I have noticed an interesting phenomenon between two of my
friends, let’s call them Julie Hamdy and Natalia Lombit, that can help me
explain this week’s topic. They have this kind of unspoken connection with each
other, where they both appear to know what the other is thinking. For instance,
I will be chatting to them on the train home from uni, and one of them will
start to make a funny comment. But before she finishes, the other starts
laughing hysterically at the joke she has yet to finish. They both have a good
laugh at the joke that is obviously hilarious to them, while I am left in the
dark as to what the punch line is.
The only way I can explain this phenomenon is through social
and moral order in talk. Since Julie and Natalia have spent so much time
together since first year, they have started to become the one mindset. It
helps that they have very similar interests and have the same general thought
process. But it gets to the point where they assume that every around them
knows exactly what they are talking about, when really we don’t have a clue.
They have their own separate ‘code’ that nobody else seems to understand. I
have spent a reasonable amount of time with them in the last year, but I am
still only just beginning to crack the code.
This is a prime example of the social and moral order in
talk, which as far as I can tell, is mostly about telling the code. It seems to
be very similar to ethnomethodology though, to the point where I have trouble
distinguishing the two. It is possible that the social and moral order in talk
is just a subset of ethnomethodolgy, rather than them being two completely separate
topics. Maybe someone can enlighten me (*hint, hint*).
I also believe that it is confusing to distinguish between ethnomethodology and the social and moral order in talk. I believe that learning about the social and moral order in talk is a type of practice of ethnomethodology—people examine every day interactions within a particular setting in order to gain a deeper understanding of certain interactions. In this week’s reading, the convict code shows how a particular group of people conduct themselves and essentially survive within a specific environment. This practice can be applied to any group really. For example, in another subject of mine, we are discussing the “guy code” in which there are certain rules that govern the behaviors and actions of adolescent boys. Anyone observing the actions of these boys will be confused by their performance because the rules are not known to “outsiders” which is similar to the frustration that you felt with your two friends. I believe that Wieder’s reading demonstrates how interactions can be understood if one takes the time to actually study the behaviors, beliefs, and practices of individuals within a particular environment.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, most ways of analysing the social and moral order of talk involve using ethnomethodological processes or methods. Ames (2012), gives a good definition that, "[ethnomethodology] studies how people 'produce, organise and make sense' of their everyday life," [pp.113]. So, this weeks reading is looking at one particular way that our behaviour and actions are influenced within ordinary interaction. So, it is quite easy to show how the two are linked.
ReplyDeleteI think you're quite right when you mention the amount of time you've known them, because - you might want to also mention - you're beginning to learn the code of conduct and behaviour that these two individuals share. Andy said that these behaviours are learnt, and that they occur "in the moment", so there can be one of many explanations. It was a fairly decent example, well done.
# For reference, here's that article I just cited.
Ames, K 2012, 'Host/host conversations: analysing moral and social order in talk on commerical radio', Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, vol. 142, pp. 112-122
I also had trouble with the distinction between ethnomethodology and this week's topic, especially when doing my group presentation I found that a lot of the stuff interrelated. The best way I can understand it is like you said, they don't seem to be two separate entities, but rather vastly connected with one another.
ReplyDeleteP.S I hear that Natalia Lombit chick is the shizz. I bet your glad to have such an awesome friend :P
I think your example is really interesting. I to would like to know 'how' your friends know what the other is thinking before the other finishes their sentence. I guess the fact that you didn't have a clue as to what they were talking about in the first place means that the 'code' of conduct is purely arbitrary and how conduct means nothing without attributed meaning. In this case, you're still trying to crack the code, so you don't recognise the symbols in their interactions like they do. Following a code means understanding the rules within that given code. You're not privy to the rules yet, but as you said, you're on the way to cracking the code, which means you have a simple understanding of the basic rules of pretending to understand and laughing at the appropriate time (which is probably when they start laughing). I really enjoyed your example, it was definitely a really good micro example. Usually it is so easy, especially for me to jump to how macro structures influence conduct but in this case, i can't seem to locate any macro influences that would determine the conduct of your friends.
ReplyDeleteIf I may weigh in: this is actually ALSO ethnomethodology! Analysing codes is part of ethnometh.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone for helping me sort that out, I understand the concept much more clearly now.
ReplyDeleteSo basically, the message I'm getting is that ethnomethodology is highly intertwined with this idea of social and moral order of talk. And if they both involve telling the code, then I'm still a bit confused as to the distinguishing features of each that set them apart as two topics. Would it be the whole documentary method of interpretation idea, where we strive to make sense of what is happening in the world around us?
I think you’re right in thinking this idea of codes is a part of Ethnomethodology, the lecture was like: Ethnomethodology Part 2. It seems that the Ethnomethodolgists theory of the way people interact is that everyone has shared knowledge (recipe knowledge), which comes from past experiences, and they use it to make sense of things. This includes codes of conduct. The codes tell us what to do, but we also use them to interpret things.
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean about people who spend so much time together developing so strong a connection. To start with my reaction to your explanation was: I’m not sure I would attribute that to being a shared ‘code’, because codes seem to be more about behaviour and the rules that govern it, rather than just thinking the same. However, I guess it makes sense when relating to ‘order in talk’, because it would be the norms and patterns they often use with each other which enable them to communicate thoughts without verbalising them. That is their shared knowledge which governs their talking behaviours.
In the lecture Andrew spoke about the question of do ‘codes produce conduct’ or does ‘conduct produce codes’ and he said the Ethnomethodologists believe the latter. The order comes from within the situation rather than being imposed from the outside. It made me think of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie (the first one) where they often spoke of the pirate’s code and told each other to “stick to the code” like it was hugely important, and then there was that great quote about them being “more like guidelines”. To me that says the ‘codes’ are negotiable to those that use them based on the situation.