Collection of short essays

Attempt at an ethnographic memo: The beep-to-calories boundary

As a newcomer to Cardiff and social sciences, with no social routine yet, going out to observe as an “ethnographer” felt daunting yet a little intriguing. Therefore, I decided to simply sit down in an indoor private space, open to the public, on ground floor level, and observe. I was there on three occasions and, adopting a totally uninformed observer posture, the place seemed to display 1) a well defined spatial division, 2) a general pattern of events and 3) a set of rules, some more tacit than others.

The space, one main room at street-level, is divided into two zones, A and B, where people are referred to as As and Bs. The two zones are separated by a physical boundary (see drawing). During all my observations, the Bs have never been into Zone A, and the As hardly ever wandered into Zone B (when they did, it was with a single purpose, cleaning Zone B, and quickly returned to Zone A). Therefore, a tacit rule of this space seems to be that As and Bs almost never cross the boundary to trespass into the other Zone.

I wondered. What is this boundary about? How come no-one seems to be crossing it? What could be the social effects associated to it?

Let us focus on a particular moment of the general pattern mentioned above, the moment that takes place around the boundary. Almost always, a short moment after entering the space from the street, the Bs start a verbal communication with the As from either side of the boundary. Then, As generally take things from Zone A and place them in front of Bs. After that, in most cases, Bs take out a device from their pocket or bag, approach their device to another device (that permanently belongs to Zone A), and when the two devices are close enough, a very noticeable “beep” sound occur. As soon as the beep goes off, it looks like a clear, but tacit, agreement has been reached between As and Bs, marking the closure of a well understood exchange. In this exchange it is obvious that As have given a certain amount of concrete objects to Bs, however it is not clear what Bs have given in return.

Leaving the uninformed posture, slightly informed knowledge shows that 1) what Bs are getting from their visit to the premisses are calories – in the shape of various foods and drinks and 2) the beep is a signal that two things were transferred from the Bs to the entity that the As represent: money and data. Goods are being sold to customers, so the place is a shop. Let us refer to the boundary where the exchange occurs as the “beep-for-calories” boundary (BFCB).

During my observations, the most noticeable event involving the BFCB was this:

“A big Robocop enters the shop, all geared up like a security guard, with a helmet and a small hard suitcase. He CROSSES THE BFCB! He goes to the back and stays there. He talks to one A. He leaves after 5 minutes and did not engage with anyone else, no eye contact (he crossed the BFCB again, in the other direction)”

The Robocop is called this way for its resemblance with the eponymous movie character: a half-human half-robot police officer. Robocop displayed an appearance and a behaviour in stark contrast with almost all previous observations and features that characterized the groups of As and Bs – some of these features signal tacit rules or mark specific social divisions that are not explored here.

He (gender assumed):

  • did not hang out around the refrigerated zone (F) or the central displaying table (T) (see drawing)
  • did not queue
  • did not enter in communication with most As (even less Bs)
  • did not buy/sell anything
  • did not beep
  • moved in all directions
  • had a unique dress-code/appearance
  • crossed the BFCB to enter Zone A without causing any notice nor distress.

In urban settings we often find ourselves in public spaces that contain borders – boundaries or limits, visible or not, written or tacit, that have been designed to stop or dissuade us from crossing them. These urban boundaries have various social properties: they signify and differentiate, divide and unite, restrain and regulate, and create identities (Zhao and Siu 2014; Kullasepp and Marsico 2021). Zhao and Siu categorised boundaries according to their level of visibility. The BFCB falls into the “Semi-closed” category, one of the most visible type, although “users are physically able to cross if they infringe the ‘rule.’” (Zhao and Siu 2014) Indeed, the BFCB is associated to a strong control on As and Bs behaviour, and, from my observations, it seems reasonable to assume that crossing it (especially in the case of the Bs) would be considered as infringing some rules. However it is physically possible, as the rare cases involving As or the Robocop show.

Assuming that Robocop’s small hard suitcase was meant to carry cash or other valuables accumulated from the sales in the shop, and to take them to a secure location – a common practice in shops – this may tell us something about the more general structure and nature of commercial premisses.

The As and Bs are engaged in an interaction around the BFCB with clear complementary aims – exchanging money and data against calories – in order to generate profit for the shop. If Robocop is allowed to break almost all the tacit rules of the space without any sanction, it might be because his role in “securing profit” is particularly (more?) important compared to the daily routine of the shop, including the beep-for-calories exchange. Of course, profit is derived from the sales, but its securing seems to take an extra (superior?) significance that is not regulated in the same manner.

Therefore, one may suggest that Robocop was allowed to trespass the BFCB because he embodied a position of power, and, most importantly, that this position of power was well understood and accepted by As and Bs. But why and how is Robocop invested with this power related to the task of “securing profit”? Is this specific to these premisses or can this sort of power be noticed and felt outside of it? This would need further exploration. However, an abundant literature, related to the prioritizing of profit-making over other concerns in general society, its mechanisms and its associated social, political and environmental consequences, seems to confirm the spatial ubiquity of this kind of power, inside and outside shops (Marx 2009; Harvey 2011; Bonneuil and Fressoz 2017).

To conclude, the BFCB may reveal, through the behavioural rules associated to it and instances of their breaking, more general properties of commercial properties and the society they are situated in.

References

  • Bonneuil, C., Fressoz, J.-B., 2017. The shock of the anthropocene: the earth, history and us, Paperback edition. ed. Verso, London New York.
  • Harvey, D., 2011. A brief history of neoliberalism, Reprinted. ed. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
  • Kullasepp, K., Marsico, G. (Eds.), 2021. Identity at the borders and between the borders. Springer, Cham.
  • Marx, K., 2009. Das kapital: a critique of political economy, Gateway ed. ed, The skeptical reader series. Regnery Pub. ; Distributed to the trade by Perseus Distribution, Washington, D.C. : New York.
  • Zhao, T., Siu, K.W.M., 2014. Int. J. Des. 8, 43–60.