Posted by Jay Livingston
This happened yesterday as I was returning from the Book Fair at the Javitz Center. For some reason, I decided to write it in verse.
SHOOTING ON THE UPTOWN #1 TRAIN
The Broadway local had stopped at Times Square.
A dozen more passengers pushed their way in.
No seats left but still there was some room to spare.
Three-thirty, rush hour about to begin.
The last to get on were four older black guys.
The one in a t-shirt was noticeably loud.
Some people glanced up then averted their eyes.
That’s how we react to a nut in the crowd.
The doors closed. The guy called, “Hey, what do y’all say?”
Then in that same voice, he broke into a song,
“I’ve got sunshine,” he sang out, “on a cloudy day
Then the other three guys started singing along,
Their harmony perfect, their timing on cue,
And as the train picked up some speed between stations.
You could feel the crowd mood get sunnier too,
Brought to life by these One-Train-Uptown Temptations.
The lead singer paused as he finished a verse
Looked the car up and down, made a cheerful, short plea
As he held out a large rumpled red nylon purse,
“Folks, give what you like, or buy our CD.”
Some gave coins or a bill – easy enough to afford.
But a twenty-ish woman who didn’t comply
Took out her iPhone and began to record.
As the quartet, still singing “My Girl” shuffled by.
“You’re taking our picture, and you won’t give a dime?”
Asked the leader. The girl did not say a thing.
The men moved on quickly – no sense losing time.
Other train cars to try, other songs still to sing.
But a rider across from the blond iPhone user
Apparently irked by her cheap, selfish ways,
Stood up, crossed the car, and as if to accuse her
Stared down with a challenging, withering gaze.
“You didn’t give a cent?” he asked. “Have you no shame?
“That totally sucks,” in his judgmental tone
“I don’t have any money,” but she knew this was lame.
“No money? Bullshit. You’ve got a fucking iPhone.”
She sat there in silence. What more could he do
To keep her selfishness on the informal docket?
Then he realized maybe he wasn’t quite through
For his own camera sat in his left front pants pocket.
Still staring at her across two feet of space,
He took out the camera and aimed at his spot.
But she lowered her sunglasses onto her face
Before he could zoom in and take the first shot.
Flash went the camera, and stalking his prey,.
The man moved to get a clear shot of her face.
A second flash came as the girl turned away
From this Canon-armed man in the cramped subway space.
She was fuming, but given how she’d used her phone,
She couldn’t very well speak up to complain.
Or tell the guy loudly to leave her alone.
Then at last, at the next stop, he got off the train.
Like another bit of verse about shooting, Frankie and Johnny, this story has no moral, this story has no end. This story just goes to show that in any situation, norms may be contradictory, and acts of informal social control may themselves violate norms.
Norms are the functional equivalent of laws. Laws protect property and bodies. Norms protect the self, as Goffman said a half century ago. He also pointed out that by calling attention to someone else’s norm violation, we may ourselves be violating the norms that protect that person. The man on the subway trying to enforce some norm of reciprocity was crossing the boundary protecting the girl.
It also shows that “primitive” or “magical” ideas about cameras – that they steal the soul of the subject – might have some resonance even in our own camera-drenched climate. The subway singers felt that the girl had unfairly taken something from them without compensation. And clearly the crank avenger, shooting with his Canon, was using his camera as a weapon to diminish the self, the personhood, of the iPhone girl.
12 comments:
Isn't there a clear distinction here?
The performers knew that many people would see them, could record them and they accepted that 'norm'.
Isn't having your performance recorded a small price for disrupting (however pleasurably) another person's commute?
It isn't the norm to take the picture of another person without their permission, tacit or otherwise; right?
And to add to the issue, the male picture taker wasn't involved in the issue between performer and female picture taker.
Did the male picture taker contribute to the collection? Or was he displaying hypocrisy?
My favorite post thus far of the year. Though you weren't to know it when you posted it, it's a nice Gil Scott-Heron homage.
Faye - Thanks. I'm flattered.
Bob,
I have found out that taking a picture of someone in a public place (like the subway) is legal in New York. But to do so without asking permission is probably against the norms.
Some riders pretend to ignore subway performers. Their logic seems to be: I didn’t ask for this, and I’m not listening to or enjoying it, so I have no obligation to pay. But the girl making a video does not fit that category. She was obviously taking what they were offering.
I’m pretty sure the camera guy had tossed a bill into the bag. I suspect that’s why he was so irked by the free rider, more so than were the singers, who are probably used to it by now.
Jay,
Sorry for the delay in getting back on this. I was semi-enjoying the weekend (at least as much as I could with 2 days of Texas heat and no A/C).
You say the video taker was taking what they offered.
Exactly what did they offer?
A free performance.
Nothing else.
The was no contract, no obligation on the part of the video taker.
None.
The performers staged their activity in hope that a percentage of the people would donate -- that happened.
You talk about an obligation to pay but was there really one?
I say no. It isn't like going to a club or a concert venue where the cost to see the performance is explicit.
“Folks, give what you like, or buy our CD.”
Wouldn't your logic imply that any who enjoyed an ad on the television is compelled to purchase the product? Anyone who heard a song on the radio or online has to purchase the CD?
The last aspect is you seem to think the video taker was harming in some way the performers.
Have you considered she may have posted that video on her blog/facebook/myspace and actually encouraged others to buy the CD?
Those a net benefit to the performers?
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/05/27/Man-pole-dances-for-subway-riders/UPI-62791306511641/
Should the people have to pay to see this also?
That’s the whole point of norms – they are not legal or contractual. But they are real. If someone holds the door open for me, I am not contractually or legally bound to say, “Thank you.” But people can get irked off if I don’t.
The driver who zips past fifty cars waiting in line for the exit ramp and then noses in near the head of the line is not breaking any laws. There is no contract with the drivers he has passed, but some of them may be mightily pissed off. So would a waiter if you give him a 25-cent tip on a $25 tab even though tipping is not a contractual or legal obligation.
Did she post it to help their careers? What do you think the odds are? Find it on the Internet, and I will send you $50. (I did find this this video, and it’s probably the same guys, but it’s not the Broadway line, and it’s from three years ago.)
As for the pole dancer, I was going to say, “Well, that’s the L train for you.” But more to the point, this seems to be a flash mob. Flash mobs do not solicit contributions. But if they did, I would say that the people who enjoyed the performance should contribute, even though they are under no legal, contractual obligation to do so. If I had been in this mall, and if the performers had asked for donations, I would have given. Maybe you wouldn’t have.
Jay,
Let's go back to your words
Some people glanced up then averted their eyes.
So the social norm in this situation is exactly what?
To pay attention is to incur a non-contractual debt?
How is it then you aren't castigating everyone who didn't contribute?
“Folks, give what you like, or buy our CD.”
Seems to me that the performer set the norm with that statement, didn't he?
"Give what you like". He discharged any requirement didn't he?
He could have said "IF you like it, please give...." but he didn't.
But a rider across from the blond iPhone user
Apparently irked by her cheap, selfish ways,
Isn't it interesting that you impugn motives where you have no basis.
You don't know her situation, you don't know her finances but you feel free to call her cheap.
I particularly find this appalling. In the last 2 years, I have had a 20% reduction in pay for 10 months, had to replace an a/c in my car, a water heater in my home, my wife has been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer.
I have continued to give where I can but I don't have the resources I would like.
Had I been on the train I might not have given, you are right about that.
I also notice that you don't question the financial straits of the performers either. Seems to me any group with the finances to record and produce CDs aren't exactly scraping by, eh?
“I don’t have any money,” but she knew this was lame.
“No money? Bullshit. You’ve got a fucking iPhone.”
Have you never received an expensive gift? Held onto the last vestige of an old, more financially stable life?
Nor do you castigate the challenger for his shocking breach of cultural norms. Why is it only one person saw fit to challenge her?
Stood up, crossed the car, and as if to accuse her
Stared down with a challenging, withering gaze.
How come it is acceptable to be insulting an apparent white girl (blond hair) to the point where she may -- probably-- feared for her safety?
And you sat by and watched it happened.
Why didn't you stand up for her?
This is perhaps the most appalling aspect of today's society as for as I'm concerned.
No one acted to defend her actions -- far from it, you aided and abetted his near criminal actions by your silence.
While taking a person's picture may be legal, isn't it a worse lapse of culture norms than not contributing to a street performance?
How do you justify standing by while the angry young man menaced another person...one less capable of protecting herself?
I am truly sorry to hear about your situation, and I hope your wife regains and retains her health.
Much speculation in your comments: first the girl’s intention to post the video to further the singers’ career; now her financial precariousness, her iPhone as a keepsake, the singers spending big bucks on recording their CD, the girl fearing for her safety. But. . .
If she posted that video, it certainly hasn’t yet gone viral.
She did not appear to be a hardship case. She was much better dressed and groomed than were the singers. (Better than I was too, truth be told.)
A gift of an iPhone is a gift that keeps on taking – the monthly costs are probably double those of a non-smart phone. If I was broke, I’d give up the media plan and get a regular phone.
CD’s can be very cheaply made – you could do it with a computer’s built-in mike – and unit production cost (CD, case) is pennies.
You are right though about the camera guy violating the norms, which is what I said in the original post: those who point out another’s violations, even when these are clear, may themselves be breaking norms. That’s the whole idea behind the TV show “What Would You Do?” Even when norm violation (and in some cases law violation), is clear, few people dare to break the norm and intervene.
FWIW, as far as I could tell, the girl did not appear to be in fear for her safety. The guy didn’t “menace” her. He told her in impolite language that since she recorded the singers’ act, she should have contributed, he took two photos, and he got off the train.
Jay,
Sorry but you can't turn it around on me.
I wasn't making the assumptions, you were.
I was asking questions.
It appears you decided on a narrative and told a story to fit your narrative.
I found it interesting that you called the presumably white female cheap, selfish yet didn't describe the other violator of cultural norms in derogatory terms.
You used words like "challenging" & "accusing" in order to praise his actions.
What does it say about you and your mentality?
Isn't it likely you are letting your bias color the situation?
You talk about the girl violating cultural norms but honestly I think you are off base.
In today's society, I would think that it is a common place expectation if you are performing in public to have your picture or video taken.
Look at what we tolerate already; thousands of private Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras, hundreds of public CCTV monitoring our every move.
Not to mention the prevalence of shows like American's Funniest Videos, YouTube, etc.
People are more likely to expect their video to be take -- without compensation then not today.
Yet you accuse the historical oppressor of being in the wrong; praising the historically oppressed.
I live in a different country so I have different norms (e.g. no tipping) so, to me, if someone gives a performance it doesn't mean you have to give them money even if you think they are good. That's even more so if you are a captive audience. Your "payment" is word of mouth advertising or in this case a video. Now that woman videoing the performance didn't do it just so she could watch the video over and over again, she did it to show someone the odd thing that happened to her on the train. On showing the video to someone else she advertises for the group and that's the payback for the group.
It's interesting that the girl reacted the way she did to having her picture taken--immediately putting on her sunglasses to conceal her face. Why do that, if she believed herself to be in the right and felt no embarrassment about her own actions?
It reminds me of an article I read a month or so ago about people who walk around at Gunnison Beach (a nude beach on the Jersey shore) taking pictures and sometimes movies of the sunbathers without their permission--an act that is definitely in violation of social norms. (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/visitors_of_nj_nude_beach_face.html). Anyway, one of the nudists (identified only as "Eric) said that his usual response is to get out his own camera and take a picture of the picture taker, and they usually freak out" "I'm a schoolteacher!" or "I only came to look!"
Eric added that he posts his photos of these "beach geeks" on his own website. Is that, too, a violation of social norms? Or have these photographers forfeited their expectation of privacy when they blatantly invaded the privacy of others?
It's interesting that the girl reacted the way she did to having her picture taken--immediately putting on her sunglasses to conceal her face. Why do that, if she believed herself to be in the right and felt no embarrassment about her own actions?
It reminds me of an article I read a month or so ago about people who walk around at Gunnison Beach (a nude beach on the Jersey shore) taking pictures and sometimes movies of the sunbathers without their permission--an act that is definitely in violation of social norms. (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/visitors_of_nj_nude_beach_face.html). Anyway, one of the nudists (identified only as "Eric) said that his usual response is to get out his own camera and take a picture of the picture taker, and they usually freak out" "I'm a schoolteacher!" or "I only came to look!"
Eric added that he posts his photos of these "beach geeks" on his own website. Is that, too, a violation of social norms? Or have these photographers forfeited their expectation of privacy when they blatantly invaded the privacy of others?
Post a Comment