SOC250 – Independent Research Project
The term ‘naturally occurring data’ refers to a range of social phenomena or interactions, generally between non-social theorists, which are ‘uncontaminated’ by involvement of the social theorist or by any other form of scripting or ‘unnatural’ occurrence (Lynch, 2002).
The naturally occurring data this research project is based on is an excerpt from PoliticalForum.com, in which participants argue over the legalisation of gay marriage within Australia. Analysis of this data reveals a number ofkey sociological conceptswhich can be used to analyse the text from the forum. This essay will focus on the following sociology topics and their implications within the text: presentation of self, front and back stage presentation based on the internet as a platform for social interaction, profanity used in the text, the distinction between micro and macro sociology and lag and turning taking in the conversation.
This essay will discuss the significant sociological concept particularly pertaining to the use of the internet as presentation of self. It is frequently debated whether the internet is truly an accurate presentation of self or whether it allows for an enhanced portrayal of one’s real character. This begs the question as to whether the use of the internet as a platform for communication truly does allow a mixture of front and back stage or whether it restricts the interaction solely to a front stage performance. It seems that by using the Internet environment for an interaction, the concepts of the interaction become more complicated and more ambiguous (Barnes, 2012). In considering the dialogue I have chosen however, the front and back stage line is blurred and there is a mixture of both used in the interaction. Therefore, it is highly likely that there is, to an extent, some ‘false’ presentation of self going on in the way of front stage performance as participants in the conversation attempt to portray themselves, their knowledge and their beliefs and values in a certain way. In ‘Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’, Goffman(1971) describes backstage performance as a list of behaviours including profanity and open sexual remarks. For example:
97. Last I knew fucking a bloke up the arse and eating cock didn’t make babies.
The use of ‘internet talk or slang’ can be considered a dialect whilst the casual nature of the conversation also allows participants to use a relaxed language (Barnes, 2012). Back stage allows one to be real, whereas front stage involves policing ones behaviour around others. The reason this conversation pertains both front and back stage principles is because it takes on the form of a conversation between people who don’t know each other. Since each of these participants are taking part in the conversation from the comforts of behind a computer screen most probably from their homes, it means that participants don’t have to face each other which likely influences the nature of their language and arguments.
Throughout the interaction there are a number of exchanges involving profanity or swearing and so the reasoning behind the use of profanity as well as the implications of the profanity use are both important concepts to be explored in order to analyse the data. Interestingly,swearing is only used by one participant in the conversation;
OXYBOY
26. Just let em get married, they might shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.
OXYBOY
93. To [“Infertile heterosexual couples cannot conceive naturally.
94. Homosexual couples cannot conceive naturally.
95. There is no difference.”] The difference is the homosexual couples know they can never,
96. ever, ever concieve naturally.
97. Last i knew (*)(*)(*)(*)ing a bloke up the arse and eating (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) didn't
98. make babies.
The participant doesn’t use these profanities to swear at other participants but rather uses profanity as an intensive and in a crude way to describe sexual acts between two males. The nature of Oxyboys swearing in these lines suggests that the act between 2 people of the same sex is improper and in turn is an attempt by Oxyboy to show that gay marriage itself is crude. Employing the use of profanity within an argument shows motivation and can help increase the believability of an argument, however this is controversial because some would argue that swearing is a sign of weakness within a statement (Selnow , 1985). In the journal article Appearing Credible Swearing Helps ( Rassin&Van Der Haijden, 2005), 2 hypothesis were tested to see which claim was more accurate. The results showed contradicting outcomes. When people asked what they thought on the subject, they stated the believability of a statement would be decreased by swearing as it is negative, insulting and rude and possibly associated with lower class society. However when given a specific statement, which included profanity, they demonstrated otherwise associating it with emotion, motivation and passion. Oxyboys swearing seems to be quite patronising and also a derogatory device to describe homosexuals as both wrong and also insignificant. I believe his intention of swearing is to shock the other members of the conversation and to display his opinion of the subject matter with impact rather than to increase the modality of his argument.
The interaction presented in the chosen text is displayed on both a micro and macro sociological scale forced by the topic of the discussion. The macro versus micro debate is a long standing one in which many different arguments and claims have been made. Goffman(1971) argues that interaction stems neither from macro or micro structures whilst Rawls and Fusch (1987) “both define interaction as micro” (Mouzelis, 1992). In his paper; The Interaction Order and the Micro-Macro distinction, Mouzelis (1992) argues that interaction can be defined by both micro and macro structures and this is congruent to the interaction I have chosen to study. Mouzelis (1992) states a list of ‘macro actors’ which includes political parties and individuals whose political and cultural values dictate their decisions. All of these ‘actors’ are included in the forum I have chosen. The interaction begins with a statement made by an ALP member and continues with arguments from individuals whose beliefs and values are clearly dictated by both their political views in terms of the way that the law dictates gay marriage as well as their own cultural beliefs in how they view homosexuality, same sex marriage and the rights of gay people in terms of having children. Some of the arguments within the exchange, specifically those of a religious, Christian view, are also “derived from above”, in that they are influenced by the institution of religion and its rigid requirements, whichMouzelis (1992) also states as a feature of macrosociology. This is displayed in statements such as that of line 60-63:
MAKEDDE
59. All they want is the right to marry and to have children that is all. It isn't too much to ask for,
60. but the Christian brigade like to interfere and pretend they know everything.
OXYBOY
61. The Christian Brigade? This aint the US Mac, you don't need to love christ to hate gays.
62. Let me know the the "right" to have children goes, guess you need a forced "right" when nature
63. has excluded you from the bargain.
It is also interesting to note that the seemingly ‘micro’ parts of the interaction taking place in the forum still pertain to macrosociology in that they are governed by forum administrators/moderators who have the power to remove what they deem to be inappropriate. This is exemplified by Oxyboy’s profanity in lines 26 and 97-98 as shown previously. In this datum the actual word is not spelt out, but rather symbols are used to portray the expletive. Furthermore, the fact that this does not need to be explained by the author of the comment (Oxyboy), suggests that these symbols are commonly used to replace swearwords on the forum and most likely any other site of moderated internet communication. In a sense, this practice also undermines macro sociological institutions in that, despite their efforts to restrict expletive use, communicants are able to still use profanity in an adapted way.
The way that both the whole conversation as well as individual arguments are structured, significantly influences the overall outcome of the interaction. The factors I will discuss here are lag, turn taking and speaker responses.
Again the context of the interaction, the use of internet forum for communication, opens the door to a sociological concept which would otherwise be irrelevant to traditional verbal communication. The nature of the forum allows one to post an argument up to hours or even days after another person’s post. When one is replying to a post they may reply to the argument most recently posted or one that was posted earlier in the conversation, even if someone else has already replied to that particular post and given their opinion. This can be seen in lines 53-63;
OXYBOY
53. [To “If a woman is married to a man with no sperm, where do they go? They get a donor and
54. have IVF. This is what lesbian couples can do.
55. Gay men can adopt, just like heterosexuals can.
56. Whether or not you can't have children shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether you can
57. marry.”] K.
58. Gays have to adopt and have IVF because they can't ever have children. They "marry" knowing
59. nature is agin them.
60. Hetro sexual couples must suffer the pain of not being able to have children and are forced to go
61. to IVF.
62. Tell me you do see the difference.
63. If you want kids you should have at least been able to conceive them naturally IMO [in my opinion].
This results in ‘lag’ within the conversation and interrupts the flow and synchronicity of the interaction, often making it difficult to follow the argument as well as who is arguing what. It may significantly influence what one may include in their argument if someone changes the direction of the conversation slightly before they get a chance to post their input. It also exposes the informal structure of a microsociological interaction.
Further the concept of ‘turn-taking’ also comes into play here, in that it is certainly evident that there are two main participants arguing their point in the interaction. Makedde and Oxyboy are the predominant contributors in the conversation and both argue against each other. They also tend to follow quite a rigid form of turn-taking in the conversation (i.e. Makedde takes a turn, then Oxyboy takes a turn etc.) although Makedde does acknowledge and respond to an argument from Adultmale in lines 34-35;
ADULTMALE
32. [To “Just let em get married, they might shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.”] Not a chance,
33. they'd start demanding that they be treated 'special' by every other law in the land.
MAKEDDE
34. All they want is the right to marry and to have children, that is all. It isn't too much to ask for,
35. but the Christian brigade like to interfere and pretend they know everything.
andOxyboy responds to Bugalugs in lines 52;
BUGALUGS
49. [To “Can't even watch Seseme St with out poofter Burt...how sad”] Why don't you
50. ask Burt to go out when you want to watch Seasame St? If you ask him nicely, I'm
51. sure he'll understand that you need to concentrate.
OXYBOY
52. Another good one! Man you scaring me.....
and 70-71;
BUGALUGS
64. I'll scare you even more now by partially agreeing with you.
65. Of course homosexuals should be able to marry. But they should not assume a "right
66. " to have children.
67. I am sure many gay couples would make better parents than many hetro couples – there is no
68. doubt. But still - a child deserve 2 parents, one of each gender. Other circumstances may work
69. very well in individual situations - but it is a less than optimum arrangement.
OXYBOY
70. Hey! Don't go doing that!
What is also interesting is that only Oxyboy interacts with Bugalugs but Makadde responds to the responses that Oxyboy makes to Bugalugs without acknowledging Bugalugs. Therefore the content of his arguments (which address Oxyboy’s arguments) may be affected by the content of Bugalug’s arguments and may also be fuelled by a personal unrelated ‘dislike’ for Oxyboy or his way of arguing as opposed to the subject matter itself. The nature of ‘turn-taking’ is explained in the article A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation (Sacks, Schegloff&Jefferson, 1974), the article provides an interesting insight into turn-taking specifically in terms of the turn-taking in my chosen data as it was written prior to the common use of the internet as an instrument for communication. In defining turn-taking, the authors pre-empt a future change in the nature of conversation such as that of internet interaction as they speak of a form of turn-taking that should be “context-free and capable of extraordinary context-sensitivity”, which can be directly applied to the conversation I have chosen (Sack, Schegloff& Jefferson, 1974).
A further sociological concept pertaining to Goffman’s dramaturgy (1971) is that of teams in the interaction. The conversation essentially displays two teams; one which argues for same sex marriage and resultantly tends to reject Christianity and the other which argues against homosexual marriage and child bearing. Whilst these teams aren’t specifically organised before the argument commences, they form during the argument as some participants find their beliefs parallel to others in the forum and so back each other up. This also relates to the concept of solidarity, previously mentioned in terms of profanity, in that by relating to others and aligning with those of the same opinion, a large team can be built up against those of the opposite opinion.
This chosen interaction allows one to observe an array of different sociological concepts as well as the nature of ‘talk’ and gives a deep insight into how these are used in everyday interaction. The topic of my selected forum is socially relevant and frequented regularly by many due to its presence in the press and media, in the governmental scene, among many activists and lobbyers and hence within the general public. An analysis of the presentation of self, front and backstage presentation, profanity and micro/macro sociology allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the reasons behind their use and the implications of their use within everyday interaction. I believe the study of naturally occurring data- specifically the example I have chosen to discuss, in the context of an independent research project is justified in the sense that it puts conversation analysis and interactional analysis into context, more notably an easily identifiable context in which these concepts are organic within the data.
References:
Barnes, S 2012, Socializing the Classroom: Social Networks and Online Learning, Lexington Books, America.
Daly N, Holmes J, Newton J and Stubb M. 2004.‘Expletves as Solidarity Signals in FTAs on the Factory Floor’, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 36, pp.945-964.
Goffman, E, 1971, Presentations of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Lynch, M, 2002, ‘From Naturally Occurring Data to Naturally Organized Ordinary Activities: Comment on Speer’, SAGE Publications, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 531-537.
Mouzelis, N 1992, ‘The Interaction Order and the Micro-Macro Distinction’, Sociological Theory, vol. 10, no. 1, pp.122-128
Rassin E, Van Der Heijden S, 2005, ‘Appearing Credible? Swearing Helps!’, Psychology, Crime and Law, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 177-182
Rawls, Anne W 1987, ‘The Interaction Order Sui Generis; Goffman’s Contribution to Social Theory’, Sociological Theory,vol.5, pp.136-149.
Sack, H, Schegloff, E and Jefferson, G 1974, ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’, Linguistic Society of America, vol. 50, no. 4, pp.696-735.
Selnow G W 1985, ‘Sex Differences and Perceptions of Profanity’, Sex Roles, vol. 12, no. 3/4, pp. 303-312
Political Forum .com – Gay Marriage in Australia?
MAKEDDE
26. Here we have a Labor MP backing the push for gay marriage:
27. Quote:
28. ALP MP Doug Cameron says it's inevitable that laws will be changed to allow gay marriage in
29. Australia.
30. Mr Cameron said voters had a right to be concerned that the federal government and coalition
31. had shut down debate on homosexual marriage.
32. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has consistently stated that Labor's national conference has decided
33. that the Marriage Act should not be changed and that marriage only be allowed between a man
34. and a woman.
35. The coalition has also kept a consistent position on marriage.
36. But Mr Cameron said Labor should reconsider its position.
37. "I just can't understand why a party that calls itself progressive can't allow two people who love
38. each other, who are committed to a long-term arrangement should be treated differently,'' Mr
39. Cameron told Sky News.
41. Gillard is a bit of a hypocrite. She's not even married yet wants to decide who gets married and
42. who doesn't?
43. I hope these old fogies listen to us (the majority of us support SSM) and give us what we want
ROBOT
44. Your first paragraph is not fair. You could say Whitlam was a hypocrite as he had
45. never been divorced, yet he changed the rules on who could get divorced.
46. I also think that it is meaningless to say something is inevitable without giving a time
47. frame. I mean it could happen in 100 years time and he would still be right.
48. I do say it is something that is highly desirable.
49. Edit. If the Greens support SSM then it could help increase their representation in
50. parliament.
OXYBOY
51. Just let em get married, they might shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.
MAKEDDE
52. But we'd never hear the end of the Christian brigade.
OXYBOY
53. I'd like to hear the end of both.
OXYBOY
54. Can't even watch Seseme St with out poofter Burt...how sad
MAKEDDE
55. [To “I’d like to hear the end of both.] I'd like to hear the end of Gary Burns (idiot gay activist)
56. because he's the one who makes gay people look bad.
ADULTMALE
57. [To “Just let em get married, they might shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up.”] Not a chance,
58. they'd start demanding that they be treated 'special' by every other law in the land.
MAKEDDE
59. All they want is the right to marry and to have children, that is all. It isn't too much to ask for,
60. but the Christian brigade like to interfere and pretend they know everything.
OXYBOY
61. The Christian Brigade? This aint the US Mac, you don't need to love christ to hate gays.
62. Let me know the the "right" to have children goes, guess you need a forced "right" when nature
63. has excluded you from the bargain.
MAKEDDE
64. No, you just need access to IVF and the right to adopt, like heterosexual couples.
OXYBOY
65. Like how?
66. My mate and his wife had to use IVF because they couldn't conceive naturally...
67. Gays can't conceive at all, they chose a partner they can not have kids with. Other couples have
68. to go through the trauma of not being able to what nature intended.
69. Not like at all IMO [in my opinion].
MAKEDDE
70. If a woman is married to a man with no sperm, where do they go? They get a donor and have
71. IVF. This is what lesbian couples can do.
72. Gay men can adopt, just like heterosexuals can.
73. Whether or not you can't have children shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether you can marry.
BUGALUGS
74. [To “Can't even watch Seseme St with out poofter Burt...how sad”] Why don't you
75. ask Burt to go out when you want to watch Seasame St? If you ask him nicely, I'm
76. sure he'll understand that you need to concentrate.
OXYBOY
77. Another good one! Man you scaring me..... 
OXYBOY
78. [To “If a woman is married to a man with no sperm, where do they go? They get a donor and
79. have IVF. This is what lesbian couples can do.
80. Gay men can adopt, just like heterosexuals can.
81. Whether or not you can't have children shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether you can
82. marry.”] K.
83. Gays have to adopt and have IVF because they can't ever have children. They "marry" knowing
84. nature is agin them.
85. Hetro sexual couples must suffer the pain of not being able to have children and are forced to go
86. to IVF.
87. Tell me you do see the difference.
88. If you want kids you should have at least been able to conceive them naturally IMO [in my opinion].
BUGALUGS
89. I'll scare you even more now by partially agreeing with you.
90. Of course homosexuals should be able to marry. But they should not assume a "right
91. " to have children.
92. I am sure many gay couples would make better parents than many hetro couples – there is no
93. doubt. But still - a child deserve 2 parents, one of each gender. Other circumstances may work
94. very well in individual situations - but it is a less than optimum arrangement.
OXYBOY
95. Hey! Don't go doing that!
96.
MAKEDDE
97. [To “K.
98. Gays have to adopt and have IVF because they can't ever have children. They "marry" knowing
99. nature is agin them.
100. Hetro sexual couples must suffer the pain of not being able to have children and are forced to go
101. to IVF.
102. Tell me you do see the difference.
103. If you want kids you should have at least been able to conceive them naturally IMO.”] Infertile
104. heterosexual couples cannot conceive naturally.
105. Homosexual couples cannot conceive naturally.
106. There is no difference
STU25
107. [To ”I'll scare you even more now by partially agreeing with you.
108. Of course homosexuals should be able to marry. But they should not assume a "right
109. " to have children.
110. I am sure many gay couples would make better parents than many hetro couples –
111. there is no doubt. But still - a child deserve 2 parents, one of each gender. Other
112. circumstances may work very well in individual situations - but it is a less than
113. optimum arrangement.”] ggggrrrrrrrrrrrr............I have to agree with you.
114. the only thing I would object to is the idea it is also about having children in this matter. the
115. force behind gay marraige are not pushing for the ability to adopt. that would seem to be
116. another section of the gay community. it maybe hand in hand and
117. I may be wrong but I have not seen the two brought together politicaly.
OXYBOY
118. To [“Infertile heterosexual couples cannot conceive naturally.
119. Homosexual couples cannot conceive naturally.
120. There is no difference.”] The difference is the homosexual couples know they can never,
121. ever, ever concieve naturally.
122. Last i knew (*)(*)(*)(*)ing a bloke up the arse and eating (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) didn't
123. make babies.
MAKEDDE
100. The difference is that infertile couples know they will never, ever, ever conceive naturally.
101. The difference is that old people know they can never, ever, ever conceive naturally.
102. But we still allow them to marry. I wonder why?
102. But we still allow them to marry. I wonder why?
