For my breeching experiment I was inspired by those people who bump into you and then turn around and say “excuse you”. So I decided that I too will break a social norm and not use correct manners in interactions. I went to the mall with my friend and when people walked out the door to exit the mall, I walked up behind them so that they would hold the door open for me. When they did that, I said “Your Welcome” rather than thank you. I did this 7 times. Most of the time, to my surprise, people just kept walking and didn’t even turn around. Twice I received a glance back of some kind and only one man turned and around and said “Your Welcome”, which prompted me to end my experiment.
In the Blumer reading, we learn that through symbolic interactionism “people develop their identities and their sense of how society works and what constitutes fair play in the course of their interaction with each other.” Symbolic interactionism is also done with the use of language, which is just a series of symbols that we have attached meaning to. By using the wrong “symbols” in a situation, I disturbed the natural flow of society. Now, people are going to interpret what I said (you welcome) differently. They will go off past experiences and sensory knowledge to try to understand their interaction with me. We know that reality is subjective and though I was doing this for a class in my mind, for the man that gave me a verbal response his reality was different. He saw what I did, took offense and decided that he needed to correct me to restore social order. He took my actions and then gave them meaning, a different meaning than all the other people that I had encountered.
I also feel as though this related to Goffman. There is something to be said about those who did not turn around or say anything to me. At first look, these may seem as though they were failed attempts at the breeching experiment, but after reading The Presentation of Self, I realized they were just the opposite. These men were covering up my faux paus so no one would lose face. They may have interpreted our interaction as a “slip of the tongue” and didn’t want to make anyone feel embarrassed, so they ignored it and continued on their way. Same goes for the men who appeared to glance back at me. At first they were startled by our interaction, but to prevent any further consequences they continued walking. The man that corrected me was the only one who might have interpreted the interaction as malicious intent. His correction may have been more of a scolding or challenge and an offering of a chance for me to make it up. I tried to by smiling and nodding, an attempt to play off the embarrassing interaction, but before anything else could be said he walked off which I subjectively understood to be a rejection of my “apology”.
We have interactions every day, all day when we out in society. It’s up to us how we will interpret those interactions and respond to them.
In the Blumer reading, we learn that through symbolic interactionism “people develop their identities and their sense of how society works and what constitutes fair play in the course of their interaction with each other.” Symbolic interactionism is also done with the use of language, which is just a series of symbols that we have attached meaning to. By using the wrong “symbols” in a situation, I disturbed the natural flow of society. Now, people are going to interpret what I said (you welcome) differently. They will go off past experiences and sensory knowledge to try to understand their interaction with me. We know that reality is subjective and though I was doing this for a class in my mind, for the man that gave me a verbal response his reality was different. He saw what I did, took offense and decided that he needed to correct me to restore social order. He took my actions and then gave them meaning, a different meaning than all the other people that I had encountered.
I also feel as though this related to Goffman. There is something to be said about those who did not turn around or say anything to me. At first look, these may seem as though they were failed attempts at the breeching experiment, but after reading The Presentation of Self, I realized they were just the opposite. These men were covering up my faux paus so no one would lose face. They may have interpreted our interaction as a “slip of the tongue” and didn’t want to make anyone feel embarrassed, so they ignored it and continued on their way. Same goes for the men who appeared to glance back at me. At first they were startled by our interaction, but to prevent any further consequences they continued walking. The man that corrected me was the only one who might have interpreted the interaction as malicious intent. His correction may have been more of a scolding or challenge and an offering of a chance for me to make it up. I tried to by smiling and nodding, an attempt to play off the embarrassing interaction, but before anything else could be said he walked off which I subjectively understood to be a rejection of my “apology”.
We have interactions every day, all day when we out in society. It’s up to us how we will interpret those interactions and respond to them.