When lives meet live: categorization work in a reality TV show and “experience work”
in two home audiences
PIRKKO RAUDASKOSKI
Abstract
This paper explores the cultural and political implications of some “seen but unnoticed” aspects of a TV program and its viewing. Both practices are ap-proached as social interaction in a changing visual space. A close multimodal analysis is undertaken of an extract from a live Danish reality TV show Robin-sonEkspeditionen2000 and its two receptions. The extract was selected on the basis of what at first looked like a coinciding interpretative practice in two widely different audiences, first, an elderly couple in their living room, and second, four young men watching the same episode together. In the extract, the host interviews “judges” in the last episode of that year’s series. The analysis shows how the host’s talk, geared toward eliciting audience reactions, pro-duces certain contrastive categorizations and positions. In both audiences, the host’s categorization of a participant was met with an amused repetition of what was just seen and heard. The paper demonstrates why the two similar repeats actually show differing orientations to the formulation on the basis of different (life) experiences. The analysis of the extracts is used to discuss, with a combination of process-oriented theorization, the episodes in relation to the political atmosphere in Denmark anno 2000.
place, visuality).Thepresent paper contributes to the recent humanistic re-search that regards understanding and researchinghuman situated action asessentialforcontemplatingissuessuchasidentity,politics,andculture.Theembodiedaspectsofhumansensemakingareimportantalsoforiden-
Recently,practicetheoretical(Reckwitz2002)approacheshavebeengainingpopularityandcouldbeseenasaholisticanswertotheworriesaboutthedivi-sionof thequalitativestudiesfieldmentionedearlier,as theycanprovideabackgroundforunderstandingdiscourseasconstitutive,multimodal interac-tion.Chaney(2002)highlightsthatphenomenologicalinsightsintoindividualformsofexperienceoftextuallymediateddiscoursearevaluable.Theproces-sualaspectofworldmakingisalsocapturedintheperformativeturninculturalstudies (seeBell’s2007discussionof recentchallengesanddevelopments).Thepresentpaperwithitscloseanalysisofsituatedactionshopestocontributetothesemusingswithempiricalmethodology.Media viewing is regarded as a situated activity inwhich interpretations
semioticmediainquestionbecomespartofthemoment-by-momentinterac-tionor interpretation.There isabodyofconversationanalyticalandethno-methodologicalstudiesthathavehadasimilarinterestinvision-in-interaction,as expressed in: “the focus of analysis is not thus representations or visionper se,butinsteadthepartplayedbyvisualphenomenaintheproductionofmeaningfulaction”(Goodwin2000b:157,seealsoGoodwin1994).
work. It is noteworthy that remembering can be a very subtle act and notalwaysaverbalizedaccount (cf.Raudaskoski2010). InTVviewingof livebroadcasts,theviewersashistoricalbodies(ScollonandScollon2004)andtheBakhtinianchronotopeoftheongoingTVbroadcastmeet;thelives oftheaudi-encemembersmeetthelive program.Theunfoldingofeventsonthescreencanbeorientedtointermsoflaughter,incipienttalk,etc.;socialinteraction,narrative,materiality,place,andvisualitycanallbecomeafocus,eveniffleet-ingly,inaviewingsituation.FollowingGoodwin(2000a),wecouldtalkaboutcooperative accomplishment of action in which various semiotic fields areactivatedbytheparticipants,thatis,theyvisiblyandhearablypayattentiontosomethingintheirenvironment;theyadjustthisworktotheotherparticipants’actions;andtheysometimesactivelyguidetheotherparticipants’attentiontoacertainfeatureintheenvironment.TheGoodwinshavealsoanalyzedhowpeople in conversation evaluate events, objects, or people (Goodwin andGoodwin1987).Whenpeopledothat,theyshowtheirunderstandingofwhatisgoingon.AccordingtoBakhtin,allsense-makingactivitieshaveanevalua-tiveaspect, asTovares (2006:470) remindsus:“Inanumberofhisworks,Bakhtin(e.g.,1975,2000)arguesthatevaluationisanintegralpartofunder-standing and that ‘understanding that is devoidof evaluation is impossible’(1975:346,mytranslation).”Intheanalysis,thedoingsandsayingswithre-gardtothetwoaudienceswillbealsoexploredasevaluations.In2003,RonScollonandSuzieScollondevelopedthe“discoursesinplace”
signs function inpublicplaces.There, attention, aswell as theGoffmaniancivilinattention,arealsoofinterest:howdopeopleforegroundorbackgroundcertainpotentiallymeaningfulelements(semiotic aggregates)inapublicplace?Thusbothcontextualconfigurationandgeosemioticshavetheindexicalityof(alsomultimodal)meaningmakingandactingintheworldasthefocus.Mem-bershipcategorizationanalysiswithinethnomethodologytowhichInextturnalsocoverstheothertypeofindexicalitythatgeosemioticsdescribes:indexingalargerdiscourse.
4. Membershipcategorizationanalysis
Togiveashort introduction to theconceptsandbasic ideasofmembershipcategorizationanalysis(MCA)IrefertoSilverman’s(1998)accountofSacks’s(1992)ideas.InMCA,thegeneralinterestisinthe“categoriesthatmembersofsocietyuseintheirdescriptions”(Silverman1998:77).HarveySackswantedtofindouthowexactlythismembershipcategorizationapparatusworked.Forthe present paper, going through thewhole technical apparatus (cf. Jayyusi1984) is notwarranted.Therefore, only themost relevant aspects of it areintroduced,followingSilverman’s(1998)introductiontomembershipcatego-rizationanalysisand, further,EglinandHester’s review(1992)ofJayyusi’sbook.Also,asmentionedearlier,Stokoe(2009)providesagoodaccountofhow membership categorization analysis and conversation analysis can befruitfully combined to find out how different categorizations are dependentontheimmediateinteractionalenvironment.Inthepresentpaper,themethod-ological interest lies also in howmembership categorization and embodiedinteraction relate to each other inTVprograms and their viewing.What isimportantincontextualconfigurationandgeosemioticsistheemphasisonthematerialfeaturesoftheenvironmentandhowtheplaceanditsobjectshavebothmaterialandmeaningfulaffordances(andlimits)thatareessentialfortheongoingaction.Anyindividualcanbedescribedwithasetofdifferingcategories,result-
ingindifferentidentityconstructions:forexample,(i)agray-hairedfather;(ii)apensioner.Inthesetwoexamples,thecollections(membershipcategoriza-tiondevices,MCDs)thataremaderelevantaredifferent,too(father — family;pensioner — end-of-occupation). Sometimes pairings of categories (for in-stance, father — child) form standardized relational pairs (SRPs) that implycertainstandardizedrightsandobligations(Silverman1998:82).Asituationthat a person is in also implies MCD features: for instance, an elector inthe Robinson Ekspeditionen 2000 episode under scrutiny here has certaincategory-boundrightsandobligations;sheisobligednottojustcasthervotebuttotelltheinterviewersortheaudienceaboutherlifeandemotionsassome-onewhohasbeeninvolvedinthecompetitionbefore.
When lives meet live 623
EglinandHester(1992:252)describehowcategorialincumbencyispub-liclyavailable“(i)toperception — naturallyforgenderandagebracket,emble-matically for occupations such as the police, army, or priesthood identifiedwithandbyuniforms,andscenicallyforothercases;(ii) throughbehaviour(talkandaction);(iii) throughfirst-personavowal;(iv) throughthird-persondeclaration;and(v)throughcredentialpresentation.”Theanalysisbelowwill showhowthese formsofcategorial incumbency
The embodied nature of interaction inmaterial surroundings is the startingpointto(i)analyzetheinteractioninaTVprogramand(ii)toanalyzehowthis“text”wasactuallyreceivedbydifferentaudiences,andhowinthatreceptionpeoplemadecommentsabouttheprogram.Thus,theanalysisnavigates — withthe ethnomethodologically oriented conversation analysis as the main ana-lyticalapproach — acentralsiteofengagement(ScollonandScollon2004)inthefreetimeofmanyfamiliesinDenmarkintheyear2000,namelywatchingthehighlypopularRobinson Ekspeditionen.The data discussed in this paper come from the program itself and two
differentpartsofDenmarkwereconnectedtothestudiothroughavideolink.Eachpairhadonevoteinthefinalvoteforthewinnerofthe2000program.Instead of being identified immediately, the only thing thatwas said abouttheseparticipantsbeforetheywereintroducedandinterviewedbrieflywasthattheywerecontestantsfromthepreviousyears’episodesandthat therewerethreevotingplaceswithregionalchairpersonsandtheirhelpersorassistants.ThusallofthemwerefamiliarfacestotheregularRobinsonviewers.Thegen-eraldistributionoftheintervieweeswasthefollowing:(i)whitewoman,whiteman;(ii)non-whiteman,whiteman;(iii)whiteman,whitewoman.Inotherwords,thepairscouldbeseenasasetofcontrastsandcategories.Theseremote
them — theslotisan“introduction”or“description”place.ThefirstpersoninapairwasalwaysintroducedthroughavideomontagefromtheirpastRobin-sonparticipation,whichmeantthatafterthevideowasshowntheywerenotintroducedanymore,butgreetednormallywiththeirfirstnameonly.Afteracoupleofquestions,inthefirstandlastinterviewthehelperswereintroducedwiththehabitualformula<firstname,lastname>.
linkbetween thehost and the interviewees.Sometimes there are twovideoframesonthescreenatthesametimewiththehost’spicturetotheright(about1/12thinsizeoftheguests’videopicture).Abovethehost’ssmallpictureitispossibletoseethelogooftheTVchannelandbelowittheoutlinesofFynogØerneislands.Attheverybottomofthis“multimodal”screenisindicated — withwhiteblocklettersonaredbanner — wheretheparticipantsarefrom:FynandØerne(seeFigure1).
Figure1. Screens hot from RobinsonEkspeditionen2000 ( TV3)
When lives meet live 625
InExtract(1)thetwoelectors,MartinandOle,areintroducedandwelcomedtotheprogram.Boththehostandthetwoguestslookatthecamerawhentheyaretalking.Sothegazetothecamerainthiscasedoesnotindicatesomuchparasocialinteraction,thatis,theparticipationframeworkoftalking to you at home,but — asthehostandtheguestswerecommunicatingthroughavideolink — talking to you in the other studio.Seetheappendixforthetranscriptionconventions.
thevideoservesasanintroductiontotheperson,thehostjustgreetsMartinand reminds viewers ofMartin’s exactwhereabouts, Odense (the region isvisibleassoonasthetwoframesareshownatthesametime).WhenMartin’snameismentioned,thescreenchangestoshowtwopictures:ontheleftMartininamediumshotandtotherightasmallpictureofthehost(about1/12thofMartin’s picture).Martin looks into the camera and returns the greeting byfirst-name basis — he knew the host from his participation in the program.AfterthisshortexchangeofgreetingsthehostwarnsMartinthatheshouldpayattentiontowhatthehostisgoingtosay(now listen,line6).ThehostlooksdownathisnotessoonafterhestartshisfirststatementaboutMartin’spastsuccessinRobinson.Martinsmilesabitwhenthehostfinisheshisalmost there(line6).Theactualquestionisprecededbyahesitationmark(uh:)andalittlepause,andafterhisquestionthehostimmediatelyturnstohispapers.Martinstartshisanswerbyalittlehesitation,pause,andarestart(It uh:(.)it is not,lines11and12).Whennotisuttered,thereisaswitchtoamediumshotofMartin.Afterthisthehostasksanotherquestionandalmostimmediatelywhenthehoststartstalking,theTVscreenshowshiminaclose-upshot.Whenthehostcomestotheendofthequestion( yet,line20),hisgazegoesdowntohisnotesagain.WithMartin’sanswer, the screen showsagain the speaker inamediumshot.AttheendofMartin’sturn(line28wherethereisabitofanoverlap),thehoststartstalking(line29)immediatelyafterMartincomestoatransition relevanceplace inhis talk, soMartin — after anoverlapping littleinhaleandastartofabutclause(line28) — dropshis turn. Inhisnext turn(startinginline29)thesmilinghostisdescribingthatthereisahelpernexttoMartinandheseemstobecheckinghisnotesaboutwhoitis:a genuine really genuine islander from Fanø, namely old Ole.Genuineisreplaced(witharapidpronunciation)byborn-and-bredorreally genuineandwhilethiscategoriza-tionisdonethetwo-pictureconstellationisbackonthescreen,andthebiggerpictureontheleftiszoomingouttoshowOlewhositsnexttoMartin.BeforethehostdescribesOle’ssuccessinapastRobinson Ekspeditionenandgoesontoaskthequestion,heagainlooksathisnotes.Thehoststartsdescribing thesecondperson tobe interviewedbefore the
usescertaindescriptivecategories(helper,a genuine really genuine islander from Fanø,old Ole)whenhetellstheviewerssomethingtheydidnotknowbutthatatthesametimebecomesvisibletothem(lines29– 40).Thehostformu-latesanewarrivaltotheinterviewandhealsoformulateslimitedaccesstotheintervieweewhenheisdescribedwithoutanidentifyingnameorpicture(and
628 Pirkko Raudaskoski
you have a helper at your side,lines29–31);thenewguestonlyappearstothehostandtotheviewerswhiletheintroductionisgoingon(line34).Thisstrat-egycreatesanexpectationofexcitement:whoisitgoingtobe?Theintroduc-tionprogressesthusfrominexplicit(a helper, a genuine (.) >really genuine< islander from Fanø)toexplicitwhenaperson’snameandhisvisiblefacemakehimpresent.This banter differs inmanyways from theother interviews as far as the
host’spracticesofcategorizationareconcerned.Oleistheonlyhelperwhoisnotintroducedwitha<firstname,lastname>formulation,butwithfirstnameonly.ThiscouldbebecauseOleisamongthemorefamousRobinsonpartici-pantsand,therefore,heismorefamiliartoviewers.Mentioninghisstatusasa genuine really genuine islander from Fanøisalsosomethingextrainrelationtohowtheotherhelperswereintroduced.Itwasonlythegenderoftheveryfirst elector (i.e.,notahelper) thatwasmade relevant through thecategorydescriptioninelector or rather electress.Thehost’sconstructionofOleas the old Ole isavery interestingoneas
such,becauseitevokesasetofcontrasts:themannexttoOle,Martin,isvisi-blyyoung.Callingsomebodyold,especiallywhenthereisayoungerpersonstandingnexttohim,isabitrude,butthehostisalsomakinguseofambiguity.Thedescriptionisfunny,asthereisacheeseinDenmarkcalledOld Ole;theformulationisalsousedintheDanishbingohallsasthenicknameforthenum-ber90.So,old Oleisanidentityconstruction(whereasOlewouldsimplybereferring to the individual in question, though in more intimate turns than<firstname lastname>),and thecombinationold Ole impliesvariouscollec-tions(membershipcategorizationdevices).Thewordyintroduction(withastringofadjectivesormodifiers)toOlethat
hintsabouttheaddednormalityofOleincomparisontoMartin.So,thecate-gorydescriptionold OledoesnotconcernjustOle( butalsoMartin),anditisnotjustanexplicitidentificationofthisman,butalsoageneralcategoryofaDane.All inall, thewayOle is introducedcouldbecalledan assessable name
(Goodwin2003)appearinginanassessmentsequencewhichconsistsofrecog-nizinganassessableandproducingan (co)assessment (agreeing/disagreeingwiththefirstspeaker).Astheprimaryrecipientsofthistalk,thatis,theviewers,arenotco-present,andasthespeakerhastobeunderstandablebyanyviewer,heisperformingafor anyone as someonestructure(Scannell2000).Thewaythehoststartshisturn(and you have a helper at your side Martin)
constructsMartinastherecipientofhisturnbetweenthestudioandthevideo-mediated sitewhere these electors are sitting.The turn ismeant to silenceMartin,sohecannotsayanything:heturnstoOlewithatiny,polite,smileonhislips.Oledoesnotsmileatallduringtheintroduction.Bothofthemreclinetoproduceastrongcollaborativeassessment(forexample,laughing,shaking,ornoddinghead)nonverbally.Adetailedanalysisof theprogramclipcould thushelppinpointhow the
participantsarecategorizeddifferentlyinaTVinterview.FollowingBakhtin,itcanbeclaimedthatthecategoriesunavoidablydoevaluativework.NextIturntoanalyzecloselytwosimilarlookingresponsesinthetwototallydifferentaudiences toonespecificcategorization/evaluation.Were they thesameandwhatkindofexperiencesdidthespecificcategorizationprompt?
duced. The elderly couple, for instance, recognized the persons introducedthroughavideoclip(but that is Regina).Theyoungmenweremoreanticipa-tory.Theytriedtoguesswhotheelectorsfromeachpartofthecountrywouldbeevenbeforethefirstoneofthemwasintroducedthroughavideo.
7.1. The elderly couple
Figure2showsthegenerallayoutoftheroom.
630 Pirkko Raudaskoski
Figure3showsapictureofAandB.
Figure2. The seating and other arrangements in the couple’s living room
Figure3. The couple watching RobinsonEkspeditionen2000
Figure5. Two young men watching RobinsonEkspeditionen2000 in their friend’s room
634 Pirkko Raudaskoski
ThisshortextractshowshowmuchmoreactivetheyoungaudiencewasattheTV.Outof thefouryoungsters,Dreacts to thehost’soverlapping talkwithMartin.Hesaysah,andturnstothetwoboyssittingonthesofa(lines8and9).WhenheturnshisgazebacktotheTV,heshowshowheinterpretedthehost’stalkasaninterruption.HeputswordsinMartin’smouth,sayingbut now I’ve been interrupted(line11).ThroughthisimaginaryquotationDalsogivesaninterpretationofhowMartinmightinterpretthehost’sbehavior,howMartinmightseehissituatedrelationshipwiththehost.WhenOleappearsinthepic-ture,Dimmediatelyrecognizeshim(line17),andsodoesF(line20).EalsostronglyreactstoOle’sface,smiling(lines18and19).Whenthehostsaysold Oleinhisintroduction,Dturnsagaintothetwoboysonthesofa,andsays,smiling,old Ole.ThenDturnsbacktotheTV.Sobothinthehomeoftheelderlycoupleandinthisroomwithfourfriends,
theTVhost’sold Olewasrepeatedinthesamesequentialaction.ApparentlyreceptionstudiesdonotassumethatTVprogramswouldcreatesimilarreac-tions.Lewismentionsthat“thetelevisualmessageissoextravagantlycodedthatitisamazinganytwopeopleshouldrespondtoitinthesameway.Thatpeopledo is a testimony toour tightlycontrolledculturalhorizons” (Lewis1994:25–26).So,whatweseemtohavecapturedwiththesamerepetitionintwototallydifferentaudiences(line14in[2],“Thecouple”andline23in[3],“Theyoungones”) isadeviantcase forLewis.Tobeable toexploremoreaboutthesetwoaudiencereactions,letuslookfirstatrepeatsasaphenomenon.
7.3. Repeats
OneofBakhtin’spointswasthatwerecyclewords,andthusmeanings,butwealwayscanaddourowntakeoraccentuationtothewordsused(cf.Linell’sdiscussion[2009:83]).Intheabovetwocases,theprogramwassuccessfulineliciting a reaction in the audiences — they showed their involvement.Thisalsomeansthattheviewersshowtheirabilitytounderstandthegist,theyhavenoticedtheformulation.Thereally genuine islanderwasnotacategorizationthatwouldelicitareaction,butold Olegottheaudiencetalking.Therewas,though,identifyingtalkamongtheboysjustbeforetheyrecognizedOle’sface.Thesefirstreactions(°Ole°,AH!,ah Ole)alsoconfirmthatthemanwasnotunequivocallycalledold Ole.So,theTVviewer’smaxim(HesterandFrancis2003:41)inthiscontext(OlestandingnexttoMartininthefinalepisodeofRobinson Ekspeditionen)wastoseeafamiliarface,knownbythefirstname.Thatthecategorizationcanberegardedasanassessmentisalsoduetothefactthatthehost’stalkwasreactedto,itwas“nottreatedsimplyasadescription”(GoodwinandGoodwin1987:11).Whenwelookatthetworepetitionsmoreclosely,wecanseethatdifferent
is onedifferencebetween these two remarks.D’swords aredirected tohisfriendwithaheadturn(Excerpt[3],lines23and24),whereasAkeepslookingattheTVwhensheuttersthewords(Excerpt[2],lines14and15).Thereasonforthisseemstobethatintheroomwiththeyoungmen,Olewasrecognizedbeforethehostmentionedhisname(Excerpt[3],lines17–20):3Tounderstandwhattheutterance(old Ole)isdoinginthatposition,wehavetolookattheprecedinginteraction,aswell.4Therefore,D’sturnisnotanidentifyingone,butratheroneofaddressingthehost’schoiceofwording.Itcouldbeseenasanaffectdisplaythatfollowsanassessment(GoodwinandGoodwin1987).Haddington(2006)discussesthreetypesofgazedirectionandlinguisticrecy-clinginassessmentsequences.Hefoundoutthatmutualgazeoccursduringanagreementsequence.Infact,whatwecouldseeDdoinghereislookingforanagreementforhisassessment.InExtract(2),old Oleoccursaspartofidentifyingorrememberinghowthe
manwas(sometimes)calledandfittingthatactionwiththehost’stalk.WhathappensthereissimilartowhatKangasharju(2002)describesconcerninghowrepeatsareusedtobuildanddisplayalliancesinmeetings.Itlookslikealign-menttothehost’sdescriptionishappeningalsoinExtract(2),yeahattheendoftheturn(line14)makingitexplicitthatAdoesnotonlyrepeatwhatthehostsays,butalsoagreeswithhisformulation.So, on the surface the two audience reactions are similar and could be
takenasproofforLewis’sassumptionoftightlycontrolledculturalhorizonsmentioned above:Though rare, there can be similar interpretations, in thiscasefromtwototallydifferentaudiencemembers(ageandgender).But,aswas shown by the analysis, similar phrases do not always mean the samein different contexts, as thework that the two repeats old Ole were doingwas different. In the first extractA’s repetition serves as a way to do re-membering, and in the second extract D’s repetition of the host’s phrasecommentsonhisdescription.Thus,AsituatedlyconstructsOleasaknownface, a member of the Robinson crowd. In Bakhtinian terms, both of theaudiencememberswere borrowing (very recently heard) voices and at thesame time constituting the consequentiality of the talking head’s choice ofwords.Thetworepetitionscouldalsobecalledperformative citations(Butler1993),oneofwhich(thatofD)showedmoreresistance,orat leasta trans-formation.Andwhen the elderly lady sympathetically agrees with the for-mulationold Ole,notonlydoessheagreewiththecategorizationofthemanas old but — as an elderly person herself — does not regard it as funny.Wecouldsaythatbothofthempickedfromold Olemeaningsandallusionsthatwere not confirmed by the host (cf. Schegloff 1996) but by the co-presentothers.Inmembershipcategorizationterms,thehostconstructedOleassomething
Inexaminingpeopleatmediainhomes,notonlydowegetaglimpseintotheeverydaylifeofpeople,butalsohowpopularcultureandvaluesareaccom-plished in theviewers’actionsandpractices.Todo this,wehave tohaveatheoreticalunderstandingofwhatitmeanstoactintheworldandsophisticatedanalyticaltoolstofindouthowthissense-makingactivitycouldbeanalyzedfromauthenticdata.Acloserlookatthesefleetingphenomenashowed,amongotherthings,that
theviewershadunderstoodagistintheprogram:thehost’sformulationwassuccessful in getting attention from the audience. The data analysis aboveshowed that almost identical utterances in similar position did not actuallyfunction similarly. It is an exampleof howactors recognize events in theirphenomenalworldsuchthatthepubliclyavailableinterpretationisproperandculturallymeaningful (cf.Goodwin2003). In the two locations inAalborg,Denmark,thatevening,theelderlywomanseemedtohaveanunderstanding,recognizing reaction toold Ole,whereas in theyoungmen’sgathering, thecategorization caused, if not outright sneering, at least a mild amusement.Whetherthedescriptionwasoriginallythehost’sornot,hisassessmentcanbeseenasaresultofhisexperienceofandwithOle,itshowsan“affectiveinvolvement inthereferentbeingassessed”(GoodwinandGoodwin1987:9;boldinoriginal).Thesekindsofpublicstructuresthen“provideresourcesfortheinteractiveorganizationofco-experience”(1987:9;italicsinoriginal),asindeedhappenedinthetwoaudiences.Also,theanalysisshowshowthecom-munityofRobinsonviewersconsistsofdifferent“situatedpracticesandsitu-atedidentities”(Rawls2006:28).In thepracticeofwatchingRobinson, theagedseemedtobeorientingtothepast,usingtheseenandtheheardtorecog-nizeandtoreminisce,whereastheyoungstersconcentratedontheongoingorimmediatenext in theprogramflow.Herewemighthaveaccessedhowtheprogram’sattemptatanextraordinary, rather thancommon-sense, relationalconfiguration(cf.HesterandFrancis2003)throughtalkandthetechnologyoftheTVmedia(zoomingouttoshowOle)wasactuallyinterpretedaspartoftheparticipants’mundanevisualorder.Theywerewatchingtheprogramaspartoftheirlifeexperiences:repeatingthewordsofthehostofapopularrealityTVshowwas doing differentwork because the social activity ofwatching theshowwasnot“thesame”inthosecontextualorrelationalconfigurations.
When lives meet live 637
Asmentionedintheintroduction,theGoffmanianheritagehasbeenfurtherdevelopedby,amongothers,theanalysisofcontextualconfigurationandalsonexusanalysis.Wecouldsuggestthatthecivicinattentionthatiseasilyobserv-ableinpublicplacesmightalsohavebeenvisibleinthebroadcast.WhenOlewasintroducedwithemphatic,culturallyutterlyDanishassessables,theatten-tionwasnaturallygearedtowardhim,andsuccessfullyso.Onecouldclaimthat — atthesametime — civicinattentionwaspaidtothefactthatMartinsit-tingnexttoOlewasdifferentfromhim.Martin’sskincolorwasnotanunim-portantsignifierin2000Denmark(Madsen2000),butindexedapossibilityofnotjustracialbutethnicorsocietaldifference.Itcould(likeobjectsandmate-rials) “reverberate within webs of signifiers” beyond the situation at hand(HurdleyandDicks2011:278).Andthoughtherepetitionsatthetwohomeswere showingmedia literacy, thequestion remainswhether the emphasizedDanishnesswasanissueforthematall,orweretheyjustrepeatingthesigni-fier,notthesignifiedofadiscourse(age/ethnicity)?Inanycase,wemighthavebeenwitnessestoasiteofengagementinwhichsomethingwasbeinglearnedthroughattendingtoanimportantcultural signpost(cf.Rawls2006:36)whichtheprogramwas.Thatis,howtotalkabout(andthereforehowtosee)acertainpubliclyknownindividual,andinthatprocesstobedisciplinedto notseethepersonnexttohim:“Ratherthantheproductionofjudgments,itistheshaping ofincidentsandtheirparticipantsthatconstituteethics”(Bell2007:119;italicsinoriginal)(cf.Burke’sterministic seeing asdiscussedinSarangi2007).Linelldiscussesperceptionasalwayssituated,usingRommetveit’sexample
Hopefullythepresentpaperwithitscloseempiricalanalysishasbeenabletocontributetothegrowingmethodologicalinterestonhowareal-lifeeventcanbe linked to the cultural-historical spacetime (Agha 2007). It has been anattempttodigintothepossibleformationofattitudestowardothersoutsideoftherealmofpolitical(media)discussions.HousleyandFitzgerald(2009)dem-onstratehowpersonalizedpoliticsprovidesapowerfulmoralordering.Inthepresentpaper,theoppositemovementhasbeenunderscrutinythroughsinglecaseanalysis:thesubtletyofcategorizationworkinanentertainingprogramcould enhance the general trends in themedia and political discussion andatmosphere.Theanalysishastriedtocapturehowcompleteutterances,unlikeincompleteones(Gotsbachner2009),canbesuggestivebecauseof theirse-quential placement on a visually “moving stage.”Burnett (2005: 64) in his
638 Pirkko Raudaskoski
bookondigitalimagesstatesthat“whatislessclearisthemannerinwhichviewersrelatetowhattheysee.Thefullforceofpersonalandpublichistorycomestobearontheprocessofvisualization.”ThepresentpaperoffersawayofempiricallyanalyzingBurnett’sconcernsanddoesthatinthe“unashamedlyprovisional”(ButlerandFitzgerald2010:2465)mannerthatcategoriescanbestudiedinandthroughthetacitfeaturesofinteraction.Theanalyst,throughherviewer’s maxim, has aimed at understanding, to paraphrase Bovet (2009),whatmakesarealityTVshowpoliticalratherthanjust entertaining.
Appendix:transcriptionconventions
All thedataexampleshavebeen translated fromDanishby theauthor.ThethumbnailsfromtheTVareplacedwithregardtowhatisgoingoninthetran-scriptandsignaledwith“{ }”tomarkacuttoanewviewpoint.Therestofthetranscriptionconventionsareasfollows:
Burnett,Ron.2005.How images think. Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Butler,Carly&RichardFitzgerald.2010.Membership-in-action:Operativeidentitiesinafamilymeal.Journal of Pragmatics 42(9).2462–2474.
Butler,Judith.1993.Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”.London:Routledge.Chaney,David.2002.Cultural change and everyday life.Basingstoke:Palgrave.Edwards,Derek&JonathanPotter.1992. Discursive psychology.London:Sage.Eglin,Peter&StephenHester.1992.Category,predicateandtask:Thepragmaticsofpracticalaction.Semiotica88(3/4).243–268.
Fitzgerald,Richard&WilliamHousley (eds.). 2009.Media, policy and interaction. Farnham:Ashgate.
Goffman,Erving.1972.Encounters. Harmondsworth:Penguin.Goodwin,Charles.1994.Professionalvision.American Anthropologist 96.606 – 633.Goodwin,Charles.2000a.Actionandembodimentwithinsituatedhumaninteraction.Journal of
Pragmatics32.1489–1522.Goodwin,Charles.2000b.Practicesofseeing,visualanalysis:Anethnomethodologicalapproach.InTheovanLeeuwen&CareyJewitt(eds.), Handbook of visual analysis,157–182.London:Sage.
Goodwin,Charles.2003.Recognizingassessablenames.InPhilipJ.Glenn,CurtisD.LeBaron&JenniferMandelbaum(eds.),Excavating the taken-for-granted: Essays in social interaction. A Festschrift in honor of Robert Hopper,151–161.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Goodwin,Charles&MarjorieH.Goodwin.1987.Concurrentoperationson talk:Noteson theinteractiveorganizationofassessments.IPrA Papers on Pragmatics 1(1).1–54.
Gotsbachner,Emo.2009.Assertinginterpretiveframesofpoliticalevents:Paneldiscussionsontelevisionnews.InRichardFitzgerald&WilliamHousley(eds.),Media, policy and interaction,49–71.Farnham:Ashgate.
Housley,William&RichardFitzgerald.2009.Membershipcategorywork inpolicydebate. InRichardFitzgerald&WilliamHousley(eds.),Media, policy and interaction,13–25.Farnham:Ashgate.
Hurdley,Rachel&BellaDicks.2011.In-betweenpractice:Workinginthe“thirdspace”ofsensoryandmultimodalmethodology.Qualitative Research 11(3).277–292.
Jayyusi,Lena.1984.Categorization and the moral order.Boston:Routledge&KeganPaul.Kangasharju,Helena.2002.Alignmentindisagreement:Formingoppositionalalliancesincom-mitteemeetings.Journal of Pragmatics34.1447–1471.
Kress,Gunther&Theo vanLeeuwen. 1996.Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London:Routledge.
Kress,Gunther&TheovanLeeuwen.2001.Multimodal discourse.London:EdwardArnold.Lewis,Justin.1994.Themeaningofthings:Audiences,ambiguityandpower.InJonCruz&JustinLewis (eds.),Viewing, reading, listening. Audiences and cultural reception. 19–32.Boulder:WestviewPress.
Linell,Per.2009.Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte:InformationAge.
Madsen,JacobG.2000.Mediernes konstruktion af flytninge- og indvandrerspøgsmålet [Thecon-structionoftherefugeeandimmigrantquestioninthemedia].Arhus:Magtudredningen.
Norris,Sigrid.2004.Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework.NewYork:Routledge.
Raudaskoski,Pirkko.1999.The use of communicative resources in language technology environ-ments. A conversation analytic approach to semiosis at computer media.Abo:AboAkademistryckeri Ph.D. dissertation. http://www.hum.aau.dk/~pirkko/pirkkosphd.pdf (accessed 9 June2011).
Raudaskoski,Pirkko.2010.“Hifather”,“Himother”:Amultimodalanalysisofasignificant,iden-titychangingphonecall(mediatedonTV).Journal of Pragmatics42.426 – 442.
Rawls,AnneW.2006.Respecifyingthestudyofsocialorder — Garfinkel’stransitionfromtheo-reticalconceptualizationtopracticesindetails.InHaroldGarfinkel,Seeing sociologically. The routine grounds of social action. EditedandintroducedbyAnneWarfieldRawls,1–97.Boulder:ParadigmPublishers.
Reckwitz,Andreas.2002.Towardatheoryofsocialpractices:Adevelopmentinculturalisttheo-rizing.European Journal of Social Theory 5(2).243–263.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation, 2 vols. Gail Jefferson (ed.). Oxford: BasilBlackwell.
Sacks,Harvey&EmanuelA.Schegloff.1979.Twopreferencesintheorganizationofreferencetopersonsand their interaction. InGeorgePsathas (ed.),Everyday language: Studies in ethno-methodology, 15–21.NewYork:Irvington.
Scannell,Paddy.2000.For-anyone-as-someonestructures.Media, Culture & Society 22.5–24.Schegloff,EmanuelA.1996.Confirmingallusions:Towardanempiricalaccountofaction.The
American Journal of Sociology 102(1).161–216.Scollon,Ron.1998.Mediated discourse as social interaction. A study of news discourse.NewYork:Longman.
Scollon,Ron&SuzieScollon.2003.Discourses in place. Language in the material world.NewYork:Routledge.
Scollon,Ron&SuzieScollon.2004.Nexus analysis. Discourse and the emerging Internet.NewYork:Routledge.
Silverman,David. 1998.Harvey Sacks: Social science and conversation analysis.Cambridge:Polity.
