On Wednesday 12th of March 2014 I wondered through Central London, transporting myself to different destinations via the London underground system and by foot. I observed the ways in which individuals do and do not interact with each other in this "world of strangers" (Ester Kim, 2012). I cannot account for every individual on that day, the happenings in their minds as they weaved around each other, and avoided prolonged eye contact as if each member of the crowds were mere obstacles. However, reflecting on my observations, other ethnographic examples and theories revolving around alienation, interaction and active disengagement, I might be able to better grasp whether individuals remain profound strangers in such public spaces in the city of London due to conditions of its economic system, physical environment or the individual desire for privacy even in public areas.
First, let us consider how the London's economic structure might be the influence of the alienation I witnessed and experienced. The heart of London is an industrial plain, thriving off a capitalist economic culture. Karl Marx (1884) suggests that capitalist systems are prone to 'economic alienation'. For Marx, the population of workers is controlled by the capitalist class, and:
"A direct consequence of alienation of man from the product of his labour, from his life activity and from his species-life, is that man is alienated from other men, and that each of the other is likewise alienated from human life."
(Marx, 1884, P.17)
(Marx, 1884, P.17)
Marx's economic alienation can be followed up by scholars who have looked at social alienation in industrialised urban areas. Ferdinand Tonnies (1877) points out that the growth of industrialisation causes a shift in how we form relationships. Relationships in what he calls "civil society" become more impersonal and grounded in values of politics, efficiency and economics, as opposed to the sentimental and emotional characteristics of relationships in rural "communities". Georg Simmel (1900) supports this in this conclusion that everything in industrialised urban cities simmers down to money. He states that the more objects of desire and necessity we create and place value on, the less one values each individual for who they are. The criteria for an individual’s value revolves around what they can do, create and provide. In essence Tonnies and Simmel are suggesting interaction in public spaces are impersonal and brief, because one does not know and often is not willing to know a stranger on an emotional and personal level, rather one interacts with people only if they are providing a necessary service.
Marx also leads us to consider Emile Durkheim's (1893) term 'anomie'. Anomie is when individuals experience alienation due to a lack of social integration and inability to grasp each other's social norms. Durkheim wrote at a time of industrial growth, where people were beginning to migrate from rural areas into urban ones to access work. This resulted in personal socio-cultural norms to shift, creating feelings of alienation in cities. As Elijah Anderson (2004) points out, city life is constantly growing in racial, ethnic and social diversity due to industrialisation, globalisation and immigration. This means an introduction of many different socio-cultural norms, which may cause anomie.
Having stated the above it would appear that the industrialised capitalist economic system in urban areas, might play a role in why individuals are alienated from one another despite close proximity in packed public spaces like the London underground. However although London belongs to an increasingly diverse population, one cannot assume every individual lacks social integration due to a breakdown of norms as Durkheim (1893) suggests. What I observed was that most, if not all individuals were mutually alienated, not just culturally diverse individuals.
Elijah Anderson (2004) would agree that it is not only culturally diverse individuals who display alienation in public spaces. The growth of a city's diverse population and economy comes with a growth in crime rates and racial issues. This causes society to be more weary and consciously distant of all strangers in public spaces, especially those who fit an stereotypical criminal image (Anderson, 1999). Despite wariness, Anderson believes some urban spaces provide a "cosmopolitan canopy"; a setting where people feel a better sense of security.
Perhaps then, it is the urbanised physical surroundings which London's diverse population share that leads to alienation. Anderson (2004) notes that in some urban settings people show a mutual respect and politeness towards each other, and that sometimes people even go out of their way to display their respect. He connects this to social spaces such as markets, where people are there for a mutual purpose (to a degree). However in the streets and on the London underground, although everyone is travelling, they are all travelling for different reasons. The mode of travel is simply a vessel to get these groups of individuals to a destination which might then come under the cosmopolitan canopy. The spaces of travel themselves are not part of the cosmopolitan canopy. This was made evident to me as individuals did not show an active effort to be sociable. Apparent sociability was shown if it were necessary, but not out of their own will. Erving Goffman (1959 & 1963) acknowledges that sociable behaviour is not always genuine. Individuals are aware of an audience and attempt to protect their reputation by performing a socially acceptable interaction.
One might better understand alienation on the London underground and streets through an ethnography on city life in New York (Stanley Milgram, 1970). This piece highlights that New York, like London, is densely populated with "city dwellers". All of which are experiencing an abundance of sounds, sights, smells and movements produced by the density of population and the aesthetics of the city itself. Milgram suggests we are subject to "stimulus overload" and that we cope with the chaos by "shutting down". In other words, our defence mechanism against stimulus overload is often misread for anti-social behaviour, when in fact individuals isolate themselves, almost unconsciously, from the entire surrounding as a mode of defence to maintain sanity. This will explain why I noticed people moving through the city completely oblivious to each other. However it fails to explain how one knows when they are invading another's personal space.
Erving Goffman's (1972) term "civil inattention" helps to clear this query. Civil inattention is "when persons are mutually present and not involved together in conversation or focused interaction". In other words a group of strangers in confined public spaces at close proximity who acknowledge one another without infringing on each other's personal and private space (Joanne Finklestien, 2007). Through civil inattention people are able to perform a neutral interaction of unnoticeable scanning (Elaine Baldwin, 2004). This 'scanning' allows one to readily understand gestures displayed by the stranger, and in turn allows an understanding of the limits to any further interaction. This is "necessary for the orderly conduct of society" (Goffman 1972). Civil inattention in this instance demonstrates that individuals are not 'alienated', instead individuals interact on an almost subliminal level, constantly holding mutual regard for others and their personal space.
The above suggests that we recognise and respect boundaries even if through minimal interaction. However, what if individuals are not constantly respecting boundaries, but constantly focusing on the gestures one emits in order to appear invisible or to deter people from coming close to oneself? Esther Kim's ethnography (2010) speaks of her experience and observations travelling around America on the Greyhound buses for two years. Kim produced the terms "non-social transient behaviour" to title a category of behaviours which people perform in order to create a symbolic privatised boundary. According to Kim there is no 'politeness' or 'respect' towards others involved in non-social transient behaviour, opposing Anderson’s (2004) and Goffman’s (1972) argument. Kim (2004) argues that the objective is to sit, walk or stand alone, regardless of the appearance or identity of the stranger as Anderson had suggested. I noticed behaviours of non-social transient behaviour when travelling on the London underground, such as people putting bags on their seat to imply the seat was taken and individuals giving discerning expressions when others sat next to them despite other vacant seats being available.
Kim summarises that individuals behave in this way for three reasons; Firstly, we are all trying to avoid conflict; second or third hand witness to conflict can reinforce and create non-social transient behaviour. Secondly, we are especially trying to avoid becoming a victim of crime or physical danger. Thirdly, when travelling in tight spaces (tubes, trains, busses, streets) with potential delays, one becomes irritated and less likely to interact. Contrasting Kim, I observed that not all individuals were unpleasant. Some individuals clearly wanted to be left alone, but still displayed a mutual respect, as civil inattention implies (Goffman, 1972).
To conclude, it appears that the economic structure has some underlying role to play in why individuals appeared so alienated in Central London. However, one cannot place full responsibility on the economic structure, as it is just the starting point to how our city has grown to become so diverse and alienating. The physical aesthetics of particular public settings in London undoubtedly alter how one does and does not interact with strangers. The type of surrounding defines the type of interaction that should take place. Having said this, it is the responsibility of each individual to recognise private boundaries within public spaces, the inability to do so would lead to a chaotic society. One cannot assume that each individual travelling via public spaces disengages from society and performs certain behaviours seeking to be left alone. However one can assume there are varying gestures which are mutually understood and create varying perimeters of social engagement with a stranger. Ultimately it would appear individuals on the London underground and on Central London streets were most visibly alienated due to the public setting. However, the individual attitudes of people towards strangers and privacy may also come into play.
References:
- Elaine Baldwin. 2004. Introducing Cultural Studies. Pearson Education Limited. England.
- Elijah Anderson. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence and the Moral Life of the Inner City. W.W Norton. New York.
- Elijah Anderson. 2004. The Cosmopolitan Canopy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 595.
- Emile Durkheim. 1893. The Division of Labour in Society. Translated by George Simpson, 1984. The Free Press. New York.
- Erving Goffman. 1959.The Representation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books. USA.
- Erving Gofman. 1963. Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Organisation of Social Gatherings. The Free Press. New York.
- Erving Goffman. 1972. Relations in Public: Micro Studies of the Public Order. Harper Colophon Books: Sociology, 267.
- Esther Kim. 2012. Nonsocial Transient Behaviour: Social Disengagement on the Greyhound Bus. Symbolic Interaction, 35:3.
- Esther Kim. 2012. Nonsocial Transient Behaviour: Social Disengagement on the Greyhound Bus. Symbolic Interaction, 35:3.
- Ferdinand Tönnies. 1877. Community and Civil Society. Translated by Margret Hollis, 2001. Cambridge University Press
- Franco Moretti. 1996. Modern Epidemic: The World System from Goethe to Garcia Marquez. Translated by Quintin Hoare. Verso. London.
- Georg Simmel. 1900. The Philosophy of Money, Third Enlarged Edition. Translated by Tom Bottomore and David Frisby, 2004. Routledge.
- Georg Simmel. 1950. The Sociology Of Georg Simmel, Translated by Kurt H. Wolff. The Free Press. New York.
- Joanne Finklestien. 2007. The Art of Self: Image and Identity in Popular Visual Anthropology. Tauris & Co Ltd. New York.
- Karl Marx, 1884. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. International Publishers, 1964. New York.
- Lyn H. Lofland. 1989. Social Life in the Public Realm. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 17:4.
- Stanley Milgram . 1970. The Experience of Living in Cities. Science, 167:3924. New York.