Societal Norms Observed in Improv Shows by Cristina Ruiz

Observation: 

I attended the improv show called "Improvavility," organized by a group of students from our school. They host these shows every Friday night, open to the public, at Embarcadero Hall starting at 8 pm, with an entrance fee of $3. Each week, there's a different theme, and on the day I attended, the theme encouraged the audience to bring props for the cast to incorporate into the performance. Upon arrival at the theater, the doors remain closed until 7:50, when they open for ticket purchases. Attendees form a line in front of the door, either standing individually or as a group if they arrive together and plan to sit together once inside. When the doors open, people enter in line order, proceeding to a table in the theater where two event staff members collect money and provide paper tickets. After this, you enter the theater and can choose any available seat since there are no assigned numbers on the tickets. I arrived with a group of eight people, some friends had biked to the theater, while two others and I walked, arriving a bit later. Our friends, already in line, held a spot for us. Despite concerns about appearing to cut in line, we joined our friends at the front of the line. One friend worried about perceptions and repeatedly asked if we should move back to avoid any misunderstanding. I assured her it was fine since our friends were there ahead of us, and we intended to go inside together. After securing our tickets, we selected a row in the middle of the auditorium, where all eight of us sat.

Upon entering, the venue was well-lit, and conversations flowed at a normal volume. As 8:00 approached, the lights dimmed, signaling the show had begun. Every Friday night, a cast member becomes the host, a fact unbeknownst to the audience. When the lights turned off, the host ran to the center stage, blowing a whistle. The audience became silent and fully focused their attention on the host. The host then began explaining that day's theme and introduced themselves. The theme portrayed the host as a professor teaching students. On that particular day, the Improvavility cast took to their social media, encouraging the audience to bring objects for incorporation into the show. Thus, a box was placed at the center of the stage, filled with items people had brought from their homes. Following a brief introduction, the host engaged in the first direct interaction with the audience, requesting a round of applause. This initiates a lively response, with enthusiastic cheers and hand-clapping echoing through the venue. The host then prompts a specific applause for those who've never witnessed an improv show, fostering an inclusive atmosphere for newcomers, myself included. The host then invites a warm welcome for the improv veterans in the crowd, resulting in enthusiastic applause, surpassing the volume of those new to the experience. The host explains the essence of improv, emphasizing its reliance on extensive audience interaction, encouraging the audience to clap and provide suggestions when prompted. The audience is informed of the division of the auditorium into three sections: left, right, and middle. Throughout the show, the host plans to call upon specific sections, posing questions for the entire section to answer. Following this, a safety warning is issued as the host says; "Use your utmost caution; we want to maintain being friends with the fire department in this theater." The entire audience responds by stomping their feet on the ground. After a momentary pause, the host resumes, and everyone seamlessly joins in, yelling together, "Four fire exists." As someone who had never been there before and was unaware of this ritual performed by the cast members with the audience, I was astonished by this practice. The host then blows the whistle again, signaling the entrance of the rest of the cast. The host, stationed on the opposite side, initiates a chain of high-fives. The first cast member high-fives the host, then turns to the next, continuing the pattern until the entire cast is now on the stage. 

Throughout the performance, two distinct games are showcased. After this, the host once again signals the transition with a whistle, indicating the commencement of the first activity. For this initial game, two participants are selected from the audience and positioned side by side on the stage. The scenario chosen for this game is established by turning to the audience for input, settling on a bus stop setting. The whistle sounds again, marking the start of the scene. Three cast members take seats on stools placed in the middle of the stage, the sole props in the entire setting. In this scenario, whenever the cast desires, they turn to the audience, prompting them to offer a word spontaneously. This word must then be immediately incorporated into the sentence of the ongoing scene. The unpredictability of this practice occasionally results in sentences that may seem nonsensical or humorous. Responding to these unexpected twists, the audience members often make comical faces, sharing genuine laughter among themselves. This spontaneous display of humor elicited a mirrored response from the audience, creating a contagious atmosphere. It seemed that the more the cast embraced quirky expressions or laughed at themselves, the greater the audience's reaction. After an entertaining five minutes, the whistle sounded once more, prompting immediate applause and cheers from the audience. Transitioning to the second game, the host runs back onto the stage, asking the right side of the audience to yell out a prop suggestion, then collecting a variety of words from the middle section and finally gathering more words from the left section. The audience eagerly participated, shouting out suggestions in the hope of being chosen. The host carefully selected the words to be incorporated into the performance. In this game, the cast took on the role of selling a product chosen by the audience, integrating the suggested words. This interaction elevated the audience's engagement, intensifying their interest in the play. After a brief moment, the host blew the whistle for the last time, sparking the audience's loudest cheers and applause of the night. Some enthusiastic audience members even stood up to applaud while the cast bowed in response. As the performance concluded, attendees began to rise, initiating the orderly exit from the auditorium. The top row exited first, followed sequentially by the rows below, with the ones closest to the stage being the last to leave the auditorium. 

Theoretical Rationale:

Social norms are implicit codes of conduct deemed acceptable or appropriate within a specific community or cultural context. The modes of norm manifestation can take on a formal or informal nature (Rockman, 1971). Formal norms are codified in written rules, encompassing laws, employee manuals, or regulations like "no running" signs at swimming pools. On the other hand, informal norms are more relaxed and learned through general socialization, exemplified by behaviors like using a finger to press the elevator button or forming a line to board a bus. In 1967, a sociologist named Harold Garfinkel delved into the exploration of how norms not only influence behavior but also contribute to the shaping of social order. His work, "Studies in Ethnomethodology," delves into people's assumptions about the social makeup of their communities. A notable research method introduced by Garfinkel is the "breaching experiment," designed to test sociological concepts related to social norms and conformity. Garfinkel encapsulates this procedure, noting, "the operations that one would have to perform to multiply the senseless features of perceived environments; to produce and sustain bewilderment, consternation, and confusion; to produce the socially structured effects of anxiety, shame, guilt, and indignation should tell us something about how the structures of everyday activities are ordinarily and routinely produced and maintained." (Rockman, 1971, p.129). The emotions displayed in response to these breaching experiments highlight the existence of cultural norms that shape social life. These cultural norms play a crucial role in guiding our behavior within our community, establishing rules that vary in ease of understanding. For instance, while complimenting a woman on her dress is acceptable, asking to try it on is not, or doing one's makeup in a public bathroom is fine, but applying makeup to someone else without consent is not allowed. 

Garfinkel emphasized that we live our entire lives within a culture, even when transitioning between cultures, such as moving to a different country. Each culture encompasses numerous norms, often regulating behavior in ways that may go unnoticed. When these norms are violated, people respond with emotional reactions, and the intensity of these responses reflects the importance of the rule. These norms generally remain constant unless the situation changes, leading to a shift in rules, making the previously unacceptable now acceptable. When faced with something outside our normal norms, resulting in unfamiliarity with the rules, we experience culture shock, manifesting as discomfort due to the lack of knowledge about how to act. Social change necessitates a shift in these rules, as seen, for example, in the evolving usage of pronouns. These norms create a contextual framework, with the fundamental social rule being to maintain this context, and disrupting it is considered the worst outcome. 

Another influential social psychologist with overlapping interests was Solomon Asch, who, like Garfinkel, focused on understanding how individuals conform to group opinions. One of Asch's most well-known experiments involved participants making judgments in the presence of confederates deliberately providing incorrect answers. The aim was to explore the extent to which individuals would conform to a unanimous but incorrect majority opinion in a group setting. The experimental setup involved participants placed in a group with confederates, with only one real subject. They were given a simple task of comparing line lengths, and confederates were instructed to give incorrect answers in some trials to assess the impact of majority influence. Asch discovered that in about one-third of the critical trials, participants conformed to the incorrect majority opinion, revealing the powerful influence of group consensus (Asch, 1956, p.10). In conclusion, the empirical evidence suggests that when faced with an obvious answer, people may lie when the context calls for it. In some situations, lying can even be the purpose of a social context, such as in magic shows. 

Analysis:

An improv show is governed by unspoken rules that shape the conduct of individuals within a specific society or social group. Violating these norms can lead to discomfort for those around you, and an individual may be perceived negatively as rude or disrespectful by breaking them. From entering the theater until the show concludes and people exit, social norms dictate behavior in that space. Before entering, everyone is familiar with theater etiquette, forming a single-file line from the door backward based on the arrival order, reflecting an informal social norm. Breaching this norm involves arriving and immediately going to the front of the line without waiting your turn. It is only acceptable when accompanied by friends who arrive earlier and are holding a spot for you, which is what happened to us, allowing us to cut the line. However, the significance of this norm became evident when my friend felt extreme discomfort at the thought of being viewed negatively for cutting in line. Once the doors open, there is an expectation to enter in the order of the line. You must wait your turn to purchase tickets one by one from the show's staff. Breaching this norm involves entering without a ticket or grabbing the ticket without paying. Unlike some shows, for improv, you can choose your seating, but it is an unspoken understanding that sitting on the floor, pathways, or the stage is not allowed. Once inside and seated, as long as the lights are on, you can talk to others around you at a reasonable volume. However, when the lights go off, silence is expected, directing focus onto the stage. This is typically signaled by flicking the light on and off before turning it off completely. In this particular show, they used a red light and a guest running onto the stage to indicate the start of the performance. It is considered negative to make noise during these moments, a norm applicable not only in improv shows but also in any theatrical performance. The show includes a unique safety warning incorporating audience participation. The audience stomps their feet and yells "Four fire exits" along with the host during the safety drill. They use other audio such as the whistle, indicating the beginning or end of a scene. The whistle's first blow signals the audience to quiet down, focusing on the stage, and at its end, it signals the audience to start applauding. Lastly, throughout the performance, the audience is expected to use their imagination. Similar to a magic show, they are deceived into believing there are actual props and that the performers are who they claim to be, such as teachers or students. Unlike a traditional theatrical performance with elaborate costumes and a stage, improv relies on the imagination. Finally, there are unwritten rules for exiting the theater. Everyone should exit in chronological order, starting from the first line closest to the exit and moving onwards until the last line. Randomly standing up and leaving, cutting in front of others, is not acceptable. If you are closest to the stage, you must accept being the last to leave.

To ensure the continued significance of all these unwritten rules, it is crucial to maintain the context in which they arise. This is particularly vital in the realm of improv, where audience participation and compliance with requests are foundational. For individuals to adhere to these rules, they must first feel a sense of belonging and connection to the context. This sense of inclusion is effectively demonstrated at the start of the show when the host takes the stage. He invites newcomers to stand up for recognition and applause, fostering an immediate feeling of inclusion. To deepen this connection, the host later calls upon the veterans to stand again and applaud, further solidifying their sense of belonging. The host then elucidates the nature of improv and sets expectations, catering to newcomers and ensuring they understand the show's essence and their role in its success. Further reinforcing inclusivity, the host divides the audience into three sections, creating smaller groups that facilitate relatability and collaboration. The effectiveness of these inclusion tactics becomes evident as the entire audience remains responsive and interactive throughout the show. When the cast requests suggestions, every individual enthusiastically contributes, and the audience actively engages in imagining the scenes being performed. Even when characters break their personas or deliver less humorous lines, the audience laughs in acknowledgment of the expected response, showcasing the success of the inclusive atmosphere established.

While newcomers, including myself, are initially included, there are aspects of the show that can be surprising due to the unfamiliar context, leading to a form of culture shock. For instance, during the fire drill, the collective stomping of feet and the synchronized shout of "four fire exits" caught me off guard. Unaware of this practice, the sudden noise and activity startled me. Attending another show, I would be more prepared, understanding that such actions are part of their social norms. Additionally, despite the initial explanation, the first half of the show felt uncomfortable as I hesitated to vocalize my thoughts during a theatrical performance. Being accustomed to being a mere spectator rather than an active participant, it took time to adapt to this new dynamic. Furthermore, there were moments when I didn't personally find the show humorous. However, observing everyone around me laughing prompted me to question why I was the only one not finding the context funny. This internal conflict led me to join in and laugh at everything, even elements that I didn't personally find amusing, just to align with the communal experience created by those around me.

Conclusion: 

In conclusion, the observation of the "Improvavility" show and subsequent theoretical analysis underscores the complex use of social norms that set the tone for this theatrical experience. From the moment attendees form a line outside the theater to the orderly exit after the performance, unspoken rules guide behavior, ensuring a shared understanding of proper conduct within the context of improv. Theoretical insights from sociologists like Harold Garfinkel and Solomon Asch illuminate the role of social norms in shaping individual behavior and group dynamics. The success of the show's inclusive atmosphere, initiated by the host's recognition of both newcomers and veterans, highlights the importance of fostering a sense of belonging for adherence to these unwritten rules. As attendees navigate the unexpected moments and cultural nuances of the performance, it becomes evident that the continuity of these norms relies on the maintenance of a contextual framework, providing a fascinating glimpse into the complex interplay between societal expectations and individual experiences in the world of improv.

References

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1.

Rockman, A. (1971). Four Experiments in the Sociology of Aesthetics. Leonardo, 4(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/1572187