Micro-sociology has long preferred to focus on the
examination of naturally occurring data at the individual and personal level,
by looking at face-to-face and small group interactions in order to find
patterns which help to tell us what is going on during these everyday
interactions rather than examining how institutions shape these smaller
interactions (Wonser n.d.). The current analysis will focus on the interaction
presented in the above video. In order to analyse this unique piece of data a
number of theoretical tools will be used, these will include the theories of
social and moral codes and presentation of self, the idea of cooling the mark
out and finally the metaphor of dramaturgy will be utilized. Furthering the
examination the micro-element of tone will be will also be examined.
Before beginning to analyse this piece of data the
way in which the video is interpreted should be put forward. The first few
seconds of the video (0:00-0:17) offer some context as to the rest of the
video, it appears as if the men who Daniel is addressing have disrupted the
show at at least one point before the video begins, when the men continue to
disrupt his act Daniel asks the men politely to “try not to talk” (0:15). The
video then skips ahead to a later point in the show where it appears the men
are continuing to disrupt Tosh’s act at which point he takes the pairs drink
(0:45) and walks off the stage. Upon returning Daniel, assisted by an usher,
then makes the pair swap seats with a couple who are seated a number of rows
back and off to the side (1:15) before continuing his show.
It was two particular aspects of this clip which
drew my attention to it as an interesting form of interaction to be analysed.
Firstly the section of the video during which Daniel goes on a rant while
removing the men’s drink (0:49-1:10) and secondly the fact that neither the two
men, nor the people they seem to be sitting with, appear to argue against Tosh
or resist being moved to worse seats than those they paid for.
There are a number of issues with this clip and the
reasons for its selection for analysis despite these which require discussion.
While the clip is edited (0:37) it can be viewed as one interaction, this is
because of the nature of the video. The clip is edited to be removed from a
larger video, Tosh’s TV/DVD special, because it is not related to the rest of
the show. Given this fact we can assume that what occurs between the two
sections of the clip is simply stand-up comedy which does not relate to the two
sections being analysed here. Furthermore the nature of the performance as a
heavily rehearsed stand-up act carried out by a professional comedian should
not be thought of as bringing into doubt how natural this data is. This is
because of the same reason cited above; having been removed from the larger
section of footage it seems safe to assume that this portion of video is in no
way planned or meant to be part of the act, the footage which we have is
Daniel’s natural unscripted reaction to annoying audience members.
Social and moral codes govern just about every
interaction which we find ourselves in, this idea is supported in this clip by
the reaction received when one of these codes is broken. Wieder’s (1974) theory
of social and moral codes posits that all interaction occur within certain
rules, the breaking of which causes negative consequences for the individual breaking
them. While these codes aren’t necessarily verbalized the people who are affected
by them still carry out their interactions within the boundaries set by them.
In this clip we can see that the two men have broken the social codes governing
how we are expected to act during a performance, namely that you respect the
performer and other audience members, the two drunk men have broken these rules
by disrupting Tosh’s performance on a number of occasions (prior to 0:00 and
0:42) though it is hard to hear exactly how they have done so in this clip it
is clear from Daniel’s reactions to the pair that they are in fact distracting
him. In this clip the pair receives punishment for breaking this particular
code by firstly being mocked by the comedian (0:26 – 0:32 and 0:43 – 1:07) and then
being forced to move to a worse seat than they were originally seated in (1:23 –
1:45). It is through this punishment for failing to abide by social codes that
this clip aids in showing us that they do indeed seem to exist.
While the above is an obvious way that social codes can
be seen during this clip a less obvious way can be seen by examining whether
Daniel is breaking any social or moral codes by reacting the way he does to the
two men. Outside of his role as a comedian it would more than likely be agreed
that Tosh’s behaviour, swearing directly at and insulting members of his
audience (0:26 – 0:32 and 0:43 – 1:07), was unacceptable, even for any other
type of performer, but the role of comedian in the setting of a comedy show
means that audience members, particularly those who are familiar with Daniel’s
style of comedy, are expecting social and moral codes to be broken. In this way
we see a contrast against the typical theory of social and moral codes, in this
setting Tosh’s breaking of codes is accepted and rather than being punished he
is rewarded by the positive reaction of his audience.
Goffman’s (1967) presentation of self links well
with Weider’s social and moral codes and there are various aspects of this
which are shown rather well in this clip. One aspect of this theory is that
that we all have obligations and expectations within an interaction, meaning
that we are both expected to behave in a certain way and expect others to behave
in a certain way. It is clear from the fact that the two men are consistently disrupting
the show that the two men have different views on how they should be acting
when compared to how Tosh and probably the rest of the audience expect them to
act. This differing of expectation and obligations then causes damage to the
two men’s face. Face is defined by Goffman (1972) as the positive social value
which someone claims for themselves, this essentially means that it is the way
that someone views themselves, typically in a positive light. By being insulted
(0:26 – 0:32 and 0:43 – 1:07), forced to move (1:23 – 1:45) and having the rest
of the audience take Tosh’s side in the interaction the men’s views of themselves
is likely damaged.
Facework can also be seen on the other side of this interaction.
At the beginning of the clip (0:05 – 0:10) Tosh states that he had asked to
have the pair not seated where they are but that they, the ushers and his
production crew, did not take him seriously. This issue then comes up again
later in the clip (0:51) when Daniel states “god damn it, why would you fucking
let them sit there, it’s so ridiculous”, with this line Daniel threatens the
face of the venues ushers and his crew and action which may have repercussions
for the venue, Daniel himself or his crew. This is because this loss of face
may lead to others being less likely to perform at the venue or even for people
to be less willing to work with Daniel knowing that he may publically address their
faults, furthermore it may cause issues for his crew in the future as people
may be less willing to work with them given that it is known they may not carry
out the performers wishes.
Cooling the mark out is a term which originated with
con men, however it can adapted to everyday situations (Goffman 1952). In everyday
situations damage to an individual’s face, causing them to lose some level of
social value, can be softened by cooling the mark out. In this clip it is
possible that the audience’s laughter throughout the interaction is acting in
this way. By laughing the audience is cooling off the situation, had the rest
of the crowd been silent while Tosh ranted and moved the men it may have lead
to a much tenser situation. This view is contestable though, with the fact that
this interaction is occurring during a comedy show lending credence once again
to the fact that actions which would be viewed as inappropriate outside of this
setting are accepted inside of it.
The rant just after Daniel takes the pairs drink
(0:53 – 1:10) presents perhaps the most interesting section of the clip to be analysed.
The metaphor of life as a stage “And all the men and women merely players” with
“one man in his time play[ing] many parts” (Shakespeare 1623) was expanded into
a sociological theory Goffman in 1971. The theory contains a number of
premises, the first being that all human interactions are part of a grand play,
secondly people play a number of different roles, which they may or may not
fully embrace, and finally that there are three stages where interaction
occurs. Much of this interaction occurs on the front stage, an interaction which
includes both the ‘performers’, those involved in the interaction, in this case
Tosh and the two men, and an ‘audience’, in this case literally the audience. A
front stage interaction involves ‘performers’ interacting under social rules
which are appropriate to the ‘scene’ they are interacting in, in this case the
comedy show. While this aspect of the dramaturgical metaphor is upheld in this
clip, Tosh’s actions, as has been noted earlier, are acceptable given the ‘scene’,
it is the off-stage section of interactions which is perhaps most interesting
to examine in relation to this clip. Off-stage under Goffmans theory is when a ‘performer’
is alone, meaning they are only interacting with themselves free of social
rules and obligations, Daniel’s rant after taking the two men’s drink (0:53 –
1:10) with lines like “luckily I don’t give a shit about even my special” seems
more like it would fall into this category. Despite the fact that these
statements seem more appropriate to the off-stage they are occurring in a very
much front stage ‘scene’, this fact then seems to present issues for the
theory. Once again though we are brought back to Tosh’s role in the situation
and the ‘setting’ which it is occurring in, given his role as the comedian and
the setting of a comedy show Daniel’s internal thoughts are allowed to be
expressed in a front stage fashion, an allowance which is not present in most
other ‘scenes’. By accounting for roles in a ‘scene’ and variations between ‘scenes’
then Goffman’s theory of dramaturgy is able to account for why it is that
Daniel is allowed to express himself in a way which would typically be retained
to self-talk for others.
A far more subtle aspect of the interaction which
can be analysed is Tosh’s tone throughout the clip. From the opening seconds of
the clip we can tell that Daniel is annoyed by what’s going on purely from his
tone. Despite his attempts to remain humorous and entertain his audience with
lines like “we’re going to edit you out, you know, like your parents wished
they could” (0:28 – 0:32) and particularly in the rant later on (0:53 – 1:10)
we can sense the annoyance and aggravation in his voice at having to deal with
the two men himself. Tone is perhaps one of the most important non-verbal aspects
of human interaction, as it allows us to portray a certain emotion or meaning
without having to verbalise that emotion. This is clear in the clip, while Tosh
does not really verbalize his annoyance we know exactly how he feels because of
the tone he uses even when being polite (0:00 – 0:03).
Through this analysis one point consistently comes
to the surface. The setting of a comedy show and Daniels role as a comedian in
this setting allows for many social rules and expectations which would be
present in a regular interaction to be broken without reprimand. This is
because people have a range of different expectations depending on the
interaction they are going into, had this interaction occurred and someone who
was unfamiliar with Tosh’s style of comedy had witnessed it then they may have
then recounted the interaction differently to the majority of the audience,
this fact is true of all interaction, people will always have varied
interpretations of interactions given their past knowledge of what should occur.
References:
·
Goffman, E. 1952, On Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaptation to Failure. url:
http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--Cooling.htm.
·
Goffman, E. 1967, “The Nature of Deference and
Demeanor”, pp. 47-96 in 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.
·
Goffman, E. 1972, “On Face-Work: An Analysis of
Ritual Elements in Social Interaction”, pp.5-45 in Interaction Ritual: Essays in face-to-face behaviour. VIC: Penguin
Books Australia Ltd. url: http://hplinguistics.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/38289359/Goffman,%20Erving%20'On%20Face-work'.pdf
·
Shakespeare, W. 1623. As You Like It.
·
Wieder, D.L. 1974. “Telling
the Code.” pp. 144-172 in Ethnomethodology,
edited by Roy Turner. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
·
Wosner, R. n.d. Lesson
1: What is Sociology?,
lecture, Introduction to Sociology, College of the Canyons, accessed:
31/10/2012, url: www.canyons.edu/faculty/wonserr/Intro%20to%20Soc/Lesson%201%20-%20What%20is%20Sociology.ppt
·
Zedunit, 2010. Daniel Tosh Kicks Out Drunks, accessed 1/11/12. url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quoO6dgDzRU
