Independent Research Project

Independent Research Project

Soc250

4076680 

Wed 3:30 A.Whelan

Micro sociology explores concepts such as ventriloquism, which is defined as “speaking as, to, or about pets” (Tannen, 2004, 399). Micro sociologists such as Deborah Tannen analyse situations that involve ventrioloquism through an ethnomethodological study, which can often reveal language framed in a specific way, as well as power relations and identity positions. Tannen believes that it is a method of communication which offers a buffer for “criticism, deliver praise… and create a family identity that includes the dogs as family members” (2004, 399). This independent research project will use ethnomethodology to look at the concept of ventriloquism in the video titled “2talking dogs argue – subtitled! Mishka & Laika” and discuss what is happening in the exchange, what is the dispute, how the language is framed in a specific way and how it identifies the power relation between the dogs.

The interaction in this video involves two dogs; Mishka the black siberian husky on the sofa, and Laika the brown siberian husky on the floor. The video records the two dogs seemingly having a conversation or an 'argument' as implied by the title of the video, which is signified by the various howls and whines the dogs seem to exchange. It is also significant to note that the owners of the dogs submitted the subtitles, which signifies the element of ventriolquism of speaking about the animal to create a family identity (Tannen, 2004, 399). 

At 0:04 seconds the conversation between the dogs begin as Laika (brown husky) makes a sudden howl and whimper that is accompanied by the subtitle "Hey You You" as seen in the first screen shot. In this small noise from Laika, it becomes evident that Laika is seeking approval from Mishka (black husky), as Laika sits submissively on the floor patiently waiting for attention from Mishka who sits ignorantly on her sofa, inferring Mishka as superior to Laika as the alpha dog in the relationship. 

Screen shot 1.

At 0:06-09 Mishka glances at Laika and then to the camera, and back to Laika as seen in screen shots 2, 3 and 4. The exchange of glances in these few seconds appears to be Mishka's attempt to ask the owner, who is filming, to interrupt the exchange and command Laika to leave Mishka alone to sleep. This identifies another power position between the owner and Mishka, the owner being more powerful than Mishka.

Screen shot 2.

Screen Shot 3.

Screen Shot 4.

0:14 seconds into the video Mishka finally responds to the patient Laika who jumps up with excitement expecting play, however Mishka replies with a whine accompanied with the subtitle "no". The next seven seconds of the video consist of little whines of encouragement from Laika who nudges and licks Mishka's ear begging for a response and some attention. At 0:22 seconds, Laika howls again, accompanied with the subtitle "come on", followed by Mishka's response in a series of howls saying "no, leave me" followed by a howl that sounds like she is trying to say "I'm really tired", which is also supported by the subtitle that accompanies the action.  

Laika's attempts to get Mishka to play are countered by Mishka's response emphasising who is the alpha dog as portrayed at 0:32 in which Mishka's howling submits Laika to lay down on the floor accompanied with the subtitle "Since when did you become my mom?", immediately followed by a long howl in a deeper pitch translated with the subtitle "...I'm the alpha". Laika's position juxtaposed to Mishka's, emphasises that Mishka is indeed the alpha dog between the two. Laika does not dispute this as evident by her head resting on her paws on the floor in an attempt to avoid looking at Mishka.

Immediately after this affirmation of power positions, Laika whines back "I know", followed by Mishka in a seemingly frustrated howl "noooo". Laika mistakingly takes this as a sign of enthusiasm by yelping and standing up in excitement. Mishka responds to this with another frustrated howl "i doooon't want to" as she sits up and turns away from Laika, whom decides it is a perfect opportunity to steal Mishka's pig ear. Unfortunately, Mishka disagrees and snatches her treat away from Laika accompanied by a growl. This is one of the only times either of the dogs growl at each other as it emphasises the identity position of the alpha dog and their territory being invaded by the beta dog, Laika. Laika responds to this aggression by standing very still with her ears pointed straight forward towards Mishka, giving her full attention to the interaction, and her tail pointing straight out as seen in screen shot 5.

Screen Shot 5. 

At 0:52 Laika howls softly at Mishka who responds with a longer howl. The subtitle accompanied with this interaction submits a context to the conversation as the interaction now seems like Laika is upset with Mishka, and Mishka attempts to save face by denying there is a problem with her attitude; Laika: "Your Rude", Mishka "nooo". For the rest of the video Laika attempts to get Mishka to play whilst Mishka continually rejects Laika with a series of howls exclaiming no.

Throughout the entire video Mishka is positioned above Laika even though she is laying down. This presents the power position of the alpha dog towering over the beta dog. The power in the relationship is constantly being referred to in the position of the dogs to each other, along with the subtitles the owners use to translate what they believe the dogs are arguing about. The owners ventriloquize Mishka to be constantly battling with Laika to emphasise that because Mishka is the alpha, Laika must do as she commands as this will re-establish who is in control in the relationship.

Fabricating a conversation between the the dogs is a successful example of ventriloquizing in relation to building a family identity for both the dogs (Tanner, 2004, 399). It is also reflective of how the owners feel towards the pets in relation to establishing a personality based on common canine behaviours such as barking, howling and whimpering. The subtitles are evident of the playful personality the owners have attached to Laika based on her behaviour towards Mishka, as she is obnoxious in her persistence to have attention and encouraging play. Mishka on the other hand, takes on a personality in which she seems to be less energetic, and complaining most of the time. 

David Goode is a micro sociologist who performed an ethnomethodological study on playing with his dog Katie, in an attempt to understand the relationship between a human and dog when interacting, Playing With My Dog Katie (2007). This study explores the idea of applying personalities onto animals, in particular dogs as it this is his focus, and by doing so applying the idea of treating them the same as humans. Goode’s ethnomethodological study on playing with his dog, looks at the idea of an animal having a ‘mind’ and treating animals as ‘persons’ in turn making them a person, "idea that the understanding of animals' 'minds' emerges from interactions with them" (Goode, 2007, 122). He argues the mind is simply a social accomplishment and therefore can be successfully applied to animals as he believes that if "dogs are treated as 'persons' [they] therefore are persons" (Goode, 2007, 125).

Anthropomorphism is another theory that looks at attaching personalities to animals. Sara Kiesler defines anthropomorphism as the "attribution of human qualities to non humans" (2008). Kiesler believes that when humans interact with each other, they "adjust their communications for one another based on their estimation of what their listener knows" (2008). This perception is relevant to the interaction between the two dogs as well as the involvement of the owners in choosing to subtitle the 'argument', as without the subtitles the dogs would be simply howling at each other. The subtitles provide context for the argument as well as present an interaction which projects an idea of articulate dogs who are capable of having a conversation in much the same way as people. This effectively incorporates Kiesler's idea of anthropomorphism and Goode's idea of treating the dogs as person, with the micro sociological concept of ventriloquism.   

Rick Nauert is a an anthropomorphist like Kiesler, who believes that "thinking of a nonhuman entity in human ways renders it worthy of moral care and consideration" (Nauert, 2010). This is particularly relevant to understanding the micro sociology in the video as the subtitles symbolise the owners efforts to contribute a human personality that has feelings, to the two dogs. It is also relevant for other examples of ventriloquizing as evident on the website known as 'dog shaming'. The website has a variety of images of dogs and sometimes other animals, who have evidently interacted with their owner or their owners home in a way that is considered 'naughty'. Image 1 and 2 are examples of ventriloquism and anthropomorphism being used in a humorous way to consider the dogs as needing moral care.

Image 1. 

Image 2.

The two images used from the dog-shaming website explore the ideas of ventriloquism and anthropomorphism in support of the ethnomethodological study of Mishka and Laika. The first image has a dog positioned at the same height as the person taking the camera, presumably the owner, thus no power position is established. The subtitle "I found the box of Q-tips..." applies a personality to the dog as ascribed by its owner in a humorous tone so as to buffer the situation, thus refraining from conflict. The second image also has a humorous tone, but also a tone of shame as the subtitle reads "I chewed up a DVD... it would be fitting to dress me up as the Cowardly Lion" which implies there is a power position that the dog is not the alpha but the owner is. These two images are similar to the interaction in the video of Mishka and Laika as the owners are applying human traits through the use of speech onto the canines, but at the same time revealing the identity positions between the participants.

This independent research project has discussed the interaction in the video as well as discussed how the interaction creates identity positions between the three participants; Mishka, Laika and the owner. The discussion has looked at how ventriloquism is used to frame personalities on to animals and at the same time, establish power positions through the positioning of the two dogs in comparison to each other. The ethnomethodological study of the video has also considered another aspect of ventriloquism in the theory of anthropomorphism, along with supporting data from the dog-shaming website in the images provided. As a result, the project has explored how applying human traits on to animals creates context for an interaction as well as applying personalities and power positions.

Word Count: 1801

Reference:Dog- Shaming [accessed online: 1st November 2012], <http://dog-shaming.com/>

Gardea23, 2011 [accessed online: 1st October 2012], <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S-N7xWWrbo>

Goode, D. 2007, Playing with my dog Katie: an ethnomethodological study of dog-human interaction, Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Ind.

Kiesler, S. 2008, "Anthropomorphism... attribution of human qualities to non humans", [accessed online: 14th October 2012], <http://anthropomorphism.org/>

Nauert, R. 2010, "Why do we anthropomorphise?", [accessed online: 14th October 2012], <psychcentral.com/news/2010/03/01/why-d-we-anthropomorphize/11766.html>

Tannen, D. 2004, "Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse", Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 399-420.

Cyber comment

I commented on Ann Guballa's post:

http://annguballa.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/cyber-mania.html?showComment=1350269075243#c4262759513110563974

Profanity Comment :) x 2

I commented on this blog by Renee Lamacchia:

http://reneesoc250.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/i-say-fuck-you-but-what-i-really-mean.html

As well as Lauren Naumovski's blog:

http://lnaumovski.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/what-fuck-are-you-looking-at-how-do-you.html

Profanity

I have heard a lot of people say for this weeks topic that words like 'fuck' are 'bleached' and don't have much of an impact when used anymore. Maybe that is just the case for people who use it as every second word. Get a dictionary and try something else.
Even another language, anything, just to test yourself. Stop using it for a month and then when you hear someone use it, it will astonish you again.
My boyfriend and I often joke around and use random words from starwars for substitute swearing.

Profanity is used excessively in arguments or other settings which 'anger' is the prominent emotion. Words like 'fuck' and the c-bomb are dropped frequently without a premeditative thought in such situations but what impact does it actually have? Listening to neighbours whom constantly swear in every sentence increase the usage when they are screaming at each other.

What impact does this have? None, they screaming and swearing continues, and an occasional 'Fuck you, you dog' can clearly be heard. I personally would find the 'dog' association much more offensive than the 'fuck you' - call me a cat and I'm happy.

If you can't tell where I'm going with this blog, I'll clarify now. Profanity should not be generalised as not having any 'weight' anymore because this is only held to be true amongst those who frequent the terms, whereas those who use other substitute words during a 'heated moment' find the swear words quite offensive. For example, last night I was playing a game called 'strip jack' with my boyfriends family and it became very heated between the final two players - my self and my mum-in-law - and I said 'sugar!' when she took my jack (for those of you who know this game you know how intense it can be). I was amused that I did say sugar instead of 'shit' and realise that when I hear people use it without inverted commas I feel uncomfortable.

Profanity is not bleached for everyone, only those without a dictionary.

Trigger Happy Tv breaching the norm

So if ethnomethodology is an individuals understanding of things and breaching experiments test this understanding, then Trigger Happy Tv is the perfect way to see this in action. Dom Joly goes to very public areas where it is often acceptable to answer your phone (sometimes not), however he pushes the boundaries of this acceptabilities by screaming into the phone. Observe: Hello
My particular favourites are at 1:01 (on a boat in Holland) and 5:10 (in the bathroom).
I would thing Garfinkel would be impressed with Joly's practical jokes - eh I mean experiments - as they breach the norm but expose how much people in each environment have relaxed themselves into the norms, understanding that a private conversation, should probably remain private.

Another hilarious example is from The Chasers War on Everything pretending to be a Citizen infringement officer. This particular link shows the Chasers actor pretending to have the duty of giving fines to individuals who have jokes written on their shirts. In the process of doing this it becomes obvious that these kind of fines are not part of the norm or are accepted by anyone in the public as some of the victims become very insulted and upset. Observe: t-shirt jokes.

Both of the clips shown above are breaching experiments as they show social reactions;

"Breaching experiments involve the conscious exhibition of 'unexpected' behaviour, an observation of the types of social reactions such behavioural violations engender, and an analysis of the social structure that makes these social reactions possible" (Rafalovich, 2006: 156).

Reference:
Rafalovich, A. 2006, "Making Sociology Relevant: The Assignment and Application of Breaching Experiments",Teaching Sociology, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 156-163.

Performance

This week is my group presentation week, but as far as I know it will be postponed to the following week because one of our group members is sick with the flu. I will still be posting the link to our prezi presentation in order to show that we have in fact completed it and aren't bludging for more time.
It is a very interesting topic but 60 pages is a lot to digest. 
It basically all summarises up into how people perform and the different aspects of performing i.e cynic, sincere performers, front/back stage and so on. 
The most difficult part about understanding dramaturgy is trying to get around the idea of infinite amounts of back stage front stage scenarios and also the idea of trying to find a situation in which 'performance' does not apply.
I haven't attended my tutorial yet but when I do I will finish the blog with a recap of what happened/ what we discussed in relation to this topic. 

http://prezi.com/iiz36mj2fiqv/present/?auth_key=nob0l8u&follow=1jj8nd9og7cb

So its been awhile since I actually wrote this and 'promised to finish it', so now I am, over a month later. I have had some time to think about it realise the different performances I act out and in which setting I decide to use them. I noticed that I feel as if I am always performing for as long as there is another person in the same vicinity as me. I will play the role of daughter, girlfriend, carer, aunt, sister, student and woman. I realised that this last role actually caught me by surprise because as much as I accept the idea of gender being socially constructed (which it is), I still behave accordingly to some of the standards this society has placed upon me eg. wearing a bra, even if its annoying. 

Thinking about performances makes me realise how far I am often required to perform in all types of social settings, because if I am upset when I am in any of the roles mentioned above, I must pretend to be otherwise, mainly 'tired', because the consequences of revealing this truth could upset others. If I am extremely happy when I should be sad, I must also restrain this because the setting demands it.

On Cooling the Mark Out

What is the self? How are selves socially produced and managed?
This article by Goffman applies the idea of self to a criminal case. He looks at white-collar crime and the 'con man' at first. He explains the difference between these two 'selves' (assuming it could be one person, although it could probably be more than one person) as a "con man [being] someone who accepts a social role in the underworld community", where as a "white collar criminal has no colleagues... may have associates with whom he plans his crime". 
Goffman also explains what a "mark" is, which is someone who has been marked for another person to illegally exploit for their money. From this he explains his understanding of how a 'con man' works to gain the trust of this 'mark' and then once the trust is built, abuse it so they can take all the money. Goffman notes that the "mark" would most likely be angry with the fact they were stupid enough to get robbed and therefore must learn the "philosophy of taking a loss". Goffman states that the "capacity for high finance comes near to being a sign of masculinity and a test of fulfilling the male role", thus not fulfilling this role supposedly makes the mark feel like they are inadequate to be a 'man'. 
This hurt ego can lead to what Goffman classifies a "social sin of defining oneself in terms of a status while lacking the qualifications which an incumbent of that status is supposed to posses". 
 The above is just a very brief summary of what Goffman talks about in the article I will link below.
In my tutorial our class tried to figure out what is the criteria for being a self? We had to consider if language defined someone having a self in relation to a baby who is yet to talk, or an animal which cannot talk. Are we ventriloquizing them to the point that we are projecting our own idea of the self on to them? 
The many different selves we are assumed to have supposedly change from the context we are in and therefore those who cannot adequately adapt to a self that is appropriate for their surroundings is considered socially inept. I would seriously recommend watching the movie Nell. It looks at the different kinds of self society has, and then challenges it by questioning what a 'self' is and who gets to define if it is normal. 


Nell:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110638/

"On cooling the mark out"
http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--Cooling.htm.