SOC250 Independent Research Project
Food Court Proposal Gone Bad
Suzan Selbes
Katie Freund, Thursday 1.30pm
A marriage proposal is an event whereby one
member of the relationship asks for the other's hand in marriage.
This is generally determined by gender, where the male generally kneels before
the female and offers a ring. In same sex proposal, gender rules do not
apply. If accepted, the couple are deemed to be engaged. However, if
rejected, no such wonderful event will proceed. The video selected, was that of
a wedding proposal in a food court, which ultimately is rejected by the female.
The audience as well as the couple, Caroline and Brian play a significant role
in the event. The data was chosen based on a comical-tragedy appeal. The video
seemed to relate to a significant number of the topics present earlier in the
semester. Issues relating include symbolic interactionism, the presentation of
self, and dramaturgy. The issues are to be explored throughout the essay, and
will relate back to aspects of the video.
The video opens with a suited man named Brian kneeling
before a woman named Caroline and Caroline asking “What are you doing?” while
smiling and covering her mouth. Brian responds proclaims his love by saying
Blumer suggested that an individual’s interactions with
others are based on interpretations/definitions of each other's actions rather
than just reacting to other's actions. Their 'response‘, therefore is not as a
result of the action actions, but rather based on the meaning which they attach
to said action. His theory has three basic premises, meaning, language, and
thought. The first premise dictates that, “humans act toward things on the
basis of the meanings they ascribe to those things” (Blumer 1969, as cited in
Roberts 2006). This premise directly reflects the meaning behind the
significant symbols for the wedding ring and for the act of kneeling. Wedding
rings are a sentiment of love and commitment, the circle was the symbol of
eternity as it has with no beginning and no end. Though kneeling had no set
origin, it can be attributed with religion as a sign of spirituality and
respect (as one would kneel in prayer), knighthood as a sign of honour (when
awarded honours knight would kneel awaiting it from king/queen) and as a sign
of surrender (bowing before ones partner is seen as a surrenders oneself to
being part of the couple). The second premise dictates that “the meaning of
such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction that one
has with others and the society” (Blumer 1969, as cited in Roberts 2006). The
audience in this situation directly reflect this premise by supporting Brian by
saying “say yes” and clapping, towards the middle of the proposal people crowd
around the couple and smile, some even record the event. The premise also
arises when Caroline leaves the food court, and a different atmosphere arises,
no one in the audience comforts/assist Brian and this passes onto others and
the recognition of not recognising the traumatic event is recognised, Man in
red shirt even turn the wheel chair of a member of their group away from the
scene. The third premise dictated that “these meanings are handled in, and
modified through, an interpretative process used by the person in dealing with
the things he/she encounters” (Blumer 1969, as cited in Roberts 2006).in this
case Caroline walks away. In Blumer's third
premise, the idea of minding comes into play. Minding suggests
there to be a delay in one's thought process that happens when one thinks about
what they will do next. It is a method of talking to ourselves, and attempts to
sort out meaning in difficult situations. Caroline possesses these qualities throughout
the video, as she covers her ears and lacks eye contact before ultimately
walking out of the food court.
Goffman defines the self as an image, deriving from the
perceptions and responses of others, this if known as the face of the
person. Goffman defines “face” as social values that a person claims for
himself by the role/position he presents in social encounters. He explains that
humans have different types of face which are presented in Caroline, Brian and
the audience. Caroline is seen to be wrong in face when she rejects the
proposal. Wrong in face is a term used when information is presented that
discredits the persons face or inconsistent with the face that is known within
their cohort, which cannot be integrated into role/position that was formerly
accepted. In this case it is assumed that they are in love, as Brian feel it is
time to propose, and Caroline is expected to say yes. When Brian proposes she
does not conform to her expected role and says “Oh my god, oh my god, I, I”,
and walking out of the food court, this discredits her face and she is titled
to be wrong in face. Brian is seen to suffer a loss of face when his proposal
is rejected. Goffman (1967) tells that a normal
flow of events creates face, and face is good, it is a feeling that we try to
maintain. Loss of face occurs when a face is disrupted. When the
face is disrupted we lose the internal support that would once have protected
us. When his loss of face occurs Brian stands motionless from 1.33-1.47. The
most predominately show face type present is that of saving face. The act of
saving face can be attempted by the individual, or others can attempt to save
the face of that individual. Faces saving behaviors are defensive attempts to
reestablish face after threats to face or loss of face. The audience attempts
to save brains face by being polite. The recorder says “That is brutal, it’s alright man, it’s alright. Oh my god”
as well, a female member of the audience says “the Cinnabon lady said she’d
marry him”. These two audience member showed consideration toward the disrupted
performance and attempted to save his face. Other member of the audience turned
and/or walked away. Brian attempts to save his own face in the situation by walking away.
Due to the situation being as public as it was, he was limited in his face
saving acts, and that act conducted possibly appearing the most appropriate at
the time.
Goffman (1959, as cited in Giddens 2009) explains
dramaturgy as a performance, where actors present themselves as characters interacting
with other players and the audience. The video presented is seen as a
performance where brain and Caroline are the actors and the food court patrons
are the audience. There are gender roles present in the frontstage and
backstage personas. In a standard western engagement proposal there is a gender
division of labour within the couple (Robnett & Leaper, 2012). Brian in
this seen as following the standard model for engagement protocol and thus is
seen as the lead, and is the creator of the scene (Schweingruber, Anahita &
Berns 2004). In this and all performance certain rules must be adhered to. When
a person acts, the individual communicates information about the kind of person
he/she presumes to be and obliges others to regard him/her as being that kind
of person (Lee 1990), this is regarded at the situated identity. This situated
identity is a basis for initiating interaction, it must be established and
maintained as a prerequisite for social conduct and is crucial for the
guidance and anticipation for the duration of the interaction
(Alexander & Lauderdale 1977). The audience perceives them to be a
happy couple, a short ways down the road to marriage and commitment, this can
be perceived because they have reached a point in their life were Brian feels
it is the time to take a further step in their relationship. Individuals act to
produce the most socially desirable situated identity and are expected to
become a person that will be most highly valued in each condition (Lee 1990).
Brian says lovely things about Caroline:
We as the audience do not know what occurs in
their backstage life, but can only speculate on what
had occurred based on the front stage performance. An
analysis of the video shows there to be a number of sociological aspects
present. This aspect views sociology on a micro level, observing individual
interactions within the whole. The rejected proposal however brief it was
contained so much content, from each audience member’s actions to the actions
of the actors. They all display aspects that represent symbolic interactionism,
the presentation of self, and dramaturgy.
References
Alexander, NC & Lauderdale, P 1977, “Situated
Identities and Social Influence”, Sociometric, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 225-233
Giddens, A 2009, ‘On Rereading The Presentation of Self:
Some Reflections’, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 72, no. 4, pp.
290-295
Goffman, E 1955, “On Face-Work.” Pp. 338-343 in C Lemert
(eds), Social Theory: The Multicultural Readings, Westview
Press, Philadelphia.
Goffman, E 1967. “The Nature of Deference and Demeanor” Pp.
47-96 in Interaction Rituals: Essays on Face-to-Face behaviour. New York:
Pantheon Books
Goffman, E 1971, “Performances.” Pp. 28-82 in The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lee, DW 1990, “Symbolic Interactionism: Some Implications
for Consumer Self-Concept and Product Symbolism Research”, Advances in
Consumer Research, vol 17, Pp 386-393
LeftRightSevenProd 2011, “Food Court Proposal Gone Bad”,
viewed 10 September, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnyKkA05nYw
Roberts, B 2006. “Symbolic Interactionism 2 –
Developments.” Pp. 46-61 in Interaction Rituals: Essays on Face-to-Face
Behaviour. New York: Pantheon books
Robnett, RD & Leaper, C 2012, ''Girls Don't Propose!
Ew.: A Mixed-Methods Examination of' Marriage Tradition Preferences and
Benevolent Sexism in Emerging Adults”, Journal of Adolescent Research,
vol. 27, no. 4, Pp 1- 26
Schweingruber, D, Anahita, S Berns, N 2004, “Popping
the Question When the Answer is Known: The Engagement Proposal as
Performance”, Sociological Focus, vol. 37, no. 2, Pp 143-161
