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.

Weekly Research (8): The Code

This week's reading is by Wieder, who talks about his stay in the Halfway House and writes about his observations of 'the convict code'. On the whole, he found that all activities within this place were based around this unspoken code, used to rationalise behaviour and even that certain behaviour was discouraged with the use of labels such as snitch, kiss-ass or sniveler. Labels are quite an intense motivator if there's a code at work, attributing negative meaning on anyone with that label - but now I'm overlapping my topics.

Naturally enough, codes can be spoken or unspoken, and there are many codes that are just assumed knowledge (the unspoken kind) - for example, being quiet in a library, not playing silly buggers in a hospital, or going to the beach without your bathers. The spoken rules would be more attributed to a game of tennis, or soccer or chess - the unspoken rules here would be not to swap two pawns even if it changes nothing whatsoever to the gameplay, but again, that's breaching and totally not what we're talking about here.

I'm going to bring up pirates here, because I do love pirates and if there were going to be a fight between pirates and ninjas, I'd like to think that pirates would win. Although, in reality, you would imagine there would be a draw and that in the final moments of the pirates life, he'd shoot that smug prat of a ninja in the back.

"Stick to the code," Jack Sparrow Captain Jack Sparrow says in the first film, Curse of the Black Pearl, when Gibbs needs direction on how to properly act if their plan goes wrong. Saying just that was enough that Gibbs was able to know exactly what to do and saved a lot of time having pre-established rules. Will Turner asks what the code involves and Jack Sparrow explains "Anyone who falls behind, is left behind" and unfortunately, that ends up being himself. It's interesting to note how that justifies the behaviour of leaving their beloved Captain behind, as its the code that dictates this, against the better judgment of the entire crew. Now, I'd like to think this is relevant, because, pirates.

For the benefit of my following, I want to bring up the fact that I'm becoming hyper aware of the fact I haven't branched out and commented on any other blogs at all yet. I'd also like to take this opportunity to state that there are unwritten rules involved in my responding to other's blog that is hindering my progress and what better time to talk about such things than a blog about codes of conduct. Firstly, it's counterintuitive to respond to a blog that has already accumulated a dozen or so responses, as more often than not, there's nothing left to say but it's also awkward to repeat something that someone else has said in a single response. What's awkward still is singling out one person who is remarkably incorrect about the week's topic and write why they are incorrect as a response to their post. The social conduct here would to break it to them nicely by beginning "you raise some good points, but I find...('I disagree with a burning passion, are you blind')", but as a frequenter of the blogging scene, I know it's a bit of an uncool thing to do. So I'm left on my own blog again.

In a way, code's of conduct are a paranoia and anxiety generator - and I'm sure that serves some evolutionary purpose, but I'm sort of not into it because its hindering my ability to be one with the community (funnily enough).

Tune in next week to find out if my anxieties are overcome and I post a response instead of a blog!

References:
Wieder, D. Laurence. 1974. “Telling the Code.” Pp. 144-172 in Ethnomethodology, edited by Roy Turner. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Weekly Research (7): Ethnomethodology

Alright, my blog attempts have thus far been atrocious - today I attempt to mend this, and perhaps go back at a later date and rewrite my past post/s so that I may apply certain teachings in my everyday life. I will start this week's topic with a series of Haiku's, feel free to contribute.

Here, a Haiku for
Ethnomethodology
Did you enjoy it?

It is a big word
Ethnomethodology
takes up syllables

A blog about eth-
-nomethodology is
as follows below.

So, what is ethnomethodology? Breaking it down we have ethno meaning people and methodology meaning well, methods. So, in essence enthnomethodology is just the study of social order and how it's produced via everyday happenings, and widely held that meaning is produced inside the interaction, rather than an external force (I argue that the only external force making us do things is death, but that's an entirely different topic). Some main points of it are as follows*:

• Documentary method of interpretation
• Recipe Knowledge
• Breaching (as discovered surreptitiously by Garfinkel)

So what I've come to learn this week is that humans have a habit of attributing reason (this is hardly news because when humans start to realise there isn't a reason for anything - they usually become a mite suicidal), even incomprehensible behaviour will often yield a "You're an idiot!" or "You're insane!" and these exclamations fall under the same heading of attributing reason, because in order for their behaviour to make sense they would have to be a) an idiot or b) insane. Even seemingly 'senseless' acts can later be reflected on, walking away from a situation thinking "I don't know" will later be revisited and perhaps discussed - even if it's beyond your knowledge, you're likely to believe there's still a reason.

But to be honest, my favourite point for this week is breaching, because ethnomethodologist Harold Garfinkel is the silliest thing ever and I enjoy his antics. He essentially created researchability by messing with people's heads, which is admirable. And I'll attempt to express this in a comprehensible manner. Alright, so, in one of Garfinkel's better known experiments the 'Convsersation Clarification Experiment' he directed his experimenter's to engage in a conversation and insist commonplace statements given by the subject, be clarified - when in everyday interaction such a statement would need no such clarification.

I give the following example of Garfinkel's Conversation Clarification Experiment:
  
"Subject: How are you?
Experimenter: How am I in regards to what? My health, my finance, my school work, my peace of mind...
Subject: (red in the face and suddenly out of control) Look! I was just trying to be polite! Frankly, I don't give a damn how you are!" (pg80)

The experimenter's breaches resulted in such a rapid and complete interactional breakdown that even Garfinkel himself was stunned by the result. Essentially, at the end of the day, Garfinkel found that no matter how many nonsensical situations were produced, people will continue to make sense out of it and if no explanation can be given, people would more often than not respond with hostility and if not, would attempt to work within the known framework of the situation, by reasoning their behaviour.

Just today I had my head messed with by the people doing their presentations, one basically walked off and sat down to chat with another student amongst us. Having missed the point (that apparently some had gotten from the beginning), I immediately looked to the teacher for some indication that this behaviour was permitted because this behaviour didn't fit into what I believed to be appropriate, that I sought to redefine my knowledge of what a presentation is and the unspoken rules of conduct that was expected.

What I also find interesting is the aspect of morality in exchanges, for example a breach is considered to be a breach of trust and broken trust is the result of an active deviation from the norm. If no explanation is given for the behaviour which is considered 'abnormal' or if the 'framework' is breached then you can be met by righteous hostility. And I've experienced it myself on many occassion, now I finally have a word which fully encompasses my reaction to my boyfriend's need to be extremely literal, or say 'good morning' irregardless of the time of day.

References:
Reading: Heritage, John. 1984. “The Morality of Cognition.” Pp. 75-102 in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Disclaimer: Thank you, Connie and Robert for Haiku aid. 

*added to at a later date. The blog is getting a little long, wouldn't you say?