Here, an Essay.

Author's Note: I conclude my semester with this essay, I hope the knowledge I retain from this subject serves me well in the future. I will open this blog post with a series of helpful haikus:

An essay for you

to read, to ponder, to mark,

I hope it is good.

The introduction

begins here, right at the start

"Read More" for the rest.

Direct Link: http://www.youtube.com/embed/7gXk0Vdyr9Q

Talk shows are often appropriate for sociological scrutiny, as they are recognised for their unique discourse and their simulated setting meant to generate public interaction in a relaxed, easy manner. This setup challenges a lot of sociological theories about human behaviour and how they act in natural settings. In this report the chosen segment to be analysed comes from the well-known television program Graham Norton. The segment emerges from the societal understanding of age appropriateness - specifically, the ageless question of “where do babies come from?” and escalates to match making and mischief. The point of this report will be to analyse and interpret the chosen naturally occurring data in order to give an empirical reading to the occurring social interaction in the chosen data. With reference to popular theories in sociology such as breaching, concept of self and symbolic interactionism, its importance will become apparent.

The Masterpost

You might be asking yourself, Lauren, what is a Masterpost? Well, I'm going to tell you it's the single most awesome thing ever, in that it puts all of my posts into one convenient post so you won't have look for each post individually.

Here, your multi-purpose navigational tool:

1. All the World's a Stage, found here.
2. Ethnomethodology, found here.
3. The Code, found here.
4. A Study of Bloody, found here. #Comment
5. The Cyberbody, found here.
6. Profanity, found here. #Comment
7. Construction of Discussion, found here. #Comment

Presentations:

1. Group, found here.
2. Individual, found here.

So, now, if you don't mind...

Weekly Research (12): Construction of Discussion in Tutorials

This will be the last post for this task. I have noticed there are some people out there who have tried to stay under the 2000 word limit as set by keeping to 295 word posts. This freaked me out a little, as I have done no such thing. For science, I have diligently retrieved the word count for all 7 posts for this session and the final count is 3707 (excluding haikus). I might have gone a little over.

This week, I have posted my response here, and is as follows:

Having been enlightened that this structure exists, I have to say that I’ve noticed the three stages in class as well. It is very much an initiation, response and follow-up, and I suppose it’s just one of those things you just don’t give much thought. Also, you raise an interesting point with the structure in the final minutes of a tutorial. In the reading, talk is considered ‘a medium for the conveying of information, with varying degrees of effectiveness, from a speaker to a listener’. I believe that emphasis should be put on varying degrees of effectiveness, as it should be mentioned that whilst a tutorial is taking place – it does not necessarily mean that the structure will be followed completely. Sometimes I’ve found myself in a tutorial of tired, fed up students that offer no questions at all.

It is a tutor dominated space, to be certain (as the 3 stages set up the tutor as the controller of the discourse), and as such there is a hierarchical order to be followed but more often than not there will be a set of unstated rules by the first 3 or so tutorials with the tutor. Negative and positive face threatening acts are inevitable in this space, but rapport is still often created due to a suspension of typical rules of politeness. I found this interesting, since I hadn’t really noticed how much people are willing to put up with in a tutorial until I thought about it. I guess it really depends on the tutor when it comes down to the finer details, some tutors will have high negative politeness – with a bunch of hedging, others will focus on positive politeness and try and work on solidarity, often using ‘we’ or informal language to match the student group. A combination of the two is ideal, though too much of it could make a tutor look slightly incompetent – at least that’s my opinion, anyway.

Also, much like what you noticed of the ‘speeding up’ of the structure, I find that the turn taking often breaks down when the students are less likely to engage and the tutorial teacher is required to take a more ‘directive’ approach to her/his teaching. Though, it sometimes leads to tutors being trapped in perpetual ‘initiation’, with no response whatsoever. I’ve found that some tutors will ‘fill in’ the response stage and formulate a follow up stage to keep the tutorial moving, but more often than not tutors will be frustrated by the breakdown of social conduct and either pick a victim to answer a question or verbalise said frustration. I suppose it’s just another one of those things that are ‘talked into being’, without this kind of discourse, the tutorial ceases to exist. I just wanted to put that in because it’s my favourite thing ever and I’m not allowed to write a blog post about it, I have to respond to someone else’s blog, so. There.

References:
Benthen Benwell and Elizabeth H. Stokoe, (2002), “Constructing Discussion Tasks in University Tutorials: Shifting dynamics and identities”, in Discourse Studies, vol. 4, no.4, pp. 429-453.

Weekly Research (11): Profanity

I left all of the socialising until last like the massive socialite that I am, and of course this means that my last two posts for the session will be responses to other people. I'm relying on you guys to not work until the last minute, I better see a relevant post for this week by tomorrow!

This week's victim was Ayla, and partially Jess. My comment can be found here, and follows below:

I agree that it is difficult to know what purpose profanity actually serves, as it serves too many for an answer to be definitive. Profanity has even been shown to lessen the amount of pain felt; it’s also used to create solidarity between people. So, Robinson and Zimmerman have it right to call it a ‘language intensifier’, as that is essentially, in its basic form, what it seems to be. However, if it intensifies language then why can using a swear word dull an argument?

I tend to believe that one’s argument falls when swearing is used, as if it ‘dumbs down’ an argument and its user. It seems that any points raised are nonsensical, as any passionate argument ceases to be worthy of serious consideration. I’ve even found that one can write quite an insulting email or letter without using a single swear word, because it’s true, once someone begins to swear it often becomes nonsense and demeans its user.

As an aside to Jess (not to single you out!), I agree that cunt degrades the person using it and it’s a word that properly demonstrates how one swear word may hold a lot more meaning than say, fuck or shit which as Ayla says, has become embedded into everyday use. These words have socially constructed meaning, and the social significance attached to these words varies. I find that there’s something about cunt being inherently sexual in its vulgarity, that I can’t help but feel mixed emotions when it is used. This is probably due to the fact that cunt refers to the vagina, and even my saying of ‘vagina’ has probably had the same impact as an expletive – in that it probably had a direct, emotional impact. So it’s not just ‘swear words’ that are ‘dirty’ words.

I must confess that I have used the word cunt and in doing so; I have torn arguments down into silence. I know it to be a very powerful word and the shock one receives when using it does enforce one to curb its use, but is that a good thing? That the worst kind of swear word just happens to be directly related to women? I could write a thesis paper on this, but I must keep it as a comment, so I shall end here. Good day.

Weekly Research (10): The Cyberbody

This week's 'optional' reading was perhaps the most infuriating because it sparked a debate between my boyfriend and I as to what games constituted a MUD, whether to consider it an all encapsulating term for multiuser dimensions or whether it would be more appropriate to replace MUD with MMO, which sounded to be more like Robinson was describing in her research. After a heated discussion it was decided that debating the genealogy of video games was a time consuming, difficult process and that I should just get back to doing my Sociology work.

This week, I will be talking about the MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplay Game) Guild Wars and scrutinising the obvious gender divide that I have encountered in playing it whilst maintaining its relevance with mentions of the paper by Laura Robinson 'The cyberself: the self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age'. In doing this, I will go beyond the recommended 350 words (I'm so, so sorry about this Matt) and explore the issue with, perhaps, other games which demonstrate my point.

Robinson discusses the Cyberbody in that instead of viewing the online self as a liberation of one's physicality, the cyberself is simply a re-embodiment of physicality. Robinson elaborates with "[the] cyberself seeks re-embodiment as a means of identity signaling and as a medium of interaction" which basically means that creating an online persona creates identity and offers socialisation. It becomes necessary to consider that an online persona is perhaps merely exploring all facets of the offline self, as I don't believe someone goes online to be their own opposite, there is always truth in one's behaviour (so if you're online being a bit of a dick, you're probably actually a bit of a dick). She also states that fragmentation of self shouldn't be feared, as maintaining an online character or entity doesn't mean that the offline self falls into disrepair (I agree to a point), it's just that having an online self goes against the "societal imperative" of having one identity in the offline world.

What interested me most, was "...when these users create online selves through role playing, they often engender a ‘signifying body’ or ‘simulated body’ that resembles the types of physical bodies idealized in the offline world."

The markers of gender, race and age are accentuated in games to no end (and the most idealised markers of identification and judgment). Of these, however, gender is perhaps the most exaggerated feature in an avatar, a male will be muscular, tall, chiseled and a woman will have massive breasts, a small waist, and robust thighs. I will often find that there is a slider for all of these things for a woman (to which the woman's physical appearance can be edited to the user's liking), but in a male avatar, such variation is often considered obsolete and the only slider available helps adjust the size of his massive to moderately massive pecks. There is an MMO by ArenaNet called 'City of Heroes' where I have been informed there is a crotch slider for the man-bits but it falls short as a counterargument due to the fact it's also a far less realistic art style than Guild Wars and many other MMO's.

Robinson also states that "characters are created to act in rigidly gender-stereotyped ways." Which you can choose to disagree with, but I find that if an MMO encourages roleplaying, in which one is to escape reality to create and maintain an online persona, it becomes less of a creative process when there is a predetermined gender divide in the making of one's character. You can also see this behaviour in "idle movement" in that, a woman's avatar, when left alone, will put her hands to her hips and push her chest and behind out or fix her hair. A male avatar will play with his weapons. To me, this robs the user of complete freedom in creating a persona completely unaffected by the offline world's influence. I will further demonstrate with armor sets in Guild Wars.

We have the light, medium and heavy armor (appropriate for their respective classes). I think the Necromancer class helps demonstrate my point in the best possible way, so allow me to draw your attention to the male and female Necromancers of the light armor class.

As you can see, the male and female vary drastically in terms of body coverage whilst the male is sensibly dressed, the female has a skirt so short - with the right camera angle you can see up it. This sort of setup seems to be making females more vulnerable in the game and you can see the mentality in the game, when male avatars will often come to a female's rescue (even if her avatar is higher leveled and overall more capable). It also upholds the gender stereotype of the woman having to cater to the 'male gaze', herself having to be both the object and her spectator when she decides on her attire (or rather, is given her attire). To a degree, I can forgive this, but when you put the Norn race (nine foot Nordic Warriors) in a miniskirt, garter and bra, you're just asking for trouble.

It should also be mention the Cooley's the looking glass self says "our sense of self is really our perception of society’s evaluation of us" and that holds up even in the offline world. Especially in MMO's where you're able to project an image of self, with the behind the scenes knowledge of how one is going to be perceived (with certain armor, colours or avatar genetics). It's just that when you're online you can also be more of what society wants you to be (and sometimes it's  more easily attainable in-game to accomplish this). I'm going to demonstrate this point with a sight I see quite often in-game:

A level 80 (the highest level you can be, in-game) with top tier armor (the best armor you can have, in game) will stand in the major city of Lions Arch, an avatar of accomplishment (these signal time, effort and dedication to the game), wanting to be perceived as everything one desires to be in the universe of the game. So, in a way, we have these games remove the concept of 'ugliness' and create a way to which material goods create worth to an avatar. This does create freedom from one's self perceived ugliness offline - but this doesn't allow people to be officially excused from bullying or segregation, the human race will find a way to define the outsider or 'the lesser'.

If you actually read this entire post, I applaud you, if you have read this and think I'm full of crap, feel free to tell me why in a comment - but be mindful of the fact that this may be edited at a later date. And to tie this all together, I shall conclude with a a series of haikus:

Acting like a dick,
even if you are online
means you are a dick.

Light armor classes
are rather scantily dressed
but only females.

Online champion
LFG 6 Pros 4 Raid
stop talking nonsense.

References:
Robinson, Laura. 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.

Lauren does Another Speech

Yes, I'm doing another speech! All over again because apparently I like is so, so much that I just couldn't stop at one. I love the feeling of dread, panic and anxiety that can be generated just by thinking about doing a speech, so naturally, I like doing the speech itself even more.

What follows will be the link to the clip in which I will be analysing for my independent research project, as well as an uploaded version of the PowerPoint itself. Enjoy.

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gXk0Vdyr9Q

Lauren Does a Speech [Autosaved Version]

So, yeah, it might be a little much for a 15 minute speech.

Weekly Research (9): A Study of Bloody

Thank you for tuning in, it appears I have conquered my anxieties and have posted a reply here. I apologise, it is rather verbose. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to panicking heartily about my speech next week.

I agree with you. Bloody is used pretty much an expressive term used for emphasis these days and can be used to heighten an expression. Is ‘bloody’ a meaningless, linguistic hiccup? I don’t think so. I think there’s a lot of meaning behind the word bloody that it warrants a 43 page reading (much to our eternal suffering). It can be used to express a lot of different things, and it seems there’s an art in telling when it’s actually offensive. I tend to think only Australian’s have this super power.

I found it interesting that Wierzbicka finds OED reads (granted, this is in 1989 but…) “now constantly in the mouths of the lowest classes, but by respectable people considered ‘a horrid word’’ Both Wierzbicka and myself disagree - unless we could classify Australia as the lowest class in terms of the world’s country hierarchy, but that seems a mite extreme. You're right, it’s a word found in our media and given relatively little reprimanding, though I do find that its use is a little thrilling for some (or maybe I just know some innocent ears) – but mostly I find it goes unnoticed.

What I also found interesting was the fact that, according to Wierzbicka, ‘Bloody’ is considered damn near blasphemous in the UK, but it is from this culture that I feel I picked up the word bloody, feeling it was the “proper” way to curse. I felt and continue to feel like a bloody Gentleman! You’re probably thinking The Sex Pistols (and where you would think I would have picked it up), but – and this is to my eternal shame – I came to use the word bloody a whole lot more when I got into the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer when I was about ten or twelve. The vampire Spike (or as he had been known in his time as “William the Bloody” for his “bloody awful poetry”) said it routinely, and it got me into the habit fairly quickly as a child. Though, when I come to think about it, I probably imposed my pre-existing (albeit unconscious) understanding of my cultural script onto the television show, accepting bloody as an intensifier rather than a foul expression. I was also met by no resistance when I began using it, so that probably helped.

As for it not being offensive, I can’t decide, as a frequent user of it I find myself up against all sorts and have thus received a lot of different responses. I mainly use it to downplay a serious comment, for instance, I find “you’re an idiot” to be more direct than “you’re a bloody idiot/you bloody idiot” because with a huge selection of curse words at my disposal, why on Earth would I choose bloody to insult someone? I use it with twat, prat, wanker or bastard. It seems the most forgivable of the swear words, especially when accompanied with little else (aka: not a rant but a single statement). I find its repetition in a single event will do one of two things: 1) be really bloody offensive or 2) be really bloody humorous and people may not take you seriously. Overall, I find its use is fairly indoctrinated in Australian language, and its place in the Australian cultural script is a permanent one.

References:
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2002. “Australian cultural scripts – bloody revisited.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: pp. 1167-1209.