3667480
Matt Dallas
Wed 10:30
Human social
interaction is a pre-programmed result of two factors, the first being of
innate neural structures which result from an individual’s basic instinctive biological
needs and the second of the predetermined patterns of interaction set out by
earlier members of society and taught to younger generations via cultural
rules, norms and patterns of behaviour (Argyle, 1969). These social
interactions are central and key to everyday life. They guide us in
differentiating between humour, irony, aggression, or any other attitude or
emotion displayed by another individual. They allow us to understand the
difference between an individual reacting positively, negatively or indifferently
to a situation or ourselves within an interaction. The recognition of these
differences and an understanding of the unspoken meaning behind interactions are vital to everyday life. When
this recognition and understanding is impaired in an individual vast
difficulties in social functioning arise and pose great complications on an
individual’s ability to be a functioning member of society. Autism is one such
disorder in which individuals struggle to understand these unspoken social
rules and codes of conduct with which majority of the population comply without
hesitation.
Autism is a disorder in
which individuals have trouble with social interactions. It is typically
characterised by a number of symptoms and behaviours which include difficulty
interpreting or displaying nonverbal behaviour including eye-contact, facial
expressions and body language, difficulty developing peer relationships, marked
impairment in communication particularly in regards to language and speech and
a lack of desire to share interest, enjoyment or achievements with others (American
Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders,
2000). This difficulty of certain people to understand, interpret and comply
with society’s codes of conduct requires a certain level of empathy and understanding
from those with who they are communicating, particularly friends, family or
mental health professionals (Muskett et al, 2010). It is well understood that
when interacting with people suffering from autistic spectral disorders the
social interaction engaged in may not necessarily follow the rules of everyday
social interaction.
It is for this reason
that the data analysed in this report is based around autistic disorders in an
attempt to investigate the differences in social interaction between autistic
and regular interactions. The data has been taken from the above video, a segment
from a documentary television series “Only Human”, this episode “Make Me Normal”
investigates the struggles of autistic school children. The segment focused on
is 40:55–43:16 and follows the interaction between the school principal and
Maneer, a young boy with Asperger’s, a milder disorder on the autistic
spectrum. In this interaction he is being reprimanded for his attempt to hit another
boy in his class which would have violated his weekly reward agreement.
A vast number of
different sociological constructs are evident within this interaction. Goffman’s
theory of face-work is apparent throughout the entire interaction. Whilst
dealing with Maneer the principal remains cool, calm and collected, although slipping
up by allowing her frustration to show occasionally she regains her cool and
manages to ‘save face’ (Newman, 2006). This action of saving face is
particularly important as her face-work is intertwined with her demeanour and
the deference she commands (Goffman, 1967). As a result of her maintaining this
persona by staying calm and disguising her true emotions she manages to
increase her deference and maintain a position of higher authority in comparison
to Maneer. He is ruled by his emotions moving from being reserved to defensive
to apologetic and displaying regular outbursts of emotion in his communication.
In this case his face work is lacking, he regains and maintains face following
the outburst that occurred prior to his meeting with the principal with an
explanation of his behaviour “But I’ve tried my best this week not to hit
anybody” and a civil conversation. He then quickly loses face again upon returning
to the classroom and breaking his lunchbox. Maneer attempts to regain face by
explaining himself “But I’m not hitting him, am I?” and proceeds to save face
even further by accepting the principal’s criticism and compliments without argument.
The concept of dramaturgy
is particularly evident in this interaction. Dramaturgy being the concept that the
world is a stage and human behaviour is dependent upon time, place and
audience, thus interaction is a result of the effect of the particular scene
being presented (Goffman, 1971; Ritzer, 2007). Dramaturgy is one such social
construct that autistic individuals have difficulty understanding, in the sense
that the setting, actors and audience do not hold the significance or
restraints for individuals on the autistic spectrum that they hold for
individuals without the disorder. From the data above it can be seen that the
setting is of particular significance. At first when the subjects are in the principal’s
office, the principal is behind the desk and Maneer opposite. This setting,
along with the ‘set’ or furniture and structure of the room, this being her
large raised chair and desk, the computer and notes in front and pin board behind
her and the books and filing cabinets throughout the room, convey a sense of
authority and professionalism, marking her as the higher authority within the
interaction (Collins, 1988). Maneer begins by siting opposite her behind her
desk as he clearly becomes more uncomfortable within the situation gets up,
moves away and seats himself on the floor at a perpendicular angle to her, redefining
the setting and interaction and breaking the intensity of the interaction while
removing some of the control and intimidation held by the principal.
The set changes when
they are in the classroom and Maneer begins destroying his lunchbox. As it is
not a formal setting, the principal while still the higher authority is not so
intimidating and authoritarian. In this case the setting has helped make the interaction
more horizontal. The interaction is further horizontalised when they are seated
on the couches at a 90 degree angle to one another. In this case they are both
on the same level and in closer proximity. This creates a more intimate setting
and allows for a less formal and more candid, open conversation and interaction.
Not only does the set define the setting of the situation, so to does the
costume, actors involved and the audience. Within this interaction the
principal is wearing a suit with heels, is well presented and appears
professional, as the actor in the interaction she is a middle aged lady, much taller
than Maneer with a calm but direct tone of voice and is particularly well spoken.
This is in direct contrast to Maneer himself who young, roughly spoken and
wearing a school uniform which normalises him and takes away his ability to
express his individuality. He appears quite scruffy with his shirt out and
pants too big for him, this costume in conjunction with the principal’s aids in
defining him as a student and her as the principal and of higher authority.
Although this data is focused solely on the principal and Maneer, the cameramen
form an audience for the interaction, both Maneer and the principal can be seen
to be playing up to the audience’s ideas of how the situation should play out
and their roles within it. Maneer can be seen to be glancing at the camera, which
suggests that the audience is having an effect on his behaviour (Ritzer, 2007)
and his responses to the principal.
Both the set and
costume aid in establishing a professional and authoritarian demeanour of the principal,
as do her gestures and language. When questioning Maneer about his behaviour
she is leaning on her desk, arms folded eluding a no-nonsense approach. This
closed body language reinforces the sense that she is in control and uninterested
in hearing Maneer’s explanations. However, the fact that she is also leaning
over her arms towards him shows empathy, an attempt to make a connection and a
desire to help him work through his issues. As soon as Maneer leaves the office,
her body language relaxes, she opens up and rests her head on her hands and speaks
candidly to the camera crew while looking almost defeated, this again reflects
the idea of dramaturgy and presentation of self, which indicates that the
interaction was a performance.
A second change is seen
in her demeanour during her interaction with Maneer over the lunchbox, she
begins with her arms outstretched and shadows him to the corner. This reflects
a caring approach indicating a desire to help and protect, when he turns to
face her she crosses her arms and closes off her body language, scolds him and
uses her authoritarian demeanour to aid in making her point. As the interaction
moves to the couches her body language becomes more open, she leans in towards
him to create a more intimate, closer interaction, lowers her voice and reaches
out her arm to connect with him towards the end. Maneer presents with a different
demeanour, he keeping his back to her while destroying his lunchbox and behaves
aggressively on the turn, pushing his shoulders back and chest out and looking
at her directly. He calms down in response to her calmer demeanour however he
continues to hold a defensive stance, standing straight and looking her in the
eye. This behaviour of Maneer’s may also be an attempt to increase his
authority and deference in the situation (Goffman, 1967). When he is scolded
and recognises his wrongdoing his shoulders roll in and he turns slightly away
from her, breaking eye contact and stepping back, distancing himself. He maintains
a defensive and guarded stance while distracting himself from the interaction
and her words by kicking his shoe. While on the couch he maintains the
defensive demeanour, but looks at her more and with this increasing as he
regains face via her compliments towards his improvements.
These changes in body
language, demeanour and deference along with the set and setting lay the groundwork
for the powerplay that is evident throughout the interaction. Through turn
taking and the responses elicited and allowed by each participant to and of the
other it becomes clear who is in control and who is the higher authority
(Miller, 1975). The principal makes both statements and asks questions whereas
Maneer is only allowed to answer questions with statements and is not given the
opportunity in the turns of the conversation to explain himself (Geis, 1995).
This reinforces the authority of the principal and places Maneer as the lower
authority within the interaction.
All of the factors
mentioned earlier, in cooperation with the verbal aspects of the situation are
integral in the impression management of both parties. The principal attempts
to remain in charge and authoritarian with a sense of power over Maneer, but we
can also see her empathising, caring for and supporting him through her reaching
her arm out to him and her language choice. This understanding is maintained by
her impressions given, that is, her words, and her impressions given off, her
demeanour, dress, body language and tone of voice (Newman, 2006). Maneer can
also be seen to use the construct of impression management in his explanations
of his behaviour. The impressions he gives are of remorse and justification of
his actions, however the impressions he gives off lack remorse and show more
his recognition that he has been caught and a desire to receive his reward over
correcting his behaviour.
Goffman’s theory of
frontstage and backstage is reflected through the entire interaction with it predominantly
frontstage for both parties, however the office setting for Maneer is backstage
compared to the classroom as it is an opportunity for him to speak candidly to
the principal without peers around. Any interaction with Maneer is frontstage
for the principal as it is her job to put on that particular performance. It is
clear once Maneer has left the room and she is alone with the cameramen this is
her backstage. This difference is represented in her change of body language
and demeanour where she relaxes, slouches, rests her head on her hand while looking
defeated and speaks in a candid tone. This represents the concepts of
presentation of self, dramaturgy and impression management. These concepts also
aid in both parties understanding of the setting. Throughout the entire
interaction the social setting is clearly defined with a distinct co-presence
assumed along with a single focus of attention, Maneer and his behaviour, and a
single definition of the situation, an interaction between a principal and
student within school grounds.
References:
American
Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR, 4th Ed., Washington,
DC.
Argyle, M. 1969, Social Interaction,
Butler & Tanner Ltd, London
Collins , R. 1998, Theoretical
Sociology, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, Orlando.
Garfinkel, H. 1972. Remarks on Ethnomethodology. Directions
in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, pp. 301 – 324
Geis, M L.. 1995. Speech Acts and
Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Goffman, E. 1967, ‘The nature of deference and
demeanour’ Interaction Ritual: Essays on
Face To Face Behaviour, Doubleday, Garden City.
Goffman,
E. 1971. The Presentation of self in
Everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
George Ritzer (2007) Contemporary
Sociological Theory and Its Classical Roots: The Basics. McGraw-Hill, New
York..
Miller, G. R., Steinberg, M. 1975, Between People: A New Analysis of Interpersonal
Communication, Science Research Associates, Chicago.
Muskett, T., Perkins, M., Clegg, J. & Body, R.
2010, ‘Inflexibility as an interactional phenomenon: Using conversation
analysis to re-examine a symptom of autism’, Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 24(1), 1-16.
Newman, D. M. 2006, Sociology:
Exploring The Architecture of Everyday Life, 6th Ed., Pine Forge Press,
California.
