Just another comment.

This week Liam (I'm not entirely sure who you are but anywho) and I must have been on a similar brainwave as our blogs both circulated around a very interesting and key word in our everyday lives - fuck.

http://ncorrsoc250.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/australian-cultural-scripts-bloody.html

Excuse me?

“Get fucked!”

 Am I angry with you? Am I excited? Am I jealous of you? Am I implying some strange seductive relationship? These two words are built with meaning depending on the way I say it and in what context I say it. It is these two seemingly simple words that resonate with numerous connotations and meanings. The phrase is a signifier of my culture (us Aussies are so laid back and swear whenever the opportunity presents itself – I’m sure you can relate), and expresses and indicates a variety of emotions.

Gabriel in the article “The Heteroglossia of Home” attempts to understand Bakhtin’s theory of hetereoglossia: “The presence of heteroglossia is manifested in the multiplicity of signs and meanings linked dialogically through the interplay between the various levels of discourse or utterance—contextual, extra- linguistic as well as intra-linguistic—that exist within the creative and relational aspects of the novel” (2006, p41). In layman’s terms (or what I like to call Cassie’s terms), a word has layers upon layers of meaning, which is constructed of all its previous experiences and exposures. Linking back to the “get fucked!” example, there are numerous of implications to the phrase depending on its perceived context; if I were to say this to my mother-dearest, I am sure she would have a small heart attack and attempt to ground me for the rest of my life even if I was only trying to express my surprise. Yet if I were to say this to a BFF, I’m sure they would answer with “bloody oath” (or some other bogan idiom). Again, the reaction in a literal sense would imply having a sexual relation with a man, woman or goat. The words remain the same, yet the connotations establish its definition. Ultimately, the word itself means nothing without a historical, cultural and social context.

Like, it’s um… nearly um… as interesting as… uh… um… yeah… hedging.

Gabriel, S 2005, “The Heteroglossia of Home”, Journal of Postcolonial Writing, vol.41, no1, pp40-53.

Comments, comments, comments.

Yes, I am posting a link to my own blog. This week I received some valuable comments, and I decided to reply to them as my comment for the week.

http://thesoc250network.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/cracking-code.html

Cracking the Code

Considering the reading delved into the codes of convicts, I couldn’t completely relate to what Wieder was inferring; No, I have not been to jail - I’m not THAT badass. Hence I adapted this idea of codes by following suit from Barney Stinson (please, acknowledge the pun) from How I Met your Mother. If you are not familiar with Barney Stinson and his Bro Code, you should be embarrassed and ashamed of yourself and you should start watching HIMYM ASAP. Anyway, I thought I would demonstrate the understanding of codes through a slightly superior set of Bro Codes – The Girl Code. Here are only a few of the many codes that a lot females follow each day, which are slightly adapted, yet quite similar, to the inmates’ codes (145-147):

• 1.     Above all else, never ever ever date a friend/sister’s ex boyfriend   - you just don’t go there.
• 2.     Don’t let a girlfriend go out looking like she was blind whilst getting dressed.
• 3.     Don’t take advantage of, or manipulate your girlfriends. Chicks before dicks. Always.
• 4.     Sharing is caring – two wardrobes are better than one.
• 5.     Help your friends in need. Be there for some huggin’ and lovin’.
• 6.     Do not mess with your friend’s love interests or crush.
• 7.     Cheaters and ex-boyfriends are the enemy.
• 8.     Stick up for your friends – show your loyalty ladies! 

It is these codes, and whether or not you conform or rebel against them, that dictate the type of relationship you have with female counterparts. We are ultimately socialized to understand, imitate and follow these codes without being told. If any of these codes were broken, a culprit may be shunned from the group, labeled a ‘slut’ or ‘hussy’, or may be forced to lead a life full of cats and forever-alone memes. These harsh consequences ensure that females inherently follow the code, without being aware they are doing so.  

Ultimately, whilst reading Wieder’s article this week I was constantly having small epiphanies as I realized that my identities and performances are just a bunch of codes put together – whether it be the Girl Code, the Waitress Code, the Girlfriend Code, or the Family Code. In so many situations and contexts we continuously follow unwritten guidelines in fear of being shunned and labeled differently - even if it does mean not buying that new skirt because your friend already has it. 

Wieder, L, 1974, 'Telling the code', in R Turner (ed), Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings , Pengiun Education, Harmondsworth, pp144-172

Comments Galore.

Just a little comment on a fellow blog.

http://sociologyblogging.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/garfinkel-and-ethnomethodology.html?showComment=1347159023610

Rules are rules.

I tried, I really did. I thought I would be able to crack the codes of Garfinkel’s breaching experiments – surely the theory of a highly accredited and esteemed sociologist can’t be true? Humans aren’t that predictable! Are we? Turns out we are.  After entering a game of naughts and crosses with my brother, who happens to be a very competitive and serious player (expect him at the next world championships), I pulled out some trickster moves by moving his pieces so I could win. Needless to say, I don’t think I will be playing that game with him any time soon. After screams of frustration and yelling, “Can you just be serious for once!”, I explained to him that he was indeed a hamster in my experiment. Ruddigah* would hence be in the 95% of subjects who objected to or demanded an explanation in Garfinkel’s experiments.

I think in a sense Garfinkel and Goffman work hand in hand, in that we live our everyday lives by social scripts but when one deviates from the ‘norm’, then things start to get a bit weird, awkward and potentially all hell breaks lose. We have social rules, just like rules to a simple game, which are so ingrained in us that instructions are rarely needed. Ultimately, when we don’t play the social life game according to the rules or attempt to change the rules, we are classified as deviant and basically weird.  

I think that these experiments prove and reveal “how deeply rooted these tacit common assumptions are” (Flam 2005, p58). Yet, I think that Flam does raise an interesting point: to assume every individual interprets a sociological image or text in a certain way is too simplistic (Flam 2005, p66). Although there can be a preferred or majority reading by the audience, it depends on the meaning the responder has constructed and attributes to the particular situation. What if my brother wasn’t a serious naughts and crosses expert? What if the game was suddenly life threatening – you win you live, you lose you die? What if he didn’t originally know the rules? All these are contributing factors to how he reacted when I changed a cross into a naught.

Who would have thought a game of naughts and crosses and a slight look into our reactions to weird things would end in such a thought-provoking week of sociology.

*Name has been changed due to humiliation (I think the name Ruddigah is enough satisfaction for me)

Heritage, J 1984, ‘The morality of cognition’, in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp57-102.

Flam H, & King, D (ed.) 2005, Emotions and social Movements, MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin. 

I'm Postin' - They're Lovin'.

Just a little comment on Caitlin's blog to share the love.

http://caitlinwestsoc250.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/dramaturgy-performances-and-award.html?showComment=1346289434543