The stories we tell. (Wk 9 Gender issues in Communication)

**Warning: long post ahead. Viewer discretion advised. ;)**

Despite the long long list of work that's causing my feet to drag every time I walk to classes these past few weeks, I've eagerly anticipated this week's seminar. Partly because its the topic investigated in my research project...it's also been a topic I've been exploring for a while ever since I came across an article in another class on the language behaviour of males in college fraternities in the US.

The article talks of how males in a college fraternity tend to collectively construct a 'male' identity via their group conversations, where only particular types of discourses dominate (often related to 'chicks', 'sex' and 'booze'). When interviewed individually, individuals actually reported being not really too preoccupied by these subjects in their own lives in reality, but merely participating because it was the norm to talk about such topics in those groups.

Despite my interest, I'm not entirely convinced by ALL the theories that have been proposed thus far which suggest a strictly distinctive set of features that can be characterized as 'male' or 'female'. Instances of discriminatory attitudes towards people around me have occurred simply because they are labeled as speaking in a manner that is too 'masculine' or too 'girly'. For example, male friends who use a lot of emphatics like 'so' ('I'm soooo irritated, ok!') or who are perceived as more talkative than other 'normal' guys are labeled derogatory terms like 'sissy' or 'gay'. While these point to the fact that yes, people DO have inherent notions of what constitutes 'male' and 'female' speech, it deceivingly suggests that these distinctions are necessarily 'natural' and not to be challenged.

What we learnt thus far should probably tell us how male and female characteristics of speech are typically never universal. Rather, they are the products of socialization, and can differ from culture to culture. That being said, it thus remains a very interesting field of research that has potential to uncover at least the relations of gender peculiar to each culture and society.

The following is a very rough analysis of a mixed-gender conversation that recently occurred -

I happen to be in a project group for a Computing module, with three other male computing students. This happened in one of our project meetings earlier this week.

During the meeting, I noticed a prominent operation scar on one person's arm, and enquired about it. As he began telling the story behind the scar, another member almost instantly revealed that he had a similar operation scar on his arm too. Even though I originally posed the question to just one of them, both then started telling their story at about the same time. I became a passive member and listened as their narratives unfolded, occasionally asking one or two questions just to clarify the details (attempting to be like a researcher!). It was interesting to see how both stories developed at about the same time, without much engagement with each other. There were few pauses as each speaker was quick to produce conversation turns almost immediately after the first ended. I could tell both were eager to share their own story. There was a negligible number of minimal responses (most of them, if any, seem to have come from me). Thus, on the whole, it was definitely not very collaborative, but more focused on information-giving. It was particularly interesting that both injuries sustained were due to an act of playing gruelling sports - an act which is typically associated with being 'masculine'.

Compared to the experiences I've had with female friends, males and females do seem to share personal narratives with each other differently. Females would probably not just tell their stories out straight, but also focus on saying more things like 'Yeah...I know what you mean/how you felt" - a style which emphasizes the acknowledgment of the other party's experiences/contributions, BEFORE continuing with her own narrative. My humble guess is that the females I observed more readily recognize the opportunities for relational interaction and the building of closer ties with each other through the sharing of personal narratives. For males, it is a matter of comparing facts about each other's lives (achievements), which helps to give them a stronger sense of 'self' in relation to other males.

Just some humble conjectures (some stolen from well-researched academics). I warmly welcome any thoughts and inputs... :)

Issues in CMC (Wk 8 Reflections)

CMC probably only recently gained attention among researchers as an area of study that will potentially yield many interesting insights about human cultures. It appears to be a really dynamic field, since the tools and technologies involved are ever evolving and developing very rapidly.

One focal issue that arises in the literature on CMC is that of computer intervention, and the ways in which it leads to human communication behaviour being different from behaviour in real life, or from other more traditional discourse contexts. Academics have come to regard forms of CMC such as online journals as constituting a genre of their own. Some unique features that have been thought to characterize online journals include the prevalent use of non-standard vocabulary and spelling (slang, ungrammatical forms, etc) and haphazard narrative lines.These features which deviate from standard forms of writing are viewed as attempts by authors to assert their individuality (Eg. See Sutton, 1999), and therefore assist in the projection of a unique identity.

For forums and chatrooms, options for anonymity sometimes presents opportunities for socially inappropriate behaviour – such as ‘flaming’ (hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users) and the use of excessively emotive or vulgar language when sharing opinions.

Source: http://wineeconomist.com/2007/11/

This frequently cited comic by Peter Steiner succinctly captures the notion of anonymity on the Internet, and its potential implications. On the Internet, one may use language to project different social identities (female or male; teenager or professional, etc). This seems to have provided the basis for studies on CMCs like Blogs and Instant Messaging and how they are used to negotiate individual and group identities.

Thus, it seems that Internet and other forms of new media in general have really offered a whole range of opportunities for not just communication, but also self-expression for people today. I find discourse and communication in computer-mediated forms really interesting and worthy of further pursuit by academics and researchers, especially if it allows us to examine the extent to which technology has shaped the way we write and communicate in modern tech-savvy societies of today.

Wk 7: Face and Politeness

This week's topic of Face and Politeness is rather interesting. However, I seem to have difficulty differentiating between positive and negative politeness...Although most of the utterances we say are somewhat shaped to maximize the positive impression of ourselves that we give to the hearer, do we typically assume the strategies are evidently oriented towards the hearer's face needs? Hopefully by writing and thinking about it, my understanding of these politeness concepts can be strengthened.

One interesting speech event I've been observing of late is that of conversation closings - ways in which individuals propose the end of conversation in day-day interactions. These speech events do provide some insight into the unique ways politeness strategies are adopted in our culture.

Depending on the degree of familiarity or social distance between speakers, different types of conversation closings are used, which often seem to involve some kind of politeness work.

(In the library, A was talking to B who is studying at a table)
A: Ok, I better not disturb you and let you get back to your work.
B: No, its no problem.
A: Alright, bye! Talk to you again another time.

This is a common way of ending conversations that I often hear, especially between other peers in school. I think we share a common experience of being busy and having a lot of deadlines to meet during the semester. So this formulaic expression is useful for demonstrating politeness to our peers in school. Serving the broad function of initiating a closing to a conversation, it is a sort of negative politeness strategy which demonstrates a sensitivity towards the hearer's desires of not wanting to be imposed. Thus, it also employs the Sympathy Maxim.

Another common closing:
(At a bus stop)
A: Sorry I really got to go, my friend is waiting.
B: Oh sure, go ahead.
A: See you!
B: Bye, see you!

This is a more direct way of closing the conversation. It involves an apology that mitigates the sense of imposition towards the hearer, for wanting to end the conversation abruptly. Its directness compared is acceptable perhaps because of the situational context - it does not impose too greatly on the hearer and the reason for closing the conversation is legitimate.

Like many politeness strategies, these conversation closings are formulaic. Hence they serve their function well in these conversations, in that the hearer acknowledges them as initiations for closing and responses favourably. It would be interesting to study the universality of these strategies - whether if transported to another English-speaking country - the responses to them would be similar.

Week 6: Cultural Systems

To the extent that we can make generalizations about people from a particular culture based on certain dimensions of cultural variability, it is interesting to observe how national cultures do not stay stagnant and may evolve over time.

Individualism versus collectivism - some note that with economic progress and development, Singapore has shifted to some extent towards having a more individualistic culture. This is facilitated somewhat by not just changing economic, but also social structures. My parents and grandparents would lament about the loss of the 'kampong' spirit, which was prevalent in the olden days where entire communities lived in close proximity to one another in little villages situated largely in rural areas. There was a considerable amount of interaction between people, people knew each other and their families on a personal basis, and often planned and made shared decisions for the well-being of the community as a whole. While arguably, many people in Singapore live rather closely together still in HDB public housing, the nature and degree of social interaction between families today compared to the past is probably a lot less. At the level of the nation, perhaps the sense of collectivism is not as strong as before.

However, in comparison to other countries like America, we definitely seem more collectivist in several areas. I was studying in the US while on SEP last semester, and one thing that really struck me was the seemingly individualistic behaviour of the students at school. For example, at NUS, it is common for us to arrange to attend classes with groups of friends, and all subsequent activities in that class are often performed together with that same group of friends if possible. However, in the States, I was surprised to see that it was more common for people to enter and leave classrooms/lecture theatres on their own. There was less pressure to make sure you were in the company of people you knew. Meeting people you know in class is a bonus, but not deemed highly important at all. I believe group membership is not shunned entirely of course, as seen from their enthusiasm for joining fraternities/sororities, etc. It is probably just less important to treat group membership as an important aspect of personal identity.

In Singapore, when we introduce ourselves to others, our "school" (including former ones), "club", "CCA", "clan" or numerous other affiliations to groups and organizations all seem to be recognized by others as somewhat useful for knowing what kind of person you are. The importance tagged to group affiliation as a means of marking one's identity may be viewed as a big clue that highlights our being a collectivist society for me.