What We Say = Who We Are

It's a different way to look at things- that's for sure, but now that I've combed through this reading it makes a lot more sense. I had to do this for my group presentation this week, but just because I love all of you (and because I'm obligated to do so) I'll run over the topic again.

So the central idea of the reading once you work through all the grit of statistics for how often "bloody" is used and all that other junk is that we, as people, use language to define our identity and align ourselves with our culture. We do this by distinguishing what our culture's values are- in Australia's case things like not being "full of shit", or inclined to "suck-up" or be "big-headed" are a few of the things we like to avoid. We use language to assure the people we interact with that we are not any of the things stated above, and that we are in fact honest, modest, and by no means saying anything just to impress you.

What I found to be most interesting about the reading this week was a perceived contradiction that I brought up in my group presentation that gained quite a bit of traction in our "discussion time".

The reading clearly states on multiple occasions that we as Australian's should not and will not say things solely for the benefit of others. We're not the type to compliment someone just so they think better of us, and we use "bloody" as a way of not only assuring honesty in our compliments or gratitude, but also to distance our emotion. However, the crux of the reading essentially claims that the way we use language like "bloody" is for the purpose of fitting in with the crowd. Using "bloody" makes us someone to relate with, and distinguishes us as Australian, and belonging to the culture. We say these things in order to belong (for the purpose of others) even though it is inherently un-Australian to do so.

Hopefully I explained that point right, it makes sense to me quite clearly in my head but I've had consistent issues expressing the idea to others since it it popped into my head.

But anyway, for those of you struggling to find some posts for you to knock off your comments on- that's an idea to sink your teeth into (providing it makes sense) and hopefully for anyone who ends up reading this, it becomes some food for thought!

Group Presentation

http://prezi.com/guaoukra5xfi/present/?auth_key=24n6xnl&follow=frxsa5ccguz6

Today my group and I are doing our presentation on the use of 'bloody' and other similar terms in Australian culture, and beyond!

Best prepare yourselves.

Commenting On Ethnomethodology

This week I commented on Brooke's post about "Making sense of the senseless"

You can find that over here:

http://bea091.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/wk7-garfinkel-alice-in-wonderland.html?showComment=1348680249646#c7069958649771674844

The Land of Stages - Dramaturgy

All these "stages" are making my head spin. 

According to Goffman, we're all a bunch of liars, who act out our daily interactions and hide our actual selves behind a smoke screen of fake smiles and misleading gestures. We haven't spoken a word of truth from the moment we learned how to speak.

Okay, so its a bit dramatic when you put it like that.

Some of the points stand, though. We're all actors when it comes to social interACTion, (see what I did?) and we play differing roles depending on the context and surroundings we're confronted with. 

This leads us to split ourselves between two different stages, very similar to the idea of the "me" and the "I" in Representation of the Self. The backstage is where the puppetmaster resides, what may be seen as our true self pulling the strings of mediation and restriction to control the dummy which dances about on the front stage, being judged by all those who come in contact with it; attempting to uphold social conventions, and be accepted within the social norm.

It's important for us, as individuals, to be accepted in society. We like to have a culture we can relate ourselves to. Many see the idea of conformity as a negative in today's society, something that plagues individuals and forces them to meet the expectations of those around them- and I'm one to agree with (conform to) this point of view, there comes a point where we can conform too much, but Goffman's idea of the front/back stage, and our lives as performers is one that has been around for centuries. It's by no means a new idea, nor is it one that implies that the way we live our lives is wrong. The way I see it, this reading was merely an observation.