Christie brindley individual data presentation- final report

Soc250 Individual Data Report 1
Student Number- 3862240

SOCIOLOGY REPORT-
BREAK-UPS ARE HARD,
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU’RE
FAMOUS.

Image 1:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/robert-pattinson-takes-comfort-in-breakup-ice-cream-with-
jon-stewart/

By Christie Brindley (3862240)

Page 1 of 9


The 13 August episode of the „Jon Stewart Daily Show‟ saw Jon Stewart conduct an
interview with Robert Pattinson, of „Twilight‟ fame. This particular interview,
specifically from fifty-five seconds to five minutes and fifty-five seconds, is of value
and interest to the study of sociology as it was Pattinson‟s first interview since his very
public break-up with „Twilight‟ co-star, Kristen Stewart. Pattinson makes an appearance
on the show to promote his new film, „Cosmopolis‟ which it made known when a short
excerpt of the film is shown before Pattinson is introduced by Stewart. It is clearly
evident that Stewart and the studio audience just want the details concerning the break-
up and to know how Pattinson is coping. Stewart talks around the issue of the break-up
and does not address it directly, and it subsequently becomes the „elephant in the room‟
and the issue that no-one wants to bring to the surface from the moment Pattinson
comes on set. This single issue becomes the catalyst from which many other issues
arise, including face work, expectations and obligations. This is a micro interaction,
despite being seen internationally and filmed in front of a live studio audience, as
Mouzelis (1992) believes that all interactions are micro, with some interactions just
having more far-reaching consequences, thus informing the macro world and
institutions.

This interview and interaction can be interpreted as an attempt at face work, primarily
concerning the saving of Pattinson‟s face due to his public break-up. In his book, „The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life‟, (1959) Goffman writes about face work and
refers to the notions of being „out-of-face‟, or when you‟re in unfamiliar territory; being
„wrong in face‟, or having something be out of place; suffering from a „loss of face‟, or
when your face is disrupted; and having committed social death, or when you‟re
stripped of all that has been attributed to your regular face after a „loss of face‟.
Goffman's article on „Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaption to Failure'
(1952) examines the complete break-down of one‟s self and ego. He describes the
“cooler” in this situation as possessing “in essence... the job of handling persons who
have been caught out on a limb...persons whose expectations and self-conceptions have
been built up and then shattered.” In this interaction, Stewart has the job of “handling”
Pattinson as he is the one who‟s self and ego has been “shattered” due to his break-up.

Page 2 of 9


Kristen‟s role in this break-up was plastered all over magazine covers and covered in
many tabloid reports (Huffington Post 2012). She was unfaithful to Pattinson and as
such he is suffering from a loss of face before the interview even begins.

Face work is evident from the very beginning of this interview and the awkwardness
highlights this, with Stewart tapping the table and asking uneasily, “so, how are you?”
and “what have you been up to?” This prevents Pattinson from being „out of face‟. This
is due to the public nature of Pattinson‟s break-up with Kristen, as Pattinson‟s face is
already damaged before he walks out on stage. Pattinson is saving his own face by
lightening the mood in saying “I was going to start with a joke, I was all prepared, God,
damn it.” Pattinson simultaneously saves Stewart‟s face with his remarks and by going
along with his initial awkwardness. If he didn‟t, Stewart would lose face as a comic and
interviewer.

Stewart concurrently saves Pattinson‟s and his own face. He saves Pattinson‟s by not
directly addressing the issue of the break-up or mentioning Kristen Stewart and by
making light of the situation. Ice-cream is put on the table not even a minute after
Pattinson sits down, with Stewart saying “let‟s do this”, and the mood is instantly
lightened, some of the tension relieved, and the stereotypical „boy-bashing‟ is
instigated, with Stewart saying “we‟re just a couple of gals talking” and “boy, you are
better off, kick her to the curb. This provides an example of being „wrong in face‟ as
gender stereotypes are broken for a brief minute, but this allows Pattinson to prevent a
„loss of face‟. Stewart gives paternal advice and uses his own personal experiences with
break-ups and the ice-cream as an attempt to bond and save Pattinson‟s face by, once
again, making light of the situation.

Stewart saves his own face by actually addressing the taboo issue, even though only
indirectly. Despite the fact that Pattinson was on the show to promote his new film,
Stewart would be criticised if he didn‟t at least hint at the issue. Stewart makes this clear
when they actually start talking about the film six minutes into the interview and he says
“ahh, bye, I‟m going to make a sandwich”, referring to the fact that the television
audience would have tuned out or switched channels because the thing that everyone

Page 3 of 9


wanted to know about has finished being discussed. The initial awkwardness, again,
highlights this, too, with the pair almost being „out of face‟ and in foreign territory due
to the fumbling by Stewart.

The issue of expectations and obligations is also evident. Expectations are referred to,
by Goffman (1967), as a wanted or unwanted thing and an internalisation of an
obligation. There is the expectation that Stewart, as the host of the show and
interviewer, would, at the very least, hint at the break-up issue and he does this,
primarily, with the ice-cream bonding and at the beginning of the interview. It is
Hollywood, so there is no denying that relationships are what everyone wants to know
about and there‟s no way of getting around that, and Stewart meets this expectation. In
her book, Cashmore (2006) examines why society has a preoccupation with the lives of
famous persons, despite the fact that their lives will never intersect with our own and
whose fame and wealth make no actual difference to our lives. Cashmore goes onto say
that this celebrity obsessed society and the „celebrity culture‟ is an occurrence that is
simultaneously well known in that many individuals are fascinated by celebrities, being
why the audience is so concerned with Pattinson and his break-up, but without actually
understanding why they are fascinated, because this particular break-up does not impact
on them at all, making the reasons behind this phenomenon unknown.

There is also the expectation that Pattinson would not want to discuss the break-up
directly because it‟s a personal issue and he, understandably does not want the world to
critique his personal life. Stewart helps this particular expectation be met by saying that
he hopes and wishes that Pattinson can deal with this issue in peace. This can be
interpreted as a moral obligation on the part of Stewart, as he is doing what is “morally
expected of [him], as distinct from what is strictly required of [him], by members of our
family or people in our community” (Mellema 1998).

Goffman (1967) describes obligations as involving a “constraint to act in a particular
way.” He also goes on to say that obligations may be performed unthinkingly and this
subsequently allows us to see that when an individual performs an obligation that is not
done unthinkingly, meaning that it ought to be done, if it is an obligation they enjoyed

Page 4 of 9


or not enjoyed performing (1967). For Stewart, the obligations come into play with the
break-up topic, as he has an obligation to his audience to ask about it because it‟s what
the audience really wants to know, being part of the celebrity obsessed culture that
Cashmore (2006) describes.

Pattinson, as the interviewee, is under an obligation to answer Stewart‟s questions, even
if just to say “I‟d prefer not to talk about this issue” or “next question, please”. He has
the obligation to provide a comment, no matter how vague because it‟s the social norm
and also, he will consequently lose face if he does not respond. Szpunar et al (2007)
argue that our capacity to behave in a way which predicts future consequences is
'“...perhaps one of the most adaptive capacities of the human mind...”, and goes on to
say that “...much of this capacity relies on the engagement of executive operations such
as anticipation, planning, and monitoring.” Stewart would have prepared questions
based on how he anticipated Pattinson to respond, and vice versa, with Pattinson
preparing answers to the questions he anticipated Stewart to ask.

Symbolic interaction is apparent, specifically where the ice-cream is concerned. Blumer
provides three premises to this theory on symbolic interactionism (Robets 2006), which
state that individuals act towards a thing on the basis of the meanings that are attached
to that thing; that the meaning associated with the thing derives from the interaction that
the individual has with the thing; and these meanings are handled through and
interpretative process used by the individual and the things they encounter. When
Stewart places the two containers of ice-cream on the table Pattinson and the studio
audience laugh as they know exactly why Stewart has brought the ice-cream for this
particular interview and this is because ice-cream and other „junk‟ and „comfort‟ food is
typically associated with situations in which individuals are going through a tough time,
such as a break-up, which is what Emmer‟s et al examines in their book (1996). Using
the ice-cream was another way that Stewart was referring to Pattinson‟s break-up
without mentioning it directly.

Accommodative work is also apparent. In the Heritage article „The Morality of
Cognition‟ this refers to the idea that “actors are viewed as devising courses of actions

Page 5 of 9


on the basis of partially formulated „recipe knowledge‟ (1984). As Stewart and
Pattinson are talking around the issue of the break-up it is vital that all the parties
involved know the meaning behind what Stewart and Pattinson‟s exchange, and this
includes the audience. As Kristen and Pattinson‟s break-up was so public, it is expected
that the audience knows why the pair are bonding over eating ice-cream and talking
about break-ups.

This accommodative work also connects to the notion of the „congruency of the system
of relevance‟. Stewart, Pattinson, and the audience, too, need to all be orientated to
towards the same concern throughout the interview, being Pattinson‟s break-up with
Kristen.

The way Pattinson presents himself during the interview allows for the use of the
documentary method of interpretation, allowing Stewart and the audience to gauge how
he is coping since splitting from Kristen and make assumptions based on his
performance. Goffman describes this method as consisting of “treating an actual
appearance as the document of, as pointing to, as standing on behalf of a presupposed
underlying pattern” (Heritage 1984). This allows Stewart and the audience to
hypothesise theories, make assumptions and draw conclusions about how he is dealing
with the break-up.

Pattinson is performing during this interview, and Goffman (1971) describes the
concept of „idealization‟ which, arguably, is occurring during this interaction. This is
the notion that performers, being Pattinson and Stewart in this case, present themselves
to their observers, the audience, in the way that the observer would like to perceive
them. In this interaction, the audience wants to perceive Pattinson as coping well with
his public break-up, and in turn Pattinson does this by conducting himself in that way.
This is also acknowledged by Stewart when he says, “I have been worried about you,
but you‟re okay.” Goffman (1971) expands on „idealization‟ and suggests that
performer‟s conceal what cannot be attributed to presenting an „idealized‟ version of
themselves. If Pattinson were to cry or make derogatory statements concerning Kristen

Page 6 of 9


during the interview, he would not be presenting an „idealized‟ version of himself. He
would have to do those things in private.

Robert Pattinson‟s interview on „The Jon Stewart Daily Show‟ highlights the fact that
despite the outside factors, being his public break-up, influencing his performance
during the interaction, he still adhered to the social norms of an interview, even if in a
modified way. The obligations and expectations of both Pattinson and Stewart were
met, and met in a way that simultaneously saved both their faces and satisfied the studio
and viewing audience‟s curiosity concerning Pattinson‟s state-of-mind after his break-
up. This particular interaction provides and insight into many aspects of micro
sociology.

Page 7 of 9


REFERENCE LIST:
Vamburkar, M 2012, Robert Pattinson Takes Comfort In Breakup Ice Cream With Jon
Stewart, accessed 10/09/2012 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/robert-pattinson-takes-
comfort-in-breakup-ice-cream-with-jon-stewart/

IMAGE 1: accessed on 10092012
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1241&bih=606&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns
o&tbnid=lkxjgSTSlCREOM:&imgrefurl=http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/2011/06/did_go
ssip_boy_penn_badgley_wi.php&docid=IQ-Lx7P_VM9M-
M&imgurl=http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/reverb/robert_pattinson_sad_breakdown.jpg&w=
452&h=570&ei=-e2MUPD1H47BiQeK_IGIBQ&zoom=1

Roberts, B 2006, Symbolic Interactionsism 2 Developments‟, in Micro Sociology
Theory, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian, pp46-61

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 1984, „The Morality of Cognition‟, in Garfinkel and Ethomethodology,
Polity Press, Cambridge, pp75-102

Mouzelis, N 1992, „The Interaction and Order and the Micro-Macro Distinction,
Sociological Theory, vol.10, no.1, pp122-128

Goffman, E. 1952. 'On Cooling the Mark Out: Some Aspects of Adaption to Failure',
http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--‐--‐Cooling.htm, accessed on 25102012

Szpunar, K.K, Watson, J.M & McDermott, K.B 2007, 'Neural Substrates of Envisioning
the Future', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, vol.104, no.2, pp642-647, accessed on 25102012
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/2/642.full.pdf+html

Cashmore, E 2006, Celebrity Culture, Routledge, accessed 25/10/2012
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=r0zjIYHbz_IC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq
=celebrity+obsessed+culture&ots=t47vpgUHeF&sig=oMnpGTESgykU6EuLHpAjXE7
NusI#v=onepage&q=celebrity%20obsessed%20culture&f=false

Page 8 of 9


Von Glinow, K 2012, „Liberty Ross: Kristen Stewart Admits Affair With Actress'
Husband‟,
The Huffington Post, 25 August, Posted: 07/25/2012 2:21 pm & Updated: 07/25/2012
4:14 pm, accessed 25/10/2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/liberty-ross-
kristen-stewart-rupert-sanders-cheating-robert-pattinson_n_1702980.html

Emmers, T.M & Hart, R.D 1996, „Romantic Relationship Disengagement and Coping
Rituals‟, Communication Research Reports, vol.13, no.1, pp8-18

Mellema, G 1998, „Moral Expectation‟, The Journal of Value Inquiry, vol.32, pp479-
488

Page 9 of 9

Christie brindley individual data presentation- final report

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Empfohlen

Empfohlen (20)

Christie brindley individual data presentation- final report