Reflection on Reflection (I copied Marianne’s title, haha)

I think taking this course has encouraged me to question every part of my life I’ve previously thought of as a norm. By using sociological imagination, I realized how ignorant and unchallenging I was to the social system. I could describe myself as a sponge, just absorbing all the social forces to empower or disempower my identity. I really liked how diverse our topics were and how engaged our class was to each topic. The class felt very casual but I believe our discussions provided a site of excavating treasured insights. To be honest, I hated doing the blog assignments, reading responses and presentations as it was very challenging and tedious for me. However, I think this really forced me to think like a sociologist and I really learned from the experience. Just from the facilitation of the class, I could see bits of theories from the readings put into practice, unconsciously, in our actions. I guess this is why I like sociology, since what we’re learning is what we’re living.

Anyways, I would like to thank all of our facilitators and classmates. Everyone was respectful and definitely had a lot of character in them. It was just one course but I feel like I got to know everyone on a more personal level, just by talking about our identities. I still don’t know if I have an absolute answer to the question I asked on the first day of class, “What is my true identity?” But I could say that my identity was formed, and still in the progress, by how I intake or resist society.

 

Construction of a space: My experience at UBC Improv show

I really like improvs.

Improvs are comedy shows with no script provided, where actors perform their acts by improvising on the spot.

My first experience of watching an improv show was in elementary, where a group of famous improv team visited our school to perform. The experience was mind blowing and since then, I became very interested in the subject. When I was in first year at UBC, I remember watching UBC Improv at our residence, as part of the first week program. I also went to their weekly improv shows, hosted at the Neville Scarfe building. And last Friday, I visited the site again, as an excuse for my blog assignment.

20141121_193740

Team Brunch Money’s performance on “Justice” in UBC Improv’s Nov 21 show

The room was filled with people and laughter was spread out through the room. Once again, I was amazed by how clever these actors were, as they related their skit to themes thrown out by the audience, built and changed their identities according to the situation and concluded by bringing together all the odd and irrelevant characters and situations to one plot. Their characters, use of language and action were rewarded by laughter and applause from the audience. The audience themselves seemed to be very energetic and engaged. What was significant though, was how this space was created.

In Razack’s article, “Race, Space, and the Law: Unsettling a White Settler Society”, she investigates how bodies are produced in spaces and how spaces are produced by bodies, based on Henri Lefebvre’s concept of space as a social product, where appropriate places to social relations are assigned, which could be served as a tool of thought and action, and as means of production, control and power.

I knew that Scarfe 100, where UBC Improv took place, was a social space because it was constructed by actors and audience who seeked for this space. The space was not randomly created but seeked by students, adults, friends of actors, and others who understood the language, understood the culture, therefore, understood the humour. I was interested in how this space was produced and how this space could influence bodies like the actors and myself, performing and watching the show.

 As the show preceded, I realized that it was the actors’ efforts that created the space of engagement and acceptance. In situations where actors blanked out, other actors would immediately jump in to improve the situation or laugh at each other to promote laughter from the audience. Engagement from the audience were encouraged by actors as they would challenge the audience with statements like “I can’t hear you!” And by waiting for appropriate themes to be shouted out. I know I am not usually an outgoing person, but I found myself quite actively engaged in the performance.

The identity of this space is also uniquely constructed. What attracts people to watch improv shows is the notion that anything can happen in these shows. Basically, anything out of the norm in society is the norm within Improv shows. Gender switches, talking animals, illuminati invasion are all commonly played out. Comedy shows like improv are also one of the few spaces where social taboos and political injustices can be performed without serious consequences. This is because of the notion that comedy shows are performed solely for humour purposes and not to be taken seriously. I mean, can you really arrest a comedian? This gives power to comedians to challenge existing social inequalities in a  seemingly light hearted, comical way. Historically, comedy shows were used by the powerless of society to voice their opinions, to influence and educate communities, on these social taboos and political injustices.

This reinforces Lefebvre’s idea that spaces are socially constructed, served as a tool of thought and action, and empower the users of the space.

However, because of this notion, there is definitely a burden on the actors’ shoulders. Improv actors are expected to be creative and funny while managing through a fine line of appropriate/inappropriate social taboos. They are encouraged to include social taboos in their acts but must be aware of the negative reactions when it is taken too far. For example, a white guy at the show provoked a lot of laughter from his character of being an ignorant American who always orders burgers at a Mexican restaurant. However, I believe this reaction would have been different if the same guy played the American who orders black people to serve him burgers. Since there is no script provided, every actor becomes responsible for their act.

Nevertheless, I have always been a big fan of improv and I encourage you guys to take part in the improv workshops, hosted by UBC Improv, as you will experience creating a small social space of your own, from attending to acting your own skit.

 

References:

Lefebvre, Henri, The Production of Space, Blackwell, 1991

Razack, Sherene, Race, Space, and the Law: Unmapping a White Settler Society, Between the Lines, 2002

The Interconnection between the Self and Society: My Experience at an Orientation Event

In September, I attended an orientation/ ice breaker event hosted by one of the largest social clubs in UBC. Prior to entrance, I had a stereotypical notion of the club as being composed mainly of a certain ethnic group with a certain outgoing behaviour. I could tell I was anxious and hesitant of my interaction with the group as I found myself constantly delaying my entrance, despite the friendly welcome from the executives. Hiding in the washroom for a few minutes, I convinced myself to enjoy the event and stepped outside. Thankfully, I encountered some of my classmates at the door who encouraged me to go in and participate in the activity. As we entered the lecture room, we immediately gathered together and talked about how awkward we felt at the event and how we did not seem to belong. It was not until we were separated by group leaders to our stationed groups that our conversation ended.

The event preceded with the hosts’ introduction of the club and some ice breaker activities. In the middle of an ice breaker activity, my classmate and I decided to leave the event as we felt uneasy in the group. Once we exited the event and walked toward the bus loop, we asked eachother the reasons to our anxiety within the group. For me, ethnicity was an issue because I did not classify myself as a member of the ethnic group representing the club. For my classmate, dress code was an issue as she felt she had not dressed appropriately to the standard of the group. For both of us, age was an issue because we felt too old to be involved in orientations, mainly held to recruit freshmen and newcomers to the club. This was a surprising investigation as both of us were completely unaware of eachother’s concerns of feeling different, nor were we discriminated by the members of the club. It was our own evaluation of ourselves, based on our presumptions of who or what is appropriate for the group, that placed a judgment on our belonging in the group. It was a personal trouble, according to C. Wright Mills, a trouble “occur[ing] within the character of the individual and within the range of his or her immediate relations with others,” a private matter. After realizing this, we decided to go back to the club and enjoy the rest of the event.  However, it was clear that our personal troubles had a connection with how we were socialized by society. From micro socializations such as forming lunch groups in school and intaking values taught by our parents to macro socializations such as historical values imposed by our culture and new values imposed by the media, we are socialized to identify ourselves in a certain way and expected to interact within a certain group. Therefore, we feel comfortable in partaking certain identities and groups, while it is difficult for us to interact with other groups, especially structured organizations such as clubs, without preconceived notions. The confined boundaries of relationships and identities held by individuals thus becomes a public issue; as Mills states that it occurs when “some values cherished by publics is felt to be threatened.. form[ed by a] larger structure of social and historical life.” On a broader level, this confinement leads to racism, classism, sexism, etc.

The social club I attended attempted to tackle this public issue by opening the club to a diversity of people to break preconceived notions of the club and to provide an inclusive space for all students in UBC. This was evident through their announcements in introducing their club, representation of executives (including one of the hosts and our team leader) of a different ethnic group than the majority makeup of the club. Everyone spoke in English, providing an inclusive space for people who did not speak the language of the group but spoke English. Dress code was not imposed and stationed groups were organized according to a random selection of alphabets. Individual choices for engaging/disengaging in activities were respected and everyone was encouraged to be themselves while still being accepted. However, despite the club’s efforts and claims to provide an inclusive space for all students, the type of clothing worn by executives and the series of sexually provocative cheers and games visualized an identity of the group in a certain way which portrayed an imagined community of who belongs and composes the group, affecting the ratio of students who ultimately decide to join the club.

Furthermore, by the dress code and attitude of the executives in leading activities during the orientation, social standards of executive behaviour are set and place limits on individuals when applying for executive positions, as they would have to prove themselves to be outgoing, to posess leadership qualities, to be able to laugh at and promote activities underlying stereotypical sexual and masculine/feminine orientations, and to be, or at least embrace, the culture of the dominant ethnic group. This is similar to how new fraternity boys had to prove themselves according to certain standards placed by senior fraternity boys, which emphasized the group’s definition of masculinity, during a rush event in Kimmel’s “Guyland.”

While at a broader surface level, the club seems very welcoming and inclusive to diversity, at a higher level of executive positions, there are more exclusive standards on behaviour and ideals; it is expected that a successful candidate would be able to conform to the group’s ideas and definitions in order to be accepted.

References:

Mills, C. W. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Kimmel, M. (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men.