MAKING SOCIOLOGY RELEVANT: THE ASSIGNMENT AND

APPLICATION OF BREACHING EXPERIMENTS

Abstract

The author discusses the value of Harold Garfinkel’s “Breaching Experiments” for giving

relevance to concepts in introductory sociology. Explaining his experiences with

assigning social norm violation exercises, the author outlines some guiding principles that

make breaching an effective learning tool. The author argues that social breaching should

be a skill that a sociology student develops, rather than a one-time “event” that the

student reports. The success of social breaching as a learning tool depends upon: a)

students’ repeated attempts at a specific norm violation; b) the student’s level of

discomfort while performing the exercise; and c) a careful documentation of how the

norm violation is proceeding. The author demonstrates how social breaching can give

meaning to abstract sociological concepts by explaining how such exercises help

elucidate Merton’s concept of anomie.

 Breaching Experiments 2

MAKING SOCIOLOGY RELEVANT: THE ASSIGNMENT AND

APPLICATION OF BREACHING EXPERIMENTS

Of the many pedagogical challenges sociology instructors face in introducing students to

the discipline, illustration of the everyday relevance of sociology is paramount. Helping

students make meaningful connections between the conceptual subject matter of a

sociology course and their own social worlds—cultivating a “sociological perspective”—

is one of sociology’s principle teaching aims (see, e.g., Anderson and Taylor 2002;

Henslin et al. 2001; Macionis 2002.) A successful sociology course enables students to

“see” sociology in the world; the many concepts studied during a semester become not

mere abstractions, but visible phenomena (Misra 2000). The cultivation of students’

sociological perspectives can be furthered not only by providing meaningful in-class

examples of concepts, but by requiring that students personally explore the mechanisms

of society beyond studying textbooks and/or attending class regularly. Indeed, sociology

may be at its most meaningful when students temporarily separate themselves from

conventional modes of inquiry and involve themselves with the everyday contexts within

which sociological concepts are actually at work.

Of the many ways instructors attempt to enable students’ exploration of

sociological concepts outside of classrooms, ethnomethodological approaches are both

popular and effective (Cheatwood, Corzine, and Glassner 1978; McGrane 1993). Widely

used in such teaching approaches are the social explorations most commonly referred to

as “breaching experiments” (Halnon 2001; Kusa 1993). The most well-known of Harold

Garfinkel’s (1967) ethnomethods, breaching experiments involve the conscious

exhibition of “unexpected” behavior, an observation of the types of social reactions such

 Breaching Experiments 3

behavioral violations engender, and an analysis of the social structure that makes these

social reactions possible. As previous authors have illustrated, the conscious violation of

norms can be highly fruitful for sociology students, providing insights into social

structure and elucidating the sociological meaning of students’ own subjective

experiences. Potter (1993), for example, argues that the assignment of norm breaching

may be a very fruitful way to help students understand theoretical models concerning the

social construction of deviance. Jones’s (1998) discussion of an assignment in which

students were required to perform twelve acts of positive deviance throughout a semester

demonstrates the extent to which gender roles regulate selfless behavior. These and other

discussions in the literature demonstrate the continuing usefulness of norm breaking

assignments.

This essay adds to the discussion of the assignment of breaching experiments in

two ways. First, it outlines specific instructions (for teacher and student) that are absent

or not explained thoroughly in the literature. Described in more detail below are some

assignment guidelines I have found valuable for effective social breaching. First, the

breach must be approved by the instructor and should not be unlawful or dangerous in

any way. Second, the breach must be done in isolation (it should not be collaborative)

and the experimenter should feel some degree of discomfort, usually experienced as a

profound pressure to cease the breach and engage in conforming behavior. Third, the

breach should not be a “one-time” event, but a skill that students develop over the course

of a semester through repeating and becoming better at a particular type of social rule

breaking. Finally, observations made while performing the breach must be documented

and later used in a written analysis. This paper offers an example of how a breaching
 Breaching Experiments 4

assignment brings abstract sociological concepts “down-to-Earth” for students. I provide

a description of a highly effective breach I call “waiting-in-line” that I incorporate into a

classroom discussion of Robert K. Merton’s (1938) concept of anomie.

I seek four major learning goals in assigning breaching experiments: 1) the

development of a more intimate understanding of sociological concepts than can be

provided by the rote memorization of glossary terms—through breaching, students’ own

experience informs their sociological knowledge; 2) learning about the importance of

mundane social situations; 3) explaining social observations through a clearly written

analysis; and 4) as this assignment is based upon implementation of a research strategy,

observation, and analysis, students will experience first hand some of the basics of

sociological research.

BREACHING ASSIGNMENT DESIGN

Before introducing students to the criteria I require for a breaching experiment, it is

important to discuss the significance of mundane social situations, and how they

comprise the bulk of our daily social interactions. I explain to my students that the social

experiences we have and expect to have at a restaurant, coffee house, grocery store, gas

station, and so on, create the everyday social stability people largely take for granted. In

describing the importance of the mundane, I discuss how everyday life is structured by an

array of norms and values that we follow as if it were “natural” to do so. This opens a

critical discussion of the term “natural,” specifically that our conforming responses to

pressure in social situations are so immediate that we fail to recognize how our behavior

is structured in the first place. Such immediate conformity, I explain to my students,

 Breaching Experiments 5

demonstrates the power of socialization. When this point is made clear, I find it easier to

articulate that social structure is all around us, yet difficult to detect. The key to detection,

I explain, lies within the “self-conscious” exploration of mundane social structures. A

major mechanism for this exploration is simple: break the rules.

Criterion #1: Defining Appropriate Boundaries

It is a good idea to introduce the assignment with the idea that “breaking the

rules” excludes doing anything illegal or of any risk to a student’s or others’ health.

Though this assignment can be carried out in many ways, breaching need not be an

exercise in physical risk or the tempting of mental health and/or law enforcement

authorities. In addition to the obvious practical reasons, I have a pedagogical reason for

this requirement: an extreme violation of behavioral codes solicits expected social

responses. Yelling “FIRE!” in a movie theatre is a breach of public trust more than an

exploration of the finitudes of social structure. Acts of outrageousness may certainly

draw attention to students, but contain little analytical value. I explain that what can be

learned from subtle social deviations can be superior to that which is learned from

behavioral outbursts. Indeed, the breach does not necessarily have to be disruptive in a

negative sense, but may include acts of kindness that others may not expect (Jones 1998).

Criterion #2: The Breach is an Individual Assignment

When they realize some of the expectations of this assignment, students often

plan to “pair up” with a buddy to enact their breach. I discourage this for two reasons.

First, the discovery that two or more college students are “in on something” destroys the
 Breaching Experiments 6

effectiveness of a breach. Others may quickly normalize breaching behavior as a “stunt,”

and their responses will reflect this. Second, making the breach a group project prevents

students from having their own unique deviance experience. If students feel secure with

their “breaching buddies” they are shielded from the pressure that is illustrative of social

structure. I ask students to become receptive to an authentic emotional experience in this

assignment; the breach should not be a “comfortable” exercise (see Gregory 1982). The

general formula I follow is that the higher the pressure one feels to conform in social

situations the more one can learn by resisting such pressures.

Criterion #3: Prior to its Implementation, the Breach should be given to the Instructor
for Feedback

I have found this to be very important, especially in assigning social breaches in

introductory sociology. Instructors must ensure that each breach will be safe, legal, and

effective, and should also check with the institution’s ethics review board to find out

whether special approval will be required for these assignments. Even in cases where a

breach appears reasonable, unforeseen consequences can still arise (Potter 1993), so

instructors may want to evaluate each breach’s possible repercussions. Reviewing

students’ ideas also provides opportunity to make some good breaches even better. For

example, one student suggested that he pan handle at a freeway exit with a sign that

stated: “GIVE ME MONEY”—a way of twisting motorists’ expectations about the

narratives that are commonly written on the cardboard signs people desiring money in

these situations commonly display. Such signs rarely ask for money directly, often saying

things like, “DISABLED VET, NEED HELP, GOD BLESS,” and so on. I liked the

“feel” of this breach—it seemed well thought-out—but I saw a couple of potential

 Breaching Experiments 7

problems. The first concerned safety and the second concerned encroachment upon

disenfranchised people who might use the freeway exits as a source of income. I

suggested that the student carry out his breach in a place with pedestrian, rather than

automobile, traffic. I further suggested that this breach might be enhanced if he were

clean-shaven and wore a nicely pressed suit as he displayed his sign. In the form we

developed together this particular breach proved highly effective. Other breaching ideas

that have developed out of such dialogue have included: a student wearing latex gloves

and a surgical mask when eating at a restaurant, a student bartering for cigarettes at

convenience stores, and a student singing “Over the Rainbow” in a shopping mall food

court while inviting others to “sing along.”

Criterion #4: The Breach should be Replicable and Replicated

I approach the breaching assignment with the assumption that it is not a “one

time” event, but a skill that students should practice over the course of a semester. Thus

one of the most desirable qualities I look for in a breaching experiment is that it is simple

enough to be performed repeatedly and in a variety of locations. Replication is important

because it allows students to become less sensitive to conforming pressure, enabling them

to make more valuable observations while breaching. By becoming more at ease with the

sanctioning social responses to their violation of behavioral expectations, students

become better observers. Performing the breach in a variety of locations is equally

important as it allows students the opportunity to start making more general claims about

social structure, rather than emphasizing one specific location of social interaction.
 Breaching Experiments 8

Criterion #5: The Observation Log

As students repeat their breaches, I require that they document the types of

reactions they observe. This serves as an excellent introduction to the process of taking

field notes—a skill that many sociology majors need for methodology courses, practicum

experience, capstone projects, senior theses, and the like. This observation log is an

excellent medium for students to generate analyses about “what is happening” when their

breach is performed. I encourage students to draw inferences about the different types of

reactions they encounter, and categorize them, if possible. Such observation logs may

also document the experimenter’s subjective experiences and encourage students to

inquire about the sociological significance of their emotional reactions to others.

Depending upon an instructor’s available time, I recommend an ongoing dialogue with

students about these observations.

Criterion #6: The Formalized Report of the Breach

This is the “term paper” aspect of the breaching assignment in which students

report what they have done and what they have learned in doing the assignment. The

length of this essay is, of course, contingent upon many factors, such as class size, the

amount of teaching assistance one may have, the duration of the course, and so on. In

smaller class sizes (between thirty and forty students) I have found it possible to grade

five- to seven-page essays alone, but in larger classes (forty students and above) it may be

advisable to either shrink the size of the essay, or divide the labor between the instructor

and a teaching assistant. The assignment for these reports requires that students provide:

1) a detailed description of the experiment, including what expectations of social

 Breaching Experiments 9

responses students had prior to its implementation; 2) a description of the most general

ways people responded as the breach was practiced over the semester—such descriptions

should be refined examples of responses documented in the observation log; and 3) an

analytical discussion of the sociological significance of the breach focusing on one major

sociological concept covered throughout the course. This third aspect of the essay is vital

in helping students shift from a descriptive to analytical discussion of their breach,

facilitating the goal of generating a sociological perspective. I emphasize that students

should focus upon just one sociological idea to enable them to move away from a

spurious “glossary definition” of a concept and teach them to break an idea down into its

constituent parts. In assigning this essay, I do not require that students refer to any

literature outside of the required course reading, but I do not discourage them from

finding other literature sources if they choose to. On a 100-point scale, I weight the

analytical section heavily, awarding 25 points each for the descriptive sections, and 50

points for the analysis. This analysis must use excerpts from the observational log to

provide workable examples of basic sociological terms. Over the years, students have

integrated their observations into analyses of many concepts, such as relative deprivation,

social roles, role conflict, achieved status, ascribed status, and structural strain.

APPLYING BREACHING IN THE CLASSROOM: “WAITING IN LINE” AND

MERTON’S (1938) CONCEPT OF ANOMIE

In larger introductory courses, I have always found it useful—and also enjoyable for

students—to incorporate one or two of the outstanding breaching reports into class

discussion. Without disclosing the names of the authors, I offer detailed descriptions of

the breaches I have chosen and show how they illuminate sociological concepts that we
 Breaching Experiments 10

have previously discussed in the semester. For example, one student’s “waiting in line”

breach provided an excellent illustration of Merton’s (1938) concept of anomie.

The key concept in Merton’s (1938) theory of structural strain, and one of the

most common ideas presented to introductory students, anomie describes a social

condition in which the culturally-approved means and goals of a society become

questionable, undesirable, or unclear. Merton posits that certain adaptations become

increasingly necessary for social actors faced with anomie. Aside from conformity, which

denotes a belief in both the culturally-approved goals and means of a society, four

adaptations—innovation, retreatism, ritualism, and rebellion—could be considered

deviant according to the standards of the dominant society. In describing these

adaptations, instructors often invoke “macro-level” discussions, involving, for example,

the effects of the economy on the perceptions and availability of the goals and means.

However, I have found that students are more receptive to abstract ideas, such as

structural strain, if they can be gleaned from everyday life. As the “waiting in line”

breach demonstrates, the goals and means of “a society” can easily be illustrated through

a discussion of the goals and means of “some people trying to get served at their lunch

hour.”

Simple, effective, and easily replicated, this breach happens at a restaurant or

coffee house where people expect to wait in a single-file line to order food, desserts,

coffee, and so on. Though the specifics of this breach vary according to the student

performing it, the general formula involves an experimenter who is waiting in line in

entirely conventional fashion (presumably, to order food just as the others are) and then

consciously “holds up” the line by failing to move up as the line progresses towards the
 Breaching Experiments 11

cashier. Over the course of a semester, one student performed this breach during rush

hour in seven different locations, documenting a variety of reactions, mainly in the form

of vocal gestures from patrons. Repeating this breach proved invaluable as this student

reported feeling such intense conforming pressure that he needed many attempts in order

to record his observations. One astonishing and revealing result of this experiment

concerned the short amount of time that elapsed before people realized “something was

wrong” and began a series of behavioral responses. As the student’s paper explained,

these behavioral responses began after an elapsed time of five to ten seconds. After this

time period, the major social responses the student documented were questions he began

hearing from those behind him in line. These included direct and indirect vocal gestures,

such as: “What’s the deal?” “What’s happening?” and “What’s holdin’ us up?” among

others. As more time elapsed, these questions became more pointed and more specifically

aimed at the experimenter.

In analyzing the social reactions to his “line holding,” this student introduced a

discussion of structural strain, very insightfully detailing how the goals and means of a

society can be seen through people waiting in line to order and receive their food. To

paraphrase the student’s analysis, the ordering and reception of food were clearly the

conventional goals in this context, and following “waiting in line norms” partially

comprised the conventional means to achieve those goals.

In using this breach in a class discussion, I expanded upon the student’s

discussion of goals and means to specifically include Merton’s (1938) concept of anomie

and the conditions that may lead to unconventional behavior. One point I addressed

concerned his recording of what I termed the “questioning behavior” of those being held
 Breaching Experiments 12

up in line. After summarizing the student’s observations, I began a discussion by asking

the class why these people were compelled to ask questions when the line stopped

moving. In this and subsequent talks addressing breaching experiments that document

questioning behavior, I have used this discussion to tease out the conclusion that people

ask questions to clarify the rules in social situations. Specifically, these questions stem

from a discrepancy between expectations of the availability of conventional means and

the fact that the availability of these means has been threatened in some way. I explain

that the vocalization of questions is an anomic response to a situation because it shows

that the means are not as clear as before. In this example people who were socialized to

believe that waiting in line to order their food is the proper way to achieve the goal of

sustenance try to figure out why this conforming behavior is not immediately rewarded.

This proposition gives life to some very exciting discussion in which I

hypothetically ask students at what point a deviant adaptation, such as innovation, would

occur among the people waiting in line. I explain that we see questioning behavior as a

response to situations in which the means are perceived to be threatened, ineffectual, or

disrespected, and I ask them what conforming pressures are still at play in these types of

situations. That is, what norms are still operating to prevent the exhibition of blatantly

deviant, anti-social behavior? I use this type of dialogue to discuss how norms are often

layered upon each other. For example, politeness norms may prevent people from directly

confronting the person holding up a line at a restaurant, but eventually, these norms may

begin to be seen as a threat to a desired goal. This line of discussion leads into some

interesting permutations where we discuss, for example, that the perceived violation of
 Breaching Experiments 13

norms may prompt the further violation of norms, or that the intensity of one’s desire for

a goal may influence how certain norms are honored.

Class discussions involving students’ breaching experiments have proved to be

effective forums for talking about the social responses to deviance, but perhaps more

importantly, they help students understand the nature of conformity, the social structure

that enforces conformity, and when conformity prevails or is abandoned. As conformity

is the default mode for most social actors in mundane social situations, the pressures that

insidiously enforce such behavior are rarely felt. Because they are based upon the

exhibition of behaviors that are antithetical to norms that we take for granted, breaching

experiments provide effective ways for students to recognize social structure. When

discussed in the classroom students’ experiences with breaching provide insight into the

value of “breaking the rules.”

EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS

In addition to these fruitful classroom discussions I have also conducted a formal

evaluation of the breaching assignment. I asked students who had recently completed

their breaching experiments in my introductory sociology course to offer their own

opinions of this exercise. Using a five-point Likert Scale (1=strongly disagree;

2=disagree; 3=neutral; 4=agree; and 5=strongly agree) 74 students evaluated the

following four statements: (1) This project helped me to have a better understanding of

how social norms enforce conformity; (2) I found that doing this project has helped me to

better understand some of the concepts that we have discussed in this course; (3) In doing

this exercise, my own discomfort helped me to see how much I conform in everyday
 Breaching Experiments 14

situations; (4) In terms of helping me to understand how norms guide everyday behavior,

the breaching experiment assignment was a great idea. The results of this evaluation are

summarized in Table 1 below.

(Insert Table 1 About Here)

As Table 1 illustrates, students regarded the breaching assignment favorably, giving

evaluations ranging from 4.23 to 4.68 out of a possible score of five for each question.

The evaluation form also invited students to provide some narrative accounts of their

experiences with the breaching exercise. These accounts were overwhelmingly positive.

With regard to how the assignment facilitated an understanding of social norms, one

student stated: “It made me realize that even just the simple everyday things that we do

create norms, and that even the smallest interruption…has an emotional and physical

affect on others.” Another student whose breach involved an analysis of the sociological

concept of stigma by wearing a fake facial scar in public wrote: “I believe that by doing

my experiment and actually relating the reactions of others to a concept really helped me

understand it better.” Commenting in a more general way, another student stated: “I had

to see for myself and really pay attention to people’s reactions. I genuinely saw in action

the concepts we discussed in class.” Such responses speak to the effectiveness of this

assignment and affirm its importance in introducing students to sociology.

As with any experimental assignment, many factors affect its outcome, and it may

take an attempt or two for instructors to figure out how to adapt the assignment to their

own teaching nuances. One significant positive social outcome of this assignment is the
 Breaching Experiments 15

camaraderie that students develop when discussing their experiments with each other.

Students tend to get very excited (sometimes nervous) about their breaching designs,

which are a common topic of conversation throughout a semester. These types of

conversations open the door to many additional learning opportunities and may inspire

students to take more courses in sociology. I have found it important to take part in their

conversations and provide students with as much input as possible in both the structure

and implementation of their breaches. Given the provision of this dialogue between

instructor and student, these experiments are highly effective in achieving learning

outcomes. Students’ formal reports of their breaches often prove to be insightful and

move beyond simple definitions of abstract concepts. Their analysis of concepts such as

anomie, relative deprivation, role strain, achieved status, and so on, benefit greatly from

the field research that makes a breaching experiment work.

 Breaching Experiments 16

REFERENCES

Anderson, Margaret L. and Howard F. Taylor. 2002. Sociology: Understanding a

Diverse Society. 2d ed. Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth.

Cheatwood, Derral, Jay Corzine, and Barry Glassner. 1978. “Techniques in Teaching

Deviance.” Teaching Sociology 5: 171-86.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Gregory, Stanford W. 1982. “Accounts as Assembled from Breaching Experiments.”

Symbolic Interaction 5: 49-63.

Halnon, Karen B. 2001. “The Sociology of Doing Nothing: A Model ‘Adopt a Stigma in

a Public Place’ Exercise.” Teaching Sociology 29: 423-38.

Henslin, James M., Dan Glenday, Ann Duffy, and Norene Pupo. 2001. Sociology: A

Down-to-Earth Approach. 2d ed. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Jones, Angela, L. 1998. “Random Acts of Kindness: A Teaching Tool for Positive

Deviance.” Teaching Sociology 26: 179-89.

Kusa, Zuzana. 1993. “Garfinkel’s ‘Breaching Experiment’ in Teaching Sociology.”

Sociologia 25: 95-104.

Macionis, John J. 2002. Society: The Basics. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

McGrane, Bernard. 1993. “Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There!” Teaching Sociology

21: 79-84.

Merton, Robert K. 1938. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review

3: 672-82.
 Breaching Experiments 17

Misra, Joya. 2000. “Integrating “The Real World” into Introduction to Sociology:

Making Sociological Concepts Real.” Teaching Sociology 28: 346-363.

Potter, R.H. [Author: Please supply first name.]1993. “Deviance Down Under or How a

Deviance Assignment Became a ‘Folk Devil’.” Teaching Sociology 21: 397-402.