Download Ray Sara Ray EoC- Dr. Trester 10 December 2009 Final Write

Ray 1
Sara Ray
EoC- Dr. Trester
10 December 2009
Final Write-Up
Silence and Communication on the D.C. Metro
Introduction
Since childhood, we are warned against speaking to strangers by the people who love us.
Children grow up with a cultural norm of thinking that strangers possess potential danger, and this
rule reaches over into adulthood. Patricia Duronto asserts that people’s communication with
strangers “is characterized by a limited amount of information about each other, by ignorance of
the means to reach a goal, and by ignorance of the probable outcomes” (Duronto, et al. 2005). A
prime example of this is the D.C. Metro, where strangers meet and stay in close proximity, rarely
saying a word to one another. Erving Goffman’s theory on face engagements can be applied to
this situation in that people do not generally feel bad about riding in silence because we don’t want
to force someone into the obligation of having to reply (Goffman 1966). In public, people are
under the joint strain to both avoid unknown outcomes as our parents taught us and Duronto
suggests, while not imposing on others to avoid being rude and to protect our “face.”
This leads to nonverbal communication being a prevalent and important aspect of society.
In fact, gestures such as avoiding eye contact, facing away from others, or crossing our arms over
our chest are actually forms of communication in and of themselves that signal we don’t want to
communicate (Duronto et al. 2005). Goffman had similar findings, stating that we avoid eye
contact to prevent people from having access to us (1966). In essence, these choices allow us our
privacy when we are in a public place; it is the avoidance of eye contact and certain gestures that
communicate our need for privacy to others. Goffman’s theory of civil inattention points out that
people will scan a crowd before dropping their eyes, and that this signals other people’s presences
Ray 2
have been recognized, and privacy is being given. We are, again, trying to avoid obligating
someone to pay attention to us at the same time avoiding a situation that is potentially
uncomfortable. However, keeping our own privacy and others away is not the only purpose of
communicating nonverbally. Eye contact can also show solidarity, understanding, or even anger.
Staring, in fact, is a “negative sanction” that conveys our displeasure (Goffman 1966). When the
Taiwanese version of the Metro was formed in Taipei, the government posted signs in stations and
trains to teach riders what the cultural norms should be. These included no eating or drinking,
standing on the right and walking on the left of escalators and many others. Through strict
enforcement, these rules became cultural norms in Taipei, and eventually these signs were
removed. A professor, returning to her native Taipei for the first time after these norms had been
established, broke several of them without realizing it. As she was standing on the left side of the
escalator she received glares from the other riders. She noted that even though no one told her
specifically she was in the wrong, she learned the rule of standing on the right very quickly (Lee
2007). These rules were taught to her via eye contact and body language only, showing that
nonverbal communication can be just as effective as voicing an opinion.
Unlike speaking, nonverbal communication is much less threatening to the speaker’s face,
and does not place any obligation on a listener to reciprocate. Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann notes in
her theory of the spiral of silence, people are likely to remain quiet until they see that their opinion
may be publicly accepted. Individuals must examine the environment around them in order to
deem what is culturally acceptable before voicing an opinion (Salmon and Glynn 1996). This task
is extremely hard to do in a public place where a variety of cultural norms may be present. For
example, people in public may fear speaking against something they find inappropriate because
they are not sure what the standard of appropriateness is for the other people in the public place.
Ray 3
This is only compounded by their need to save face in public, not obligate someone to respond,
and protect themselves from uncertain consequences. Due to all of these complications, it is much
more common to find people taking the easier, and more comfortable, road of communicating
nonverbally when in public.
Person to person communication is not the only nonverbal form on the Metro. The
Metrorail system relies heavily upon signage to express itself to the riders. Ron and Suzie Wong
Scollon have written extensively on the ways in which signs can communicate with the people
who read them. Word placement, font, material and even actual placement of a sign (or an ad)
communicate certain things about importance of information to the riders (Scollon and Scollon
2003). The majority of information given about the Metro from the Metro is done in a nonverbal
fashion in some form of signage, including newspapers, ads, and maps, written announcements and
so on.
All these factors lead to the silence seen on the D.C. Metro, and raises interesting questions
about the norms of communication for this community of practice. Unlike an airplane, where two
strangers may engage in small talk for the duration of the journey for no reason other than being
seated together, riders of the Metro must have certain circumstances in order to initiate a
conversation. Nonverbal communication on the Metro is far more prevalent than its verbal
counterpart, and yet spoken communication does take place on the Metro. Through observation, I
hoped to discover when each kind of communication takes place, and for what purpose. The goal
of my ethnography was to identify how nonverbal communication affects the behavior of Metro
riders, and whether nonverbal or verbal communication is more effective in communicating on the
Metro.
Ray 4
Methodology
Before trying to observe and identify norms of the community, I spent time reading the
articles about the Metro, and a lot of time on the Metro website. I wanted to learn established
Metro rules, such as no eating on the trains, before I went in and began observing norms. I also
read about the history of the trains, paying careful attention to the details of the June 2009 Metro
crash. Because of it being so recent, I wanted to be sure to understand both what happened and the
city’s reactions to it. As I was intending to give surveys later, I wanted to be aware of any answers
that might be influenced by the crash. I had ridden the Metro several times prior to beginning this
study, and was slightly worried that I wouldn’t be observing with “fresh” eyes. To accommodate
this, I spent one day riding various trains that I never ride. The purpose was to find all the things I
could that differed from “my” Metro. By forcing myself to do this, I became attuned to small
differences between each of the lines. The green line is more likely to have someone playing an
iPod too loudly. Orange and blue are more likely to have tourists or people in suits discussing a
meeting. These slight differences did not affect my overall observations because they were too
specific for such a short ethnography. What they did help me to do was become resensitized to all
of the things on the Metro that I had begun to take for granted. Thus, I began my journey of
identifying how such a diverse group of people can be so much the same.
The community studied was riders of the green, orange and blue lines during non-rush hour
on the Washington, D.C. Metro. To make an adequate comparison, I rode the rush hour trains in
the mornings and evenings once or twice to note any differences in practice between the two
groups. Using a journal, I first observed behavior between the Metro system and its customers
both on the trains and in the stations. This included not only the person to person contact between
riders and employees, but ads, announcements and signage. I tried to focus on not just what the
Ray 5
signage and announcements had to say, but the ease with which the riders understood them. The
train announcer can tell the passengers which stop is next, but if the speaker is unintelligible
(which was the case about 35% of the time) then making the announcement will do little other than
anger passengers who cannot hear it.
Next, I focused on communication between riders of the Metro. I wanted to note,
particularly, the ways in which they communicated with one another. I observed both verbal and
nonverbal communication between riders, carefully paying attention to the dichotomy between the
way people who knew each other communicated and communications between strangers. I also
observed differences between people from D.C. and those who were tourists, and how the people
from D.C. interacted with the tourists. I listened to conversations between riders on the Metro to
get an idea of what a platform for appropriate Metro conversation might be, and paid attention to
the circumstances surrounding those conversations. In the more often instances of nonverbal
communication, I observed how people ride trains, move for others, behave on escalators and in
stations. By paying attention to what annoyed other riders, I was able to get an idea of what is
considered appropriate Metro behavior.
I also conducted a series of interview surveys on the Metro to ask riders what they thought
about the Metro system. Originally, I planned my questions around how the Metro system
communicated with its customers. Because I was asking riders as they took the train, I was only
able to ask very few questions in a short period of time. The questions I asked were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Why are you riding the Metro today, and why do you ride it usually?
What part of the Metro system do you think is the best?
What part of the Metro system needs improvement?
Does the Metro communicate well with its customers? How and Why?
Should the Metro be more multi-lingual? Why, and which languages if so?
Ray 6
I planned to use this survey to find ways in which the Metro was helping customers and ways in
which it was failing them. However, the respondents’ answers led me to take the project more in
the direction of the role of silence in communication on the Metro. I found that it was more
important to look at the way the riders responded than what they actually said. Their willingness
to communicate and openness with talking to me dispelled many of my previous assumptions
about riders being standoffish, and forced me to look at whether or not people like being silent on
the Metro. I had dreaded giving the surveys because, as Goffman noted, I didn’t want to obligate
people to speak to me. As the incorrectness of my assumption became apparent, I began to focus
on what people on the Metro want to discuss verbally, and which situations warrant verbal
communication and which do not.
I also interviewed a Metro station employee. I had intended to ask her about the
demographics of the riders, the kinds of ads she saw, and then ask her the same questions I had
been asking the riders in order to see if the Metro and its riders had similar opinions about what
needed change and what was working well. I thought that by comparing this, I could find gaps in
the way Metro was communicating with its riders. She gave me an insight as to how she
communicated with customers. As one of the only ways in which a customer can communicate
verbally with the Metro system, she was a good jumping off point to learn about the kinds of
things Metro riders need to communicate about verbally.
I applied these observations and survey results to my research on silence to determine what
norms exist in communicating on the Metro, and whether or not these norms are obeyed, or even
liked, by the riders. The observations were instrumental in identifying communicative norms for
this group, and the surveys were vital in determining how riders view communication on the
Metro. Both points of view were useful, in that my own observations were undoubtedly filled with
Ray 7
some of my own bias, and by eliciting information from other riders, I realized that I had made
some assumptions about the Metro that simply were not true. Interviewing the Metro employee
helped me to see things from the side of someone who works for the Metro rather than rides it.
These three viewpoints of observer, rider and worker culminated in a well rounded description of
this community, which allowed me to look for the norms that surround their communication based
on the previous research I had done.
Findings
The majority of the communication on the Metro is silent, both between the Metro system
and customers, and between riders on the train. Even though conversation happens on the Metro,
the majority of the communication is done through nonverbal means. Goffman’s civil inattention
is especially prevalent. As people enter or exit train cars they glance at people for a very short
period, a scan, and then cast their eyes down or to something else. Needing something to do with
their eyes, most people bring something to read or play with their cell phones. Goffman suggests
that prolonged eye contact is in itself a negative sanction. This is certainly true on the Metro.
When a rider disobeys a rule of the train system, such as standing on the left side of the escalator,
other riders will stare at them, and the offender will eventually try to change their behavior. Even
if the offender does not know what they have done wrong exactly, most know that they are being
somehow inappropriate. A good case of this is when people enter and exit trains.
The Metro norm is for passengers on the platform will not enter the train until others have
exited. This norm is stated explicitly over loudspeakers insider stations, and is generally known by
people who ride the Metro. Occasionally, someone does not know this rule, and will try to enter
the train before passengers have exited. Usually this person is new to the Metro system and not
intending to be rude. However, probably because of the verbal announcements in the stations,
Ray 8
passengers feel very strongly that everyone should obey this rule. When the unknowing passenger
tries to enter the train, they are greeted by strong stares, not only from exiting passengers, but by
the passengers waiting on the platform. These stares prove to be a negative sanction that prevents
the transgressor from completing their intended action of entering the train. At first, I assumed
they could not enter because the people on the train were pushing themselves out and not allowing
them to enter. However, after observing a few times, I found that it was not so much the body
language as it was the eye contact that prevented them from entering. Often, the passenger would
not even touch the exiting passengers. The stares are so fast and strong, that the person trying to
enter learns their lesson before they come into contact with exiting passengers. Though
Goffman’s theory is certainly true, this same situation of exiting and entering gives an opportunity
for another kind of prolonged eye contact. In the situation where the person trying to enter the
train early is doing so intentionally, and ignoring the rules of the Metro, passengers will often look
at each other in annoyance. This eye contact is a form of solidarity and sympathy for those who
have been treated rudely. The difference between this eye contact and that which Goffman was
describing is that this prolonged contact is initiated by both parties and wanted by both parties. In
the case of warnings, the eye contact is initiated by anger, and usually unwanted by the
transgressor.
Other forms of nonverbal communication between passengers on the Metro include
gestures and movements that tell other riders whether or not they want to be near another
passenger. When solicitors are on the train, they try to speak to customers, but customers stare
straight ahead or look down in order to avoid contact. Many of them will cross their arms over
their chests in order to further distance themselves from these people. A good example of this is
solicitors on the train. Usually, these people are selling incense or perfume, and they will walk up
Ray 9
and down the car, trying to make eye contact with other passengers while verbally repeating that
they have a product for sale. Most passengers will stare straight ahead, dig their heads deeper into
reading material, or become very interested in their phone in order to avoid the eye contact that
might bring the solicitor over to them. Using gestures such as shifting their bodies more towards
the windows, or crossing their arms over their chest, they further try to communicate their want of
privacy. Passengers do, occasionally, use Goffman’s scan to check out the solicitor, and the
solicitor mistakes this glance for interest in the product. If a passenger makes eye contact, the
seller will approach them specifically and ask them if they want to buy the incense. This breaks
Goffman’s norm of civil inattention by obligating the rider to speak and denying them their
privacy. The seller breaks this norm because he or she needs to make money, but the potential
customer is usually uncomfortable with the situation. It is not necessarily that the passenger does
not like incense, or would not buy any from this person. Further, Duronto’s concepts of avoiding
unknown outcomes do not apply here. The passenger has enough information about the
interchange to know what will happen if they respond, and the intentions of the speaker. The
problem is that the context is wrong, and communicative norms have been broken, creating a
situation in which the passenger does not feel comfortable engaging. This discomfort is seen in the
ways the passengers respond to the solicitor. Even when asked a question directly, most
passengers will not respond verbally. Some shake their heads no as they cast their eyes away. A
few customers even stared straight ahead, refusing to respond at all. It is interesting that while a
passenger will use a stare as a negative sanction of physical behavior, they will not use staring to
show their disapproval of the solicitor. Once verbal interaction has taken place, the role of eye
contact shifts, and does not do the same job.
Ray 10
The Metro system also relies on nonverbal communication to communicate most of its
information. While some employees are present to assist riders before they pass through the ticket
booths, once a customer has reached the platform, they are met only with signage. Ticket
machines are also silent, and are the number one customer complaint about Metro communication.
Both riders in the surveys and the Metro employee interviewed stated that the most difficult part of
riding the Metro was getting a ticket. The Metro employee felt that most of the customers would
be able to figure out the ticket machine, but that they preferred someone to “talk them through it.”
The use of this idiom, especially choosing it instead of “walk them through it,” puts emphasis on
the fact that riders prefer verbal help from the Metro. Also, while ticket machines are in Braille,
many of the instructions are read-only from the computer screen, and these instructions are not
spoken aloud. Even though this is not communicative silence, it is silence that causes a lack of
communication.
Signage on the Metro can also be difficult to see or understand for riders. There is virtually
no signage written in any foreign language, which causes problems for both tourists and residents.
The one sign spotted with Spanish on it had the Spanish tucked in the bottom left corner, which is
consistent with Scollon and Scollon’s placement of “secondary information.” Other foreign
languages were just not present at all on signs, emergency information or ticket machines. While
maps can be found in other languages, and the website offers some of its pages translated, this is
little help to a customer who has already reached the platform. One woman, upon my mentioning
that the Metro lacked Spanish, said, “Maybe that is why Spanish [speakers] don’t ride the train.”
After she said it, I realized that she was right. While there are, of course, Spanish speakers on the
train, the number of them does not seem representative of the percentage of D.C’s population, and
perhaps some of this has to do with the lack of Spanish on the Metro signage.
Ray 11
In addition, the poles on station platforms often cause some confusion for both tourists and
D.C. residents. The placement of the arrows on the poles telling riders the location of their
platform can be easily confused. With no Metro employees stationed to assist riders, trouble can
arise. When riders were asked if the Metro communicates with them well, most riders complained
that their problems began at the platforms. On the whole, people were happy that the Metro
provided maps and signs, but felt that the ticket machines and signs were sometimes hard to
navigate. Furthermore, announcements given verbally over the PA in the stations and on trains are
often unintelligible because of echoes in stations and poor PA systems on trains. While this is not
nonverbal communication, it is a lack of communication which leaves confusion for riders. This
“silence” on the part of the Metro actually opens the door for verbal communication on the part of
the customers because they are forced to ask each other for help in navigating the Metro system.
This help provides a platform for verbal communication to begin.
While the majority of the communication on the Metro between riders is nonverbal, there
are certain situations where conversation is not only acceptable, but welcome. Amongst D.C.
residents, speaking on the Metro is usually only done when riders know each other. If this is the
case, riders will sit together and quietly chat about whatever business brought them on the train,
where they are going, or any range of topics they share in their mutual background. Strangers have
a different set of norms. The most common reason for strangers to speak on the Metro was for
help in riding trains, or complaining about trains. D.C. riders were not angered about someone
asking them for help with the train. Needing directions is more pressing for the speaker than
Goffman’s need to not obligate someone, and making a request for directions limits the possible
outcomes, causing less anxiety about communicating with strangers under Duronto’s theory.
Furthermore, once the initial greeting has happened and a small conversation has occurred, both
Ray 12
parties can feel more assured that the other is “safe.” These spoken interactions between D.C.
natives are quite rare, however, as most residents are aware of how to use the Metro system, and
most residents prefer nonverbal communication to its counterpart.
The conversations between tourists have very different norms. Though I observed far more
D.C. residents than tourists, I noticed that tourists spoke far more often to strangers. The most
striking difference between a tourist and a resident is the volume at which they speak. Tourists
speak at a much louder volume than D.C. residents, possibly because tourists are unaccustomed to
the privacy norms that cause D.C. residents to speak at a lower volume. This includes
businessmen who are visiting from other cities, who often speak about their meetings loudly
enough for all other members of their car to hear. One group of businessmen on the orange line
got on at the Smithsonian and began speaking about an upcoming meeting and when they were
going to catch their flight back to North Carolina. They were speaking very loudly, and were
easily overheard by other riders. Most riders kept their heads down, reacting in the same way they
do when a solicitor is on the train. In this way, the other passengers were trying to maintain their
own privacy, and give privacy to the people conversing. However, a woman already on the train,
upon hearing they were going to North Carolina, interrupted them to tell them she had been their
last year on vacation. At first, this seemed out of place, but then she told them she was from
Illinois and visiting for only a week. Again, her volume was loud enough that others could hear
her at the end of the car. Not knowing the norms of speaking on the train, the woman felt much
more comfortable engaging in a conversation with strangers. A resident of D.C, even one who was
originally from North Carolina, would not have entered the conversation to allow privacy.
Residents tend to use verbal conversation not as a way to pass time, but in situations when
nonverbal communication cannot get the job done.
Ray 13
This is not to say that residents do not enjoy verbal communication on the Metro. When a
tourist needs help, D.C. residents are happy to oblige, and will usually engage in a conversation
with the tourist afterwards. In one instance, I observed a question about which line went to Metro
center evolve into a conversation that lasted for the entire trip. The resident who had helped
inquired about the woman’s visit and where she was from. When speaking with a tourist, residents
are aware that the norms have changed. The surveys I conducted had a similar pattern. Residents
were very willing to share their answers with me, sometimes even seeking me out after I had
exited the train to share their opinions. I had previously thought riders would be put out by my
request, but found them very happy to comply. Some people even approached, unsolicited, after I
had given a survey to ask if they could give their opinions next. As Salmon and Glynn noted,
people need to be sure that their opinion will be accepted and wanted before they give voice to it
(1996). My asking for opinions gave people an environment to voice concerns. They were more
than willing to do this and verbally communicate on the trains.
Conclusion
Studying the norms of communication on the Metro opens the door for the Metro Transit
Authority (MTA) to find out more about its customers and improve its system. Both the Metro
and its customers are very concerned with safety, especially in light of the summer 2009 crash.
Further ethnography of the communication taking place on the Metro could help the MTA identify
ways in which the passengers like to communicate, not only with each other, but with the Metro
system itself. The MTA may have wonderful plans and ideas, but without the knowledge of how to
communicate these ideas, very little can be done to put them into action. Having barely scratched
the surface, I have realized that there is a need for the MTA to better understand its customers’
Ray 14
communicative practices, and that this understanding could facilitate getting messages across to
the MTA riders, ultimately causing safer, easier rides.
Despite the apparent silence of the Metro, a lot of communication is taking place. Even
though the backgrounds and customs of those who ride the Metro are so diverse, the unspoken
rules for riding the Metro are known by almost everyone, and these rules include those for
communicating with others on the Metro. Often this communication takes place through eye
contact, body language, or even lack thereof. A parent can be complimented on the cuteness of
their child with a smile, and a fellow rider who is misbehaving can be sanctioned with a stare. The
quickness and ease of a nonverbal gesture allows for smoother trips that fit in better with the
cultural norms our parents so painstakingly bestowed upon us. Communicating nonverbally on a
train is not only preferable in this sense, but sometimes necessary. Signage is an essential part of
the Metro’s communication system. Without signage, traveling would become much more of a
hassle, as it is used not only to find directions and exits, but to notify customers of delays, outages,
and detours. Because of these signs, much if not all of a journey can be completed without the
need for verbal communication. However, this does not mean that nonverbal communication is
always preferred.
When spoken communication happens, it does so only under certain circumstances, and
then only when certain situations force it. The need to maintain privacy and avoid interactions that
may have unknown consequences trumps the boredom of riders. Of course, situations such as
being lost can initiate conversation here, and riders often find the person they speak to more than
happy to accommodate them. This willingness to communicate was an unexpected finding. I had
previously assumed that riders of the Metro wanted their privacy, and wanted to be left alone.
Through surveys I discovered that riders do want to communicate verbally, and want their voices
Ray 15
to be heard. While nonverbal communication does indeed serve a purpose, verbal communication
may also have a place on the Metro.
Riders of the Metro utilize the signage and maps, but often prefer to have someone to assist
them verbally with their journey. Nonverbal communication has its limits, as seen when riders
will break communicative norms to engage in verbal communication to get assistance in the
journey. The majority of confusion occurs on the platforms in stations, where there is no one to
give verbal assistance or answer questions. While customers like to have privacy from each other,
this is not the always case when they interact with the MTA. As the metro employee state,
customers could figure out the Metro system by themselves, they just don’t want to. Originally, I
thought that nonverbal communication was not only the prominent, but preferred method.
However, the ethnography of the Metro shows that sometimes verbal communication is not only
needed, but wanted, and both forms have a place in the communication of this system.
Ray 16
Works Cited/Bibliography
Duronto, Patricia M., Tsukasa Nishida, and Shin-ichi Nakayama. "Uncertainty, Anxiety, and
Avoidance in Communication with Strangers." International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 29.5 (2005): 549. Web.
Goffman, Erving. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings.
New York: The Free Press, 1966. Print.
Lee, Anru. "Subways as a Space of Cultural Intimacy: The Mass Rapid Transit System in Taipei,
Taiwan." China Journal.58 (2007): 31-55. Web.
Washington Metro Area Transit Authority. 2008. <http://www.wmata.com/>. Web.
Salmon, Charles T., and Carol J. Glynn. "Spiral of Silence: Communication and Public Opinion
as Social Control." An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 1996. 165. Print.
Scollon, Ron, and Suzie Wong Scollon. "Place Semiotics: Code Preference." New York:
Routledge, 2003. 116-128. Print.
---. "Place Semiotics: Inscription." Discourse in Place: Language in the Material World. New
York: Routledge, 2003. 129-141. Print.