Personal
relationships are enacted by talking with each other. If people don't have
anything to say to each other, they generally can't sustain a personal
connection. We can study social relationships by observing who talks with whom
and in what manner. I will present
research on differences in conversations by males or females; young or old; and
different social class.
Women
and men have distinct styles of talking; but in the upper-middle class, women
talk more like men. For children, social class differences develop later:
children sound more alike than adults do. People segregate themselves most
sharply by age and class; as we can see when observing who is with whom in
public.
I
am going to describe an unobtrusive method I have been using to do research on
conversations. It doesn't involve invading anybody's privacy, or carrying a
hidden tape-recorder or camera. In the past two years, walking around city
streets and parks, I carry a small note-book; and when I hear somebody talking,
I write down the words, the tone of voice, and a brief description of the
persons in the conversation.
Sometimes
it is only a few words; sometimes it is several sentences. One might think that
we can't make much sense out of little bits of conversation, unless we hear a complete
exchange, as people talk back and forth. The fragments I pick up are mostly
lacking in this kind of context. In addition, I know nothing about these people
except what they look like and where they are when the bit of talking takes
place. Nevertheless, I will try to show you that these little samples of talk
make a sociological pattern; different kinds of people tend to do certain kinds
of talking, when they are in public places. And we can infer that this is a
sample of the way they talk in sociable situations elsewhere.
I
started this research two years ago, in the latter part of the covid epidemic.
During that time, many people started taking daily walks, for exercise and get
out of the house. Restaurants had been set up on sidewalks, and many of these
still remain. Somewhat earlier, with the proliferation of mobile phones, people
became used to speaking their private conversations, generally quite loudly, in
public. One might think that cell phone conversations would have even less
context, since we hear and see only one side of the participants; but I will
show you that cell phone talking fits the same social patterns as face-to-face
talk.
Thus
far I have collected about 240 conversational samples. I do not collect
practical situations, where someone is giving an order at a restaurant, or
delivering a package. I omit conversations that involve myself or where I know
the people personally. I do not include conversations consisting entirely of
people saying hello or other kinds of brief greetings; who greets whom shows a
very strong difference by class and age, which I will summarize at the end.
Most
of my observations were made in California, but some of these patterns exist in
other parts of the world.
Here
are two examples:
Two
adult voices, female, walking past me on a block of neighbourhood shops.
Hip-fitting jeans, slender, upper-middle-class women in their 30s. Mezzo-soprano voice says: "I don't want to have anything to do
with it."
Alto
voice: "I thought I had a thought on that..." and she ends with a trill and a laugh.
Middle-age
man in scruffy work clothes, a house construction worker, to the female driver of delivery truck stopped
in street:
M: "We'll have to go for a drink some time."
F:
"What's that?"
M:
repeats "We should go for a drink some time."
F:
laughs
M:
laughs
F
drives off
The
two conversations differ in social class and in gender composition. The two
fashionable women are having what Goffman would call a backstage conversation,
about someone they both know. They speak in a sophisticated manner, elaborate
grammar and a certain amount of social distancing: "I don't want to have anything to do
with it." "I thought I had a thought on that..." They are speaking cleverly; and seem to enjoy
their cleverness, by the tone of voice and the laugh.
The
second conversation, like the first, takes place within the same social class,
in this case working class. It's a familiar sexual flirtation: the older man
suggests having a drink "some time"; the woman puts him off by
questioning what he has said; and laughs when he repeats it. He laughs too-- it
was a failure but we had fun playing this little conversational game. She never
says anything negative, but she wins anyway.
Here
are some generalizations: by sex; by age; by social class.
POINT
[1] WOMEN TALK ABOUT PERSONS; MEN TALK ABOUT OBJECTIVE THINGS.
3
teen-adolescent girls in shorts: "cause Jeremiah-- sometimes he-" ---
I heard only four words, but they are talking about a person they know.
2
teen girls, hands in blue-jeans pockets; one says in a soft little voice: "with him, it's like.... well, I get
it..." --- Not a complete sentence,
but the pronouns are enough to know it's about a particular boy.
2
YF [young women in their 20s]: "He'll never do that again. But I--"
Older
and younger women with a dog: YF: "She was really upset with her..."
2
dumpy mom-aged Fs: "I hope she feels really bad about it for the rest of
the day." --- angry about somebody.
2
middle age housewives, schlumpfy in jeans, saying goodbye to each other; the
woman about to get into a car says:
"What he doesn't know won't hurt him!"-- then gives a shrill
giggle. This is Goffman backstage talk,
secrets between intimates. So are the next two quotes:
2
middle age Fs, walking: "I could not get that answer out of him..."
--- complaining about a husband or son.
2
Fs, around 50: "she was worried that whatever it was..."
2
50s-ish women walking: "She's a comedian. She's very acerbic. She's
blonde."
"...then
she lost momentum and she can't get back into it..." Two 50s-ish women on
bay-side walking path in a very nice residential area next to a yacht harbor,
chattering full speed-- as I can hear them into the distance. --- The last couple of examples suggest higher
social class by their vocabulary "acerbic," "momentum" --
psychology talk.
This
pattern of female talk is not confined to the United States. I heard the
following in a town in Germany: street
in residential area, 2 mid-age Fs: "Er hat immer Wohnung, zu
Hausen..." translation: "He
always lived at home..."
MALES
USUALLY TALK ABOUT OBJECTIVE OR TECHNICAL TOPICS:
"From
a freeway point of view--" guy on cell phone in ocean-side park. There is
no freeway in sight.
M
to F, around 30, riding bikes in residential neighbourhood: "It's a lemon
tree, or any other---"
"...books
that are a year old... the books first
of all..." This is a male in wide-brimmed outdoors hat and shorts,
lecturing a silent female in similar clothes striding briskly past, talking a
walk to stay fit. People who are together often dress alike.
Voices
behind beautiful garden hedge, pastel-painted house in nice residential
neighbourhood: YM: "that becomes
another thing--" YF: "you mean they're building units--" YM: "yeah, residential and
commercial--"
Even
when out doing a group run, men still talk business: Bringing up the rear of 5
K run, middle-aged M walking with F says: "convenience of
ownership..."
Even
at a party, men tend to talk about objective topics rather than gossip about
people. Saturday afternoon yard party behind hedge; sounds of several small
children, a baby, laughing, giggling, encouraged by adults. At far end of
hedge, a M in conversation says: "Well I think 100% wood... waterfront
..."
Men's
conversation is not very sensitive to social situations. Most men dislike small
talk -- i.e. talk expressly designed to fill a social obligation to keep up a
semblance of sociability. Hence their talk intrudes male topics even when
inappropriate:
Two
male/female couples, middle-aged, presumably long married; in a hotel lobby
bar, full of people on vacation. The women sit across from the men, who carry
on a conversation: "Why are you still renting? The irony is..." "Can we still get another year? ... on
market 3 years now..." He gives a lengthy monologue in energetic voice;
women sit quietly while the men talk.
2
M, similarly dressed in shorts, baseball cap, T-shirt: One says: "...the
agency. We don't want 'em anymore, get someone else..."
2
YMs in aisle of a popular bulk-purchase
store: "Don't get me wrong, I did a
10-year at Farm" (i.e. investment in an insurance company). They are both very fit-looking, a sign of
upper-middle class status in California.
YM
runner, loudly talking on speaker phone while getting his exercise: "I
tried calling him but---" I hear
the same runner again, coming back from a dead-end street-- "a dealer I
recycle with-- got him down to ... dollars a month" --- Not as high
economic class as the previous example; but running for exercise is itself an
indicator of social class.
The
following example sums up the pattern of gender difference, starting already
with kids: Half-dozen children coming
home from school together; one of the bigger girls in front says to another
girl: "He only likes that one person..." A smaller boy at the rear
talks to another boy about a dog.
POINT
[2] DIFFERENCES BY AGE: CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE TALK ABOUT ONESELF.
Half
dozen adolescent girls on sidewalk outside a Saturday afternoon house
party: One girl says: "I grabbed it
with this hand-- I don't think I burned myself." --- One hears the
first-person pronoun a lot from this demographic.
YF
wearing tights, on cellphone: "I must be, right? I must be--" her
arms gesturing while walking.
A
wealthy neighbourhood: YF in shorts, heavy thighs, taking on cell phone while
walking a small ugly dog: "It's
like I... every supervisor turns against me... [complain-ey voice] ... Yeah,
well I'm like.... I'm like..."
Two
slender silhouettes getting larger in the on-coming distance on a residential
street-- same height, same figure, casual clothes, jeans, sweater draped
skirt-like around hips. One says: "I'm like this---" talking with
hand gestures "[somebody's name] said I'm wrong... I do
a lot of wonderful things."
SAME
PATTERN WHEN TALKING TO OPPOSITE SEX:
YF
and YM with backpacks sitting under shade tree in main city park:
F:
"feed the cats... I'm the only one doing anything"
Big-bodied
YF with hands in pants pockets, with 2 YM, talking ebulliently:
"I
was just craving the... and the avocados, and then you called..." --- She is pleased these boys called her to
come out; and she feels responsibility to fill the time with talk, so she says
whatever comes to mind, i.e. what she was just eating.
OLD
PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE PAST:
White
haired woman with cane getting out of car, says to driver: "How old is he
now?" "Seventy-five."
"Oh, I thought he was older."
Car
with windows open, at stop light: woman's voice, not young: "I used to
know a girl who lived there-- I recognize the shape of the hedge. She loved
Elvis Presley. Isn't that a funny thing to think of?"
Middle-class
residential street, women's voices sitting on porch : "...delivered babies
for the next thirty years, and retired..."
One of the woman giggles while she talks.
Old
M and F walking small dog; woman says: "they had nobody in the
family"
Old
M, walking dogs with mid-aged F:
"in the nineteen-twenties--"
2
old couples walking dogs in resort park: 2 women in back, 2 men in front, one is saying: "... 45 years...."
"... he was a really good lawyer... wanted to make him a defense attorney.
He didn't like that--"
PARENTS
AND CHILDREN
Mother
and son walking together: boy 4 years old, says: "... wash my
hands." Mother: "It's gonna be
there. It's part of nature. You know what I'm saying?" Perhaps he had an
accident, shit his pants?
In
general, parents act as advice-givers and support group to their children.
10-year
old girl, after school, walking home with father, says: "It's not like
he's not nice--"
Mother
and daughter, both in shorts, getting out of car; mother, getting something out
of trunk, says: "No I'm not-- you have so many friends--"
Mid-aged
F walking dog, on cell phone: "so would you be able to get to any classes?"
M
in his 60s on cell phone, in friendly voice: "Tell me-- nice job, a good
job?"
Kids
do grow up. Here are some examples of college-age young adults talking to their
parents:
Older
F and college-age daughter, who says: "the 19th century... " This is
one of the rare times I've heard anyone talk in academic language, although
this is a well-educated neighbourhood, as one can tell from the book-exchange
boxes people have on their sidewalks.
College-age
YM talking in front yard to older M and F. "And if there is a major
discrepancy, you have to..." -- pointing his finger like delivering a
lecture.
Now
the grown-up children get to talk like adults to their parents, turning the
tables.
POINT
[3] HIGHER CLASS TALK MORE ABOUT
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL MATTERS, EVEN ON SOCIAL OCCASIONS.
How
can you tell people's social class? One
indicator is the place: a fashionable and expensive side-walk restaurant;
standing outside houses that are large and luxurious, or ill-kept and decaying;
at an expensive resort; or in a public park open to everybody. Sometimes
clothes is a marker, even in this era of casualness when people tend to wear
sports clothes everywhere. Some workers wear uniforms or overalls. In
California, the upper-middle class uses fitness as a class marker:
ostentatiously showing off their trim bodies.
UC
couple: Big broad-shouldered M, wearing shorts, no shirt, very fit torso; with
a woman, both ca. 60, walking with small dogs. This is a residential area, not
a beach, and it is not an especially warm day.
M says: "the center where my dad goes... it's at 6000 feet.... with
a pool, outdoors" --both talking loudly, assertively, about family
property.
Fit-looking
M walking dog, arrogant body-language, talking loudly into his cell phone:
"these are the orals, 3 pills a day"
--- presumably a doctor.
Men
often talk about business, even when exercizing: 2 men on sport bikes, looking
alike in helmets, fashionable grizzled beards: "projecting it's gonna get
worse, in January, you know, the economy has its..."
M
on balcony over beach-side walkway, area of expensive vacation rental cottages;
wearing black sweat suit, talking loudly on cell phone: "I don't think we can negotiate with
them..."
White
haired M in shorts on cell phone says: "I don't think we have any such
issue..." in authoritative voice.
Sometimes
the talk itself indicates social class: 2 older men strolling with dachshund:
"management... that are deemed to be the owners"
Group
of 8 middle-age M, semi-formally dressed (long-sleeved shirts, jackets, no
neckties) : one man is saying:
"problem in this one... all that legalistic stuff". Such a
large group walking together suggests they have come out of a meeting; this is
a district of office buildings.
Even
on vacation, men tend to intrude their topics. On the walkway in expensive
resort: couple in vacation clothes; middle-aged M says to woman: "the
insurance says..." It's a beautiful
tropical garden of lagoons and exotic birds, but that's not what he's thinking
of.
WOMEN
TALK BUSINESS TOO, IF THEY'RE IN THE UPPER-MIDDLE CLASS
Outdoor
table at a trendy expensive restaurant: heavy older F, 2 nondescript YFs in
their 20s, one of whom says: "Asked them about full disclosure... because
of the job."
"Obviously
I'd love to go back. The government confirms..." This is a young woman in shorts, showoff
legs, deep assertive voice; talking to
casually dressed YM and YF, in the front yard of very expensive block
of houses.
Outside
resort hotel in sea-side park, 2 women in their 30s, professionally dressed,
wearing name-badges from a meeting: one of them says: "manage to kill their
spirit..." --- the psychology-talk
of management professionals.
Professionally
dressed, white-haired woman sitting in an arcade outside art museum, to 4
well-dressed women at table. She is saying: "for operating expenses... so
if you designate a gift" --
smoothly explaining with her hands.
Mid-aged
F walking dog, talking on cell phone in a UMC residential area: "I could
come back down a little bit, and then sell Norris on the... "
Dumpy-looking woman in her 50s to scruffy-bearded man while
their dog is pissing by the sidewalk: "Because it was his own fault
because he was on the committee-- he was probably good at it."
---
I'm not sure about social class in this one. They're not showing any UMC
markers. Seemingly they are talking about politics, which is more common in the
higher classes. The women talks critically about a particular person, which
fits the gender pattern.
POINT
[4] CHILDREN AND EARLY TEENS RESEMBLE
THEIR AGE GROUP, EVEN ACROSS SOCIAL CLASS.
Children
of the wealthy sound like the youth culture in general. Do they eventually grow
out of it and sound like the upper class?
Example:
The neighbourhood's grand mansion, Italianate ballrooms, terraces, walled
grounds; a quarter of the parterre is taken up by massive plastic playground
equipment, objects that seem to speak for the wealthy parents proclaiming I-can-afford-for-my-kids-to-have-everything: from whence comes loud shrieking of a small
child, harsh, pained, persistant. All I can see across the wall is a bigger
kid, maybe 5 years old, waving a tennis racket-- is he pestering and torturing
a sibling, or trying to calm it down? The child's screeching persists down the
block, echoing past the mansion and its hundred-meters of garden.
Another
house in the same neighbourhood: I hear raucous shouts, jeers, exultings-- boys
playing some kind of ball game behind long private hedge of another not
quite-so-big mansion. Children of the rich sound no better than anyone else's
kids
Around
the block, substantial houses opposite a classic Spanish mansion surrounding a
courtyard: I hear brash, piercing voices of teenage boys at the age of
obnoxiousness; the loud abrasive off-key sounds of adolescence when their voices crack. One of
them comes down the street to a parked car: he is older than I thought,
good-looking young man, athletic fraternity-boy type. Their looks don't match
up with the way they sound.
On
the same street: male teen voice, bare legs and feet sticking out a rolled-down
car window parked in front of home: "just-- so-- fucked-- UHP..."
I've
heard other teen boys talk like this, a string of obscenities. What seems to be
new is that some of the girls and young women are adopting their language.
An
Asian YF talking loudly with a YM,
ostentatiously waving her hands: "... and no one gave a fuck..." She is not good looking,
which suggests it may be a form of rebellion against the pretty-girl standard.
A
family group: white-bearded hispanic M, wearing pro athletic team jersey,
pushing baby stroller in river walk park, an area near lower-middle class
apartments. Heavy YF takes 2-year-old out of stroller to walk, holding its
hand, while talking on cell phone: "Fuck you! Fuck you!" she
exclaims.
People
used to say, watch your language around children. What we see now is cell phone
etiquette, or lack of etiquette, which makes people physically present
invisible to the person on the mobile phone, even one's own baby.
I
will add two more observations relevant to whether the deliberate obnoxiousness
of teen-age boys is affecting gender culture. In young M/F groups, boys are
often silent while girls make conversation:
3
young-teen girls in shorts: one says coyly "... asked about school, asked
about Halloween..." [describing a conversation she had with an adult,
probably a visiting relative] The girls are preceded on the path by 2
young-teen boys, skinny, T-shirted, silent.
This
reminds me of observing a group of adolescent boys after school in the same
neighbourhood: 3 young-teen boys, all dressed in droopy black garments, covered
with cheap metal chains; all with up-spiked mops of scraggly hair, not talking among themselves.
A
comment about physical attractiveness: As noted, there is a cult of bodily
fitness, ostentatiously presenting oneself as good-looking. Many teenage boys,
especially in the awkward young teens, adopt a culture of ostentatious
ugliness-- perhaps a rebellion against stratification by good looks. This can
also be class conflict, as in the punk movement of thirty years ago.
There
is a three-way intersection of age, class, and gender. From my earlier
examples, it appears that men of the higher classes tend to control
conversations with women of their class. Is this something boys grow into:
starting as obstreperous kids, passing through a silent period, passing through
obnoxious adolescence, and ending up as
assertive adults? While lower in the class structure, girls start out talking
among themselves, and eventually when they grow up, take the lead over their
boyfriends and husbands, at least conversationally? More evidence will tell.
SELF-SEGREGATION
IN PUBLIC
My
last point is more general: there is a strong tendency for people to
self-segregate in little sociable groups, at least when we observe them in
public. My evidence here goes beyond the conversational samples I have
reported.
Here
is another set of observations made on the streets, since the beginning of the
covid epidemic: Polite greetings among strangers are largely confined to the
same social class and age. Greetings take place among similar demographics--
just saying "hi," "hello," "good morning". Middle
and upper-middle class people frequently exchange a brief greeting or at least
a nod or a smile when out for a walk, in their own neighbourhood. Greetings are
especially likely among older persons; and extend fairly widely to adults from
age 30 upwards. People who are walking dogs are especially likely to greet one
another, and even stop to have a conversation (usually about their dogs). On
the other hand, people who are on cell phones do not greet passers-by, or
hardly ever nod or smile-- the cell phone realm takes priority, even when they
are not talking business but only chatting.
Young
adults are much less likely to greet older people; they don't greet each other
very much unless they are previously acquainted. Teenagers and children are
encapsulated in worlds of their own.
Social
class is an unconscious default setting for conversational boundaries.
Residents who are otherwise quite polite do not exchange greetings, nods or waves
with gardeners, construction and repair workers, or delivery drivers. In my
observations, workers do not greet or converse with other workers unless they
are on the same job. This is one reason
I have relatively few observations of WC talk; middle- and upper-class people
dominate the conversational landscape, at least in public.
Another
self-encapsulated group are people engaged in athletic activity. Bikers rarely
exchange greetings or gestures with pedestrians; or with other bikers unless
they are riding together, in which case they often carry on a male-style
conversation. I have observed that bikers never stop for stop signs or red
lights at street intersections, unless there is heavy vehicle traffic; bikers
act like they are in a cocoon where ordinary laws do not apply.
Runners
are in another cocoon; they seldom have greetings or gestures for other
runners, except when it is a traffic matter like calling out "passing on
your right." Runners, bikers, and pedestrians occupy the same space in
parks and beaches, but are in different worlds. They almost never acknowledge
each other sociably, beyond a minimal concern for avoiding collisions.
Has
the world gotten more encapsulated as it has become self-segregated into
implicit categories like street athletes, exercise walkers, and workers in
public places? (not to mention cell phone users mesmerized by their screens) I
hesitate to make this conclusion, since literary and historical descriptions of
people in public from the 1930s on back into previous centuries show a very
restricted etiquette among the status-conscious upper classes. Blatant display
of rank has greatly diminished in the period after 1960; with the rise of
casual clothing, preference for sports attire, and the general veneer of
egalitarianism and moral disavowal of any kind of group prejudice.
Nevertheless, as an observational sociologist it would be blind not to point
out the ways in which people segregate themselves in public.
Having
collected observations in public for about 30 years, and collected photos going
back to about 1900, I would make the generalization: people who are "with" someone else
in public, especially in small, self-chosen groups, tend to resemble each other
in almost every dimension: about the same age; similar height, weight and
physique; similar degree of attractiveness; generally wearing similar clothing
styles, similar degrees of formality or casualness; often the same hair styles
(specially for women and for teenage boys). From these markers, we can infer
they are generally of the same social class, and same subgroups within it.
People who are together in public are generally of the same ethnic group or
race, although this form of segregation has declined somewhat in the last 20
years. Ethnic segregation has probably declined more in work places (where
integration has been mandated) than in personal life.
The
main dimension in which people are not
self-segregated in public is gender. Males and females are frequently together
as couples-- at least this is true for adults; not for children. Males and
females who are together tend to dress quite similarly, sometimes just in
general style and degree of formality or informality, but often quite literally
in this era when males and females wear the same sports or hiking clothes. Two
explanations are: they select each other by their appearance; or they choose a
similar self-presentation when they go out together. Adult males tend to be taller than females of
their age, but even that difference is calibrated; taller men are with taller
women, etc.
Judging
from historical photos of people in public, personal segregation has declined
most for gender, with much less decline in associational segregation by economic
rank. Men and women are more integrated informally than ever before; although
from the conversational observations I have given, there are still major
differences in male and female talk. The main place in which this difference
has been overcome is in the higher social classes, where women talk more in the
male style. I have also touched on the
point that there is a teenage style (especially for adolescents) where
teen-culture outweighs class differences. Among young-adults, some young women
are assimilating to the obscenity-laden male style-- perhaps class rebellion,
perhaps age rebellion; perhaps it is just a standard of "being cool".
Whether they grow out of this into adult cultural styles, as I said, remains
unknown.
The
strongest form of self-segregation in public is age segregation. People in
public are almost entirely segregated by age, unless they are with their
families. But even in families, look at what happens if it's a big group:
In
a restaurant serving Mexican food, not very expensive, a multi-generation
family is sitting at a long table, 9 chairs on each side. At one end of the
table are two bearded grizzled men; next to them are two oldish women. Almost
without exception, the females sit on one side of the table, the men on the
other; arranged from older to younger, the male/female couples generally sitting
across from each other. At the far end of the table are the children, arranged
from teenagers down to small kids. It is one big extended family group; but
they choose to sit with those nearest in age, and for the males next to males;
females next to females. Presumably they sit near somebody that they can most
easily have a conversation with.
Conversations across age groups are awkward, or at any rate one-sided.
Sampling
conversation is a way to get at the mechanisms by which people choose whom they
can converse with best; and thereby self-segregate themselves.
I
will conclude on a practical note about doing research. You can do sociology
anywhere; all you need is a willingness to look for patterns. There is no need
for an elaborate methodology. Statistics tends to dominate the social sciences;
but in the history of sociology and anthropology, ethnographers have made more
important discoveries than statisticians, who are locked into a narrow set of
categories when they collect and analyze their data.
Careful
observation gives better data than any other kind of data; what we see people
do and what they talk about in natural situations is far more accurate than
what they say in a formal interview. This is even more true today when
interviews are done by telephone or on-line rather than in person.
If
we ask people about how segregated they are personally by race or any other
category, we will get a biased answer towards the ideal response. Surveys would
not have discovered the extent of self-segregation by age or by good looks
(although it has been discovered that obese people tend to be friends with each
other). That is because statisticians use existing categories, and can only add
new categories when someone else finds them. Journalists are even worse,
generating headlines out of two-variable statistics, ignoring complexities and
what happens on the ground.
Ethnographers
may not have the prestige in the academic world that goes to people who get big
research grants or use elaborate computer schemes. We're relatively cheap
researchers. But we're also higher quality. Even if we are a
sociological underground, we're the ones who keep sociology going
intellectually. And I venture to say, we're the ones who have more fun. Join
us!
Appendix: the screeching cult among
pre-school children
In
the last 10 years I have noticed that small children in public places often
produce a high-pitched screeching or shrieking sound. It is piercing, since
children make it as loud as possible and in the audible range where sound
carries farthest. It is deliberately produced rather than a spontaneous cry of
discomfort or distress; as we can tell because the child looks happy, even
proud; and because it is a long sustained sound, not the choking, sobbing
rhythm of genuine crying.
Here
are some examples: [we have already seen one with the child in the mansion's
private playground]
A
harbor and park area full of tourists from many countries. Two little girls,
each in a stroller pushed by a parent, lean out sideways to look at each other
and scream loudly, smiling, having fun doing it.
Two
girls, age about 4 and 5, playing on a small merry-go-round near an apartment
house. The older girl shrieks with delight as she pushes the younger girl. Each
burst lasts for a few seconds, repeating intermittently as they play.
A
crowded outdoor seafood market. A 2-year old girl in stroller pushed by father
shrieks piercingly.
Downtown
shopping street in popular tourist city. African man carrying a boy (about 4
years old) in his arms. Boy is screaming at the top of his lungs, stopping only
to catch his breath. Father puts him down to try to distract him, but
unsuccessfully. Picks him up again, still screaming, and they disappear around
a corner.
South
Asian family waiting for their order in a fast-food restaurant: father, mother,
grandmother in Hindu-garbed sari; two older girls (around 6 to 9) running
around. Two-year-old boy in stroller, clapping his hands loudly:
CRACK!
CRACK! CRACK! repeatedly, looking around with a determined expression on his
face. He has found a substitute for shrieking, but with similar circumstances
and effect. Father looks embarassed; grandmother smiles indulgently.
Some examples may overlap with children crying from
exhaustion or boredom during extended time in public accompanying parents, a
combination of sounds and motives. I have noticed pure shrieking especially in
airport terminals, but also on streets and playgrounds, in North America,
Europe, and East Asia.
Why
do children screech? We should avoid imposing our adult opinions; instead, look
at the visible evidence. Two patterns: Children do it for fun, judging from
facial expressions and body postures; and in the presence of other children of
similar size.
Children
screech when they are with their parents, especially in public, less so at
home; and not when they are alone. This implies they are taking advantage of
permissive, non-disciplinary parents, in crowded public places.
Sociologist
John Parker, who has a 5-year-old son, agrees that the shrieking is deliberate.
He interprets it as a weapon of the weak, for children of an age without many
resources for power over others.
We
can pin it down by age and situation. Deliberate shrieking does not seem
prominent among babies and toddlers; nor among school-age children, where they
are regimented (also in games) by adults keeping order. Screeching thus
concentrates in age 2-5, when kids go to day-care or make the acquaintance of a
peer-group of other kids.
Where
do they learn to makes these sounds? Not from adults. Not from TV or the
electronic media. The content of 21st century child entertainment is innocuous,
compared to the comic violence in 20th century cartoons like Road-runner or
Bugs Bunny. Shrieking is concentrated in the ages when children play with each
other and are not yet fully absorbed in computer games. They must learn
shrieking from each other-- from hearing each other shriek in public.
It
is a genuine culture, autonomous of the adult world and its entertainment
designed for kids. Remarkably, the shrieking/screeching culture has spread
around much of the world, passed along among small children by themselves.
This
theory is testable. Where do we expect not to find the screeching culture? In parts of
the world or parts of societies where:
[a]
parents are authoritarian and exercise strict controls or punishment;
[b]
families are not part of the cosmopolitan circuit of middle-class tourist sites
and travel places (such as airports).
What
theory could possibly have predicted the rise of a global shrieking-children
culture? That is why we need
ethnographers to keep their eyes and ears open for what is happening.
