Gordon Brown and "Bigoted Woman" - Independent Research Project

The Data:

brockelection 2010, Gordon Brown and “Bigoted Woman IN FULL- Rochdale 28 April 2010, 

accessed 08/09/2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTr8IVWBuPE

The Analysis:

In April 2010, Gordon Brown, then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, stopped in at the town of Rochdale as a part of his election campaign (BBC 2010). During this visit, he chose to talk to local citizens and attempt to build a level of rapport, whilst developing a positive media image, with the creation a positive media image and presentation of self both key to gaining support from voters (Doherty & Gerrity 2011). During this time, Gillian Duffy, a sixty five year old resident of the town, engaged in a conversation with Brown, choosing to debate a wide range of issues that she was concerned about. Following the conversation with Duffy, Brown entered his awaiting car and went on to refer to Duffy a “bigoted woman” to his assistant (brockelection 2010), with an audio recording of the conversation with the assistant being made public via a range of media outlets shortly after. The interaction between Duffy and Brown is, as a whole,  quite interesting as it does not follow the general structure of an interaction that a politician would hope to have with a member of the general public, and a range of various micro sociological concepts can be identified and their impacts noted within the example naturally occurring data. Within the following essay, some of the micro sociological concepts identified will be discussed, including turn requesting, institutional talk, demeanour, front and back regions, obligations and expectations, power structures, and social death.

The beginning of the interaction between Brown and Duffy is quite ordered in its nature, with each individual involved providing the other with the chance to respond to the statements made and questions asked. This series of actions follows theories based around turn taking, and especially turn requesting, where one participant signals to the other participant, or participants, involved in a conversation as to when they wish to interject and provide their own input (Wiemann & Knapp 2006). Turn requesting can manifest in a variety of both verbal and nonverbal cues, including interruptions, head nods and simultaneous talking (Wiemann & Knapp 2006). The interaction between Brown and Duffy focuses heavily on the use of turn requesting, with both participants utilising both verbal, and nonverbal, cues to ensure that their opinions are able to be expressed. In particular, in the section of the video clip between 0:36 and 1:12, turn requesting occurs through the interruption initially made by Duffy and the subsequent interruptions made by both her and Brown. In addition to the interruptions, simultaneous talking is also evident, occurring when Duffy and Brown speak at the same time, with each trying to assert dominance within the interaction. Both forms of turn requesting occur throughout the interaction, with Brown also utilising head nodding, noticeable at 0:07 and 2:12, and the action of moving further towards Duffy, as seen at 2:50, also used to assert that he wishes to put forth his own opinions at that time, and subsequently steer the conversation back towards topics that he wishes to talk about in front of members of the media.

The interaction as a whole could also be categorised as example of institutional talk, with a verbal exchange occurring between Brown, a politician of high social status and legitimate power, and Duffy, an average citizen possessing limited social influence. The conversation follows, to a degree, the description of institutional talk outlined by Drew and Sorjonen, (cited in Benwell & Stokes 2002, p430) with the conversation being used as a tool to achieve a specific goal or task, in this case to allay several of Duffy’s concerns. In engaging in a conversation with Brown, Duffy is also embodying Heritage’s description of the three basic elements of institutional talk (Heritage 2004, p106). She seeks to fulfil a distinct goal that is tied to Brown as a representative of the British political institution, follows specific constraints, such as knowledge that some topics, including Brown’s personal life, should not be discussed, and shows understanding that there is a specific framework that their conversation should follow. The framework that the conversation follows bears some similarity to the institutional conversational framework utilised by emergency service calls, as identified by Zimmerman, that begin with an opening, followed by a request, interrogative series, a response and a closing (Heritage 2004). Although the video clip does not include the initial meeting of Brown and Duffy, the remainder of the conversation follows the structure, including a request for information and a display of Duffy’s displeasure, an interrogative series whereby Brown’s policies relating to issues such as pensions, health care and education are questioned, a series of responses from Brown, and a closing exchange between the two.

Goffman defines demeanour as the elements that shape the way in which an individual presents themselves, such as the way that they dress, that serve to “express to those in his immediate presence that he is a person of certain desirable or undesirable qualities” (1967, p77). During the interaction with Duffy, from 0:00 to 4:31, Brown is well dressed, stands in a way which exerts a level of confidence within the situation and controls his emotions when being questioned under pressure. In doing so, Brown presents himself as a well demeaned individual who positively represents his position of authority. It could also be considered that Brown, by presenting himself with a positive demeanour, is also enacting a degree of self-monitoring, as described as the ‘looking glass self’ by Cooley, (Scheff 2011) whereby through the clothes he chooses to wear in public, the way he interacts with others, and the way in which he stands, he is carefully crafting a positive presentation of self to display to others. However, once Brown enters his car, at 4:42, it appears as though he relinquishes efforts to self-monitor his actions, referring to the interaction as a “disaster” and to Duffy as “a sort of bigoted woman” (brockelection 2010). Although Brown and his assistant would have had a symmetrical rule of demeanour, whereby the two would not find it offensive to be rude about others in the course of their conversation (Goffman 1967), in failing to self-monitor, as he thought the conversation with his assistant was not being recorded, the subsequent broadcast of the interaction caused Brown to be presented with a negative demeanour.  

In conversing with Duffy, Brown is invoking a social performance that is centred in what is described as the front region, or front stage. The front region is where most socially accepted interactions take place, with the participants generally able to decide how they present themselves to others, on the most part choosing to follow social rules and give the best impression of themself to others (Ross 2007). In the case of Brown and Duffy’s interaction, Brown attempted to ensure that the interaction was firmly grounded in the front region, with him appearing to be relatively prepared for the conversation with Duffy, being well dressed in a suit and tie, and thus indicative of his higher social status (Goffman 1971), and displaying the general traits that are expected of a leader, such as “pleasantness, morality, competence, potency, and forcefulness” (Sigelman 2001, p3). Although Duffy attempted to undermine Brown and his policies, Brown was able to present himself in a professional manner, which is to be expected in the presence of members of the general public, and he managed to remain polite and attentive to Duffy and her concerns, although beginning to become visibly frustrated and attempting to use turn requesting techniques, such as at 3:20. In this sense, the interaction that occurred between Brown and Duffy could be described as being relatively successful, with Brown presenting positive evidence “for others to contemplate, evaluate, and respond” to (Schlenker 1986, p27).

On the other hand, the back region is centred on aspects of the process of preparing for interactions that are not often seen as acceptable, such as the decision making process, inappropriate remarks and generally unacceptable behaviour (Ross 2007). The back region is generally hidden from those who experience the front region, although the two can overlap from time to time by choice, or as a result of pure accident. In the case of Brown, this overlap of the front and back regions occurred by accident. As Brown entered his car and began talking to his assistant, from 4:40 onwards, he was also entering his back region where he could criticise Duffy and make comments that would not be generally be socially accepted, such as referring to Duffy as ‘a sort of bigoted woman’ and the conversation as ‘ridiculous’ in nature (brockelection 2010). However, as Brown’s lapel microphone was still recording, the interaction between Brown and his assistant was eventually made public, bringing his conversation that was grounded within the back region into the front region, and creating an eventual loss of face and embarrassment for both Brown and Duffy. As a result of this loss of face, Brown was led, to a degree, to experience social death, which is further discussed below.

According to Goffman, obligations relate to how a person is “…morally constrained to conduct himself” (1967, p49). In terms of the interaction between Brown and Duffy, Brown was obligated to present himself as a positive social role model, stemming from his position as Prime Minister, and to conduct himself is such a way that was appropriate to the situation and that would present himself, and his political party, in a positive light in front of the media. Additionally, Brown held an obligation to respond to Duffy’s questions and concerns regarding his policies and do so in a manner that was informative and did not appear to be condescending. Within the video, from 1:12 onwards, Brown demonstrates the fulfilling of such an obligation, addressing the concerns that Duffy holds to do with pensions and the other benefits that senior citizens receive. As Brown is able to fulfill the majority of his obligations, for the most part, his is able to present himself as a figure to be respected, at least up until he commits his social gaffe. On the other hand, Duffy does not quite fulfill her obligations to be a cooperative member of the interaction, who would idealistically contribute to helping Brown to appear as a competent figure of authority who should be respected, leaving Brown appearing to be caught off guard and unsure of how to respond to some of her statements.

Following on from the obligations that Brown was anticipated to fulfill  were a set of expectations relating to the manner in which he presented himself to the public and conducted the interaction with Duffy. The expectations within the situation were based on how people “…are morally bound to act” (Goffman 1967, p.49), with Brown’s expectations including being respectful to Duffy, acting appropriately during the interaction that was taking place in front of members of the media and being civil to members of the general public. On the most part, Brown was able to behave as was expected of him, choosing to continue to converse with Duffy even though he appeared to be becoming frustrated by her, ensuring that he was able to develop a personal connection by discussing her family. However, from the time that Brown entered his car, as he believed he had moved into his social back stage (Ross 2007), Brown chose to ignore the expectations placed upon him, breaking rules of social conduct and placing him in a position to be discredited whilst Duffy was placed in a position to feel as though she should have been treated in a way other than what did actually occur (Goffman 1967).

Initially, Brown’s role as prime minister would have placed him in the position to hold an asymmetric relationship, a form of relationship that “leads others to treat and be treated by an individual differently from the way he treats and is treated by them” (Goffman 1967, p.53), during the course of his interaction with Duffy. Brown’s position of legitimate authority would have given Duffy reason to respect him and ideally she would have conducted a conversation that displayed her respect. As prime minister, Brown was given a symbolic role that represented the level of legitimate power held by him and as he held a level of legitimate power, Duffy was thus made to be a subordinate figure, as evident through the way in which she sought information from him. However, instead of remaining in a subordinate role, Duffy chose to quite thoroughly question Brown in relation to his policies focused on education, pensions and even immigration, using turn requesting strategies (Wiemann & Knapp 2006), such as interruptions in order to ensure her opinions were heard. In doing so, Duffy moved the nature of the relationship she held with Brown to more resemble a symmetrical power structure where one person has “obligations or expectations regarding others that these others have in regard to him” (Goffman 1967, p52). If Duffy had sought information in a polite and subordinate type manner, a relationship structure that was closer to one in which all participants were considered equal would not have been achieved.

Social death, whereby an individual is shunned by others as a result of their actions, such as the back region colliding with the front region (Whelan 2012), was experienced by Brown after what was considered to be a private conversation between Brown and his assistant was made public. The demeanour that Brown was attempting to convey to the general public was damaged, creating uncertainty in relation to how Brown behaved away from the eyes and ears of the press and the general public. Following further research, it became evident that the incident damaged Brown’s reputation at what was an important time in his election campaign, with it potentially acting as an influence for his eventual election defeat (Porter and Prince 2010).

The interaction between Brown and Duffy, although quite unfortunate and awkward in its result, displayed a wide range of micro sociological concepts, including turn requesting, institutional talk, demeanour, front and back regions, obligations and expectations, power structures, and social death. In displaying such concepts, the video clip, as an example of naturally occurring data, proves itself to be quite useful in gaining an insight into and developing an understanding of the complex nature of interactions that occur on a regular basis, often with no notice taken to what is actually happening and why it is the case. In particular, the impacts of the back region being brought into the front region were quite clearly displayed within the interaction.

Data Reference:

brockelection 2010, Gordon Brown and “Bigoted Woman IN FULL- Rochdale 28 April 2010, accessed 08/09/2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTr8IVWBuPE

References:

BBC 2010, Gordon Brown 'bigoted woman' comment caught on tape, accessed 29/10/2012, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8649012.stm

Benwell, B and Stokoe, E 2002, “Constructing discussion tasks in university tutorial: shifting dynamics and identities”, Discourse Studies, vol.4, no.4, pp429-453, accessed 09/10/2012, http://dis.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/content/4/4/429

Doherty, BJ and Gerrity, JC 2011, ‘The Politics Of Ego: Senatorial Front Office Presentation Of Self’, Congress and the Presidency, vol.38, no.1, pp16-38, accessed 22/10/2012, http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/docview/859016443
 Goffman, E 1967, ‘The Nature of Deference and Demeanor’, in Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour, Pantheon Books, New York, pp47-96.

Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp28-82.

Heritage, J 2004, ‘Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk’, in R Sanders and K Fitch (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp103-146, accessed 20/10/2012, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/heritage/Site/Publications_files/CA%20and%20INSTITUTIONAL%20TALK_LSI.pdf

Porter, A and Prince, R 2010, ‘General Election 2010: Gordon Brown's Gillian Duffy 'bigot' gaffe may cost Labour’, The Telegraph, accessed 29/10/2012, 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7648327/General-Election-2010-Gordon-Browns-Gillian-Duffy-bigot-gaffe-may-cost-Labour.html

Ross, D 2007, ‘Backstage with the Knowledge Boys and Girls: Goffman and Distributed Agency in an Organic Online Community’, Organization Studies, vol.28, no.3, pp307-325, accessed 24/09/2012, http://oss.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/content/28/3/307.full.pdf+html

Scheff,T 2011, “Parts and Wholes: Goffman and Cooley”, Sociological Forum, vol.26, no.3, pp694-704, accessed 20/10/2012, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/doi/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2011.01269.x/pdf

Schlenker, BR 1986, ‘Self-identification: Toward an integration of the private and public self’, in RF Baumeister (ed.), Public self and private self, Springer-Verlag, London, pp21-62

Sigelman, L 2001, ‘The Presentation of Self in Presidential Life: Onstage and Backstage With Johnson and Nixon’, Political Communication, vol.18, no.1, pp1-22, accessed 22/10/2012, http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/10584600150217631

Whelan, A 2012, SOC250 ‘Presentation of Self’, lecture notes, accessed 14/08/2012, eLearning@UOW.

Wiemann, JM and Knapp, ML 2006, ‘Turn-taking in Conversations’, Journal of Communications, vol.25, no.2, pp75-92, accessed 20/10/2012, http://ey9ff7jb6l.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Turn-taking+in+Conversations&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Communication+%28pre-1986%29&rft.au=John+M+Wiemann&rft.au=Mark+L+Knapp&rft.date=1975-04-01&rft.issn=0021-9916&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=75&rft.externalDBID=1JOC&rft.externalDocID=608404321

You've successfully reached the end of my analysis, now go and enjoy life!