Independant Research Project

Data:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFgPX0hnNfA

Independant Research Project:

 

The data I have chosen to analyze for my independent research project is a clip of Rick Mercer’s Talking to Americans. In this clip Rick Mercer, a Canadian reporter/comedian travels around the most well-known cities in the United States and interviews American citizens.

When an individual plays a part he implicitly requests his observers to take seriously the impression that is fostered before them. They are asked to believe that the character they see actually possesses the attributes he appears to possess, that the task he performs will have the consequences that are implicitly claimed for it, and that, in general, matters are what they appear to be (Goffman, 1971).

This quotation accurately describes a theme within the naturally occurring data I have selected. The theme is that Rick Mercer is playing a role by enacting a performance which requests observers to take the impression seriously. The humour in this clip arises when the observers wrongfully take Rick Mercer’s impression seriously and assume that his character actually possesses the attributes that he appears to possess and that the tasks he claims to be performing will actually have the consequences that are claimed. For example: in the clip, Rick Mercer tells participants that he is trying to spread awareness and get signatures on his petition in order to stop the government’s ongoing exile of senior citizens via ice flow deposit. Here, participants chose to believe that the task being performed is indeed reading and signing a legitimate petition in order to stop these terrible events. These interviews are interactions where both parties are enacting a social performance. This paper will analyze the performances of both Rick Mercer and the American interviewees from the perspectives of symbolic interactionism, Goffman’s presentation of self, and Garfunkel’s Ethnomethodology.

            The main premise of symbolic interactionism is that participants in social interactions observe symbols, create meaning and act accordingly (Roberts, 2006). In this clip the American participants would be observing the camera crew, Rick Mercer’s suit, the microphone and/or the clipboard. These observations are symbols of social communication and the participants create meaning of them as such.  From these symbols they attribute a socially universal professional, authoritative and/or politically active meaning to the situation. Given the professional and authoritative meaning, they would act – or attempt to act – confident, knowledgeable and politically active. A good example of this symbolic interactionism can be found in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. In these famous studies participants believed the authority figure to be who they said they were and acted accordingly without questioning. Here, participants see Rick Mercer as the figure of authority. They give him the benefit of the doubt and believe he is who he says he is and participate according to the authoritative meaning they have attributed to the contextual symbols present. Another symbol at work here observable only from the audience’s perspective is the background studio laughter. This confers the meaning that the television program is meant to be humourous and taken lightly. It is also a signal pointing out when it is appropriate to laugh. Without this important social symbol, the television program might run the risk of appalling viewers by the lack of serious knowledge displayed and the disregard shown for true Canadian news.

            Goffman’s theory of presentation of self has many different aspects that aid in my analysis such as dramaturgy, impressions, frame-shifting, deference and demeanor. Rick Mercer is putting on a performance on the busy public streets/University Campuses/Political sites of popular American cities, in front of both a direct audience of unsuspecting Americans and a behind the scenes, Canadian television audience. He enacts this performance in order to make the Americans perceive him as authoritative, professional and knowledgeable. Goffman defines this process as Dramaturgy (Goffman, 1971). Dramaturgy includes front-stage and back-stage interactions. This data shows a front-stage performance by both the Americans and Rick Mercer. The Americans are being put on the spot by strangers and are being filmed by a camera crew. Rick Mercer on the other hand, is putting on a specific show in order to fool the Americans while being filmed for television. These are both rather extreme examples of the front-stage considering these individuals’ performances are actually being broadcast. Dramaturgy also includes teamwork. Teamwork refers to the interplay between participants within an interaction which shapes the interaction at large. Teamwork is exemplified in the scenes where Mercer is interviewing two or more Americans at the same time. Here the Americans play off of one another. The more one person agrees, the more comfortable the other will be to agree also. From Rick Mercer’s perspective, he and his camera crew/production team enact teamwork by all acting in the same professional, authoritative manner and going along with the same storyline in order to achieve a specific response from the Americans.

 Impressions are what affect other’s perception of a participant. These can be ‘given’ and ‘given-off’. Goffman describes impressions ‘given’ as intentionally, consciously emitted during an interaction, and those ‘given-off’ as subconscious, unintended or unnoticed by the person emitting them (Whelan, lecture, 2012). Here, we have already established that the Americans are acting according to the meanings they have created based on the symbols observed in the interaction. They are attempting to act professional, intelligent and politically/globally active. These are the impressions ‘given’. However ironically, seeing as the questions/statements Rick Mercer makes are false traps used for comedic purposes, the Americans unintentionally – despite their best efforts – end up looking silly. These are impressions ‘given off’.

A frame is described as ‘…the interpretation that is essential to any activity or text. We identify, both to ourselves and to our interactants, how to define a situation, how its parts fit into the whole, how the whole relates to larger structures of experience, and how what is unfolding at a given moment affects what will come next’ (Hoyle & Ribeiro, 2009). In an interaction, the frame can shift depending on changing context, situation, setting, participants etc. In this data, the American’s frame shifts from going about their everyday casually to a professional interview. The frame of the interaction also shifts from being a formal, in person performance to a comedic, entertaining T.V. program specifically viewed by members of a different nationality to those participating in the interview. The overlaid studio laughter and the assumption of Canadian viewer’s previous, correct knowledge of the topics both help in causing this frame shift.

Perhaps the most important factors at work in producing these interactions are Deference and Demeanor. Firstly, demeanor is the “…element of the individual’s ceremonial behavior typically conveyed through deportment, dress, and bearing, which serves to express to those in his immediate presence that he is a person of certain desirable or undesirable qualities” (Goffman, 1967). This refers to Mercer’s suit, his head-on stance, choice of wording, tone of voice and the movement of the microphone. These things all work to convey to the American’s that he is a professional and authoritative representative of a television company that is dominant, honest, assertive, knowledgeable and trustworthy. On the other hand, the Americans in this clip display tense body language, straight, serious expressions and quick diplomatic answers. They are displaying a demeanor of submissive yet knowledgeable counterpart.  Deference is the “…component of activity which functions as a symbolic means by which appreciation is regularly conveyed to a recipient of this recipient, or of something of which this recipient is taken as a symbol, extension, or agent” (Goffman, 1967). In this data, deference describes the respect and appreciation the Americans are showing for Mercer by indulging in his questions and by not challenging the validity of his ‘knowledge’ or statements. They are simultaneously showing respect for Canada by assuming the perceived knowledge to be correct and not showing any doubt if there happened to be any.  These two components can overlap and conflict leading to a ‘discredited role performance’ (Goffman, 1967). These discrepancies are shown well in this situation because the respect shown by not questioning the integrity of the interview conflicts with the American’s serious, intelligent demeanor that they are trying to portray because the audience is lead to believe that they are foolish idiots. In most of the interviews during the clip, the Americans wouldn’t have looked foolish had they questioned the interview. This discredits their performances because their ideal demeanor or perceived self falls apart due to this conflict.

Garfinkel was one of the pioneering sociologists of Ethnomethodology. Some of his most important contributions to this field of theorization were his ‘breaching experiments’. These experiments were designed “…to breach the norms, to undermine the participants’ belief in reciprocity of perspectives in which the conversational partner is cooperating in a shared reality or intersubjectivity” (Seedhouse, 2004). The participant/American believes that him and Rick Mercer are interacting with a mutual understanding of the context and meaning of the situation. Rick Mercer is breaching this mutual understanding because he is actually acting and attempting to make the Americans look unintelligent. When social norms or everyday cognitive conventions are violated – or breached – a positive feeling of moral solidarity is simultaneously broken (Collins, 1990). In the case of Garfinkel’s breaching experiments this causes participants to react strongly with emotional hostility. We can only assume that the participants in this video would react with similar hostility if they were to view the finished product of the video later and realize that their previously felt moral solidarity has been breached.  

In conclusion, the social interactions within Rick Mercer’s Talking to Americans can be understood in through many different theoretical perspectives. Perspectives used for analysis in this paper were Symbolic Interactionism, Goffman’s presentation of self and Garfinkel’s breaching within ethnomethodology. The basic interactional mechanisms can be found in the symbols, meanings and attributed actions. From a more in depth participant perspective, the interaction is shaped by each persons acted and perceived self. These performances are shaped by the front-stage, teamwork, impressions, frame shifting, demeanor and deference. Finally, this data can be compared to and explained through breaching.

 

 

 

References

 

 

Collins, R 1990, ‘Emotional energy and transient emotions’, in T. D. Kemper (ed.), Research Agendas in the Sociology of Emotions, Albany, New York, pp.27-58.

 

Flyman, 2011, Rick Mercer Talking to Americans Part 1, online video, Sep 10, YouTube, viewed 18 Sep 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFgPX0hnNfA.

 

Goffman, E 1967, ‘The nature of deference and demeanor’, American Anthropologist, vol.58, no.3, pp.473-502.

 

Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, pp.28-82.

 

Hoyle, S. & Ribeiro. B 2009, ‘Frame analysis’, in F. Brisard, J.-O. Östman, J. Verschueren (ed.), Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp.74-91.

 

Milgram, S 1963, ‘Behavioral study of obedience’, The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol.67, no.4, pp.371-378.

 

Roberts, B 2006, ‘Symbolic interactionism 2: Developments’, Micro Social theory, pp. 46-61.

 

Seedhouse, P 2004, ‘Conversation analysis methodology’, Language Learning, vol.54, no.1, pp.1-54.

 

Whelan, A 2012, SOC250 Sociology of Everyday Interaction, lecture, Department of Sociology, University of Wollongong.