forces, such as honesty and hypocrisy, innocence and experience, individuality and the pressure to conform.
There are two other fundamental types of conflict stated by Maciver and Charles H. Page in Society: An Introductory Analysis: direct and indirect conflict.
Conflict which occurs when individual or groups thwart or impede or restrain or injure or destroy one another in the effort to obtain some goals is classified as
direct conflict. On the other hand, conflict which occurs when individuals or groups do not actually impede the efforts of one another but nevertheless seek to
obtain their ends in ways which obstruct the attainment of the same ends by others belongs to indirect conflict. 1950: 64
2. Theory of Gossip
The anthrop ologist Gary Fine argues that gossip is a “form of discourse
between persons discussing the behaviour, character, situation, or attributes of absent others” 1997: 422. The absence of others gives more possibility for
people to talk about them rather than the one who is presence. In Gossip and Scandal, as quoted by Pamela J. Stewart and Andrew
Strathern in Witchcraft, Sorcery, Rummors, and Gossip 2004: 30-35, Max Gluckman states that gossip contributes to the unity of the group. It can control
“aspiring individuals and make possible the selection of leaders without embarrassment. “Nevertheless, gossip somewhat can be manipulated by the
powerful against others. A bit different from Gluckman, Robert Paine in An Alternative Hypothesis sees gossip as being made by individuals to forward and
protect their interests. Gossip within groups having rival interests is likely to be competitive and hostile.
Apart from the definition of gossip explained above, there are three classifications of gossip stated by Patricia Meyer Spacks in her Gossip:
destructiveness, avoidance and competition, and intimacy. Rather than defining those as goals, Spacks prefers to define the classification in terms of real:
The classification that I have just offered differentiated most importantly in terms of real rather than announced goals: destructiveness at one
extreme, avoidance and competition in cocktail party gossip, intimacy and moral investigation at the “serious” end of the spectrum. 1985: 6
Destructive gossip plays with reputation, dealing with truths and half-
truths and falsehood about the activities, somehow about the motives and feelings, of others. It often produces serious purposes for the gossipers by damaging
competitors or enemies, or diminishing another. This kind of gossip can affect incalculable harm. 1985: 4
The second classification of gossip argued by Spacks is apparently the most common one. A competitive gossip constitutes moral avoidance. This kind
of gossip can solidify a group’s sense of itself. People might measure who is up or who is down to compete each other to reveal complacencies of groups in power.
1985: 5 On the contrary, there lies a gossip which exists only as a function of
intimacy, mostly taking place in private. Gossipers talk about others “to reflect
about themselves, to express wonder and uncertainty and locate certainties, to enlarge their knowledge of one another.” 1985: 5
Foster on his Research on Gossip divides social functions of gossip into 4 varieties. They are gossip functioning as information, entertainment, friendship,
and influence 2004: 83-86. a.
Information Gossip is widely functioned as media to gather or disseminate information
in an efficient way. Nevertheless, no matter how salient or scandalous the information is, it will not be counted as gossip unless the participants know
enough about the people involved to experience the thrill of revelation; b.
Entertainment Gossip as entertainment actually depends on the sensitivity of the gossipee
in receiving the information being passed. The entertainment value of gossips occurs outside the actual change. It can exist solely for the entertainment value of
the gossipers; c.
Friendship When gossip brings group together through the sharing norms,
establishing boundaries to distinguish insiders from outsiders, this is then one function of gossip as friendship;
d. Influence
People somehow can learn how to behave – what to do and what not to do
– from listening to gossip. Gossip is acknowledged to be an efficient social mechanism. Foster, 2004: 83-86
C. Review of Gossip among American Teenagers
Based on Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd in The Drama 2011: 1, today’s gossip, jokes, and arguments that bring conflict for teenagers are nothing
new. Through gossip, teens try to define the boundaries of acceptability, allowing them to construct and refine their own morality and sense of social norms. Many
teens ask their friends whether they already know about the newest gossip or not to place themselves in a group. It allows teens to both make certain they are
mutually aware of a particular event and signal their own attitude towards it. 2011: 10
“While teen conflict will never go away, networked public have changed how it operates.” Marwick, 2011: 23. Gossips also circulate on networked
publics. As attention seekers, teens perform gossip for everyone. Both the performative and attention-seeking aspects of gossip grab teenagers into
popularity. This review is really suitable with the novel being used in this research
which is Gossip Girl by Cecily von Ziegesar. The existence of a website called gossipgirl.net containing lots of gossip obtains the participation of the characters
which are teenagers to read and state opinions. It deals with their eagerness to seek attention from others.
D. Theoretical Framework
This research reveals the influence of gossips toward the conflict in Cecily von Ziegesar’s Gossip Girl. There are three problem formulations made to be
