Meanwhile Backstage: Behavior in Public Bathrooms
SPENCER E. CAHILL ET AL
Erving Golffman, the founder of the dramaturgical perspective in sociology first proposed that people behave in
ways that they consciously manage in order to foster the most favorable impression of themselves. They do this
by scrupulously adhering to the micro-social norms of individual and interactional behavior, using backstage
regions to prepare themselves for their frontstage, public displays. To investigate these norms, Cahill and his
students made systematic observations in men’s and women’s public bathrooms, carefully recording people’s
behavior patterns. In a selection that is sure to generate both recognition and amusement, Cahill, et al.
describe and analyze the landscape of public bathrooms, the common rituals found there, and the way people
engage in backstage behavior designed to support their appearance on the subsequent reemergence into the
public domain. The norms upheld in this private yet public setting assert more fully how loyal members of
society are to the behavioral guidelines we share and the meaning that people attribute to them. Do you
recognize some of the behaviors that these authors describe? Have you ever wondered why you do these
things? How is the social order maintained by acting in these ways?
YEARS AGO the anthropologist Horace Miner (1955) suggested, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, that
many of the rituals that behaviorally express and sustain the central values of our culture occur in bathrooms.
Whether Miner realized it or not, and one suspects that he did, there was more to tills thesis than his humorous
interpretation of bathroom rituals suggests. As Erving Goffiman (1959: 112-113) once observed, the vital
secrets of our public shows are often visible in those settings that serve as backstage regions relative to our
public performances:
it is here that illusions and impressions are openly constructed. . . . Here the performer can relax; he can
drop his front, forgo speaking his lines, and step out of character.
Clearly, bathrooms or, as they are often revealingly called, restrooms, are such backstage regions. By
implication, therefore, systematic study of bathroom behavior may yield valuable insights into the character and
requirements of our routine public performances. . .
THE PERFORMANCE REGIONS OF PUBLIC BATHROOMS
Needless to say, one of the behaviors for which bathrooms are explicitly designed is defecation. In our
society, as Goffman (1959: 121) observed, "defecation involves an individual in activity which is defined as
inconsistent with the cleanliness and purity standards" that govern our public performances.
Such activity also causes the individual to disarrange his clothing and to "go out of play," that is, to
drop from his face the expressive mask that he employs in face-to-face interaction. At the same time it
becomes difficult for him to reassemble his personal front should the need to enter into interaction sud-
denly occur. [Goffinan, 1959: 121]
When engaged in the act of defecation, therefore, individuals seek to insulate themselves from potential
audiences in order to avoid discrediting the expressive masks that they publicly employ. Indeed, over 60 percent
of the 1000 respondents to a survey conducted in the early 1960s reported that they "interrupted or postponed"
defecation if they did not have sufficient privacy (Kira, 1966: 58).
In an apparent attempt to provide such privacy, toilets in many public bathrooms are surrounded by partially
walled cubicles with doors that can be secured against potential intrusions. In fact, public bathrooms that do not
provide individuals this protection from potential audiences are seldom used for the purpose of defecation. In
the course of our research, for example, we never observed an individual using an unenclosed toilet for this
purpose. If a bathroom contained both enclosed and unenclosed toilets, moreover, individuals ignored the
unenclosed toilets even when queues had formed outside of the enclosed toilets. In a sense, therefore, the
cubicles that typically surround toilets in public bathrooms, commonly called stalls, physically divide such
bathrooms into two distinct performance regions.
Indeed, Goffman (1971: 32) has used the term "stall" to refer to any "well-bounded space to which individuals
lay temporary claim, possession being on an all-or-nothing basis." Clearly, a toilet stall is a member of this
sociological family of ecological arrangements. Sociologically speaking, however, it is not physical boundaries,
per se, that define a space as a stall but the behavioral regard given such boundaries. For example, individuals
who open or attempt to open the door of an occupied toilet stall typically provide a remedy for this act, in most
cases a brief apology such as "Whoops" or "Sorry." By offering such a remedy, the offending individual
implicitly defines the attempted intrusion as a delict and, thereby, affirms his or her belief in a rule that prohibits
such intrusions (Goffinan, 1971: 113). In this sense, toilet stalls provide occupying individuals not only physical
protection against potential audiences but normative protection as well.
In order to receive this protection, however, occupying individuals must clearly inform others of their claim
to such a stall. Although individuals sometimes lean down and look under the doors of toilet stalls for feet, they
typically expect occupying individuals to mark their claim to a toilet stall by securely closing the door. I On one
occasion, for example, a middle-aged woman began to push open the unlocked door of a toilet stall. Upon
discovering that the stall was occupied, she immediately said, "I'm sorry," and closed the door. When a young
woman emerged from the stall a couple minutes later, the older woman apologized once again but pointed out
that "the door was open.” The young woman responded, "it's okay," thereby minimizing the offense and perhaps
acknowledging a degree of culpability on her part.
As is the case with many physical barriers to perception (Goffman, 1963: 152), the walls and doors of toilet
stalls are also treated as if they cut off more communication than they actually do. Under most circumstances,
for example, the walls and doors of toilet stalls are treated as if they were barriers to conversation. Although
acquainted individuals may sometimes carryon a conversation through the walls of a toilet stall if they believe
the bathroom is not otherwise occupied, they seldom do so if they are aware that others are present. Moreover,
individuals often attempt to ignore offensive sounds and smells that emanate from occupied toilet stalls, even
though the exercise of such "tactful blindness" (Goffman, 1955: 219) is sometimes a demanding task. In any
case, the walls and doors of toilet stalls provide public actors with both physical and normative shields behind
which they can perform potentially discrediting acts.
Toilet stalls in public bathrooms are, therefore, publicly accessible yet private backstage regions. Although
same-sexed clients of a public establishment may lay claim to any unoccupied stall in the bathroom designated
for use by persons of their sex, once such a claim is laid, once the door to the stall is closed, it is transformed
into the occupying individual's private, albeit temporary, retreat from the demands of public life. While
occupying the stall, that individual can engage in a variety of potentially discrediting acts with impunity.
When not concealed behind the protective cover of a toilet stall, however, occupants of public bathrooms
may be observed by others. For the most part, as previously noted, same-sexed clients of a public establishment
can enter and exit at will the bathroom designated for their use, and it may be simultaneously occupied by as
many individuals as its physical dimensions allow. By implication, therefore, occupants of public bathrooms
must either perform or be ready to perform for an audience. As a result, the behavior that routinely occurs in the
"open region" of a public bathroom, that area that is not enclosed by toilet stalls, resembles, in many important
respects, the behavior that routinely occurs in other public settings. . . .
THE RITUALS OF PUBLIC BATHROOMS
As Goffinan (1971) convincingly argued, much of this behavior can best be described as "interpersonal
rituals." Emile Durkheim (1965), in his famous analysis of religion, defined a ritual as a perfunctory,
conventionalized act which expresses respect and regard for some object of "ultimate value." In a different
context, moreover, he observed that in modern, Western societies,
the human personality is a sacred thing; one dare not violate it nor infi:inge its bounds, while at the same
time the greatest good is in communion with others. . . . [Durkheim, 1974: 37]
According to Durkheim, negative rituals express respect and regard for objects of
ultimate value by protecting them nom profanation. By implication, according to Goffinan (1971: 62), negative
interpersonal rituals involve the behavioral honoring of the sacred individual's right to private "preserves" and
"to be let alone:' For example, individuals typically refrain from physically, conversationally; or visually
intruding on an occupied toilet stall. In doing so, they implicitly honor the occupying individual's right to be let
alone and in this respect perform a negative interpersonal ritual.
Similarly, the queues that typically form in public bathrooms when the demand for sinks, urinals, and toilet
stalls exceeds the available supply are also products of individuals' mutual performance of negative
interpersonal rituals. Individuals typically honor one another's right to the turn claimed by taking up a position
in such a queue, even when "creature releases" (Goffman, 1963: 69) threaten to break through their self-control.
Young children provide an occasional exception, sometimes ignoring the turn-order of such queues. Yet even
then the child's caretaker typically requests, on the child's behalf, the permission of those waiting in the queue.
Between performances at a music festival, for example, a preschool-age girl and her mother were observed
rapidly walking toward the entrance to a women's bathroom out of which a queue extended for several yards
down a nearby sidewalk. As they walked past those waiting in the queue, the mother repeatedly asked: "Do you
mind? She really has to go."
The interpersonal rituals that routinely occur in the open region of public bathrooms are not limited,
however, to negative ones. If individuals possess a small patrimony of sacredness, then, as Durkheim (1974: 37)
noted, "the greatest good is in communion" with such sacred objects. When previously acquainted individuals
come into contact with one another, therefore, they typically perform conventionalized acts, positive
interpersonal rituals, that express respect and regard for their previous communion with one another. In a sense,
moreover, negative and positive interpersonal rituals are two sides of the same expressive coin. Whereas
negative interpersonal rituals symbolically protect individuals nom profanation by others, positive interpersonal
rituals symbolically cleanse communion between individuals of its potentially defiling implications.2 Although
a positive interpersonal ritual may consist of no more than a brief exchange of greetings, failure to at least
acknowledge one's previous communion with another is, in effect, to express disregard for the relationship and,
by implication, the other individual's small patrimony of sacredness (Goffinan, 1971: 62-94).
Even when previously acquainted individuals come into contact with one another in a public bathroom,
therefore, they typically acknowledge their prior relationship. In fact, the performance of such positive
interpersonal rituals sometimes interfered with the conduct of our research. On one occasion, for example, a
member of the research team was in the open region of an otherwise unoccupied men's bathroom. While he was
writing some notes about an incident that had just occurred, an acquaintance entered.
A: Hey-! (walks to a urinal and unzips his pants) Nothing like pissin.
0: Yup.
A: Wh'da hell ya doin? (walks over to a sink and washes hands)
0: Writing.
A: Heh, heh, yea. About people pissin . . . That's for you.
0: Yup.
A: Take care.
0: Mmm Huh.
As this incident illustrates, individuals must be prepared to perform positive interpersonal rituals when in
the open region of public bathrooms, especially those in public establishments with a relatively stable clientele.
Whereas some of these may consist of no more than a brief exchange of smiles, others may involve lengthy
conversations that reaffirm the participants' shared biography.
In contrast, when unacquainted individuals come into contact with one another in the open regions of public
bathrooms, they typically perform a brief, negative interpersonal ritual that Goffiman (1963: 84) termed "civil
inattention":
one gives to another enough visual notice to demonstrate that one appreciates that the other is present. . .
while at the next moment withdrawing one's attention from him so as to express that he does not
constitute a target of special curiosity or design. .
Through this brief pattern of visual interaction, individuals both acknowledge one another's presence and,
immediately thereafter, one another's right to be let alone.
A variation on civil inattention is also commonly performed in the open region of public bathrooms, most
often by men using adjacent urinals. Although masculine clothing permits males to urinate without noticeably
disturbing their clothed appearance, they must still partially expose their external genitalia in order to do so.
Clearly, the standards of modesty that govern public behavior prohibit even such limited exposure of the
external genitalia. Although the sides of
some urinals and the urinating individual's back provide partial barriers to perception, they do not provide
protection against the glances of someone occupying an adjacent urinal. In our society, however, "when bodies
are naked, glances are clothed" (Goffman, 1971: 46). What men typically give one another when using adjacent
urinals is not, therefore, civil inattention but “nonperson treatment” (Goffman, 1963: 83-84); that is, they treat
one another as if they were part of the setting’s physical equipment, as “objects not worthy of a glance.” When
circumstances allow, of course, unacquainted males typically avoid occupying adjacent urinals and thereby, this
ritually delicate situation.
It is not uncommon, however, for previously acquainted males to engage in conversation while using
adjacent urinals. For example, the following interaction was observed in the bathroom of a restaurant.
A middle-aged man is standing at one of two urinals. Another middle-aged man enters the
bathroom and, as he approaches, the available urinal, greets the first man by name. The first man
quickly casts a side-long glace at the second and returns the greeting. He then asks the second
man about his “new granddaughter,” and they continue to talk about grandchildren until on of
them zips up his pants and walks over to the sink. Throughout the conversation, neither man
turned his head so as to look at the other.
As this example illustrates, urinal conversations are often characterized by a lack of visual interaction between
the participants. Instead of looking at one another while listening, it is typical among white, middle-class
Americans (see LaFrance and Mayo, 1976), participants in such conversations typically fix their gaze on the
wall immediately in front of them, an intriguing combination of constituent elements of positive and negative
interpersonal rituals. Although ritually celebrating their prior communion with one another, they also visually
honor one another’s right to privacy.
Due to the particular profanations and threats of profanations that characterize public bathrooms, moreover,
a number of variations on these general patterns also commonly occur. In our society, as
Goffman (1971:41) observed, bodily excreta are considered “agencies of defilement.” Although supported by
the germ theory, this view involves somewhat more than a concern for hygiene. Once such substances as urine,
fecal matter, menstrual discharge, and flatus leave individual’s bodies, they acquire the power to profane even
though they may not have the power to infect. In any case, many of the activities in which individuals engage
when in bathrooms are considered both self-profaning and potentially profaning to others. A s a result, a variety
of ritually delicate situations often arise in public bathrooms.
After using urinals and toilets, for example, individuals’ hands are considered contaminated and,
consequently, a course of contamination to others. In order to demonstrate both self-respect and respect for
those with whom they might come into contact, individuals are expected to and often do wash their hands after
using urinals and toilets. Sinks for this purpose are located in the open region of the public bathrooms, allowing
others to witness the performance of this restorative ritual. Sometimes, however, public bathrooms are not
adequately equipped for this purpose. Most commonly, towel dispensers are empty or broken. Although
individuals sometimes do not discover this situation until after they have already washed their hands, they often
glance at towel dispensers as they walk from urinals and toilet stalls to sinks. If they discover that the towel
dispensers are empty or broken, there is typically a moment of indecision. Although they sometimes proceed to
wash their hands and then dry them on their clothes, many times they hesitate, facially display disgust, and
audibly sigh. By performing these gestures-in-the-round, they express a desire to wash their hands; their hands
may remain contaminated, but their regard for their own and others' sacredness is established.
Because the profaning power of odor operates over a distance and in all directions, moreover, individuals
who defecate in public bathrooms not only temporarily profane themselves but also risk profaning the entire
setting. If an individual is clearly responsible for the odor of feces or flatus that fills a bathroom, therefore, he or
she must rely on others to identify sympathetically with his or her plight and, consequently, exercise tactful
blindness. However, this is seldom left to chance. When other occupants of the bathroom are acquaintances, the
offending individual may offer subtle, self-derogatory display as a defensive, face-saving measure (GofIinan,
1955). Upon emerging from toilet stalls, for example, such persons sometimes look at acquaintances and
facially display disgust. Self-effacing humor is also occasionally used in this way. On one occasion, for
example, an acquaintance of a member of the research team emerged from a toilet stall after having filled the
bathroom with a strong fecal odor. He walked over to a sink, smiled at the observer, and remarked: "Something
died in there." Through such subtle self-derogation, offending individuals metaphorically split themselves into
two parts: a sacred self that assigns blame and a blameworthy animal self. Because the offending individual
assigns blame, moreover, there is no need for others to do so (Goffinan, 1971: 113).
If other occupants of the bathroom are unfamiliar to the offending individual, however, a somewhat different
本文档为【Meanwhile Backstage】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑,
图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。