Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Independent Research Project (Taylor Cobb)

Every September, the MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs) present Moonmen to the best music videos of the year. The Moonman a highly prestigious award, and the show draws millions of viewers from around the world every year. As the VMAs has such a vast audience range, the show follows a very tight and polished set of rules to make sure everything runs smoothly. As the show is live, there are certain obligations and expectations that the hosts, winners and audience members need to abide by. In the 2009 VMAs, these rules were completely disregarded with Kanye West’s infamous interruption of Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech. Swift had just won Best Female Video for “You Belong With Me” when West jumped onstage and announced that Beyoncé had the best video of all time. This interaction is interesting as it is a clear breach of etiquette in a very public context. Also, even though the VMAs are usually fairly scripted, the extent of the reaction to West’s rudeness suggests that it was not planned. Analysis of the data shows that several sociological schools can be considered. The main concept involved is Goffman’s face-work, as West threatens the face of everyone involved. Other theories that can be used include the power struggle between West and Swift, ethnomethodology, obligations and expectations, and dramaturgy.
The incident can be viewed in the following clip:

The interaction starts with Swift being handed her Moonman. As this was her first VMA, she was genuinely stoked and had a huge smile on her face. At 8 seconds she begins her acceptance speech, with a close-up on her face: "Thank you so much! I always dreamed about what it would be like to maybe win one of these someday, but I never actually thought it would have happened (Swift keeps looking down at the Moonman in amazement, almost as if to check that it is really there and this is really happening to her). I sing country music so thank you so much for giving me a chance to win a VMA award, I..." but before she could continue West jumps up on stage and grabs the microphone from West. While this happens, the cameras quickly flash to Pink cheering on Swift. This is possibly because the MTV camera editors were not sure exactly what West was going to do. Switching the focus of the camera still gave them a large amount of power, as West’s interruption was obviously unplanned.
As West begins to speak at 26 seconds, the cameras are forced to swap back to the stage. To a very confused Swift, West states: "Yo Taylor, I'm really happy for you (Swift brushes hair out of her eyes nervously, and it is plain on her face that she has absolutely no idea what’s happening), Imma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time (The crowd goes crazy with yells of confusion and general outrage. The camera goes to a close-up of Beyoncé’s horrified face, who is looking around in shock and bewilderment, while mouthing something along the lines of ‘Oh my god Kanye’). One of the best videos of all time!” An evident booing can be heard from the crowd as West shrugs, hands the microphone back to Swift, and storms off stage. At this point Swift looks livid, with her mouth agape. The cameras briefly switch back to Beyoncé, who is still astonished at what just happened, then does a couple of wide shots showing the rambunctious crowd and a high-angle shot of Swift from behind (emphasising her vulnerability in this circumstance), who is just standing there awkwardly trying to decide what to do.
At 57 seconds, the camera shows a woman standing up for a standard ovation for Swift. She is cheering Swift on, and trying to offer some support (which is the general atmosphere of the rest of the audience as well). At 59 seconds, however, MTV cuts to a clip of Tracy Morgan, indicating that Swift’s time is up. The devastated Swift is escorted off stage without being allowed to finish her speech.
This next video is a YouTube clip of the same event, later in the night, when Beyoncé won her award. View from 29 seconds to 1 minute 40 seconds.
Beyoncé begins her acceptance speech to cheering crowd: “Thank you, wow (close-up on Beyoncé, who has a dazzling smile on her face). This is amazing!” Pause while audience applauds. Camera shows Lady Gaga, who is beaming for her friend. Beyoncé continues her speech: “I remember being 17 years old, up for my first MTV Award with Destiny’s Child, and it was one of the most exciting moments in my life. So I’d like for Taylor to come out and have her moment (Looks around). Where are you?” At 51 seconds, the camera does a long shot of the stage, and shows Swift walking on from backstage. The crowd is cheering as Swift approaches Beyoncé (to represent this, MTV shows a shot of Katy Perry clapping very enthusiastically at 1 minute 4 seconds). As a radiant Swift passes a couple of audience members, she touches hands with them as they express their excitement for her. By 1 minute 15 seconds, Swift reaches Beyoncé and gives her a massive hug. Beyoncé then steps away and points to Swift, indicating that this is her moment to shine. The full focus is back on Swift as she begins her actual acceptance speech (“Maybe, maybe we could try this again?”).
The first sociological concept that can be applied to this interaction is Goffman’s presentation of self, and in particular, his notion of face-work. As described by Goffman (2003), face-work is the idea that everything one does is to keep good face and avoid losing face (where ‘face’ refers to one’s dignity or social standing). When someone’s face is threatened (i.e. something happens that may cause them to lose face), they risk a social death. This can involve extreme embarrassment, loss of status, and in some cases ostracism (Goffman 1967). However, it is possible for one’s face to be regained, or ‘cooled’, after a social death (Goffman 1952). Face can typically be redeemed by some kind of honourable act that excuses the event that caused loss of face. This can either be accomplished by the person who has lost face (which is usually hard because they do not have a lot of power at that point) or by someone else doing something that justifies the person’s act and boosts their social status again (known as ‘giving face’) (Goffman 2003).
Face-work is clearly evident in the whole 2009 VMAs interaction. For starters, West’s interruption of Swift was a very face-threatening act that made Swift look powerless, and the fact that she was being compared to Beyoncé made her look worthless and untalented (which in turn threatens Beyoncé’s face by suggesting she thinks she is superior to Swift). In doing so, however, West also lost face dramatically. His act was perceived as rude and intolerable, and it downgraded his integrity. This is illustrated by the crowd’s booing and calling out at 40 seconds in the first video. In the second video, Beyoncé forms a ‘team’ with Swift to give back her face (Goffman 1971). She does this by putting the spotlight back on Swift and providing her with the moment she was meant to have when she received her award. This redeems Swift’s dignity and puts her back in good face, while at the same time saving Beyoncé’s face (by showing that Beyoncé does not endorse or agree with West’s opinion). It also emphasises how wrong in face West was, which pushed him into a severe social death. West’s actions resulted in his removal from the show, and he was highly criticised by various celebrities (who have social power) for months after the event. Even those who did not have power were turning to the internet to rage (the “Imma let you finish” meme is still used today). Consequently, West was forced into a year long hiatus, where he hid from the press and let the situation cool. In 2010 he made his comeback with his fifth album My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, which somewhat regained his face. Most people now attribute his actions to his ‘out-there’ persona, however there are still some people who still see him as wrong in face. This demonstrates the extent to which a social death can impact on a person’s life.
Another sociological concept that can be utilised in the interpretation of the data is the idea of power, and why West believed he had the power to do what he did. The VMAs is a constant exchange of power, where power is given to whoever has possession of the microphone and is in the spotlight. In taking Swift’s microphone mid-speech, West rips Swift of her power and pulls all the attention on himself. As there is no way to politely take the power back, Swift is left unable to do anything in fear of losing face. It is likely that West viewed himself as having more power than Swift (possibly because he had been around for longer, or saw himself as more talented), so granted himself the power to interrupt her. Since he is used to getting his own way as a well-known celebrity, he might not have considered the consequences (Furedi 2010). Without the power associated with being a celebrity, West would not have been allowed to come onstage during Swift’s speech, and it is highly unlikely he would even attempt it. It is clear that power played a huge part in the interaction.
Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology and Goffman’s obligations and expectations can also be used for analysis. Under the principles of ethnomethodology, everybody follows certain ‘contextualization cues’ that govern what they are allowed to do in certain circumstances (Heritage 1984). Even though there are no explicit rules to follow, it is common knowledge that deviance from these rules will cause a social death (Brunet et al. 2012). Since the VMAs follow a very specific set of rules, there is little room for West’s interruption. As an award show, the hosts have an obligation to announce the winner of each award (usually with a witty comment or joke), and the winner is then expected to come up on stage to accept their award and give a speech. It is an expectation of the audience to sit back quietly and applauds the winner, however West breaches this expectation by coming up on stage and interrupting when it is not his turn. As outlined by Garfinkel’s (1967) ‘breaching experiments’, people usually do not know how to react to a rule break. The fact that West was allowed up on stage at all without any move against him demonstrates this. Everyone sat and watched in shock, but eventually people began to boo, and it ultimately lead to West’s social death.
Lastly, Goffman’s dramaturgy can be used to shed some light on what is happening in the interaction. According to Goffman (1971), life is like a stage that people act on to achieve a desired character. This is known as their frontstage, which only includes what they want people to see. In contrast, a person’s backstage is how they really are without being held back by other peoples’ judgements. On a widely publicised and watched television show such as the VMAs, it is vital that those being filmed only show their frontstage. Because of this, a good proportion of those involved in the VMAs are just putting on a cynical performance, where they are only putting on an act for the performance rather than showing their sincere selves. With the role of a celebrity comes the obligation to be perfectly behaved in all social events publicised by the media (Furedi 2010). By doing this, they earn respect and can be perceived as one with power. However, West did not act in a respectful way when he broke the social order in talk (Wieder 1974). He was talking in a very backstage manner (almost trash talking Swift) that was inappropriate for the forum of an awards show. As the VMAs are viewed by millions of people around the world, West’s comments were brought to an extreme frontstage. Media coverage of the incident afterwards emphasised the frontstage as well, until it got to the point where just about everyone had heard of what happened even if they did not watch the VMAs. It is a possibility that West suffered some kind of role distance though (Starr 1977), where he may have been influenced by his need to uphold his image as a miscreant and trouble-maker. Regardless of his intentions, his actions were still unacceptable in the context of a televised awards show.
In conclusion, the 2009 VMAs present a very interesting piece of data for analysis as it shows a direct break of the social norms established. Even though it was a very micro interaction, the fact that it was so frontstage and made common knowledge around the world meant it had a macro effect on society. This demonstrates that bringing backstage to the front can have disastrous effects, especially if face was lost. It simply means that the social death is extended way out of proportion to what it could have been.

References
Brunet, P, Cowie, R, Donnan, H & Douglas-Cowie, E 2012, ‘Politeness and social signals’, Cognitive Processing, vol.13, no.2, pp447-453.
Furedi, F 2010, ‘Celebrity culture’, Society, vol.47, no.6, pp493-497.
Garfinkel, H 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodolgy, Prentice-Hall, Engelwood Cliffs.
Goffman, E 1952, ‘On cooling the mark out: some aspects of adaptation to failure’, Available at http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--Cooling.htm
Goffman, E 1967, ‘The nature of deference and demeanor’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior, Pantehon Books, New York, pp47-96.
Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, in The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp28-82.
Goffman, E 2003, ‘On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction’, Reflections, vol.4, no.3, pp7-13.
Heritage, J 1984, ‘The morality of cognition’, in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodolgy, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp75-102.
MTV Video Music Awards 2009, television program, MTV, New York, 13 September.
Starr, P 1977, ‘Marginality, role conflict, and status inconsistency as forms of stressful interaction’, Human Relations, vol.30, no.10, pp949-961.
Wieder, D 1974, ‘Telling the code’, in R Turner (ed.), Ethhnomethodolgy, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp144-172.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_DsLWAqncw (last accessed 30 August 2012)


Monday, 29 October 2012

Just checking if uploading my own video works. It seems this was removed from YouTube. :/

Wednesday, 17 October 2012

Institutional Talk in 123 words


So I did an overall word count for my blog so far, and found that I am dangerously close to the 2000 word limit (I’m going to blame it on my awesomely long and helpful comments). Because of that, I’m going to make this blog short and sweet.

Essentially this week’s topic is based off the idea that interactions in institutional settings have set scripts to follow. It directly follows the principles established in Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology, where deviation from said scripts can cause social death/exclusion. Lewis and Miller (2011) explore this concept in the world of psychology, showing how even appointments with Psychologists follow scripts. There are certain routine questions that they all ask to get a general scope of the problem.
And that is the end of my final post woo! Here are a few celebratory gifs to convey just how happy that makes me feel:


 

Lewis, V., & Miller, A. (2011). “Institutional talk” in the discourse between an educational psychologist and a parent: A single case study employing mixed research methods. Educational Psychology in Practice, 27, 195-212.

Saturday, 6 October 2012

Group Presentation

Here's a link to my group presentation on Cassie's blog. I don't know how to upload it myself, so a link will have to do. >.<

Thursday, 4 October 2012

Words Hurt


OMG i am totes ova this whole blog thingy. it is sooo annoying 2 hav 2 do 1 every week, & i just cant be fucked anymore :/

While there may be a tiny shred of truth in the above comment (It can get tenuous, but it is actually rather refreshing compared to the endless stream of essays for my other subjects), it is utterly inappropriate to mention in this blog. Talking in such a vulgar, informal way is not suitable for the particular genre of these blogs. Text talk, which was established in the CMC movement of last week, would be only be acceptable in backstage sites like facebook, and the extreme misuse of grammar will hopefully only be found in primary school children. Also, use of profanities such as “fuck” is certainly not appropriate for frontstage academic writings.

This demonstrates that there is a time and place for expletives, epithets, profanity and ‘rudeness’. Since we have socially constructed meaning to certain words with symbolic interactionism, we can’t just blurt out any word we want in any situation, for fear of a social death. The metaphor Andy uses (which I think is awesome) is Harry Potter spells. These words actually mean something more than a syntactic organisation of letters. While not to the extent of magical side effects, words today still mean something depending on the context they are put in based on social interpretations.
 An interesting point about this topic is that words or phrases can have complete opposite meanings between backstage and frontstage. For instance, swearing in a frontstage setting can lead to alienation and only politeness is accepted. On the other hand, politeness in a backstage setting can actually create distance, while swearing can break the ice and create a more equal relationship (i.e. swearing around ‘mates’).

And here is my comment for My Big Fat Greek Rydal:

You have a very interesting blog! I love how effectively you integrate the previous theories we have learnt into the current topic. For instance, I hadn't really thought too much about the connection you make between presentation of the self and CMC. You really seem to understand the impact CMC has had on identity.
I know you mention facework and anonymity, something you could consider is the dramatic effect CMC has had on interaction. The fact that people have been 'hiding' behind anonymity has been the downfall of CMC, and has seen the intense cyber bullying and trolling of online communication today. I highly doubt these bullies would say such mean things to the person's face without the shield that anonymity has given them. Since whatever they say can't be traced back to them at all, they don't worry about the consequences.
Thanks for an enjoyable read - you seem to have a knack for pointing out perspectives people may not have considered.

http://sociologysteph2012.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/the-sanctuary-that-is-online-communities.html
My comment for Cat65:

Awesome insight! I think your facebook account really highlights how easy it is to create a fake identity online, even on a supposedly nonymous site like facebook! When sites are in fact anonymous, it is even less likely that people will stay true to their offline identities.
Your Charlotte Dawson example demonstrates that when interaction anonymously online, people feel free to say whatever they want because there is no way that it can be traced back to them. Unfortunately, that does often mean cyber bullying and trolling, as you pointed out.
I think your blog really grasps this week's topic and puts it in a way that we can easily relate to. You could possibly even consider the form of language used online compared to offline (how we are less formal and tend to use 'text talk' even though it is text), and how that impacts on the interaction. :)

http://cat65.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/cmc-online-week.html?showComment=1349334328086#c932405427346725029

Wednesday, 3 October 2012

My Runescape boyfriend is a cat


Think about that one online fling you had years ago (everyone’s got at least one). For all you know, your Prince Charming was actually Mr. Whiskers, the intelligent cat. Anything is possible in the world of CMC!

Gatson (2011) explores identity on the internet, and emphasises the fact that you really can’t trust other people if there is no way to prove their identity or what they are saying (which is essentially every type of CMC) One criticism of CMC though is that it muddles up everything else in sociology. For instance, it is hard to tell whether the communication is frontstage or backstage, and the presentation of the self could be a complete deception.

As reluctant as I am to admit, I did go through a phase in year 7 where I was obsessed with an online game known as Runescape. This is a social RPG where players are encouraged to interact with each other to complete missions. An interested trend I found in the game was that it became a ‘thing’ to have relationships with other players, to the point of crafting rings for each other and divvying up resources. However, you had no idea what other players looked or sounded like. You just had to trust the word of the other player. The website even automatically starred any mention of a hotmail or MSN address (this was before the days of Facebook) as well, so it was hard to communicate in a way external to the game.

This demonstrates the dangers of anonymity online, and shows how easy it is to be untruthful. Because there is no way actions can be traced back to the person, players can act without suffering the consequences. Here’s a video to help reinforce the effect anonymity has on interactions online:

Gatson, S. (2011). Self-naming practices on the internet: Identity, authenticity, and communication. Sage Publications, 11(3), 224-235.