Institutional settings

This week I responded Danielle's blog which definetely gave some insight to the topic of "institutional settings". And finally blogs are over!!!!!

http://everydayinteraction250.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/institutional-talk.html

Fuck, Fuck, Fuckity, Fuck :)

Fuck! Just thought I'd follow the trend of beginning the profanities reading with the most common profanity.
I definetly implement coarse language in the majority of my everyday interactions, excluding family gatherings or professional environments. However I do throw it into casual conversations without a second thought, it really wouldnt register if I exhausted my usage of profound language. In fact it's only occurred to me, as a result of this subject that I'm adopting the word "cunt" more frequently in my social interactions, even greeting a friend with "Hey cunt" or thanking someone with "cheers cunt". But the people I've used the word around don't register to the profanity of language applied to our interactions.

Janet and Daley explained that their case study of workers described their use of language to one another as a "we know each other well thing...no one really takes offense". Janet and Daley evaluate the reasons for usage of "fuck" as, "to have intercourse and to ruin, as well as more overtly expletive functions as an attention-grabbing particle, an insult and an intensifier."(p.949).

What interested me was in the lecture a quote was posted that "The conflicts that erupt over    words   are invariably   an   index   to   social    concerns  over  the   reality    that    the   words    refer   to.” (Hayakawa  1990,  p.50)

So if the reality of the words that I’m referring to are essentially to have sex or do a number two or to have male genitalia on my head would that reduce the usage of coarse language in casual conversation? I know when interacting with someone who is not of the same ethnicity or cultural background as myself I do think twice about the content of my language. So if we recognise the “reality” of coarse language would we decrease the profanities in our social interactions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc8JiVOs2f0 - a case where maybe "sugar" should have been the substitute.

References

Daly, Nicola, Janet Holmes, Jonathon Newton, and Maria Stubbe 2004, “Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor.” Journal of Pragmatics 36: pp.945-964

Hayakawa, S.I., and Alan Hayakawa. 1990.Language in Thought and Action. Orlando: Harcourt Brace: 50

Response to Ben's blog!

Hope I gave some insight!

http://bennysoc250.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/mediated-identities.html

Bloody Hell! Oops! Sorry excuse my french.

So this was the week our group presented on the Wierzbicka reading "Australian cultural scripts - bloody revisited". How Anna Wierzbicka wrote a 42 page reading just on the word "bloody" still astounds me! So essentially Wierzbicka unpacks this term to demonstrate how it places a great deal of value, tradition and attitude to Australian culture. What intrigued me was her analysis of the term bloody in an international context and where it places Australia's cultural position.
I found it hilarious when discussing "bloody" being used in parliament in Australia and in Britain and the entirely different connotations they held. Wierzbicka used examples of bloody being used in British parliament. My favourite was after the foul word was exclaimed and profuse apologies were offered a minister even blamed his social origins for his use of the term. Being from Australian culture it is shocking to see how this term takes such offence abroad. However when acknowledging this subject it occurred to me that there are other terms implemented in Australia's cultural scripts that may be seen as coarse or vulgar if not use to Australian culture. The very familiar "f***k" can be seen in this category.
What I've been more inclined to notice though is the general use of the see-you-en-tee word. If you still don't catch my drift, the vulgar description of a woman's genital area. Hopefully that gets you on the same page as me.
The "c" word seemingly is thrown willy nilly in my experience of social interactions and even hold different meanings when used in different contexts. I've seen it used lovingly even, "love ya "c***t" or "cheers c***t". Not even shift in mood just a simple greeting or expression of affection. What intrigues me is where is the limit? I can understand bloody and fuck being in casual conversation for Australia but is there a line to our cultural scripts? I don't think there is but I also don't feel it's an issue. Although there may be no limit to our means of conversing, there is a little switch in there that flicks on when we know it may not be best to use the word in this environment. But we do have slip ups every now and then. Who doesn't?

Response (First week of blogging)

This is the link to my first response to another student's post. This was from the first week.


http://lnaumovski.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/week-5-presentation-of-self.html

Go back to where you came from" performances

So this was a post I did on my old blog but I can't access that blog now so I'm copying and pasting my old blogs to the new one! Really dodgy but the only thing I can think of.

 http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2268622103/Go-Back-To-Where-You-Came-From

This week’s topic on performances highlights the character an individual performance front stage an audience he or she would prefer a specific reaction from. It’s the “front”, as Goffman terms it, that the individual asserts in order to deviate from the natural behaviour or persona beneath.

As most of you have heard SBS aired its second season of, “Go Back To Where You Came From”. The show places 6 Australians with strong views on the topic of Asylum Seekers on the journey a refugee takes when seeking asylum. Former radio “Shock Jock” Michael Smith is one of the six participants. Michael’s views on the topic are firm in that Asylum Seekers should be turned away if they are seeking refuge via boat.

If you skip the video to 38:40 Michael is seen comforting a small 8 year girl who has never been in a motor vehicle before. He’s holding her exclaiming how frightened she is etc etc. Later on when he finds where the little girl and her family have been transferred in the camp we hear him in shock and awe stating, “this place is so desolate”, “these poor people”. At 49:35 Michael is broken down after spending the day with a 13 year old orphaned boy in the refugee camp who has no one to care for him, no foster care nothing. After this encounter Michael composes himself for the camera and states, “My opinion hasn’t altered in the hard facts of it”. He returns to his performance of his “shock jock” self. Later fellow participant Imogen Bailey states, “it’s touching to see that he’s actually starting to show us I think the real him and the him that is a father but it’s the bull shit side, the performer that I hope for the rest of the journey he’ll leave behind.”

Michael Smith’s front of the “Shock Jock” is what’s consistently performed for audiences. However when confronted with the harsh reality of children with no food shelter or care is fatherly side emerges which brings out his backstage. 

Racism

Okay so really really late on my posts. I've had some issues with my account and essentially had to create an entirely new one. As you can tell I'm really great with technology!

So a few weeks ago, 3 precisely, I had my data discussion presentation. The topic for my discussion was 'Racism'. Being such a broad topic I narrowed it down to the basic question, What is considered racist? Still broad however when reviewing this question it did for me narrow the complexities of racism to a much more comprehensible notion. The data I collected is two videos. One is of a woman (Emma West) on a tram in Britain hurling racial remarks and giving a speech on how "her" Britain has essentially gone down to the loo due to the racial diversity. The most disturbing sight in this video is that during the duration of her hateful speech she is holding what seems to be her child.
The second video for discussion was audio archive of Alan Jones' coverage of the Cronulla Riots. Throughout the audio we hear Jones overtly vilifying the ethnicities being attacked on the day of the riots.
I also briefly discussed a website I found called racistjokes.info. The website has published in my opinion, hateful racist statements, not jokes. However to cushion the blow of their aggressive vilification a symbol of a giant happy face is posted in the middle of the title, "Racist Jokes".

So throughout this discussion, questions were asked such as, can this be seen as racism or is it just nationalism? Or ethnocentrism? And is ethnocentrism the extreme of nationalism? What essentially determines our perception of ethnicities different from our own?
What has driven people like Emma West, Alan Jones and the publishers of the site racistjokes.info to view minority groups in this fashion? The most common answer would be yes their upbringing, their family life etc. What I would like to explore is the specifics in these questions, what could or what other major influences triggers racism because if we think of children (ages 4-7) and their approach to racial status, it is benign and naive. What are the specifics that implement racist behaviours?

More to come in the research report!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGIEHhpfkKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgm2zLO5N5M