Talking Collective Action by Ole Pütz

Author:Ole Pütz [Pütz, Ole]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Social Science, General, Sociology
ISBN: 9780429627071
Google: TRGjDwAAQBAJ
Publisher: Routledge
Published: 2019-07-17T04:57:38+00:00

07 Anna: But there w[ere] more.

08 Erika: [hm?]

09 Stefan: It was said seven thousand.

10 Anna: Yes.

11 Erika: Right [and it was said (0.6) seven thousand.]

12 Carol: [It was the biggest one, seven thousand-]

13 Erika: But there were by no chance seven thousand.

14 Carol: eh::[hehehe]

15 Erika: [Doesn’t] really matte[r.]

16 Markus: [he] [he]he[hehe]hehehehehe

17 Carol: [hehe]

18 Sarah: It does. ↓it does

19 Anna: ehhe[he]

20 Carol: [he]hehehe

21 David: You have to firmly [believe.]

Anna and Stefan also attended the rally. Both challenge Erika’s estimate and make it clear that her negative assessment is not shared by the group. Anna argues, “but there were more” (l. 7), clearly disagreeing with Erika (l. 7). Stefan’s turn, “it was said seven thousand” (l. 9), is more ambivalent because the passive voice he uses leaves open which number Stefan believes to be more accurate. Anna’s disagreement and Stefan’s more ambivalent reaction set the stage for a conflict (see Chapter 5.3). In order to constitute a conflict, Erika would now have to insist on her estimate or disagree with Anna or Stefan in another form. To avoid a conflict, Erika could modify or correct her previous statement or change the topic. Erika’s response is equivocal: She agrees with Stefan at first (l. 11), but this turns out to be a token agreement. Erika uses the same words Stefan used, “right and it was said (0.6) seven thousand” (l. 11), including the passive voice, and then adds, “but there were by no chance seven thousand” (l. 13). While Stefan uses a passive voice formulation to mitigate the potential for disagreement that follows from his statement, Erika uses the same formulation to highlight the difference between what “was said” and what “actually happened,” suggesting that what “was said” may not be true. Erika is now in disagreement with Anna’s earlier statement, which constitutes a conflict, and she also rejects Stefan’s number (l. 9). As we may expect from the previous analyses, the emerging conflict does not continue, and the potential tension that such a conflict could produce is immediately resolved. As soon as Erika states her disbelief in the number seven thousand, Carol begins to laugh (l. 14) and Markus joins in (l. 16). Laughter frames Erika’s disagreement with Anna and Stefan as a laughable matter that is not of serious import, an effect frequently associated with laughter (Emerson 1969; Holt 2013; McKinlay & McVittie 2006; Norrick & Spitz 2008). Erika actively participates in mitigating her disagreement by saying that it “doesn’t really matter” (l. 15) next, thereby implying that the true number of participants is nothing worth arguing about, although she initiated the topic in the first place.2

So far, participants have not reached a collective assessment of the rally because they did not agree on one. Because participants reject Erika’s negative assessment, they cannot conclude that the low participation Erika observed constitutes a problem that requires tactical revision, as AANP did for the case of the demonstration. In fact, the activists from EXIT do the opposite and argue that the rally was

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.