1 / 22

10-jaehrige Jungen zum Thema: ‘Warum Maedchen “eklig” sind’

10-jaehrige Jungen zum Thema: ‘Warum Maedchen “eklig” sind’. michael bamberg. clark university department of psychology worcester, ma, usa. disgust + yuckification “Ekel + Yuckifizierung”. Maedchen haben “ Cooties ” Als Eigenschaft der Maedchen Als ‘Empfindung’ der Zuschreiber (Jungen)

fiona
Download Presentation

10-jaehrige Jungen zum Thema: ‘Warum Maedchen “eklig” sind’

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. 10-jaehrige Jungen zum Thema: ‘Warum Maedchen “eklig” sind’ michael bamberg clark university department of psychology worcester, ma, usa

  2. disgust + yuckification“Ekel + Yuckifizierung” • Maedchen haben “Cooties” • Als Eigenschaft der Maedchen • Als ‘Empfindung’ der Zuschreiber (Jungen) • Entwicklungsstadium/-stufe auf dem Weg zum Erwachsen-Sein • Diskursaktivitaet von Jungen <Maennern>

  3. Britney Spears:‘pretty’ or ‘disgusting’? • Vic: Brendan Smith loves Britney Spears • B: no not that that’s fine • Mod: I don’t really want to talk about her exclusively but she’s kind of pretty • M: yeah • Vic: uagh <expression of disgust> • W: I have her poster in my bedroom • B: so do I

  4. Was veranlasst Victor zu ‘disgust’ vis-à-vis Britney Spears? Was veranlasst andere zu dem Ausspruch: “I have a poster of her in my bedroom”? …die Frage erhebt sich: …und meine <vorlaeufige> Antwort lautet das es nichts <oder nur wenig> mit BS zu tun hat, sondern eher damit wie die Teilnehmer sich mittels ihrer Maennlichkeit ‘positionieren’

  5. The Project • 5-year-long pilot project of 10-15-year-old males <lower class children> <3rd year> <300h of audio + video of 54 boys in the first year> • Cross-sectional + longitudinal data <10-, 12-, & 15-years of age> • DATA: • Observational • Writing • Interview • Group discussions • After-school non-adult guided interactions • TOPICS: -friends, -girls, -emotions/body, -future

  6. Small Stories Episodes that are low in tellability, co-narrated + situationally embedded Identity Confrontations Interactants confront each other in terms of their ‘identity claims’ Positioning Analysis How speakers position characters in the ‘text’ How interactants position themselves + each other How speakers position themselves vis-à-vis ‘master narratives’ <by which they are positioned> Method of analysis

  7. Three Kinds of Narrative Approaches to the Study of Self and Identity • Life-Story Approaches • Life-Event Approaches • “Small” Stories • Short narrative accounts • Embedded in every-day interactions • Unnoticed as ‘stories’ by the participants • Unnoticed as ‘narratives’ by researchers • But highly relevant for identity formation processes

  8. Life-Stories Dan McAdams (1993) + Gabi Rosenthal (1998) Elicitation Technique Analysis of lives Focus on coherence + health Life-Events Most narrative research Elicitation is focused on particular events or experiences Analysis of focused area Meaning of event in one’s life Life-Stories + Life-Events

  9. Merits of narrative ‘life research’life-history + life-event approaches • Accentuates and brings to light lived experience • Forces participants to focus on the meaning of THAT event in their lives • Accentuates the continuity of experience • And sheds light on aspects that appear discontinuous • Assumes a unified sense of personal identity -- against which ‘experience’ is constantly sorted out

  10. potential shortcomingsor open questions • How does this ‘unified sense of self’ come to existence? • How does the person ‘learn’ to “sort out” events against what is called ‘life’? • Overemphasis of stories about the ‘self’ • Cutting out all those stories about others • Overemphasis of ‘long’ stories • Cutting out everyday, “small” stories

  11. why? • Influences of ‘traditional’ psychological inquiry • Interests in selves + self-coherence • Influences of traditional narratology • Work with texts (written texts) • Assuming authors as behind the texts • Assuming criteria of goodness for narratives • Interviews as windows into selves

  12. Narrative Dimensions(Ochs & Capps, 2001) • Tellership • one active teller vs. many • Tellability • high vs. low • Embeddedness • detached from surrounding talk vs. situational embeddedness • Moral stance • one moral message vs. different + conflicting messages • Linearity & Temporality • closed temporal + causal order vs. open + spatial

  13. Characteristics of “SMALL” stories • Short • Conversationally Embedded + Negotiated • before • during • after • Fine tuned positioning strategies • fine-tuned vis-à-vis the audience • fine-tuned vis-à-vis dominant + counter narratives • multiple moral stances (testing out and experimenting with identity projections) • Low in tellability, linearity, temporality + causality

  14. Stories about others:the Davie Hogan story Positioning with Davie Hogan. Stories, Tellings & Identities. Chapter in: C. Daiute & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Narrative analysis: Studying the development of individuals in society.  London: Sage. (2003)

  15. Short Video Clip:“You always hung around that fruit-punch girl” The Rhetorics of ‘Yakkification’ • Interactional encounter between four 10-year-olds (+ adult male moderator) • Theme: ‘liking a girl’ - ‘attraction’ • Topics: Katherine, Valerie, Melanie + Briana • Identity Positions: • Victor: masculinity project of ‘disinterest’ • Bart: masculinity project of navigating between ‘interest’ and ‘disinterest’ <competing discourses> • the fine-tuning of displaying BOTH interest AND disinterest • Dilemmas of normative heterosexuality + what counts as “mature”

  16. Vic: Bart used to like KSBart: there are two more that I liked Vic: KS as unlikable - except by Bart Bart: I kind of liked her Vic: <mocking> Bart: there are two more “people” I like, Stephanie and Shannon

  17. Characterizations of Kimberly + Shannon (and to a lesser degree of Britney + Stephanie): Kimberly: VIC: fruit punch lipps BART: no chapped lipps VIC: all over her mouth BART: no - just here Britney + Stephanie Shannon: VIC eeuw + ugly, I hate her BART: annoying VIC: she’s a tettletale

  18. as a way of concluding… • Descriptions and evaluations of girls as situated and grounded in local practices of SEEKING and AVOIDING trouble in ‘attraction talk’ • Two different ‘maturity Projects’: • displaying ‘disinterest’ • by describing potential partners as unattractive <‘yakkification> • by positioning others as ‘interested’ • displaying ‘interest’ <though not too much>

  19. as a way of concluding… <cont.> • Displaying interest <though not too much> • admitting to interest • rules out the ‘offensive’ positioning of others as ‘interested’ • rules out display of overt disgust • walking a fine line <fine-tuning> between interest and non-interest display features <continuous down- & up-grading in the description and evaluation of others> • making yourself ‘vulnerable’ and learning to negotiate ‘vulnerability’ • Getting caught up in dilemmas of normative heterosexuality and what counts as ‘mature’

  20. “Bart never had a girlfriend”Participants: M – Moderator; V – Vic; W – Wally; B – Bart; P – Paul 01 M: is it important what girls look like (1.0) 02 B: yeah 03 M: yeah (.) like //what °like what° 04: W: //I don’t know 05 B: cute 06 M: cute 07 W: it depends 08 M: yeah 09 V: Like Bart used to say he had a girlfriend but he never did 10 B: yeah I did 11 V: which one which one 12 B: Karen 13 V: ((shaking his head)) I remember that one Leah and uhm// 14 B: //Rachelle 15 V: no Leah and Ashley saw you at the movies 16 B: oh yeah (1 sec) and then I saw Leah at the last lot where we met 17 B: okay (1 sec) now is she following my back or something 18 M: I think so coz that was funny (1 sec) that’s just hilarious

  21. Practice in doing identity work Continuous editing of experience Retelling of experience Re-tuning these tellings according to different audiences Different master-narratives different (developing) senses of ‘who-I-am’ Resulting in some sense of coherence though one that is constantly reworked So, rather than assuming the existence of identity + sense of self – and viewing narratives as reflections thereof, I am suggesting to study the emergence of a sense of self by way of exploring the SMALL stories people tell in their EVERYDAY interactions Kurz-Geschichten

More Related