Informal Social Rules in Urban Public Space

(1)

Informal Social Rules in Urban Public Space

Cultural Incivility of Amsterdam Ferry Commuters

Melissa M. Sexton Student Number: 13134329

Cultural and Social Anthropology (General track) Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences

University of Amsterdam

(2)

2

Date: 17-06-2022 Word Count: 17,963 (excluding footnotes) Supervisor: Dr. Prof. Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard Second Reader: Dr. Yolandavan Ede

(3)

Plagiarism Declaration

I have read and understood the University of Amsterdam plagiarism policy

[http://student.uva.nl/mcsa/az/item/plagiarism-and-fraud.html?f=plagiarism]. I declare that this assignment is entirely my own work, all sources have been properly acknowledged, and that I have not previously submitted this work, or any version of it, for assessment in any other paper.

Melissa Sexton 17-06-2022

(4)

4 Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without support from others. First off, I would like to thank all the ferry commuters who participated in this study. I felt honored that you shared a part of your daily lives with me and absolutely cherished the journey of reflection we took together to breakdown everyday interactions. Your thoughtfulness, humor, and kindness are truly what made this thesis possible. Secondly, I am very thankful to my second reader for pushing me to chase creativity. Your small but powerful words of encouragement is what inspired me to create a study I am not only passionate about but allowed my creativity to reach its full limits. Lastly, I am in immense gratitude to my supervisor. Your encouragement and mentorship truly pushed my ideas to the level I hoped my thesis could reach. In times of uncertainty (such as lockdowns or writer’s block), your encouragement helped keep me going. Additionally, your wealth of knowledge and background was an incredible contribution when outlining my research and thesis. I am incredibly grateful for your guidance.

(5)

Abstract

Acts of incivility that challenge informal social rules are a common part of our daily lives, however, few mainstream studies examine the process of everyday interactions. Within public space due to the consequence of interacting with strangers, reactions to broken informal rules are expressed through nonverbal communication both tacitly and intentionally. Due to the complexity of investigating both tacit and intentional responses, this study triangulated multiple methodologies (participant observation, conversational interviews, video analysis, repetitive tag-along interviews) to investigate the informal social rules of Amsterdam ferry commuters. A multi-methodological analysis revealed personal and situational factors beyond culture that influenced the definition, reaction, and reparation of the informal social rules while waiting for and boarding public ferries.

Keywords: informal rules, social interaction, incivility, public space

(6)

6

Introduction

Common Incivility

What do you consider rude? This answer will differ considerably depending on one’s culture, personality type, and the contextual situation surrounding the rude behavior (Smith, Phillips, and King 2010, 22). Not everyone agrees what actions are defined as rude, nor if they agree, people may differ on the assessed severity of rudeness. Sometimes, an individual may even redefine their own assessment depending on different contextual situations. Even though we experience everyday rude behaviors far more often than criminal acts (23), there are limited mainstream studies regarding common incivility (5-8). These realizations were also made known to me as an American expatriate living in Amsterdam, it has been a cultural learning experience navigating everyday interactions with Amsterdam citizens. Even though the Netherlands is a Western-based society and similar to the United States, I have been continually surprised to discover what I thought were globally acknowledged informal social rules, did not apply in Amsterdam.

Coming from the west coast United States, I was accustomed to maintaining a personal distance of two and a half feet to four feet as outlined by Edward T. Hall ([1966]

1969, 120). Although riding public transit was rare for me, the understood social etiquette was to follow proper queuing behaviors. It was expected that you respect personal distance while waiting and boarding the public vehicle in the same order of arrival, whoever arrived first, boarded first and whoever arrived last, boarded last (organized by a straight line while waiting). However, this was far from what I experienced during my first tram ride in

Amsterdam. I arrived at the tram stop early, remained distanced from anyone who had arrived before me, and believed boarding would follow similar orderly procedures as previously described. Once the tram was less than a minute from arriving, I experienced culture shock¹ as multiple Amsterdam locals arrived and chaotically swarmed the waiting area. I felt confused and exasperated as people moved within my personal space to wait behind me, to the side of me, and worse, in front of me! The tram arrived and even though I had arrived early and claimed my space to board first, many people cut in front of me and boarded the tram before me. Although I was confused and annoyed about my personal space being

1 “A removal or distortion of many of the familiar cues one encounters at home and the substitution for them of other cues which are strange” (Hall [1959] 1981, 174).

(9)

violated and for being cut off, I did not verbally confront anyone and assumed it was just a cultural difference between Dutch and Americans and have since learned to adapt.

Anthropologists have traditionally defined culture as “the way of life of a people, for the sum of their learned behavior patterns, attitudes, and material things” (Hall [1959] 1981, 20), also consisting of everyday routines and agreed upon norms and rules (Swidler 1986, 273). While specific definitions of culture can vary, it is generally agreed upon that culture is learned (not biological), that a disruption of a piece of culture will affect all parts, and shared experiences creates the cultural group (and defines differences from other groups). Culture can influence personalities, expressions, movement, thought processes, and societal

organization (Hall 1976, 13-14). This traditional characterization suggests culture (and it’s agreed upon informal rules) is fixed, limiting the flexibility of the cultural group’s definition.

Additionally, it assigns a causal relationship between human action and cultural beliefs, insinuating all human actions are consequential from cultural norms and values (Swidler 1986, 281).

American cultural sociologist Ann Swidler (1986) argued against these traditional definitions of culture and proposed culture and action maintain a more symbiotic relationship rather than a cause-and-effect association. She believed culture could be viewed as a “tool kit” of assorted tools that can be utilized when making choices for actions. Culture is not simply a membership to a community with a common set of values and goals (that determine actions), but a repertoire to employ in conjunction with many other contextual factors (277), such as life history, gender, geographical location, ethnicity, and so forth. With repetition of similar behaviors within a cultural group, the behaviors often become unconscious or embodied through habitus² (Mahmood 2001, 215). However, unlike the concept of

performativity where societal understood norms form the embodied behaviors (Butler 1988), Swidler’s concept of culture allows embodied behaviors and agency to coexist. This means, although tough to learn or change embodied behaviors, an individual can choose to enter or leave a cultural group. For example, when moving to a new neighborhood, if someone desires to blend in with the cultural group of the new neighborhood, over time, they can learn all the

2 Dissimilar to Pierre Bourdieu’s definition of habitus, I refer to Saba Mahmood’s (2001) definition allowing a conscious effort to change behaviors and desires (215).

(10)

10 elements associated with this cultural group and adapt³ (e.g., specific ways of verbal

communication, how they dress, social activities, etc.). Considering all these debates, for this thesis culture will be defined as the contextual embodied and chosen methods of “social processes of sharing modes of behavior and outlook within [a] community” (Swidler 1986, 273).

As we interact with others throughout our daily lives, everyone has a personal understanding of the social rules, or what we perceive as the correct way to act and signal ourselves as a good civilian. Norms and rules are reinforced by positive responses for compliance and penalties for nonadherence. This can be accomplished formally, by official institutional laws and regulations such as monetary fines, or informally, through social enforcement such as shaming someone with a dirty look (Goffman [1971] 1972, 12).

Following these understood protocols allows everyone to maintain a social order, ultimately allowing interactions to continue effectively and peacefully (15-16). Our daily lives are shaped by a combination of both informal and formal rules, rarely by only one categorization.

The classification of formality is also fluid as an informal rule accepted by the majority might become a formal rule once institutionalized. Additionally, a sign of a weak institution can be identified when an informal rule is created by the public as a substitute to a formal rule to address deficiencies of the social order (Chudnovsky and Truijillo 2019, 124). For the most part, the understandings of the informal rules are not realized by the individual and become embodied and tacit. The informal rules are generally unknowingly learned through childhood socialization (Lofland [1973] 1985, 107-17). When asking someone to reflect on why they behave a particular way in correspondence of an informal social rule, a response might be,

“it’s normal, it’s rules, its common courtesy” (Debbie, tag-along interview, March 14, 2022).

These societal agreed upon behaviors are particularly important in public spaces where the probability of interacting with strangers⁴ is highly likely (even more probable in urban settings, especially as the population increases). Interacting with strangers adds unique elements as the dynamic significantly changes compared to interacting with loved ones or acquaintances. When someone enters a public space with strangers, because they do not know

3 Depending on how much history an individual has with past cultural groups, it may be difficult to shed past behaviors to completely blend in with the new cultural group. Behaviors shaped from the past may make them identifiable as an outsider to the new cultural group.

4 A stranger is defined as, “anyone personally unknown to the actor of reference, but visually available to him” (Lofland [1973] 1985, 18).

(11)

the people intimately, they will evaluate the situation and other actors present creating

assumptions and setting expectations for the forthcoming social interactions (Goffman [1959]

1990, 13). With the desire to avoid conflict, all participants will signal and acknowledge a

“working consensus” (21), or an agreement of the proper way to interact (assembled from cultural and situational contexts). Not following the working consensus in a public space can be portrayed as incivility, “whatever is taken as offensive, impolite or crude” (Smith, Phillips, and King 2010, 11). An Australian survey identified examples of recognized incivility

including but not limited to pushing in front, particular bodily gestures, blocking movement, invading personal space, swerving in front, or motor vehicle noises (25).

Narrowing the type of situational activity in an urban public domain to the action of waiting also provides unique conditions to define social rules. In the context of “doing waiting,” individuals have a strong tendency to signal they are participating in the activity of waiting and do not desire to be approached (Ayaß 2020, 444-45). Due to the necessity of completing a task (e.g., board the ferry) and the limited mobility during the waiting time (i.e., confined to a waiting space) minimal forms of conversation and interaction are part of the expected unwritten rules (Ayaß 2020, 447) making verbal communication rare and nonverbal communication essential to signal and analyze intentions for forthcoming interactions. For example, while waiting in a public place, body language of facing away from approaching people signals “do not engage with me” without ever verbalizing this desire.

Swidler’s (1986) understandings on culture, Goffman’s (1963; [1971] 1972; [1959]

1990) investigations of everyday interactions, and circumstances of interactions with strangers in public space while waiting creates a fascinating framework to research how embodied behaviors and chosen actions can be used to investigate societal informal rules.

With the guidance of the previously discussed theories and empirical studies, this thesis will discuss the case study of the behaviors and actions of local ferry commuters at the

Amsterdam ferry docks.

Research Question and Sub-Questions

With a desire to better understand the nuances of informal social rules in Amsterdam, especially encompassing the mysteries of Amsterdam public transit, this study endeavored to better understand how cultural, personal (personality and preferences), and situational contexts (circumstances or material objects) influence social rules while waiting for public transit. Therefore, this thesis investigated the case study of waiting for the ferry in a public waiting space in the urban, international city of Amsterdam with the intention of exploring the research question: Which informal social rules do Amsterdam ferry commuters

(12)

12

conceptualize while waiting for and boarding the ferry? Additionally, this thesis seeks to address the following sub-questions: 1) How do Amsterdam ferry commuters respond and repair social order when an informal social rule is broken? 2) How do situational, personal, and cultural factors influence the conception and gravity of informal social rules for

Amsterdam ferry commuters? 3) In what methodological ways can cultural understandings of informal social rules be investigated?

Contributions to Social Science and Society

While the findings from this study cannot be generalized, it can serve as a

contribution (and inspiration for future studies) for both a variety of societal and academic relevance. As previously mentioned, even though most of our lives are made up of mundane interactions, mainstream studies have neglected daily incivility and tend to only focus on the extremes such as violence or crime (Lindegaard 2022, 9-10). Understanding common

interactions of people in public space not only is an under researched topic in the academic world but has a variety of societal application. Deeper understandings of informal rules for various communities provide a baseline of social behaviors (10), so when something extraordinary occurs (such as a global pandemic), formal rules and regulations can be established for the rules that are not already informally implemented instead of duplicating rules that the social world already enforces. Furthermore, awareness of contradictions of formal and informal social rules could help identify deficiencies within formal institutions (Chudnovsky and Truijillo 2019, 124).

This baseline information can also assist upcoming research for artificial intelligence and urban planning. With a growing desire to study artificial intelligence and human

interaction in daily life (Daza et al. 2021; Rios-Martinez et al. 2014; Tapus et al. 2019), it is critical to have base understandings of the informal rules in daily life so the technology can adapt accordingly. Additionally, understanding basic interactions with strangers in public space can aid architectural designs to efficiently maximize the use of public space (Hall [1966] 1969, 129). It is a valuable contribution to urban planning providing insights on what behaviors the public finds important to utilize towards the creation of space layout, structures, and objects that will effectively support the desired unwritten rules.

Lastly, studies like this can tremendously help the tourism or expatriate industries.

Valid research on identified informal rules in a tourist destination, such as Amsterdam, can help guide advice to the visiting public. Within this study, many participants identified

(13)

tourists⁵ (or non-locals) as the most common offenders of not understanding and breaking the informal social rules of ferry riding. Insights from research on informal social rules would be a valuable tool for visitors or expatriates to have an understanding of what is socially

expected in different situations.

Triangulation Methodology

To uniquely address various limitations of different methodologies and answer the proposed research questions, this study was conducted with a three-phase triangulation methodology (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, 184) beginning with an inductive

investigation and finishing with a deductive analysis. Each phase was specifically organized to constructively investigate both tacit and intentional actions in relation to informal social rules. Phase one began with participant observation of Amsterdam ferry docks with a goal of taking in all observations as a “grand tour” (Spradley 2016, 77-78) to discover the informal social rules. Once a specific rule was identified by reflecting on acts of participation, phase one ended with short conversational interviews of random ferry riders that had been observed in the focused event to confirm perceptions of rudeness. With limitations of being able to observe the entire action or having to wait a prolonged amount of time for the action to happen during onsite field observations, phase two allowed many more instances of

observations of the same focused action discovered in phase one by examining Amsterdam municipality closed-circuit television (CCTV) video footage of the same ferry dock. This qualitative, micro-analysis allowed collection of comprehensive reactions and identification of other situational factors that influenced the rude action.

Lastly, since both phase one and phase two were missing meaning-making for the identified rude behaviors, phase three incorporated multiple tag-along interviews with twelve different ferry commuters. Recurring interviews with the same people allowed time for reflection of behaviors from each participant to help bring awareness to the informal social rules to discuss. Conversations revealed personal and situational factors, beyond the camera and in-person field observations, which influenced the determination of what was considered rude. This triangulation of methodology, in its specified order, provided a cohesive journey of

5 While many used the term tourist, the identification actually meant any unexperienced ferry rider which could be identified by behavior such as looking around confused and not necessarily material objects like luggage.

(14)

14 information to limit biases and constraints that exists when relying on one type of

methodology.

Ethical Considerations

While doing ethnographic fieldwork, there are several ethical considerations that need to be taken into account. The following ethical considerations were adhered to throughout the duration of this project to ensure protection (present and future) of the participants and limit bias upon the research conclusions. While consent was only obtained from the tag-along participants, all observations were of ordinary interactions within public space that anyone present would be able to observe. While conducting fieldwork, no questionable situation arose of “private actions” (e.g., overhearing an obviously private conversation) (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, 212) that needed extra discretion to decide if it should be included in this thesis. Access to the municipality video footage was approved by the Nederlands

Studiecentrum Criminaliteit en Rechtshandhaving (NSCR) and the video footage was viewed in the circumstances required by the municipality (see Chapter 2). Anonymity was respected for all tag-along participants allowing the choice of pseudo names if desired and faces were blurred in photos used in this thesis. Most importantly, each interview was conducted with respect, continual displays of gratitude, and humility for each interlocutor to avoid feelings of exploitation (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, 217-18).

The Journey of Triangulation

The subsequent chapters will take you through the journey of each fieldwork phase presenting how each phase contributed to the advancement of the succeeding phase and developed and redeveloped answers to the research questions. Chapter one will illustrate my personal experiences while observing on the ferry docks and participating in the act of waiting for the ferry. These personal endeavors shaped and guided my initial hypotheses to the definition of the social rules and aided identification of reactions when social rules were broken based on my own responses. Reflecting on what was learned in phase one, chapter two addresses limitations and tests the hypotheses from phase one with a microanalysis of CCTV video footage expounding on the previously defined rules and reactions. From the learnings of phase one and two, chapter three discusses the formation of the process for the tag-along interviews to continue to reduce limitations experienced in previous phases. Lastly, everything learned throughout all phases comes together to form an answer to the research questions relying on multiple forms of methodology.

(15)

Chapter 1

Interactions While Waiting in Public Space

American social psychologist Irwin Altman (1975) categorized space (or territories⁶) into three classifications: primary (exclusive ownership, such as a personal domicile), secondary (less exclusive ownership, between primary and public, such as a privately owned bar), and public (free access with limited restrictions, such as a city park) (112-18). While access is formally granted to everyone in public territories, rules (formal or informal) are expected to be obeyed (Lyman and Scott 1967, 237). For example, while riding on public ferries, official signs are posted to indicate: no smoking, no playing music, no feet allowed on the seats, turn motorized vehicles’ engines off, and no alcohol or drugs (GVB n.d.^d) (see Appendix 1). Additionally, there are many unwritten expectations, not officially posted and regulated by the municipality, but based on informal rules such as maximizing the space on the ferry to allow the optimal amount of people to board while also respecting others’

personal space. Both formal and informal rules are especially important in public space as the interaction with strangers requires an agreed upon working consensus to keep society moving forward peacefully. Disruptions to these rules create feelings of uncomfortableness and worst-case scenario can lead to conflict.

When approaching an area with strangers, an individual will assess the surroundings and the other people present. They will analyze others’ appearance, body language, and use of space creating assumptions to help define the situation. This appraisal of other people and the situation allows the individual to set expectations for the forthcoming social interactions (Goffman [1959] 1990, 13). However, only so much authentic information can be obtained from observing strangers because in public places humans might put on a “front” to display ourselves as we want others to see us (32). Therefore, the assessment of the situation will also rely on past experiences and cultural assumptions. Past experiences can be linking to

previously experienced similar types of actions, such as the common action of waiting⁷.

6 Altman (1975) defines a territory as “a place or object and communication that it is ‘owned’

by a person or group. Personalization and ownership are designed to regulate social interactions and to help satisfy various social and physical motives” (107).

7 Although most people believe waiting is a passive activity (Ayaß 2020, 422), waiting is in actuality very active due to the actions of: observing and evaluating the setting, choosing (or not choosing) to adhere to the specific unspoken rules of waiting, and creating deterrence for others who might potentially break the rules.

(16)

16 One’s past encounters while waiting will contribute to the expected outcomes while waiting in present time, helping to identify the expected informal social rules.

Interactions with strangers while waiting are unfocused interactions where verbal communication is rare. An individual will quickly collect information about the other people present with a quick glance to interpret the situation, often unnoticed by the person observed (Goffman 1963, 24). Waiting has a purpose; it is an in-between time before reaching a final destination with limited mobility (Ayaß 2020, 445-46). While one needs to “pass the time”

while waiting, an individual cannot lose focus and miss the opportunity of their achieved goal (e.g., board the ferry). While waiting the general informal rules are to respect others’ claimed space (i.e., do not overtake a waiting area that is occupied), respect personal space (i.e., do not stand too close or touch other people), and do not verbally communicate with others. In waiting situations, people use involvement shields, or barriers or actions, to signal a lack of desire to engage (Goffman 1963, 36) by “privatizing their space.” This can be achieved by various actions such as (lack of) eye contact, shifting objects to block one’s personal space, or using technology (such as a smartphone or headphones) to signal to others one is busy

waiting and should not be approached (Ayaß 2020, 445).

While waiting in public space, proxemics, “man’s use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture” (Hall [1966] 1969, 1), is very interconnected with the expected informal rules. American anthropologist Edward T. Hall ([1966] 1969) discussed multiple factors that can influence an individual’s proxemic actions including the environment (building architecture, open or cramped public space), cultural history (upbringing), situational personalities (work personality, bar personality), and the relationship to others (friend, stranger). He classified the human created spaces into four categories: intimate distance, personal distance, social distance, and public distance. Each of these classifications are connected with physiological reactions, types of body language, and feelings when these designated spaces are invaded (116-19). The preferred distance in public space is personal distance. Individuals may even take precautionary actions to signal others to stay distanced from their personal space (e.g., placing a bag on a neighboring seat or a hostile look to anyone approaching) (Altman 1975, 60). Additionally, an individual’s use of space can also become a nonverbal communication tool to express one’s feelings (Hall [1959] 1981, 165), such as backing away from a person to signal displeasure of an action.

(17)

Phase One: Participant Observation Setting: F4/F5 Ferry Waiting Area

Understanding the nuances of waiting (for public transit) from personal experience and literature reviews, I approached the fieldwork setting in Amsterdam of the ferry waiting areas of the F4/F5 ferry (Centraal Station to NDSM and NDSM to Centraal Station, see

Image 1: Map of F4/F5 ferry line Image 2: F4/F5 waiting area at Centraal Station. Own photo.

(GVB n.d.^c).

Image 2) with assumptions of what I would observe (with an emphasis on proxemic

interactions, specifically violating personal space⁸) and presumed most of these behaviors and actions would be culturally linked. Amsterdam was a great setting to conduct fieldwork due to its high level of internationality⁹ (I amsterdam, 2022) providing opportunities to observe various cultural behaviors. Additionally, Amsterdam is a known tourist destination allowing me to easily blend in while I conducted fieldwork. I was able to observe naturalistic

observations (Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, 43) unnoticed while participating in the action of waiting for the ferry. Writing fieldnotes on my smartphone appeared as a normal waiting activity and when I took photos, no one reacted as they assumed I was a tourist. Access to the public ferry waiting area was unproblematic since it was a free-entry social situation

(Spradley 2016, 49). Initially, the research was intended to be limited to the F4/F5 ferry dock, however, due to participation issues for phase three, the final phase was expanded to include two additional ferry lines (see sub-chapter Phase Three: Tag-along Interviews).

8 My initial research proposal was highly focused on invasion of personal space while waiting (Sexton 2021) which may have directed some additional focus toward these types of informal rules.

9 Amsterdam proclaims to be one of the most diverse cities in Europe housing over 180 different nationalities (I amsterdam, 2022).

(18)

18

The First Observation

I entered Centraal Station at 10:35 AM with feelings of excitement and uncertainty.

The Netherlands was in full lockdown¹⁰ (Rijksoverheid 2021^b) and I observed multiple security guards that were not normally present in Centraal Station. The presence of these security guards increased my uneasiness as my primary task was to observe people and the security guard’s purpose seemed to be to keep people moving and avoid lingering.

Additionally, I worried how many people were still commuting on ferries amidst a lockdown, if bathrooms were open, and how long I would be able to last in the January cold weather without reprieve at a café (all non-essential businesses were closed). I checked the ferry timetable on my smartphone, the next ferry was arriving in six minutes, so I moved on and walked outside towards the ferry docks where it was briskly cold, but with clear skies and no wind.

I arrived at the ferry docks at 10:40 AM and was surprised to find it busier than expected, even while in full lockdown. One Gemeente Vervoerbedrijf (GVB, Municipal Transport Company) employee in a red vest was walking around and I assumed his purpose was to answer questions and to keep people moving (and not loiter). I moved towards the covered waiting area and sat on the closest bench (furthest from the ferry) to begin observations. Not surprisingly, people were either absorbed in their phones or aimlessly gazing out to the water with their bodies positioned away from approaching public. Everyone was situated 1.5 meters (or more) apart as specified by municipality COVID-19 regulations.

The ferry was very punctual arriving at 10:45 AM and I was startled upon its arrival as I felt the platform move when the ferry docked. I watched everyone offload the ferry and then all the waiting people board. A late biker rode onto the ferry after everyone else had boarded.

Alarms and red flashing lights went off on the ferry and a pedestrian and biker raced onto the ferry. The back door of the ferry rose, the alarm and red lights stopped, and the ferry began to leave the dock.

Continued Observations

The routine of observing waiting, boarding, and offboarding the F4/F5 ferry was continued for the next four weeks on different days (only weekdays to optimize observations

10 Full COVID-19 regulations during this timeframe can be viewed at

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

(19)

of local commuters¹¹), different timeframes (shifts between 8:00 – 18:30), in various weather conditions, from different vantage points (front green painted waiting area, back green painted waiting area, behind various pillars, inside Centraal Station watching through the window, and inside the covered waiting area (see Appendix 2); sometimes purely observing while other times participating in waiting (including boarding and riding the ferry). These varying observational elements revealed different situational factors that would alter behaviors while waiting and boarding the ferry, such as different timeframes (specifically morning and evening commuting hours) and the weather. Observing from different vantage

Image 3: Non-designated waiting area at Centraal Station. Own photo.

points were also very advantageous as I realized unique circumstances that I would not have found if I had only observed in one spot. For example, when I watched through the window from inside Centraal Station, I discovered an additional undesignated waiting area where people hung back from the designated waiting area and did not move forward until their ferry became visible.

Lastly, combining only observation and full participation was extremely fruitful. Pure observation permitted full focus on the interactions taking place while participation allowed me to reflect on suggested meaning behind observed actions while waiting for the ferry. For example, I noticed when people sat on the bench in the covered waiting area, they often stood up to look out at the water. I initially assumed this action was due to boredom or restlessness.

However, after I participated by sitting on the bench, I realized you could not see the ferry timer and I needed to stand and look out to the water to see if the ferry was close to arriving (signaling when I needed to get ready to board the ferry). Along with gaining new insights by participating, using myself as a research tool also provided autoethnographic data for the overall research (Spradley 2016, 57).

11 Most of the observation phase was in full lockdown so ferry traffic was most evident on weekdays for working commuters. Tourists were rare and locals could not go to clubs, bars, or restaurants on the weekends.

(20)

20 Since I did not begin the research as a frequent commuter of the ferry¹², I entered the ferry waiting area as an outsider (or a tourist) with no understanding of the unspoken rules and dependent on my past understandings of informal rules while waiting for public transit.

In attempts to not be completely influenced by past experiences, I began the fieldwork with observing and notating everything I saw, not focusing on any one behavior that I had previously experienced as rude. After time in the field, I was able to witness trends in negative reactions to specific behaviors and become more focused. In the beginning, I first attempted to see if any rules were officially posted via signage, but I only noticed signage regarding the current COVID-19 mask mandate (masks must be worn on public transit and in waiting areas for public transit) and social

distancing requirements (1.5 meters apart).

Even the markings on the ground encouraged social distancing with red hearts in the green painted waiting area visibly marking the distance of 1.5 meters (see Image 4). Signage and markings initially led me to believe these posted rules would be important to the public at the ferry waiting areas. However, after much observation, I discovered people, for the most part, adhered to these rules and if someone did not follow the mandated rule, it was rare for people to react implying a lack of importance.

Image 4: Markings in NDSM waiting area to visibly demonstrate the distance of 1.5 meters. Own photo.

During phase one, I was able to begin identifying the proper social behaviors while waiting for the ferry, what actions individuals took to continue to project these rules, and how they reacted if someone did not obey. I was not surprised by what I observed as most

behaviors and actions aligned with previously read literature regarding the action of waiting (e.g., don’t talk to strangers, use of smartphones or wearing headphones signaling to be left alone, adhere to personal distance, etc.). Overall, I observed people being compliant to

12 Before fieldwork began, I had only ridden the ferry on four occasions within my 2.5 years of living in Amsterdam.

(21)

governmental COVID-19 regulations regarding social distancing¹³ except during the situational exceptions of rain (people would crowd in covered waiting areas) and while boarding the ferry (people would rush from their socially distanced waiting position towards the closest ferry boarding area and congregate close together). Overall, very few disruptions of the informal social rules of waiting occurred, and when they did it was generally once the ferry became visible, about two minutes before the ferry arrived. If an unwritten rule was broken, people reacted as predicted such as using facial expressions such as a dirty look, shaking their head in disapproval, moving away, or turning their body away.

Image 5: People waiting for F4/F5 ferry at Centraal Station. Red squares illustrate nonverbal cues to avoid engagement with others and blue squares are acquaintances conversing but with blocking body positioning.

Own photo.

Image 5 captures a scene commonly observed during phase one. Four people have parked their bikes in front of their bodies and one man has a backpack positioned at the front of his body blocking the encroachment of others. Only people who seemed to know each other conversed but with intense eye contact and their bodies intentionally facing one another (backs turned to others); their body positioning felt as if they were blocking anyone from entering their private circle of conversation. With seven minutes before the ferry arrived, I continued to watch behind the pillar. Another biker pulled up to the pedestrian in a hoodie

13 While this study was not about adhering to COVID-19 regulations, the topic could not be avoided during phase one of fieldwork. In my research proposal I had assumed with mask mandates, the non-wearing of masks would incite reactions (Sexton 2021, 7), which was not observed during fieldwork.

(22)

22 and stopped within their intimate space. They obviously know each other since they began to chat and laugh. Their conversing caused other bikers to move further back and away from them. Any people waiting alone were still on their smartphones or facing away from others staring blankly out at the IJ river. (…) The ferry became visible and a biker with a dog joined the informal line forming near the covered waiting area. A man waiting on the right-side cut across to the other side and moved into the middle of the informal line in front of the covered area. Others began to move to the front of the boarding area and people fidgeted with their bikes. The ferry arrived on time (about 2.5 minutes before its designated departure time) and when the ferry was about halfway unloaded, almost everyone had moved forward to abandon all previous social distanced positions.

While the prior vignette demonstrates the common observances experienced over the first three weeks of participant observations, one particular interaction continually stood out to me. In this setting there was no defined queueing practices, people would move to the front of the waiting area right before the ferry arrived cutting in front of the person who had been waiting (sometimes up to 10 minutes). While this behavior did not happen in every waiting interval, when it did occur, I observed a mixture of reactions (or non-reactions) to the action.

Some people made very subtle unapproving faces or moved their body or a bike tire in attempts to block the person from boarding before them. However, most people did not react (or did not notice). While participating in waiting, the action of cutting happened at least three times to me. Each time I felt angry that someone had moved into my claimed space.

Ironically, even though I had no purpose for riding the ferry except to observe others, I still felt angry my claimed space was violated and began to make a slight scowl, the hairs stood up on my neck and arms, my body tensed and tightened up, and I became more aware of my immediate surroundings and upright. Temporarily forgetting the purpose of my ferry ride (observe interactions, I was not under pressure to arrive somewhere), I was determined to be able to reclaim the space back from the perpetrator and board before them by moving back in front of them once the ferry arrived or I adjusted my body in a way that partially blocked them to slow down their boarding process. Reflecting on my reactions compared to the lack of reactions from some Amsterdam locals, I assumed this informal social rule was shaped by cultural nuances.

Conversational Interviews

Upon these realizations in week three, I shifted my focus to specifically see how people reacted (or did not react) when this action occurred. Shockingly, I rarely saw a

(23)

reaction (specifically saw less reactions from whom I assumed to be Dutch locals¹⁴). People would not look up from their phones, they did not move, their bodies remained in relaxed positions after being cut in front of. Based on my intense physical and emotional response to the same action, this baffled me. To explore if it was just me who understood this action to be rude, I introduced random conversational interviews in my final week of participant

observations. To accomplish this, I changed my observational field of vision from the entirety of the group to focusing on the interaction between two people once I witnessed the action of cutting occur. I only approached individuals who were cut off while waiting (not the

offenders) as I aimed to better understand if they noticed and how they felt.

Unfortunately, I was only able to interview three people¹⁵ as it became problematic to approach people. Since the intention was to interview the experience of being cut in front of, I was limited to interviewing only when this action transpired during observation.

Additionally, I sometimes had issues finding the person. Due to the distance of observations, I could not always confirm the identity was the same person I observed and sometimes I could simply not find them on the ferry due to their behaviors of not wanting to be

approached (e.g., head down buried in their phone). Lastly, the ferry was often too busy and not conducive for an interview. If this was the case, I attempted to find the individual once they offboarded but people were generally in a rush to get to their next destination so I could not catch them (especially if they were on a bike).

For all the successful interviews, I was able to observe and witness their reaction (or lack of) to the action of cutting. Of the three, I only witnessed one reaction from a Dutch local man who responded with a slight facial response of disgust, tensing of the body (more upright position and alertness), and moved his bike tire forward in attempts to block the boarding process of the girl who moved in front of him. For each of the participants, I approached them on the ferry which allotted 15 minutes to find, approach, and interview them. The goal was to keep the interview short (7-10 questions) and begin with a short

14 Due to lockdown measures (tourism travel was prohibited) and visual signifiers, it could be concluded most of the riders in January were Dutch locals. While I could not be 100% sure of all identification, I feel confident that I could identify by body type, what they were wearing, type of bike (not a Swapfiets), and occasionally heard an accent.

15 Four other conversational interviews took place relating to other topics but did not contribute to the final theme of this thesis.

(24)

24 introduction of who I was (i.e., an undergraduate student at the University of Amsterdam¹⁶) and a short synopsis of what I was aiming to research staying as vague as possible to avoid leading the interview participant. I did not opt to record the interviews due to the amount of wind noise and shortness of the interview. Once the interviewee agreed to participate, I began with the same base interview questions (e.g., Do you live in Amsterdam, if so for how long?

Were you born in the Netherlands? How often do you ride this ferry? What is an acceptable distance around strangers for you? What was your experience before boarding the ferry?) as I attempted to understand if they were a local, a frequent ferry commuter, and if they noticed they were cut in front of without leading the question. These questions were followed by more personalized, blatant questions (based on my observations) if they did not bring up being cut off on their own (e.g., Did you notice the woman standing near you? Did you notice the man move in front of you?).

All the people approached were confirmed locals and frequent ferry commuters travelling on bikes. Only one participant noticed someone cutting in front of him (the same man that I observed a reaction from) but only acknowledged the experience after being more directly asked. When asked about their preferred personal space, all three interviewees responded with the, at the time, governmental recommendations (not necessarily their own reflected preference) and did not seem excitable about the topic of personal space. However, a new informative social rule (which became much more prominent in future phases) was conveyed during an interview. When asked if she liked the design of the ferry loading area, the interviewee responded with a comment about tourists not understanding the loading and offloading areas. She went on to describe how she liked the green and red markings; it made the process of boarding and offboarding clear. Promptly feeling like a tourist myself, I realized I had not noticed the distinction of green and red symbolizing a clear division of waiting areas for loading and offloading¹⁷. I had only noticed the painted hearts with foots to demonstrate the 1.5-meter distance.

Lastly, another perplexing event occurred while interviewing the man I had observed reacting to being cut off. Although he did not mention being cut off on his own, after I asked the direct question “did you notice the girl who moved in front of you while waiting for the

16 During the conversational interview phase, I always wore my UVA sweatshirt or beanie to visually corroborate my status as a student.

17 Even later in the process, I realized there was a digital sign demonstrating the purpose of each colored area.

(25)

ferry,” he responded with a very harsh yes and slight scowl displaying once again his displeasure from the event. When I prodded further and asked how he felt about it, he went on to explain that he was not bothered but “she could have been more polite.” His facial expressions both in the initial observation and during the interview along with the sharpness of his voice when responding to the additional question led me to believe he was absolutely bothered by the action. It perplexed me that he did not bring up the experience on his own nor could admit he was bothered. This engagement opened up even more questions. Was it a cultural behavior to not admit being bothered? Was his lack of omission because of how I worded the initial questions (language barriers)? Are people just not very self-reflective in short conversations? Or were there just more situational factors beyond culture that impacted the definitions of this informal social rule?

Concluding Phase One

I began phase one with the assumption that cultural effects would be the highest factor to influence behaviors and assumed proxemic related actions would be the most defined informal rules. My observations, personal experiences, and conversational interviews

revealed that the ferry rider’s working consensuses could be comprised of but were not solely about proxemics as originally outlined in my thesis proposal (Sexton 2021). Additionally, by gauging the reactions of people, the rules that seemed to matter most were not

governmentally enforced (mask wearing or social distancing). However, these findings needed more depth as I could not completely identify all the circumstantial factors that shaped the social unwritten rules.

Although biased by my own interpretations as an American expatriate unfamiliar with the customs surrounding the ferry, it did provide an opportunity to naturally observe

unnoticed as an outsider to the cultural group of ferry commuters. Beginning the research as an outsider provided the chance to witness insider tacit behaviors, “culture hides much more that it reveals, and strangely enough what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants” (Hall [1959] 1981, 30). However, additional information gathering needed to happen as the observances and short conversational interviews lacked meaning making beyond my own personal assumptions. Patterns were difficult to observe in the field as much of the focus was either furiously writing fieldnotes (and potentially missing observations) or waiting to watch waiting activities. Lastly, while the short conversational interviews

introduced new insights for me to explore, they potentially lacked reflection from the

(26)

26 interviewees about their implicit reactions. All of these findings were a great start on what to focus on next, but more information needed to be collected.

(27)

Chapter 2

Nonverbal Communication

Although most people associate language with communication, nonverbal

communication plays a more important role in our day-to-day communication with others.

Nonverbal communication can be defined as “the transfer and exchange of messages in any and all modalities that do not involve words” (Matsumoto, Frank, and Hwang 2013, 4). It includes nonverbal behaviors such as facial expressions, vocal cues, gestures, body postures, interpersonal distance, and gaze. Nonverbal communication has multiple uses and can define the situation (environment and materially driven, such as wearing headphones while waiting communicates do not approach me), moderate communication (e.g., a softening facial expression while verbally communicating communicates a calming transition), or can be the entirety of the type of communication (e.g., a wave with the hand communicates “hello” or

“goodbye”) (4-7). Application and assessment of nonverbal communication are also culturally based. One’s culture will affect how you communicate with others and how you interpret surrounding nonverbal communication, making intercultural (cultural out-group) interactions more complicated than intracultural (cultural in-group) interactions (97).

Additionally, if an individual perceives another person as a cultural out-group, they are more likely to forgive nonadherence to a social rule (Guan and Lee 2022, 6).

While nonverbal communication can be influenced by cultural factors, evidence exists supporting universal nonverbal communication of emotional (joy, fear, anger, sadness,

disgust, shame, and guilt) physiological and expressive reactions (specifically proxemic and facial reactions) across cultures¹⁸ (Ekman et al. 1987; Scherer and Wallbot 1994). These common publicly identifiable reactions of facial expression and use of space can be applied to identify reactions of disapproval or anger during onsite or video analysis¹⁹ observations of social interactions. Nonverbal communication is especially important in public space due to the informal social rule of not verbally speaking to others, relying on silent communication

18 Note this is for an overall cultural comparison of involuntary emotional reactions (not intentional, signaling communication) and diverse cultures will experience different emotions to the same event (e.g., in one cultural context people may experience sadness in response to a death while another celebrates death with feelings of joy) (Hall [1959] 1981, 122).

19 Video analysis has the advantage to zoom in and play at a slower pace to identify micro expressions that only last 2/3 of a second to 4 seconds (Ekman 2003, 217).

(28)

28 behaviors. For these reasons, CCTV video analysis was beneficial to analyze nonverbal signals and reactions of ferry riders while waiting for the ferry at Centraal Station to help distinguish patterns to identify the informal social rules, reactions to nonadherence of the rules, and situational factors that may alter the identified informal rules.

Phase Two: Qualitative Video Analysis CCTV Video Footage

With the increasing use of technology, third-party video footage of urban public space is more accessible from individuals (e.g., smartphone video) and institutions (e.g., CCTV cameras, dashboard cameras). Conducting a qualitative digital analysis of CCTV videos permits rich, qualitative data to micro-analyze social interaction by allowing the unique opportunity for a thorough examination by pausing, slowing, zooming-in, and rewatching each frame as needed to understand the context of the social interaction. While some

limitations exist (e.g., camera frame, sound), these capabilities provide additional details that are missed during in-person field observations (Jones and Raymond 2012, 120).

Partnering with the NSCR for three weeks, I conducted a micro-analysis of a subset of 19 months²⁰ of recordings of public space behavior in Amsterdam recorded with public cameras during the COVID-19 outbreak (Appelman et al. 2021). The

analyzed subset was of one camera located at the F4/F5 ferry waiting area at Centraal Station, reviewing footage from January

through March 2021. Image 6: CCTV camera at Centraal Station. Own photo.

This footage was a year prior of the observed onsite fieldwork but maintained the same calendar months of observance. Similar governmental COVID-19 rules were enforced in 2021 and 2022 during this timeframe (Rijksoverheid 2021^a). Due to time limitations, I randomly reviewed timeframes between 8:00 – 18:30 on Thursday and Saturday²¹ to match the timeframes I observed in the field with an emphasis on Thursday observations to more

20 Full available footage was from March 5, 2020, to October 16, 2021.

21 Only Thursday and Saturday video footage was available.

(29)

likely capture commuter interactions. Lastly, due to privacy issues and access agreements, the video footage could only be observed at the NSCR office in the Secure Analytics Lab (SAL) and clips could not be shared to be incorporated into this thesis²² (Hoeben et al. 2021, 3).

Although I had a limited view from the camera angle²³ and no sound²⁴, conducting video analysis after I had done onsite observations was beneficial for the following reasons:

an embodied connection, understanding the layout of the setting, and identifiable emotional associations. I was already familiar with the setting and even experienced an embodied connection with the video content. Every time I watched the ferry docking, I could feel the ground move as I did when I was actually on the ferry docks. When the ferry arrived in the video, I automatically moved my hands to grip something for stability. The video also provided a better overhead view of all the people waiting, creating a better bird’s eye view.

While this angle made the space look smaller, my experiences in the field provided

knowledge of the layout so I could better evaluate distance between people. Lastly, when I observed an act of incivility upon an individual waiting or boarding the ferry, I was able to relate and would react physically and emotionally on their behalf (e.g., I began to squirm when I felt uncomfortable if someone continued to creep into another’s personal space or my body stiffened as I felt irritated that someone blatantly cut in line) aiding in identification of nonverbal reactions to the event.

From my participant observation I had identified that most of the acts of breaking social rules happened after the ferry became visible. Using video technology, I was able to select these occurrences from the full-time recordings, fast forwarding to these moments in the video, permitting more instances of observations of people cutting than experienced while onsite. To identify a reaction, an observer needs to see a change in behavior, making it

necessary to compare a before and after (e.g., relaxed body posture to stiff body posture). The ability to rewind was valuable in conducting a more in-depth comparison (even zooming in on the body or facial response of the offended individual) of nonverbal reactions to an

22 I was able to obtain access because I was an intern during the video analysis phase and had signed all necessary paperwork to comply with the privacy agreements.

23 The video angle was problematic as I was aware I was missing the view of the additional waiting area in front of the covered area. Therefore, I was missing potential interactions, especially in inclement weather due to people crowding inside during rain.

24 My primary focus was on nonverbal signals and reactions, so the missing sound did not impact the analysis. Additionally, I could not hear much during onsite fieldwork due to the distance of observance and loud external noises (wind, vehicles, etc.).

(30)

30

informal social rule being broken. Lastly, onsite I was only able to remain focused on the people involved in the interaction, but with video footage I could rewind and observe the surrounding people’s reactions to the event providing more evidence to help define if the action was seen as breaking a social rule.

Defining the Action of Cutting

Remaining focused on the action of cutting (but staying open to observations of other acts of incivility), I began to see more nuances in the definition through video analysis.

Reviewing 50 instances of cutting over 18 hours of video review²⁵, I realized I could not clearly define this unwritten rule. From personal experience, I found cutting to be determined by moving to the front of the waiting area and not standing behind the identifiable last person waiting. Due to the layout of the waiting area, standing next in line could mean moving behind or to the right of the furthest person back. The order of queuing would be determined by how soon you could get on the ferry (people furthest left would load before people to the right and people in the front would load before people in the back).

Image 7: Where I defined as socially acceptable to wait next in line, furthest back or furthest right position from ferry loading area. Own photo.

25 During onsite, I observed waiting behaviors for a total of 13 hours (this did not encompass the time on the ferries) but only witnessed 22 instances of cutting. However, during video analysis I was focused on specifically observing the action of cutting where much of the time in phase one was more generalized observations.

(31)

While I witnessed nonverbal cues of disapproval and irritation to my defined action of cutting by evaluating facial responses (furrowed eyebrows, squinted eyes, and pursed lips), body alterations (stiffening of body, more upright), use of objects (moved body or bike tire to block), or modified use of space (moved away to create more space), I noticed many

situational factors affected the amount and severity of responses. Sometimes even signaling the action of cutting was now acceptable. Footage from a Thursday afternoon in January illustrates some examples of differences from situational factors.

The sun was out but it was cold, all waiting people were bundled up in thick coats standing in a slouched position with their hands in their pockets. There were no barricade fences set up while 12 people waited: five bikers and seven pedestrians²⁶. Everyone’s body was positioned away from all other waiting people, primarily facing the red painted area or out towards the IJ river with the exception of two groups of two acquaintances facing one another immersed in conversation. It was too cold for anyone to be absorbed in their phones (all hands were in pockets), so everyone not conversing with their friends was zoned out with a blank gaze. The ferry became visible and the female biker in the front waiting area moved from along the fence to the border of the red/green painted area (her bike tire just before the red line). She positioned her body upright and alert with both hands on her bike handlebar ready to board the ferry as soon as it arrived. A female pedestrian walked from the tunnel next to Centraal Station around the green waiting area and slowly, casually cut across the second row towards the red painted area. She passed in front of a female pedestrian waiting who quickly glanced at her and promptly looked back away returning to her empty gaze. The pedestrian continued to the border of the red/green area about 1.5 meters behind the first biker to claim the second position and has now moved in front of a male biker (about 1.5 meters behind her). As she passed in front of him, he watched her pass, but his casual body posture did not change.

Off in the distance a male biker biked through the tunnel and rode at a swift pace toward the back of the waiting area. He continued biking through the middle of the waiting crowd pulling up in the spot between the first biker and second pedestrian (closer than 1.5 meters) with his tire just over the line into the red painted area. The first position biker did not turn to look at him and remained alert to board the ferry while the second waiting position pedestrian’s eyes followed him until he came to a stop, and she stepped back and leaned her

26 Additional people may be waiting on the other side outside the camera’s view.

(32)

32 body backwards away from the biker. She spun around to see if anyone else was coming. The ferry arrived and as people began to offload, the male biker continued to creep forward moving in front of the female biker. After the ferry was about halfway unloaded, the male biker began to ride onto the ferry and the female pedestrian both moved forward cutting off the female biker.

While both the pedestrian and the biker moved forward in line and did not stand in a traditional queuing format behind the last person in line, the pedestrian’s movement was acknowledged as acceptable but not the biker’s action. Incongruent situations like this revealed situational factors play a role in determining when an action is assessed as rude. In this example, the amount of open space available in front of the waiting individuals affected their response determining the severity (or lack of) of rudeness as the person stepping back and leaning away demonstrated. Additionally, it could be assumed the biker signaled intentionality of the action of cutting by overtly moving to the front (not acceptable) while the pedestrian nonchalantly moved into the available space between the waiting people (acceptable).

In other videos, besides available space and signals of intentionality, I observed other factors that seemed to alter the response to the action of cutting in line such as: the waiting individuals’ attentiveness (e.g., a person engrossed in conversation or on their phone is acceptable to cut in front of), obtrusive object placement (e.g., a portable barricade fence would emphasize the action of cutting making it more rude), the amount of time before the ferry arrival (i.e., the closer to the ferry arrival, the more likely irritation) or the distance from the individual waiting (i.e., the more invasion of personal space, the more likely irritation).

Surprisingly, the density of the crowd waiting did not seem to play a role in the reaction.

Video Review Sessions

During the analysis, I found myself reacting with personal bias on how I deciphered if the cutting action was acceptable or not. In a reflective state, I realized during a situation where an older man cut in front of a young child, I responded with acceptance of the action because of the belief older people should be able to board the ferry before younger people.

Realizing some of my personal bias may be creeping into my analysis, I held two group video review sessions: one review with my supervisor and a PhD student who had previous

experience with the video footage and one review with 10 NSCR employees (familiar with video analysis methodologies) to gain others’ perspectives of when the action of cutting was rude (or identify any other observed acts of incivility).

Informal Social Rules in Urban Public Space