• No results found

Beginning as an outsider of the ferry commuter culture, 12 weeks of various methodologies to understand the common interactions during the entire process of commuting on the ferry has made me a significantly different ferry rider by obtaining an understanding of the unwritten rules while waiting, boarding, riding, and offboarding the ferry. Identifying these rules was achieved by understanding the social process of entering a public place with strangers involves analyzing, signaling, and responding to others (both intentionally and unknowingly) in efforts to come to a mutual understanding of proper

behaviors (Goffman [1959] 1990, 13-21). Since these behaviors are both tacit and intentional, multiple forms of methodology was used to investigate the informal social rules; only using one research method would have lacked in results (see Appendix 5). Only using surveys or one-time conversational interviews would yield unreflective answers without depth.

Incorporating repetitive tag-along interviews (allowing time for reflection from each participant) and participant observations (my own experiences) provided more in-depth meaning making behind actions. However, only utilizing participant observation would result in complete personal bias of the data and while conducting tag-along interviews helped to solve the issue of personal bias by obtaining perspectives from others, it was still limited by my presence affecting the behaviors and responses from the participants. Unobstructed observations could be obtained from (video or onsite) observation (without participation), but once again it lacked possible meaning-making and was limited to the field of vision (e.g., camera angle, or timeframe observed). Combining information collected from various methods was the best way to obtain a cultural understanding of the informal social rules.

Taking all these methodological approaches into account (and their benefits and limitations), an answer to what Amsterdam ferry commuters identified as the most important social rules could be answered: do not enter another’s personal space, wait to board until the ferry is fully unloaded, do not cut in line/push forward, wait in the green painted area (not the red painted area), do not weave/cross through the middle of the waiting areas, turn off

engines for motorized vehicles, do not smoke, and do not play loud music. Verbal

confrontation was rare to explicitly identify these rules so reflections from multiple tag-along interviews and various forms of observations of nonverbal responses to social rule

nonadherence aided the recognition of both tacit and intentional actions to best identify the informal rules conceptualized by ferry commuters. Nonverbal responses to signal displeasure

52 and to restore the social order included facial expressions, changes in body alterations, use of objects and self, and modified use of space.

Of these social rules, unexpectedly, the most frequently referred to broken rules were not formal rules mandated by institutions. The formal rules (turn off engines for motorized vehicles, do not smoke, and do not play loud music) were generally only cited with the context of personal preference (e.g., not liking the smell of cigarettes or engine fumes). Only two participants associated adherence to these rules because the municipality mandated it.

The remaining, more important social rules were not assessed and enforced by the

municipality, instead only enforced by social punishments (unapproving facial expressions, blocking others with objects, or movement of body) by members of the ferry commuter group to maintain the social order of the public waiting area and on the ferry. While societal values associated with more punitive formal laws could be argued to be influenced by institutions41 (Knapp 2005, 73), this study’s findings on common interactions open up interesting

discussions on how influential institutions are on mundane societal rules.

Traditionally, anthropologists attribute the formation of common informal rules from values determined by culture (Swidler 1986, 273) and cultural influences were also evident within this study regarding the conceptualization of the informal social rules. Cultural history (i.e., past cultural group memberships) sometimes played a role in the expectation and

reaction to nonadherence of social rules but the context of culture was most evident when discussing the intercultural group of tourists. Discussions revealed the intercultural group was not held as accountable for not adhering to the informal rules (in comparison to the ferry commuter intracultural group). The increased forgiveness of tourists not understanding the informal rules of the ferry commute implies not all rules apply equally based on your cultural group membership.

While this study revealed culture as a factor, culture was just one of many contributing factors. Conceptualizations of the informal social rules are in actuality

“culturally and personally relative and its situationally contingent” (Smith, Phillips, and King, 22). The relativeness of personal factors such as personality type and personal preferences had influential power to alter the definition and degree of severity of the social rules.

41 Formal laws need to have some approval from society, or they will not be sustainable. To make an impact of true change, other methods such as education need to be administered (Dror 1957, 453-54).

Assessing smoking as rude based on not liking the smell of tobacco may shift if the

individual one day becomes a smoker. Similarly, if a personality type modifies over time, the definition of a currently prescribed rule will change in the future. This was demonstrated by Naomi who explained she was once a stressed and efficient rider but did not like being this type of person. Through a journey of self-improvement, she chose to adjust her personality to be more relaxed and over the course of many years adjusted her behaviors and actions to slow down. She attributed being less irritated by informal noncompliance (and therefore less reaction to rule breakers) to this personality change.

Additionally situational factors impacted the definition and assessment of the informal rules; most prominently the ferry ridden, time of day, weather, and if the individual was running late. The sun shining increased feelings of ease making the degree of severity of the social rules much lower, while in contrast, rain and strong wind depleted individuals’ energy and they found themselves more annoyed at others. Depending on the time of day, the energy of the ferry ride was different altering the expectation of others regarding the social rules. The length of ferry ride also altered elements of the informal rules, the F3 was more associated with efficiency due to its short duration and the F2 and F4/F5 encouraged more relaxed behaviors due to their longer routes. The circumstance of running late was the most

influential (accentuated for efficient personality types), creating stress and more annoyance towards others.

While common social interactions seem inherently mundane, they are certainly far more complex incorporating a variety of contextual factors beyond culture; informal social rules are extremely fluid and cannot simply be attributed to one factor. Knowledge of this complexity should be taken into consideration for future research when studying social interactions before drawing conclusions of the meaning behind a chosen action or reaction.

Including contextual factors in the analysis will be incredibly valuable to get closer to a richer meaning making of any particular action.

Limitations

While multiple mixed methodologies were encompassed to reduce limitations, limitations still existed. Beyond what was discussed in previous chapters, ideally the behaviors observed would have been congruent; preferably the time of participant

observation would be recorded so phase one and phase two could be compared with the exact same location, people, and timeframes (including my own observed behaviors to compare to my expressed experiences). However, due to the access of the available data this was not

54 possible and instead similar instances were compared. Additionally, for the tag-along

interviews, the effects of my presence could not be escaped potentially interfering with their normal everyday behaviors (especially potentially reacting less to acts of incivility knowing I was observing). Additional video footage of the interview participants without me present would have been ideal to compare to see how my presence may have influenced behaviors.

Lastly, due to the qualitative nature of this study, the information gathered was limited to one specific type of public space (Amsterdam ferry docks) and a small sample of ferry commuters, therefore the results cannot be generalized. However, the information gathered from this study is encouraged to be taken into consideration for future larger scale studies on behavioral science.

Future Research

This study reintroduces the examination of common interactions in public space and encourages the opportunity to continue research of baseline human behaviors. This project was limited to the setting of one type of public waiting area and actions associated with riding the ferry, however, this study exposed the endless possibilities of researching mundane

interactions to obtain other baseline information taking into consideration the context of culture, situational factors (type of activity, weather, moods), and types of private and public space (public transit, grocery stores, sports arenas, etc.). Understanding of baseline social behavior is extremely beneficial and can assist decision makers by identifying informal rules to aid in the decision process of which formal rules to enforce. Additionally, further research into behavioral science of common behaviors complements urban planning, tourism, and artificial intelligence research.

Lastly, some interesting differences of tolerances of intercultural groups behaviors in mundane interactions versus conflict should be explored. While no instances of conflict were observed during this study, anecdotal stories revealed culture as a larger component during conflict than mundane interactions. Future research is encouraged to set up comparative studies of the cultural influences of mundane interactions versus conflict to explore this further.

Bibliography

Appelman, Joska, Lasse Liebst, Peter Ejbye-Ernst, Evelien Hoeben, Dennis Koelman, Wim Bernasco, Cees Snoek, Thomas van der Veen, Nigel van Herwijnen, and Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard. 2021. “1.5 Meter Monitor.” Unpublished factsheet, NSCR.

https://nscr.nl/en/factsheet/1-5-meter-monitor-july-2021/.

Ayaß, Ruth. 2020. “Doing Waiting: An Ethnomethodological Analysis.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 49, no. 4: 419–55.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241619897413.

Altman, Irwin. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Butler, Judith. (1988). “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal 40, no. 4: 519-531.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893.

Chudnovsky, Mariana, and Natalia Espinosa Trujillo. 2019. “Conflict between Formal and Informal Rules in Policy Coordination: The Case of Child Homelessness in Mexico City.” Latin American Policy 10, no. 1: 120-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12158.

Daza, Marcos, Dennis Barrios-Aranibar, José Diaz-Amado, Yudith Cardinale, and João Vilasboas. 2021. “An Approach of Social Navigation Based on Proxemics for Crowded Environments of Humans and Robots.” Micromachines 12, no. 2: 193.

https://doi.org/10.3390/mi12020193.

Dror, Yehezkel. 1957. “Values and the Law.” The Antioch Review 17, no. 4: 440-454.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4610000.

Ekman, Paul, Wallace V. Friesen, Maureen O’Sullivan, Anthony Chan, Irene Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, Karl Heider, Rainer Krause, et al. 1987. “Universals and Cultural Differences in the Judgments of Facial Expressions of Emotion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, no. 43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.712.

Ekman, Paul. 2003. “Darwin, Deception, and Facial Expression.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1000: 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1280.010.

Goffman, Erving. (1959) 1990. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. Reprint, London: Penguin Books.

Goffman Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.

Goffman Erving. (1971) 1972. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books Inc. Reprint, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

56

Guan, Xiaowen, and Hye Eun Lee. 2022. “Does Culture Really Matter? A Comparison Between Victims’ Cognitive and Communicative Responses to Cultural In-Group Versus Out-Group Perpetrators in Social Predicaments.” SAGE Open: 1-14.

https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079928.

GVB. n.d.a “Ferry F2.” Accessed May 14, 2002. https://reisinfo.gvb.nl/en/lijnen/F2.

GVB. n.d.b “Ferry F3.” Accessed May 14, 2002. https://reisinfo.gvb.nl/en/lijnen/F3.

GVB. n.d.c “Ferry F4.” Accessed May 14, 2022. https://reisinfo.gvb.nl/en/lijnen/F4.

GVB. n.d.d “Ferry Travel Rules.” Accessed May 14, 2022. https://www.gvb.nl/en/customer-service/travel-rules-pleasant-trip/ferry-travel-rules.

GVB. n.d.e “Timetable: Ferry F4.” Accessed May 14, 2002.

https://reisinfo.gvb.nl/en/lijnen/F4/dienstregeling/heen.

Hall, Edward T. (1966) 1969. The Hidden Dimension. Reprint, New York: Anchor Books.

Hall, Edward T. 1976. Beyond Culture. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Hall, Edward T. (1959) 1981. The Silent Language. Reprint, New York: Anchor Books.

Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 3rd ed.

London: Routledge.

Hoeben, Evelien M., Wim Bernasco, Lasse Suonpera Liebst, Carlijn van Baak, and Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard. 2021. “Social distancing compliance: A video observational analysis.” PLoS ONE 16, no. 3: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0248221.

I amsterdam. 2022. “Diversity in Amsterdam.” Accessed May 31, 2022.

https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/living/about-amsterdam/people-culture/diversity.

Jones, Nikki, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. “‘The Camera Rolls’: Using Third-Party Video in Field Research.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 642, no. 1: 109–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212438205.

Knapp, Marshall B. 2005. “Social Values and Older Persons: The Role of the Law.”

Marquette Elder's Advisor 7, no. 1: 69-81.

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/elders/vol7/iss1/4.

Kramer, Jeroen. 2021. “De Pont Naar Noord.” YouTube, September 21, 2021.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHSlGKiErH0.

Lindegaard, Marie R. 2022. “Violence in Action: What We Know and What We See.”

Inaugural lecture, University of Amsterdam.

Lofland, Lyn H. (1973) 1985. A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Policy. Reprint, Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc.

Lyman, Stanford M., and Marvin B. Scott. 1967. “Territoriality: A Neglected Sociological Dimension.” Social Problems 15, no. 2: 236-49. https://www.jstor.org/stable/799516.

Mahmood, Saba. 2001. “Feminist Theory, Embodiment, and the Docile Agent: Some Reflections on the Egyptian Islamic Revival.” Cultural Anthropology 16, no. 2: 202-236. https://www.jstor.org/stable/656537.

Matsumoto, David, Mark G. Frank, and Hyi Sung Hwang. 2013. Nonverbal Communication:

Science and Applications. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Rijksoverheid. 2021a. “Netherlands to Remain in Lockdown Until at Least 9 February Inclusive.” Accessed May 20, 2022. https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus- covid-19/news/2021/01/12/netherlands-to-remain-in-lockdown-until-at-least-9-february-inclusive.

Rijksoverheid. 2021b. “Slowing the Spread of the Omicron Variant: Lockdown in the Netherlands.” Accessed May 15, 2022.

https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2021/12/18/slowing-the-spread-of-the-omicron-variant-lockdown-in-the-netherlands.

Rios-Martinez, J., A. Spalanzani, and C. Laugier. 2014. “From Proxemics Theory to Socially-Aware Navigation: A Survey.” International Journal of Social Robotics 7, no. 2: 137–

53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-014-0251-1.

Scherer, Klaus R., and Harald G. Wallbott. 1994. “Evidence for Universality and Cultural Variation of Differential Emotion Response Patterning.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66, no. 2: 310-328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.310.

Sexton, Melissa M. 2021. “Proxemics, Waiting, Territoriality, and Social Order in Urban Public Space: Amsterdam Ferry Riders and Proxemic Interactions While Waiting.”

Unpublished thesis proposal, University of Amsterdam.

Smith, P., Timothy L. Phillips, and Ryan D. King. 2010. Incivility: The Rude Strangers in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Spradley, James P. 2016. Participant Observation. Long Grove: Waveland Press.

Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51, no. 2: 273-286. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2095521.

Tapus, Adriana, Antonio Bandera, Ricardo Vazquez-Martin, and Luis V. Calderita. 2019.

“Perceiving the Person and Their Interactions with the Others for Social Robotics –A Review.” Pattern Recognition Letters 118: 3–13.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2018.03.006.

58

Appendix Appendix 1

Various signage on a F4/F5 ferry displaying formal rules.

Appendix 2

Additional positions of observation during phase one fieldwork.

60

Appendix 3

Survey responses about rudeness from the NSCR video review session.

Think of a time while you were waiting in a public space (e.g., for public transit, queuing, etc.). What behaviors from strangers would you find rude?

What behaviors do you consider rude while waiting for and boarding the ferry?

Walking very close to you even thought there is enough space for them to keep distance.

n/a

Being loud (yelling, music), cutting a line Same, being loud, cutting line

Standing in my face, speaking on the phone standing in my face, caughing in my face Playing music loudly, spitting, burping, farting, standing

too close to others, watching over shoulder at phone/laptop/book

Skipping in line, plus everything I mentioned previously

Cutting of, standing really close n/a

Asking if I used drugs n/a

Touching me when passing, pushing others aside I can not think of something Unwanted close proximity, jumping Queue, rude words,

loud noise

Jumping queue, coming too close It annoys me when I am waiting to get in the train and

letting people get off first and then people who were standing behind me cut the line while I was there standing before them

n/a

Cutting the line, staying too close to me, talking too loud n/a

Appendix 4

Initial and follow-up survey comparison for tag-along participants.

What behaviors do you

consider rude while waiting for and boarding the ferry?

What of the previous situations discussed do you find the most annoying/rude42?

What of the previous situations discussed do you think are worth verbally confronting the offender?

Smoking, standing in the way of people getting off, pushing ahead

Smoking! None. With the smoking I

would just move upwind. As long as the person doesn’t physically touch me I wouldn’t say anything. If someone pushes or bumps me I would expect some sort of apology.

Pushing forward while the ferry is still unloading.

I think all of them are unnecessary

The music, smoker, scooter and pusher

Boarding whilst others are still unboarding and people unboarding, but not repecting the waiting area for the next batch to board aka running into people waiting in their

designated area.

Cutting in front and boarding before the the unboarding is done

I don’t, however I tend to make myself big or bump into people. Not cool I know.

Opted to not answer Engines on, boarding early Both Pushing to the front of the line,

purposefully brushing past people if you feel they are in your way or could have gone further into the ferry, loud music, scooters (generally not known for being courteous), not offering your seat to the elderly / disabled / pregnant, not actually moving to the front of the ferry as much as in your power to make sure as many people can fit on the ferry as possible, not wearing a mask when it's required.

Loud music None of them. Don't feel it's worth my breath unless it's impacting other people in a serious way.

If people want to get on the ferry without waiting for the people on the ferry to get off

The smoking. The smoking

42 The behaviors asked about how they felt when someone: stands too close (asked to define

“too close”), does not turn off the engine for scooter/car, cuts in line (asked to define “cutting in line”), plays loud music, boards ferry before fully unloaded, pushes forward to board or offboard, smokes, and weaves/cross across boarding/offboarding areas.

62

People standing in the way of the off-boarding people. On the red-part.

Waiting on the street. All the standing in the way > find it so stupid because the off-boarding takes longer meaning the onboarding also is delayed. And i am anoyed by scooters, but i think i dont consider it rude. It stinks ;-)

Not waiting to get on the boat & scooter (doesnt happen so much anymore that they leave the engine on the whole time)

Waiting on the ‘red’

Pushing past when we are all going to get there at the same time

People pushing. Just be cool

I’m English I won’t tell anyone

Smoking Listening to loud music

and smoking

Smoking and having your engine on

pushing ahead and keeping motors running (both scooters and canta's), not wearing, mouth masks

Smoking and pushing, luckily it seldom happens!

And letting the motor run

Both these situations

Motorcycles riding in with their engines on, loud music

smoking, engine on smoking, engine on