Sherri Cavan's LIQUOR LICENSE

3. Bar Sociability

Public drinking places are "open regions": those who are present, acquainted or not, have the right to engage others in conversational interaction and the duty to accept the overtures of sociability proffered to them. [57] While many, and perhaps the majority, of conventional settings customarily limit the extent of contact among strangers, sociability is the most general rule in the public drinking place. Although the bar is typically populated primarily by strangers, interaction is available to all those who choose to enter.
The physical door through which one enters a drinking establishment is a symbolic door as well, for those who come through it declare by entering that unless they put forth evidence to the contrary, they will be open for conversation with unacquainted others for the duration of their stay. Whatever their age, sex or apparent position, their biographical blemishes or physical stigmas, all who enter are immediately vested with the status of an open person [58] open both in having the right

to make contact with the others present and the general obligation of being open to others who may contact them. To decline the status of being open, to demand that one remain uncontacted requires work of a particular kind, for the assumption that one will not be contacted by another without good reason is unfounded within the bar. Those who desire to avoid the overtures of others must be able to distinguish themselves from the others present, for the general rule of civil inattention [59] is held in abeyance, and not only idle glances at other patrons but also idle glances at features and fixtures of the establishment all convey one's openness. There are no protective goods, no newspapers, letters and books to serve as an alternative form of involvement.[60] If such props are used, they may themselves serve as grounds for initial overtures of sociability.

A middle-aged woman was sitting by herself, thumbing through a large book of Steinberg cartoons. A man sitting at the other end of the bar came over, asked her what she was looking at and then joined her.[61]

Not infrequently, what would pass for civil inattention in other settings is taken as an invitation for interaction in the bar. Thus in most cases entering patrons are either completely ignored, remaining entirely unacknowledged by those already present, or they are gazed at in such a way as to be extended an invitation to join or at least to respond to the gazer.
In most establishments in San Francisco, the physical bar structure forms the center of social gravity, and it is here that the greatest amount of contact occurs between strangers on the premises. Thus one solution to the problem of setting oneself apart from the sociability of the establishment is to

avoid the bar itself and sit at the tables and booths available for just this purpose. But it is rare to find solitary individuals seated at tables and booths. In most instances it is couples or larger groups desiring to remain self-contained who utilize the seating facilities away from the bar. Those solitary individuals who do locate themselves away from the bar are generally assumed to be waiting for some one, and they often give such a reason for their choice of seating.

There were about ten empty stools at the bar; one couple and a number of larger groups were seated at the tables and booths. A solitary male entered, stood by the door for a moment, and then went to sit at one of the vacant tables. When the cocktail waitress came over to him he said in a very audible voice, "Oh, I might as well order while I wait."
I had been sitting at one of the tables by myself for about a half hour when the cocktail waitress came over to me in a rather matter-of-fact manner and asked, "Are you waiting for Jack Wilson?"

The solitary individual who desires to remain alone for the duration of his stay will ordinarily seat himself at the bar, like those who are more open for interaction, but he will sit in a particular posture. Unlike those who are open for interaction, the solitary drinker typically minimizes the amount of physical space he takes up at the bar. He will sit with his forearms either resting on the edge of the bar, or flat on the bar before him, his upper torso hunched slightly forward over the bar, with all of his drinking accoutrements (drink, cigarettes, change, ashtray and the like) contained within the area before him, The area delimited by the inner sides of his arms defines his visual focus as well, for transitory eye contact is not defined as civil inattention in the public drinking place; if the solitary patron is caught in eye contact by another, his whole posture may be discredited. While eye contact is not

a necessary prelude to an encounter in the public drinking place, it is sufficient to discredit the display that is used to decline the status of being open.
The encounters begun among the unacquainted in public drinking places, Eke those in any other setting, have variable careers. They may remain momentary interchanges, or may develop into something more, perhaps even into a lifelong relationship which transcends the setting itself. But most remain momentary interchanges. The corollary to the rule that no patron is a priori exempt from overtures of sociability on the part of any other patron is the rule that no patron is a priori committed to an encounter with any other patron. Just as it requires active work for patrons to decline the definition of being open for interaction, so too does it require active work for them to maintain an encounter once it has begun.
Most encounters between unacquainted patrons begin with a "remark," a brief, casual statement which, while it is directed to alter by ego, requires no verbal response from alter. These remarks are usually commentaries on the present scene which carry with them the option of either a verbal counter-remark or a gestural acknowledgment that the first remark has been put forth, The choice of response which alter makes to ego7s remark is taken to indicate whether an encounter of more than momentary duration can be expected between them there and then. If alter replies verbally, an exchange of interchanges, and hence an encounter of more than momentary duration, will have begun; for while alter has an option in his choice of response to ego's original remark, ego, once he has put himself forth by his first remark as one seeking an encounter, has no similar option with respect to alter's counter-remark. He is expected to reply to it verbally. But after ego's verbal reply to alter's counter-remark, the extent of the encounter between them is variable. All other things being equal, the encounter may be terminated by either ego or alter at any time after this third statement has passed between them.

If, on the other hand, alter merely responds to ego's remark with a nod, a glance, or a tentative smile, the response will be taken by ego to indicate alter's reluctance to engage in any prolonged encounter between them at that time. But alter's gestural response to ego's remarks does not carry with it alter's absolution from any further remarks directed to him by ego. After a period of grace, and if the two remain within communication distance,[62] ego may direct another remark to alter without fear that he will be characterized by alter as "pushy". Thus it is possible for an entire afternoon or evening to be composed of such partial encounters of remarks and gestural responses between two patrons, for alter, by his presence in the public drinking place, has forfeited any claim to an order which would provide him with a basis for indignation in the face of continued remarks directed to him by ego.[63]
While remarks are statements directed specifically to another within communication distance, bar encounters between the unacquainted may also begin by "declaractions." Declaractions are quite like remarks in content, but they are made to the collectivity at large rather than to any specific patron. Frequently, declaractions have the appearance of being made to the bartender, but they are typically made when the distance between the person making the declaraction and the bartender exceeds the customary communication distance. Hence the declaraction must be made in a loud and clear voice which is audible to all.
Like remarks, declarations are used for the initiation of encounters. However, since they are made to the collectivity at large, they require no response from any specific patron. Unlike

the remark, they can be completely ignored and do not require a gestural response even from those in the immediate vicinity of the person making the declaraction. In part because they do not require or elicit any response (unless an encounter is to develop from one patron's declaraction), they are generally one-shot attempts. Once a patron has made a declaraction, usually he will not make another unless a verbal response is forthcoming.

Terminations

No matter who initiates an encounter, either person may terminate it at any time, unless one participant has lessened the physical distance between himself and the other or has been made the recipient of a gift drink. The general rule that either participant may terminate may thus make those present more amenable to entering an encounter in the first place, insofar as withdrawal cannot easily be construed as an offense to either participant.[64]
Since the public drinking place is defined as an area where all present are mutually open, anyone has the right to initiate contact with anyone else and those so contacted are obliged to accept such contact. The patterns of social distance which are predicated upon and in return support a hierarchal order of statuses are legitimately ignored. Whatever statuses of regard Or disregard patrons might claim or be accorded outside the setting are effectively held in abeyance during the duration of their stay, making everyone present the Social equal of everyone else and absolving all of the necessity of paying deference to any apparent social position.
At the same time, little deference need be paid to any pre-

existing relationships. The majority of patrons are strangers who are not merely unacquainted but are not likely to become

acquainted outside the bar. Their lives generally have little overlap beyond their mutual presence in the immediate setting. But even for those whose lives outside the public drinking place are tangential or interrelated, their mutual openness, by divesting them of social position in relation to each other, abridges any relationships that might exist. Consequently, participation in bar encounters is not predicated on any claims or considerations associated with preexisting positions or relationships that require showing an interest where no interest exists. There is, as it were, no effective pre-existing commitment to require maintenance of an encounter beyond the point of waning interest. Hence there are no proprieties that automatically allocate to one participant or another control over the termination of an ongoing encounter.[65]
Occasionally, encounters in public drinking places are terminated in ceremonial fashion, similar to the ceremonial terminations of encounters outside the bar. Patrons whose interest in the encounter has waned, or who must leave because their future time is committed to some other activity or setting, may await an appropriate moment--a moment which allows the other to ratify the impending termination--and then say, "Well, it's been nice talking to you, I have to leave now. Hope to see you again," and leave the premises with a final nod and a smile to the other. But more frequently encounters in public drinking places are terminated by much less explicit leave-taking ceremonies, whether or not the participants may be leaving the premises.
Generally, this leave-taking is not accompanied by any verbal statements, For example, if a patron is leaving the premises or changing his location within the establishment, the

termination of an ongoing encounter may be signified only by FM the patron gathering up his possessions from the bar (change money, cigarettes, matches, etc.). Such activity is usually understood by the other to mean that the encounter has come to an end, although nothing may have been said before the activity started and nothing may be said afterward. Talk simply ceases when the collection of goods and possessions begins. He who is about to move may offer the other a curt nod as he gets up, but this is not obligatory and frequently not possible. Typically, the other will become involved in some activity such as finishing his drink, lighting a cigarette, or instigating an encounter with another, permitting ego's departure to occur silently and unobtrusively. However, unless one verbally declares before he physically moves that he will socially return (as, for example, saying, "I'm just going to the bathroom," or "I only want to get a pack of cigarettes"), even temporary departures are conventionally read as having effectively terminated the encounter.[66] Once the other has returned to the spatial proximity the two share, any further talk between them requires the same ceremonial opening that began the initial conversation.
While bar encounters are most frequently terminated by spatial separation, they may be ended by nothing more than mutual silence. As a practical problem, such termination silence is often difficult to distinguish from a conversation lull. Both have the same form--moments of mutual silence which exist within ongoing encounters. This is particularly true for 11 patrons seated along the bar, since encounters begun between patrons seated side by side may involve only sporadic eye contact, if any. The absence of sustained eye contact precludes

any decisive termination by means of discontinuing such contact. Becoming involved with one's drink or toying with a glass or ashtray is equally ambiguous, for such activities are frequently used to smooth over routine conversational lulls as well. Thus both conversation lulls and actual terminal silences pose a question for the participants: Is an encounter between them still in progress? There is nothing to indicate whether the quietness shows a loss of interest in the topic under discussion or a loss of interest in the encounter as such.
The solution is usually to treat all moments of mutual silence in ongoing encounters as termination points, a solution which generates the peculiar tenor of bar conversation. As noted before, the termination of one encounter does not preclude the instigation of another with a given patron as long as he remains within conversational distance. After a period of grace, either patron has the option of putting forth a new remark as a means of beginning a new encounter. But since conversation lulls are typically treated as if they were termination points, the interaction between two patrons in a public drinking place, whether it represents one continuous encounter or a series of sequential encounters, routinely has the patterns of remark/ counter-remark/ interchange/ silence/ remark/ counter-remark/ etc. Silences are thus treated as if the other participant had physically departed and another patron were now in his place, that is, as if a totally new encounter had begun.
This characteristic form of bar encounters affects their substantive content as well. Since remarks are the most casual and general of statements, the topics of discussion they generate are equally casual and general. The typical topics (such as the weather, spectator sports, popular music and gossip) require little beyond personal interest to sustain them and have little, if any, consequential import for the daily lives of the discussants. Even topics which could be treated on a less casual

and more specific level customarily remain general. Bar talk is essentially small talk, as the following exerpts of bar conversations overheard and engaged in attest:[67]

Three men talked mainly of two men at the far end of the bar playing poker dice--specifically, how long they had been playing.
A man and a couple talked for almost fifteen minutes about the rain and about rain in various communities in which they had lived.
A woman talked to me for over a half hour on the care, feeding, personality and problems of her four cats.
The bartender told me about some of the records on the juke box. (This occurred on a number of occasions in a number of establishments.)
A woman told us about the comic strip "Peanuts."
Two men talked about football for almost an hour.
A man talked to me about how crowded the bar was. (This again on a number of occasions and in a number of establishments.) [68]

In part, the inconsequential character of the topics of conversations held in public drinking places ensues from the

problem of locating subjects on which verbal engagements can take place with total strangers. In the absence of prior information about matters of mutual interest or knowledge, the more innocuous the topic, the greater the probability it can serve as a vehicle for talk. The small talk of acquaintances can cover a broader range of subject matter because areas of mutuality have already been staked out. The small talk of strangers often revolves around the present scene or current events because these are among the few areas where there is some probability of mutual interest or knowledge.
The absence of pre-existing commitments predisposes encounters in public drinking places to short lives. The mutual openness of bar patrons also characterizes their encounters and this also shortens the life span of such interactions. Bar encounters are granted little or no conventional closure,[69] and just as individuals are defined as open to contact, so are their encounters defined as open to the participation of others. This is particularly true of encounters between patron and bartender and between patrons along the bar, but it is not uncommon to find encounters between patrons standing or seated away from the bar also treated as if there were nothing private about them.

Four of us had moved to one of the booths, where we sat chatting about the music on the juke box, old movies, and a variety of other miscellaneous subjects. During this time, one of the patrons seated at the next booth, a patron passing by from the bar on his way to the bathroom, and two patrons standing behind the booths entered into the conversation for a moment or two, occasionally starting a separate encounter with one of us as well.
P.C. and I had sat down at one of the tables

where we could watch the proceedings around the bar. Some of the patrons had organized a limbo line, using the pool cue, and one of the men came over to our table and asked if we wanted to join in. We declined and he went on to say, "Yeah, it's fun to watch the monkeys." A little later one of the other male patrons came over to the table and asked if I would dance with him. Afterward the first man came back to the table, put his arm around me, and began telling us that he was out celebrating tonight,

In the absence of conventional closure, the maintenance of any specific encounter as an ongoing state of talk between a given number of designatable participants becomes problematic. The number of participants in a single encounter can be increased by others who were previously engaged in separate encounters, because the events occurring in one encounter can properly be treated as legitimate stimuli for the invasion and comingling by the participants of other encounters. This is often the case when such subjects as sports are under discussion, although any topic can provide grounds for the entrance of others and few topics, if any, are treated as too personal for others to enter.
Sometimes one participant will move from one encounter to another, linking the participants of each into a single en. counter. New arrivals who may be acquainted with one or more participants in each group may have the same effect, even though those with whom they are acquainted may not know one another. The bartender is also instrumental in bringing conversational groups together.

There were nine persons in groups of two and three and singles. A Negro man came in, sat down, and began tapping a coin on the bar. Finally he called to the bartender, who said, "I'm down here serving three people [which he wasn't] and you come in and start that." The Negro man got up and stalked out of the bar. When he left, the bartender said to those

present in a general kind of way, "Was that a regular customer?" Everyone laughed and smiled at one another; a few people exchanged remarks with others with whom they had not been talking and then went back to their original encounters.

Occasionally non-patrons will cause two or more previously separate ongoing encounters to become one larger encounter, as in the following example:

A group of three men and the bartender were talking at one end of the bar, and a second group of two men, separated by one bar stool from the first group, were similarly engaged. The beat patrolman came in and stood directly behind the empty stool between the two groups. He said something indistinguishable to the bartender and then turned to the larger group, who had the dice boxes in front of them, and said, "Oh boy, I see you guys are gambling." Then he started telling them about a recent event at the bar across the street, an establishment apparently of little esteem in the eyes of the patrons of the present place. At this point the second group joined in. After the patrolman left, the bartender left, and the two groups continued talking (on various subjects) for about twenty minutes more and then returned to their separate encounters.

A variety of incidents, scenes, and out-of-the-ordinary events may generate a focus of attention for some or all of the patrons, bringing them momentarily or for a longer time into a single encounter that may either temporarily or permanently dissolve the boundaries of separate, ongoing encounters.

A patron came in with a dog. He told the bartender that the dog had followed him for three or four blocks. After a few minutes he started buying pieces of beef jerkey for the dog, making the dog beg before he would give the meat to him. The dog became the focus of attention, and for a little while there was a

general discussion among everyone in the bar on the merits of various kinds of dogs.
There were six or seven people sitting around the piano bar (two groups of twos and the rest singles),
m enjoying the entertainer's Playing
who seemed to be and singing. After a while one of the patrons at the bar became louder and louder and then began to sing along with the entertainer in such a way that the latter was completely drowned out. Finally the entertainer stood up at the piano and said, "The singer doesn't appreciate having his lines stepped on." This did little to daunt the patron at the bar, but it did result in a conversation among all those at the piano bar, which lasted for about three or four minutes.
A midget had come in and sat down at the bar next to Ruth (a woman in her mid-fifties), He kept looking at her with adoring eyes and every so often would lick his lips or make puckering, kiss-like gestures toward her. Ruth finally got up and left and a few minutes later the midget left, At this time there Were five separate groups of patrons, in twos and threes and some alone, spaced along about three. quarters of the physical bar. About five minutes after she left, Ruth returned, very, very angry, and declared, ostensibly to the bartender but in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear, "Oh. I could have hit Win. The nerve of him!" After Ruth's declaration there was a good deal of laughter and conversation within the groups, but once she left the bar again, comments such as "She should take what she can get" and "At her age she should be flattered" were made between groups. Then Alice said, "He offered her ten dollars. If that had been me, I would have kicked him and run." By this time all the patrons in the bar were engaged in one large conversation, first about commercial sex and then about other topics. The large encounter continued to contain everyone who re. remained until about ten minutes after closing time.

When large encounters bring together patrons previously

in separate, smaller encounters, sometimes the separate en-counters are never resumed, as in the example above. But the participants of the larger encounter may also realign themselves with one another, and when the larger encounter subsequently breaks down into smaller, separate units, these smaller encounters may contain new participants.
In addition to participant drift, ongoing encounters may be altered by participant confiscation. An uninvited participant entering conventional encounters may excuse his intrusion with a ritual preface ("Excuse me, but. . ."), which carries the tacit promise that the newcomer will leave the encounter as he found it. Ongoing encounters in public drinking places, being defined as open to all, do not require any ritual preface from those who enter. Rather, uninvited participants may join without ceremony and may well appropriate one or more of the participants for some other encounter, since the absence of conventional boundaries implies that there is little impropriety associated with such activity.
In summary, the rules governing behavior in public drinking places that facilitate conversation between strangers at the same time hinder the maintenance of encounters between the unacquainted once they have begun. The definition of "open person" accorded to all who enter abridges the deferential order that serves to allocate control and the procedure of terminating encounters, and the definition of encounters as accessible to all holds in abeyance expectations of conventional closure which serve to delimit who is or is not a participant of any given encounter. Thus, while sociability is available to all in the public drinking place, there is little to guarantee that encounters between the unacquainted, once begun, will proceed in a neat and orderly fashion. Rather, from the onset their career is problematic, subject to a variety of contingencies that make them always tentative and often superficial.
The tentative and superficial character of bar conversations is further reinforced by a general expectation that any

encounter occurring in a public drinking place will be circumscribed in time and space. One of the general features of bar encounters is that their existence need never be recognized again at another time or in another place. Regardless of the nature of the encounter--whether it was merely a momentary interchange or whether it extended over an entire evening, whether it consisted of no more than an idle chat or whether it consisted of gaming, dancing, or treating as well--in the whether it consisted of no more than an idle chat or whether establishment, or in the same establishment at some other time, the participants are not obliged to recognize one another in any way or make any indication that some form of mutual activity existed between them on a prior occasion. Like spies in alien territory, once out of a bar encounter the participants typically refrain from showing any recognition of the other.[70]

Annie and Frank, to whom we had talked a few times at the bar across the street, were seated two Stools away. Neither made any indication that they recognized us.
Bill and Al, with whom I had spent about two hours at a bar down the street only a few days previously and who had, on the last occasion, bought me a couple of drinks, were present, standing about four feet from where I was sitting. Neither made any indication they had ever seen me before.
Nick, who had introduced himself to me and with whom I had danced one night, was here, but said nothing to me, nor did he "apparently", recognize me.
Dave, with whom we had spent most of the evening talking the last time we were here, came in with another fellow. They sat down one stool away from us, but Dave gave no indication that he recognized us.
Henry, with whom I had been talking on and off for almost an hour at a bar next door earlier in the

evening and who, before he left, had offered a general invitation to my husband and me to "come and have dinner at my place some time" was seated by the door as we entered the bar. He made no indication that he had ever seen me before, much less that he had extended a dinner invitation to us.

Cuts of this kind are taboo in other settings.[71]
If a new encounter begins between bar patrons who had been engaged in another encounter at some previous time, recognition of that earlier encounter may be expressed. However, the existence of an earlier encounter conventionally carries no greater right to initiate a new encounter in the bar setting than the right already established by the bar patron's openness. And it carries no right whatever to initiate an encounter outside the bar setting.
There may be, in any establishment, a core of regulars whose continual presence in the setting may result in their eventual recognition of each other. But even among such groups, failure to acknowledge the other is neither uncommon nor an impropriety, as the following example indicates:

A group of three or four men and the late-duty bartender were sitting at the far end of the bar, talking. A man came in alone, sat down about three stools away from the group, and ordered. He began his drink, apparently paying no heed to the group at the end of the bar. After about five or ten minutes the late-duty bartender called down to him, saying, "Hey, Fred, aren't you even going to say hello," and the rest of the group laughed at the bartender's statement.

Even where an acquaintance relationship exists for two patrons outside the bar setting, their mutual presence in the public drinking place need not necessarily be acknowledged.

Stan, whom I had met a few times at Morrie's

house as well as at another bar, made no sign that he saw me in the bar, either when he came in or when he left, although I was looking right at him.

Whether persons who are acquainted outside the bar will or will not acknowledge one another may be a consequence of the nature of their relationship. Those who fall into the category of "mere" or "casual" acquaintances are apparently less likely to acknowledge others in the bar than are those who consider one another "good friends." This, of course, does not contradict the statement that the openness of patrons in the public drinking place abridges hierarchal relationships that exist outside the setting, inasmuch as those whose relationships are denoted as "friendships" characteristically treat one another on an equalitarian basis in the first place.
Often social acknowledgment will be proffered to those known outside the bar when the one instigating the action is leaving and his impending exit prohibits more than a fleeting nod or perhaps a handshake. The following example comes from a popular bar located in the vicinity of the civic center that draws the majority of its patrons from those who work in the numerous offices in the area.

Two men and one woman were sitting at one of the tables near the door. They were apparently known to about five or six men who were present, for when these other patrons were leaving they would pause by the table momentarily and nod or shake hands with the two men and then go on through the door. None of these men paid any apparent attention to the group before they were leaving, however in spite of the fact that the table at which the group was sitting-was entirely visible to anyone present.

Thus as a result of the assumption that the bar is unserious--that it is time out from consequential life--conversations encounters and acquaintanceships take on a particular flavor. They are in effect trivialized in a way that might appear dangerous or undesirable in more serious settings.

[57] Erving Goffman. Behavior in Public Places (New York: The Free Press, 1963), pp. 131-132. This goes beyond the obligation not to snub the other, requiring that those approached be open to a more protracted interaction.

[58] This is to say, available for interaction with anyone else present. Goffman (ibid, pp. 125-126) says of the old and the very young, who are sometimes defined as open persons, that they "seem to be considered so meager in sacred value that it may be thought their members have nothing to lose through face engagement and hence can be engaged at will." Given the moral repute of the public drinking place, such might be applicable to the bar patron as well.

[59] Ibid., pp. 84, 95.

[60] See Ibid, pp. 138-139, on the use of such devices in open regions.

[61] Quoted materials, unless otherwise cited, are excerpts from field notes.

[62] This is equivalent to about three bar stools. See Chapter 5.

[63] In some respects, many of the features of participant accessibility which are present in the public drinking place are present on the ocean liner as well--but not all. Apparently those on the ship still maintain a general right to be absolved from contact with others. Cf. Amy Vanderbilt, New Complete Book of Etiquette (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960), pp. 667-668.

[64] Cf. Erving Goffman, Communication Conduct in an Island Community (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1953), D. 161.

[65] Where hierarchal statuses are effective, the superordinate usually controls the termination procedures. Cf. T. H. Pear, The Psychology of Conversation (London: nomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1939), p. 57.

[66] Goffman (Communication Conduct, op, cit., p. 162) notes that informal encounters frequently are ended by such spatial separation of the participants, and if they are not ended by such means, at least their ending is confirmed.

[67] See Bronislaw Malinowski on "phatic" communication, in Supplement I, C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., n.d.). Erving Goffman has suggested that the character of such bar conversation might be better described as "tiny talk."

[68] In a study of English pubs, a frequency distribution of the topics of 157 conversations overheard in a variety of establishments found pubs and drinking the most frequent single topic (18 per cent) and only 22 percent of the conversations revolved around such consequential matters as jobs, money, and war. in the same study, a similar count made by B. D, Nicholson was quoted in which 37 Percent of the conversations were on the topic of sports and 33 percent on serious matters (money, politics, religion). Mass Observation, The Pub and the People (London: Victor Gollancz, Ltd., 1943), pp. 186-187.

[69] By "conventional closure" is meant, in Goffman's terms, "some obligation and some effort on the part of both participants and by-standers to act as if the engagement were physically cut off from the rest of the situation." Behavior in Public Places, op. cit., P. 156.

[70] Ibid., p. 113

[71] Ibid., pp. 114-115.

Contents | Index | Prev | Next