One of the key researchers in this area was Garfinkel, who carried
out many experiments which came to be known as the ‘breaching experiments’. Basically,
his students or researchers would go out into their normal lives, but would do
something that would be considered out of the ordinary (Heritage, 1984). An
example of one of these was individuals not following the general conventions
of the game noughts and crosses (Heritage, 1984). However, other examples could
include normal, able-bodied people asking for someone to give up their seat on
a train for no good reason.
The main lesson learned from these experiments, I believe, is
that people trust each other to maintain the ‘reciprocity of perspectives’ (Heritage,
1984, p. 82; Scannell, 2007). That is, that we trust those that we interact
with to know and follow the unwritten social rules that define how we interact
with one another. Further, it could be said that these rules enable humans to
coexist with one another, and interact in such a way that our existence continues.
For example, if we know someone who commonly breaches these rules or has no knowledge
of them (they would probably be a sociopath), we would probably not interact
with them. If we took it to the extreme end of the spectrum , where it got to
the stage where this person could not even interact or behave properly in a public
place, they would be detained by the police and segregated from society. This
then demonstrates that the basic rules of coexistence are written into law and
are strictly enforced by those holding authority.
While this is only beginning to scratch the surface of the
idea of social norms and rules, as well as their exploration of
ethnomethodology, it forms my basic understanding of what they are and why they
are important to study. I’ll conclude with some basic student breaching
experiments that I found on YouTube:
References
Heritage, J. 1984, ‘The Morality of Cognition’, in Garfinkel and ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge, pp 75-102
Scannell, P, 2007, ‘Communication as Interaction’, Media and Communication, Sage, London,
UK, pp 145-168
No comments:
Post a Comment