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.
If one considers a talk show in the
manner of discursive features of “a host controlled, participant shaped and
audience mediated speech event” when evaluating it in regards to casual,
everyday conversation, both casual and institutional discourse patterns begin
to emerge. Talk show discourse is very much its own genre, likened to a
modernisation of regular conversation. (Ilie, 1999) The social hierarchy
in talk shows is essential to its functioning and is organised to segregate the
host from his/her guests. The pattern of talk has the host initiating each turn,
as one would expect in a formal, institutional setting, however the
conversation that occurs after this step is casual, with little structure. Graham
Norton’s role as the host puts him in a position to control the discourse and
his guests whilst simultaneously being part of the group, much and this is
socially accepted as it fits within a recognised social order, a patterning of
human behaviour approved and encouraged by the group involved. Although Graham
is ultimately in a position of power, as dictated by the established hierarchy,
Graham participates in negative and positive politeness and his mannerisms work
to relieve tension, which he often does to put his guests at ease. Hedging and
low modality typically makes up negative politeness, used to distance himself
from a face-threatening act, but one will find that there are more instances of
positive politeness wherein Graham attempts to create solidarity and
inclusivity with humour, third person plural, in-group markers and disregard of
hierarchy (Benwell, 2002).
If one considers Goffman’s
dramaturgical metaphor in which it is stated that one has multiple social
selves and that one’s presentation of self is reflexive, responding and
adjusting to stimuli, then it becomes necessary to mention it in regard to
Graham’s public persona. Graham
Norton’s “Naughty Boy” persona is contextually produced in this instance and
helps him to get away with a lot of innuendo that would otherwise be
inappropriate in this setting. Most importantly a public persona will
incorporate the values of the society of which he/she is a part (Goffman, 1971).
It is interesting to note that this sexual innuendo would perhaps be perceived
differently if a different persona were used or if his public persona had been
tainted. His persona is known for playing the instigator and ‘cheeky child’ and
this behaviour is often considered inappropriate by some American guests. In
one particularly instance one guest exclaimed “I’d like to be on a show that actually
airs” (The Graham Norton Show, 2011), as a certain standard of professionalism
is expected but does not occur. Graham uses his persona to negate negative
responses, his expression is akin to a school boy saying things he probably
shouldn’t, and his acknowledgment of this allows the audience to realise that his
words aren’t vulgar or with malicious intention. It is interesting to note
however that Sarah Ferguson still chastises Graham for this behaviour by giving
him a playful hit on the back (4:39) but this could talk of Sarah Fergusons
maintenance of how she is publicly perceived, if Graham’s behaviour is condoned
by her it may negatively impact on her own persona. Further, if she had not
responded, she may have appeared disinterested or even uninteresting.
Symbolic Interactionism is a theory
proposed by Goffman, which states that humans act toward places or objects
based on internalised meanings. These meanings eventuate from socialisation and
are constantly modified and interpreted through interactions (Roberts, 2006).
The definition of the situation is taken from the props, the alcohol, the bar
and its pseudo-barmen (Norton and Ferguson) and in the segment, the bar setting
is artificially generated in order to yield specific results, as well as a specific
type of behaviour - a natural, bar demeanour and consequent discourse. This
expected behaviour and discourse is based on cultural scripts and with the
cultural script being a representation of cultural norms - widely held and
reflected in the language, conflict emerges between two situations with two
separate scripts. The cultural script for the bar setting generates a type of recipe
knowledge for the scene, though the expected behaviour for a ‘talk show’ and
the expected behaviour for a night out, a more intimate setting between two
personas rather. This conflict
becomes an important component, as the participants are trapped between acting
as one would act at a bar, and how one acts on television.
Cultural scripts also dictate how flirting
is carried out in our culture, one knows that courtship is meant to be filled
with wit, charm and show mental and physical health and personal prowess. One’s
cultural script may also realise that ‘picking up’ at a bar may not be
considered especially tasteful to begin with. This recipe knowledge for the
situation is challenged, whilst it is widely understood how a date is supposed
to progress, no-one is certain to what extent as there are new rules to adhere
to. Graham Norton sets out these rules and gives direction the entire way,
encouraging the illusion of a date at the bar. Studies on gender differences in
flirting have shown that men are more likely to have a sexual motivation than
women, and that the act of flirting itself for women may be perceived as more
fun than its actual goal (Henningsen, 2004). This could pose a challenge for
the male contestants who may be used to participating in the event differently
than a female would, despite the obvious structure of man approaching woman and
making the first move. However, it can be said that “flirting is not seduction,
it is social play” (Conan, 2002) but this play is impeded by the presence of the
girl’s mother (Maeve), Graham Norton and the Duchess of York, each
representative of a certain situation and inciting certain behaviour.
Of the contestants, there is a strong reaction to
contestant two, when he breaches what is considered ‘socially acceptable’ in a
bar setting. When he asks Caroline to feel his shirt (2:44) there is a strong
reaction of disapproval from Graham, as well as the audience as it would be in
poor taste to encourage a woman’s touch for a pick up line. Graham’s expression
definitely coveys that he believes this to be inappropriate in accordance with
the situation, even if they are going by ‘bar etiquette’ rules due to the
generated environment. Graham stands tall and his tone of voice changes to one
of reprimand, the man stoops, essentially cowering – as would be the habit when
one is being scolded (2:51). The first two contestants gave a light-hearted
attempt, which is possibly set up by the quality of the pick-up line they
deliver, their demeanour remains comical and laughter self-conscious rather
than glamour. These first two contestants are further segregated by their
colour choices, typical of a ‘chromophobic’ society in which colour is often stigmatised.
The first two contestants in neon colours, commonly held as ‘juvenile’ as
opposed to contestant three who is in all black, considered a far more mature,
adult colour (Misek, 2009) it also speaks to his career is hospitality.
Deference and demeanour are an
important part of the selection process in this segment, as can be noticed upon
the third contestant, Jonathan’s, arrival. Jonathan participates in the
appropriate deference acts for the situation which despite their informality
work to punctuate the social interaction and maintain his status. His demeanour,
how he carries himself is especially confident, he appears to ‘strut’ instead
of walk and the manner in which he sits opposite Caroline is somewhat
commanding (3:59), all of this adds to his confidence and asserts him as a man
worth dating. The reaction to Jonathan becomes a good example of how demeanour
is essential in social interaction in that courtship can have a topical element
other than discourse. Due to his demeanour the rules are flouted for Jonathan,
who does not deliver a pick-up line at all. Jonathan is more confident than he
predecessors, he maintains eye contact and holds his chest out, as opposed to
the previous contestants which struggled to maintain eye contact and often held
their shoulders hunched forward. This confidence does not go unnoticed by Graham
who delivers a low pitched “ooooh” (3:47),
showing a particular sexual interest and incites his audience, where there is
an accompanied wolf-whistle (3:48), showcasing what society favours in
potential partners.
When the plan to ‘ambush’ Ed Byrne
is discussed, in which Caroline is instructed to be sexually inappropriate with
him in order for his mother to ‘catch them in the act’ there is some hesitance
from Caroline. Though, it should be mentioned that what Graham orchestrates is
quite reminiscent of Garfinkel’s breaching experiments, in that he asks
Caroline to participate in atypical, inappropriate behaviour for the situation
and her reaction is warranted. Breaching is considered a betrayal of trust
which makes it a deeply moral matter (Heritage, 1984), it thus comes as no
surprise that at the ‘experiments’ conclusion Caroline and Ed Bryne share a hug,
which shows a form of apology and restoration of this trust. In initialising
the speech event, Edward Byrne’s participates in a code-switching statement of
“So do you watch the Graham Norton Show?” (6:38) which functions much like its
equivalent of “Do you come here often?” a common, subpar chat up line. This is
acceptable behaviour for the situation as neither are serious about the
encounter, however if it were a proper date, perhaps this wouldn’t be as
acceptable as it would appear it wasn’t trying hard enough. When Ed Byrne’s
mother emerges from the cupboard to scold his behaviour, Edward blushes, stands
up and begins to walk away from the situation, hiding his face with his hair as
if attempting to physically ‘save face’.
His embarrassment is generated by having two persona’s clash or meet, where
his mother’s presence impacts on his public persona and this public persona has
been ‘caught’ with a woman that his not his wife. Further, being caught in an
arguably sexual act is not how one wishes to be seen by a parent.
The fact that Ed Byrne is married
becomes a very central concern in this segment, as situations are redefined by
his marital status and the rules for a social situation change, the code of
conduct is different. His status is mentioned on a few occasions, but to guide
Ed into a new persona of ‘a single man’ for the purpose of the ‘game’, helping
to redefine the situation as one where bachelor behaviour would not be punished.
(1:10 “I know you’re married but…!” and at 6:30 “you’re married now, I know,
but if you weren’t, what would you say…?”). It is interesting to note
that whilst there is an understanding between them that this bar is generated
and the situation is entirely falsified; Ed Byrne is reluctant to participate
completely. It becomes necessary for Graham Norton to grant permission to break
the code expected of marriage, reassuring him that this behaviour does not go
against his vows and that he can participate in the game.
When Graham Norton gestures to Ed
Byrne to elicit the pre-planned response in Caroline, she obliges (6:52) and ‘throws
herself’ at Ed. Despite this action, she does not kiss him on the lips and
instead pantomimes a frenzied, humorous kiss (6:55). This behaviour can be
attributed to the fact that she knows Ed Byrne is a married man and any advance
would be socially unacceptable, but also that she is on television and knows
that forcing herself onto him could turn a humorous situation into a serious
one. Socially, the importance of kissing
in a relationship, especially marital, is highlighted on the wedding day
itself, where the marriage is sealed with a kiss in front of family, friends
and who authorised the marriage. Despite this, kissing holds a range of
meanings, from sexual to asexual, but remains a highly complicated phenomenon.
(Dzara, 2008) Even though Caroline is explicitly given permission by the
authority figure (Graham) that “a bit of kissing” was entirely permissible
(5:20) and to be “entirely inappropriate with him”, with Sarah going so much as
to encourage rougher handling with grabbing gestures (5:28), she does not
comply. Despite given direction, Caroline uses her recipe knowledge and
understanding that these directions are exaggerated and suit their purpose of
comedy, actual expectations are not as explicitly stated.
From what has been discussed, it
remains that talk shows stand up to sociological scrutiny, as it has become its
own genre of social interaction. Natural patterns of human behaviour are strained
in this segment due to a number of forces and this behaviour is better deciphered
through the use of popular theories such as symbolic interactionism and the
concept of self. Analysis of this segment has shown its importance as a
naturally occurring piece of data but has also equally shown that great depth
could be achieved with the right word count.
References:
Benwell, B and Stokoe, E 2002, ‘Constructing
discussion tasks in university tutorials: shifting dynamics and identities.’ Discourse
Studies vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 429-453.
Dzara, K 2008, ‘Predicators of Kissing
Among the Married’, Michigan Sociological Review, vol. 22, pp. 142-170
Goffman, E 1967, “The Nature of
Deference and Demeanor” pp. 47-96 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face
Behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.
Goffman, E 1971, “Performances” pp.
28-82 in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
The Graham Norton Show, 2011,
television program, So Television, United Kingdom, (accessed electronically via
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coH0lpvCS4M)
The Graham Norton Show, 2009,
television program, So Television, United Kingdom, (accessed electronically via
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gXk0Vdyr9Q)
Henningsen
D 2004, ‘Flirting with meaning: an examination of miscommunication in flirting interactions’,
Sex Roles, Vol. 50, No. 7/8, pp. 481-489
Heritage, J 1984, ‘The Morality of
Cognition’, in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp.
75-102
Ilie, C 1999, Semi-institutional
discourse: The case of talks shows, Journal
of Pragmatics, vol. 33 no.2001 pp. 209-254
Misek, R
2010 “Digitial color aesthetics 2000-9” Chromatic Cinema: a history of screen
color, Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Roberts, B 2006, “Symbolic Interactionism 2 –
Developments.” pp. 46-61 in Micro Social Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
No comments:
Post a Comment