Bloody Hell

bloody group work presentation

More PowerPoint presentations from Ann

This week I presented the reading by Wierzbicka explored the extensive range of Australian cultural meanings associated with the word “bloody”. The word bloody is a useful tool in expressing the way one is feeling in Australian culture. Its repeated use conveys different and specific meanings and can thus provide important insight into the culture specific attitudes and values amongst Australian communities.

Research by Hong in 2008 builds upon Wierzbicka’s work of the word “bloody” and how it is characteristic to Australian culture. His research found that from an intercultural perspective the use of “bloody hell” amongst other non-Australian cultures, tended to be received as impolite and rude. However he recognises that “bloody” has been integral to Australian discourse for many years and should thus be appreciated as an everyday casual Australian expression used to portray friendliness and casualness. Hong however does not delve into the negative aspects associated with the word as Wierzbicka did.

In relation to this week’s lecture and Wierzbicka’s work on the word “bloody”, Hong’s paper supports the idea that the importance of the word extends beyond its literal definition, as its meaning is inherited from the speakers intonations, articulations and the context in which it is used. Hong’s study found that most Australian’s tended to appreciate “bloody hell” as an acceptable everyday terminology used in Australian culture; however British English speakers found the word to be course and reflect impoliteness. Therefore I agree with Hong that the meaning of “bloody hell” is strongly associated with the Australian culture, and thus it may easily be misinterpreted and taken with offence when used external to the Australian context. 

References:

Hong, M 2008, "Where the bloody hell are you?": Bloody hell and (im)politeness in Australian English. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, vol.1, no.1, pp33-39.

Telling the Code

Wieder’s ‘Telling the code’ examines the convict code amongst rehabilitation inmates, which effectively organises the deviant behavior that they engage in. Essentially the convict code is a set of guidelines that govern the values and beliefs of the inmates’, resulting in a unification and solidarity alliance between the inmates. Abiding by a code, be it spoken or unspoken is perceived to be mutual resistance in order for survival against the oppression of systems and authority figures.

The book entitled ‘Jocks and Burnouts’ by Eckert explores social organization amongst adolescents in the high school setting. Eckert exemplifies how adolescents develop social organization by forming social identities and a sense of structure external to their family body. In order to assemble into a social hierarchy, adolescents typically employ social symbols in the form of dress, territory, cars, language and music to mark social differentiation amongst their developing social structures. Through the expression of identity using social symbols, adolescents form alliances with those displaying parallel or similar social identity and form communal resistance amongst other social groups that may hinder the wellbeing of their own. For examples “gothics” that are stereotypically attired in black obnoxious attire may resist or be excluded from the social alliances made between “jocks and cheerleaders”.

Eckert relates to Wieder’s “Telling the Code”, by typifying the specific code of conduct that is present amongst different adolescent social groups. In order to be included into a particular social category, guidelines tend to be adhered to, be them spoken or unspoken and in the form of social symbols, to ensure individual survival avoid social exclusion in the high school setting.

Eckert P. 1989, Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School, Teachers College Press. London, UK, accessed 5/09/12

Wieder, L, 1974, 'Telling the code', in R Turner (ed), Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings , Pengiun Education, Harmondsworth, pp144-172

Reponse of Karishma's blog entry

Ethnomethodology- what did Garfinkel mean by this term? In my understanding of the reading and lecture material, he basically meant it was the study of people’s methods with one another and how they behave in everyday situations. A focus in the reading was based on Garfinkel’s “breaching experiments”. These would basically involve the conscious exhibition of unexpected behaviour, an observation of the types of social reactions such as behavioural violations engenders, and an analysis of the social structure that makes these social reactions possible.

“Social actors come to want to do what the institutionalized normative patterns require them to do” To a certain extent and based on the majority of society, I agree with Parson’ statement; however there are exceptions to the rule. Does committing a crime such as robbery exhibit a social actor institutionalising normative patterns in society? In my understanding it doesn’t, this would be going against social norms, and rather a breach of social morality.

Jeremy Suizo wrote the article, "The Breaching Experiment is a simple ethnomethodological method of testing sociological concepts of cultural norms and conformity". He made an interesting point about breaching experiments; he suggests that breaching experiments show how people often take for granted the unwritten social norms that are generally assumed by members of a society. I completely agree with this statement, before I started this subject, I would never have thought about why and how social norms come to exist.

I will leave you with this clip on breaching experiments in a university setting. It is based on the social norm of people holding doors open for the next person to walk in."

Karishma you definitely underpinned my understanding of Garfinkel’s “Breaching Experiments” through the additional readings you have included. It broadens my understanding by acknowledging the importance of social norms that are accepted within particular contexts, and how a disruption to such norms can alter and cause disorder in social interactions. You have highlighted an important notion by Jeremy Suizo that “breaching experiments show how people often take for granted the unwritten social norms that are generally assumed by members of a society”. Often I forget that the way I conduct myself in particular contexts and social interactions is not coincidental, but has in fact been imbedded in my knowledge through the repetition of experiences, as the standardised norms of various settings. Behaving in a professional and polite manner in my work environment has come about from my repeated interactions with work colleagues and the normalised behaviour that I witness by the majority of my work colleagues.

I support your argument that there are in fact exceptions to Parson’s statement “Social actors come to want to do what the institutionalized normative patterns require them to do”. Typically the majority of individuals in a particular social context follow the accepted social norms in order to avoid conflict or disturbance to the method of social interactions. Yet a minority of individuals will contradict social normality in order to sustain other motives such as personal gain, or recognition from an audience, rather than merely conforming and blending in. For example in a typical well behaved classroom setting, most students will conform by raising their hand and making use of respectful language in order to voice an opinion or answer a question, however one student may talk out of turn and use profanity in order to stand out from the other students, humour their audience or humiliate another member of the audience, such as a fellow classmate or teacher.

Karishma, I found your blog material to be very productive in expanding my understanding of Garfinkel’s “Breaching experiments”.

Dramaturgy applied to Facebook

In Response to Cindy's blog post.

"Hogan argues that Goffman’s dramaturgical theory can be applied to social media. She specifically focuses on the presentation of the self and argues that self-presentation can be split into performances, (which take place in situations) and artifacts (which take place in exhibitions). She argues that performance spaces include the place where actors interact with each other, for example, chat rooms.  As Hogan argues, Goffman’s dramaturgical approach is a metaphorical technique used to explain how an individual presents an “idealized” rather than authentic version of him/herself. For example, the choice of artwork and photos displayed in one’s house is a form of impression management. Generally most people choose to display happy photos of themselves because they want to portray a certain image of themselves. As Hogan argues, in the front stage, we are trying to present an idealized version of the self according to a specific role. In the backstage, we do much of the real work necessary to keep up appearances. For example, the sales assistant at a retail store may appear friendly and happy to help a customer but when the customer leaves, she may go at the back of the store and complain about the difficult customer. Hogan argues that Facebook cannot be considered as a back stage because the fact that Facebook allows only friends or “friends of friends” to see specific content does not suggest that the content signifies a backstage to other possible content that is available for anyone to see. However, I argue that Facebook would be considered a front stage because, as Goffman stated, impressions are usually given and online, you have some control over how you present yourself and what information you want to disclose, thus the individual intentionally presents themself in a certain way."

Goffman's Dramaturgy theory is a useful mechanism when analysing virtual interactions such as those that occur on the Facebook social networking website Facebook. Facebook is fundamentally a micro environment in which we exchange social interactions with those of which we have given permission to view our Facebook profile.

I agree with both Brook and Cindy that the image we create of ourselves on Facebook is more of a front stage interaction. We as Facebook users are essentially actors and the Facebook social networking website is our stage or setting. Our audience is all our Facebook friends. Generally speaking, Facebook is used as a stage to promote oneself. We as users tend to fabricate an idealised image of ourselves that aims to attract or please the majority of our audience (Facebook friends). 

Our front stage performance is portrayed through our status updates, photos and social interactions with our friends (audience). Whilst there is no definitive script, Facebook enables us to shape or construct our persona by allowing us to contemplate, adjust and reconsider our image and social interactions from behind a computer screen, before actually publishing it for our audience to view. Once posted we are still able to delete and edit our posts to further manipulate and enhance our performance of our idealised self. Often we refrain ourselves from posting thoughts, comments or photos that will be ill received or illustrate an undesirable self-deprecating image to our audience.


However I personally believe that Facebook also comprises of a setting that allows for backstage performances. Back stage performances, that is a true depiction of ourselves, is much easier to portray through the use of private inbox messages, which can be sent to individual or selected users only. This gives users the opportunity to portray a more realistic image of oneself, as it is not seen by all Facebook friends, and the need to form a self-promoting image to cater to a larger audience is removed. 

Conclusively, I personally agree that for the greater part our Facebook persona is a front stage performance as it does not depict a completely accurate image of our true self.