Wednesday 31 October 2012

Are You Mom Enough?- SOC250 Independent Research Project


university of wollongonG
Are You Mom Enough?
SOC250- Independent Research Project

Elise Rochelle Boonstra
Student Number: 3873237
Due Date: 01/11/2012
  
Since the development of ‘Web 2.0’ in 1999 we’ve seen a vast change beyond the past static web sites, which has enabled an explosion of online forums, social networks and chat rooms where social everyday interaction is accessible in its masses. This explosion of interaction online has allowed for new sociological research into everyday communication online as it delivers naturally occurring interactions with ease of access, in numerous media forms as well as interactions on a limitless number of categories. This research is used in order to observe behavioural patterns, conversational analysis, social hierarchies, deference and demeanour and rules of conduct which maintain social order as well as social attitudes within the interactions. In order to observe these sociological aspects of everyday interaction this paper will deconstruct and analyse a sample of naturally occurring data that was generated by a cover of Time Magazine published in early 2012.

This particular edition of Time Magazine published on the 21st of May 2012, featured twenty-six year old mother Jamie Lynne Grumet from Los Angeles, breast feeding her 3 year old son Aram (See Figure 1). With the heading “Are You Mom Enough?” this article sparked many negative and angry reactions to the cover image and story with many women stating that “Time was encouraging parenting wars and making mothering choices even harder” (The Age, 2012). The article which delves into the idea of attachment parenting received harsh criticism and became the centre of a worldwide debate not only between stakeholders in the affected industries but also by everyday citizens who held a strong opinion of attachment parenting and/ or breastfeeding. The everyday interaction on this topic follows the news article titled Confronting cover: Time shows mother breastfeeding 3-year-old’ posted on The Age website where members of the online community held discussions and arguments following the article on the “Are You Mom Enough?” cover in the discussion section of the website. The discussion section featured some 321 comments on a variety of topics that were generated from The Age article.



Figure 1: Controversial cover of Time Magazine published on the 21st May 2012. The cover features 26 year old mother Jamie Lee Grumet breastfeeding her 3 year old son Aram.

Generally speaking, breast feeding already generates large numbers of discussion forums, as it is quite a controversial topic as many individuals have and share very strong opinions on the topic. The specific selection of the time article rather than just a forum on breast feeding such as The Bub Hub or The Australian Breastfeeding Association forum allows for more empirical research into different forums and perspectives on the same topic, and therefore allows for a unified collaboration of information and opinions which can be supported by further information. This particular piece of data was selected as it was recent, showed a naturally occurring interaction whereby the data could be analysed, the data contained conflicting perspectives and varied opinions which will enable great relation to sociological research. Finally this particular topic was relevant to myself as I work in the Paediatric industry and breast feeding is a point of conversation and topic amongst patients whom again have varied opinions and thoughts on the topic making it relevant and interesting to my current employment.

The discussion generated on the bottom of the Confronting cover: Time shows mother breastfeeding 3-year-old’ article is an example of a computer mediated form of communication (CMC) (As discussed by Robinson, 2007) whereby the computer is the intermediary in the interaction between all of those involved. The interaction is an example of a content centric embedded interaction as the discussion is initiated and derived from the content from the above article. All of the posts relate to topics surrounding opinions on breastfeeding and attachment parenting- topics derived from the article (See Figure 2). The embedded nature of the posts is relative to that of the interaction belonging to a specific place and time, this is visible as the discussion posts are date and time stamped in relation to the specific time of the post (See Figure 2 for example).

Figure 2: Collaboration of posts demonstrating the embedded content centric nature of the interaction

On examination of the personas and identities within this interaction, 96.6% of the respondents fall into the category of anonymity. Anonymity can be described as when the respondent engaged in the discussion is without a name or they are identifiable by a name which does not relate to their individual personal identity offline, resulting in their true identity not publicly known. This can be identified throughout the data as many of the respondents use a ‘nickname’ or ‘online alias’. This is prominent throughout figure 3 where we can see a variety of identities as used in the data. Usernames such as Red Pony, bluestocking or Mummy are respondents whom have kept their identity 100% anonymous using an online name or identity as well as having kept their location unknown. Although on the contrary respondents SamDavisJr and nelson55leong have provided both their full names and locations. The veil of anonymity is often used online as many “people don't feel comfortable expressing opinions without the veil of anonymity. Take away that veil, and only the most outspoken people express their opinions” (Kabay, 2011). This statement supports the study by Zao, Grasmuck and Martin who found that: “People acted differently in such environments (anonymous) than they did in other online settings (nonymous)” (2008). The remaining 3.4% of the posters responded using their full name (first and last names) and 100% of those who provided their first and last name provided their location. A total of 213 of the 321 posters provided their location- whether this be just a state or capital city, this number totalled 66.6% of the people who engaged in the discussion being happy to provide their location, even if this meant that their names remained anonymous.


Figure 3: Assortment of online respondents demonstrating various forms of identity- Anonymity and Nonymity.

The presentation of self as coined by Goffman is defined as “we play different ‘roles’ in order to convey our self as possessing a particular set of characteristics” (1971) is also applicable to the personas and identities present in this data set. Many of the participants in the discussion have adapted a number of roles in order to ‘perform’ in the space of discussion, where they convey different characteristics of their persona in order to get their point across. In this particular discussion the ‘roles’ are developed in order to portray their knowledge and experience with the topic of discussion. A number of the roles developed by the respondents reflect on personal experiences or instead they roles are developed whereby the respondent reflects on their observed opinions. Some of the roles visible throughout the data set include: the role of the breastfeeding mother, the breast fed child, the observer and the medical professional to name a few. These roles are present in figure 4 as respondent bluestocking expresses the characteristics of their persona and portrays the role of the mother, which supports their reasoning for their opinion, whilst jack more simply develops the role of onlooker, giving the impression that the characteristics he is expressing is that of disgust of bluestockings opinion.


Figure 4: Interaction present in the data set, showing presentation of self and the different ‘roles’ portrayed in order to convey the respondents as possessing a particular set of characteristics

Deference and Demeanour can both work together to support an individual’s image of self or it can work in conflict to injure that image. The concept of deference and demeanour as developed by Goffman (1967) are present in this particular interaction. In relation to this data, deference can be identified as the way in which the participants interact and conduct themselves in relation to one another and the demeanour of the interaction includes the way in which this is done in the interaction, and this can be observed through the use of language, short hand writing, txt speak, CAPS LOCK and profanities etc. As there are discussions and differences of opinion throughout the data it is noticeable that the demeanour varies depending on the respondents opinion of the original poster’s (OP) comment and this can be visible in figure 5 where Anne and SheHasIssues clearly disagree with the previously mentioned comments. The change in demeanour is prevalent as Anne and SheHasIssues use direct and aggressive language such as “EXACTLY!” and “WHO gives its recommendations” in order to express their disagreement with the OP’s post. The use of CAPS LOCK also empathises their opinion and makes it appear them to be YELLING or talking forcefully to portray their opinion as, “writing in capitals, (makes) IT SOUND LIKE YOU’RE SHOUTING” (Which?, 2012). The benefit of online forums on deference and demeanour in terms of expression of opinion is that the individual may present their thoughts and actions in a way in which they wouldn’t otherwise in life beyond the computer screen, and often this can result in quite negative sanctions between participants as demonstrated.


Figure 5: Examples of deference and demeanour and how the demeanour of the respondent changes depending on their opinion of the OP's comment.


Dramaturgy can be identified as the way we present ourselves in social interactions being defined as an act. In the context of this data, dramaturgy doesn’t seem to be a big issue. This is due to the fact that in order to engage within the interaction the individual has physically had to search for the article in order to comment on it therefore needing to have a particular view or opinion on the topic of discussion. The anonymity that is also present within the data allows for the respondents engaged in the discussion to participate and ‘act’ as their true self rather than tweaking their opinion to fit in with the majority or what appears to be the social norm. The act of their true self is visible as their true opinion will not be associated with their offline life or nor judged by family and friends.

The theory of documentary interpretation whereby we interpret individuals and create interactions using prior experiences with similar things as well as assumed shared knowledge is present throughout this data set. Throughout the data men have participated in the interaction and provided their opinions on the topic. In some cases they have discussed their opinions on breastfeeding including; why it should/ shouldn’t be done at different ages and why it is beneficial to breastfeed etc. when they have never actually engaged in breast feeding personally. This is where the documentary interpretation theory comes into play, majority of the time the males rely on their partner’s experiences, externally researched information as well as assumed common knowledge in order to support their opinions.

Just like Goffman uses the idea of the “rules of conduct” to stipulate the allowable individual actions (1967) in everyday life outside of the internet, ‘netizens’ are also exposed to a set of rules of conduct to stipulate the ways in which they are expected to interact amongst users online. The rules of conduct online can be outlined by the forum host or they are determined by the shared understandings of the online forum and setting in which they are in. While this forum allows for freedom of opinion, it is common sense to protect the privacy of members and participants, comply with existing laws and encourage freedom of expression and the exchange of information in a mature and responsible manner. It would be unacceptable to turn the forums into an advertising billboard, slag off on discussion participants and upload responses that other participants may find offensive or abusive including obscene or sexually orientated language.

No matter whether we realise it or not, sociological concepts are utilised in everyday interactions whether they are in life offline or online. This analysis has demonstrated how these concepts relate to the interaction which occurred in the discussion section of an article on The Age website. These interactional exchanges between participants include disputes, differentiated personas and identity positions, documentary interpretation theory and online rules of conduct which intern effects the deference and demeanour and the presentation of self that can be deployed throughout the interaction. The debate on this topic delves far deeper than the discussion analysed in the paper. This magazine cover is and will remain one of the most controversial Time magazine covers of all time (Daily News, 2012).



References

Author Unknown. 2012, “Confronting cover: Time shows mother breastfeeding 3-year-old”, The Age, May 11, accessed 08/10/2012, http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life/confronting-cover-time--shows-mother-breastfeeding-3yearold-20120511-1ygb1.html

Daily News. 2012, “Time Magazine breastfeeding cover: Most controversial magazine covers”, accessed 30/10/2012, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/controversial-magazine-covers-gallery-1.1076486

Goffman, E. 1971, “Performances”, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Pp: 28-82, Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Goffman, E. 1967, ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanour’, Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, New York: Pantheon Books

Heritage, J. 1984, “The Morality of Cognition”, Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, pp 28-82, Cambridge: Polity Press

Kabay, M.E. 2011, “See you anon: Reflections on online anonymity”, Network World- September 26 2011, accessed 29/10/2012, Academic OneFile

Mazur, A & Cataldo, M. 1989, “Dominance and deference in conversation”, Journal of Social and Biological Structures, vol 12, issue 1, pp 87-99, accessed 29/10/2012, SciVerse Database

Robinson, L. 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

Schoeller, M. 2012, Parenting #1 “Are You Mom Enough?”, photograph, Time Magazine Lightbox, accessed 09/10/2012, http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/10/parenting/#1

Time Magazine. 2012, accessed 09/10/2012, http://www.time.com/time/magazine

Which?. 2012, Commenting Guidelines, accessed 29/10/2012, http://conversation.which.co.uk/commenting-guidelines/

Zhao S, Grasmuck S & Martin, J. 2008, ‘Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol 24, issue 5, pp 1816-1836, accessed 22/09/2012, SciVerse Database.

Wednesday 17 October 2012

Group Presentation

Finally my group presentation has arrived! Here is our group Prezi to view at your leisure. ENJOY!



Tuesday 16 October 2012

Thank F#*% it's over!- Final Post


Like most others I left the bulk of my commenting till last! This meant there were a very little number of recent blog posts to comment on! (and many of these blogs were on Profanities as they were the last real posts for the session).

This week I commented on Jessica Saunders blog post ‘Profanity’ (Thank F*ck she unlike many others left a blog till last as opposed to commenting). She made some interesting points in relation to the varying use of profanities in gender as well as the changing nature of the use of profanities in everyday life situations. 

I have enjoyed commenting and learning about sociology through the use of the blog. Being a seasoned blogger it was great to see a 'non-digital' subject harness the online communication that are blogs. I have really enjoyed posting this semester and am now considering blogging beyond the completion of the semester and maybe combining this with vlogs for an individual project I guess.. 
Thank you for reading my blogs, it has been an enjoyable final semester of my degree! 

I found the image below and while I'm still not a fan of swearing I thought it was appropriate to include!- Why not embrace the subject content and take it on board! 




Wednesday 10 October 2012

Profanities in Interactions

Call me weird or whatever you like but I don't swear! I hate it with a passion. I'm like a little child that would ideally like to cover my ears when I hear words of the like. I don't know why this is..? All I can put it down to is when I was a kid my dad hounded me for using words like "bum" (that was too rude to say) and "arse", but these days I don't know, I just don't do it still!

For this weeks post I commented on Josh's blog 'Exploring Profanities in Interactions'. He raises some very interesting points as to both the positive and negative effects of swearing in different contexts. He also has evidence of external research where he found an article which outlines the use of 2 particular profanities in the Australian trade work place.

His blog is very well written and easy to follow.


Tuesday 9 October 2012

Data Discussion Presentation

Week 11 is here! Time for my Data Discussion Presentation!
View, Enjoy and Leave Comments as some Food for thought for me in preparation for my final project!


Data Discussion Presentation

Saturday 22 September 2012

Identity Crisis- Anonymous vs Nonymous

Research into self-presentation online has in recent years focused around anonymous vs nonymous online environments and the way in which this impacts self-presentation and identity constructions. (Primarily) Being a digital media student this whole area really interests me and I find the way in which we interact in these two different environments to be quite interesting.

In a study by Zao, Grasmuck and Martin they found that:

“People acted differently in such environments (anonymous) than they did in other online settings (nonymous)” (2008)

Why would this be so? Think about it… How do you construct your identity on Facebook? Would this differ to an anonymous environment such as Chat Rooms, Online Forums or Online Games such as MMOG’s (Massively Multiplayer Online Games etc). Would you find yourself to be more likely to express your opinion, give feedback or engage in other activities that in a nonymous environment would be unlikely to do? It’s an interesting concept and really empathises the impact that anonymous and nonymous environments have on an individual.

One particular form of anonymous online communication ‘Chatroulette’ which rose to fame in 2010 allows users to video chat with random strangers whilst remaining anonymous 100%.. Right? WRONG! Recently a developer has launched a new website ‘Chatroulette Map’ in which utilises your broadcast location and IP address and exploits your location on a Google Map. Laters anonomity! Quite frankly I think I would prefer them to know my name rather than location coordinates.. At least there’s a chance of there being more than one Elise Boonstra in the world!

I will leave you with a question, followed by one of my favourite youtube sensations Steve Kardynal who rose to fame off Chatroulette (Yes his identity is now out there for everyone to know!), its slightly off topic but too good to leave out!

What do you think about anonymous vs nonymous online environments? Do you feel your identity and behaviours differ from one to the other?


Carly Rae Jepsen - Call Me Maybe (Chatroulette Draco Edit) from DJ Draco on Vimeo.


References:
Zuras, M. 2010, “A Cat Mask Won't Save You: Chatroulette Map Exposes Your Location” Switched, March 11, accessed 22/09/2012,  http://www.switched.com/2010/03/11/a-cat-mask-wont-save-you-chatroulette-map-exposes-your-locatio/

Zhao S, Grasmuck S & Martin, J. 2008, ‘Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol 24, issue 5, pp 1816-1836, accessed 22/09/2012, SciVerse Database.

Friday 14 September 2012

Invisible Rules that Govern our Actions??


In everyday life we are guided by a set of ‘social norms’ which establish the idea of social standards on how we should engage and behave in social interactions. These unwritten rules guide and influence our actions on a day to day basis. This week Wieder’s reading Telling the code, closely examined the ‘convict code’ and how it is utilised in half-way houses to rationalise behaviour and activities in the half way house. Wieder discovered that individuals that were in breach of the code were met with negative sanctions which varied dependant on the severity of breach of the code and breaches could result in abuse and violence.

Like in Wieder’s examination of the ‘convict code’ everyday individuals such as you and I are exposed to a similar code on a day to day basis are which ‘stipulates’ the right and wrong actions of everyday life situations, which again can also result in consequences- (no not that of those that are prevalent in the halfway houses!). Social norms can vary depending on geographic location, socio-economic status and up-bringing to name a few.

When I think of social norms I also feel that they depend on who I am in the presence of…. At work I have a professional expectation of myself and my fellow employees, if I meet someone new, I am expected to introduce myself with a polite handshake. If I met someone new out with my friends I would be a ‘total loser’ if I was to shake their hand (and as my consequence-perhaps then avoided by my friends who don’t want to lose their ‘cool’ façade). While yes its polite, the social norms that are present vary and depending on the situations we face in life.

Sunstein, CR 2006, “Social Norms and Social Roles”, Columbia Law Review, vol 96, no 4, pp 903-968, accessed 14/09/2012, JSTOR Database.

Wednesday 5 September 2012

You understand what I mean... Right?


I love reading other peoples blogs. Not only do they provide a more simplified overview of the weeks topic they (in some cases) refer to everyday situations which I can relate to and reminisce on. One particular blog that caught my eye this week was that of Nicole Michielin’s blog post “The Morality of Cognition”. (I also commented on her blog- See link)

‘The focus of this weeks’ reading surrounded Garfinkel and the “morality of cognition”, whereby amidst conversation there are unspoken mutual understandings referring to what we actually mean as opposed to saying directly what we mean- which I experience on a day to day basis. What I liked about Nicole’s blog was that it provided an overview of the weekly reading topic in a way in which I’m sure many of us can relate to - a conversation between Mother and Daughter whereby Nicole outlines the underlying meaning of the conversation as well as the spoken dialogue.

Nicole gives reasoning for the unspoken understandings between her mother and herself noting that due to their relationship “they don’t have to explicitly state the meaning behind every statements because they ‘just know’ what the other person means.” Like Nicole I also have these conversations with my family members and friends whereby we don’t need to directly state our intent, however they are conveyed through these mutual understandings as outlined and examined by Garfinkel. 

I also feel that this is conveyed not only through conversation but also through facial expressions- I often find myself raising my eyebrows whilst pulling a particular face at my mum with her understanding to be "Shut up- Dont talk about that", exampling the use of this mutual understanding through facial expressions.

Is there anyone who you have this underlying mutual understanding in conversations with? Why do you feel that they understand you in this manner in order to understand the underlying meaning of your conversation?

Wednesday 29 August 2012

Which performance is which?


Originally dramaturgical sociology was derived from the greatest playwright in the English language: William Shakespeare but the term was first adapted into sociology by Goffman. Simply ‘dramaturgy’ can be defined as “A sociological perspective stemming from symbolic interactionism” but for Goffman sociological dramaturgy is the “creation, maintenance, and destruction of common understandings of reality by people working”. When looking at Dramaturgy this week subject matter examined actual self, performance of self, front stage, backstage and the audience. 

After reading this week’s reading and looking over the lecture slides and recording I was very confused and I struggled to understand and get my head around the whole idea. Through the in detail tutorial discussions and examples the concept soon began to sink in and I was able to adapt my own everyday examples to the idea. What this idea did for me was open up the assessment of my own everyday activities and how I ‘perform’ differently dependant on my surroundings, groups of friends and location eg: my workplace.

What I have found interesting is that we undoubtedly create a number of ‘personas’ or faces for ourselves with the idea of impressing the specific audience and these are dependent on our situations and ‘audience’- friends or family. I feel that for most of us we are aware that our performance at work would vary from our performance with our friends and again with our family and for me until now I have ‘performed’ in this manner without realisation. I have since analysed the idea of dramaturgy with friends and family and looked at the different ‘performances’ they have amongst their audiences. 

Do you feel that you vary your ‘performances’ depending on your audiences? Which performance do you deem as your true performance? Why do you feel that you do this?

Thursday 23 August 2012

A start to Sociology- Goffman


In the first 5 weeks of my first sociology subject boy have I learnt alot. I was so unaware of the ways in which we conduct ourselves on a day to day basis and how this relates to and conforms to ideas and research conducted by a variety of sociologists. I’m still taking to this whole idea of sociology and getting my head around the whole thing although I will do my best to decipher the ideas and topics.

One such sociologist whom I’d never even heard of until now Goffman, poses some interesting ideas in the form of written and unwritten rules which are commonly without realisation applied to our daily lives- “Rules of Conduct”. (Well obviously applied without realisation as I have not realised until now!). These ideas surround the idea of deference and demenour, symmetrical and asymmetrical and obligations and expectations just to name a few.

One particular idea that stood out to me was the idea of Deference and demeanor. Whereby Goffman defines deference as the way in which we interact and conduct ourselves in relation to others and demeanor as being the way in which a person acts or ‘presents’ ones self. Deference and demeanor are applied in almost every social setting – well I cant think of one in which it doesn’t where we act in certain ways (deference) because our demeanour ‘says’ we should act in that way. (Well atleast that’s how I think it works- I could be wrong, Its going to take some time to get used to this whole thing).

Whats your interpretation of deference and demeanour? Do you act in certain ways because you feel you should? I’m interested to hear your thoughts! J