Presented by Ingkhasond V. CEN 7201 , 15th March 2015

Background

Philipsen was interested in finding what groups in the United

States view speaking as an effective means of social influence.

Together with the other research, he aims to develop a

general theory that would capture the relationship between

communication and culture.

By seeking to answer about the existence of speech

codes and the force speech codes have on people

within a culture

Teamsterville and The conduct of this study

Study Location / Setting

“Teamsterville” is

located on the near

south side of Chicago.

“Teamsterville” is a

fabricated name.

Who live there / Demography of Participants

“Teamsterville” is a neighborhood of - blue-collar, - low-income whites who share a culture outlook on communication

Research method: Qualitative approach

The data were collected through participant-

observation and interviews

o took field notes of speech behavior, informants’ statements (spontaneous

and elicited) , and recorded verbal interaction on tape

o kids on street corners, women on front porches, men in bars, people at

settlement house where he worked

o He had 2 periods of contact with the participants

- 21 months as social group worker in the neighborhood (1969-1970)

- 9 months devotion to field work research (1971-1972)

The data were analyzed using an ethnography of

communication model

The Culture pattern of

Teamsterville impacts on gender roles

The value of speaking is culturally defined and

understood because a Teamsterville native shares tacit

understanding about the situational appropriateness of

speech behavior in male role enactment;

- in some situations speech is appropriate

- in some situations, using speech , its casts doubt

on the speaker’s manliness.

Philipsen uses the self-presentation of males to illuminate

how particular cultural “rules” are manifested into a

culture

A man in Teamsterville is judged on the manliness of his

performance according to the cultural criteria of what is

and is not appropriate

Three situations are looked at to better understand

cultural criteria in respect to appropriate manliness in

Teamsterville

The Culture pattern (cont’d)

Participants are symmetrical matching exactly similar identity

attributes such as ethnicity, occupational status, age, and sex,

location of residence and they should be long-term friends

A great amount of talking is socially appropriate

Situation 1: Great Amount of Talk

In this situation, talking is

considered a dominant focus

to show “manliness”

- For boys the street corner

- For men the corner bar

A minimum use of speech is expected when dealing with

those lower and higher in status than the male like wife,

child, boss, and outsider to the neighborhood

Situation 2: Minimal Amount of Talk

In this situation, A minimal

amount of talking is socially

appropriate

A high quantity of speaking is considered socially

inappropriate

Thus, one criterion in Teamsterville for marking a

‘speech situation” for men is the variable in the social

identity relationship of the interlocutors .

In speech situations

The relationship is symmetrical on relevant

identity attributes

In non-speech situations

The relationship is asymmetrical

For some situations it is not so much whether there should be

a great quantity or frequency of talk BUT rather what mode

of action is to be emphasized in male self-presentation

Situation 3: Mode of Action

Three Instances were analyzed

3.1 Insult Response

3.2 Influencing within a Status Inferior

3.3 Political and Economical Assertion

In Teamsterville

Mode of Action

3.1 Insult Response : What would you do if a guy insulted

your wife?

Fighting is the appropriate

response when the insult is

directed at him, his girlfriend

or his female relative

Because in his culturally described way, fighting for men

is an honor

Mode of Action

3.1 Insult Response : What would you do if a guy insulted

your wife?

An Alien situation

“it depends on the situation”

“I may not hit him or fight but try to talk, or persuade him to leave”

Speech is considered an ineffective role enactment when

dealing with an insult to a woman under a man’s protection

when the offender is an outsider.

When the offender is a peer, a verbal put-down is an

appropriate reaction

In Teamsterville Corporal punishment and

speech proscription are a local

conception of appropriate role

enactment and the preferred

mode of self-presentation in

an exigent situation which

required a man to influence

the behavior of his status

inferiors

Mode of Action

3.2 Influencing within a Status Inferior:

Boys were undisciplined, rude, and defiant of Authority

The outsider’s out-of-role behavior

“Try to reason with the boys”

“Try to involve them to decision making”

Due to the boy inferior status using speech is

considered not a normal male nor the role

expectation the boys become more rebellious,

increasingly verbally abusive and disrespectful

Mode of Action

3.2 Influencing within a Status Inferior:

Boys were undisciplined, rude, and defiant of Authority

“Try to understand their feeling “

In Teamsterville Speech is not asserting power, not influence in

interpersonal situation, not a resource critical to male role

enactment in making a living or other aspects of economic life

BUT Connections have a very real value

Mode of Action

3.3 Social, Political and Economical Assertion

“The more connections a man has, The more he is a man”

Mode of Action

3.3 Social, Political and Economical Assertion

Teamsterville residents praised the connection system for

satisfying the needs of individuals and families

Resulting in Intermediary principle, when it come to

politics or economics the use of solidarity or locality ties

with an intermediary who will best state the resident's

cases is the best option

i.e. When a male has to deal with a person superior to him

in rank or an outsider, he uses an intermediary to

negotiate and speak on his behalf

Philipsen’s Conclusion

Talk is not everywhere valued equally; nor is it

anywhere valued equally in all social contexts.

Each community has its own cultural values about

speaking and there are linked to judgment of situational

appropriateness.

There are ;

Situations where speech is necessary and appropriate

Situations where less speech and more action are

appropriate

THANK YOU