Independent Research Project

    This research project consists of a thorough analysis of a social interaction between Ellen DeGeneres and Miranda Kerr on the Ellen DeGeneres show. The Ellen DeGeneres show, often shortened to Ellen, is an American television talk show hosted by comedian/ actress Ellen DeGeneres. The program combines comedy, celebrity and musical guests and human-interest stories, drawing millions of viewers each episode. The first five minutes of the interview have been selected for a close reading. The aim of the project is to discover why the social actors (Ellen DeGeneres and Miranda Kerr) ‘come to know, and know in common, what they are doing and the circumstances in which they are doing it’ (Heritage, 1984:76). The analysis will also look at how Ellen deploys humour on the show, since she is a comedian. A range of sociological approaches can be drawn on from the exchange, including: codes of conduct, recipe knowledge, documentary method of interpretation, performance, facework and deference and demeanor.

    The project analysis will first look at how the social actors in the episode came to know what they were doing. This means analysing the details that suggested they were having a social interaction. The study of ‘the details of social interactions in everyday life (micro- sociology) is treated of major importance to many sociologists, as it is at this level of human interaction and interpersonal relationships that the fabrication of the self arises’ (Elliot, 2008:22-23). The way an individual acts and responds to another person in an interaction constitutes the self, demonstrating the self is socially constructed.

    Sociologist, Harold Garfinkel, discovered that interactions were not defined by external/internal constraining moral rules, but by undefined/unwritten rules that had been established through previous interactions at a micro level. This idea derived from Alfred Shutz’s proposal, which was that people know how to interact in social situations because of partially formulated ‘recipe knowledge’ and past experiences (Heritage, 1984). There also exists’ codes of conduct (set of social norms), which prescribe/ describe how participants in the social interaction ought to behave.

    Miranda Kerr enters from backstage in the data, greets the audience and walks over to meet the host, Ellen DeGeneres. She hugs Ellen and proceeds to kiss her on both cheeks before turning and sitting down on the chair. It can be assumed that Miranda used her ‘recipe knowledge’ to correctly greet the female host of the talk show. If it had been two males, the interviewee would have shaken the interviewer’s hand. She followed a simple interaction code of conduct, which is ‘upon being greeted, return greeting’ (Whelan, 2012).

    According to Goffman, 'deference' and 'demeanor' play an active role in how individuals know they are having a social interaction and how they respond to that interaction. Deference is the use of rituals and codes by a subordinate to show respect to their superordinate (Goffman, 1967). Deference can take the form of compliments, apologies, and even criticisms. Demeanor refers to the appearance of the self, which is displayed through actions and language use. A person can convey a different demeanor depending on their context and what role they take on in these contexts. In the interview, deference and demeanor work together to support Miranda and Ellen’s image of self.  Both Miranda and Ellen establish the interaction is an interview through acts of deference when they first meet each other. For example,

Ellen- You’re beautiful.

Miranda- Thankyou.

Ellen- I love that (pointing to what Miranda is wearing). Is that a dress or a skirt?

Miranda- (points up and down indicating it is separate)

Ellen- It’s beautiful. Great. It is good to see you.
Miranda- It is good to see you.

Ellen begins the interaction with compliments, the acts of deference not only convey that the interaction will take the format of an interview, but that Ellen will be the interviewer since she facilitated the conversation. Both, Miranda and Ellen’s demeanor also highlights that they are participating in an interview. Miranda sits upright facing Ellen, with her hands resting on her knees, indicating she is the interviewee. While, Ellen’s demeanor conveys the opposite. She sits in a more slouched position and uses her hands to put forward her thoughts and questions to Miranda, emphasising she is the interviewer.

    Interview etiquette refers to codes of conduct an individual must follow while appearing for interviews. Goffman (1967) uses the term ‘codes of conduct’ to describe the guides to an individual’s actions. Social order arises when an individual follows the conduct approved by the group condition. For interviews, interviewees must be very particular about their appearance and follow an interview dress code. Miranda dressed casual formal for the interview, wearing an outfit that promotes she is an accomplished woman. Ellen complimented Miranda’s outfit, which conveys Miranda has dressed appropriately for the interview and kept to the dress code.

Ellen- I love that (pointing to what Miranda is wearing). Is that a dress or a skirt?

Miranda- (points up and down indicating it is separate)

Ellen- It’s beautiful. Great. It is good to see you.

Ellen has also dressed smart for the interview, wearing casual suit attire. Presentation of self plays an important part in interview interactions.

    Interview etiquette also emphasises the power relationship between the two social actors. Ellen’s position of power is first evident when she introduces Miranda to the audience and television camera. The only person who introduces the guests to a show is the host. As the host, Ellen asks most of the questions and controls the conversation and situation. Miranda is left to respond to the questions. It conveys the authority that Ellen has in the studio, and also demonstrates that Miranda is willing to follow the interviews code of conduct and respect the role that Ellen plays as host. ‘Goffman recognised that when two or more people come together to interact, they are making a symbolic commitment to one another to respect the role that each chooses to play’ (Wiemann, J., & Knapp, K. 1975:76).

    However, there are some instances in the interaction when Ellen makes open-ended statements, giving Miranda the opportunity to expand on her comments and ask questions. This suggests that the interview is informal, as Ellen is handing over the power to Miranda, and allowing her to direct some of the interview.

Miranda- I know. My mum actually hasn’t forgotten about giving birth to my brother and he was only 8 3. And she said to me, I don't know how you did it!

Ellen- I think I was 9 pounds something aswell. I was a large large baby.
Miranda- Wow. (Joking) Imagine if you and Orlando (Miranda’s husband) did have babies?

Ellen- Yeah. We would have gigantic babies.

    While, the turn taking procedure conveys that Ellen and Miranda know they are interacting, the fact that whenever Ellen speaks she asks a question and whenever Miranda speaks she responds with an answer, also conveys that they know the interaction is an interview. For example,

Ellen- Will you have another baby do you think? Is it the kind of thing you forget about the pain and maybe you will have another?

Miranda- The pain is very much still in my mind…umm however, you know in a couple of years that might dissipate.

    Since, Ellen is a comedian and the interaction has taken place on a stage, the social interaction can be classified as a performance. A performance is ‘when an individual plays a part that implicitly requests his or her observers to take seriously the impression’ (Goffman, 1971:28). Ellen deploys humour on the show to keep the audience entertained. The audience is only made aware that Ellen is a comedian through her use of humour. It could be seen as an ‘act,’ where her ‘self’ on stage may be different to her ‘self’ in other settings. According to Dennis Brisett and Charles Edgley (2009), the self is perceived as social and dramatic because a person’s sense of individuality is situationally specific. Different situations occasion the creation of different selves. It links to dramaturgy and Goffman’s idea about social life as a drama, where a person’s different selves are akin to characters in a play. This means that there is a front stage and back stage. The front stage is where performances are conducted- where you are trying to please people. And the backstage is where people prepare for the performance, where they are themselves. An example of Ellen employing humour in the interaction is when she states,

We should clear something up before we get started.

Miranda- Okay.

Ellen- So, ahh your husband was on the show last time, Orlando Bloom.
Miranda- He loved you.

Ellen- I loved him aswell. We obviously love each other. The last time he was here he said he wanted to have a baby with me.

Miranda- Ohh I heard.

Ellen- Let’s just show it and see how you feel about it.

(Flashback to another episode.)

Ellen- How do you feel about being rebound from me?
Miranda- Well, I don’t mind. You are a wonderful person and I ‘m a happy second.

    The humour is embedded in the words, ‘I loved him aswell. We obviously love each other’. The audience knew from recipe knowledge that Ellen is gay and is happily married to Portia De Rossi, allowing them to make sense of the joke and laugh at her humour.

    The sociological approach, facework, can also be drawn on to convey the humour employed in the interview. Facework is all of the little things that people do in life to develop and maintain their 'selves'. It conveys how cautious individuals are about keeping their dignity intact when interacting with people (e.g. to keep 'good face' or 'save face'). In the interaction, Ellen is calm and collected when she states that her and Orlando obviously love each other, but it is Miranda’s reddened face, giggle and quick glance to the ground that gives away it was a joke. She looked to the ground to ‘save face’, and once she had composed her self again, focuses back on Ellen. Another instance where Miranda’s face gives away that Ellen had applied humour to a statement is when Ellen states,

I think I was 9 pounds something aswell. I was a large, large baby.

Miranda- Wow. Imagine if you and Orlando did have babies?
Ellen- Yeah. We would have gigantic babies.

Miranda- A 12 pounder!

Ellen- Yeah. Most likely.. it won’t happen.

The moment Ellen says, ‘yeah. Most likely..it won’t happen,’ causes Miranda to lose her professionalism, she looks down immediately to hide she is laughing at Ellen’s joke.

    The project will now analyse the circumstances in which the social actors are interacting. The physical interview setting is an important part of the talk-show interaction. The documentary method of interpretation has informed the actors that they are partaking in an interview. The method ‘consists of treating an actual appearance as “the document of”, as “pointing to”, “as standing on behalf of” a presupposed underlying pattern’ (Heritage, 1984:84). All of the furniture in the studio is laid out, so that its occupants are focused on the interviewer and interviewee. There are two armchairs on the stage and two coffee mugs on a table, which creates an interview setting vibe. Ellen’s name is featured around the stage on screens and all the lighting points towards the stage. If a person were placed in the talk-show studio, with no knowledge of where they were, those indicators would have helped determine that they were in a talk show studio based on their knowledge of talk show settings from previous experiences. The documentary method of interpretation can also help viewers to interpret Miranda Kerr is a celebrity on a talk show, from the way the audience screams and applauds when Miranda steps on stage.

 

   This project analysed an interaction between two well-known women in society, Miranda Kerr (supermodel) and Ellen DeGeneres (comedian). The project applied various sociological approaches to the interaction to discover how the women knew they were participating in an interview and the circumstances in which they were doing it.

References

Brisett, D and Edgley, C. 2009, Life as Theatre: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Elliot, A. 2008, Concepts of the self (2^nd ed.), Polity Press: Cambridge.

Goffman, E. 1967, ‘The nature of deference & demeanour’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Doubleday, Garden City, NY, pp.47-95.

Goffman, E. 1971, ‘Performances’, 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, pp. 75-102.

Whelan, A. 2012, The social and moral order in talk, lecture, SOC250, Everyday Interaction, University of Wollongong, delivered 5 September.

Wiemann, J., & Knapp, K. 1975, ‘Turn-Taking in Conversations’,  Journal of Communication, vol.25, no.2, pp.75-92.

Youtube Video- http://www.youube.com/watch?v=y2MZWhCkzB8

Week 11- Profanity (comment)

(mark this comment)

This is my third and final comment. :) :)

I commented on Ayla Black's blog post, which you can find here. But, I have also pasted my comment below.

I enjoyed reading different student's posts on this week's topic. It was interesting to see the different perspectives on the use of profanity and coarse language in everyday interactions. 'What do profanity and coarse language actually accomplish in interaction?' is a good question and one I have never really considered. I agree with Robinson and Zimmerman that profanity is used to intensify meaning in statements. I hardly ever swear, but on the occasion where I do, it is because I want to exaggerate my point. However, I personally think that profanity does not really accomplish much in an interaction. A person is more likely to lose face then anything else. The use of profanity has become so embedded in everyday interaction that people do not even realise that they are swearing most of the time. I think the only time profanity can actually 'accomplish' something for a person is when somebody is frustrated. The use of a swear word can help release frustrations and allow them to express emotion. The outcome is that they feel better afterwards.

I also agree that the word 'fuck' has lost its meaning due to its frequent usage in conversations. It does not faze me when I hear the word used in a sentence. I think people now use profanity to simply fill out sentences and to replace the 'umms' and 'ahhs'. One swear word I cannot stand hearing in conversations is cunt, and I think that it really degrades the person who uses it. It is interesting how some profanity and coarse words carry more weight and emphasise then others.

Week 10- The Cyberself (comment)

(mark this comment)

Here is my second comment on Alison Bell's blog post titled, 'What are the implications of the online for sociological understandings of identity and interaction?' You can find her post here.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Alison's post. It was very informative! She found a relevant scholar article that made an interesting correlation between a personal blog and a bedroom. I agreed with this point, as a blog provides users with the freedom to 'decorate' their own multi-dimensional space. I actually enjoyed choosing the layout, font and colouring for my SOC250 everyday interaction blog. The reading states that a person's blog is constantly renegotiated because of the information that they put online, which also brings into being bodies, personas, and personalities framed according to the same categories that exists in the offline world.

Blogs allow people to connect with other blog users anonymously. The condition is that you show some level of respect for the person controlling the blog. Alison found two examples that showed anonymous individuals attempting to undermine the control of the blog owner. Cyberbullying! It was great to see the owner take back control of their personal space and gain face though humorous retorts. I think it is much harder for a person to control their identity on their Facebook page. Since 'friends' have the freedom to post whatever photographs or statements they like, and this in turn, interferes with the Facebook page owner's image. Hodkinson and Lincoln are correct in assuming that users wish to/and produce a certain online identity for themselves. 

References-

Robinson, L. 2007, 'The Cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age,' New Media and Society, vol.9, no.1, pp.93-110.

Week 9- Bloody Revisited (comment)

(mark this comment)

I decided it was time to branch out and respond to another student's blog, so I selected Cindy Outerio's post on Australian cultural scripts and the use of the word 'bloody'. You can find her post here (I also pasted the same comment on her post). 

This week's topic looked at how specific words might both exemplify and constitute well-established cultural positions in discourse.

I agree with Cindy. It is interesting how engrained the word 'bloody' has become in Australian society that politicians can get away with using the word in parliament.

Wierzbicka came to realise that people use the word 'bloody' in two different ways. Firstly, in a negative way, e.g. bloody hell, and secondly, in a neutral way, e.g. bloody wonderful place. It appears that the swear word just intensifies the meaning of the word in front of it. I think 'bloody' has become less offensive in Australia due to its frequent usage and integration into Australian culture. Wierzbicka believes the word developed from Australian pioneers and farmers, who lived out in the Australian bush. It was regarded as a mild swearword, but never seen as foul. 

Even though the word is a part of Australia's cultural identity, this does not exempt Australians' use of the word in other countries. It still remains offensive to other English speaking nations. I think the $180 million advertising campaign launched in 2006 by Tourism Australia, 'So where the bloody hell are you?' was a great campaign in promoting tourism nationally. But, to use it in an international advertising campaign was not a smart idea. The campaign caused so much controversy in March 2007 that the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre in the United Kingdom had to ban it. The BACC would not allow the word 'bloody' in television versions of the commercial. The reason for this is that the British believe the word to be rude and impolite.

References

Wierzbicka, A. 2002, 'Australian Cultural Scripts- Bloody Revisited,' in Journal of Pragmatics, no.34, pp.1167-1209.

Image- http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/18/ajgbloody_wideweb_470x317,o.jpg

Week 8- Stick to the Code

(mark this post)

In everyday social interactions, there exists codes of conduct (set of social norms), which prescribe/describe how participants in the social interaction ought to behave. The reading, Telling the Code, closely examines the 'convict code' and how it was used to rationalise deviant behaviour and activities among convicts in a half-way house. Although, no one could recite all of the specifics of the code, Sociologist, Laurence Wieder, formulated the code from what residents said about the code. Here is his interpretation:

1. Above all else, do not snitch.

2. Do not cop out.

3. Do not take advantage of other residents.

4. Share what you have.

5. Help other residents.

6. Do not mess with other residents' interests.

7. Do not trust staff- staff is heat.

8. Show your loyalty to the residents.

Wieder found that those who breached the code were met with negative sanctions, which ranged from labelling (eg. kiss-ass, snitch or sniveler) to abuse and violence, depending on the severity of the breach. The code was enforced through the application of negative sanctions. The staff also had an understanding of the code, which allowed them to identify and make sense of the residents' actions. They rendered the residents' action sensible or rational by the way they conducted themselves in achieving goals specified by the code.

According to Robert Garot, gangs' use a 'street' code, which is similar to that of the residents' convict code. Both, street gangs' and residents' use the code to maintain, transform and elaborate meanings in routine activities. Social identity and respect are seen as the most important features of the street code, which is a set of informal rules governing public behaviour, including violence.

There are many unspoken codes of conduct that exist in society, which ordinary citizens abide by to maintain the social order, such as being quiet in a library/ movie theatre. This discussion on codes made me think of the dress code. The dress code is a prominent code that everyone will follow throughout life. Dress codes are unwritten codes with regard to clothing. Clothing has a social significance, with different rules and expectations being valid depending on circumstance and occasion. For example, many muslim women wear head and/or body covering to proclaim their status as respectable women.

A single person navigates between two or more dress codes each day !

**Just an extra note. I thought I would show my SOC250 blog to my sister and see what she thought about the weekly posts. She reminded me of the pirate code off Pirates of the Carribbean. 

 "Any man who falls behind, is left behind"- Captain Jack Sparrow

References

Wieder, D. L, 1974, 'Telling the Code' in R.Turner (ed.) Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings, Penguin Educations, Harmondsworth, pp. 144-172.

Garot, R. 2007, 'Where You From!- Gang Identity as Performance,' in Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, vol.36, no.1, pp.50-84.

Cartoon- http://gdbrenan.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/well-dressed-bitch.html

Week 7- Ethnomethodology

(mark this post)

Ethnomethodology, to put it simply, means people methods- the study of the methods that people use to produce the social order in their interactions. Sociologist, Harold Garfinkel, coined the term ethnomethodology in 1967. He analysed the behaviour of people in their social interactions and realised that the interaction is not defined by external/internal constraining moral rules, but by undefined/ unwritten rules that have been established through previous interactions with people on a micro level.

Garfinkel's ethnomethodology was influenced by the work of Sociologists, Talcott Parson and Alfred Shutz, who also analysed the nature of social interactions. Parson's proposed that people do what is required of them to do by institutions. They are rational actors in society. However, Shutz proposed the opposite. He maintained that social interactions are not rational. There is no one instructing people how to interact. They are merely devising their social actions from partially formulated 'recipe knowledge' or past experiences.

So, it fell to Garfinkel to combine the two theorist's work- the 'moral' with the 'cognitive', which he established through a series of ingenious 'breaching' experiments. For the breaching experiments, Garfinkel asked people to act out of the ordinary during their interactions and he recorded how others reacted to these breaches of normal conduct. One of the most interesting experiments was the 'clarification of understanding' experiment. Garkfinkel asked the experimenters to clarify the mundane statements that their subjects made in their interactions. (This experiment was tested on the students in my class during a presentation. We were asked to write a sentence about the first thing we did in the morning and then add words, which would further clarify what we did. Eg: I went to the bathroom. [further clarification] I went to the bathroom and washed my face.) Garfinkel discovered that people would always be able to make sense out of senseless situations, even when there was no explanation given.

I found an interesting article that analysed 'breaching events' conducted by a feminist peace movement (Women in Black) in Israel, which are modelled on Garfinkel's breaching experiments. The 'breaching event' is defined as 'a publicly performed act of defiance that is composed of actual and/or  symbolic violations of accepted social practices and definitions (Benski, 2005:58). Benski analysed the emotional reactions of the public to the movement's confronting signs and posters. The breaching event revealed how the mundane social order rests on the unquestioning acceptance of common assumptions. The emotional reactions of the public to the event to violations of these assumptions was dramatic.


References-

Heritage, John. 1984, 'The Morality of Cognition,' in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.75-102.

Benski, T. 2005, 'Breaching Events and the Emotional Reactions of the Public: Women in Black in Israel,' in Emotions and Social Movements, Flam, H. & King, D (ed.), Routledge: New York.

Week 7- Data Discussion Presentation

I have selected an interaction off Big Brother, as the realty show is about presentation of self and the social interaction of 14 strangers in an unfamiliar setting. It is about how they construct and manage their 'selfs' while trying to maintain a good 'face'.

How much are the housemates being their true self and how much is a performance?

The following SOC250 concepts can be analysed in this data:

-Dramaturgy
-Facework
-Profanity
-Deference + Demeanor
-Documentary method of interpretation
-Social and moral order in talk

*I will not be using this data for the Independent Research Project, as something else arose which seems more appropriate to do. :)

Week 6- Dramaturgy

(mark this post)

All the world is a stage..

                              

Goffman came up with some interesting concepts, particularly the idea about social life as a drama. He believed that our social interactions with people can be compared to an actor performing on stage for an audience. This is explained further in Life as Theatre: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook, where the authors' point out that the self is perceived as social and dramatic because a person's sense of individuality is situationally specific. Different situations occasion the creation of different selves. And our different 'selves,' are akin to characters in a play. 

Thus, social life as a drama means that there is a front stage and back stage. The front stage is where performances are conducted- where you are trying to please people. And the backstage is where people prepare for the performance- where they are themselves. In other words, we put on a mask and get into character and perform in a certain way in front stage and backstage settings.

It is all about impression management and space-where spaces are provided to conduct the performances and spaces to maintain ourselves to handle the performances.

For example, I work at a function centre/ restaurant.  Goffman's front stage can be applied to when I am on the floor taking my table's order and serving them. My 'self' changes, as I have adapted to my workplace setting and (according to Goffman) working in a dramatised way. I am over friendly and polite. The back stage can be applied to when I am in the kitchen- where the customers can not see me. I might change my self and say something negative about them 'backstage', for instance, when I am at a wedding function and the guests are intoxicated and smashing glasses everywhere. 

People can constitute stages, front and back, by the the way they behave in them in certain ways. They will always try to cultivate a good impression and leave the performance with a good face. (I agree- this is what I want when I'm working) However, what Goffman found problematic with front stage and back stage is that there is no end. If a person tries to make something appear backstage, there will always be another stage after it.

In conclusion, a person achieves their 'self' on the basis of their performance of the situation.

References-

Goffman, E. 1971, 'Performances,' The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp:28-82.

Brisett, D and Edgley, C. 2009, Life as Theatre: A Dramaturgical Sourcebook, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Image- http://dramaturgie-la.blogspot.com/2011/06/moscow-art-theatre.html

Week 5- Presentation of Self

(mark this post)

What is the self? How can it be socially managed and produced?

Erving Goffman attempted to answer these questions in his paper, 'the nature of Deference and Demeanor'. According to Goffman, 'deference' and 'demeanor' play an active role in how individuals act and respond to social interactions. They can sometimes work together to support an individuals image of self, or can work in conflict to injure that image. They provide an interesting insight into the way in which the self is a social construction.

• Deference is the use of rituals and codes by a subordinate to show respect to their superordinate. Deference can take the form of compliments, apologies, and even criticisms.

•  Demeanor refers to the appearance of the self, which is displayed through actions, language use, etc. A person can convey a different demeanor depending on their context and what role they take on in these contexts. 

There are a few extra things that help to shape an individual's demeanor, such as 'rules of conduct'. In the reading, Goffman explains that society has placed 'rules of conduct' on how an individual should act in the form of obligations and expectations. An individual's status in society determines the 'rules of conduct' that they must present through their demeanor. For example, a doctor has an obligation to provide treatment to a patient, depending on the result of the demeanor. The patient then gives the doctor deference- praise or criticisms for their help. The doctor can decide to accept the praise. If it is negative deference they may change to fix it.

What I found most interesting about Goffman's work is facework- which is all of the little things we do in life to develop and maintain our 'selfs'. It conveyed to me how cautious we are about keeping our dignity intact when interacting with people (eg. to keep 'good face' or 'saving face'). There are negative sanctions for those who 'lose face' in interactions, such as 'social death' (not being accepted by society) and feeling ashamed.

I found an article titled, 'Managing impressions online', which relates to Goffman's ideas on presentation of self. It explores online dating participants and how they manage their online presentation of self in order to accomplish the goal of finding a romantic partner. I agree with the statement that self presentation strategies are important during relationship initiation, since others will draw on that information to decide whether to pursue a relationship. The same can be said for social networking sites, such as Facebook and Myspace, where users draw on the information and photos that are provided to form impressions of their 'friends'.

References:

Goffman, E. 1967, 'The Nature of Deference and Demeanor,' in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, New York: Pantheon Books, pp.47-96.

Ellison. N, Heino. R and Gibbs, J. 2006, 'Making Impressions Online: Self Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment,' in Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol.11, no.2, pp.415-441.

Week 4- Group Presentation Powerpoint Slides

Symbolic Interactionism Finished

Week 3- Summary Of Symbolic Interactionism Reading

-Roberts, B. 2006, 'Symbolic Interactionism 2- Developments,' in Micro Social Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.46-61.

Okay, this is my first blog and a rough summary of Symbolic Interactionism, which I am still struggling to get my head around !

So, Symbolic Interactionism was a concept created by Herbert Blumer in 1937. He applied it to the micro sociological study of social interaction and social encounters, such as face-to-face interaction.

Some Brief points.

• Symbolic Interactionism refers to the particular features of interaction that take place between people.
• To consider the concept involves the idea that individuals' action is constructed. Individuals have selves and can refer to themselves. Group action is an outcome of the bringing together of individuals' interpretations of each other.

Blumer cared more about the intricate discussion of the nature of social interaction.

"Human interaction is mediated by the use of symbols by interpretation or  by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions" (Blumer, 1969:79).

Three important Aspects of Symbolic Interaction !! (according to Blumer)

1. It is a formative process.
2. The reliance on symbolic interaction makes human group like a developing process.
3. By analysing Symbolic Interaction it is possible to study the whole range of human relationships.

In summary, humans act towards things based on the the meanings they construct for the things. The meanings of such things develop from social interaction.

The 'Iowa School' attempted to show that the central ideas of symbolic interactionism can be applied and verified through empirical research.

Some criticisms.

• Symbolic Interactionism lacks consistency/ clarity and relies on certain insufficiently examined assumptions of social life.
• It led to an over-concern with deviant aspects of social life.
• 'Outside' criticisms- It is non-economic, ahistorical, culturally limited, and ideologically biased, has a limited view of social power.

New Developments of Symbolic Interactionism.

• Since the mid-1980s, people have struggled to show the vitality of symbolic interactionism- as a lively, developing body of work.
• Progress was made in the area of interpretive procedures, which point out that symbolic interactionism was influenced by feminism (or the 'feminist turn') in the cultural construction and reproduction of gender.
• The examination of overlooked aspects of the "founders" of symbolic interactionism. 
• Postmodernist writings have affected interpretive work of symbolic interaction.

In conclusion..

Symbolic interactionism has majorly contributed to micro social theory. It continues to develop new areas for investigation and conceptualisation.