Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by TriumphalBoltzmann1188
Corvinus University of Budapest
Tags
Summary
This document discusses social interaction in the age of the internet. It examines how the internet has transformed face-to-face communication and explores the ways people manage impressions in daily life. The text also elaborates on the concept of social roles and statuses.
Full Transcript
Social Interaction and Everyday Life 5 in the Age of the Internet Imagine you are in need of assistance in a crowded subway car. A person nearby who is listening to her iPod will probably: a willingly provide you help. b begrudgingly provide...
Social Interaction and Everyday Life 5 in the Age of the Internet Imagine you are in need of assistance in a crowded subway car. A person nearby who is listening to her iPod will probably: a willingly provide you help. b begrudgingly provide you help. c react angrily to your request for help. d ignore your request for help altogether. Turn the page for the correct answer. 121 D oes the use of an iPod affect public social conduct? This is the question asked by Christine Miranda, a junior at Princeton University who wanted to know how receptive iPod users were to strangers. Comparing the behavior of individu- als using iPods with those not using them, she embarked on a study in New York’s sub- way system and began to document interactions between iPod users and nonusers on the 6 train on the East Side of Manhattan. You might expect that iPod users on the subway would be unwilling or unhappy to speak with you (answers b, c, or d). Given that people listening to music via head- phones appear to be less interested in conversation, you would probably be wary about approaching someone preoccupied with another task. People not wearing the trade- mark white earbuds likely appear more open to conversation, (literally) more able to hear what you have to say. Miranda’s study put this commonsense hypothesis to the test. Boarding a subway car, she noted whether people possessed iPods; their positioning in relation to her; and their race, sex, and approximate age. In addition to observing users’ and nonusers’ responses to interactions, she noted cues such as body language and facial gestures, and recorded exchanges between users and nonusers, as well as interactions involving auditory interruptions, invasions of physical space, and sexual offenses. Sometimes Miranda simply observed naturally occurring interactions; for example, she observed the responses of users and nonusers to a panhandler petitioning for dona- tions. At other times, she acted as the “confederate,” or intruder, interrupting an iPod user to ask about the train’s last stop. She asked similar questions of nonusers as well, seeking to determine whether iPod users were less eager or less willing to respond. Miranda found that iPod users seemed just as open to providing useful information as nonusers. Thus, answer a is actually correct. Among the iPod users, no one she asked seemed to mind removing their headphones long enough to provide an answer; indeed, the users she asked seemed more courteous than the nonusers. Having offered the infor- mation requested, however, iPod users promptly went back to listening to their music. LEA R NING OBJECTIV ES 1 BASIC CONCEPTS Understand the core concepts of the “impression management” perspective. Recognize how we use impression management techniques in everyday life. 2 THEORIES OF SOCIAL INTERACTION Understand why the study of social interaction is of major importance in sociology. Learn the four zones of personal space. Learn what ethnomethodology is. 3 CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ON SOCIAL INTERACTION Understand how social interaction and broader features of society are closely related. 4 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS See how face-to-face interactions remain important in the age of the Internet. 122 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet (Similarly, nonusers who were reading when she asked them went back to their newspa- pers or books, and those engaged in conversation went back to talking.) Corroborating the popular hypothesis just detailed, most subway riders, Miranda dis- covered, perceived iPod users as less approachable. So while most users seemed happy to offer information that was requested of them, they were less likely than nonusers to be asked in the first place. Indeed, Miranda noted: “The personal stereo presents an opportunity to block off the outside environment and to reduce the likelihood of being approached, but when social conduct does occur, the user’s behavior is not much different from the nonuser’s.” She concluded that while the personal stereo presents the illusion of separation, mak- ing a user appear less approachable, this “wall can be easily broken when we simply disrupt a person’s personal space with words or actions.” It may initially take a bit more effort to get the attention of an iPod user, whose senses may be somewhat dulled compared with those of a more alert nonuser. However, when a true attempt is made to get an iPod user to interact (for example, by asking a pointed question), the iPod user seems as open to interruption as the nonuser. After the interaction, however, it is generally understood that iPod users will go about their own business without acknowledging those around them. T HE ANSWER I S A. 1 BASIC CONCEPTS When we published the first edition of this book, the study of face-to-face communication was a well-settled territory. There is reason to think, however, that social interaction over the past decade or so has undergone a major transformation because of the Internet. In this chapter, we will review the traditional findings of the field, but we will also ask how we must modify those findings in light of the rise of e-mail, Twitter, iPhone apps, and social network- ing sites like Facebook. We will first learn about the ways we use impression management techniques in our daily interactions. We then move on to analyze the nonverbal cues (facial expressions and bodily gestures) all of us use when interacting with one another. Finally, we focus on the ways in which our lives are structured by daily rolesŚĊŚThe expected behaviors of people routines, paying particular attention to how we occupying particular social positions. The idea of social role originally comes from the theater, coordinate our actions across space and time. referring to the parts that actors play in a stage production. In every society, individuals play a number of social roles. Impression Management: The World as a Stage statusŚĊŚThe social honor or prestige that a particular group is accorded by other members of a society. Status groups normally display Sociologist Erving Goffman and other writers distinct styles of life—patterns of behavior that on social interaction often use notions from the- the members of a group follow. Status privilege ater in their analyses. The concept of the social may be positive or negative. role, for example, originated in a theatrical set- social positionŚĊŚThe social identity an ting. Broadly speaking, roles are socially defined individual has in a given group or society. Social positions may be general in nature (those expectations that a person in a given status (or associated with gender roles) or more specific social position) follows. To be a teacher is to (occupational positions). hold a specific position; the teacher’s role consists Basic Concepts123 of acting in specified ways toward pupils. Goffman (1973) sees social life as played out by actors on a stage (or on many stages) because how we act depends on the roles we play at a given time. People are sensitive to how others see them and use many forms of impression management to compel others to react to them in the ways they wish. Although we may sometimes do this in a calculated way, usually it is among the things we do without conscious attention. When going on a job interview, a person will typically dress more formally and try to put his How are technologies such as webcams, e- mail, and smart- or her best foot forward; however, when phones transforming the ways we interact with one another? going out with friends, he or she might dress down, use slang, and act in ways that may not impress a prospective employer. A central insight of social interaction based on Goffman’s work is that every human being possesses a self that is fragile and vulnerable to embarrassment, or even humili- ation, at every turn. People are intensely attuned to what others think of them and how others view them. That’s part of the reason why we’re so careful about what we post on Facebook and why we cringe if we’re tagged by friends in unflattering or embarrassing photos. Seeking approval and respect, individuals want to “save face” at every turn. In social interactions, human beings tend to collaborate with others to make sure that the interaction ends without embarrassment for anyone. As a stage, social life has many players, and they must collaborate to make each scene work. Think of examples from your own life when people did not collaborate with you. If you go to a club and someone with whom you don’t want to talk approaches you, you will likely try to end the interaction in a way that spares the other person embarrassment. If you were simply to tell the person, “Get lost!” rather than help him or her save face, that would be highly unusual. This is because there is a norm of collaboration by which human beings try to move through life without embarrassing or humiliating others. When this collaboration does not occur, the interaction stands out. The pose that we adopt depends a great deal on our social role, but no particular role dictates any specific presentation of self. A person’s demeanor can be different depend- ing on the social context. For instance, as a student, you have a certain status and are expected to act a certain way when you are around your professors. Some pupils will enact the self-presentation of the dutiful student, while others will assume an uncar- ing or apathetic pose. Some sociological studies suggest that in poor inner- city schools whose student bodies comprise largely minorities, students afraid of being accused of “acting white” will adopt a personal style that is more “street” than studious. How- ever, this appearance may not give an accurate sense of how capable a student really is. A student who takes on the demeanor of the impression managementŚĊŚPreparing for the street may be studying just as hard as class- presentation of one’s social role. mates who take on the demeanor of the mild- mannered scholar. 124 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet ADOPTING ROLES For an example of collaboration in impression management that also borrows from the the- ater, let’s look at one particular study in some detail. James Henslin and Mae Biggs (1971, 1997) studied a specific, highly delicate type of encounter: a woman’s visit to a gynecolo- gist. At the time of the study, male doctors carried out most pelvic examinations, hence the experience was (and sometimes still is) fraught with potential ambiguities and embarrass- ment for both parties. Men and women in the West are socialized to think of the genitals as the most private part of the body, and seeing, and particularly touching, the genitals of another person is ordinarily associated with intimate sexual encounters. Some women feel so worried by the prospect of a pelvic examination that they refuse to visit the doctor, male or female, even when they suspect there is a strong medical reason to do so. Henslin and Biggs analyzed material collected by Biggs, a trained nurse, from a large number of gynecological examinations. They interpreted what they found as occurring in several typical stages. Adopting a dramaturgical metaphor, they suggested that each phase could be treated as a distinct scene, in which the parts the actors play alter as the epi- sode unfolds. In the prologue, the woman enters the waiting room preparing to assume the role of patient and temporarily discarding her outside identity. Called into the consulting room, she adopts the “patient” role, and the first scene opens. The doctor assumes a businesslike, professional manner and treats the patient as a proper and competent per- son, maintaining eye contact and listening politely to what she has to say. If the doctor decides an examination is called for, he tells her so and leaves the room. Scene One is over. As the doctor leaves, a female nurse comes in. She is an important stagehand in the main scene shortly to begin. She soothes any worries the patient might have, acting as both a confidante—knowing some of the “things women have to put up with”—and a col- laborator in what is to follow. Crucial to the next scene, the nurse helps alter the patient from a person to a “nonperson” for the vital scene—which features a body, part of which is to be scrutinized, rather than a complete human being. In Henslin and Biggs’s study, the nurse supervises the patient’s undressing, taking the patient’s clothes and folding them. Most women want their underwear to be out of sight when the doctor returns, so the nurse makes sure that this is so. She guides the patient to the examining table and covers most of the patient’s body with a sheet before the physician returns. The central scene now opens, with the nurse as well as the doctor taking part. The presence of the nurse helps ensure that the interaction between the doctor and the patient is free of sexual overtones and provides a legal witness should the physician be charged with unprofessional conduct. The examination proceeds as though the patient’s personal- ity were absent; the sheet across her separates the genital area from the rest of her body, and her position does not allow her to watch the examination itself. Save for any specific medical queries, the doctor ignores her, sitting on a low stool out of her line of vision. The patient collaborates in becoming a temporary nonperson, not initiating conversation and keeping any movements to a minimum. In the interval between this scene and the final one, the nurse again plays the role of stagehand, helping the patient become a full person once more. After the doctor has left the room, the two may again engage in conversation, the patient expressing relief that the examination is over. Having dressed and groomed herself, the patient is ready to face the concluding scene. The doctor reenters and, in discussing the results of the examination, again treats the patient as a complete person. Resuming his polite, profes- sional manner, he conveys that his reactions to her are in no way altered by the intimate Basic Concepts125 contact with her body. The epilogue is played out when the patient leaves the physi- cian’s office, resuming her identity in the outside world. The patient and the doctor have thus collaborated in such a way as to manage the interaction and the impression each participant forms of the other. Audience Segregation Although people cooperate to help one another “save face,” they also endeavor individually to preserve their own dignity, autonomy, and respect. One of the ways in which people do this is by arranging for “audience segregation” in their lives. In each of their roles, they act some- what differently, and they try to keep what they do in each role distinct from what they do in their other roles. This means that they can have multiple selves. Frequently, these selves are consistent with one another, but sometimes, they are not. People find it very stressful when boundaries break down or when they cannot reconcile their role in one area of their life with their role in another. For example, we may have two friends who do not like each other. Rather than choose between them, we will spend time with both friends but never mention to either friend that we are close with the other. Or some people live very different lives at home and at work. For example, due to discrimination against gays and lesbians, someone who appears “straight” at work may live happily with a same-sex partner at home. Like all people who engage in audience segregation, they show a different face to different people. Audience segregation implicitly encourages impression management. Some people maintain two different Facebook pages, one linked to family members or coworkers and another linked to friends and peers. Why might someone do this? Our Facebook pages are a strategy to “impression manage,” or to carefully and selectively portray an image of our- selves to the outside world. On your “professional” page, you might try to convey an image of a respectable student and employee by carefully curating the information and images you post. By contrast, on your personal page, you might post photos that present a more fun and carefree version of yourself. Goffman saw social life as a precarious balancing act, but he also studied those instances in which audience segregation could not be maintained. He conducted an ethnographic study of St. Elizabeth’s, a mental hospital in Washington, D.C., described in his book Asylums. St. Elizabeth’s was a place where the barriers among different spheres of life (sleep, play, and work) did not exist. In such an environment, which Goffman called a “total institution,” human beings need to adapt to the fact that their private spheres are limited. Other examples of “total institutions,” in which all aspects of life are con- ducted in the same place, include prisons, monasteries, and army boot camps. Civil Inattention When passersby—either strangers or intimates—quickly glance at each other and then look away again, they demonstrate what Goffman (1967, 1971) calls civil inattention. Civil inattention is not the same as merely ignoring another person. Each individual indi- cates recognition of the other person’s presence but avoids any gesture that might be taken as too civil inattentionŚĊŚThe process whereby intrusive. Can you think of examples of civil inat- individuals in the same physical setting glance at each other and quickly look away to indicate tention in your own life? Perhaps when you are awareness of each other but not intrusiveness. walking down the hall of a dormitory, trying to decide where to sit in the dining hall, or simply 126 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet walking across campus? Civil inattention to others is something we engage in more or less unconsciously, but it is of fundamental importance to the existence of social life, which must proceed efficiently, and sometimes among total strangers, without fear. When civil inattention occurs among passing strangers, an individual implies to another person that she has no reason to suspect his intentions, be hostile to him, or in any other way specifi- cally avoid him. The best way to see the importance of this process is by thinking of examples when it doesn’t apply. When a person stares fixedly at another, allowing her face to openly express a particular emotion, it is frequently with a lover, family member, or close friend. Strang- ers or chance acquaintances, whether encountered on the street, at work, or at a party, virtually never hold the gaze of another in this way. To do so may be taken as an indica- tion of hostile intent. It is only where two groups are strongly antagonistic to one another that strangers might indulge in such a practice. Even friends in close conversation need to be careful about how they look at one another. Each individual demonstrates atten- tion and involvement in the conversation by regularly looking at the eyes of the other but not staring into them. To look too intently might be taken as a sign of mistrust about, or at least failure to understand, what the other is saying. Yet if each party does not engage the eyes of the other at all, each is likely to be thought evasive, shifty, or otherwise odd. Nonverbal Communication Social interaction requires numerous forms of nonverbal communication—the exchange of information and meaning through facial expressions, gestures, and body movements. Nonverbal communication, sometimes called “body language,” often alters or expands on what is said with words. In some cases, our body language may convey a mes- sage that is at odds with our words. FACE, GESTURES, AND EMOTION One major aspect of communication is the facial expression of emotion. Paul Ekman and his colleagues have developed what they call the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) for describing movements of the facial muscles that give rise to particular expressions (Ekman and Friesen, 1978). By this means, they have tried to inject some precision into an area notoriously open to inconsistent or contradictory interpretations—for there is little agreement about how emotions are to be identified and classified. Charles Darwin, one of the originators of evolutionary theory, claimed that basic modes of emotional expression are the same in all human beings. Although some have disputed the claim, Ekman’s research among people from widely different cultural backgrounds seems to confirm Darwin’s view. Ekman and W. V. Friesen carried out a study of an isolated community in New Guinea whose members had previously had virtually no contact with outsiders. When they were shown pictures of facial expressions conveying six emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, disgust, fear, and surprise), the New Guineans were able to identify these emotions. According to Ekman, the results of his own and similar studies of different peoples support the view that the facial expression of emotion and its interpretation are innate in human beings. He acknowledges that his evidence does not conclusively demonstrate this view, and it may be that widely shared cultural- learning experiences are involved; however, nonverbal communicationŚĊŚCommunication his conclusions are supported by other types of between individuals based on facial expression research. Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1972) studied or bodily gesture rather than on language. six children born deaf and blind to see how far Basic Concepts127 their facial expressions were the same as those of sighted and hearing individuals in particular emotional situations. He found that the children smiled when engaged in obviously pleasurable activities, raised their eyebrows in surprise when sniffing at an object with an unaccustomed smell, and frowned when repeatedly offered a disliked object. Because the children could not have seen other people behaving in these ways, it seems that these responses must be innately determined. Using the FACS, Ekman and Friesen identified a number of the discrete facial- muscle actions in newborn infants that are also found in adult expressions of emotion. Infants seem, for example, to produce facial expressions similar to the adult expression of disgust (pursing the lips and frowning) in response to sour tastes. But although Paul Ekman’s photographs of facial expressions from a tribes- the facial expression of emotion seems to man in an isolated community in New Guinea helped test the be partly innate, individual and cultural idea that basic modes of emotional expression are the same among all people. Here the instructions were to show how your factors influence what exact form facial face would look if (clockwise from top left) your friend had movements take and the contexts in which come and you were happy; your child had died; you saw a dead they are deemed appropriate. How people pig that had been lying there a long time; you were angry and about to fight. smile—for example, the precise movement of the lips and other facial muscles—and for how long both vary among cultures. No gestures or bodily postures have been shown to characterize all, or even most, cultures. In some societies, for instance, people nod when they mean no, the opposite of Anglo-American practice. Gestures that Americans tend to use a great deal, such as pointing, seem not to exist among certain peoples (Bull, 1983). Similarly, a straight- ened forefinger placed in the center of the cheek and rotated is used in parts of Italy as a gesture of praise but appears to be unknown elsewhere. Like facial expressions, gestures and bodily posture are continually used to fill out utterances and convey meanings when nothing is actually said. All three can be used to joke, show irony, or express skepticism. The nonverbal impressions that we convey often inadvertently indicate that what we say is not quite what we actually mean. Blushing is perhaps the most obvious example, but innumerable other subtle indicators can be picked up by other people. Genuine facial expressions tend to evaporate after four or five seconds. A smile that lasts longer could indicate deceit. An expression of surprise that lasts too long may indicate deliberate sarcasm—to show that the individual is not in fact surprised after all. On the Internet, it is very difficult to capture dimensions of emotion that are pres- ent only with facial expression. At first, the need that Internet users felt to approximate facial gestures resulted in at least two common faces: :) or :-) 128 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet As time passed, a need for greater subtlety resulted in other widely understood variations, such as this winking smiley face: ;-) E-mail may once have been devoid of facial expression, but today, the average e-mail user expects to insert different emotions into a message. Strongly felt sentiments might be typed in all capitals, a gesture that is considered “shouting.” The strong need that human beings feel to communicate with their faces has also led to other innovations, like Skype and FaceTime. But, in general, people who communicate over the Internet or even the phone lack the benefit of seeing the faces of their conversational partners as they speak. Why and how does this lack of face-to-face contact matter for human relationships and interactions? On the phone, whether it’s a cell phone or landline, an individual will fre- quently talk for a longer stretch of time than he or she would in face-to-face conversation. Unable to see the face of a conversational partner, the speaker can’t as readily adjust what he or she is saying in response to clues from the listener that he or she “gets it.” Yet, the phone maintains at least some immediacy of feedback that e-mail and text messages, to a lesser extent, lack. This is why in e-mail disputes, people who are unable to make mutual adjust- ments in response to verbal or facial cues will end up saying much more—communicated in the form of long messages—than they would need to say in spoken conversation. Which is best? Would you prefer to make your point via e-mail or text message, over the phone or Skype, or in person? Using sociological insights such as these might make you prefer electronic communication at some times and face-to-face commu- nication at others. For example, if you are dealing with a powerful person and want to get your thoughts across, you may want to avoid a situation where the person can signal with facial gestures that your idea is silly and thus intimidate you, inhibiting you from making all your points. The power to signal with facial gestures is one of the things people do to control the flow of a conversation. On the other hand, face-to-face communication gives you an opportunity to try out an idea on someone more powerful than you without going too far down the road if the person is actually unreceptive. Response Cries Certain kinds of utterances are not talk but consist of muttered exclamations, or what Goffman (1981) has called response cries. Consider Lucy, who exclaims, “Oops!” after knocking over a glass of water. “Oops!” seems to be merely an uninteresting reflex response to a mishap, rather like blinking your eye when a person moves a hand sharply toward your face. It is not a reflex, however, as shown by the fact that people do not usually make the exclamation when alone. “Oops!” is normally directed toward others present. The exclama- tion demonstrates to witnesses that the lapse is only minor and momentary, not something that should cast doubt on Lucy’s command of her actions. Phrases like “Oops!” or “My bad!” are used only in situations of minor failure, rather than in major accidents or calamities—which also demonstrates that the exclamation is part of our controlled management of the details response criesŚĊŚSeemingly involuntary of social life. Moreover, these phrases may be exclamations individuals make when, for example, they are taken by surprise, drop used by someone observing Lucy rather than something inadvertently, or want to express by Lucy herself, or they may be used to sound pleasure. a warning to another. Oops is normally a short Basic Concepts129 sound, but the oo may be prolonged in some situations. Thus, someone might extend the sound to cover a critical moment in performing a task. For instance, a parent may utter an extended “Oops!” or “Oops-a- daisy!” when playfully tossing a child in the air. The sound covers the brief phase when the child may feel a loss of control, reassuring him and probably at the same time developing his understanding of response cries. This may all sound very contrived and exaggerated. Why bother to analyze such an inconsequential utterance in such detail? Surely we don’t pay as much attention to what we say as this example suggests? Of course we don’t—on a conscious level. The crucial point, however, is that we take for granted the immensely complicated, continuous control of our appearance and actions. In situations of interaction, we are never expected simply to be present. Others expect, as we expect of them, that we will display what Goffman calls “controlled alertness.” A fundamental part of being human is continually demonstrating to others our competence in the routines of daily life. Focused and Unfocused Interaction In many social situations, we engage in what Goffman calls unfocused interaction with others. Unfocused interaction takes place whenever individuals exhibit awareness of one another’s presence. This is usually the case anywhere large numbers of people are assem- bled, as on a busy street, in a theater crowd, or at a party. When people are in the presence of others, even if they do not directly talk to them, they continually communicate nonver- bally through their posture and facial and physical gestures. Focused interaction occurs when individuals directly attend to what others say or do. Goffman calls an instance of focused interaction an encounter. Much of our day-to- day life consists of encounters with other people—family, friends, colleagues—frequently occurring against the background of unfocused interaction with others. Small talk, semi- nar discussions, games, and routine face-to-face contact (with ticket clerks, waiters, shop assistants, and so forth) are all examples of encounters. Encounters always need “openings,” which indicate that civil inattention is being discarded. When strangers meet and begin to talk at a party, the moment of ceasing civil inattention is always risky because misunderstandings can easily occur about the nature of the encounter being established (Goffman, 1971). Hence, making eye contact may first be ambiguous and tentative. A person can then act as though he or she had made no direct move if the overture is not accepted. In focused interaction, each person communicates as much by facial expression and gesture as by the words actually exchanged. Goffman distinguishes between the expres- unfocused interactionŚĊŚInteraction occurring among people present in a particular sions an individual “gives” and those he “gives setting but not engaged in direct face-to-face off.” The first are the words and facial expres- communication. sions people use to make certain impressions on focused interactionŚĊŚInteraction between others. The second are the cues that others may individuals engaged in a common activity or in direct conversation with one another. spot to check a person’s sincerity or truthfulness. encounterŚĊŚA meeting between two or more For instance, a restaurant owner listens with a people in a situation of face-to-face interaction. polite smile to the statements of customers about Our daily lives can be seen as a series of how much they are enjoying their meal. At the different encounters spread out across the course of the day. In modern societies, many of same time, he is noting how pleased they seemed these encounters are with strangers rather than to be while eating the food, whether a lot is left with people we know. over, and the tone of voice they use to express their satisfaction. 130 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet Think about how Goffman’s concepts of focused and unfocused interaction, developed time-spaceŚĊŚWhen and where events occur. mainly to explain face-to-face social encounters, regionalizationŚĊŚThe division of social life into different regional settings or zones. apply to the current age. Can you think of a way in which unfocused interaction occurs on Facebook %ŗ,!#)(ŚĊŚAreas apart from front-region performance, as specified by Erving Goffman, in or Twitter? In some of these online communi- which individuals are able to relax and behave ties, anyone can have an awareness of who else is informally. online without being in direct contact with them. ,)(.ŗ,!#)(ŚĊŚSettings of social activity On Twitter, people are constantly broadcasting in which people seek to put on a definite “performance” for others. status updates about what they are doing at that moment. These status updates make it possible clock timeŚĊŚTime as measured by the clock, in terms of hours, minutes, and seconds, as for people in unfocused interaction to have even opposed to measuring it by the rising and more control over how they are perceived than setting of the sun. people who are merely in one another’s presence. Instead of unconsciously revealing their facial expressions or posture as they would in face- to-face encounters, people can consciously craft the message or tweet they wish to broadcast. Interaction in Time and Space Understanding how activities are distributed in time and space is fundamental to ana- lyzing encounters and understanding social life in general. All interaction is situated—it occurs in a particular place and has a specific duration in time. Our actions over the course of a day tend to be “zoned” in time as well as in space. Thus, for example, most people spend a zone—say, from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.—of their daily time working. Their weekly time is also zoned: They are likely to work on weekdays and spend weekends at home, altering the pattern of their activities on the weekend days. As they move through the temporal zones of the day, they often are also moving across space; to get to work, they may take a bus from one area of a city to another or perhaps commute from the suburbs. When we analyze the contexts of social interaction, therefore, it is often useful to look at people’s movements across time-space. The concept of regionalization will help us understand how social life is zoned in time-space. Take the example of a private home. A modern house is regionalized into rooms, hallways, and floors (if there is more than one story). These spaces are not just physically separate areas but are zoned in time as well. The living room and kitchen are used mostly in the daylight hours; the bedrooms, at night. The interaction that occurs in these regions is bound by both spatial and temporal divisions. Some areas of the house form back regions, with “performances” taking place in front regions. At times, the whole house can become a back region. Once again, this idea is beautifully captured by Goffman (1973): [On] a Sunday morning, a whole household can use the wall around its domestic establishment to conceal a relaxing slovenliness in dress and civil endeavor, extending to all rooms the informality that is usually restricted to kitchen and bedrooms. So, too, in American middle- class neighborhoods, on afternoons the line between children’s playground and home may be defined as backstage by mothers, who pass along it wearing jeans, loafers, and a minimum of make- up. CLOCK TIME In modern societies, the zoning of our activities is strongly influenced by clock time. Without clocks and the precise timing of activities, and thereby their coordination across Basic Concepts131 space, industrialized societies could not exist social interactionŚĊŚThe process by which we (Mumford, 1973). Today, the measuring of time act and react to those around us. by clocks is standardized across the globe, mak- ing possible the complex international transport systems and communications we now depend on. World standard time was first introduced in 1884 at a conference of nations held in Washington, D.C. The globe was then partitioned into 24 time zones, one hour apart, and an exact beginning of the universal day was fixed. Fourteenth-century monasteries were the first organizations to try to schedule the activities of their inmates precisely across the day and week. Today, there is virtually no group or organization that does not do so. The greater the number of people and resources involved, the more precise the scheduling must be. Eviatar Zerubavel (1979, 1982) dem- onstrated this concept in his study of the temporal structure of a large modern hospital. A hospital must operate on a 24-hour basis, and coordinating the staff and resources is a highly complex matter. For instance, the nurses work for one time period in ward A, another time period in ward B, and so on, and are called on to alternate between day- and night-shift work. Nurses, doctors, and other staff, plus the resources they need, must be integrated in both time and space. SOCIAL LIFE AND THE ORDERING OF SPACE AND TIME The Internet is another example of how closely forms of social life are bound up with our control of space and time. The Internet makes it possible for us to interact with people we never see or meet, in any corner of the world. Such technological change rearranges space—we can interact with anyone without moving from our chair. It also alters our experience of time, because electronic communication is almost immediate. Until about 50 years ago, most communication across space required a duration of time. If you sent a letter to someone abroad, there was a time gap while the letter was carried by 3 ship, train, truck, or plane to the person to CONCEPT CHECKS whom it was written. People still write letters by hand today, of 1. What is impression management? course, but instantaneous communication 2. Why do we segregate our audiences in daily has become basic to our social world. Our life? lives would be almost unimaginable without 3. Describe several ways that individuals com- municate their emotions to one another. it. We are so used to being able to switch on 4. Compare and contrast focused and unfo- the TV and watch the news, make a phone cused interaction. call, or e-mail a friend in another state or 5. How does time structure human life? country that it is hard for us to imagine what life would be like otherwise. 2 THEORIES OF SOCIAL INTERACTION Erving Goffman Many of the concepts we have already reviewed were developed by Erving Goffman, the sociologist who did the most to create a new field of study focused on social interaction. Goffman believed that sociologists needed to concern themselves with seemingly trivial aspects of social behavior. His work on social interaction is just one example of the broader sociological subfield called microsociology. Sociologist Harold Garfinkel conceived this 132 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet term to describe a field of study that focused on individual interaction and communi- cation within small groups. This subfield stood in stark contrast with earlier sociological work, which historically had examined large social groups and societal-level behaviors. The study of social interaction reveals important things about human social life. Passing someone on the street or exchanging a few words with a friend seem like minor and unin- teresting activities, things we do countless times a day without giving them any thought. Goffman argued that the study of such apparently insignificant forms of social interaction is of major importance in sociology and, far from being uninteresting, is one of the most absorbing of all areas of sociological investigation. There are three reasons for this view. First, our day-to-day routines, with their almost constant interactions with others, give structure and form to what we do; we can learn a great deal about ourselves as social beings, and about social life itself, from studying them. Our lives are organized around the repetition of similar patterns of behavior from day to day, week to week, month to month, and year to year. Think of what you did yesterday, for example, and the day before that. If they were both weekdays, in all probability, you got up at about the same time each day (an important routine in itself). You may have gone off to class fairly early in the morning, making a journey from home to school or college that you make virtually every weekday. You perhaps met some friends for lunch, returning to classes or private study in the after- noon. Later, you retraced your steps back home or to your dorm, possibly going out later in the evening with other friends. Of course, the routines we follow from day to day are not identical, and our patterns of activity on weekends usually contrast with those on weekdays. If we make a major change in our life, such as leaving college to take a job, alterations in our daily routines are usually necessary, but then we establish a new and fairly regular set of habits again. Second, the study of everyday life reveals to us how humans can act creatively to shape reality. Although social behavior is guided to some extent by forces such as roles, norms, and shared expectations, individuals also have agency, or the ability to act, think, and make choices independently (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998). The ways that people perceive reality may vary widely based on their backgrounds, interests, and motivations. Because individuals are capable of creative action, they continuously shape reality through their decisions and actions. In other words, reality is not fixed or static—it is created through human interactions. Third, studying social interaction in everyday life sheds light on larger social sys- tems and institutions. All large-scale social systems, in fact, depend on the patterns of social interaction we engage in daily. This idea is easy to demonstrate. Consider the case of two strangers passing on the street. Such an event may seem to have little direct relevance to large-scale, more permanent forms of social organization. But when we take into account many such interactions, they are no longer irrelevant. In mod- ern societies, most people live in towns and cities and constantly interact with others whom they do not know personally. Civil inattention, a concept discussed earlier, is one of the mechanisms that gives public life—with its bustling crowds and fleeting, imper- sonal contacts—its distinctive character. Edward T. Hall—Personal Space agencyŚĊŚThe ability to think, act, and make There are cultural differences in the definition of choices independently. personal space. In Western culture, people usu- personal spaceŚĊŚThe physical space individuals ally maintain a distance of at least three feet when maintain between themselves and others. engaged in focused interaction with others; when Theories of Social Interaction133 standing side by side, they may stand closer together. In the Middle East, people often stand closer to each other than is thought acceptable in the West. Westerners visit- ing that part of the world are likely to find themselves disconcerted by this unexpected physical proximity. Edward T. Hall (1969, 1973), who worked extensively on nonverbal communication, distinguishes four zones of personal space. Intimate distance, of up to one and a half feet, is reserved for very few social contacts. Only those involved in relationships in which regular bodily touching is permit- ted, such as lovers or parents and children, operate within this zone of private space. Personal distance, from one and a half to four feet, is the normal spacing for encoun- ters with friends and close acquaintances. Some intimacy of contact is permitted, Cultural norms frequently dictate the accept- but this tends to be strictly limited. Social able boundaries of personal space. In the distance, from 4 to 12 feet, is the zone usu- Middle East, people frequently stand closer to each other than is common in the West. ally maintained in formal settings such as interviews. The fourth zone is that of public distance, beyond 12 feet, preserved by those who are performing to an audience. In ordinary interaction, the most fraught zones are those of intimate and personal dis- tance. If these zones are invaded, people try to recapture their space. We may stare at the intruder as if to say, “Move away!” or elbow him or her aside. When people are forced into proximity closer than they deem desirable, they might create a kind of physical boundary: A reader at a crowded library desk might physically demarcate a private space by stacking books around its edges (Hall, 1969, 1973). Harold Garfinkel: Ethnomethodology Although we routinely use nonverbal cues in our own behavior and in making sense of the behavior of others, much of our interaction is done through talk—casual verbal exchange— carried on in informal conversations with others. We can make sense of what is said in conversation only if we know the social context, which does not appear in the words them- selves. Take the following conversation (Heritage, 1985): A: I have a fourteen-year-old son. B: Well, that’s all right. A: I also have a dog. B: Oh, I’m sorry. What do you think is happening here? What is the relationship between the speak- ers? What if you were told that this is a conversation between a prospective tenant and a landlord? The conversation then becomes sensible: Some landlords accept chil- 134 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet dren but don’t permit their tenants to keep pets. Yet if we don’t know the social con- text, the responses of individual B seem to bear no relation to the statements of A. Part of the sense is in the words, and part is in the way in which the meaning emerges from the social context. The most inconsequential forms of daily talk presume complicated, shared knowl- edge brought into play by those speaking. In fact, our small talk is so complex that it has so far proved impossible to program even the most sophisticated computers to converse with human beings. The words used in ordinary talk do not always have precise mean- ings, and we “fix” what we want to say through the unstated assumptions that back it up. If Maria asks Tom, “What did you do yesterday?” the words in the question themselves suggest no obvious answer. A day is a long time, and it would be logical for Tom to answer, “Well, at 7:16, I woke up. At 7:18, I got out of bed, went to the bathroom, and started to brush my teeth. At 7:19, I turned on the shower....” We understand the type of response the question calls for by knowing Maria, what sort of activities she and Tom consider relevant, and what Tom usually does on a particular day of the week, among other things. Ethnomethodology is the study of the “ethnomethods”—folk or lay methods—that people use to make sense of what others do and particularly of what they say. We all apply these methods, normally without giving any conscious attention to them. This field was created by Harold Garfinkel, who, along with Goffman, was one of the most important figures in the study of micro interaction. Garfinkel argued that to understand the way people use context to make sense of the world, sociologists need to study the “background expectancies” with which we organize ordinary conversations. He highlighted these in some experiments he undertook with student volunteers (1963). The students were asked to engage a friend or relative in conver- sation and to insist that casual remarks or general comments be actively pursued to make their meaning precise. If someone said, “Have a nice day,” the student was to respond, “Nice in what sense, exactly?” “Which part of the day do you mean?” and so forth. One of the exchanges that resulted ran as follows (S is the friend; E, the student volunteer) (Garfinkel, 1963): S: How are you? E: How am I in regard to what? My health, my finances, my school work, my peace of mind, my... ? S: (red in the face and suddenly out of control): Look! I was just trying to be polite. Frankly, I don’t give a damn how you are. Why do people get so upset when apparently minor conventions of talk are not fol- lowed? The answer is that the stability and meaningfulness of our daily social lives depend on the sharing of unstated cultural assumptions about what is said and why. If we weren’t able to take these for granted, meaningful communication would be impossible. Any question or contribution to a conversation would have to be followed by a massive “search procedure” of the sort Garfinkel’s subjects were told to initiate, and interaction would simply break down. What seem at first sight to be unimportant ethnomethodologyŚĊŚThe study of how conventions of talk, therefore, turn out to be people make sense of what others say and do fundamental to the very fabric of social life, in the course of day-to- day social interaction. Ethnomethodology is concerned with the which is why their breach is so serious. “ethnomethods” by which people sustain Note that in everyday life, people on occa- meaningful interchanges with one another. sion deliberately feign ignorance of unstated Theories of Social Interaction135 knowledge. This may be done to rebuff others, poke fun at them, cause embarrassment, or call attention to a double meaning in what was said. Consider, for example, this classic exchange between parent and teenager: P: Where are you going? T: Out. P: What are you going to do? T: Nothing. The responses of the teenager are effectively the opposite of those of the volunteers in Garfin- kel’s experiments. The teenager declines to provide appropriate answers at all—essentially saying, “Mind your own business!” The first question might elicit a different response from another person in another context: A: Where are you going? B: I’m going quietly round the bend. CONCEPT CHECKS 3 B deliberately misreads A’s question to convey worry or frustration in an ironic manner. Comedy and joking thrive on 1. What is microsociology? 2. What are three reasons it is important to such deliberate misunderstandings of the study daily social interaction? unstated assumptions involved in talk. 3. What are the four zones of personal space? There is nothing threatening about this 4. How did Garfinkel’s students create tense behavior, so long as the parties concerned situations? recognize that the intent is to provoke laughter. 3 CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ON SOCIAL INTERACTION Interactional Vandalism Conversations are one of the main ways in which our daily lives are maintained in a stable and coherent manner. We feel most comfortable when the tacit conventions of small talk are adhered to; when they are breached, we can feel threatened, confused, and insecure. In most everyday talk, conversants are carefully attuned to the cues they get from others—such as changes in intonation, slight pauses, or gestures—to facilitate smooth conversation. By being mutually aware, conversants “cooperate” in opening and closing interactions and in taking turns to speak. Interactions in which one party is con- versationally “uncooperative,” however, can give rise to tensions. Garfinkel’s students created tense situations by intentionally undermining con- versational rules as part of a sociological experiment. But what about situations in the real world in which people make trouble through their conversational practices? One study investigated verbal interchanges between pedestrians and street people in New York City to understand why passersby so often see such interactions as prob- lematic. The researchers used a technique called conversation analysis to compare a 136 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet selection of street interchanges with samples of everyday talk. Conversation analysis is conversation analysisŚĊŚThe empirical study of conversations, employing techniques a methodology that examines all facets of a drawn from ethnomethodology. Conversation conversation for meaning—from the smallest analysis examines details of naturally occurring filler words (such as um and ah) to the precise conversations to reveal the organizational principles of talk and its role in the production timing of interchanges (including pauses, and reproduction of social order. interruptions, and overlap). The study looked at interactions between black men—many of whom were homeless or addicted to drugs or alcohol—and women who passed by them on the street. The men often tried to initiate conversations with passing women by calling out to them, paying them compliments, or asking them questions. But something “went wrong” in these conversations, because the women rarely responded as they would have in a normal interaction. Even though the men’s comments were rarely hostile in tone, the women tended to quicken their step and stare fixedly ahead. The fol- lowing shows attempts by Mudrick, a black man in his late fifties, to engage women in conversation (Duneier and Molotch, 1999): Mudrick begins this interaction when a white woman who looks about twenty-five approaches at a steady pace: 1. Mudrick: I love you, baby. She crosses her arms and quickens her walk, ignoring the comment. 2. Mudrick: Marry me. Next, it is two white women, also probably in their mid-twenties: 3. Mudrick: Hi, girls, you all look very nice today. You have some money? Buy some books. They ignore him. Next, it is a young black woman. 4. Mudrick: Hey, pretty. Hey, pretty. She keeps walking without acknowledging him. 5. Mudrick: ’Scuse me. ’Scuse me. I know you hear me. Then he addresses a white woman in her thirties. 6. Mudrick: I’m watching you. You look nice, you know. She ignores him. Negotiating smooth “openings” and By approaching a woman on the street and trying to initiate a “closings” to conversations is a funda- conversation Mudrick committed in interactional vandalism. mental requirement for urban civility. Contemporary Research on Social Interaction137 These crucial aspects of conversation were highly problematic between the men and women in this study. Where the women resisted the men’s attempts at opening conversa- tions, the men ignored the women’s resistance and persisted. Similarly, if the men suc- ceeded in opening a conversation, they often refused to respond to cues from the women to close the conversation once it had gotten underway (Duneier and Molotch, 1999): 1. Mudrick: Hey, pretty. 2. Woman: Hi, how you doin’? 3. Mudrick: You alright? 4. Mudrick: You look very nice, you know. I like how you have your hair pinned. 5. Mudrick: You married? 6. Woman: Yeah. 7. Mudrick: Huh? 8. Woman: Yeah. 9. Mudrick: Where the rings at? 10. Woman: I have it home. 11. Mudrick: Y’ have it home? 12. Woman: Yeah. 13. Mudrick: Can I get your name? 14. Mudrick: My name is Mudrick. What’s yours? She does not answer and walks on. In this instance, Mudrick made 9 out of the 14 utterances in the interaction to initiate the conversation and to elicit further responses from the woman. From the transcript alone, it is quite evident that the woman is not interested in talking, but when conver- sation analysis is applied to the tape recording, her reluctance becomes even clearer. Even when she does respond, the woman delays all her responses, while Mudrick replies immediately, his comments sometimes overlapping hers. Timing in conversations is a very precise indicator; delaying a response by even a fraction of a second is adequate in most everyday interactions to signal the desire to change the course of a conversation. By betraying these tacit rules of sociability, Mudrick was practicing conversation in a way that was technically rude. The woman, in return, was also technically rude in ignor- ing Mudrick’s repeated attempts to engage her in talk. It is the technically rude nature of these street interchanges that make them problematic for passersby to handle. When standard cues for opening and closing conversations are not adhered to, individuals feel a sense of profound and inexplicable insecurity. The term interactional vandalism describes cases like these in which a subordi- nate person breaks the tacit rules of everyday interaction that are of value to the more powerful person. The men on the street often do conform to everyday forms of speech in their interactions with one another, local shopkeepers, the police, relatives, and acquain- tances. But when they choose to, they subvert the tacit conventions for everyday talk in a way that leaves passersby disoriented. Even more than physical assaults or vulgar verbal abuse, interactional vandalism leaves victims interactional vandalismŚĊŚThe deliberate unable to articulate what has happened. subversion of the tacit rules of conversation. This study of interactional vandalism pro- vides another example of the two-way links 138 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet between micro-level interactions and forces that operate on the macro level. To the men on the street, the women who ignore their attempts at conversation appear distant, cold, and bereft of sympathy—legitimate “targets” for such interactions. The women, mean- while, may often take the men’s behavior as proof that they are indeed dangerous and best avoided. Interactional vandalism is closely tied up with overarching class, gender, and racial structures. The fear and anxiety generated in such mundane interactions help reinforce the outside statuses and forces that, in turn, influence the interactions them- selves. Interactional vandalism is part of a self-reinforcing system of mutual suspicion and incivility. INTERACTIONAL VANDALISM ONLINE The Internet creates spaces in which less powerful people can make their superiors accountable in ways they never were before. Think of all the blogs in which workers talk anonymously about their bosses or situations in which workers forward rude messages from their boss to other employees. Because of the Internet, powerful people are less able to segregate their audiences—treating some people poorly behind the scenes and treating others very nicely in public. The concept of “trolling” might be seen as an interactional mode that shares certain, though not all, aspects of interactional vandalism. A troll is a person who is anonymously disruptive of the taken-for-granted purposes of an online space such as a message board. As such, he or she might post deliberately provocative items. Such provocations might have the effect of undermining the civility that is a foundation for the kind of communica- tion the site’s founders envisioned. Or the controversies raised by trolls can sometimes increase traffic to the site. To what extent is trolling an example of interactional vandalism of the kind found in face-to-face communication on the sidewalk? Like the poor black men who act sincere as they pretend not to understand that a two-second pause is a signal to close a conversation, a troll will pretend not to understand certain assumptions of the conversational world for the specific purpose of being disruptive. Like the poor men on the street, the troll will write as if he or she is a sincere member of the group who perhaps does not understand certain things, while at a deeper level, they know precisely what they are doing. Some readers of a comment a troll posts might be lured further into the interaction, while others will attempt to restore normal order by dismissing the troll’s actions. In inter- actional vandalism on the sidewalk, a less powerful person is subverting normal interac- tion to undermine the taken-for-granted control of someone in a superordinate position. In trolling, the parties are often anonymous, so it’s not always possible to know what the actual power dynamics are. Are the anonymous people in fact less powerful members, or could they be very well-known members of the community who are using the board to further their own agenda? Interaction on the “Digital Street” Recently, sociologists have looked at how the proliferation of smartphones and the rise of social media are changing how boys and girls interact in public spaces. For teenagers in low-income urban areas, the street has long served as a hub of social life and dating. Street interactions between boys and girls may incorporate aspects of both courtship and the incivility that characterizes street talk between adult men and women who are strang- ers. Today, these encounters are reshaped online, or what urban sociologist Jeffrey Lane Contemporary Research on Social Interaction139 refers to as the “digital street.” Lane (2018) studied a cohort of teenagers in Harlem and found that boys and girls had changed the experience of public space by using social media to buffer interaction. Whereas boys were more visible and acted more dominant toward girls on the sidewalk, girls gained visibility and control online. While for some of the boys in Lane’s study, social media provided another, alterna- tive way to call out to girls, other boys engaged girls digitally instead of on the sidewalk. Messaging girls in private, rather than approaching them face to face on the sidewalk, shielded boys from public rejection in front of their friends when advances went unmet. But private messages were not necessarily the best strategy. Christian, one of the teen- agers in Lane’s study, explained that “a girl hates” when a boy writes “a million mes- sages, like, ‘What’s up, I’m trying to talk to you.’” Instead, Lane found that a girl would rather a boy like one of her photos and then leave the girl to make the next move. The use of social media enabled ways to communicate at different distances and paces that steered teens either away from or toward meetings in person. Lane argued that girls and, to a lesser extent, boys were safer with social media. But traditionally gendered norms of interaction and roles also carried forward. For instance, boys and girls alike articulated the pressure on young women to objectify their bodies online. “Girls get naked for likes,” said one 18-year- old girl in Lane’s research. False iden- tity was another issue. Unlike in physical space, appearance and person may decouple online in the case of “fake pages” or “catfishes”—profiles that depict someone other than its user. The possibility of a fake page created trust issues among boys and girls, and these issues were compounded by the fact that law enforcement used profiles designed to mimic girls in the neighborhood to monitor and gather intelligence on boys of interest. The role of social media raises new questions of how people come to find and know each other today. Do people have more understanding or even control over the people around them and their potential meetings? Or are people newly vulnerable online? The Macro-Micro Link: Anderson’s Streetwise In his book Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (1990), Elijah Ander- son describes social interaction on the streets of two adjacent urban neighborhoods, not- ing that studying everyday life sheds light on how the individual building blocks of infinite micro-level interactions create social order. He is particularly interested in understanding interactions when at least one party was viewed as threatening. Anderson shows that the manner in which many blacks and whites interact on the streets of a northern city in the United States has a great deal to do with the structure of racial stereotypes, which itself is linked to the economic structure of society. In this way, he reveals the link between micro interactions and the larger macro structures of society. Anderson begins by recalling Erving Goffman’s description of how social roles and statuses come into existence in particular contexts or locations: When an individual enters the presence of others, they commonly seek to ac- quire information about him or bring into play information already possessed.... Information about the individual helps to define the situation, enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and they may expect of him. (Anderson, 1990) Following Goffman’s lead, Anderson (1990) asked what types of behavioral cues and signs make up the vocabulary of public interaction. He concluded that skin color, gender, age, 140 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet companions, clothing, jewelry, and the objects people carry help identify them, allowing assumptions to be formed and communication to occur. Movements (quick or slow, false or sincere, comprehensible or incomprehensible) further refine this public communi- cation. Factors such as time of day or an activity that “explains” a person’s presence can also affect how and how quickly the image of “stranger” is neutralized. If a stranger can- not pass inspection and be assessed as “safe,” the image of predator may arise, and fellow pedestrians may try to maintain a distance consistent with that image. According to Anderson, the people most likely to pass inspection are those who do not fall into commonly accepted stereotypes of dangerous persons: “Children readily pass inspection, while women and white men do so more slowly, black women, black men, and black male teenagers most slowly of all.” In showing that interactional tensions derive from outside statuses such as race, class, and gender, Anderson makes clear that we cannot develop a full understanding of the situation by looking at the micro interactions them- selves. This is how he makes the link between micro interactions and macro processes. Anderson argues that people are streetwise when they develop skills such as “the art of avoidance” to deal with their felt vulnerability toward violence and crime. Accord- ing to Anderson, whites who are not streetwise do not recognize the difference between different kinds of black men (e.g., middle- class youths versus gang members). They may also not know how to alter the number of paces to walk behind a suspicious person or how to bypass bad blocks at various times of day. In these ways, social science research can help you understand how a very ordinary behavior—navigating one’s way through the city streets—reveals important lessons about the nature of contemporary social interaction. THE COSMOPOLITAN CANOPY Although public space can often be a site of tension and anxiety, the sociologist Elijah Anderson argues in The Cosmopolitan Canopy (2011) that social interaction in urban spaces is not all doom and gloom. There are many places where people of different backgrounds actually get along. For Anderson, the racially and ethnically diverse spaces he has studied offer “a respite from the lingering tensions of urban life as well as an opportunity for diverse peoples to come together.” They are what he calls “pluralistic spaces where people engage with one another in a spirit of civility, or even comity and goodwill.” On the basis of in-depth observations of public areas in his long-time home of Philadelphia, Anderson reports on various important sites in the city. These include the Reading Terminal Market, Rittenhouse Square, and the Galleria Mall. The first two are venues dominated by middle- and upper-middle-class norms and values, while the Galleria caters to the tastes of the black working classes and the poor. All three sites, however, are spaces in which various kinds of people meet, agree to lay down their swords, carry on their life routines, and, in many cases, enjoy themselves. Anderson begins with an ode to Philadelphia’s indoor farmer’s market—the downtown Reading Terminal Market. A regular at the market for decades, he paints a loving portrait of the many types of people who congregate there, including the population of Amish vendors. The patrons range from corporate executives to construction workers to senior citizens in poor health. They are all “on their best behavior” as they eat and shop for food and other items. What is it about this space that causes people to “show a certain civility and even an openness to strangers”? To begin, the city is divided into two kinds of human beings: the open-minded people, who he calls “cosmos” (shorthand for cosmopolitan), and the Contemporary Research on Social Interaction141 close-minded, who he calls “ethnos” (shorthand for ethnocentric). As Anderson sees it, Reading Terminal Market is filled with open-minded people. Through a kind of people watching, each contributes to the creation of the cosmopolitan canopy. It is literally the sight of so many kinds of people in one another’s physical presence, as well as participation in what one sees, that reinforces the idea of a “neutral space.” Whites and minorities who have few opportunities for such interaction elsewhere can relax, imitate, and move about with security. Blacks, however, understand that their status there is always provisional, meaning that at any moment, they are subject to dramatic situations in which whites fail to treat them with the respect they deserve. The dynamic that Anderson highlights over and over is the self-fulfilling nature of the interaction: The interaction and the sight of it makes it so. Most who come are probably repeat players, and they have long visualized different kinds of people getting along in the space. For newcomers, on the other hand, such visualization of tolerance is “infectious.” In the Rittenhouse Square Park and the streets surrounding it, other social cues serve to bring about similar results. There is, for example, a fountain and a statue of a goat that attract mothers, nannies, and children. The sight of “public mothering” is a cue that indicates this is a civil place. A sense of safety and protection underlies good behavior and, in turn, leads to a virtuous circle of other acts of good will. Dog walkers are also crucial, with interaction naturally occurring between them and others (includ- ing children) as they form a critical mass in the park throughout the day. In a similarly positive encounter, when an elderly white woman has trouble standing up, a man sitting on a nearby bench rises and offers his hand to help. As Anderson notes: “Those of us who observed this act realized that we ourselves might expect such help or be called upon to render it.” The Galleria is a different story. Anderson describes it as the “ghetto downtown,” a community of close-minded poor blacks (“ethnos”) in one mall. What makes it a canopy, albeit not a cosmopolitan one, is that various elements of the black community—the “street” and the “decent”—can coexist here. People feel free to be themselves, “loud and boisterous and frank in their comments, released from the inhibitions they might feel among Whites.” The code of the street threatens to undermine the public order at any moment, but everyone is on their best behavior, with security guards reinforc- ing decorum. Nevertheless, Anderson stresses that through a negative feedback loop, this place has a self-reinforcing negative reputation among cosmopolitan whites and blacks. It arises from cues the nonwhite population on the streets around the mall give off and culminates in occasional 3 deeply disturbing incidents such as the CONCEPT CHECKS “flash mob”—high school students orga- nized through Facebook and Twitter who 1. What is interactional vandalism? suddenly appear on the downtown streets 2. What does Anderson mean by the term “wreaking havoc on businesses and terri- “streetwise?” fying pedestrians.” Anderson continues: 3. How would you explain the street harassment that women often experience? “As quickly as this storm appears out 4. Can you identify any examples of cosmopoli- of the blue, it is over, but the effects are tan canopies in your neighborhood? lasting, powerfully redefining the public spaces of the canopy zone” (98). 142 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet 4 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS How Do We Manage Impressions in the Internet Age? The concept of “audience segregation” helps us understand some of the dilemmas of elec- tronic communication. Many people are very sensitive about having things sent to their business e-mail address if they don’t want their coworkers or supervisors to know about them. Thus, they maintain different addresses for home (back region) and office (front region), a practice that is increasingly important because many companies have policies against sending personal e-mails from a company’s computer. Or consider the social situation of a copied message. You write a message to a friend asking her whether she prefers to go to the early show or the late show. You also tell your friend that you have a new boyfriend whom you hope she’ll like. She replies and copies the other people who are thinking of going to the movie, many of whom you never intended to tell about the new romance. Suddenly, the audience segregation you had imagined has broken down. In recent years, undergraduate students have posted pictures of themselves drink- ing at parties, or even naked, only to discover that future employers conducted web searches before making hiring decisions. Some students have even found themselves expelled from their colleges for posting inappropriate Facebook photos or comments. For example, in April 2017, Harvard University rescinded admissions offers to at least 10 students who circulated offensive memes within a private Facebook group for pro- spective Harvard students. Another example of blurring audiences is the case of sex- ting; a high school student may send a revealing photo of herself to her boyfriend, only to have him forward it to the entire school—whether out of cruelty or by mistake. Personal catastrophes such as these, and ones far worse, occur frequently in the age of e-mail and smartphones. What Happens When Dating Moves Online? How did you meet your last romantic partner? Perhaps you met at a party or sat next to each other in your introduction to sociology course. Can you remember what it was that drew you to him or her? Was there something subtle or unexpected that signaled to you there might be an attraction, like a tone of voice, a wink, or light touch to the shoulder? Or did you already have a clear-cut notion of the kind of person you wanted to date—maybe someone tall, or who shared your religious background, or who had profes- sional goals similar to your own—and you carefully surveyed those whom you saw as an “appropriate” partner, before making your move? While popular music suggests that two strangers will lock eyes across a crowded room and true love will follow, in our current digital age, meetings often happen in a far less romantic and more strategic way. According to a recent survey of more than 2,000 Americans 18 years of age or older, 15 percent of adults have used a mobile dating app or website (Smith, 2016). Dozens of smartphone apps like Tinder, Hinge, Bumble, Adven- turely, and Happn allow people to search through endless photos of eligible partners and screen them, or “swipe right,” based on personal preferences like education, occupation, age, height, body weight, gender, sexual orientation, and race. Usage is particularly high Unanswered Questions143 among young adults: More than a quarter (27 percent) of 18- to 24-year-olds have used a mobile dating app or website. Two-thirds of those who meet potential partners online have gone out on a date. Although apps may take the romance and intrigue out of dating, they do fulfill a prac- tical function. Young people can shop for a date in exactly the same way they would shop for a new car; they can specify precisely what they want and search for potential partners who possess those traits. From a sociological perspective, many apps provide strong evidence that norms of “homogamy,” or dating and marrying a partner similar to oneself, are still pervasive in U.S. society. New studies also show that apps provide evidence of “hypergamy,” or the preference for women, typically, to partner with a man with richer socioeconomic resources than her own. For instance, sociologist Kevin Lewis (2013) analyzed data from more than 126,000 dating site users and found that users tended to show the greatest interest in those of their same ethnic background. He analyzed only the first message sent and first reply of each user. He found the strongest tendency to initiate contact within one’s own race among East and South Asians and Indians and weakest among whites. He found that while users would respond to a message from someone from a different ethnic or racial group, this open-mindedness was relatively short-lived; most would promptly return to their old pat- terns of communicating only with members of their own group. Lewis’s analyses also uncovered evidence that users hold dating preferences consis- tent with “highly gendered status hierarchies.” For instance, women tend to seek out men with more education and more income than they themselves have. Although men also sought educated partners, they tended to show greatest interest in women with a college education—“no more and no less.” Racial hierarchies also emerged. White men, Lewis found, enjoyed a privileged position, receiving the most initial messages, while black women received the fewest. Additionally, more than a quarter of online daters report having been contacted in a way that made them feel harassed or uncomfortable. Not surprisingly, perhaps, a sig- nificant gender difference exists here: 42 percent of females complained about this type of contact, compared with 17 percent of males (Pew Research Center, 2013d). It turns out that online dating interactions tend to be gendered as well. One study of nearly 15,000 men and women found that men are far more likely to initiate online exchanges than are women, an unfortunate asymmetry because women who initiate conversations have greater odds of success with equally desirable partners than women who wait to be messaged, but women are much less likely to seize the initiator advantage. In other words, by relying on men to initiate a relationship, women often forego the promise of online dating and are left wondering where all the good men have gone. (Kreager, Cavanagh, Yen, and Yu, 2014: 406) The authors conclude that rather than placing men and women on an equal footing when it comes to establishing intimate partnerships, online dating actually reproduces gen- der inequality. Whether in a crowded bar or sheltered by the initial privacy of their mobile phones, women are less likely to make the first move, and this reluctance works to their dis- advantage. The study’s message to women is clear: Don’t be shy. As the study notes, “Women should not be discouraged from sending messages if they want to contact attractive part- ners” (Kreager, Cavanagh, Yen, and Yu, 2014: 406). 144 CHAPTER 5Social Interaction and Everyday Life in the Age of the Internet It remains unclear whether online dating is preferable to meeting the old-fashioned way. On the plus side, it provides access to a large number of potential partners in an initially anonymous setting, which may be of special benefit for those too shy or introverted to initiate direct face-to-face contact. The use of online questionnaires, which permit would-be partners to determine whether they are compatible before they ever meet, ideally provides a relatively safe way to winnow out poor choices. Yet the very anonymity of online dating invites deception, ranging from the uninten- tional (are most people accurate judges of their best personality traits?) to outright deception (lying about one’s age, physical characteristics, or even marital status). One study concludes: Deliberate deception is unlikely, however, to account for the entire difference between online and offline impression formation. Even when deception is not an issue, face-to-face interaction still conveys information that cannot be gleaned readily from CMC [Computer Mediated Communication]. In particular, CMC is unlikely to convey experiential attributes as effectively as face-to-face interactions. (Finkel et al., 2012: 37) Online dating may be efficient, easy, and increasingly common, but it has yet to prove that it’s preferable to locking eyes across a crowded room. How Far Can Electronic Communication Substitute for Face-to-Face Communication? In modern societies, we are constantly interacting with others whom we may never see or meet. Almost all our everyday transactions, such as buying groceries or making a bank deposit, bring us into contact—but indirect contact—with people who may live thousands of miles away. The banking system, for example, is international. Any money you deposit is a small part of the financial investments the bank makes worldwide. Some people are concerned that the rapid advances in communication technology, such as e-mail, the Internet, e-commerce, and social media, will only increase this ten- dency toward indirect interactions. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of all U.S. adults are on Facebook, with fully 76 percent visiting the site at least once a day (Pew Research Center, 2017e). Among Facebook users, 39 percent say they are connected to people they have never met in person. Now that e-mail, social networking sites, and electronic discus- sion groups have become facts of life for many people in industrialized countries, it is important to ask, what is the nature of these interactions and what new complexities are emerging from them? Our society is becoming “devoiced,” some claim, as the capabilities of technol- ogy grow ever greater. According to this view, as the pace of life accelerates, people are increasingly isolating themselves; we now interact more with our televisions and computers than with our neighbors or members of the community. Some researchers conclude that the substitution of e-mail for face-to-face communication has led to a weakening of social ties and a disruption of techniques used in personal dialogue for avoiding conflict. Further, online communication seems to allow more room for mis- interpretation, confusion, and abuse than more traditional forms of communication (Friedman and Currall, 2003). Unanswered Questions145 Individuals, including world leaders, often prefer face-to-face interaction because it provides critical information not available via electronic communication. Many Internet enthusiasts, however, disagree. They argue that social relations con- tinue to thrive and might even be facilitated by frequent online communication (Hampton et al., 2011; Wellman, 2008). Far from being impersonal, t