A Model Mistake
Cassandra
Vodicar – 4054337
Katie
Freund – Thursday 1:30
It was just another average reality television final before a
blunder in communication granted it to be an awkward and bizarre interaction on
live television. On September 27th 2010 Australia’s Next Top Model
host, Sarah Murdoch, and two finalists, Kelsey Martinovich and Amanda Ware,
were in shock when Murdoch announced the wrong winner. After Martinovich was
declared winner, a distressed Murdoch proclaimed that Ware was in fact the true
victor. Ultimately, this socially taboo situation rendered reserved anarchy on
stage as the females struggled to negotiate their way through such an
unpredictable staging of events. This essay critically assesses the
interactional exchange between Murdoch, Martinovich and Ware and engages with
Goffman’s understanding of obligations, expectations, presentation of self,
presentation rituals, demeanor, and hedging. Using the YouTube video Australia’s Next Top Model wrong winner
announced (2010), it can be noted that the females’ natural interactions
stand as the epitome of professionalism in a graceless context. Relying on
socialised instincts in a situation perceived as gauche, the three models
attempt to retain their dignity and decorum whilst in a confused and
disbelieving state.
Murdoch must execute numerous obligations and expectations in
the eyes of the contestants, audience, and producers to ensure she fulfils her
role as a live television host. Goffman describes obligations and expectations
as “rules of conduct [which] impinge upon the individual in two general ways:
directly, as obligations, establishing
how he is morally constrained to conduct himself: indirectly, as expectations, establishing how others
are morally bound to act in regard to him” (1967: 49). In relation to the
videoed situation, Murdoch has a contract obligation to be an effective host,
which was ultimately fulfilled. Despite the confusing and distressing event,
Murdoch acted accordingly to her obligations; she remained socially viable by
being relatively composed whilst attempting to fulfil her role. Murdoch allowed
both contestants to present a ‘thank-you’ speech and permitted the eventual
winner to walk down the runway. It is these obligations in which Murdoch
successfully succeeded and could hence be labelled as an adequate presenter.
Murdoch also had a moral obligation, whereby she was “working in the interests
of mastery and self-certainty, [an] obligation that undermines senses of
ethical connection, implication and […] suppresses the visceral and the
affective” (Hawkins 2001: 422). Murdoch resisted the instinct to physically and
metaphorically run from the debacle. She remained on stage and had the moral
agency to admit the mistake and declare the correct winner. Murdoch ultimately
fulfilled her moral obligations by righting the wrong on live television.
However, although Murdoch’s obligations were met, she was
unsuccessful in meeting the expectations of all parties involved. The
expectation that Murdoch primarily needed to satisfy was to announce the
correct winner, which she indeed failed. There is a level of trust between an
audience and a host, and when Murdoch admitted she had relayed the wrong
information, the trust was lost; “The show of sincerity and the appeal for
trust are easily abused. The resultant disillusion can be felt more keenly as a
personal betrayal” (Ellis 2009: 115). It is within the asymmetrical
relationship between the audience and the host that Murdoch’s expectations were
not immediately fulfilled because she failed to express the right winner. By
righting the wrong, Murdoch did perhaps regain this trust as it “requires that a person be open and sincere: to be caught being
two-faced, duplicitous, or hypocritical is one of the worst sins of reality TV”
(Ellis 2009: 113-114). Although Murdoch did, eventually, fulfill her
expectation, the trust of the audience and her face was lost in the process.
Throughout the video there are attempts to engage with
presentation rituals to support each other’s performance as well as their own. Murdoch
participates in these presentation rituals because “not only is the expert host there to give advice and to present the
show, but they also serve to make the participants feel as comfortable as
possible in front of the camera” (Smith 2010: 195). Murdoch has an obligation
to participate within these presentation rituals or she may lose face. To do
this, Murdoch compliments both Ware and Martinovich (0:13 and 0:21
respectively), suggesting that the “voting has been so close” (0:30), because
of the girls’ appearances, determination, and potential. Smith states, “the
passing of compliments is one of the most significant ways in which the host
[…] helps establish a rapport with women” (Smith 2010: 196). Murdoch utilizes
these presentation rituals to create a solid rapport between herself, the
contestants and the audience and thus she maintains face, whilst also enhances
both Ware and Martinovich’s face.
During the situation, all three
females engaged with demeanor, due to their inherent socialisation and
character training. Goffman expresses,
In
our society, the ‘well’ or ‘properly’ demeaned individual display such
attributes as: discretion and sincerity; modesty in claims regarding self;
sportsmanship; command of speech and physical movements; self-control over his
emotions, his appetites, and his desires; poise under pressure; and so forth.
(1967: 77)
Through their interactions, each individual adhered to
acceptable traits of demeanor both before and after the truth was revealed.
Murdoch seemed sincere when saying, “I’m so sorry about this” (2:58), whilst
Martinovich was also genuine in saying “It’s OK” (3:14). Both Ware and
Martinovich displayed modesty, as they were both surprised when revealed they
were the winner, and they both conveyed signs of sportsmanship as they dealt
with the situation gracefully and respectfully. Murdoch demonstrated poise
under pressure as she controlled her emotions and performed her role the best
she could. All three females successfully displayed correct demeanor as they
negotiated their way through a variety of emotions.
Goffman proposes that there is a “persuasive need to
‘maintain face’ in our culture that is especially apparent […] after one’s
prestige has been damaged in public view” (Brown 1970: 255). This is clearly
evident within the interaction between Murdoch, Martinovich and Ware. Each
female engaged with the acts of ‘face-saving’ and ‘face-restoration’ to
alleviate the ridiculousness of the situation. Brown supplies sufficient
definitions of these terms as he analyses the practicality of Goffman’s
self-preservation theories; “Face-saving was defined as attempts by an
individual to block actions by another which would cause him to appear foolish
or incapable to significant others”, whilst “Face-restoration was seen as one
person’s attempt to seek redress from another after the other has already
caused him to look foolish” (Brown 1970: 256). During the situation, all three
females utilised face-saving techniques for both their own and other people’s
benefit.
Immediately after the truth transpired that Martinovich was
not the true winner, Murdoch ‘lost face’. Her loss of face is ultimately linked
to the loss of trust from the audience, as she was unsuccessful in fulfilling
her expectations in the crucial moment; Murdoch did not relay the rightful
winner, and hence committed a taboo act on national television. In attempt to
restore her face, she placed blame onto another party – criticising the
producer’s decision to make it live television: “This is what happens when you
have live TV folks” (3:18). By doing this, Murdoch creates a face hierarchy,
placing her face higher than the television program’s reputation Alternatively,
as Goffman explains, a “person of high status [such as the Australia’s Next Top
Model production] are better able to withstand the moral danger of having hate
directed at them” (1952). Thus, in the moments of disarray when Murdoch
attempts to save her own face, she damages the label’s face as they are more
likely to resist social death than herself.
Due to Murdoch’s taboo actions, Ware is perceived wrong in
face as she takes the ‘winner’ label from Martinovich. Although she personally
did not do anything wrong and had no control over the situation, Ware is wrong
in face and potentially experiences role dispossession as she attempts to
navigate herself from ‘loser’ to ‘winner’. Ware is going through a quick shift
in roles and must change herself to meet new expectations and obligations. It
is helpful to understand this in Goffman’s terms: “His [Ware’s] new role may
require action that seems insecure, dishonest, or unfriendly. This he may
experience as a loss of moral cleanliness” (1952). Ultimately, Ware may feel as
though she is in the wrong and hence she says, “I’m so sorry about that” (3:30)
to Martinovich and expresses a subdued “Woo” (3:46) when realisation sets in.
By doing this, Ware engages with the modesty maxim; “The Modestly maxim states:
‘Minimize the expression of praise of self; maximize the expression of
dispraise of self’” (Thomas 1995: 163). Ware did not praise herself as a winner
or else she would further lose face. It is the epitome of a bittersweet moment
for Ware as she struggles with feeling apologetic and unkind, yet she is happy that
she was declared the rightful winner.
Following the truth being admitted, Martinovich profusely
tries to save both Ware and Murdoch’s faces. Although Ware and Murdoch
continuously say they are sorry (from 2:57), Martinovich always replies with
“It’s OK” (from 3:16). Goffman outlines this type of face-saving:
The operator [Ware and Murdoch] and the mark [Martinovich]
may enter into a tacit understanding according to which the mark agrees to act
as if he were leaving of his own accord, and the operator agrees to preserve
the illusion that this was the case. It is a form of bribery. In this way the
mark may fail in his own eyes but prevent others from discovering the failure.
The mark gives up his role but saves his face (1952)
Ultimately, once Martinovich discovered she was, in fact, not
the winner, her reaction was calm, collected and polite. Martinovich chose not
to risk her face by displaying anger or sadness; instead she chose to save both
Ware and Murdoch’s faces by being understanding and empathic. In turn, this
resulted in herself creating and keeping a positive face.
As Murdoch discovers she has relayed incorrect information on
national live television she resorts to hedging as she listens to the
communication feed in her ear. Goffman states, “There
is the strategy of hedging, by which a person makes sure that he is not
completely committed” (1952). Furthermore, Stenstrom specifies why people
hedge: “Hedging helps the speaker avoid going straight to the point,
avoid being blunt, avoid appearing authoritative, and avoid committing
him/herself”(1994: 128). In the clip, between 2:44 and 3:09 seconds, Murdoch
hesitates by using prolonged silences, in between “No”, “I’m so sorry”, and “I
don’t know what to say”. Murdoch, as she is clearly in shock and hence has no
words for the situation, relies on hedging to prevent dead air. Her random
sequences also imply that it is a legitimate mistake as she is disbelieving of
what is being said to her. Hedging allows Murdoch to not only obtain more
information from ‘hidden’ influences but also to comprehend what she has done
and what she needs to do whilst sounding sympathetic– tell the truth. Hedging
is ultimately a crucial element to Murdoch’s response to the ordeal.
Throughout interactions between individuals, Goffman believes
“everyone is always and everywhere, more or less consciously, playing a role”
(1971: 30). These roles are thence segregated into dichotic areas: the front
stage and the back stage. It is within these stages whereby individuals must perform
different roles respective to the given context. Murdoch performs these front
and back stage roles, as she attempts to suppress her instincts whilst
remaining composed and well presented. At the beginning of the clip, Murdoch is
performing her front stage role; she is semi-formal, polite and completing her
obligations as a host. It upon
realisation she has announced the wrong winner that glimpses of her back stage
persona come to light (2:30). At 2:46 Murdoch must relay the mistake to the
audience and declares, “I feel a bit sick about this” and “Oh my god, I don’t
know what to say” (2:57). These statements are relatively personal and would
not normally be shared on live television. It is in these moments where her
social awareness is lost as she attempts to appear calm and collected, whilst
she is clearly confused and distressed. As Miller explains, a “successful
performance requires a persisting self – a self-monitoring and self-regulating
agent” (1986: 194). Ultimately, throughout the clip, Murdoch’s stages are
merged and conflicted as she is torn between being a compassionate individual
and completing her obligations and expectations of being a host. Murdoch
effectively navigates through this by managing to maintain an overall front
stage performance, with only hints of back stage personality.
The interactional exchange between Murdoch, Martinovich and
Ware proves to be the epitome of reserved anarchy, as the females rely on their
instincts to conduct themselves. Although the females are upset, disbelieving
and shocked, they all adhere to social norms of behaviour. As Murdoch attempts
to fulfil her obligations and expectations as a host, she employs hedging as a
stalling technique, lets glimpses of her back-stage show, and loses trust with
the audience. Despite this, she remains professionally composed, hence saving
her face – to some extent. Meanwhile, Martinovich and Ware are both demeaned
individuals who venture to save-face. To save her own face, Ware portrays
modesty and apologises to Martinovich, whilst having control over her
conflicting emotions. Martinovich has sportsmanship and by saving both Ware and
Murdoch’s face, she saves her own. All of the females recognise the awkwardness
of the situation and do not want to damage each other’s presentation. This
piece of data demonstrates how three individuals naturally respond to an
overwhelmingly uncomfortable situation.
Reference List
Australia’s Next Top
Model 2010, television program, Granada Productions, Sydney, 27 September.
Australia’s Next Top
Model wrong winner announced, 2010, online video, 612breakfast, 28
September, accessed 30 August 2012, <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqiD0KTZrKE>.
Brown, B 1970, “Face-saving following experimentally induced
embarrassment”, Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, vol.6, no.3, pp.255-271.
Ellis, J 2009, “The Performance on Television of Sincerely
Felt Emotion”, The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.625, pp.103-115.
Goffman, E 1952., “On Cooling the Mark
Out: Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure.” Accessed via
http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--Cooling.htm
Goffman, E 1967, ‘The Nature of deference and demeanor’, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face
Behaviour, Doubledat, Garden City, NY, pp.47-95.
Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin,
pp.28-82.
Hawkins, G 2001, “The Ethics of Television”, International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol.4,
no.4, pp.412-426.
Miller, T 1986, “Goffman, Positivism and the Self”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol.16,
pp.177-195.
Smith, A 2010, “Lifestyle television prgrammes and the
construction of the expert host”, European
Journal of Cultural Studies, vol.13, no.2, pp.191-205.
Stenstrom, A 1994, An Introduction
to Spoken Interaction, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Edinburgh Gate.
Thoms, J 1995, Meaning
in Interaction, Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate.
No comments:
Post a Comment