Independent Research project

Everyday interactions have been an interest to study for conversation analysists. They examine both verbal and non-verbal conduct in everyday interactions, focusing on what is being said and how it is being said. This essay will examine an interview between Zac Efron and Rove McManus, drawing on sociological theories such as cultural scripts, Goffman’s dramaturgical theory, presentation of self, the documentary method of interpretation codes of conduct and symbolic interactionism. As the interviewer, Rove does not simply ask questions and listen to answers; he is an active listener and controls the direction of the conversation. He signals uptake, understanding, agreement and emotional involvement. Activities directed to the audience can aim at ensuring uptake or manipulating the interviewee’s response in some way. These back channel activities may take either visual or auditory form. Visual back-channel activities include nods, smiles, grimaces, furrowed brows and gestures like raised palms and shoulder shrugs; auditory back-channel indicators include both non-linguistic sounds like sighs, inhalations, laughs, and suction clicks and linguistic signals (Norrick 2010). This essay will focus on these signs of listenership to the exclusion of visual indicators.

Talk show hosts engage in particular interviewing practices as participants in a specific contextualized activity and as part of their individual construction of a public persona within this activity (Norrick 2010).  The goal of this interview is human interest rather than politics (Norrick 2010). The roles are more fluid where the question-answer response tends to be a similar structure of everyday conversation. Interviewers interject a range of reactions directed primarily at the audience (either present in the studio or potential via the microphones and cameras). For example, at 1.40 of the video, when Zac walks in, there is an attractive photo of him in the background, to which Zac’s fans start screaming at. Rove also encourages Zac’s fans to start screaming by telling them to “start screaming now”, which could be seen as a sign of power and control as he is directing them what to do. The photo is used to elicit a certain response and encourage screaming and excitement. Rove is responsible to the audience for getting interesting, informative answers from Zac, and for ensuring that the audience can understand and appreciate the answers. Rove, as the interviewer, interjects background information to help the audience follow Zac’s response. For example, in the interaction below, Rove asks Zac whether he is familiar with the language differences in Australia, to which Zac admits that he is not and had told a reporter that he is “rooting” for her, which is humorous because we know that rooting is an Australian term for sex although it is an American term for cheering.

(At 3.33)

Rove: You should be careful while you’re here too (points at Zac) because when you’re...you may be polite and want to say the right thing to people but we have lingo differences and you’ve been here a couple of times and I’m not sure if [pause]. Are you across all of them at the moment?

Zac: No man. I’m still rusty. I was, um [pause] given an interview the other day and the lady was so nice. She was such a sweetheart and we were laughing a lot and I said at the end of the interview, you know ‘I’m really rooting for you

[Zac and Rove laugh]

Zac: and [pause] she went silent...I realised that was a bad mistake

In the above interaction, Rove tries to engage the audience by asking Zac interesting questions about whether he knows the language differences in Australia. Rove also points at Zac, which shows his power. Zac reveals more information than is intended, which shows that he is comfortable around Rove and in front of an audience. Zac’s statement about telling the journalist that he is rooting for her becomes humorous because we recognise that rooting has a different meaning in Australia than in America, which is where Zac lives. Therefore, the term ‘rooting’ is a cultural script. The key idea of the theory of cultural scripts is that widely shared and widely known ways of thinking can be identified in terms of the same universal grammar (Wierzbicka 2002). Thus, different cultures may use the same word but it may have a different meaning. We also recognise that he was embarrassed with what he had said to the journalist through the number of pauses and he avoids eye contact when telling the story.

The conversation becomes free-flowing and open, with other cast members asking Zac questions and interjecting Rove’s questions. Although Rove seems comfortable with Peter and Carrie asking questions, he tries to shift the interaction back between him and Zac, with Rove predominantly asking the questions. This is shown in the following interaction. It is evident that the use of humour is intentional. Humour is deployed when Zac discusses his older female fans. He uses the motion of his hands when he is discussing them grabbing him, showing the audience what is meant by ‘grabbing’. The statement is humorous as we would expect young female fans to be “grabbing” him, not mums or grandmas. Humour is deployed in the following interaction between Peter and Zac, when Zac is discussing his older fans and Peter asks Zac whether his mother gets nervous around him, suggesting that his mother would find him too attractive to be around him. Zac laughs, showing that he understood Peter’s question as a joke.

(At 2.20)

Zac: “Inevitably when there’s so many [mums] grabbing you too hard or won’t let go, it’s usually not a young fan, it’s a mum or grandma”

[laughs]

Carrie: “and what about”

Peter: “Does your own mum get a bit nervous around you?”

Zac: “ahh” (laughs)

Zac: “No”

Goffman’s dramaturgical theory states that life is similar to a drama in that we are always performing a role in front of an audience, although the roles can change. He divides his theory into two stages: the front stage and the back stage. Goffman (1971) refers to the front stage to refer to those activities which occurs in front of an audience and has some influence on the audience. In the interaction below (from 5.05-5.28), Zac admits that he was nervous backstage but knows that on the front stage, he can not appear too nervous. On the front stage, he appears to be calm and relaxed. As Hogan (2010) 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. Thus, Zac’s presents a relaxed image of himself, rather than his authentic self where he was nervous. 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, as shown by Zac’s admission that back stage he was nervous. Rove and the other cast members are team members. They are defining the situation, which we know as a television interview. Rove is the interviewer and Zac is the interviewee. Rove is expected to ask questions and Zac is expected to answer them. The other cast sit on the couch and are expected to listen and be quiet.

Myf: How does that translate for you when you get nervous. Like, we never see, like, you look like such a professional. You’re always very calm and cool but when you’re really nervous what happens to you?

Zac: I don’t know. It’s just adrenaline. I don’t know. Especially when you’re performing, you kinda use that energy but you have to turn that into a positive.

Peter: Are you nervous now Zac because you look pretty calm?

[all laugh]

Zac: Yeah one hundred percent. I don’t know how anyone does this without getting nervous. I’m backstage, like jumping up and down and getting pumped, then I just come and sit.

[Rove and Zac laugh]

Goffman’s theory of presentation of self refers to the way individuals present themselves in different situations through their different selves. Presentational rituals specify what should be done and how recipients should be treated in interactions (Goffman 1967). Demeanour refers to ceremonial behaviour conveyed by appearance and the nature of their movements. In the video. Rove is wearing a suit and dresses very professional although he is not to be taken too seriously. He is also wearing sneakers which shows his humour and casual nature, as he is not fully dressed in business attire. Zac, on the other hand, is wearing a t-shirt and jeans. He appears very causal and calm. The roles that they are performing influence the way that they present themselves. Rove, as the interviewer, should be dressed more formally and Zac, as the interviewee can dress more casually.

The documentary method of interpretation refers to using past experience to make meaning out of present events and to assume from past experience that only individuals of a particular kind are likely to be found in a given social setting. For example, we know that Zac is a celebrity based on the fact that he is an actor and is very popular among female fans and he appears in the media frequently. We know that Rove is the television host and that most of his guests are celebrities. We know this from past experience through watching his show. We also know that it is Rove’s show based on past experience and there are many indicators to suggest that it is his show: the sign saying “Rove”, his name on the cup, his role as the interviewer.

A code of conduct is a set of social norms that prescribes, proscribes and describes how people should behave (Jimerson & Oware 2006). Zac and Rove follow the codes of greetings. Rove and Zac stood facing each other, each grasped the each other’s right hand for a short while, and then let go, then patted each other on the back. If this action is to be accomplished, the two men must be close enough to one another for their hands to come into contact, and they must be oriented to one another appropriately. The two hand shakers must engage in a joint manoeuvre to create a spatial and orientational frame within which the action of handshaking can take place (Kendon as cited in Raffer-Engel 1980). Zac and Rove step up to one another and shake hands, then Rove steps away from the place they were standing in for the handshake, and re-orient themselves in relation to one another. For example, they greet each other formally by shaking each other’s hand and then they pat each other on the back. This demonstrates the gendered codes of communication. If it was a female greeting Zac, then he would kiss her on the cheek but with two men, they make sure that they keep their distance, ensuring that they follow the code of conduct and the type of behaviour that is appropriate for the situation.

 Goffman (1967) states that rules of conduct affect the individual in two ways: firstly, as obligations (the individual behaves as they morally should behave) and secondly as expectations (how others should act around him or her).  Garfinkel’s breaching experiments revealed that the relationship between normative rules and socially organised events appears to be a cognitive one in which rules are constitutive of what the events are (Heritage 1984). In the video, Zac knows how to behave in front of an audience. He knows the structure of the interview and has his hands in his lap. Rove also knows how to behave as an interviewer. He is obligated to behave in a professional but humorous way and expects Zac to be relaxed around him. Rove performs the most powerful role in the interaction. As the interviewer, Rove asks the questions and can control the direction of the conversation.

According to Blumer (1969 as cited in Roberts 2006), symbolic interactionism refers to the particular and distinctive features of interaction which take place between human beings. Symbolic interactionism involves interpretation or ascertaining the meaning of the actions or remarks of the other person (Blumer 1969 as cited in Roberts 2006). Symbolic interactionism can be divided into meaning, language and act. Through meaning, we learn that it is an informal interview and Rove appears to be professional although his humorous nature shows. Observation refers to those objects which help to define the situation such cameras, microphones (which can not be seen although we know that they are there) and the set. We know that it is a television interview because of the meanings that are attached to the objects. Act refers to how the actors are performing. Zac, Rove, Carrie and Peter are very relaxed and calm. They help to define the situation and the way that they should act in a television interview.

In non-verbal communication, the expression of power and status is directly related to social distancing. The person with power has the right to determine the level of intimacy that he or she will permit in interacting with others. When Zac was invited to sit down, he sat in the chair at the other side of the table, opposite to where Rove was sitting. The arrangement of chairs expresses power and status (St. Clair in Raffer-Engel 1980). Rove’s chair was behind the table, showing his power and authority. It also allows for eye contact. The use of swivel stools increases the flexibility for communication by allowing Zac to turn in several directions to address the other cast (St. Clair as cited in Raffer-Engel 1980). This shows the flexibility of the interview as the interaction is not jest between Rove and Zac but Zac also interacts with the other cast.

Therefore, this essay examined an interview between Zac Efron and Rove McManus, drawing on sociological theories such as Goffman’s dramaturgy, presentation of self, symbolic interactionism and the documentary method of interpretation. Rove engaged in particular interviewing practices as participants in a specific contextualized activity and as part of their individual construction of a public persona within this activity.   

  

References

Goffman, E 1959, The presentation of self in everyday life, Penguin, New York.

Goffman, E 1967 ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanor’ in Interaction

Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Pantheon Books, New York, pp.47-96.

Goffman, E1971, ‘Performances’, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,

 Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp.28-82.

Heritage, J 1984, ‘The morality of cognition’ in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp75-102.

Hogan, B 2010, ‘The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online’, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, vol.30, no.6, pp377-384, accessed 20 August 2012, http://bst.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/content/30/6/377.full.pdf+html

Jimerson J & Oware, M 2006, ‘Telling the Code of the Street: An Ethnomethodological

Ethnography’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,  vol. 35, no. 1, pp24-46,  accessed 25 October 2012, http://jce.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/content/35/1/24.full.pdf+html

Kendon, A 1980 ‘Features of the structural analysis of human communicational behaviour’ in W Raffler-Engel (ed.), Aspects of nonverbal communication, Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp.29-43.

Norrick, N 2009, ‘Listening practices in television celebrity interviews’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.42, no.1, pp525-542, accessed 18 October 2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0378216609001775

Roberts, B 2006, ‘Symbolic Interactionism 2 – Developments’ in Micro Social

Theory, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp46-61.

Schegloff, E 2000, ‘Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation’, Language in Society, vol.29, no.1, pp1-60, accessed 22 October 2012, http://journals.cambridge.org.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=28332&jid=LSY&volumeId=29&issueId=01&aid=28331&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession           

St. Clair, R 1980 ‘Social distance: expressions of power, solidarity and status’, in W Raffler-Engel (ed.), Aspects of nonverbal communication, Swets and Zeitlinger,  Lisse, pp81-102.

Wierzbicka, A 2002, ‘Australian cultural scripts-bloody revisited’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.34, no.1, pp1167-1206, accessed 25 October 2012, http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/science/article/pii/S0378216601000236

Zac Efron interview on Rove live-full interview-best quality HQ-Promoting 17 Again, accessed 18/10/2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm1VtS8f-PE&feature=related

this is the link to the group presentation that Bernadine & I did in week 6.

http://soc250bam.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/tutorial-presentation-life-as-drama.html

week 1 research blog

Hallett applies Goffman’s ideas of deference and demeanor to an educational institution. He discussed both Goffman’s theory of the interaction order and Bourdieu’s theories of cultural capital and symbolic power to explain interactions at a local school, particularly focusing on the relationship between Mrs Kox(a principal who follows the rules and does everything ‘by the books’) and the teachers (who dislike her leadership style and her tough-lined approach). As Hallett argues, to acquire deference (the act of conveying appreciation to an individual), an individual must exhibit the appropriate demeanor (their appearance-the way you dress, act, look) towards others. For example, as Hallett argued, for the principal to acquire deference, she must treat her staff and students with respect. The principal struggles to acquire deference from the teachers because of her tough approach to running the school in a particular way.

Goffman argued that rules of conduct are expected to be followed in two ways: as obligations and expectations. Thus, as Hallett stated, Mrs Kox has an obligation to care for her students and staff, and she has an expectation that the students and staff will co-operate and abide by her rules.  She is expected to behave and conduct herself in a certain way and uphold the rules of conduct. Goffman argues that when an individual follows a rule that they create a particular image of themselves. Thus, Mrs Kox’s authoritative style of leadership has created a negative image of herself. Goffman argues that individuals develop a sense of self from creating an impression they wish to give others. Thus, Mrs Kox knows that she is tough and direct and sees herself through the impression she gives to her staff and students

Hallett, T 2007, ‘Between Deference and Distinction: Interaction Ritual through Symbolic Power in an Educational Institution’, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol.70, no.2, accessed 18/8/2012, http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/20141777.pdf?acceptTC=true

The online world

In his article, Ross highlights the issue of anonymity and identity formation in the online environment. Ross discusses the use of organic online learning community (OOLC) with reference to Goffman’s theory of backstage and front stage behaviour. The OOLC is made up of pre-service London cabbies, who call themselves ‘Knowledge Boys and Girls’. There are many different types of discussions that occur in OOLCs, for example, some discussions are connected to learning tasks and other discussions are social conversations.

 Goffman’s dramaturgical theory was used to explain what benefits might be provided through personal and professional disclosure but also as a way of comprehending how these benefits might be realised in the online learning environment. Ross suggests that learners create a backstage region that allows students to compare themselves to each other, form friendships and practise for assessments. Goffman (1959 as cited in Ross 2007) argues that we are all actors, always performing for an audience in a region. Region behaviour consists of behaviour that is acceptable in a particular situation or context. As Knowledge Boys and Girls are in the public eye, the online learning environment may be considered to be a front stage for learners.

Similarly, Kazmer, Burnett and Dickey’s study discussed the construction and representation of identity in an online customer service chat setting. The study focused on interactions between customer service representatives and customers of a company referred to as Kristal.com. Similarly to the OOLC, there were many reasons why customers used chat including asking questions and cancelling accounts. Their study revealed that participants must establish some form of identity implicitly or explicitly for any meaningful interaction to take place. For example, customers must use their real name to interact with employers and they must use a PIN. By using their 'real' identity, they will be more aware of how they behave online and ensure that they follow the code of conduct.

Kazmer, M, Burnett, G & Dickey, M 2007, ‘Identity in customer service chat interaction: implications for virtual reference’, Library and Information Science Research, vol.29, no.1, pp5-29.

Ross, D 2007, "Backstage with the Knowledge Boys and Girls: Goffman and Distributed Agency in an Organic Online Community", Organization Studies, vol.28, no.3, http://oss.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/content/28/3/307.full.pdf+html

Cracking the code. This week I decided to comment on Cassie's blog.

http://thesoc250network.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/cracking-code.html?showComment=1350341291525

This week I decided to comment on Kate's blog.

http://katemcatee1.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/darn-it-shivers-fudge.html?showComment=1350340961180#!/2012/10/darn-it-shivers-fudge.html

Comment #1

Here is the link to my first comment. I realised that I had commented on the wrong post so I had to redo it.

http://joshnoblee.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/ethnomethodology-week-7.html?showComment=1349841937880

This is the link to my data presentation

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109543130/SOC250-data2

Use of the word 'bloody

Wiezerbicka discussed how the word ‘bloody’ is used in everyday Australian conversations and how it reveals Australian attitudes and beliefs. She argued that it is “the great Australian adjective”. Hong (2008) focused on how the word ‘bloody’ is perceived in different cultures, drawing from interviews that she conducted with Australians and British. Hong also focused on the Tourism Australia advertisement to show that although ‘bloody’ is common in Australia, the advertisement was controversial in Australia because of the use of the word ‘bloody’. This reinforces Wiezerbicka’s point that although the word ‘bloody’ is used frequently in Australian speech, it does not mean that the word is acceptable to everyone. I thought that it was interesting when Wiezerbicka compared the use of bloody in Australian parliament to the British parliament. In Australian parliament, it is generally acceptable to use the word ‘bloody’ except when it is a personal attack, however, in British parliament, ministers have to apologise to the council.

Hong’s study revealed that people generally felt two ways about the ad: some people argue that the statement plays on the stereotypical characteristics of Australia and others argue that it should represent more politeness in representing Australia. Hong interviewed 4 Australians and British to compare whether it was impolite to say “bloody hell” in different cultures. Australians generally felt that it was acceptable to say ‘bloody’ although one did say that it may be rude or offensive to Christians. The British speaker thought that the term ‘bloody’ was rude and impolite. Therefore, this shows how the term ‘bloody’ could be seen as a cultural symbol as it is an acceptable term to use in Australian speech but not in England.

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, http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/72902/Issue1-minha-hong-bloody-hell-and-impoliteness-in-Ause.pdf

Week 2 research blog

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.

References

Hogan, B 2010, ‘The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online’, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, vol.30, no.6, accessed 20 August 2012, http://bst.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/content/30/6/377.full.pdf+html