and accurate
occurrences. What viewers see when watching talk show and reality programs is
ultimately at the discretion of the producers, writers and directors of the
program. Those in charge of the programs decide who will participate or be
present in the interactions and what particular segments of various social
interactions are finally aired to the viewers.
To evaluate the
sociological concepts of social order, social norms, deference and
demeanor, the use of expletives and the symbolic
interactionism that commonly transpires on reality and talk show television
programs, an interaction that occurs between Olivia and her ten year old son
Noah on a Dr Phil special episode called “Brat Camp” will be used as an
example. The episode amalgamates elements of both reality and talk show
programs. Families who are unable to maintain or control their relationships
with their children have been selected to appear on the show, and are required
to move into a household where various interactions between parents and
children are filmed. The specific interaction that will be utilised takes
places immediately after Olivia and Noah’s arrival at the “Brat Camp”
household; it is an initial dyad exercise where parents are required to sit down
face to face with their child in order to discuss one another’s unfavorable behaviors.
Due to the
commercial nature of reality and talk show programs, the authenticity of the
interaction between Olivia and Noah remains subject to the manipulation of
producers and directors of the Dr Phil show. Creators of the program formulate
the context and purpose of the interaction and how the interaction takes place.
For this reason the exchange between
Olivia and her son can be related to both micro and macro sociological
structures. According to Mouzelis (1992), all interactions between social
actors can be distinguished as both micro and macro structures and that the exclusion
of the notion of macro interaction, may generate a misrepresentation of social
life. Mouzelis (1992) states that “collective
actors” are entities that make decisions through interaction processes based on
“democratic or nondemocratic forms of business representations” (pp.123).
Collective actors produce interactions whose effects encompass an extensive
period of time or space (Mouzelis, 1992, pp.123). Although the social
interaction that we see appears to be an obvious micro social interaction between
Mother and son alone, there are implications of macro structures. The creators of the Dr Phil show can be
considered “collective actors”, who are responsible for the delivery of the interaction
to a maximum number of viewers internationally. They decide whether or not to omit
certain elements of the interaction between Olivia and Noah that seem mundane,
and only include parts of the interaction that they deem will generate the most
interest.
Acknowledgement of the creators of the Dr Phil show, as being the macro structures
who generate and control the interaction proposes that it is a premeditated exchange.
Whilst the context and incidence of the conversation was planned and therefore did
not occur naturally, Baumeister et al (1994) suggests that due to “self-regulation
failure”, Noah and Olivia lose the ability to continue to interact in a manner
that is expected or preconceived by the creators of the program. “Self-regulation failure” and more
specifically “underregulation”, refers to a social actor’s inability to exercise
control over his or herself, typically due to the possession of numerous sets
of standards that are contradictory and incoherent (Baumeister et al, 1994, pp.
15). Within this interaction Noah is torn between two conflicting sets of
standards. On one hand he is determined to express the source of his discontent
and unhappiness to his mother, and on the other hand wishes to demonstrate to
the audience that he is a good son and is in no way at fault for the dysfunction
between his mother and himself. Divided between irreconcilable objectives, Noah
struggles to remain composed, disrespecting his mother consistently throughout
their interaction, before finally unleashing a physical act of aggression. This
is evident in the following extract at 6:30:
[Noah]:
Shut up (yells)! Give me a turn to
speak! See you do that to me. How does it feel? How does it feel to be told to shut up? [Slaps
Mum] Let me speak! How does that feel? How does that feel?
Noah’s repeated commands and questions reflects his disrespect and
emotions of contempt, yet Noah simultaneously attempts to project his heinous behavior
onto his mother, in an attempt to recover the negative image he has portrayed
of himself. Self-regulation of Noah’s emotions is hindered as he attempted to pursue
two varying sets of standards. Although the interaction was in many aspects controlled
by the creators of the Dr Phil show, it was beyond their power to predict definitively
how Noah or Olivia would interact with one another, or if and when “self-regulation
failure” would occur.
Social actors’ presentation of self on reality and talk show
programs such as this Dr Phil “Brat Camp” episode, provide an insight
into the correlation between social norms and the physical and social conduct
of social actors. This
interaction between Olivia and her son Noah underpins Goffman’s notion of
deference and demeanor. Goffman (1967) argues that demeanor is displayed through our
physical and social conduct, such as the degree of respect we pay to people in
different contexts. Noah’s demeanor towards his mother can be seen as
significantly unfavorable. He was rude, abrasive and discourteous in both his
physical and verbal communication. Noah expressed his disrespect by imitating
his mother and reiterating himself in a condescending and sarcastic manner on
several occasions. Through his demeanor, Noah attempted to portray the power
and certainty he felt within the interaction. An example of this is apparent at
3:58:
[Noah]:
You accuse me of trying to kill you with a phone. I never tried to kill you
with a phone
(sarcasm).
[Mum]: And I would never say you tried to kill me with a phone…
[Noah]: Yes you did [interrupts Mum]. You called the cops and said “my son he tried to kill me with the phone. He threw the phone at me. He tried to kill me”.
[Mum]: That’s interesting because that’s not my recollection of the situations (remains calm).
[Noah]: Okay good, good. That’s a step, you admit you don’t remember. You don’t remember things.
(sarcasm).
[Mum]: And I would never say you tried to kill me with a phone…
[Noah]: Yes you did [interrupts Mum]. You called the cops and said “my son he tried to kill me with the phone. He threw the phone at me. He tried to kill me”.
[Mum]: That’s interesting because that’s not my recollection of the situations (remains calm).
[Noah]: Okay good, good. That’s a step, you admit you don’t remember. You don’t remember things.
Noah’s interruption and impersonation
of Olivia, demeans her from her authoritative position as his mother,
underpinning his impertinence towards her. Noah’s repetition of the words “kill”
and “good” was seemingly employed to denote his sarcastic demeanor.
Goffman (1967) exemplifies that deference is the code of conduct and rituals that control our demeanor and social interactions; it is formed by the reactions and views others have towards the acts that we carry out. Deference influences the actions that we chose to execute and is dependent on the broader social context, thus forming the social norms. In many social contexts, social norms suggest that out of deference to parental or guardian figures, and in a broader sense to those who are older and more experienced, children should remain humble and respectful. This interaction between Noah and his mother contradicts this social norm, as Noah’s demeanor indicates his palpable lack of respect and contempt towards his mother. A negative perception is formed of Noah due to his deplorable behavior, which subverts the socially accepted deference between Mother and son. This is evidenced by the following extract at 5:50:
Goffman (1967) exemplifies that deference is the code of conduct and rituals that control our demeanor and social interactions; it is formed by the reactions and views others have towards the acts that we carry out. Deference influences the actions that we chose to execute and is dependent on the broader social context, thus forming the social norms. In many social contexts, social norms suggest that out of deference to parental or guardian figures, and in a broader sense to those who are older and more experienced, children should remain humble and respectful. This interaction between Noah and his mother contradicts this social norm, as Noah’s demeanor indicates his palpable lack of respect and contempt towards his mother. A negative perception is formed of Noah due to his deplorable behavior, which subverts the socially accepted deference between Mother and son. This is evidenced by the following extract at 5:50:
[Noah]: …but I’m not a dog.
[Mum]: Then why don’t you head my suggestions of stop it when I ask politely.
[Noah]: Because you’re not the complete boss of me. I control my body, I control what I do and you have no right to hit me that hard. I lightly taped your arm with my elbow…shut up (yells)! Let me talk
In this instance, Noah’s repetition
of “I” suggests his self absorption, disrespect and disregards for this Mother,
and when he emphatically states “shut up!” and “let me talk!”, he again issues
out uncompromising commands to demonstrate his feelings of contempt. Although
there are exceptions, in many social contexts it is unfamiliar behavior and
typically frowned upon when a child aggressively tells his mother to shut up
and demands her to let him speak, often it is expected that a child display respectful
and obedient deference to their parents.
Noah unashamedly challenges the socially accepted deference between Mother and
son, through his verbal communication with his mother.
Furthermore it can be
said that Olivia’s demeanor somewhat undermines the deference that should be
paid to her son in the following extract at :
[Mum]:
Dude, the first time you went like that to me I ignored it and you jabbed me
again.
Olivia’s reference to Noah as “dude” tends not to be the accustomed reference to one’s son, in doing so she subverts herself to the same social status as her son in this instance, rather than acting as an authoritative parental figure.
Viewers that disapprove
and are appalled by Noah’s demeanor, recognise the existence of societal norms
which enable the maintenance of social order. Garfinkel (1967) argues that the everyday
social interactions of people form social order. From an ethnomedological
perspective, this interaction
demonstrates how a disruption or
diversion from such norms can
alter and cause disorder within social interactions. The interaction displayed
in this text diverges from the socially accepted norm which typically exists in
everyday social interactions, that is that a son is obedient and pays respect
and deference to his Mother. As a result social disorder and conflict arises
between Olivia and Noah in the interaction. This is evident in the following
extract at 5:04:
[Noah]: I didn’t jab you [interrupts Mum in argumentative tone]!
[Mum]: And what I said to you was a word of warning.
[Noah]: I did not jab you and you jabbed me [interrupts Mum in argumentative tone].
The social disorder that arises from ignorance of social norms is heightened by Noah’s physical behavior. On numerous occasions he points to his Mother’s face (4:07; 6:35), points downwards when he is trying to make a point (4:41), executes hand gestures insinuating that his mother is crazy (4:23) and above all slaps his Mother in the face (6:47). In response to Noah’s physical act of anger, Olivia attempts to regain control of the interaction by also pointing to Noah as she says “do not put your hands on me do you understand me” (6:55). “Human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols, by interpretation or by ascertaining the meaning of one another’s actions” (Bulmer, 1937, p.50). Bulmer (1937) goes on to argue that it is a form of active process in which wider social factors function and should therefore be studied in itself. Whilst Noah’s physical behavior often compliments his verbal aggression and argumentative and disrespectful conduct, focusing on his physical behavior alone displays his demeanor and disruption to social order quite substantially.
The analysis of the interaction between a Noah and Olivia on the Dr Phil show has shed light on sociological concepts common amongst every day interactions. This interaction between mother and son reflect how subversion of social norms can cause dysfunction and conflict between social actors. The importance of deference and demeanor in the presentation of self is typified, and how symbolic interactions can be used to convey emotions. Whilst the interaction that occurs is a micro interaction, it is vital to consider the macro structures or collective actors that are responsible for generating the interaction and its delivery to a maximum number of viewers. Although collective actors have manufactured the context and purpose of the interaction, “self-regulation failure” is evident within the interaction, therefore it is never possible to predetermine the precise responses and reactions of the social actors participating in interactions.
Reference:
- Baumeister R.F., Heatherton T.F., Tice
D.M., 1994, Losing Control How and
Why People Fail at Self-Regulation, Academic Press, California
- Goffman E.,
1976, ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanour’, Interaction Ritual:
Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, pp.
47-95
- Heritage,
John. 1984. “The Morality of Cognition.” Pp. 75-102 in Garfinkel and
Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. - Kjua Y., 2009,
‘Idolizing and Monetizing the Public: The Production of Celebrities and
Fans, Representatives and Citizens in Reality TV’, International
Journal of Communication, vol. 3, pp. 277-300
- Mouzelis N.,
1992, ‘The Interaction Order and the Micro-Macro Distinction’, Sociological
Theory, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 122-128
- Roberts B.,
2006, ‘Sumbolic interactionism 2: developments, Micro Social Theory, Palgrave
Macmillan, Basinstoke, pp. 46-61
