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

Autonomy in the Medical Profession?

This drizzly afternoon, I rushed to the bus loop from class in order to make it to a tour of a local hospital put together by a student-run club at UBC whose mandate is to help students in their process of pursuing a certain health profession.

We were met by two residents (graduated medical school students who have begun practicing in hospitals/clinics) at the lobby of the hospital.  Both residents are males in their fourth year of residency — one had a staff identification badge hang down his t-shirt whereas the other had a stethoscope around his neck and was dressed in a neatly pressed dress shirt.  Let’s call the former Jeff and the latter Ken.

In the past year and a half, after hurdles and hurdles of career choice challenges and changes, I developed an interest in becoming a doctor.  There are various reasons why I think may be a suitable career choice for me (without thinking about my uncertainty of my capabilities in the natural and physical sciences for now).  Amongst the passion of directly help people, the excitement for science, the ability to earn a living wage, and the respect, a big draw for me was the autonomy I perceived that a career in medicine would entail.  To put it into picture, I have been (day)dreaming about how nice it would be to be a family physician/GP and be able to focus my time, attention, and efforts on helping patients without having to worry too much about living up to the expectations of supervisors, following bureaucratic rules, and navigating professional relationships with co-workers.

Hearing from the residents today made me feel a little grey as while Jeff was showing us around and telling us about his experiences in medical school and being a resident at the hospital, these words he spoke jumped at me:

  • protocol
  • procedures
  • divided
  • paperwork
  • culture
  • process
  • system
  • adaptable
  • protected time

These are all words that I would say can be related to bureaucracy and more pertaining to your class theme, structure versus agency.  Jeff used the word “protocol” when he showed us around the maternal care room.  In the maternal care room, there is an apparatus that you use to revive a newborn when he/she stops breathing (please excuse my faulty explanation). When he explained this to us he pointed to the poster on the wall which states the protocol, or what procedures the doctor should follow in such an event.  He said to us something along the lines of, “It’s here because you won’t have time to think, they just want you to follow the instructions and just do.”  

In my next blog post, I will expand on my thoughts about agency, structure, and the process to a career in a medicine.

One Soup Night, Two Identities: Making Sense of my Musings at a UBC Event

In this blog post, I plan to write about an event that I went to at the residence that I live at on campus, my discomfort at the event, and my musings on why this was so. I will bring in aspects of Du Bois (1903/2012) to help with my understandings.

I have had the opportunity to live on campus for the duration of my undergraduate degree—well for eight months at a time anyway since I live at my family’s home in Surrey during the summers. In my first year, I lived at a UBC first year residence in a double room with a close friend from high school. In my second year, I applied for UBC residence and did not get in, so I looked into other options for housing and resigned myself to finding somewhere to live off-campus if nothing panned out. I ended up applying to another residence at St. Andrew’s Hall. St. Andrew’s is where the College of the Presbyterian Church is located at UBC as well as residences for students of the college in addition to UBC students.

I lived at St. Andrew’s during my second, third, and now in my fourth year. On their website, St. Andrew’s writes:

The sense of community is important at St. Andrew’s Hall. Not only students studying for ministry within The Presbyterian Church in Canada but all residents are encouraged to bring their gifts to the community and to make use of opportunities for intellectual, physical, social, and spiritual growth.

In my (going-on) three years living at St. Andrew’s, I have received email upon email of events hosted by St. Andrew’s for its residents and community members to attend. It was only this year that I actually went to one of them—in part because I have a roommate who is a Community Coordinator at St. Andrew’s (similar to the role of a Residence Advisor at UBC residences) and so she is very vocal to encourage all of us in our apartment to attend upcoming events. This particular event was a Soup Night. Every Wednesday, St. Andrew’s hosts a Soup Night in their chapel, followed by an “Open Table” discussion on a different religious or spiritual topic of the week, led by one of St. Andrew’s chaplains. I get an email about Soup Night and the Open Table discussion every week to remind me that there is yet another one to be hosted, telling me what kind of soup will be given out and what the topic will be. This time around, there was organic red lentil soup to be had and “world salvation” to be discussed.

I had never been in the chapel at St. Andrew’s before, but I have walked past it many times, so I knew where to go. When I entered the chapel with my bowl and a spoon, I noticed that there were some differences between it and the churches that I had been in before. It was basically a big room with really high ceiling, there was a big cross on the wall, a wooden podium at the front and some regular chairs (not pews) as well as some couches. It looked as though the room functioned for many uses so the chairs and couches being mobile helped to re-organize easily. There were also some small tables and on them sat some pots. I figured that since the objective of the Soup Night was soup, I should head towards that. The pots seemed promising, so I gravitated towards them. I was greeted by a couple people who were standing by the pots. They told me to help myself to some soup. I did. Then I stayed for a little while and made small talk with them. They asked me whereabouts in St. Andrew’s I was living, what I was studying, etc. They also asked me if I would be staying for the Open Table discussion. At this point, I made a snap decision not to go to the discussion and told them that I couldn’t stay because I had something for class due the next day that I needed to get done. That part… was a lie. I didn’t have anything due the next day.

I had decided that I had become too uncomfortable being in the chapel and would not be comfortable going to the Open Table discussion within this setting. Although the Soup Night and the Open Table discussion was advertised as being open to everyone to attend, no matter their cultural, ethnic, or religious background, I was very intimidated to partake in it. I left the chapel soon after and went back to my apartment thinking about my discomfort.

Why did I feel uncomfortable? I had been to church before, especially when I was younger. My mom is Anglican and, when I was younger, she would send my sisters and I to Sunday school while she went to Sunday mass. My sisters and I stopped going to church regularly when we got older, but my mom still went by herself or with my aunts on occasion. For the most part, I only go now if my mom wants some company on special occasions such as Christmas Eve mass. However, our family still celebrates Christian holidays (Christmas and Easter) at home. Thinking back to my familiarity in my childhood with the church, I didn’t fully understand why I felt so uncomfortable in the chapel at Soup Night until I thought on it further.

Du Bois (1903/2012) speaks about the veil, double consciousness, and two-ness in The Souls of Black Folk. He writes on the veil as a metaphor for oneself being “wrapped in”. So long as one is wrapped in the veil, they will always see the image of themselves reflected back at them as how others believe them to be, allowing others to erase their two identities. The veil affects a person when the person internalizes this erasure of their two identities. When one transcends the veil, they can begin the process of juggling their two identities and their double consciousness. This two-ness of identification is something that I struggle with.

While my mom’s influence in my life meant that I was familiar with the church in my childhood, my dad’s influence in my life meant that I was also familiar with Islam. My family on my mom’s side are European, Caucasian, and Christian and my family on my dad’s side are North African, Berber, and Muslim. The two sides of my family have contributed to my sense of two identities, two cultures, two ethnicities, and two heritages. Growing up in a mixed household and with a mixed family, I embody a two-ness and a type of double consciousness. Although Du Bois writes specifically about his own double identity being American and African in a specific context—during the late 1800s/early 1900s, a time of social and political turmoil for African Americans, the beginnings of the Reconstruction Era of the American Constitution, and the emancipation of African American slaves in the South—my two-ness identification is markedly different from his.

Now, I don’t exactly identify as Christian myself, nor do I identify as Muslim, but these religious backgrounds cannot be isolated as purely religious identifications—in my mind, there is a distinctive cultural and ethnic component to claiming either. That is to say, there are different cultural and ethnic interpretations of Christianity and Islam (e.g. Muslims in Pakistan are influenced by a different set of cultural/ethnic backgrounds than Muslims in North Africa) and that both religiosity and culture/ethnicity feed into each other. So, as I thought about why I was uncomfortable at the Soup Night and wondered why I was uncomfortable since I had been in a Christian chapel many times in my life before, I realized that it was not just the religious aspect that I spurred my discomfort. It was also the cultural/ethnic aspects that had me uncomfortable and the idea that my two-ness might be erased by the other Soup Night-goers.

Those instances in which I had experienced the church had previously been with my mom and/or my sisters, who understood my two-ness. Previously, it had been enough to have someone at my side who knew my two-ness and, at Soup Night, no one knew of my two-ness and it would require that I attempt to explain it. Perhaps at this point you’re thinking to yourself, “You shouldn’t feel required to explain your two-ness to anyone, Krystal. That’s a personal thing and so divulging it is not a requirement if you don’t want to.” But that simply isn’t true. If you gave me a nickel every time someone asked me “what are you?” or “what’s your ethnic background?” or “where is your last name from?” I would be a decently wealthy person. These sorts of questions and speculations on my identity from others in the past, in a way, have coloured how I have internalized an obligation to let others know, since those questions have always framed to me that they are obligated an answer. For this, I feel that Du Bois falls a little short on the topic of two-ness. For me, my two-ness is largely framed by how I feel the obligation to communicate it to others because, if I don’t, they will understand me as one identity and I would feel almost like a fraud to go along with it because it is not the whole picture of who I am. Yes, Du Bois hits on some really important points regarding how a person internalizes their two-ness, but his understanding of this internalization as a linear progression (being wrapped in the veil → transcending the veil → having a double conscious/internalizing two-ness) is a short-falling of his piece. Two-ness is not static and I find myself negotiating (and re-negotiating) my two-ness differently depending on the setting and those around me.

 

References

Du Bois, W.E.B. (2012). The Souls of Black Folk. In S. Appelrouth & L. Desfor Edles (Eds.), Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory (2nd ed., pp. 271-283). Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Pine Forge Press. (Original work published in 1903)

Fraternity Semi-Formal: Does Rich’s continuum apply to both genders?

Adrienne Rich, in her article, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” outlines her theory about women, and how every woman exists somewhere on the “lesbian continuum.” Rich’s continuum includes all women, whether they identify as lesbian, straight, or otherwise, and accounts for both sexual and non-sexual experiences between women. As well, some women may move from one point on the spectrum to another during the course of their lives. The idea behind the continuum is that we should “begin to discover the erotic in female terms: as that which is unconfined to any single part of the body or solely to the body itself, as an energy not only diffuse but omnipresent in ‘the sharing of joy, whether physical, emotional, or psychic (650).

This weekend I attended a UBC fraternity semi-formal, and, having read Rich’s article, I believe this was a prime example of how Rich’s continuum can be applied to men as well. The Brothers of this fraternity were definitely well bonded, and fond of each other. The company of the party ranged from new members, to alumni that had come to catch up with old friends and meet new members. There was definitely a warm vibe of comfort around each other, and several acts of care between the boys, despite some of the most stereotypically ‘frat’ boys that were in attendance. This is not to say that the idea of the fraternity is in any way homosexual, although I have definitely heard that being implied by others. What I am trying to point out is that there was a definite continuum to be seen within the fraternity brothers, which demonstrates Rich’s theory of the Lesbian Continuum.

Although the boys had brought dates to the party, with whom they were conversing with and enjoying the company of, it was very apparent that a large part of why they were there was to spend time with each other. Pockets of Brothers were dispersed around the room, each enjoying the evening together in different ways. It was interesting to see the contrast of behaviour with individual Brothers when they were with their dates, versus when they were with their Brothers. Rich explains that women can move from one point in the continuum to another at different points in their lives. What was interesting about the semi-formal was to see how the Brothers were moving along different points in the continuum within one evening. Being at the semi-formal was like seeing Rich’s continuum in fast-forward.

I enjoyed spending the evening with this group. I was able to have a night out with a group of people whilst simultaneously witnessing this theory come alive. Yet one more way that I’ve learnt to incorporate sociology into my daily life!

Share: The Spatial Politics of the Occupy Central 佔領區的空間政治

Translated by Marianne. Written by Xueying He 何雪瑩. Saturday, November 11, 2014.

The Occupy Movement in Hong Kong has lasted for a month and a half. The three Occupy Central leaders claimed that they would confess to the police someday. Students organizations like the Hong Kong Federation of Students and the Scholarism believed that they could not retreat without any desirable outcomes. These show that everyone has a rather similar view towards the Occupy Central: the three leaders think that civil disobedience is the core of the movement, so the movement could not reach an end unless they confront the judicial process; the two student unions think that the movement is the means to the negotiation of political reform. However, how is the Occupy Central different from other social movements? Although a tough question, I would like to start my answer with the function of space, through the  perspective of urban geography.

佔領持續接近個半月,佔中三子強調有天他們會主動自首,學聯和學民認為未有任何成果難以撤離。這說明了各人對佔中的想像非不一樣:三子認為公民抗命是佔領運動的核心,必須完成自首和面對司法程序整個運動才告圓滿;雙學大致上認為佔領是政改談判的籌碼。然而佔領跟其他社會形式的社會運動有何分別? 這個問題不好回答,但從城市研究或地理學而言,起點必然是空間的作用。

We are surprised by the booming study rooms, the colourful comment walls, the concrete flower garden, and the tents everywhere on the highway; we are attracted by the surreal scenes that appear in Hong Kong for the first time. These scenes are possible through the interaction of space and time. The typical organized political involvements such as voting and council meeting occupy very limited time and space, and most of the recent political engagements and social movements occurred in the virtual space. This is not to deny the importance of the time-space-constraint political engagements, in fact these forms are the also the necessary components of this Occupy Movement. But the Occupy Hong Kong reflects the infinite possibility of occupying a physical space for a longer period of time.

我們對瘋狂生長的自修室、五彩斑斕的連儂牆、水泥地上種花、幹道上遍地盛開的帳篷驚喜,為香港首次出現如斯虛幻的畫面着迷,事實上這些景點得以發生,是空間和時間兩者互相交織而成。一般體制式的政治參與如投票、諮詢會議等所佔據的時間和空間都相當有限,近年矚目的網上政治參與和社會運動更是發生在虛擬空間。這不是說時間和空間有限的政治參與不重要,實際上以上的政治參與和社會運動都是這場佔領運動得以發生所不可或缺的條件。然而今天的佔領之所以如此撼動人心,甚至超越其他社會運動,正反映出長持續一段時間佔領物理空間所孕育的無限可能性。這也許是其他形式的社會運動無法比擬的。

Surrealism of Walking across the Flyovers

游走於行車天橋的超現實
數周前我在「流動民主教室」曾經提起,能在幹道上蹓躂是多麼surreal的事,有位中年男子立刻走過來對我這種「佔領幹道」的正面思想表達不滿。今天用雙腳在金鐘的行車天橋上游走,我仍對眼前的景象有多超真實感到不可思議。這的確不是我們使用空間的習慣。試試閉上眼回想佔領或罷課前的金鐘長什麼樣子。那是一座恍如堡壘般,被圍起(fortified)和升高(elevated)的政府機關。人們要過去多從金鐘地鐵站出發,穿過海富中心,上電梯,經天橋到達「門常開」。由地底(地鐵)經天橋到離地升高的政府總部,整個過程完全沒有「腳踏實地」,也沒有停留的理由和時刻,因為它僅僅是一條通道,讓行人行來行往,什麼事都沒有發生。

而分隔中信大廈和立法會出入口的馬路,仔細想想,我們何時開始得知那條叫「添美道」?答案很可能是2012年的反國教運動。後來今年夏天的新界東北,還有今次的佔領運動,添美道再成主角。在非「社運進行中」之時,你會記得添美道嗎?又有多少人會在添美道流連忘返?
添美道、龍和道這些地方,令我想起法國人類學家Marc Auge筆下的non-place。先別管他本來的理論是non-place是超現代性(supermodernity)的產物而超現代性又是什麼,這些non-place的特性是沒有任何人際社會關係、身分和歷史性的地方,他筆下的例子包括機場、公路和超級市場。其他在政總短暫發生過的社會運動都曾暫時將添美道、龍和道、夏慤道這些non-place改變,為其賦予社會關係、身分和歷史意義,而眼下的佔領運動更是「2.0」加強版。

Commercial Center Becomes Living Areas

Before the Occupy, the Admiralty was a political and economic center. Such a non-space was not designed for a long stay, nor for attracting people to stay. Yet this movement is able to continue, with thousands of people staying over nights and millions of people mobilize during off-work periods, not only because the occupiers have strong beliefs in democracy, but also because this emotionless commercial centre has become suitable for long term stay and even living. This process is placemaking.

商業中心變成生活場所
本來金鐘是個政治和商業中心,non-place空間設計從不宜久留,也不打算吸引人久留,結果這場運動得以一直延續下去,長期有上千人在晚上過夜,放工時間有上萬人在流動,固然因為佔領者對爭取民主的理念非常堅持,同時也因為這個冷冰冰的商業中心變得適合長時間逗留,甚至棲息和生活。這個過程正是地方營造(placemaking)。

In other words, because citizens are most clear about the need of their communities (the best example, again, is the location of the stair handles), they do not need bureaucracy to decide the use of every inch of the land….. During a movement, with enough time and physical space,

換句話說,正因為市民本身才最知道社區的需要(最佳例子再一次是扶手樓梯的位置),他們不需要官僚以上帝視角決定每吋土地的用途。當關心空間使用的團體和個人多年來辦研討會寫文,建議釋放官僚對公共空間的限制之餘,也希望擴闊市民對空間規劃和使用的想像時,原來只要一場佔領發生,有着足夠的時間和物理空間,人的潛能就這樣釋放出來。基本的地方營造原來可以咁簡單。而當沒有了不准踢足球不准玩滑板等為怕發生任何意外等的外來規定,市民自己會學習跟別人從實踐中討論空間使用的法則和規矩。當中難免會有些衝突,例如點解你紮個營阻住我個營出入,但這也是學習的一種,而且外來規定引發的衝突、不快和風險,往往不比自發狀態少。

城市屬於使用者不屬於地主
更基本的是,佔領運動要爭取的不止是真普選、廢除功能組別和市民有免受不合理警察暴力自由這些公民及政治權利,它愈來愈關乎爭取城市權(Right to the city)。法國哲學家拉斐伏爾(Henri Lefebvre)於1960年代提出爭取城市權運動後,這場討論一直延伸至今天方興未艾,地理學者也開始將城市權的意義擴闊到無限大包括公民得以享有公共物品(public goods)如水電房屋的權利,如此使用城市權概念並沒有錯,但我們必須回到拉斐伏爾提出城市權的背景。他看不過眼的是在空間生產和使用的過程中,交易價值 (exchange value)取代了使用價值(used value)成為決定性原則。一塊地用來起樓還是起公園並非視乎能為市民帶來多大用處而是能賺幾多錢。為何今場佔領運動是一場關乎城市權的戰役,其實答案就在我們日常的修辭當中。佔領城市的主要幹道會令每人返工多30分鐘,經濟損失幾多億,商店損失又幾多億;換句話說,夏愨道應該是幹道而不是讓人佔領的建制和警方修辭正是空間的交易價值凌駕一切的明證。當我們每天為可能清場擔驚受怕,不就是因為我們使用道路和政府總部作為抗爭空間的城市權受威脅嗎?
可以幾肯定的是即使我們成功爭取公民和政治權利落實,城市權卻更難落實。一來城市權面對的不止是政治還資本的影響(全球民主國家爭取城市權的運動更是形形色色,可見民主並非萬靈丹),二來爭取城市權不是單單以獲取公共資源為目標,而是一場不曾止息和演化的運動。拉斐伏爾筆下的城市權可分為right to participation 和right to appropriation。前者比較容易理解,簡單可說是當空間改變所有受影響的城市人都該有權參與決定,而非限制於地主、屋主或股東本身;而right to appropriation更是一場阻止空間異化的行動。拉斐伏爾認為當空間的交易價值凌駕於使用價值,空間便會跟城市使用者發生異化,兩者關係割裂起來,只有通過空間的appropriation人們才能重奪空間,而非落入資本累積倫理之中。城市不屬於地主,而屬於使用者。拉斐伏爾同時提出將autogestion這個工人自己營運工廠的概念融入城市權之中,透過appropriate城市空間我們才能自我管理空間下的生活,將城市空間重新跟社會關係網絡重新連結起來,而非受資本累積邏輯決定城市生活。這,不正正是發生在今天的金鐘嗎?

當佔領運動由爭取政治公民權利延伸至城市權,而且因為物理空間和時間許可,以實踐而非一般倡議(advocacy)的形式爭取,這就是一種預兆式政治(prefigurative politics):佔領華爾街的精神領袖、人類學家David Graeber指出,佔領華爾街的預兆式政治的重點在於,我們要爭取一個理想,在運動間必先將其實踐出來。

香港佔領主幹道的獨特性
這場佔領運動將會在香港和世界近代史上佔上一席,理順空間在佔領運動的獨特角色將對我們理解其本地和國際重要性非常有幫助。國際上近年佔領運動如雨後春筍,由2010年英國學生佔領大學校園抗議瘋狂加學費、阿拉伯之春、佔領華爾街在全球遍地開花、2011至12年西班牙的Indignants Movement、去年土耳其伊斯坦堡,關於佔領的專著和研究從不缺少。當中雖然不少研究偏重互聯網的動員能力,但空間作為佔領運動最獨特的條件卻不容忽視,而且當人家大多數都是佔領廣場或公園,香港卻因沒有如此具公共價值的廣場加上誤打敵撞下佔領主要幹道和一堆附近零碎的non-place,這種香港的獨特性注定是要被仔細研究和記上一筆的。而我們在香港,當一些前輩都說運動陷入膠着狀態而要盡快退場,或者我們是要「佔領人心而非佔領馬路」,他們說的在社運的策點上都非常有道理。但如果將空間在佔領運動的獨特性包含在內,我欣賞到的倒是另一面:時間愈長,佔領區物理空間和在其之間發生的人際和社會活動和關係也在不停演變中,如此看來這個空間實驗每天都在經歷或大或小的改變,從來不曾陷入膠着狀態。「佔領人心,而非佔領馬路」,我非常明白爭取全港市民也很大程度上同意這樣的說法,但同時我也感到,只有透過佔領馬路,人心才會發生改變。

相片、文字來自:
http://news.mingpao.com/…/art…/20141109/s00005/1415471606437

“It’s all Greek to me” – “Doing Gender” at a Frat bids party

As the end of the “rush” period for most fraternities comes to a close, UBC’s Greek population is gearing up for its next big step in the initiation process. Aspiring members will be (or will not be) given ‘bids’ to their fraternity of choice. As a non-Greek member of the UBC population, I don’t normally have much involvement in this process, save for the fact that I have been invited to some “rush parties” along the way. This year, I was invited to what they boys were calling a “bids party,” where their aspiring members will be awarded bids before the official “bids day” which takes place at the SUB. The party was held on the Saturday night before the week of “bids day” so that the boys would have a heads up as to whether or not they would get their ‘official’ bids the coming week.

Having attended the party as somewhat of an outsider, it was interesting to observe the boys as they went through the process. It was apparent that the boys were desperately trying to radiate their most masculine features in order to impress both each other, as well as any girls that were in attendance. I found this display of gendered body language, attitudes, and actions to be very applicable to an article that I recently read for one of my sociology classes. West and Zimmerman’s “Doing Gender,” highlights some of the ways in which people interact with and “do” their gender in public environments. ‘Gender,’ according to this article, is described as the degree to which an ‘actor’ is masculine or feminine in comparison to the stereotypical expectations of gender.

As I observed the fraternity, it was extremely obvious that the boys were trying their hardest to meet the expectations of the stereotypical male. According to the article, individuals constantly perform scripts of their gender. After my initial connection of their actions to the West and Zimmerman article, this became somewhat comedic to watch. Most of the boys were buff, wearing tight fitting tops, and walking with straight backs to accent their muscular physic. As well, their language exuded what they probably associated with as being sufficiently “masculine” in order to keep themselves within the confines of what they were presenting as what fraternity members should look like.

This went on for an hour or two before the actual bids process began. Each of the aspiring members were called into a back room, where they would remain for approximately 10 minutes before being brought back out into the main room. When they re-entered the room, the members of the fraternity began clapping incessantly, and howling their fraternity chant to welcome their new pledge. I was informed that from the moment they received their bid, they became pledges, and would be made to prove themselves worthy and willing to become an official member of the fraternity, come “official initiation.”

For me, this party was an excellent example of West and Zimmerman’s theory of “doing gender.” Each member and aspiring member of the fraternity was an active participant in their gender in order to impress others and stay within the margins of the stereotypical “male.” My speculation for why the boys felt such a dire need to stay within this stereotype again follows West and Zimmerman’s theory. According to their theory, failure to properly ‘do gender’ is possible, and gender assessment and accountability are ever present. I think that especially for fraternity members, the idea of being evaluated based on how they measure up to the standards put in place for their gender category is very apparent, and constantly at the back of their mind. Overall, it was certainly interesting to observe this evaluation and presentation of gender from an outside point of view, and I wish the boys luck in their process of becoming members of their fraternity of choice.

West, Candace and Zimmerman, Don H. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society 1(2): 125-51.

This, I know, I am Not… But what am I? – Goffman’s explanation of how individuals define themselves

As a sociology major, I find myself constantly asking questions about myself, and the things I do. What do I identify with as an individual, and how do I fit in with others? Why do I fit in with certain individuals better than others? How do we figure out who we are amongst all of the other individuals around us? Are we all different? What qualities do we share? What social situations do I feel comfortable in, and which are out of my comfort zone?

Recently I came across a quote, which has inspired even more questions to flow through my mind. The quote can be found in “Asylums,” by Erving Goffman, and it highlights yet another way of thinking about individuals in society. His definition of individuals is as follows…

“A stance-taking entity, a something that takes a position somewhere between identification with an organization and opposition to it, and is ready at the slightest pressure to regain its balance by shifting its involvement in either direction. It is thus against something that the self can emerge…” (502)

One idea that I find myself constantly returning to is an exercise that my SOCI100 Prof used, which was meant to promote us to think sociologically about our environment. He asked us to think about a line up for something, like a Starbucks, and the different social cues that surround it. This prompted me to realize that I have always been fascinated with observing people following (or breaking) social cues and interacting with their environment. I have often found myself ‘people watching’ at Starbucks, and elsewhere. This exercise really got me thinking about all the sociological thoughts that I have, but had never identified them as such prior to taking my first sociology course.

Returning back to the Goffman quote, I had previously never contemplated the idea of defining myself against something I am not. After considering this idea, however, I realized that I am able to apply it to my Starbucks adventures. The Goffman quote prompted me to rethink some of the questions I have previously asked myself about line-ups. Why do I choose to be polite and follow the social cues that tell me I should wait my turn? I feel confident in saying that I am a fairly polite individual, but how did I come to identify myself as such?

This leads me to the main purpose of this post, which is to discuss how individuals in society approach situations, and how the decisions we make in these situations can define how we are seen in society, and how we identify ourselves. How each individual’s socialization guides them through their daily decisions.

More specifically I want to talk about UBC Clubs Days, and how individuals decide which clubs they are interested in, and which to avoid. Some of the behaviour students exhibited highlights the relevance of Goffman’s definition of individuals to the daily life of a UBC student.

This year I had the opportunity to “table” for two clubs on Clubs Days, one academically inclined, and one socially inclined. It was interesting to see how some individuals would scoff at the thought of joining an academic club, whilst others were uninterested with the idea of joining a club that wouldn’t benefit them on their resumes. I heard many statements beginning with “I am not”… “I’m not really interested in a social club,” “I’m not really looking for extra work outside class.” Which, in my head, translated into “I am not whatever your club is,” which leads us back go Goffman. These individuals defined themselves against what my clubs had to offer, but this is only one clue into the complexity that is each individual I interacted with during Clubs Days. All I know about those who passed off my clubs is one thing that they are NOT, but I have no idea what they ARE. Why are they not interested in my clubs? Is it because they truly do not want to have a social life? Or is it because they have been socialized to see social clubs a certain way?

…And do they budge in Starbucks line-ups?

I AM interested in my  academic club, but at the same time, I AM NOT interested in focusing solely on my studies when I am faced with so many amazing social opportunities. I line up at Starbucks for fear of being known as that one rude chick that budges because this, I know, I am not. But what AM I? I am polite because I don’t budge… I am a sociology major because I clicked the SSC button… but what else?

References:

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books.