Field Notes: The Skipped Adjacent Seat in Public Transport & Skipped Male Urinoir
in general, there seems to be a conflict between the efficient use of space, eg seating in metros, trains or buses, fast food restaurants, and public urinoirs for men, and how much personal space one wishes to leave open when dealing with urban strangers. in general, this leads to situations where available seating in close proximity exudes almost like an “aura” that prevents people from occupying a seat close to someone else. this aura however is not all-powerful, and seems multifactoral, eg anticipated duration of occupancy or anticipated downsides of not taking the seat (for the new occupant), general appearance of the other, space scarcity, the new occupant’s socialisation & social norms.
in public transport (ie trains, metros, buses, trams) i’ve observed that this often leads to situations where a double seat (two seats next to each other) remains occupied by one person with others standing near it and not taking it, taking an other fully unoccupied seat, or taking the once occupied double seat when the original occupant leaves. in some cases, passengers who do take a partly occupied seat generally make quick eye contact with the other occupant, sometimes with a smile, or ask whether someone else might be sitting there, before sitting down (often leaving even the littlest of open space between them and the other, for instance by turning their body slightly away) and not acknowledging the other. often, in a row of
seats, one seat is left deliberately unoccupied as to create more space between two people, thus making the available seat between two people only available to those more comfortable with interpersonal close proximity.
based on own experiences, this same phenomenon appears with male urinoirs, where social media memes and jokes often mention an unwritten male rule of leaving one urinoir open between occupants whenever possible, as to avoid discomfort through close proximity.
arm rests can serve as markers and more easily visible definitions of one’s space: so, double seats with arm rests between them (or in the case of NS trains, retractable ones) are often taken quicker despite close proximity, due to the possibility of creating a minimal but physical barrier that helps define/delineate one’s personal space (this also seems to remove the need for a justification ritual in the form of eye contact, smile, etc.). other physical separations might also help, such as a small bag between people but with leaving enough open space for others to sit (bags in general are used as territory claims which are respected usually up until semi-full public transport vehicles), turning one’s back slightly towards the open seat, etc. for that same reason, the half-boards at urinoirs might not work because they don’t fully separate the occupants, as one can simply look over the board (which makes some men spread their legs more even more as a strategy to cross the floating half-board barrier and prevent others from taking the space next to them). however, arm rests and other physical separations are also not full barriers, but of course, there is a difference between public transport proximity and urination proximity, the latter being in intimate proximity during the release of bodily fluids within a bathroom which is coded as more intimate, the former being a liminal state (of travel, waiting, etc.) in a space that is not coded as intimate nor involves bodily fluids and partial nudity.
justification rituals to justify boundary collapse: quick glance, quick smile, maybe a greeting or question to announce collapse, usually silence afterwards. however, these rituals scale depending on situation: eg when space is scarce, rituals happen less frequent then when space is widely available (of course, often eliminating the need of boundary collapse in the first place), when barriers are present
additionally, materials or even just in situ social norms can disqualify an fully available seat even when space becomes scarcer, ie these seats become disqualified, always temporarily
one disqualifying aspect that scales is not proximity between one person and another, but one person and proximity to materials, ie rubbish on a seat. not all rubbish is disqualifying, often liquid or food remains are (dirtiness, stickiness) or visible dirty spots on the sitting part or backrest. if material can be removed with minimal touch, such as a quick swipe or shooting away, a seat can regain its status as unoccupied. dirtiness or materials not quickly removed will “occupy” a space until its removal.
additionally, a seat can become disqualified for no apparent reason to a group of people. if in a crowded vehicle (public transport) one seat remains unoccupied, most people will choose to sit elsewhere or not at all. usually, this “in situ social boundary” travels through passenger cycles until a passenger, either willing to take the chance, not noticing or unbothered by the boundary, takes the seat, which might cancel the precious disqualification of the seat. this disqualifying status can emerge through the hesitation of a passenger in front of others, and their hesitation then circles through the current cycle; and since no one took the seat, the open seat in a otherwise dense vehicle can become unqualified for other passengers as well, depending on their social sensibility (ie collective inference & distributed interpretation; a collective micro-stigma?)
stormborns
jacobvanloon
annaxmalina
jbbartram-illu
areudirty
germansingergirl
