Plakias discusses how awkwardness ensues upon the failure of an infrastructure. In this post, I will look at two of the examples of failures of infrastructure that she gives, etiquette and deviance from social norms, within the context of Michael Scott’s bananas Dinner Party in The Office (US). Plakias’ examples usually involve a discoordination between two or more parties. In this case, discoordination and failure of infrastructure occurs as each party is acting with a different implicit social goal. Michael and Jan are both trying to one up each other, Angela and Andy are showing off their relationship, Dwight is trying to win Angela back, Jim and Pam are trying to leave, and Dwight’s date/former babysitter is simply along for the ride.
Plakias describes how etiquette is important as ‘it makes us attentive to the presence, needs, and expectations of others’. Thus, the awkwardness caused by a disruption in etiquette demonstrates a clear disregard for the feelings of those present. Michael and Jan’s continuous bickering builds tension throughout the episode, which leads Jan to lash out at the guests as well. For example at 1:27, when she quietly (and very unnecessarily) comments ‘I bet you are’, thereby insinuating some kind of relationship between Michael and Pam, to which Pam expresses discomfort with a glance at the camera.
Equally, the situation is made more awkward when the etiquette is disrupted from the side of the guests, who, before this moment were simply bystanders and essentially victims of this disruption of infrastructure. Jim pretends to receive a phone call from his landlord telling him that his apartment has flooded, and he and Pam must return home. Upon challenge from Michael, Jim decides to boot Pam from the plan, leading Pam to sabotage him in revenge. The fact that Jim immediately gives up and does not mention it again would incite suspicion as to the authenticity of his claims, which in turn would be a blunder in etiquette towards Michael and Jan, the hosts of the party.
In terms of deviance from social norms, Michael and Jan’s animosity towards one another is presented in the bizarre aspects of their living arrangement. In the bedroom during the house tour, Pam politely tries to diffuse tension by complimenting ‘what a cute bench!’ to which Michael, without missing a beat, declares ‘thanks, that’s my bed’ which is certainly an unexpected response in this situation. Jim and Pam have no choice but to stand and watch in discomfort as Michael demonstrates how he sleeps on the bench. As Plakias discusses, the situation remains awkward as the only relief from this discomfort would be if one party acknowledged the discoordinated nature of this arrangement which, spoilers, does not happen and it only gets worse.
Therefore, not only does this episode demonstrate Plakias’ examples of awkwardness from failure of infrastructure, but also builds on this by showing that this failure of infrastructure is tied to the characters’ differing and conflicting social objectives.
This is such a good example of Plakias’s awkwardness in a comedic register! The awkwardness and lack of a social script also really culminate in Michael’s monologue about his vasectomy-reverse vasectomy-reverse reverse vasectomy, which breaks more etiquette rules than I can think of and which caused me to leave the room the first time I watched this episode.
Every time I tell people that I haven’t seen much of The Office (US), they say, ‘but you’ve seen the dinner party episode, right?’ Which just goes to show how this episode is certainly in the awkward comedy hall of fame. The bench/bed scene works so well because it is awkward conversationally, but also visually as we watch Michael demonstrating how he sleeps and Jim and Pam silently watch. We are also forced to imagine the awkward reality of Michael and Jan’s sleeping arrangement, and how it would actually play out at night!
Michael Scott is the epitome of someone who deviates from the social script! He often doesn’t realize his behavior doesn’t fit with the norms of a social situation and your observations of the other characters’ social objectives only heightens the awkwardness instigated by Michael.