14 August 2010

Pew PDAs

That's 'public display of affection' ... thing to remember: we're always communicating; we can't help ourselves. I see dog-walkers doing it even on their own, they talk to their dog as if there may be other people there; they're not really talking to the dog, they are conveying explanations to onlookers. I know: I've caught myself doing it!

When we communicate we do so using the media and conventions open to us. Therefore there is a huge amount of that which is cultural; culture gives us our repertoire of signals and background understandings. Some people are more skilled than others in deploying the repertoire and judging how much and what shared background can be presumed upon, but we do all do it, deftly, clumsily or otherwise.

So when we consider pda's in church settings, we need to consider a raft of issues: what is acceptable in that setting; what are congregants likely to understand or infer about particular behaviours; what image or 'message' do the couple wish to project (individually or as a joint enterprise) and how do these things interact? So check out this brief comment piece on USAmerican church pda's. It's at #139 Pew PDA - Stuff Christian Culture Likes: "When a married couple sits together in church it's understood that the husband will put his arm around the wife and he'll keep it there until it's time to get a hymnal. After the hymnal is retrieved the arm resumes its rightful position like a reflex. The people in the pews behind them are to understand that they have a Good Marriage."

And my question is: is that the same in the churches you know? Please do comment: let me know (and if you're reading this on Facebook, please visit the blog to comment, please, please, please ...)

I feel I should also point out that in such a setting it may well be the case that a couple would also have to consider the semiotic value of not doing the arm round the shoulder thing (or of the wife doing it, or of putatively paradigmatic substitutions such as hand-holding...). Would fellow congregants interpret it as 'relationship rockiness'? Or is the gesture only occasional and perhaps even interpreted as 'trying too hard: there must be something wrong'!

No comments:

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...