Slugging in the HOV

ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION

Carol A. Hagen

The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2007

SLUGGING IN THE FAST LANE: A STUDY OF TRANSIENT NONINTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACE


A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Carol A. Hagen

Director: Dr. Scott A. Hunt, Professor of Sociology

2007

Copyright © Carol A. Hagen 2007


SLUGGING IN THE FAST LANE: A STUDY OF TRANSIENT NONINTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS THROUGH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACE From an early age, most of us are taught by our parents and other authority figures not to accept rides from or offer rides to strangers. Understanding potential dangers has led most of us to avoid participating in these types of activities. Nevertheless, increasing numbers of individuals in a major metropolitan area violate this well-established social norm, and essentially hitchhike and pick up hitchhikers on a daily basis in an effort to reduce commuting time and the associated costs. The purpose of this study was to explore this world of ―slugging‖ as a form of transient ―nonintimate sociality‖ (Lofland 1995). Specifically, participant observation was employed to examine transitory nonintimate relationships among urban commuters as they participated in a form of ―casual carpooling,‖ which is essentially public use of private transportation. It was conducted from a symbolic interactionist perspective, conceptually informed by the works of Erving Goffman and his students, John and Lyn Lofland. Data were collected in two rounds four years apart and the final sample included 511 interactions within 324 encounters.

Analysis of data revealed power shifts that redefined relationship dynamics when transient nonintimate encounters transitioned across space. In addition, patterns of stranger interactional strategies emerged as slugging participants attempted to create privacy and reduce uncertainty in a confined private setting. Although specific strategies employed were similar to those documented in other transient nonintimate relationships in both private and public space, absence of movement about the setting as an integrated strategy and unique combinations of a variety of other interactional strategies suggest the five distinct stranger interaction management styles identified may be unique to this population.

KEY WORDS: Casual Carpooling, Interactional Strategies, Transient Relationships, Private Space, Public Space


By Carol A. Hagen

Director of Dissertation

Director of Graduate Studies

RULES FOR THE USE OF DISSERTATIONS Unpublished dissertations submitted for the Doctor‘s degree and deposited in the University of Kentucky Library are as a rule open for inspection, but are to be used only with due regard to the rights of the author. Bibliographical references may be noted, but quotations or summaries of parts may be published only with the permission of the author, and with the usual scholarly acknowledgments. Extensive copying or publication of the dissertation in whole or in part also requires the consent of the Dean of the Graduate School of the University of Kentucky. A library that borrows this dissertation for use by its patrons is expected to secure the signature of each user.

Name

Date

________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________

DISSERTATION

Carol A. Hagen

The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2007


DISSERTATION

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky By Carol A. Hagen

Director: Dr. Scott A. Hunt, Professor of Sociology

2007


For Mason and Sydney

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to extend my gratitude to Drs. Scott A. Hunt, Shaunna L. Scott, Patrick H. Mooney, and Matthew A. Zook for their service as my advisory committee, and also to Dr. Graham D. Rowles for his willingness to serve as my outside reader. I am very grateful for all engaging questions and thoughtful comments I received on earlier drafts and during my dissertation defense, and for the patience and encouragement extended to me by my chair, Scott A. Hunt. Moreover, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my family, coworkers, carpoolers and other friends who continuously expressed their faith in my ability to succeed and inspired me to keep going even when I faced conflicting responsibilities and difficult life challenges. The overwhelming support I received, which included patience and understanding, multiple discussions about data, written and oral feedback on earlier drafts and presentations, and continuous words of encouragement, provided me with the courage and confidence I needed to achieve my goal. Last, but not least, I would like to thank all the slugs and drivers who unknowingly provided me with a wealth of information over the past six years – sometimes conveyed through mere copresence during shared commuting encounters, and other times through affable and often enjoyable conversation.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem: The Slugging Situation................................................. 1 Significance............................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................ 7 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 7 Transitory Relationships in Public Space ...................................................... 7 Transient Nonintimate Interactions in Public Transportation Settings .................................................................................................. 14 The Subway ................................................................................. 14 The Bus ........................................................................................ 16 The Bus Depot ............................................................................. 17 The Taxicab ................................................................................. 18 Transient Nonintimate Interactions in Other Public Settings ............... 20 Transitory Relationships in Private Space ..................................................... 22 Research on Casual Carpooling .............................................................................. 24 Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area ............................................................ 25 San Francisco Bay Area ................................................................................. 27 Houston Metropolitan Area ........................................................................... 28 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 29

iv

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 31 History of Slugging in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area .......................... 31 Participant Observation ........................................................................................... 32 Entering the World of Slugging ..................................................................... 32 Adopting a Membership Role ........................................................................ 33 Data Collection Procedures..................................................................................... 35 Sampling Strategy and Sample Description ........................................................... 39 Trustworthiness of the Data .................................................................................... 40 Coding Procedures .................................................................................................. 42 Ethical Considerations ............................................................................................ 45 CHAPTER 4: THE SOCIAL ORDER OF SLUGGING ................................................ 47 The Players: Characteristics of Slugging Participants ............................................ 47 Characteristics of Slugging Participants in Public Space ....................................... 47 Part-Time Slugs versus ―Die-Hard‖ Slugs .............................................................. 49 Rules of the Social Order - Slugging Etiquette ....................................................... 52 Basic Slugging Etiquette for Slugs ................................................................ 52 Basic Slugging Etiquette for Drivers ............................................................. 53 Typical Slugging Experiences: The Driver‘s Perspective ............................. 53 Typical Slugging Experiences: The Slug‘s Perspective ............................... 56 Violations of the Social Order ................................................................................ 59 Slug Violations............................................................................................... 60 Failure to Express Gratitude ................................................................. 60 Failure to Complete Negotiations in Public Space ............................... 62

v

Other Slug Offenses against Drivers .................................................... 65 Slug Offences against Other Slugs ....................................................... 67 Driver Violations ........................................................................................... 70 Slug Deference to the Driver: ‗It‘s Your Car‖ ...................................... 70 Violations against Slugs: Experiences Shared by Others ..................... 73 Violations against Slugs: Personal Experiences ................................... 79 Violations against other Drivers ........................................................... 82 CHAPTER 5: NEGOTIATIONS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACE ...................... 84 Interaction and Negotiation in Public Space ........................................................... 84 Morning Slug Lines ....................................................................................... 84 Afternoon Slug Lines ..................................................................................... 90 Unpredictability of Slug Lines ....................................................................... 94 Interactions and Negotiations in Private Space ...................................................... 95 Stranger Interaction Management Styles ....................................................... 95 Driver Interaction Management Styles ................................................. 96 The Reticent Driver...................................................................... 96 The Verbal Communicator ..........................................................101 The Attuned Communicator ...............................................102 The Conversationalist .........................................................104 Preoccupied Driver .............................................................105 Slug Interaction Management Styles ..............................................106 The Sleeper .........................................................................107 The Talker/Hybrid ..............................................................111

vi

The Self-Contained/Busy Bee.............................................114 The Mouse/Watcher ............................................................117 The Sideliner .......................................................................119 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .....................................................122 Essence of Public Space..........................................................................................122 Essence of Private Space ........................................................................................128 Private and Public Space Qualities of Casual Carpooling Encounters ..............................................................................................................130 Limitations and Retrospection ..................................................................... 132 Contributions to the Study of Transient Nonintimate Relationships................................................................................................. 133 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 134

APPENDICIES Appendix A .............................................................................................................136 Appendix B .............................................................................................................137 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................138 VITA ................................................................................................................................143

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Slugs and Drivers Encountered in Private Space: Age, Race and Gender by Participation Role .............................48 Table 2. Stranger Interaction Management Styles Used by Drivers ................................ 97 Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Drivers Encountered in Private Space: Race and Gender by Stranger Interaction Management Style ........................... 98 Table 4. Stranger Interaction Management Styles Used by Slugs ..................................107 Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of Slugs Encountered in Private Space: Race and Gender by Stranger Interaction Management Style ..........................108

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Study Contribution to Relationship Literature by Time and Place .................... 6

ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION From an early age, most of us are taught by our parents and other authority figures not to accept rides from or offer rides to strangers. Understanding potential dangers has led the majority of us to avoid participating in these types of activities. Nevertheless, increasing numbers of individuals in a major metropolitan area1 violate this wellestablished social norm, and essentially hitchhike and pick up hitchhikers on a daily basis in an effort to reduce commuting time2 and the associated costs. Newspapers, government reports, newsletters and websites have documented the existence of this phenomenon called ―slugging.‖ However, there is little evidence of scholarly literature, sociological or otherwise, which specifically addresses this situation.3 Statement of the Problem: The Slugging Situation I first heard about slugging when I complained to a friend about my frustration when one of my two fellow commuters was absent from our formally established carpool. I explained to him that the two of us were forced to drive in the regular ―stop and go traffic‖ lanes, which lengthened our commuting time considerably (from 1.5 hours to 3 hours that morning). As a solution, he explained the slugging system to me and

1

Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area. While usage of public transportation declined between 1960 and 1995, the percentage of individuals commuting in private vehicles increased nationally from 61 to 91 (Putnam 2000). Not surprisingly, the average commuting time to work increased by 25% from 1969 to 1995 (Putnam 2000) and average commuting distances increased by 37 percent from 1983 to 1995. A consequence of extensive growth in Northern Virginia and areas extending southward is that long commutes are becoming a ―normal‖ part of everyday life for thousands of Virginians. 3 For the purpose of this study, I have adopted John Lofland‘s (1976) definition of situation: ―A situation is the wholistic array of people, physical objects, spaces, and time periods that are an acting unit takes into account in constructing its action or that constrains action regardless of whether the acting unit consciously takes a given aspect into account….A situation is the social and physical place in which people act; it is the context of their actions‖ (p. 26). 2

1

suggested I ―pick up a slug‖4 so that I could drive in the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes5 where the traffic regularly flows without delays. I remember thinking I was not that desperate and couldn‘t understand how anyone in this day and age could be trusting enough to pick up a stranger to shorten a commute. I was even more baffled that people regularly stood in lines at bus stops and in parking lots, and depended on the kindness of strangers to give them a free ride to and from work. At the same time, though, I found the concept of slugging intriguing. What kinds of people engage in this activity? What kinds of backgrounds do they come from? What motivates individuals to ―slug‖ rather than drive, carpool or take a bus? How do ―slugs‖ and ―drivers‖ of slugs overcome the fear of riding with strangers? Not only is this phenomenon interesting, it also provided an opportunity to learn more about interactions that occur within the context of transient nonintimate relationships6 in both public and private space,7 and the strategies employed by individuals involved in these types of relationships. Are such strategies different when the activity violates social norms and/or is considered risky (e.g., slugging)? More specifically, do these strategies vary as the actors transition between public (e.g., commuter lot) and private space (i.e., automobile)?

4

According to LeBlanc (1999), the word ―slug‖ was originally a derogatory term used by bus drivers to refer to non-customers standing in casual car pool lines near bus stops and shelters. Just as bus drivers were sometimes fooled by the round chunks of metal or plastic (i.e., ―slugs‖), some dishonest customers tried to pass off as ―real‖ money, bus drivers in the early days of slugging were often fooled by the presence of ―fake‖ customers which caused them to stop unnecessarily (LeBlanc 1999:22). 5 With the exception of alternative fuel vehicles that have been issued special license tags, legal use of HOV lanes require a minimum of occupants per vehicle. As of July 1, 2006, violations of this HOV-3 requirement can result in fines up to $1000 and up to 3 points against the driver‘s license. 6 Transient nonintimate relationships refer to ephemeral and often impersonal interactions between unacquainted individuals, or strangers as they go about their daily lives. 7 For purposes of this study, public space refers to environments readily accessible to the public (e.g., parking lots, city streets, public transportation). In contrast, private space refers to environments with restricted access whereby entry is only granted through invitation by the owner or other authorized agent (e.g., domiciles, private vehicles).

2

This study was conducted from a symbolic interactionist perspective, conceptually informed by the works of Erving Goffman and his students, John and Lyn Lofland. Its purpose was to explore the world of slugging as a form of transient ―nonintimate sociality.‖8 Specifically, I examined the interactions, characteristics, and reported experiences of individuals involved in the unique urban situation called slugging in order to, (1)

provide additional empirical evidence of interactional strategies used by individuals involved in transient nonintimate relationships,

(2)

investigate whether the interactional strategies used by participants in the current study differ from those identified in similar studies of transient nonintimate relationships found in public transportation (e.g., bus riding, subway, taxicabs) or other public settings,

(3)

investigate whether the strategies used by participants in the current study differ from those identified in other studies of transient nonintimate relationships found in private space,

(4)

determine whether the interactional strategies used by actors (i.e., slugs) involved in transient nonintimate relationships vary as they transition between public and private space, and

8

Lofland (1995) uses the term sociality rather than the more commonly used sociability ―to avoid the connotations of affability, companionability, or friendliness contained in some dictionary definitions of the latter term. The primary meaning of sociality is simply ‗an instance of social intercourse,‘ thus leaving fully open the question of whether that intercourse is pleasant, unpleasant, a mixture of both states, or emotionally neutral‖ (Lofland 1995:194). In addition to the interactions among strangers, Lofland (1995) also includes the interactions between ―‗mere‘ acquaintances, habitues of public settings, service workers and their customers, work associates, and so on‖ under the umbrella term of ―nonintimate sociality‖ (p. 176).

3

(5)

Investigate the existence of alternative interactional strategies used to navigate transient nonintimate relationships when individuals switch roles (i.e., slugs become drivers or vice versa) Significance

Considering the number of individuals participating in this unusual alternative transportation system, it is surprising that most information on slugging is available only from non-scholarly sources. For example, at least three websites have featured slugging in the Washington, DC area (Arlington County Commuter Assistance Program 2001; see also LeBlanc 2001, 2007; Minyard 2001; Wilson 2001).9 These websites were designed to inform current or potential slugs and drivers, and provide information on locations of slug-lines, stories of slugging experiences, lost and found items, and the basics of ―slugging etiquette‖ or ―rules of the road‖ (LeBlanc 2001, 2007; Minyard 2001; Wilson 2001). In addition, slugging has been featured in local newspapers (see Shaffer 2001; Meyers 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d) and even endorsed by one of Virginia‘s state senators (Cornick 1999). The only published book on slugging is a layman‘s how-toguide, which does not contain much more than can be found on the author‘s slugging website (LeBlanc 1999, 2001, 2007). Not only does this ethnographic study contribute to the understanding of a social phenomenon previously neglected in scholarly literature, it also contributes to our understanding of how interactional strategies used in nonintimate transient relationships may vary across space (i.e., private v. public). A significant portion of previous

9

Although the latter two websites were consulted prior to and during the early phases of this study‘s development, they are no longer active sites dedicated to slugging. The former website, however, has become the ―official‖ slugging website and is regularly updated.

4

relationship studies have focused on long-term intimate relationships that occur in private space (Morrill and Snow 2005). At the same time, private space (and to a lesser extent public space) transitory relationships have been neglected in the literature (Morrill and Snow 2005). This study used participant observation to examine transitory nonintimate relationships among urban commuters as they participate in a form of ―casual carpooling,‖ which is essentially public use of private transportation. The transient ―stranger‖ relationship between slug and driver typically begins at a commuter lot located in a northern Virginia county, continues inside a moving vehicle, and concludes more than 40 miles north. Depending upon traffic and the exact pick-up location and drop off point, the average encounter lasts less than one hour. Although the bulk of the interaction between slug and driver occurs in private space (i.e., the driver‘s private vehicle), the relationships were initiated in public space (e.g., a public street or state-maintained commuter lot) and concluded in public space (e.g., a public street or state-maintained commuter lot). This current study, the first of its kind, explores transient nonintimate relationships embedded within a larger socially negotiated transportation system as the participants routinely alternate between the two domains of private and public space (See Figure 1 for a visual depiction of the current study‘s contribution to the personal relationship literature).

5

Figure 1. Study Contribution to Relationship Literature by Time and Place10

TIME

PLACE Public

 

Transitory

Durable

 

Private

10

Figure 1 is an adaptation of Morrill and Snow‘s (2005) figure depicting ―Dominant Tendencies in Research on Personal Relationships by Time and Place‖ (p. 4). Copyright © Carol A. Hagen 2007

6

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Conceptual Framework Relationship research can be categorized according to where the studied relationships fall along two continua: place (i.e., ―private to public‖) and time (i.e., ―transitory to durable") (Morrill and Snow 2005:4). Survey and experimental studies of durable relationships in the context of private space (e.g., marriages) have dominated the relationship literature (Morrill and Snow 2005). Similarly, historical and ethnographic studies of long-term relationships are the most often studied relationships in the context of public space ―with an eye toward how such relationships contribute to community integration‖ (Morrill and Snow 2005:3). Ethnographic studies of short-term public space relationships are even less common than the first two types, but ―perhaps the least explored terrain in this regard is research on temporary relationships in private spaces‖ (Morrill and Snow 2005:5). Since the current study will focus on the interactions among ―strangers‖ (i.e., slugs and drivers) and the strategies they develop as they participate in this unusual alternative grass-roots transportation system, only relevant studies of transient nonintimate relationships, either in public and private space, will be discussed. Transitory Relationships in Public Space As previously mentioned, studies that focus on transitory relationships in public space are primarily ethnographic, and usually conducted in urban settings. Some mainstream relationship researchers might argue that nonintimate or ―stranger‖ interactions, specifically transitory interactions in public space, do not constitute relationships because of their brevity, and thus are not worthy of sociological inquiry

7

(Morrill and Snow 2005; Lofland 1972a, 1989, 1995, 1998). In fact, not long ago stranger interactions in urban settings, such as those on subways and buses, were classified as ―brief incidental associations [that] are based neither on a sharing of common values nor on a co-operation for a common purpose…[and] empty of content‖ (Spykman 1926:58 as cited in Lofland 1995:178, 1998:xvi). Nevertheless, these ethnographic studies that explore the transitory interactions of strangers in public space ―demonstrate the importance of such ties for participants and the wider social context in which they occur‖ (Morrill and Snow 2005:6). A major theoretical player and key proponent for the study of daily interactions among strangers in public space is Erving Goffman. Specifically, he promotes the value of studying public behavior and argues that this area of investigation warrants its own ―special domain for sociological inquiry …for rules of conduct in streets, parks, restaurants, theatres, shops, dance floors, meeting halls, and other gathering places of any community tell us a great deal about its most diffuse forms of social organization‖ (Goffman 1963:3-4). Goffman introduces the framework of ―social order‖ by which sociologists can categorize and make sense of everyday face-to-face interactions (Goffman 1963). He defines the ―social order‖ model ―as the consequence of any set of moral norms that regulates the way in which persons pursue objectives‖ (Goffman 1963:8). Within this framework, he focuses on norms that regulate human interaction and identifies the rule adaptations or strategies that individuals develop in different ―situations‖11 while in the

11

Goffman (1963) defines situation as ―the full spatial environment anywhere within which an entering person becomes a member of the gathering that is (or does then become) present. Situations begin with the occurrence of mutual monitoring, and lapse when the second-last person has left‖ (p. 18).

8

physical presence of others (Goffman 1963, 1971). He maintains that simply being in the physical presence of another person constitutes social interaction because of the mutual scrutiny that takes place (Goffman 1961, 1963, 1971). In these ―unfocused interactions‖ individuals take stock of one another and attempt to interpret any intentional or unintentional messages the others in their presence may be emanating through body language (Goffman 1961, 1963, 1971). In fact, a common practice among strangers is to grant each other ‗civil inattention‘ – that is, each provides the other with just enough visual acknowledgement so the other recognizes his/her presence is known, while at the same time sending the clear message that any additional interaction or personal communication is not desired (Goffman 1963, 1971). ―Focused interactions‖ or ―encounters‖ on the other hand, go beyond the management of ―copresence‖ and involve the cooperation of individuals in a focused activity which usually involves verbal exchanges (Goffman 1961, 1963). Although not limited to transient nonintimate relationships in public space, Goffman (1959) is perhaps best known for his dramaturgical analysis of social interaction. He introduced us to the idea of actors putting on performances for others as an effort to control how others view and ultimately judge them. For Goffman (1959), ―impression management‖ begins the moment an individual enters a situation where he/she is in the physical presence of another whether familiar or unacquainted. Goffman‘s contribution to the study of transient nonintimate sociality in public space extends beyond his analogy of social life to a theatrical performance; more significant is his emphasis ―on understanding how actors accomplish or manage their performances – that is, on understanding the strategies they use‖ (Lofland 1995:182).

9

Goffman‘s focus on interactional strategies played a major role in the development of the ―strategy paradigm‖ which influenced the language used in much the literature on transient nonintimate interactions (Lofland 1995). In addition, several subsequent studies that employed this strategy paradigm significantly contributed to our knowledge and understanding of transient nonintimate sociality (Lofland 1995). Although Goffman may be considered the ―father‖ of the strategy paradigm, ―its methodological articulation is largely the work of one of his students, John Lofland‖ (Lofland 1995:182). Rather than asking ―why‖ people act as they do, Lofland (1976) rephrases the question: ―How do people do social things?‖ (p. 1). He argues that the answer to ―how people do social things‖ is relevant in three ways. Specifically, the understanding and knowledge of patterns and strategies can inform: (1) the actions of individuals interacting with a specific population or setting, (2) the actions of individuals interacting with a different population or setting that has similar attributes, and (3) theoretical understanding of more general areas such as the dynamics of social interactions (Lofland 1976). In Doing Social Life: The Qualitative Study of Human Interactions in Natural Settings, Lofland (1976) discusses the importance of qualitatively investigating everyday social interactions including, but not exclusively, nonintimate interactions in public space. Lofland (1976) points out that many researchers of everyday life fail to achieve an adequate balance between the abstract and concrete, and succumb to what he calls ―abstracted conceptualism‖ (Lofland 1976:67). Although this type of researcher may describe data collection in the field, microanalysis of the data and grounded theory, the

10

final product of his or her research fails to provide sufficient empirical evidence to support his/her theoretical development (Lofland 1976). Lofland (1976) includes his mentor in this category of researcher: ―However laudable his work might be otherwise, a significant portion of Erving Goffman‘s essays move in such a direction‖ (p. 68). Lofland (1976) cultivates the strategy paradigm and clearly outlines what he refers to as the ―situation-strategy perspective‖ (p. 62). Elaborating on the foundation laid by Goffman, Lofland (1976) explains that ―situations‖ can vary by dimension (i.e., size of proximate population, equipment, space and time), or scale (i.e., encounter, roles, groups, organizations, worlds, settlements and societies) and are ―the social and physical place in which people act; it is the context of their action‖ (Lofland 1976:26). According to the ―situation-strategy perspective,‖ individuals possess human agency and continuously develop strategies to help them navigate through situations (Lofland 1976). In other words, individuals ponder, test, construct and reconstruct their actions in efforts to cope with, manage and manipulate the reality of the situation within which they interact with others (Lofland 1976). For Lofland (1976), ―intimate familiarity‖ with a situation and its participants, most desirably through participant observation, is essential to the study of everyday social interactions (p. 8). Equally important is the development of ―disciplined abstractions.‖12 Together, these ―concepts of ‗intimate familiarity‘ and ‗disciplined abstractions‘ form a perspective on the nature of knowledge and method” (Lofland 1976:79).

12

Lofland (1976) defines ―disciplined abstractions‖ as ―generic and generalized types and aspects of situations and strategies that emerge from personal immersion in concrete, qualitative data and remain adequately grounded in such data in written reports‖ (p. 62).

11

Not unlike John Lofland, Lyn Lofland also followed the lead set by their mentor Erving Goffman, and carried on in the tradition of the strategy paradigm. Through numerous hours of observation of strangers interacting in public urban ―waiting settings,‖ Lofland identifies a set of ―self-management‖ (1972a) or ―body management‖ (1973) strategies used by individuals to privatize public space. By discouraging strangers from approaching, these strategies aid in the navigation of the ―world of strangers‖ (Lofland 1973) and serve to ―neutralize or minimize the dangers of the stranger-filled urban public setting‖ (Lofland 1972a:94). On rare occasions, strangers may band together and enter into what Lofland (1972a, 1972b) calls ―the public bargain.‖ This agreement to provide mutual support and protection emerges, ―only under conditions where the failure to extend such support would prove dangerous to the one refusing it‖ (Lofland 1972b:226). Not unlike her mentor, Lofland (1972a) asserts that individuals desire to control how other people, including strangers, perceive and judge them. ―Self-management‖ or ―body management,‖ similar to Goffman‘s ―impression management,‖ begins only moments before an individual expects to come in contact with strangers (Lofland 1972a, 1973). The first stage of the ―management sequence‖ involves the approach to and entrance into a setting dominated by strangers and can be characterized by a three-stage process: ―checking for readiness,‖ ―taking a reading,‖ and ―reaching a position‖ (Lofland 1972a, 1973). Once an individual has entered a public setting, he/she must adopt new coping strategies while ―in the midst of strangers‖ (Lofland 1972b:218) and may adopt one or more body management techniques ―to create for themselves a symbolic shield of privacy‖ (Lofland 1973:151). Lofland (1972b) identifies five common management

12

styles, although she acknowledges these are not exhaustive and may exclude strategies developed in situations other than ―waiting settings‖ (Lofland 1972b:231). These styles include ―The Sweet Young Thing,‖ ―The Nester,‖ ―The Investigator,‖ ―The Seasoned Urbanite‖ and ―The Maverick.‖13 It is ―the Maverick,‖ or rather a specific type of Maverick called ―the Eccentric,‖ so named because of his or her unpredictability and failure to follow basic rules, who is the greatest threat to the public order of stranger interactions (Lofland 1972b). Lofland (1995) argues, ―not only do strangers interact in the manufacture of order, not only do they interact in the manufacture of privacy, disattention, and avoidance, they also interact in the more traditional sense of the word‖ (p. 180). Specifically, she identifies three types of encounters where strangers may engage in more focused encounters. The first type includes ―help-seeking‖ behavior. The most innocuous of this type are minor requests for assistance such as asking for the time or directions. The more problematic of this type are those instances where strangers are seriously distressed (e.g., have been victimized or are in eminent danger), but either do not ask for assistance or do not direct their appeals to anyone in particular (Lofland 1995). Lofland (1995) labels the second type, ―defensive encounters;‖ these typically involve ―clearly targeted communication‖ triggered by a stranger knowingly or unknowingly intruding upon another‘s privatized public space (p. 181). The third type of encounter is characterized as ―pleasurable sociability‖ (Lofland 1995:181). Although pleasure may be derived from engagement in sensual activities with strangers (e.g., sex in public restrooms), more often, ―the pleasures of the encounter are mundane: passing the time with a chat, sharing

13

For a detailed description of these management styles, see Lofland (1972b:218-226) and Lofland (1973:146-151).

13

an unexpected experience, getting some information on a topic of interest, or basking in the moment of fellow feeling‖ (Lofland 1995:181). Transient Nonintimate Interactions in Public Transportation Settings Public transportation provides a common setting where large numbers of people must necessarily be in the physical presence of other unknown persons for short durations. The interaction among familiar others traveling together signals to outsiders that members of this group are ―with‖ each other (Goffman 1971). This status is recognized by outsiders and offers protection from unwelcome personal interaction (Goffman 1971). It is the ―single‖ (Goffman 1971), however, who is most vulnerable to the approach of unknown others (Lofland 1972a). Perhaps for this reason, it is the ―single‖ rather than the ―with‖ upon which most contemporary research on transient nonintimate relationships in public transportation settings is focused. The Subway Subway behavior is very similar to transient nonintimate interactions observed in public ―waiting settings‖ (see Lofland 1972a, 1972b, 1973).14 Subway riders are equally vulnerable, and have a clear understanding of the social rules that govern subway travel (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). This social order is essentially maintained by the actions (or inactions) of the subway passengers. Although in close physical proximity of others, subway passengers rarely engage in focused activities (e.g., conversation) and take great measures to maintain anonymity (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). Riders will often grant each other ―civil inattention,‖ but anything beyond that increases one‘s vulnerability and could invite the social approach of unknown others (Levine, Vinson and

14

Levine, Vinson and Wood (1973) describe management styles similar to Lofland‘s (1972b) ―seasoned urbanite,‖ and two types of ―maverick‖-- ―the constantly stigmatized‖ and ―the eccentric.‖

14

Wood 1973). This adherence to ―civil inattention‖ intensifies as subways become crowded and the physical distance between subway riders diminishes (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). Subway riders typically engage in a series of self-management strategies to avoid attracting attention and to ward off potential unwanted social encounters with strangers. From the moment they enter the situation, subway riders‘ main goal is to get off the ―stage‖ as quickly as possible – to hide their personal identity and protect their emotions (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). By securing the nearest possible seat, subway riders can quickly blend into the crowd thus keeping personal information about themselves hidden from the potential menace of unknown others. At the same time, where they sit can be equally important. Although it is desirable to sit away from others (thus, reducing chances of an unwanted social exchange with a stranger), if that requires being on display while navigating to a desired seat, the risk of exposure may not be worth the reward of sitting alone (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). If a solitary seat is not available or too risky, the rider must assess who is least threatening, and is likely to gravitate toward someone who is ―self-contained‖ (i.e., engaged in his/her own self-management techniques such as reading a book or staring into space) and of the same gender (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973:209). As Lofland (1972b, 1973) found in other public space settings, Levine, Vinson and Wood (1973) observed that strangers riding on a subway are much less likely to come to the aid of those around them. This hesitation may stem from a fear of increasing their own vulnerability, or out of obligation to uphold the widely accepted and unwritten rule that discourages verbal interactions among unknown others on subways (Levine,

15

Vinson and Wood 1973). This public ―code of conduct‖ essentially encourages strangers not to ―get involved‖ and has resulted in the preventable victimization of fellow passengers (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973:213). In some situations, similar to Lofland‘s (1972a, 1972b) description of the ―public bargain,‖ subway passengers have joined together to defend against subway rule violators (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). However, ―only during exceptionally unpleasant times, such as during a rush hour or when [multiple] passengers feel threatened by rule violators, will subway travelers ignore the rules, compromise their defenses, and help each other avoid the dangers of riding underground‖ (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973:216). The Bus Nash (1975) classifies two types of riders (i.e., ―new comers‖ and ―regulars‖) and two types of drivers (i.e., ―new drivers‖ and ―old timers‖). Analogous to the situation faced by subway riders, the bus rider understands, ―the selection of a seat can represent a serious commitment to a social encounter‖ (Nash 1975). When buses are crowded, a rider may have no choice but to sit wherever there is an available seat. Therefore, the importance of seat selection is most relevant during non-rush hour times (Nash 1975). Bus riders (usually unknown to the driver or regulars) who wish to remain anonymous and limit contact with others, tend to avoid sitting near the bus driver who may initiate conversation (not an uncommon practice among ―old timers‖) and the rear of the bus where the ―withs‖ tend to congregate (Nash 1975). Nash (1975) examines the nature and development of the relationships among individuals on a public bus (i.e., both drivers and riders) that include, but are not limited to, transient nonintimate interactions in public space. He suggests that the dynamics of

16

these relationships are affected by certain interrelated structural factors, rather than the mere ―copresence‖ of strangers in a public setting. Specifically, he identifies three situations which contribute to the degree and nature of interaction that occurs on public buses: ―(1) the degree of competency possessed by the actors as riders and drivers, respectively, (2) the number of people on the bus, and (3) ‗riding time,‘ which refers to the clock time duration of the ride‖ (Nash 1975:119). In essence, the more frequent stops (non-express bus routes), the more crowded the bus, and the greater the turnover of riders (rush hour), the less likely strangers will interact (Nash 1975). Most commonly, these conditions result in what Nash (1975) calls the ―commuter stance‖ (p. 118). This behavior ―is highly institutionalized and involves negotiation of private space or territory within the public domain…[the rider‘s] task is to preserve his individuality against great structural odds‖ (Nash 1975:118-119). The use of props (e.g., purse, briefcase) to block an adjacent seat, or choosing to sit in an isle seat rather than the adjoining vacant window, are two strategies employed by commuters. These strategies act as a barrier between the rider and unknown others and are intended to deter personal communication (Nash 1975). The Bus Depot Henderson (1975) observed the behavior of individuals waiting for buses inside a large metropolitan bus station. Inside this busy depot, ―privacy is physically nonexistent, yet successfully created‖ as passengers employ various strategies to create personal territory in this otherwise public space (Henderson 1975:449). These strategies, designed to avoid interaction with unknown others, fall into two basic categories: ―body positioning‖ and engagement in some kind of activity (Henderson 1975:449).

17

Body positioning can include shifting one‘s body away from an unknown other who is sitting in the next seat, and extending body parts (e.g., arms, legs, elbows) into neighboring seats to discourage strangers from sitting there (Henderson 1975). In one example of defending an established personal territory, Henderson (1975) describes how a young girl slaps the adjacent seat recently vacated by her traveling companion and glares at an approaching older man. Body positioning may or may not be combined with the use of props to deter unwanted interaction with unknown others (Henderson 1975). Props can be specific objects (e.g., newspaper, book, luggage, food and drink), an extension of one‘s body (e.g., clothing, hair, fingernails, glasses, make up), or ―physical mobility‖ (e.g., getting food from a vending machine, trips to the schedule board, excursions through the gift shop). Activities involving props (e.g., eating, reading, rummaging through a purse, combing hair, cleaning glasses), no matter how mundane, send a clear message to others that a person is ―occupied,‖ and therefore not open to communication. In conclusion, Henderson (1975) asserts that, ―all the techniques are almost always seen in dynamic combinations. There is no simple ―one‖ activity that an individual employs. His behavior is a complex network of strategies‖ (p. 455). The taxicab Although a cabdriver may own his taxicab, the driver, his vehicle and his livelihood are regulated by public authorities, and the employment of a taxi service is considered to be an established and legitimate form of public transportation. The relationship between the cabdriver and his ―fare‖ is somewhat different from other transient public nonintimate relationships. Whereas strangers using or providing other forms of public transportation can avoid verbal exchanges altogether, a minimal amount

18

of verbal communication is necessary between cabdriver and passenger in order for the latter to get to his/her destination and for the cabdriver to collect his fee. The very nature of the cabdriver‘s job makes him more vulnerable than the typical individual encountering strangers in public, and ―exposes him to a variety of hazards and exigencies which few others, except policeman, encounter as frequently: for example: stick-ups, belligerent drunks, women in labor, psychopaths, counterfeiters, and fare-jumpers‖ (Davis 1959:159). Because he ―is deprived of even minimal controls‖ (Davis 1959:159), the daily life of a cabdriver is filled with ambiguity and uncertainty (Davis 1959). He has little control over who gets in his cab, is alone with his fare, and has little advance notice of his destinations (Davis 1959). Although in physical control of the cab, the cabdriver is viewed as the social subordinate to the fare (Davis 1959). While not as common as in servant-employer relationships, cabdrivers are sometimes treated by their fares as if they were not present – treated essentially as what Goffman (1963) refers to as ―nonpersons‖ (Davis 1959:160). In addition, because of the fleeting nature (and I would also argue the service nature) of their relationship, fares are not as threatened by this type of stranger encounter, and sometimes feel comfortable enough to reveal intimate details about themselves and their lives. Davis (1959) argues that this is ―little more than the turning inside-out of his non-person status – which situation implies neither equality nor respect for his opinion‖ (p. 160). As a result of these dynamics, however, the cabdriver is less hesitant to ask questions, share intimate details, and give his opinion on a variety of topics than would the typical person who comes in contact with unknown others in public places (Davis 1959).

19

In an effort to gain some control, reduce uncertainty, and increase the chances of favorable outcomes (i.e., a good tip), cabdrivers classify their fares by types and employ various strategies accordingly. The most common dichotomy by which the driver classifies his fares is ―regular cab users‖ versus ―non-cab users‖ (Davis 1959:161). ―Regular cab users‖ refer to those who prefer cabs over other forms of public transportation, and who ―are conversant with the cab-passenger role, and most of all, accept, if only begrudgingly, the practice of tipping‖ (Davis 1959:161). The ―non-cab‘ users prefer other modes of transportation and only resort to the use of a cab under extenuating circumstances such as inclement weather (Davis 1959). Further classification of fares is broken down according to how these individuals carry themselves, how they treat the driver, and most importantly, their typical tipping habits. Because fare typologies do not always predict tipping behavior, drivers employ a variety of strategies (i.e., ―making change,‖ ―the hard-luck story,‖ ―fictitious charges‖ and ―the psychological approach‖) to maximize the possibility of a profitable outcome (Davis 1959:163-164). Transient Nonintimate Interactions in Other Public Settings Aside from the studies focusing on interaction in ―waiting‖ or public transportation settings as described above, the literature most relevant to the current study are ethnographic studies of ephemeral stranger interactions that occur in the context of norm-breaching activities. However, few empirical studies examine this type of transient stranger relationship. Because of the societal consequences of being identified as a social deviant, these environments may be prove difficult to gain entry, and may cause a potential researcher considerable discomfort (Humphreys 1970). This may explain the limited literature available.

20

Laud Humphreys‘ (1970) study of impersonal sex in public restrooms (i.e., ―tearooms‖) and David Karp‘s (1973) study on hiding behavior in pornographic bookstores are both ―eminently ‗public‘ [in] nature‖ (Karp 1973:434). However, structural architecture, the use of ―lookouts‖ (Humphries 1970), or painted and sign cluttered windows and doors (Karp 1973) are attempts to obscure these behaviors from the general public. Nevertheless, these two studies reveal characteristics similar to those identified in other studies of transient stranger interactions in public space. First, the individuals involved in each of these types of encounters are equally vulnerable, and take measures to maintain anonymity. Second, there are clear rules (e.g., reveal little if personal information; no talking) that govern interactions which are accepted by the actors (Humphries 1970; Karp 1973). In addition, Humphries (1970) and Karp (1973) both describe the employment of impression or self-management strategies in the approach to and entrance into the setting dominated by strangers. For the bookstore patrons, these ―self-management shields‖ included the practice of ―waiting‖ (i.e., casually loiter around the outside of the store to assess surroundings and assess risk while creating the illusion of just ―idly curious‖ (Karp 1973:437) and ―skipping‖ (i.e., travel in and out of adjacent stores to check out the surroundings and assess risk while blending in with the crowd). For tearoom patrons, these strategies might include driving around the area a few times before parking -sometimes at a considerable distance -- to check out surroundings and assess risk while avoiding any association with the restroom), waiting a few minutes in the car before approaching the restroom to survey the surroundings, assess risk or to ―cruise‖ potential participants (Humphrey 1970:61). Once inside the door and out of immediate public

21

view, actors in both restroom and bookstore settings employ additional strategies (e.g., positioning, maneuvering) to navigate their respective stranger interactions. The main difference between the relationships described by Humphrey (1970) and those observed in other public transient stranger relationships (including those described by Karp), is that these stranger interactions are not accidental encounters, but rather premeditated transactions. As such, the participation (or at least observation of) physically intimate acts are not only expected but commonplace. In addition, tearoom participants employ a series of gestures to communicate to the unknown others as they participate in this focused gathering. Furthermore, participants will support each other in defense against any mutual threats (e.g., the lookout will warn other participants of the approach of a ―straight,‖ park employee or law enforcement) and may even break the strict code of silence in the event of a serious threat (Humphrey 1970). In contrast, the patrons in the bookstore ―lack any sense of camaraderie between persons similarly involved... [and] mutual support for hiding exists only via conscious avoidance of overt, focused interaction‖ (Karp 1973:439). Transitory Relationships in Private Space Private transitory relationships are essentially hidden from the public eye and frequently ―involve socially subordinated persons (especially women and ethnic minorities) in both mainstream and normatively marginal places with restricted access‖ (Morrill and Snow 2005:3). As such, it is not surprising that this tradition has been neglected in the relationship research. The majority of the literature on transitory relationships in private spaces consists of biographic and ethnographic essays and interviews (Morrill and Snow 2005). These works bring to life the challenges faced by

22

subordinated persons as they develop strategies to cope with unpleasant situations beyond their control and attempt to negotiate the challenges of their daily lives. The short-lived relationships of sex and domestic workers depicted in the compilation of essays edited by Ehrenreich and Hochschild (2002) exemplifies this tradition. Research focusing on more ephemeral relationships, specifically those involving the violation of societal norms, is most relevant to the current study. Regrettably, few available empirical studies of this type examine transient nonintimate relationships occurring in private space. Since ―restricted access‖ is a significant barrier to investigating this type of relationship, it is the most likely explanation for this paucity of scholarly literature. What remains is a handful of studies featuring the deviant lives of marginal populations: sex workers and their clients (see Browne and Minichiello 1995; Brewis and Linstead 2000). Perhaps as a result of restricted access, key informant interviews rather than direct observation have been the source of data for examining these fleeting and sometimes serial relationships. While some, but not all, interactions between sex workers and their clients are initially negotiated in public space, the bulk of these interactions unfold in private space. Unlike the public transient nonintimate relationships depicted in ‖waiting‖ and ―public transportation‖ settings, interactions between these strangers are not inadvertent encounters that occur as the actors go about their daily lives. Rather, these encounters (like their socially deviant public space counterparts) are deliberate and intentional; various degrees of physical (although not social intimate) interaction are expected.

23

Because their livelihoods involve the ―comodification of the body as an object for consumption‖ (Brewis and Linstead 2000:85), it is impossible for these individuals to avoid physical contact as is the expectation of stranger encounters in public space. Therefore, the need to protect personal knowledge and maintain social anonymity, while engaging in physically intimate encounters, becomes paramount. The literature on sex workers and their clients recognizes the complexity of these transitory relationships and has identified strategies used by sex workers to separate their private lives from their professional lives so as to preserve their personal identities (Brewis and Linstead 2000). Not unlike the cabdriver, these service workers often develop typologies of their customers in an effort to gain control and reduce uncertainty (Browne and Minichiello 1995). Because of the ―intensity and intimacy of their physical involvement in their work, [sex workers] do not necessarily find the distancing process easy, and a variety of styles and methods are employed by working girls (and boys) to sustain the mask, or series of masks, which make earning a living through the sale of sex possible‖ (p. 84). Condoms are frequently used as a physical barrier, and allow sex workers to psychologically distance themselves from their clients (Browne and Minichiello 1995; Brewis and Linstead 2000). Other management strategies include drug use, mental rehearsing, the use of pseudonyms, and the employment of other strategies to control the duration of encounters (Browne and Minichiello 1995; Brewis and Linstead 2000) Research on Casual Carpooling Established casual carpooling, or slugging, exists in at least three major metropolitan areas: Washington, D. C., San Francisco Bay Area and Houston (Burris and Stockton 2004; De Corla-Souza 2005; Kowshik et al. 1993; Murray et al. 1997; Turnbull

24

et al. 2006).15 Nevertheless, there is no literature available that explores slugging as a social phenomenon. Instead, a handful of studies have been published in the area of transportation. Although these studies have interviewed or surveyed slugging participants and/or observed slugging behavior, their main purpose has been to determine the pervasiveness of this phenomenon, its role in reducing traffic volume, or the potential impact that changes to HOV restrictions might have on the slugging system and its usefulness as an alternative mode of transportation. Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area The Urban Institute, in conjunction with the Fairfax County Office of Transportation, conducted the first study focused exclusively on the slugging phenomenon in the Washington, DC metropolitan area (Reno, Gellert and Verzosa 1989). For this study, researchers observed morning ―instant carpooling‖ at the only three known slug lines located in Springfield, Virginia. In addition, they conducted informal interviews with slugs as they waited for rides. They suggest that the ―Springfield Underground‖ was established in 1975 (Reno, Gellert and Verzosa 1989:53) and conclude that, ―the development of this behavior is evolutionary‖ (p. 60). Based on their findings, Reno, Gellert and Verzosa (1989) make recommendations for what Fairfax county and ―other public or private entities‖ can do ―to protect, enhance, or strengthen‖ the three Springfield morning slug lines and the two afternoon slug lines located in Washington, DC and the Pentagon (p. 61). More recently, a study was conducted for the Virginia Department of Transportation to determine possible effects of altering current HOV restrictions

15

Murray et al. (1997) report ―some activity also in Denver and Pittsburgh‖ (p. 21).

25

including a reduction in vehicle occupancy requirements and an adjustment in HOV restriction times during peak commuting hours (BMI et al. 1999). As part of this study, researchers sought to determine the prevalence of slugging by counting slugs at four afternoon pick-up locations. Speculating that afternoon observations would yield a more accurate count of individuals who slug both to and from work, they observed 2,187 slugs one afternoon and used the average difference between morning and afternoon use of private and public transit services to estimate for the number of individuals who slug each morning. Findings suggest that approximately 3,000 people ―slug‖ in a single day (BMI et al. 1999). In fact, ―it is estimated that approximately 25% of the vehicles in the HOV lanes south of the Pentagon during the AM HOV-restricted period have at least one slug in the vehicle‖ (BMI et al. 1999:18). The summary report from this study concluded that a reduction in HOV restrictions, specifically vehicle occupancy requirements, would negatively impact the slugging system by reducing the number of drivers willing to pick up slugs by 14% (BMI et al. 1999). As a result, study researchers ―estimated that approximately 20 percent of current slugs (600 persons in the AM restricted period) would no longer be able to find rides‖ (BMI et al. 1999:30). Moving beyond initial data collection and analysis from this Virginia Department of Transportation Study, Spielberg and Shapiro (2000) assert that understanding the characteristics of slugging participants is essential for assessing the potential impact a reduction in HOV vehicle occupancy requirements. Consequently, researchers observed the formation of ―dynamic carpooling‖ at six sites across two Virginia counties during peak morning commute hours (Spielberg and Shapiro 2000). Based on the prevalence estimate of morning slugging activity (3,100) reported in the earlier summary report

26

(BMI 1999), Spielberg and Shapiro (2000) hypothesized that reduced HOV restrictions would increase traffic volume because fewer individuals (i.e., slugs) would be willing to take the risk of riding alone with strangers (i.e., safety in numbers), and reported patterns of dynamic carpool formation. After finding that women account for more than thirty percent of those participating in slugging, they concluded that ―the willingness of commuters to travel as slugs is engendered, at least in part, by the fact that they will not be alone with an unknown driver‖ (Spielberg and Shapiro 2000:38). San Francisco Bay Area RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, an Oakland-based commuter assistance program, examined casual carpooling in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1985, 1987, 1989, 1992 and most recently in 1999 (Beraldo 1999). Although the origins of this California phenomenon are unknown, Beraldo (1999) speculates that it emerged during the 1970‘s as a result of the energy crisis, or as a result of a disruption of service in the AC Transit System, the East Bay public bus system. Unlike slugging in the D.C. Metropolitan area, casual car pooling is essentially ―a one-way phenomenon‖ (Beraldo 1999:4). Although opportunities for return trip casual carpooling emerged in 1997 after a strike of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, Beraldo (1999) found that, ―only 9% of all casual carpoolers normally make the evening trip via casual carpool‖ (Beraldo 1999:11). Beraldo (1999) and his research team counted casual carpool participants at 13 locations in the San Francisco Bay Area and distributed surveys at nine locations for participants to mail in, which yielded a 31% response rate (725 out of 2,350). Although mass transit is readily available for most commuters, Beraldo (1999) estimates between

27

8,000 and 10,000 commuters participate in casual carpooling every day. The majority of respondents indicated they formerly used mass transit for their commute, and listed time, money and flexibility as the top three reasons for choosing casual carpooling over alternative methods. As a result of the switch from other forms of public transportation to casual carpooling, Beraldo (1999) suggests that, ―casual carpooling is most likely adding cars to the road…[and] does little to improve congestion or air quality‖ (p. 16). Nevertheless, Beraldo (1999) concludes that casual carpooling may benefit mass transit by reducing user volume and benefits commuters by providing them with another transportation alternative. Houston Metropolitan Area In contrast to the casual carpooling systems in the Washington, D.C. and San Francisco Bay metropolitan areas, slugging is a fairly recent phenomenon in Houston (Burris and Winn 2006). Casual carpools typically form in the morning hours at three commuter lots and continue along two major high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes that feed into downtown Houston (Burris and Winn 2006). As with the other major metropolitan slugging systems previously discussed, the origin of the Houston casual carpooling is unknown, but newspaper reports suggest that it may have been an alternative means of transportation for commuters as early as1990 (Burris and Winn 2006). Similarly, the Houston casual carpool system ―is not marketed or regulated in any way by transportation officials. As these carpools are formed among strangers, there are potential liability issues that could surround agency support of casual carpooling‖ (Burris and Winn 2006:25).

28

Based primarily on observation and survey data collected as part of a larger Texas Transportation Institute study, Burris and Winn (2006) examined the behaviors and demographic characteristics of Houston commuters including users of mass transit, traditional HOV lanes, casual carpools, and main lanes. As a result of their analysis, Burris and Winn (2006) found that morning casual carpool passengers (slugs) tended to be younger (25-34 years of age) and more likely to be managers or other professionals than morning mass transit users. Although Burris and Winn (2006) reported casual carpoolers benefit from ―time savings,‖ their average commute time was only between one and three minutes less that that of mass transit commuters (p. 30). Rather than time saved, monetary savings and untimely bus service were the most common reasons passengers indicated for choosing casual carpools over alternatives methods of transportation (Burris and Winn 2006). Furthermore, 65.3% of casual carpool passengers surveyed reported riding with total strangers during their most recent commute, but the remaining 34.7% of passenger revealed that they had shared a ride with the driver at least once before, ―indicating that a relatively small community of people used the mode consistently‖ (Burris and Winn 2006:32). Similar to those in the San Francisco Bay Area, most Houston casual carpool passengers (82.2%) reported using a mode other than slugging for their afternoon return commute (Burris and Winn 2006:33). Research Questions (1)

When an encounter is negotiated in public space (e.g., commuter lot) and then moves into private space, does the situation maintain the essence of public space? More specifically, are the dynamics of nonintimate relationships that transition from public to private space (e.g., slugs and drivers) typical of those that transpire

29

in public space? For example, do slugs and drivers feel equally vulnerable and tend to offer each other little more than ―civil inattention‖ (Goffman 1963:83)? Also, do the strategies used by unknown others (i.e., slugs and drivers) in these situations (i.e., encounters that transition from public to private space) mimic those strategies used to navigate stranger interactions that occur exclusively in public space. For example, do slugs and drivers use ―self-management‖ techniques such use of a prop (e.g., book) or staring off into space to deter others from engaging them in a focused encounter? (2)

When an encounter is negotiated in public space (e.g., commuter lot) and then moves into private space, does the situation take on the essence of private space? More specifically, are the dynamics of nonintimate relationships that transition from public to private space (e.g., slugs and drivers) and the interactional strategies they use typical of those in private space? In other words, are slugs (or drivers) ―socially subordinated persons (especially women and ethnic minorities) in both mainstream and normatively marginal places with restricted access‖ (Morrill and Snow 2005:3)? For example, are slugs (or drivers) treated as ―non persons‖ (Goffman 1963:40) as ―structural unequals‖ (Lofland 1995:183) are often treated?

(3)

Finally, does space in terms of public or private necessarily affect the dynamics of brief stranger encounters and the type of interactional strategies used in these kinds of transient nonintimate relationships?


30

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY History of Slugging in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area In the early 1970‘s, shortly after the opening of Virginia‘s High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, a unique grassroots phenomenon, which resembled a cross between carpooling and hitchhiking, began to emerge in the Washington, DC metropolitan area (LeBlanc 1999, 2001; Kogan 1997; 2Plus, Inc. 1999; Reno, Gellert and Verzosa 1989). The opening of the HOV lanes offered a faster route for individuals willing to commute with a minimum of 4 people per vehicle.16 While the new HOV lanes encouraged many commuters to assemble formal carpools, some commuting drivers began soliciting strangers at commuter lots and bus stops to accept free rides so that drivers could legally qualify to use the HOV lanes (LeBlanc 1999, 2001). Independent of any regulating authority, ―slug-lines‖ of willing passengers seeking free rides to work began to form on a regular basis, and drivers seeking to shorten their commutes regularly began to seek out these willing ―slugs‖ (LeBlanc 1999, 2001; Wilson, 2001). Passengers are more commonly referred to as ―slugs,‖ and drivers have been called ―sluggers‖ (Bradford 1997), ―body snatchers‖ (BMI et al. 1999; Kogan 1997), or simply ―drivers.‖ Although this mutually beneficial arrangement of strangers sharing rides has been referred to as ―casual carpooling‖ (Casey et al. 1996, 2000) and ―instant carpooling‖ (Casey et al. 1996, 2000; Reno, Gellert and Verzosa 1989), it is most commonly known as ―slugging‖ in the Washington, DC metropolitan area (BMI et al. 1999; LeBlanc 1999, 2001; Meyers 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Wilson 2001).

16

The minimum occupancy requirement was reduced to three people per vehicle in January 1989 (Reno et al. 1989).

31

Participant Observation Lofland and Lofland (1995) define participant observation as ―the process in which an investigator establishes and sustains a many-sided and relatively long-term relationship with a human association in its natural setting for the purpose of developing a scientific understanding of that association‖ (p. 18). For this study, I engaged in participant observation as a slug and a driver of slugs between commuter lots located in Stafford County, Virginia and designated drop off locations in Northern Virginia and Washington, DC. In the remainder of this section, I discuss entry into the field, adopting a membership role, data collection procedures, sampling strategy and sample description, trustworthiness of data, coding procedures and ethical considerations. Entering the World of Slugging This study began as part of an assignment for a qualitative methods class that I completed in 2001. Because it was opportunistic in nature, I did not engage in any formal preparation as part of this study to facilitate entry into the field. Rather, I took advantage of my current status as a driver of slugs. Nevertheless, I think it important to note how I prepared myself to enter the world of slugging. Before picking up my first slug, I reviewed the content of all websites I could find that discussed slugging in the DC metropolitan area (see LeBlanc 2001; Minyard 2001; Wilson 2001). I reviewed the slug stories, read up on ―slug etiquette‖ and read about the numerous drop-off and pick-up points. I studied the Pentagon parking lot map to determine exactly where I needed to go. I also talked with several friends and coworkers about their knowledge and experiences with slugging, and discussed the option of picking up slugs with my two carpoolers. Although I did not know exactly what I needed to do in

32

order to become a driver of slugs, one day I reached a point where I felt I could not handle another day of stop-and-go traffic and decided to give it a try. I did not assume the role of slug until five and a half years after I had picked up my first slug. Although I had talked to several friends and slugs about their slugging experiences, I sought additional advice from these sources and reviewed the ―official slugging website‖ (LeBlanc 2006) in the weeks leading up to the point where I finally committed to standing in line and accepting my first ride as a ―slug.‖ Adopting a Membership Role Adler and Adler (1987) ―formally advocate that researchers adopt membership roles in the settings they study‖ (p. 35). They specifically identify three roles that researchers may assume: peripheral, active or complete. Researchers assuming a peripheral membership role are least involved and avoid getting involved in central activities of the group being studied (Adler and Adler 1987). Although these peripheralmembership-researchers (PMRs) are very secure in their role as researcher, it is harder for them to get close enough to earn the trust of full members in order to secure insider information from them (Adler and Adler 1987). Researchers taking an active membership role, on the other hand, have a better chance of earning the trust of full members and gaining more insider information (Adler and Adler 1987). These active-membership-researchers (AMRs) earn the trust and confidence of insiders by participating in the same activities as full members. Insiders see AMRs as equals, although they (AMRs) are not fully committed to the group‘s goals and values. At the same time, AMRs are able to step out of the research setting on occasion to reflect upon and analyze their experiences (Adler and Adler 1987).

33

In contrast to the two previously mentioned roles, researchers who accept the complete membership role immerse themselves in their membership role, participate in the same activities as full members of the group and fully commit themselves to the goals and values of the group. According to Adler and Adler (1987), there are two ways in which one becomes a complete-membership-researcher (CMR). CMRs either use their preexisting membership in a group as an opportunity to conduct research (opportunistic), or they are converted to a member of the group (convert) while studying group activities (Adler and Adler 1987). Although my decision to study slugging was opportunistic in nature, I considered myself as having assumed the role of AMR at the end of the first round of data collection. Even though I continued to benefit from participating in the activity of slugging, I never intended to give up my formal carpool to fully immerse myself into the world of slugging; nor had I ever seriously considered assuming the role of slug. However, this would change. By the spring of 2004, my carpool had disbanded; one carpooler transferred to a different federal agency located in DC; the other retired from the federal government. It was at this juncture that I became a regular driver of slugs. When I decided to continue my research on slugging as an example of transient nonintimate sociality, I again took advantage of my status as a member of this group. Although the very nature of slugging perpetuates a certain degree of distance, my covert role as a CMR allowed me to gain considerable insider information about the slugging culture.

34

Data Collection Procedures I began picking up slugs in February of 2001. Each morning that I did not have the three people required for the HOV lanes, I drove to the slug line nearest my home and picked up one to three slugs, depending on the number of people needed to fill all the available passenger seats in my car.17 The typical duration of interaction with slugs was about 50 minutes and usually terminated when I dropped them off at an agreed upon location in the south parking lot in front of the Pentagon. On return trips in the afternoon, I returned to the Pentagon south parking lot which was and still is a major afternoon slugging hub (BMI et al. 1999; Spielberg and Shapiro 2000).18 The duration of interaction with slugs in the afternoon varied considerably depending upon traffic. The shortest duration was 40 minutes when I dropped off slugs at the Route 610 commuter lot in north Stafford County; the longest duration was 110 minutes when I dropped off slugs at the Route 17 commuter lot in south Stafford County. Driven by curiosity and the novelty of slugging, my carpoolers and I were very inquisitive during the first several months of picking up slugs and frequently attempted to engage slugs in conversation. I assumed what Lofland and Lofland (1995) refer to as ―the role of acceptable incompetent‖ and learned more about slugging with each encounter. As Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) note, ―it is only through watching, listening, asking questions, formulating hypotheses, and making blunders that the ethnographer can acquire some sense of the social structure of the setting and begin to understand the 17

If there were not enough slugs in line to fill all vacant seats in my car but enough to qualify for the HOV lanes, I did not wait for additional slugs as this would have seemed peculiar and inconsiderate to the slugs already seated in my car. 18

During the week after the plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001, temporary slug lines were set up along Fern Street and Army Navy Drive near Pentagon south parking lot. Twice during that week, I picked up slugs from the Route 17 line on Fern Street just outside the Pentagon compound.

35

culture(s) of participants‖ (p. 100). Nevertheless, it soon became evident that the advantages of the role of acceptable incompetence were limited in this setting (Lofland and Lofland 1995) when I happened upon some of the same individuals and encountered others who were not eager to educate a new driver. As I interacted with more slugs over time, I began to realize that many were not interested in verbal interactions. As a result, I started to pay closer attention to verbal and nonverbal cues to determine how receptive a slug might be to conversation. If a slug‘s comment or behavior suggested that he or she was not interested in communicating, I did not pursue further conversation (although this was not always the case for my carpoolers). During the course of conversations that did arise, I often interjected questions that included the following topics: average waiting time for a ride, how and when they started slugging (including how they figured out where to go and what to do), why they chose to slug instead of utilizing other means of transportation, how long they have been commuting, what other means of transportation (e.g., buses, trains, or private car) they have used over their commuting careers, whether and under what circumstances they have turned down rides, how their family reacts to their participation in slugging, and what kinds of remarkable experiences (both positive and negative) they have had while slugging. I also engaged in conversations of ―slug etiquette‖ and I compared the behavior and responses of slugs to that which was published on websites and in other written forms. Not long after I began participating in this activity, I began taking detailed field notes of my experiences as a driver of slugs. Because I was driving during my interaction with slugs, I made mental notes about observations and experiences with slugs

36

and often pulled over just around the corner to jot down a few key points I wanted to make sure to include in my field notes. At the first opportunity after arriving at my final destination (i.e., home or office), I sat down with notepad or computer and recorded as much as I could remember about my encounters with slugs for that day. I also recorded a basic description of each slug (e.g., gender, race, age, and attire) and noted my impressions of each encounter. I ended my first round of data collection in September of 2001. I resumed a second round of data collection four years later in November of 2005. Each morning that I did not have the three people required for the HOV lanes, I drove to one of three slug lines located in Stafford County, Virginia19 to pick up slugs and dropped them off at one of three locations in Washington, DC20 or one of four locations in northern Virginia.21 In addition, there were several occasions where morning slugs and I negotiated alternative drop off points, either before they got into my car or at the last minute before we reached an ―official‖ drop off point.22 For the most recent round of data collection, I resumed recording field notes either during or immediately following my slugging encounter. As a driver, I made mental notes along the way and called my voicemail immediately after dropping off slugs

19

These lines were located in the state-maintained commuter lot off of Route 17 in south Stafford County, and state-maintained commuter lots off of Route 610 and Mine Road in north Stafford County. 20 These locations were ―official‖ slug drop-off points and included 14th Street near the intersection with D Street SW, Independence Avenue in front of the Smithsonian Metro Station, and L'Enfant Plaza near the intersection of 7th and D Streets SW. 21 These were ―official‖ slug drop-off points located on N Moore Street near the Rosslyn Metro Center, in the south Pentagon parking lot, and at two locations in Crystal City – Jefferson Davis Highway near the Legal Seafoods Restaurant and next to the Crystal City Metro on 18 th Street. 22 These alternative sites included 15th Street in Crystal City, at the traffic light at the intersection of Jefferson Davis Highway and 23rd Street in Crystal City, in front of the stairs of the Pentagon, two lanes over from the official drop-off point in the south Pentagon parking lot, at the end of the Pentagon exit ramp, at the corner of Army Navy Drive and Fern Streets in Arlington, and on Wilson Boulevard in Arlington before N Moore Street.

37

to leave a detailed message. I later transcribed and elaborated upon my voicemail message using a computer as soon as possible after arriving at my destination (i.e., home or work). As a slug, whenever possible, I jotted notes in a small notebook as I stood in the slug line and rode in cars. If at any point I noticed someone watching me, I resorted to making mental notes, and waited until I was no longer in view of co-participants to jot down key points in my notepad. As soon as possible after I reached my final destination (i.e., home, office, or library), I sat down at a computer to record a more detailed set of notes describing my experiences and observations. I approached my second round of data collection in a similar manner by casually interjecting questions during the course of conversation. During the later stages of the first round of data collection, the frequency of substantive conversation diminished as I became more familiar with slugging culture. Even though it had been acceptable for me as a new driver to ask numerous questions about the slugging process and individual experiences, I was now a seasoned driver. Informed by my earlier data collection and four years of experience as a driver, I had come to understand that most slugs were not interested in conversation beyond the initial ―niceties‖ associated with securing a ride (e.g., preliminary negotiation, expressions of gratitude, and occasional commentaries on weather or traffic). Although I always made it known to slugs that I welcomed conversation, I paid close attention to verbal and nonverbal cues and responded accordingly. If it appeared that a slug was not interested in conversing, I was respectful of this and did not pursue further verbal communication. As a slug, I respected the rules of slug etiquette as I understood them from both written and unwritten sources (e.g., as communicated by other slugs, on websites and

38

other published sources). First and foremost, I thanked all drivers and did not speak unless the driver initiated conversation. While standing in line, I waited my turn and was courteous to other slugs. Participating as a slug provided me with an opportunity to observe and interact with drivers and to observe the behavior of slugs more closely in public as well as private space. Sampling Strategy and Sample Description Two reversible HOV-3 restricted lanes are situated between the north and south bound lanes of the I-95/395 corridor between Dumphries, Virginia and Washington, DC. On weekdays between peak commuting hours of 6:00am-9:00am and 3:30pm-6:00pm, this 27-mile stretch of roadway is restricted to motorcycles, fuel efficient vehicles with special license tags, and vehicles with three or more occupants. As a result, the bulk of casual carpooling in the Washington, DC metropolitan area takes place around these time frames. As of September 29, 2006 the ―official‖ slugging website reported 24 morning slug lines and 16 afternoon slug lines (Leblanc 2007).23 Slugging is a constantly evolving anonymous public transportation system that is not regulated by any public authority (Leblanc 2007). In order to investigate this unique form of transient nonintimate sociality in public and private space, I employed a purposeful sampling strategy. As Lofland et al (2006) note, ―purposeful sampling is appropriate when the population parameters are not known and/or when you want to learn about select cases or variation across a set of cases‖ (p. 92). Operating within the structure and culture of slugging, I engaged in a ―deliberate hunt for negative instances or variations‖ (Miles and Huberman 1994:29). Specifically, I attempted to maximize

23

Warnings were posted that three of the morning lines and two of the afternoon lines were potentially inactive.

39

variation in my sample as follows: (1) engaged in multiple encounters with slugging participants, (2) assumed the roles of driver and slug, (2) picked up, dropped off, and stood in line at multiple slug lines in Virginia and Maryland, (3) picked up slugs and stood in line at different times throughout the morning and afternoon during peak commuting hours, (4) participated as a driver or slug every day of the week, every month of the year, and across all seasons, and (5) conducted two rounds of data collection four years apart which included both pre- and post- 9/11/2001 data. Over the course of my initial eight month data collection period, I interacted with 201 individuals during 106 encounters inside private vehicles. In the subsequent 15 month data collection period four years later, I interacted with 310 individuals during 218 slugging encounters inside private vehicles. My final sample included 324 encounters with slugging participants.24 These encounters included 511 interactions with strangers in a private space, and thousands of interactions – however fleeting – with strangers in public space as they stood in slug lines and attempted to negotiate rides with me or other strangers. Trustworthiness of the Data Although ―the naturalistic investigation, with its preferences for direct apprehension of the social world, has somewhat fewer problems with validity than do research traditions that rely on indirect observation and perception…the naturalistic researcher must critically assess the truth and meaning of every piece of information collected‖ (Lofland et al. 2006:90). As a result, I took steps to ensure the accuracy of my

24

Approximately 126 of these involved individuals had ridden with me during previous encounters. An exact count of unique study participants was not possible since I was not always able to match up ―repeats‖ with my previously recorded encounters with them. In addition, there may have been some people whom I did not recognize and others who may have ridden with me between data collection periods.

40

data and to reduce the chance of potential problems resulting from error and bias. Lofland et al (2006) suggest three basic types of error that can threaten accuracy of data collected during a naturalistic investigation: ―reactive effects,‖ ―perceptual and interpretive distortions,‖ and ―sampling errors‖ (See Lofland et al. 2006:91 for a description of each these error types). I engaged in a maximum variation sampling strategy for the purpose of ―document[ing] diverse variations and identify[ing] important common patterns‖ (Miles and Huberman 1994:28). Hammersley and Atkinson (1995) suggest that time dimensions are frequently overlooked and emphasize, ―patterns of urban life, ‗relations in public‘, the use of public settings, and patterns of deviant activity all follow temporal dimensions: the seasons, the days of the week, and the time of day or night all play their part‖ (p. 49). With this in mind, I engaged in multiple encounters with slugging participants in order to obtain a diversified sample that included variations along several dimensions: times of day within morning and afternoon peak commuting hours, days of the week, months of the year, years, seasons, role of the investigator (slug and driver), composition of vehicle occupants (e.g., number of occupants, all strangers vs. familiars and strangers), pick up and drop off locations, and slug lines. Aside from implementing a maximum variation sampling strategy, I never refused a ride or refused to transport a slug who was headed to the destination I had specified; nor did I engage in any avoidance strategies as I had during the years between the two data collection periods.25 In addition, I engaged in ―member checking‖ to ―provide an

25

On several occasions in 2004-05, when I was pregnant with my daughter, I picked up a very nice and talkative slug who my carpooler nicknamed "Stinky." He reeked of a combination of dirty wet dog, stale smoke and liquor; the odor was so powerful that it made me (more) nauseous, caused my eyes water, and gave me a headache by the time I dropped him off. After several physically unpleasant experiences with

41

additional check on observational and interpretative errors‖ (Lofland et al 2006:94). Specifically, I periodically asked slugging participants to verify my perceptions of certain situations and my understanding of the slugging culture during the course of casual conversation. On more than one occasion during the early stages of data collection, I learned from other slugging participants that I had misunderstood some aspect of the slugging culture or misinterpreted an individual‘s behavior.26 Toward the end of the second data collection, however, I found my impressions and assumptions more frequently validated. 27 Coding Procedures The dissection of field notes, organization of data into meaningful categories, and application of codes are fundamental processes involved in the analysis of qualitative data (Miles and Huberman 1994; Straus and Corbin 1998; Lofland and Lofland 1995; Lofland et al. 2006). Lofland et al. (2006:201) propose two interconnected processes of

this man in my car, I began to utilize several strategies to avoid having to transport him in my car. For example, rather than outright refusing him a ride, I would wait until after I saw that he was picked up by another car before getting into the car lane to pick up slugs or I would announce a destination that I knew he was unlikely to accept. Since I returned from maternity leave, I have not seen him once. Rumor has it that people started refusing to give him a ride and he resorted to slugging out of another slug line. 26 For example, one man in the slug line had hesitated to get in my car until the slug behind him pointed to my car (I assumed she was checking to make sure the man intended to decline my offer of a ride). In response, the man decided to get into my car. Once he got in, I made a comment about the length of the line but he did not respond; I assumed he chose to ignore me since he quickly closed his eyes and went to sleep. As I was approaching a traffic light right outside the Pentagon parking lot, he frantically tapped me on the shoulder and indicated that he was getting out of the car. I had been absorbed in the traffic report on radio and assumed that I had not heard him request an early drop off. When I stopped the car at the light, he got out without saying a word and waved at me as he walked across the road in front of my car. My carpooler suggested that he was a bit strange and I could not decide whether he was rude or indeed a little strange. It was not until I mentioned this encounter to another slug that I learned that this man, who frequently holds a sign indicating his destination, was deaf. 27 I also sought validation from my carpoolers, my friend who originally introduced me to slugging and my husband. All of these individuals are either current or former participants in the slugging culture. Although my friend and husband could only validate my findings from the perspective of a driver, my carpoolers were able to confirm the validity of the strategies and typologies identified in this study from the prospective of a slug and a driver.

42

organizing and classifying data: (1) initial coding, which is parallel to Straus and Corbin‘s (1998) ―open coding,‖ and (2) ―focused coding.‖ According to Lofland et al. (2006), ―initial coding begins by inspecting your interview transcriptions or field notes line by line and asking of each discrete item and/or chunk of information – be it an event, behavior, or place…general open-ended questions‖ (p. 201) about what ideas or meanings are conveyed by the text. Straus and Corbin (1998) also suggest that the analyst may want to code sentences or paragraphs rather than individual lines, by asking questions like ―What is the major idea brought out in this sentence or paragraph?‖ (p. 120). This latter approach ―can be used at any time but is especially useful when the researcher already has several categories and wants to code specifically in relation to them‖ (Straus and Corbin 1998:120). Whereas initial coding may be ―more numerous and varied,‖ focused coding allows the analyst to elaborate upon select initial codes, while ―simultaneously winnowing out less descriptively and analytically useful ones...[that] may begin to assume the status of overarching ideas or propositions that will occupy a prominent place in analysis.‖ (Lofland et al. 2006:201). Miles and Huberman (1994) define codes as, ―tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study…attached to ‗chunks‘ of varying size – words, phrases, sentences, or whole paragraphs, connected or unconnected to a specific setting…[and] are used to retrieve and organize the chunks‖ (pp. 56-7). Coding can be approached in a variety of different ways. Whereas Strauss and Corbin (1998) suggest a more inductive grounded approach, Miles and Huberman (1994) recommend beginning with a preliminary list of codes based on ―the conceptual

43

framework, list of research questions, hypotheses, problem areas, and/or key variables that the researcher brings to the study‖ (p. 58). I took a somewhat blended approach for coding and analyzing my data. Guided by a list of potential categories derived from my research questions and transient nonintimate relationship literature reviewed in the previous chapter, I conducted a preliminary coding, or ―first-level coding,‖ of the data on a rolling basis (Miles and Huberman 1994).28 In addition to using Microsoft Word for storing field notes, I also used a computerized database (MS Excel) to help with data organization and retrieval, and entered preliminary codes in the columns next to supporting text. Miles and Huberman (1994) emphasize that ―for all approaches to coding – predefined, accountingscheme guided, or post defined – codes will change and develop as field experience continues‖ (p. 61). With this in mind, I conducted a second round of coding. During this process, I assessed the fit of original codes, refined some codes, and created subcodes for others that seemed overabundant. I also searched for patterns across cases which sometimes resulted in combining codes into new ―pattern codes‖ (Miles and Huberman 1994). When I discovered data that did not fit into any existing categories even through refinement, expansion or combination of established categories, I created new codes based on emergent themes. In a final stage coding, I reviewed the fit between the data and the final codes and made sure that the typologies and taxonomies that emerged from the

28

The original coding of my first data collection effort in 2001 had been more inductive and was guided by a different theoretical perspective. Although I did not immediately dispose of my original coding, I reviewed the data carefully, keeping my current conceptual framework in mind. I found some of my original codes still relevant to the current study, while others were no longer useful. In addition, as new themes emerged from the data, new codes were assigned to this original dataset.

44

data complied with ―the rule of mutual exclusiveness‖ and ―the rule of exhaustiveness‖ (Lofland et al. 2006). Throughout the data collection and coding process, I engaged in ―memoing‖ as I developed ideas about theoretical connections between the literature and the data, new potential codes, and challenges or reflections of field experiences. Miles and Huberman (1994:72) emphasize that ―memos can also go well beyond codes and their relationships to any aspect of the study – personal, methodological, and substantive. They are one of the most useful and powerful sense-making tools at hand.‖ Sometimes my memos were a few sentences that I inserted into a comment section in my field notes; other times they were more substantive and resulted in a paragraph or two that I incorporated into a separate document. Consistent with the description provided by Miles and Huberman (1994), my memos were ―primarily conceptual in intent…and often tie[d] together different pieces of data into a recognizable cluster‖ (p. 72) that reflected a general theoretical concept. Ethical Considerations Slugging is a public activity with participation open to anyone who is interested. Nevertheless, I seriously considered whether or not to notify the slugs riding in my car that I was not only interested in slugging as a new driver, but I was also interested in their experiences with slugging as a social researcher. I felt that to reveal my intentions to these individuals might make them uncomfortable and perhaps limit the richness of data I wanted to gather. Even as an ―unknown investigator‖ (Lofland and Lofland 1995), I found that the nature of the conversations I engaged in with slugs and drivers were primarily superficial; seldom did individuals divulge intimate details of their personal

45

lives outside of slugging. Regardless of this, I did not record any identifying information I learned from slugs or drivers in my field notes and respected the informal rules of slugging as they became known to me. I believe my research did not have any adverse effects on the slugs or drivers I encountered, and these individuals were at no greater risk riding with me (in my car or theirs) than with any other slug or driver.29

29

I submitted an IRB Exemption Certification Request to the University of Kentucky, Office of Research Integrity (Protocol No. 05-0696-X4G). The Institutional Review Board determined this study met federal criteria for exempt status and I was issued an Exemption Certificate on November 14, 2005. Copyright © Carol A. Hagen 2007

46

CHAPTER 4 THE SOCIAL ORDER OF SLUGGING The laying of a predictable world is the basic function of the culture. It provides the background for shared meaning which makes possible a degree of unpredictability in the behavior of each of its members. It is the task of the social order (of ―society‖) to work out arrangements, the structures, and roles which can protect the individual and his fragile self in his day-to-day interaction with equally fragile selves (Lofland 1972a:96). The Players: Characteristics of Slugging Participants Throughout the course of this study, I interacted with 482 slugs and 29 drivers in private space (See Table 1). The overwhelming majority were dressed professionally (49.9%) or business-casual (32.3%), and the remaining ones were dressed casually (10.4%) or in a military or other uniform (7.4%). Based on estimates of approximate age, a higher percentage of slugs (32.6%) and drivers (31%) appeared to be in their forties than in any other age group. In addition, most of these slugs (63.9%) and drivers (69%) appeared to be Caucasian. Furthermore, slugs (61%) and drivers (72.4) were predominately male. Characteristics of Slugging Participants in Public Space Although I was unable to estimate specific characteristics of all of the slugs I encountered in public space because of the fleeting nature of the encounters, the observations I did make while waiting in my car or in the slug line are consistent with what I observed in private space. For example, on a Thursday morning when I pulled up to the Route 17 slug line, I observed most of slugs waiting in line were men: There was a short line (4 men & 1 woman) and when I announced "3 for the Pentagon," the first guy in line sat in the back seat and the second one (at the end of the line) got into the front seat. [Field Notes: 4/12/2001].

47

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Slugs and Drivers Encountered in Private Space: Age, Race and Gender by Participation Role30 Participation Role

Characteristics

Slug

Driver

Combined*

f

%

f

%

f

%

20s

56

11.6%

5

17.2%

61

11.9%

30s

155

32.2%

6

20.7%

161

31.5%

40s

157

32.6%

9

31.0%

166

32.5%

50s

96

19.9%

8

27.6%

104

20.4%

60s

18

3.7%

1

3.4%

19

3.7%

Total

482

100.0%

29

99.9%+

Caucasian

308

63.9%

20

69.0%

328

64.2%

Black

143

29.7%

8

27.6%

151

29.5%

Other

31

6.4%

1

3.4%

32

6.3%

482

100.0%

29

100.0%

Male

294

61.0%

21

72.4%

315

61.6%

Female

188

39.0%

8

27.6%

196

38.4%

482

100.0%

29

100.0%

Age

511 100.0%

Race

Total

511 100.0%

Gender

Total

511 100.0%

f = frequency % = percentage of occurrence + = error due to rounding * = an aggregation of slugs and drivers

30

Demographic characteristics depicted in this table are assumptions based on observations or deduced from information provided by study participants during conversations. Whenever traveling in the company of my regular carpoolers, I conferred with them regarding their estimates of slug characteristics.

48

I noticed a similar pattern one Thursday afternoon as I briefly stood in the Route 610 slug line in Rosslyn: There were five guys and two women in line ahead of me. They were all dressed casual or business-causal which makes sense since it is Friday ("casual Friday" is a perk offered by many area employers). [Field Notes: 8\4\2006]. While I was waiting in line at the Pentagon one Monday afternoon, I observed the majority of slugs in front of me were Caucasian professionally dressed men: More than half of the people in front of me were wearing ties. All but 4 were dressed business-professional (3 were dressed business-casual & 1 was wearing a military uniform). There were 2 African American women, 1 Hispanic woman; and 18 Caucasian men standing in front of me in line. One man in particular was wearing a very expensive looking suit. I could see wedding rings on at least 4 people. Everyone was silent in line. [Field Notes: 9/11/2006]. I recorded a similar pattern on the following Friday afternoon as I stood in line at the Pentagon: Everyone in the line was quiet except the two behind me that briefly chatted quietly -- the sounded like they knew each other. He told her, "I was supposed to leave at 3:30 with my carpool, but I didn't make it" (that's why he is slugging). Ahead of me in line were 6 Caucasian men (2 dressed professionally, 2 business-casual & 2 casual), 1 African American man (military uniform), and 1 Caucasian woman (business-casual). All the cars ahead of us (including us) "maximized" and took as many slugs as their automobiles would accommodate. [Field Notes: 9/15/2006]. Part-Time Slugs versus “Die-Hard” Slugs There seem to be two types of part-time slugs. The first combines slugging with another mode of transportation, often spontaneously. I gave a ride to two co-workers who normally carpooled to work, but decided to slug when their third carpooler notified them that he would not be commuting with them that morning: As we approached the Pentagon exit, the woman asked if we were actually going to the Pentagon. When I explained that we weren‘t, but still needed

49

to go through the Pentagon parking lot to get to the GW Parkway, she asked if I would mind letting them off at the parking lot right before we turned onto Fern Street. I agreed. As it turns out, these slugs are coworkers and work for the DEA. They usually carpool, but the driver was out today, so they decided to slug. They only slug every once in a while. When we dropped them off, they both thanked us for the ride. [Field Notes: 4/19/2001]. Another slug, a professionally dressed woman in her 30s who had only been commuting for about 2 years, told me that she recently started slugging in combination with other forms of transportation after her carpool fell apart: When I asked, she indicated that she has been slugging on and off for about a month. She used to car pool but ―it dissolved -- we were getting on each other‘s nerves.‖ She said she alternates how she gets to work and even takes the bus every once in a while. She said that she has been commuting for about 2 years now, but she is not sure ―how much more‖ she ―can take.‖ [Field Notes: 5/4/2001] The other type of part-time slug is the ―fair weather slug.‖ This is a person who slugs only when the weather is good. On rainy days and in winter, these slugs often choose another mode of transportation to work. One memorable Tuesday morning, an African American woman in her 20s wearing military fatigues speculated that the unusually long line that day was caused by this type of part-time slug: I commented that the line was unusually long today, and # 2 commented that ―there were a lot of new faces today.‖ I asked them if the line was that bad yesterday and #1 said that it was not. #2 said, ―they will all disappear come October‖ implying that they will no longer ―slug‖ once the weather starts getting cooler (I got the impression that she was annoyed with those who only do this part-time). [Field Notes: 9/11/01]. In contrast to fair weather slugs, ―die-hards‖ slug on a daily basis: rain, sleet or snow. Many of them have been slugging for years. Some die-hard slugs seem to look down on fair weather slugs because they are perceived as ―not dedicated‖ – people whose limited participation causes fluctuations in the system. This was essentially the message I

50

received from one professionally dressed man told me who had been slugging for over 6 years: Slug #2 mentioned that there were a lot of ―fair weather slugs‖ out today (it was in the 70s today). He explained to us that these people are different than the ―die hards‖ (the regulars). "Fair weather slugs" (so named because they usually won't slug if the weather is not good) are part-time slugs and often either not familiar or not committed to the unwritten rules of slugging. As a result, they are more likely to violate them unknowingly - much to the irritation of the "die hards." From his description and the tone of his voice, I assumed he must be a "Die Hard." [Field Notes: 5/16/2001]. Another slug, a professionally dressed Caucasian man, vented his hostility toward his fellow part-time slug, blaming them for recent long lines: He said that he had never had any problems (bad experiences with slugging). He commented, however, that the lines were getting longer and that he couldn‘t wait until the ―fair-weather slugs‖ quit coming (with fall and winter approaching). He seemed resentful of these individuals and said that he ―wished they would just all go home and leave the slugging to the ‗die hards.‘ [Field Notes: 9/7/2001]. Many part-timers are aware of the animosity that some of their slugging colleagues have toward them, but this does not deter disclosing that they slug when it is convenient for them. One African American woman in her 30s openly admitted that she was a fair weather slug: She said that she has been commuting for about 15 years, but she has been slugging for about one month. She used to ride a van pool but more recently she started taking the bus. She said that so far it is working for her, although she didn‘t think she would be slugging in the winter. When I said something about being a ―fair weather slug‖ she ―confessed‖ that she was one. [Field Notes: 5/29/2001].

51

One Wednesday afternoon on our way home from the Pentagon, another slug, a professionally dressed African American man in his 40s readily admitted that he, too, was a fair weather slug: I commented the line seemed rather short today. I told them that I wondered when it would get to the point when there is a longer line of cars rather than a line of slugs. #2 said that it would probably get that way when the weather gets bad (cold). #1 commented that she thought the line of slugs has already started to get smaller. I jokingly stated, ―that‘s fair weather slugs for ya‘,‖ and #2 acknowledged that he was a ―fair weather slug‖ and that, "it's about time I went back to the bus.‖ [Field Notes: 11/7/2001]. Rules of the Social Order - Slugging Etiquette I first learned about ―slugging etiquette‖ from descriptions that appeared on three slugging websites (LeBlanc, 2001; Minyard 2001; Wilson 2001). Appendix A is a compilation of the rules found on these websites at the beginning of this study, and Appendix B summarizes rules found on the only remaining ―official‖ slugging website at the end of the study. Through my experience in the field, I learned that these ―official‖ sources were more reflective of optimal guidelines to promote desirable behavior, rather than documentation of universally accepted practices actualized through daily interactions of slugging participants. Nevertheless, these guidelines gave me some insight into the processes of slugging and the expectations held by some members of a ―community‖ who negotiate and interact with strangers through public and private space on a daily basis. Basic Slugging Etiquette for Slugs Slugs are expected to wait their turn in line and conduct all negotiations with drivers in public space. Acceptance of a ride is essentially a contract with the driver, and slugs are expected to conduct themselves accordingly. The basic assumptions of this pact

52

are that slugs will express their gratitude, follow the driver‘s lead regarding verbal interaction and conduct themselves as would any other guest who has been invited into someone else‘s private space (e.g., be respectful of other people‘s property -- don‘t touch anything without asking). Basic Slugging Etiquette for Drivers At the same time, drivers are expected to wait their turn in line and conduct all negotiations with slugs in public space. Agreeing to accept a passenger is essentially a contract with the slug. As a result, drivers are expected to be hospitable to their passengers, provide an acceptable environment for their ―guests‖ (e.g., clean car, adequate temperature, appropriate volume and content of radio programs or conversations), and drop off their passengers at the designated location agreed upon by both parties. Typical Slugging Experiences: The Driver’s Perspective The majority of the slugs with whom I shared a ride complied entirely with the universally understood basic rules of slugging etiquette, as well as the rules of slugging etiquette depicted on the slugging websites. Nearly everyone expressed their gratitude shortly after accepting a ride and at the end of the commute, and most slugs were courteous and respectful of me and my vehicle. Many were willing to share their experiences and help me ―learn the ropes,‖ and others offered their help when I needed other types of assistance. My first experience picking up slugs was typical of my experiences over the past six years. He was a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 50‘s and was polite, cordial and willing to share his knowledge and experiences of slugging with us:

53

As soon as the man was settled, we let him know that this was our first time picking up a slug and he willing told us about some of his experiences, answered our questions and seemed almost delighted to be able to educate us on slugging….He has been slugging since 1986 and thinks it is a great system. He told us that slugging is very safe and that slugs look out for each other; after a while, he said, you start recognizing the cars. If you don‘t want to ride with someone, you are not obligated…He was very friendly and chatty…As we were approaching the Pentagon, he indicated that he could show us how to go the ―quicker route‖ (turn right at end of ramp instead of left), so we did… He showed us where slugs get dropped off and thanked us for the ride. [Field Notes: 2/6/2001]. Within a few months, I was comforted to realize that members of the slugging community often do look out for each other and that at least some slugs are willing to ―stand by their driver‖ even in times of adversity. One Thursday afternoon, I experienced the consideration, loyalty and understanding of slugs either standing in line or riding in my car: As we were pulling off from the slug line, someone in the 610 line knocked on the front passenger window. rolled down the window and a man told us that our back passenger tire was almost flat… and I got out and took a look and confirmed that the tire was indeed very low. We got back in the car and asked the slugs if they wanted the option of going back or if they wanted to take their chances with us. Slug #2 said that he didn‘t want to go back and stand in the line again…He stated that he couldn‘t speak for the other slug, but that was his position. Slug #1 said that she would just stay with us. We talked about a possible place to get air. Slug #2 said he was not familiar with the area and said that he would defer to our judgment…We ended up getting off at Springfield since I was somewhat familiar with this area and spotted a Goodyear store…I apologized to both slugs for the inconvenience and both of them were very gracious and told me that they would be fine. Slug #2 said that he would be happy if he could just get home before dark so that he could mow the lawn. I told him that I would do my best…Both thanked me as they got out of the car. [Field Notes: 5/24/2001]. I was headed to a doctor‘s appointment in Garrisonville when I picked up three women from the Route 610 line at the Pentagon for the first time one Tuesday afternoon. All three, a Caucasian woman in her 20s who sat in front, and two African American

54

women who sat in back, told me about their slugging experiences. When I told the slugs that I had never been dropped off at the Route 610 lot before, the woman in the front seat was ready and willing to help: I told her that I had never picked up for Garrisonville before and that I wasn‘t sure where the drop off point was. #1 told me not to worry that they (the slugs) would show me the way. She asked where I was going and I told her to the doctor. She asked where and when I told her. She asked if I knew where that was and I told her that I had an idea but I wasn‘t sure. She proceeded to give me detailed directions on how to get to the doctors after I left the lot…They all thanked me for the ride and #1 made sure I knew where to go before she got out of the car. [Field Notes: 6/19/2001]. In addition to providing me with help when I needed assistance, I have really appreciated slugs who were willing to engage in conversation with me. These conversations helped me stay awake, pass the time and ease the tension I was feeling as I shared my personal space with strangers. I was rather anxious one Friday morning when I picked up three professionally dressed men at the slug line. However, one slug, a kind African American man in his 60s, seemed to recognize my discomfort, and struck up a conversation. His willingness to converse – and to a lesser extent the other two men as well -- helped set me at ease: In my attempt to maximize for the purpose of this study and also for my own safety and comfort, I was a little unnerved when I realized that I had just invited three strange men into my car! My mind was telling me that everything would be fine -- this was a perfectly safe activity (slugging) -but I could feel my anxiety level rise as I watched three strange men get into my car. However, I found it a bit comforting when I realized that one of the men had ridden with me before. I also felt a little better when I realized that they were older (early 60's). Although two of the men were rather quiet (including the one who had ridden with me before), I really appreciated the fact that the third one was very social. This (talking and a little humor) really helped me feel more at ease, and by the end of the trip, I was no longer feeling apprehensive. [Field Notes: 6/28/2001].

55

A month later I picked up three slugs headed to the Pentagon. Two of them, a professionally dressed Caucasian woman in her 50s and a professionally dressed African American woman in her 60s, shared their slugging experiences with me, taught me a few things, and engaged me in a lively and humorous conversation that almost made me forget I had three strangers in my car: She asked if I knew where the term ―slug‖ came from. I told her that I had read about an explanation on one of the web sites and related the story (bus drivers – derogatory term). She said that a man had told her that ―slug‖ was an acronym that stood for ―Self-Loading Utility Guest.‖ She said, ―Doesn‘t that just scream army?‖ She said that it was probably a military person who thought of that…Both women work at the Pentagon. I asked them if it was true about the rats in the basement. Slug #2 said that it used to be, but they have been taking care of them with all the renovations. She described how when there were sewer problems that the roaches used to come out of the finger holes of the circular (manhole cover type) vents in the floor and how some of them were too big to get through. She said that the rats would just lift up the cover. She said when they started their project to rid the Pentagon of the rats, the military brought in sharp shooters. She said that it gave new meaning to the phrase, ―one shot - one kill.‖… Both of the women thanked me for the ride when I dropped them off in front of the Pentagon and told me to "have a safe trip." [Field Notes: 7/26/2001]. Typical Slugging Experiences: The Slug’s Perspective The majority of drivers with whom I rode observed the core rules of slugging etiquette. Nevertheless, several drivers committed multiple minor violations such as speeding and drinking or eating. These minor violations, however, are usually overlooked by slugs and are considered within a driver‘s prerogative as the owner and gatekeeper of the personal space – the driver‘s personal vehicle. When I asked several slugs about their experiences with drivers and slugging in general, most reported they had never had a ―bad experience.‖ The experiences they shared with me confirmed that most drivers are usually considerate of their passengers

56

and follow the basic assumptions of slugging etiquette. Drivers usually maintain relatively clean vehicles and drop off their passengers at the appropriate location as agreed upon at the original pick up point. For example, one African American woman in her 20s described her interactions with drivers over the past two months as very positive: Slug #1 has been slugging since March. Slugged one week out of 610 and the rest out of Route 17. Used to carpool. She and the other woman were chatty when they got in and I asked if they knew each other and she said that she and the other woman know each other from slugging. She mentioned having a boyfriend. She said that she has a better commute when carpooling – shorter commute, "but slugging is great." She said that the people who drive "have been marvelous." She said she was really impressed how some drivers will pick up people at the Rt. 3 line -- even though they are actually going to 17 -- so that a person won‘t get left behind. [Field Notes: 5/9/2001] One veteran slug, a Caucasian woman in her late 40‘s with blond hair dressed business-casual, shared that her 20 years experience as a slug has been relatively uneventful. In addition, she expressed her confidence in the slugging community to keep the process safe through communication and the eventual boycott of menacing drivers: She told us that she had been slugging since 1981 and used to slug out of Springfield. I asked her if she usually slugged alone and she said that she did. When I asked if she was ever scared, she said, ―No,‖ and clarified, ―Slugs look after each other; after awhile, you recognize the cars. If a driver is reckless, dirty or otherwise unpleasant, word gets around and people (slugs) know not to ride with them‖…although she was aware that some others have had some unpleasant experiences, she has ―personally never experienced a bad incident.‖ [Field Notes: 3/16/2001]. During a discussion about slugging experiences with two professionally dressed Caucasian women, the older one said she has, "been very fortunate," and has "never had any bad or even uncomfortable experiences" in the six years that she had been slugging [Field Notes: 7/26/2001]. The younger woman, who had been slugging for 2 years, mentioned that she and the other woman sometimes encounter the same drivers on

57

multiple occasions. They had nicknames for some and seemed particularly fond of one driver they referred to as, ―the Chief.‖ The younger woman seemed pleased to have been able to return some of the kindness that he has extended to slugs in the past: Also, she talked about ―the Chief‖ who drives the black Volvo. She and the other slug agreed that this man was really nice and always has a pleasant demeanor. She said that she rode with him a few weeks ago and ―he was very troubled.‖ Apparently, he worked in the office where a woman (active duty) had been killed along with a man execution style. She said that it was rumored as a drug deal gone wrong (involving ―higher ups‖). She said that the Chief was assigned the duty to accompany the body. He was really shook up about this. She said that when she got out, he grabbed her hand and thanked her for staying awake and listening (he knew it was hard – she must have been tired) – ―he said he just had to talk to someone.‖ She was "really moved by this" and pleased that she "could be of some comfort." [Field Notes: 7/26/2001]. Most drivers with whom I rode traveled above the speed limit, which appears to be the norm. One driver, a Caucasian man in his 50s with graying black hair, was very accommodating, interested in engaging us in conversation, and entertained us with his sense of humor. Although his driving made me a bit uncomfortable, my encounter with the driver was otherwise pleasant: The first Rosslyn car was a Lincoln sedan. It was very clean and had very soft leather seats - it was nice to ride in luxury. There was a 12" crack in windshield on driver‘s side. The driver was going between 65-75 most of the way and seemed a bit jerky in his lane transitions. His driving made me a little nervous but he got us safely to our destination….He offered to take 2 without anyone asking…The woman next to him is apparently his wife…He usually tries to work from home 3 times/week, but it didn't work out that way this week…At one point, as we were approaching the exit for Rosslyn, he asked where we'd like to be dropped off (I was surprised that he asked – either he is very accommodating or he doesn't pick up slugs that often). The other slug & I said ―The Metro‖ at about the same time. He said "no takers for Reston?" He smiled and looked in his rear view mirror to see our reactions. I smiled back and said, "Not unless the Library of Congress has moved to Reston"…As we approached the Metro station, he swerved over to the curb and came to a stop. He told us both to ―take care,‖ and we both thanked him as we got out of the back seat. [Field Notes: 8/18/2006].

58

Even when a driver is accommodating and demonstrates a willingness to go beyond what is minimally expected, the social dynamics of being alone with a stranger of the opposite gender in the stranger‘s private space can be unsettling. Such was the case for me after I accepted a ride one Monday morning from a professionally dressed African American man in his 40s: He was driving a red Mazda SUV. It was clean and there was a suit jacket hanging by the driver side back door and a brief case on the floor board behind the driver. I thanked him for the ride as I got in and he replied, "No more for Rosslyn?" I told him, "Not yet" and he turned around. Two more slugs walked by and the driver announced, "Rosslyn," but there were no takers. Both men just shook their heads and moved on to the next car. After waiting about 2 min., a third man approached the car. When the driver said, "Rosslyn," the slug responded, "Would you consider dropping me off at the North Pentagon Parking Lot?" The driver asked if he meant near the stop sign and the slug confirmed. The driver thought for a second (you could see the wheels turning) and he agreed. The other slug thanked him and got into the front passenger seat. The driver averaged around 75 mph the whole way, but handled his car well…He changed the radio station back and forth a few times between WTOP and Comcast Sportsnet…After the other slug got out of the car, the driver said nothing. I suddenly felt very uncomfortable being alone with this strange man -- Although I was not particularly amused with being subjected to a sports news station, I was not really feeling uneasy until after the other slug got out -- more safety in numbers?. When he turned onto the street by the Metro, he did not pull over to the side since another car was where it looked like he was headed...The driver gave me no indication that I was supposed to get out at this point, but I knew it was time…I got out and thanked him for the ride and he replied, "uh huh." He proceeded to make an illegal U-turn in the middle of the road. I was relieved to be out of the car. [Field Notes: 9/25/2006]. Violations of the Social Order As previously noted, minor infractions by drivers are often dismissed as within a driver‘s right as the owner and gatekeeper of the private space shared with slugs. Whereas slugs who violate slugging etiquette are often confronted by drivers or other slugs, there is minimal accountability for drivers who do not abide by the social norms of

59

slugging. While minor infractions of the rules of slugging etiquette by either drivers or slugs may be tolerated or overlooked, any violations – especially more serious ones – threaten the social order of slugging and the institution of slugging itself. Slug Violations If slugs do not follow the rules of the established social order, they may or may not be challenged by drivers. Although many drivers simply overlook minor violations, others may demand strict adherence to the ridesharing agreement (either verbally or through nonverbal cues). The greatest threat to slugs for breach of contract is an increased risk of possible eviction from the car. Failure to Express Gratitude The overwhelming majority of slugs with whom I shared a ride expressed their gratitude shortly after accepting a ride and at the end of the commute; there were a handful of exceptions. There were only two occasions when slugs failed to offer me any expression of gratitude. The first time was on a Thursday morning when I picked up two professionally dressed men in their 30s with blond hair from the Route 17 slug line and dropped them off at the Pentagon: Neither slug said hi, good morning or thank you. One of them (#2) had a mug with some sort of liquid and ice. made a joke about how she could hear something cold with ice and how she knew that he ―would be sharing.‖ Neither man responded. Shortly after we left the commuter lot, Slug #2 leaned his head back and fell asleep. Slug #1 stayed awake for a while and every time I looked in my rear view window, I made eye contact with him and it felt awkward. Finally, he shut his eyes and fell asleep. Both of them sleep for the majority of the trip and woke up as we were exiting for the Pentagon. They remained silent. As they were getting out, I told them to "have a nice day" and they both responded, "You, too," but I did not hear a thank you from either one of them. Afterwards, and I talked about how they were rather ―grumpy,‖ and she said that she didn‘t hear either one of them thank us, and "if they did, it was mumbled and they didn‘t mean it." [Field Notes: 8/16/2001]

60

The second time a slug failed to express gratitude was on a Friday morning when I gave a ride to a casually dressed Caucasian man in his early 30s who had previously ridden with me: When I pulled up to the slug line, I announced "Two for Rosslyn," he got into the front seat after the woman in front of him in line got into the back seat. He was completely silent today -- he did not utter a single word -- he did not even thank me for the ride when he got into the car. I made a few comments about a news story on the radio hoping to engage him in conversation but he acted as if he didn't hear me. This was very uncomfortable, so I turned the radio up just a hair and decided not to try to engage him again…He did not sleep -- In fact, I don't ever think I saw him blink! When I reached the drop off point, he got out of the car quickly and did not look back. Strange... [Field Notes: 6/23/2006]. Another slug, a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 50s, thanked me for the ride as he was getting in the car one Tuesday afternoon, but failed to thank me again at the end of the commute as is customary: He took a seat on the back passenger side and thanked me for the ride getting in. I offered an apology "ahead of time" for my radio that was acting up and said that I hoped that they liked the Eagles. He asked, "CD?" and I replied, "yes." I said that the only alternative was "Pooh," but I didn't think they would enjoy that very much. He didn't say anything after that and was quiet. While the other slug and I were talking, I saw that he leaned his head back and closed his eyes. He slept most of the way. He did not thank me getting out which was a little unusual. [Field Notes: 1/17/2006]. There were a few instances where slugs failed to express their gratitude immediately after accepting a ride, but did thank me for the ride as they were getting out of the vehicle. On one Tuesday morning, a Caucasian woman in her 30s also violated etiquette with excessive use of her cell phone: She did not thank us getting into the car which is unusual. When I asked, she said that she had only been waiting for about 10 minutes. Right afterwards, her phone started to ring and she answered it. and I began quietly talking up front. She answered her cell phone a total of 3 times during the trip -- it seems that the phone kept cutting off (or that's what she kept telling the person she was talking to). Her cell phone played

61

the theme to the movie 48 hours -- it took and I awhile before we figured this out -- it sounded familiar but we couldn't place it. Between phone calls, she seemed to be fiddling with something in her bag…She sounded like a teenager and was saying things like, "She did WHAT? She said WHAT? She'd better watch it..." She chatted/gossiped on her phone throughout the trip…As she was getting out of the car, she told the caller to "hold on a second" and she thanked us for the ride. [Field Notes: 1/24/2006]. I experienced a similar situation one Wednesday morning when I gave a ride to an African American woman in her 40‘s: She got into the back passenger seat without saying a word…At one point, she received a cell phone call and talked for some time. She was still on the phone as we went to drop her off. With one foot out the street and one foot still in the car, she paused for a second to say "thank you" and continued talking as she got the rest of the way out of the car. thought it was "really rude" that the woman didn‘t thank us getting in AND was talking on the phone as she was getting out. [Field Notes: 2/24/2006] A third slug, a Caucasian man in his 60s, forgot to thank us for the ride up front one Friday morning, but managed to be cordial by responding to my greeting: When we announced "Rosslyn," the man nearest the car nodded and got into the back seat. He did not say thank you getting in but did say, ―good morning,‖ after I said it to him. I got the impression by his tone and demeanor that he was not really interested in conversation. By the time I had gotten onto the interstate, he had his head leaned back and his eyes closed. He appeared to be sleeping most of the way. and I chatted quietly up front. Shortly before we got into Rosslyn, I looked back and he was sitting up with his eyes open looking out the window. I pulled up to the curb across from the Metro and he told me, "thank you for the ride" as he got out. [Field Notes: 2/24/2006]. Failure to Complete Negotiations in Public Space A rule violation that I witnessed on more than one occasion was a slug‘s failure to complete all negotiations in public space before accepting a ride. It seems that some slugs are hesitant to negotiate a slightly different drop off point even if it is along the way to the official drop off point. Rather than trying to negotiate this prior to accepting a ride

62

and risk the chance of rejection, some slugs will wait for an opportunity near the end of the commute to attempt last minute negotiations. Essentially, these slugs either act (i.e., jump out of the car) before the driver has a chance to object, or attempt last minute negotiations when they feel it is ―safe‖ (i.e., they are almost at their desired destination). An African American man in his 40s does this on a frequent, if not regular, basis. The first time I encountered him, he announced he getting out early and was out of the car before I had a chance to say anything: He asked "Rosslyn?" as he got in the car and I confirmed. He thanked me for the ride. He was quiet and awake -- looking around the whole time. Although I tried to open up the conversation so that he would know it was okay to join in, he did not chime in. Right before we got to Lynn Street (stopped in traffic), he said, "I'll just get out here if you don't mind. Thank you" and was out and gone before I could respond. [Field Notes: 2/15/2006]. As we started to recognize each other on subsequent trips, he began to give me a little more advanced warning: He recognized us, too. asked him if he worked in Rosslyn and he told us that he works at the Department of Labor in the building at the corner of Lynn & Wilson (ABC building)… Shortly after that he sat back and started looking out the window. He did not say another word until we were stopped at the light at Lynn Street. At that point, (as he was opening the back passenger door) asked me, ―do you mind if I just get out here?" He was halfway out the door before I had a chance to say "sure." He thanked us for the ride, closed the door and darted across the street. [Field Notes: 2/27/2006]. As time passed and I ran into this slug on multiple occasions, I started to realize that he was affording me more and more consideration. Although I knew ahead of time that he was going to try to negotiate at the last minute, I often waited until he initiated these negotiations: He cheerfully thanked me as he got in the car. I recognized him as the guy who works at the Department of Labor in the building at the corner of Lynn

63

& Wilson (ABC building). I asked him how he was doing today and he replied, "Just fine, thank you." Before I got onto the interstate, I looked back and he had leaned his head back against the headrest and had closed his eyes…Today he asked permission to get out while we were waiting at the Lynn St. light…I told him, "sure." He thanked me and said, "You ladies have a nice day." He then quickly got out of the car and darted across the street toward the ABC building. commented, "I thought that was him -- but he was so quiet today." [Field Notes: 9/19/2006]. Some slugs are slightly more courageous and start re-negotiations for an early drop off location closer to the beginning of the commute. This was the case one Thursday morning when I gave a ride to a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 30s with dark hair: After #2 got in, I told the two of them that they might need to negotiate leg room. I mentioned that my husband (6‘3‖) had been in the seat and I had just moved it forward without trying to guess distance between. They both said that the seat was fine. #2 mentioned his wife (she is 5‘2‖ and he is 6‘). He told me that he worked in Crystal City and asked to be let off at the end of the ramp for the Pentagon. I agreed. He pulled out a book and started reading shortly after we left the commuter lot. I took this as a cue that he really was not interested in talking, so I turned up the radio. He read most of the way….As we approached the exit, #2 quickly closed his book and stuck it in his brief case. He thanked me for the ride before he got out at the end of the ramp. [Field Notes: 8/2/2001]. Not all drivers are as accommodating and are not willing to re-negotiate the original conditions of the ride sharing ―contract.‖ Such was the case with my carpooler‘s neighbor who denied a slug‘s attempt to re-negotiate the terms of their agreement: I told them about the guy I rode with yesterday who agreed to drop the other slug off near the entrance to the N. Pentagon parking lot on his way to Rosslyn. I told them that a guy had asked me to do that once as I was approaching the N. parking lot exit off of Washington Blvd (which I agreed to do), but that I couldn't remember if this was the same guy. said she wondered if this was the same guy who rode with her and her neighbor one morning. If it was, perhaps he had "learned a lesson" from his experience with them and made sure the driver was willing to drop him off there before he accepted the ride. She explained that their slug had ―waited until the last minute‖ to tell her neighbor (who

64

was driving) that he "wanted to get out on the side of the road" near the underpass on the exit/service road along the edge of the North Pentagon parking lot that feeds into the main road leading to Rosslyn. (There are a set of stairs there). said her neighbor refused to let him out of the car because she was afraid that she might get a ticket from the police for "illegal discharge of a passenger." (There are several signs that warn drivers not to do this near and around the Pentagon parking lots). He tried to convince her that she wouldn't get a ticket, but "she absolutely refused to let him out of the car." As a result, "they had words." went on to explain that, "she told him that she agreed to take him to the Rosslyn Metro and that was where she was going to drop him off!" Despite his protesting, "She took him all the way to Rosslyn Metro Station anyway." speculated that he "must have had quite a hike to work that morning" since the Rosslyn Metro is at least a mile away from where the slug wanted to be dropped off. [Field Notes: 9/26/2006]. Although some slugs like the one above have obviously planned ahead of time to attempt to renegotiate their drop off point once they have already accepted a ride, the lastminute decision for some slugs is spontaneous. I believe this to be the case for one African American woman in her 50s on her way to Crystal City one Wednesday morning: When she first approached the car, we said Rosslyn. When she said "no thank you," we asked her where she was going. She said Crystal City and we told her we would go there. She said "great! Thank you" and told us (as she was getting into the car) that the three cars ahead of us were also Rosslyn. We exchanged a few words commenting on how you just can't tell what the lines are going to be like. She said she "will go to Pentagon in a pinch." We asked her where she was going in Crystal city and she asked us if we knew where the Legal Seafood Restaurant was. When we indicated that we did, she told us that we could drop her off there…As we sat at a long light (about to turn left toward Legal Seafood), I heard her gathering up her things (she had several plastic grocery bags, a purse and a canvas bag and suddenly she announced, "I‘ll just get out here. Thank you" and quickly exited the car. She seemed a bit anxious (perhaps running late for work?). [Field notes: 2/1/2006]. Other Slug Offenses against Drivers When I slugged one Friday afternoon, a seemingly volatile driver related an incident where a female slug‘s excessive cell phone use infuriated him. Although he did not enforce the ―ultimate consequence‖ for the woman‘s violation of slugging etiquette, I

65

knew that the threat was real and was flabbergasted that the slug next to me seemed oblivious to this: We all thanked him for the ride as we got in. He acknowledged us by nodding his head, but did not say anything. He was listened to WTOP on the radio. It was clear to me that he was not interested in conversation… He averaged about 80 mph when there was little traffic and used blinkers most of the time but usually last minute -- rather jerky lane transitions. At one point, he made an inaudible comment when we passed an accident. The front passenger stirred but went back to sleep. When he reached the 1 1/2 mile back up near the end of the HOV, he said, "I really hate living here. I really do!" -- Obviously referring to the traffic. The front passenger woke up and replied, "uh huh" in acknowledgement. When the back passenger side slug apologized for talking on the phone, the driver said that he had a lady ride with him the other day that "was talking on the phone when she got in and never got off!" He was indignant that she was, "down right disrespectful!" and obviously, "had NO clue about the basics of slugging!" He apparently did not verbally confront her -- implying that he was a "gentleman" -- and ended by saying, "she's damn lucky I didn't kick her out at the end of the HOV!" As he related the story of his encounter with this woman, I nodded sympathetically as he looked back at us through rear view mirror, but I did not say a word. I didn't dare. Right after that, another driver cut in front of him and he barked, "Idiot!" We all remained silent until the cell phone rang again. As this guy's phone next to me rang again, and then a third time...I cringed. [Field Notes: 9/29/2006]. Although I don‘t think that excessive cologne use is an intentional violation of slugging etiquette, it is still offensive and makes for an uncomfortable commute. One Tuesday morning I gave a ride to a professionally dressed African American woman in her 50s who had apparently gotten a little carried away with her perfume: As she was getting in, she thanked me for the ride. I noticed almost immediately that she was wearing a really strong floral perfume. Phew! I asked her if it felt good to be stepping out from near the end of the line -she confirmed. She said she actually works in DC, "but if a Rosslyn comes along first," she "takes it since [her destination] is only two metro stops away from Rosslyn." I tried to ignore her perfume, but it really started to bug me. I opened the vents to let in some fresh air from the outside. It really didn't help much, and I had to close the vents periodically when we got behind a bus. I seriously debated which was worse - the ghastly perfume or the diesel fumes from the commuter buses. It was a tough call.

66

Ugh! I was very thankful that the traffic was light this morning and I only had to put up with this for 47 minutes. [Field Notes: 4/11/2006]. While most drivers seem to ignore minor violations of slugging etiquette or will attempt to induce slugs to amend offending behavior – often through subtle but effective means (e.g., glares, turning up the radio), some drivers may be unaware of the extent of a violation until after the fact. Although not during this study‘s data collection period, I realized the next morning after transporting two slugs that one of them, who had been eating peanuts during the commute, decided to leave her peanut shells on the floor behind my seat. When I shared this story with a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 50s one Wednesday morning, he told us about another female driver who also realized after the fact the extent of a violation. This woman, however, had an opportunity to confront the violator and did: I told him about the woman who had left peanut shells in the floorboard of my car behind the driver‘s seat. He replied, "At least they weren't your peanuts," and then proceeded to tell us a story that a driver shared with him sometime ago. She told him that a middle aged man had ridden with her one morning and she said he was a doctor (or some other similar prestigious profession). At some point during the ride, he started eating crackers and drinking soda. When she stopped at the drop off point, the man wiped the crumbs out of his beard and said, "Thanks for breakfast." She said she was confused at first until she realized that he had eaten her crackers and drank her soda. She was furious and told him, "that he better not ever attempt to ride with her again because she would embarrass him in public" (inferring during the process of refusing him a ride). As our slug got out he said, "Thanks for letting me break the rules." and I couldn't figure out what he meant by that -- did he think he was breaking the rules because he was talking? We didn‘t think so. We had encouraged (and enjoyed) our conversation with him. [Field Notes: 9/12/2006]. Slug Offences against Other Slugs Inevitably, some slugs will attempt to circumvent the basic rules of slugging for their own gain. These individuals, however, are usually confronted by other slugs who

67

interpret these actions as unfair and consider them a threat to the viability of the system. One Thursday morning on the way to the Pentagon, one of the slugs in my car, a professionally dressed Caucasian woman in her 30‘s with dark hair, related an incident of this nature. She explained that a male slug had attempted to take a ride out of turn when the slug in front of him hesitated; the slug in front of him was deaf and had not immediately realized that it was his turn: When I got close to the traffic light where I turn right onto Fern Street, Slug #2 asked if I would stop at the corner to let Slug #3 out since he works in Crystal City. I said yes. As he got out, he gestured a thank you. After he got out, I told them that it took me a little bit to realize that he was deaf. Slug #2 seems to look out for him. She related a story where someone had started to cut in front of Slug #3 because he didn‘t realize the car was going to the Pentagon. She said that she confronted the slug who "got mouthy," but she "put him in his place" – she said that the rest of the line supported her. [Field Notes: 7/26/2001] A professionally dressed Caucasian man in his mid to late 20‘s accepted a ride from me to Rosslyn one Friday morning. I thought it odd that he was at the head of the line, but had his back to me as I pulled up. As it turned out, he had just been involved in an incident where he and several other slugs had challenged a woman who had attempted to circumvent a well established rule of slug etiquette that all slugs must wait their turn in line: He seemed a bit disgruntled about something, but still said, ―thank you,‖ as he got in…I asked him how he was doing and he said emphatically that he had "never had a bad experience [with slugging] until today!" When I asked what he was referring to, he told us that, "someone thought she didn‘t have to stand in line. She thought she could use her briefcase as a place holder and sit in her nice cozy car while the rest of us stood in the rain. I don‘t think so!" He said that he and several of the other slugs confronted her and gave her a hard time when she would not concede that she was violating slugging etiquette. He said, ―then, it got ugly." He said that it ―almost turned into a race thing‖ and emphasized that "there‘s no place for that!" Once he got that off his chest, he seemed to relax a bit. [Field Notes: 4/13/2001].

68

Interestingly, the man who ended up picking up this woman that day rode with me one Monday morning and was still talking about her almost two months later. He was a Caucasian man in his 50‘s and was apparently very taken back by this woman‘s behavior. Although he would have been completely within his rights to ask her to stop talking – or at least to stop cursing, he seemed to be intimidated by her and implied that he regarded her as mentally unstable: He gave a ride to a woman who had just gotten into an altercation with some other slugs. She had sat in her car to get out of the rain and the other slugs got upset. She apparently got mad when they confronted her. She vented to him ―the whole way about she had been slugging for years and kept using the ‗f‘ word.‖ He emphasized that he thought she was "a real loose cannon," and said he ―made the mistake of saying something about how she must have violated some ‗slug etiquette‘ and she went OFF!‖ He said that he has seen her a few times since then and prayed that she didn‘t end up in his car again. [Field Notes: 6/4/2001]. Another well established norm of the slug line is the principle of ―first come, first serve.‖ In other words, the slug at the head of the line has his or her choice of seating; others are expected to wait until the first has made a selection. One Monday afternoon when I was standing in line at the 610 line in the Pentagon south parking lot, I witnessed the ―head slug‖ enforcing the well-established norm: While I was waiting in line, I observed a professionally dressed (white shirt with tie) African American man in his 20s head for the rear passenger door. As he reached for the door, a Caucasian man in his 50s dressed business casual and carrying a nap sack (who had been at the head of the line) said in a firm but polite tone, "I'd like to ride in back." When the young man apparently did not hear the older slug (because he had music earphones on) and started to open the rear passenger door, the older slug repeated in a much louder voice, "I SAID, I'D like to ride in back!" The young man, obviously startled by the volume and tone of the other slug's voice, stepped back and allowed the head slug to get in the rear passenger side of the car before then getting into the front seat. [Field Notes: 9/18/2006].

69

Driver Violations Many slugging participants both drive and pick up slugs and seem to appreciate the importance of cooperation and courtesy in the maintenance of the slugging system. When a driver violates the social norms of slugging, it may often be unpleasant for slugs and puts them in an awkward position. Unfortunately, there is minimal accountability for drivers who do not extend these courtesies. Because slugs are ―guests‖ in a stranger‘s personal vehicle, and this vehicle is moving at a high rate of speed, most slugs feel that they cannot object to unpleasant conditions and just ―ride it out.‖ Slug Deference to the Driver: ‘It’s Your Car” As I listened to several stories about slug experiences with drivers who violated slugging etiquette, many of them reported that they did not, or felt they could not, confront the driver. Some felt that certain violations were serious enough to risk conflict, and others just felt they had no recourse. The majority of slugs acknowledged that they were a ―guest‖ in someone else‘s car and repeatedly deferred to the driver if consulted. I was amazed at how many times I heard the phrase, ―It‘s your car.‖ One Friday morning, I gave a ride to a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his mid to late 20s who believes it is the driver‘s prerogative keep the radio at any volume level, even if it makes a slug‘s commute unpleasant. He essentially regards this as the cost of a free-ride: I asked him if he had had any unpleasant experiences while riding as a slug and he told me about one woman who played the music excessively loud. He said that "you couldn‘t say anything because you are a slug riding in her car, and besides, it's a free ride." When I told him that I try to ask people first before I turn up the volume (usually for the traffic report), he said "don‘t bother – it‘s your car." [Field Notes: 4/13/2001].

70

One Wednesday afternoon, a woman in her 40s with curly strawberry blond hair who had ridden with me before and a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 30s with a military-style haircut engaged in a discussion about their slugging experiences. They both told me that drivers who speed or otherwise drive poorly are not uncommon. Although uncomfortable with this type of driving, both felt it would be inappropriate to confront the driver: Both slugs reported having ridden with people who drove recklessly (speeding excessively, tailgating, etc.) – both of them reported feeling unable to say anything about it because, as Slug #2 put it, "you are just slugs in another person‘s car"). Slug #1 nodded in agreement and added that she feels "you are a guest, but essentially have no rights as a slug – you are at the mercy of the driver." Slug #2 agreed. Slug #2 commented that all these stories could make a great book and that this would be great case study for a sociologist. I told him that as a sociologist I agreed with him. I also told him, ―and don‘t think that I‘m not keeping field notes.‖ He smiled and laughed. [Field Notes: 8/22/2001]. Another morning, I apologized to the slug riding with us for not being able to ―maximize‖31 the number of slugs in my car -- I could not move the car seat into the trunk to accommodate an additional slug because my trunk was full. At first I felt as though this Caucasian woman in her 20s was subtly trying to make me feel guilty, but quickly conceded that it was my right to limit the number of slugs in my car: She said that she had waited about 30 minutes – there had been no cars. I apologized for not moving the car seat – she said she understood. She mentioned the woman behind her was also waiting for Rosslyn. I said that I felt bad and she said, "Don‘t – it's your car and besides, she'll get a ride." [Field Notes: 1/10/2006]. As a regular commuter, I am often challenged by traffic congestion and accidents and frequently consider alternative routes. Although choosing an alternate route is not

31

If there is a long line of slugs and few drivers, rules of slugging etiquette encourage drivers to fill up all the available seats in their vehicle.

71

considered a violation of etiquette, doing so without consulting or notifying slugs can cause your passengers undue stress and anxiety.32 One Thursday morning I faced such a challenge and decided to consult the slugs in my car about the route I was planning to take. The professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 40s sitting in the back passenger seat agreed that my decision was probably best, while at the same time deferring to my judgment: After they were settled, I told them that this might be a long ride since I had heard about a trash truck/tractor trailer accident at Triangle. I told them that I planned to take my chances with 95 versus Route 1 if no one had any objections. #1 said that every time he "decided to bail out at Route 1" when he was driving, he "always regretted it." He added, "Besides, it's your car – I'm just along for the ride." [Field Notes: 6/21/2001]. I witnessed a similar encounter one Friday morning when I was slugging. The driver consulted me and the other slug regarding what route she should take considering the traffic. Without hesitation, the African American woman in her 40s sitting up front deferred to the driver: The traffic backed up in a few places where state police cars had pulled over to the side with their lights flashing. As we approached Dumfries, we heard on the radio that the HOV was backed up. She decided to get off. As the traffic thickened, she asked if we thought she should get off at Rt. 1 – we told her whatever she wanted to do and the woman in the front said, "It‘s your car." She decided to get off on Rt. 1. Traffic was a little thick, but not bad. After consulting us again, she decided to get back on the interstate at the second Quantico exit. [Field Notes: 8\4\2006].

32

One afternoon between the two data collection periods, I was commuting home with two men. One told me of an afternoon when he decided to take back roads to the commuter lot since there was a significant back-up on I-95 South. Since the two slugs riding with him were sleeping, he decided not to wake them. The woman awoke as he was traveling on a back road and began to scream – demanding that he immediately stop the car. He tried to tell her that he meant no harm and was just trying to avoid delays caused by an accident on I-95. He told her that he wasn‘t going to leave her on the side of the road and promised to get her to the commuter lot. She panicked when he refused to pull over and started to call 911. The other slug, with whom she was somewhat familiar, finally calmed her down and convinced her that the driver was telling the truth. My passenger advised me that if ever I was considering another route to make sure my slugs were aware. Although I usually made a habit of this anyway, I made sure not to forget this sound advice.

72

Violations against Slugs: Experiences Shared by Others The failure of drivers to be hospitable to their ―guests‖ may result in an extremely unpleasant if not intolerable experience for some slugs. These violations may not only cause slugs to feel uncomfortable as they co-exist in the driver‘s private space, but they may also threaten the physical safety of these passengers. A Caucasian woman in her 30‘s, who had been slugging for about a year, shared an incident with me in which the driver and her traveling companion got into a violent argument: I asked her if she has had any bad experiences since she started slugging, and she told me that, for the most part, ―everyone has been pretty nice." Only once did she have what she would ―consider a bad experience,‖ and that was when she accepted a ride from 2 women who normally carpooled with each other everyday. She said the passenger wanted to go home early and the driver told her that she didn‘t think she could get off early again since she has taken so much time off lately for the passenger. The passenger then proceeded to call someone on her cell phone, told the person that she ―wouldn‘t be able to go to JR‘s soccer game because somebody was being inconsiderate.‖ With this comment, the driver reached over, grabbed the cell phone out of the hands of the passenger and threw it across the car. The two women started arguing and slapping each other. She (the slug) said that she was horrified, but there was nothing she could do. She said that both of the women apologized to her several times, but they were apologizing for the other‘s actions which would then end up in another squabble. She said when they finally reached the lot, she ―couldn't get out of that car fast enough.‖ She emphasized that "I would never act like that!" She went on to say, "If they do that to too many people, word is going to get around!"…She added, "Can you imagine that?! Two grown woman acting like that?! With me, a stranger, in the back seat?!" [Field Notes: 5/23/2001] An account of a similar encounter came out in a discussion three of us were having about our slugging experiences during one Friday morning commute. This time, however, the driver and passenger completely ignored their ―guest‖ as they submitted her to a hostile environment: shared a story with us that her friend told her this week. The friend told her that she had "slugged for the first and last time!" She

73

had accepted a ride one morning from a couple who started to argue with each other as if she wasn't even in the car. The argument apparently got heated and escalated. The woman who had been driving eventually pulled over to the side of the HOV and stopped the car. The couple got out of the car and literally "started duking it out." The friend was appalled. The couple eventually reconciled and continued the commute as if nothing had happened. Although 's friend arrived safely at her destination, the incident was so traumatic for her that she swore she would "never slug again!" [Field Notes: 7/28/2006]. Aside from the physical altercation among drivers and their familiars, there are other types of violations that can make sharing a stranger‘s private space environment an unbearable experience. Although the horrible experience one slug shared with me one Wednesday morning is an anomaly, it demonstrates how some drivers have no regard for their ―guests‖ and completely ignore the fact that the environment they have provided is unacceptable: She told us that she had been slugging for a while, but with the exception of one incident, she had never had a bad experience. When I probed, she explained that she had been a slug when a front passenger began vomiting and continued to periodically vomit throughout the ride to the Pentagon. The driver was apparently unaffected by this. She (the slug) suspected that the male passenger had been drinking (perhaps hangover from the night before). She said that the guy appeared to be asleep at first. When he unexpectedly vomited all over the dashboard, she (the slug) was horrified, especially since "the driver completely ignored him" and her (the slug) "She never acknowledged anything was even wrong!" Our slug speculated that the driver may have been the passenger's girl friend and she may have been angry with him. The passenger vomited a few more times along the way, and in between he put his head back and appeared to be sleeping again. She was the only slug and was alone through this entire experience. I asked her how she dealt with this and she said "What could I do? I just crouched down in my seat, closed my eyes and held my breath!" [Field Notes: 3/14/2001] An example of another driver who completely disregarded the comfort, safety and well-being of her passengers was related to me one Friday afternoon by the middle-aged

74

man who had previously ridden with me as my ―first slug.‖ He described how this driver‘s erratic behavior and reckless driving bordered on psychosis: Slug #2 reported only one bad experience and this was several years ago when the HOV lane used to be the left lane and not separated from the rest of the lanes. He and another man were picked up by ―a gray haired lady with wild hair‖ whose car ashtray was overflowing. She did not talk to them the whole time. She saw an HOV violator and started honking and cursing at the driver. She then spotted a motorcycle cop under an overpass (they usually waited there to catch HOV violators). She stopped in the lane to tell the cop about the violator. ―The cop wanted nothing to do with it and told her to move on.‖ This angered the woman who sped off, cursing at the cop. Further down the road, the woman spotted another violator behind her and slowed down to a crawl. Then she sped up. As soon as the violator sped up to the speed she was going, she slammed on her brakes. The violator was able to stop his car in time, but the car behind him didn‘t and slammed into the back of the violator‘s car. The woman laughed out loud to herself and proceeded down the road. This whole time she didn't say a word to them. "It was as if we weren't even there." Here they were trapped in a car with this woman who "was just plain nuts!" Not far up the road on the ramp to the commuter lot, she spotted another cop, pulled up to him to tell him that there had been an accident and that it was all the HOV violators fault for being in the HOV lane. The cop told her to move on and she proceeded to argue with the police officer. Slug #2 and the other slug took this opportunity to quickly get out of the woman‘s car and decided to walk the rest of the way to the lot. [Field Notes: 5/4/2001]. Driver violations that seriously jeopardize the welfare of slugs are relatively rare. Furthermore, driver violations that affect the quality of the private environment shared by drivers and slugs are not always as outrageous as the ones described above. Nevertheless, ―lesser‖ offenses can have real and serious consequences, and may be equally distressing for slugs. Although the expectation that a driver remain awake while driving is a ―no brainer,‖ some drivers apparently do not get enough sleep before getting behind the wheel. During a discussion of slugging experiences one Tuesday morning among myself, my carpooler and a slug who has ridden with us in the past, my carpooler (who I actually

75

met through slugging) shared that one of her biggest fears is a driver to fall asleep at the wheel. For this reason, she never allows herself to fall asleep: After my story about the woman with the upside down mats, and I shared a few other experiences. never sleeps when she is slugging -- she is afraid to. She told us that she has ridden with more than one driver who has started falling asleep at the wheel. One guy actually told her that he had not slept well the night before and asked if she would mind talking to her. She said she talked to him until she was ―almost blue in the face -- but he stayed awake!" On another occasion, the driver‘s ―eyes were heavy and at one point, and he started to go over into another lane.‖ Although this scared her, she was hesitant to talk to him because he made it quite clear that he was ―not a morning person,‖ and clarified that, "he was in no mood to talk!" suggesting that the man might evict her from the car if she "crossed the line." As a result, she resorted to making noises -- clearing her throat and coughing when ever she saw that he was about to nod off. She did this on and off through the whole commute. She emphasized how she ―can‘t understand how people -- including my sister -- can fall asleep so fast‖ before first determining whether or not the driver is a safe one. [Field Notes: 9/12/2006]. The following morning, the slug who had ridden with us the previous day decided to share techniques he uses to keep drivers awake. Although perhaps effective, my carpooler and I questioned whether they were appropriate: He talked about the strategies he uses to keep people awake. He told us he might say something to the effect of, "You look rather tired. If you want, you can pull over and I'll drive" or "I'm tired and I'm going to take a nap. If you feel at anytime that you might like to join me, wake me up and we can talk" or "You look a little tired. Do we need to talk about something to keep you awake?" and I agreed that his approaches were rather straight forward and sounded a bit condescending -- even bordering on violation of slug etiquette. [Field Notes: 9/13/2006] Another less serious violation against slugs involves the driver making a stop along the way before they reach the final agreed upon location. Although violations of this nature are perceived as an inconvenience, many slugs understand when they consider the circumstances under which these violations occur. One Caucasian man in his 40s

76

shared with me one incident when he was mildly annoyed with a driver who made a stop along the way: Slug #2 said that he had been slugging for 5 years. When I asked both slugs about any unpleasant experiences…#2 said that he ―rode with a man once that had to make a detour for a bathroom." He said that it ―wasn‘t really a bad experience,‖ but told us that he thought that the driver ―should have taken care of business before he left work,‖ and added, ―I know I do.‖ [Field Notes: 6/5/2001] Surprisingly enough, not all driver detours turn out to be negative experiences for their passengers. One Wednesday morning, a professionally dressed man in his 20s described how one driver‘s stop along the way actually turned out to be beneficial for both the driver and her slugs: Slug #2 told me of a woman who picked him and another slug up one morning. She immediately announced that she was starving and was planning to stop at McDonalds before getting onto the highway. Without asking if they minded, she pulled up to the drive through. Before completing her order, she asked them if they wanted anything. Slug #2 said, ―why not‖ and told the driver what he wanted as did the other slug. When I asked if she treated, Slug #2 chucked and replied that he and the other slug paid for their own food and added, ―But at least we got breakfast that morning.‖ [Field Notes: 5/23/2001]. On the rare occasion that a slug does confront a driver for a violation of slugging etiquette during a commute, the driver does not usually take the criticism well. One slug, a professionally dressed Caucasian female in her 30s with long strawberry blond hair, shared her experiences with a driver who was confronted by a slug about her excessive speed: She has ridden with a few speeders and tailgaters but that is it. The worst experience she ever had was when she was riding with a woman who was doing 90 mph. She said she was really scared and the "other slug spoke up and told the driver off.‖ She said that "the slug told her if she wanted to risk her own life speeding that was one thing, but that she really shouldn‘t be putting everyone else in the car at risk by going 90 mph.‖ I asked her how the driver reacted. She replied, ―She was PISSED and told the woman

77

she had no right to tell her what to do.‖ She (the slug riding with me) said she was afraid the driver was going to pull over at the end of the HOV and kick the other slug out of the car. She said, ―It made for a very uncomfortable ride home.‖ [Field Notes: 9/19/2001]. One Monday afternoon I was confronted by a slug who thought I was violating slugging etiquette. This professionally dressed Caucasian woman in her 50‘s assumed I was text messaging as I attempted to call one of my coworkers. Although I did not do anything drastic, I was not ―a happy camper:‖ As she got into the car, she made the comment that she wasn't sure whether or not any one would be here…it took a little while for her to get settled…I heard her several times let out a sound of exasperation. I had no idea why she was doing this...I thought perhaps it might be that the radio was bothering her, so I changed my radio settings so that all of the sound was coming out of the front speakers. As we were going down the road, I heard a story on WTOP about celiac disease and new promising research. I was very excited and attempted to call a coworker with this disease on my cell. With my earphone in (hands-free), I attempted first to call…my secretary…she was not at her desk. I then called the main number… Traffic had slowed down quite a bit...As I was pushing the fifth and final number…the woman in the back seat said in a very loud and snotty voice, "I can't believe you are text messaging while driving." I just snapped. I told her rather abruptly, "I was dialing a number, NOT text messaging!" I looked over at the guy sitting next to me. He looked shocked (I think her remark surprised him too) and I got the impression that he was expecting me to go off on this woman. I was indeed furious -- I'm sure he could see the fire in my eyes. "How dare she!" -- I thought to myself -- "This is MY car." It took everything in my power to bite my tongue. I wanted so desperately to slam on the brakes, right in the middle of the HOV, and demand that she get the #@&% out of MY car. I realized after the fact that I probably should not have used my phone, but I was still flabbergasted that I was challenged in my own vehicle by a stranger ESPECIALLY when I had gone out of my way to pick up slugs today when I didn't need to -- since it was so late, I could have just gone on the HOV without picking up slugs (and she knew this!)…the tension was so high, you could have cut the air with a knife. To her credit, woman did not say another word except "thank you" as she got out of the car. [Field Notes: 7/24/06]. Some slugs will wait until it is ―safe‖ before they confront a driver about his or her violations of slugging etiquette as was the situation for one slug who had ridden with

78

me on previous occasions. Although seriously offended by the driver‘s remark about his weight, this heavy set man waited until he had at least one foot on solid ground: He told us that he had a bad experience one time when he asked a driver as he was getting in if he would consider taking a third person. That driver responded "Are you kidding? At these gas prices?" The driver "continued to rant and rave" about the cost incurred by taking extra passengers concluded by stating, "besides, you're pretty hefty yourself," insinuating that he (the driver) was already being generous by taking someone of his size since this was costing him more in gas. The slug was very upset but did not convey this to the driver until he was getting out of the car. He said, he told the driver that his attitude and comments were "rude and insulting" and that "if he every sees me again to keep on going because there is NO way I would EVER ride with him again." He said he considered saying something to the driver earlier, but decided he'd better wait until he got to his destination. [Field Notes: 9/13/2006]. Violations against Slugs: Personal Experiences I personally experienced three encounters with drivers who committed one or more noteworthy violations of slugging etiquette. Each of these situations illustrates a unique combination of violations. Although not nearly as serious as the ones described in the previous section, all three encounters were unpleasant experiences for me. The first occurred on a Monday afternoon when I accepted a ride from a heavy set man in his 50s who not only failed to provide his ―guests‖ with an acceptable physical environment, but also submitted his passengers to a religious sermon which was inappropriate given the circumstances: The woman in front of me opened up the side van door and asked him, "How many are you willing to take? The driver smiled as he responded "3 or 4 – Whatever you're comfortable with." (I thought this was an odd response - I was surprised that he didn't state with confidence how many people he was willing to take.) The woman forgot to announce this to the rest of the line, and stepped up into the van. I started to get in behind her, but she blocked my way and seemed to be confused…I announced behind me that there were 3 more seats were available…When she finally moved aside slightly to the right, I wedged past her and plopped down in the far back seat on the driver's side of the van. As I sat down, I watched as she

79

turned and got out of the van. I heard her say, "I'm not riding in there – no way!" There was a noticeable lull in the loading process. I heard a male voice say, "I don't care," and two men stepped up into the van and got into the two middle seats. There was another noticeable lull before a young African American woman got into the front passenger seat. Even though the man closest to the door announced that there was another seat, all declined to take the last seat next to me. As I looked around, I suddenly realized why the first woman got out of the van. The van was filthy and smelled terrible. The seats were stained, there was trash on the floors and the window sills were grimy. There was a big box of junk between the driver's seat and the front passenger's seat and I noticed a trophy of some short on the console that had stars and a chalice/lantern…Shortly after we got onto the interstate, the man turned off WTOP and started playing a cassette tape. It was a sermon on the Book of Revelation…I don't believe this was a professionally made tape because the speaker on the tape kept coughing and stumbled over some of his words…When the tape ended, he turned it over and played the other side…As we pulled up to the drop off point, the driver said "Thanks for riding"… I wanted to ask him if he had ever heard the phrase, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness," but I respected slug etiquette and simply thanked him for the ride. [Field Notes: 8/7/2006]. I experienced the second unpleasant encounter on a Friday afternoon after I accepted a ride from an African American woman in her 30s and her male companion, both of whom did not seem very familiar with slugging protocol. As illustrated in the passage below, this driver did not provide an acceptable traveling environment for her ―guest‖ (i.e., me), and did not drop off at the established drop location: When the couple pulled up in the black Nissan SUV, the passenger rolled down his window and he asked me where I was going (of course I am standing under the 610 sign!) and I told him 610 -- he asked "the commuter lot, right?" and I said yes. I got the impression that he was not too sure…He hesitated for a minute and he looked over to her; when she nodded her head affirmatively, he said, ―okay.‖…The vehicle was relatively clean, but there was quite a bit of stuff in the passenger seat behind the driver and in the back -- including suitcases. I thanked them for the ride, but neither of them acknowledged me. I was upset with myself that I did not realize before I got in that they had all of their windows and sun roof open. I should have picked up on this clue -- as it turned out, the driver did between 65-70 mph (the wind was horrible) until we hit the 2 1/2 mile back up at the end of the HOV (by the truck scales). I could hear that they were talking along the way, but I couldn‘t hear much because of the wind. A few times, I closed

80

my eyes because the wind was hurting them. For the entire commute, they acted as if they were alone in the car and I did not exist…She listened to 105.9 (Smooth Jazz) the whole way and would turn up the volume when the traffic came on. She chatted with whom I believed to be her husband in the front seat. When he commented, ―it sure is hot,‖ (at the end of the HOV) and started blotting his head with a napkin, she agreed but made no attempt to close the windows or turn on the AC (was it broken?)...As we got off the 610 exit, she asked me how to get to the commuter lot. I directed her to the 610 lot…She pulled into the lot only a few rows in (not the usual drop off) and stopped the car for me to get out. I thanked them for the ride, but neither one of them acknowledged me and the woman drove off as I closed the door. My ears were still ringing as I walked to my car, and when I got in and I looked in my rear view mirror, I realized I was sporting a Medusa-style hairdo. A lesson learned! [Field Notes: 8/18/2006]. I accepted a ride one Tuesday afternoon from a Caucasian man in his 20s with dark sunglasses and a military-style haircut. In contrast to the previous two experiences, I had no indication that my third encounter would be anything other than pleasant until we were already on the HOV. The source of my discomfort during this encounter was the sexually explicit content of a radio talk show while in the presence of two strange men: As we got in, we both thanked him for the ride and he responded, "Yep." He waited a moment before pulling off while we located our seatbelts. I appreciated the courtesy…He changed the radio station 9 times along the way between WTOP, 107.3 and a third station (talk show)…He stayed the longest on the talk show where a talk show host was interviewing an attorney/author about her book describing her 2 years living in the Playboy mansion as a Playboy Bunny - the book was entitled "Bunny Tales." I felt uncomfortable sitting in a car with two strange men listening to the interview of a former Playboy bunny as she discussed, among other things, the extent of her sexual encounters with Hugh Hefner. Did he not realize that there was a woman in the back seat who might feel somewhat uncomfortable with his choice in talk shows? Did he even care? Or did he just forget I was there?...At one point, I heard a low volume nervous laugh as the front passenger mumbled "oh maaan" as if he was partially entertained and partially embarrassed (because of the content or because I was in the back seat – I'm not sure which). The driver casually sipped on a bottle of water along the way and seemed completely oblivious to the fact that the explicit content of this radio program might be considered inappropriate in the presence of strangers – especially those of the opposite gender. [Field Notes: 8/22/2006].

81

Violations against other Drivers Although drivers are rarely confronted for violations committed in their own private spaces (i.e., their vehicles) as illustrated in the examples above, drivers who violate rules of the social order in public space (e.g., cut or attempt to cut in line, ―body snatch‖) may be confronted by slugs or other drivers. I have only witnessed a few incidents where drivers violated slugging etiquette in public. One afternoon at the Pentagon when there was a shortage of slugs and a line of cars waiting, an impatient man in a truck essentially ―lied‖ about his intentions which led me to give up my place in line. Although I considered getting out and confronting him, he was a big guy in a big truck: There was a line of cars at the Pentagon and the access lane to the slug lines was essentially blocked by the time we made it to the end of the line. We couldn't really see whether the cars went all the way up to the 610 sign or not. I thought about trying to pass on the left, but if I did and there were no openings ahead, I would end up blocking everyone else in – and that would not go over well. Since several of the cars in front of us were loading up, and we couldn't really tell where everyone in front of us was headed, I decided to wait. I was blocking the access lane, and a large truck behind me tried to get past me several times. He was really making me mad that he was not willing to wait in line, but then I thought perhaps he was just a tourist (sometimes they get confused and stuck in the line of cars picking up slugs – the lane is sectioned off with concrete curbs). If he was just passing through, I was willing to let him by at the soonest opportunity so that he get out of the access lane. Finally I rolled down my window and asked/gestured if the driver was just passing through (implying not stopping for slugs). He said/gestured yes and indicated that he was indeed just passing through. I pulled over as soon as the car in front of me moved forward. As he passed me, I could now see ahead and realized that there was an opening for the 610 sign and I watched as the truck pulled into the opening. I was furious! But, I didn't really confront the guy like I wanted to – he was pretty big guy and I didn't want to take any chances that he might also be a psycho. I simply glared at him as I waited behind him - fuming. He only looked up once in his rearview mirror briefly, but I know that he saw me. I know that he knew that I was mad, but he just didn't care. Two people eventually came up to the line and got into his truck. We waited 9 minutes total before we picked up a slug. [Field Notes: 12/28/2005].

82

Aside from ―giving the evil eye‖ to offending drivers, I have never really confronted another driver who violated slugging etiquette. In addition, I have only once witnessed a driver actually confront another for a violation. It was a Friday morning at the Route 610 lot when I watched as another driver confronted a rogue driver: As we were waiting, a woman driving a black sedan came around the front of the lot instead of around the back where the line had formed and tried to cut in front of the car in front of us. As she tried to nose her way in, the man in front of us laid on the horn which took me by surprise. This did not seem to deter the woman. She glanced over at him, but continued to edge forward. This infuriated the man – He then got almost all the way out of his car – one foot on the pavement and one foot on the running board -- and started violently gesturing and yelling at the woman that she had "better get to the end of the line!" I think I also I heard an expletive or two. She completely ignored him. Although she made no further attempt to cut him off, she maintained her position. I, too, was determined that this woman was not going to cut in line. I essentially hugged the bumper of the car in front of me with my car and I glared at the woman as I went by. She pretended not to see me. Much to my dismay, I watched as she eventually succeeded in cutting in a few cars behind us. Arrggh! [Field Notes: 3/17/2006].


83

CHAPTER 5 NEGOTIATIONS IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACE Interaction and Negotiation in Public Space The process of slugging begins when drivers needing additional passengers for the HOV connect with strangers in search of a ride: slug lines. Slug lines usually form in the morning before 6:00 a.m. and are typically located in state-maintained commuter lots in northern Virginia. The afternoon slug lines usually form before 3:30pm and are located along public streets in Washington, DC, and northern Virginia, and also in the south Pentagon parking lot. There are varying degrees of negotiation that take place between slugs and drivers. The negotiation process can be as simple as a driver calling out a single word destination (e.g., ―Pentagon‖), which prompts a slug to get into the driver‘s back passenger seat, or as complex as a full verbal exchange between driver and slug through the passenger side window. In some instances, the negotiation process can be completed without any verbal interaction between driver and slug. In addition to subtle differences in negotiation styles among drivers and slugs, procedures for negotiating rides vary slightly between morning and afternoon slug lines. Morning Slug Lines Individuals seeking a ride in the mornings are expected to form a line at established locations; the direction of these lines may vary across commuter lots. If there is a line of slugs when a driver pulls up, the first in line is expected to approach the passenger side window of the car and find out the driver‘s intended destination. If this destination is not where this slug is headed, or the driver needs or offers to take additional passengers, this ―head slug‖ is expected to call out the destination to the other individuals

84

standing in line. In addition, he/she may also indicate the number of (additional) passengers needed as illustrated below: It was daylight when I reached the commuter lot and about 73 degrees. It was a beautiful day. I parked at the far end of the commuter lot (the lot was pretty full) and walked across the lot toward the bus shelter. On my way to the end of the slug line, I counted 29 people ahead of me. As I took my place in line, one car was loading up and a second one had pulled up behind them. I heard "Two more for Rosslyn." Wow, I thought, two Rosslyns in a row. I paused for a minute to see if anyone stepped out of line -- a man about 10 people ahead of me and the woman in front of me stepped forward and started toward the second car. Before they reached the car, a third car pulled up and I heard "Two more for Rosslyn." I stepped out of line and headed for the SUV. Before I reached the vehicle, he pulled up to the front of the line since the other two cars had pulled away. On the way, another car pulled up behind the SUV and the first guy in line announced "one more for the Pentagon" and headed for the vehicle. As I was getting into the back passenger seat, I heard "Crystal City three." [Field notes: 9/11/2006]. Slug lines are usually quiet; there is typically very little verbal interaction among the people standing in line. Most slugs carry some sort of bag (e.g., brief case, purse) to transport personal belongs. Most seemed either to watch as cars loaded up or stared off in to space. Usually a few people are preoccupied with some sort of ―prop‖ like a newspaper, travel mug, or cell phone. The only ―regular‖ voice you can expect to hear in a morning is the voice of the person at the head of the line as he or she announces destinations to the rest of the line. Although you may not be able to see the ―head slug,‖ this individual is supposed to announce destinations loudly enough so that even people at the end of the line can hear the announcement. This was not always my experience: As I approached the line, I counted and by the time I reached the end of the line, I counted 42 people ahead of me…I could not hear where the different cars were going at first. I watched as all different cars picked up – from Chevy Blazers to Audi's to Toyota SUVs. Once I could hear (the soft spoken head slug must have gotten a ride), the destinations included Navy Annex, a couple of Pentagons and a Crystal City. Forecast of thunderstorms this afternoon - a few people were carrying folded

85

umbrellas. I saw lots of brief cases (mostly men) and canvas bags (mostly women). One man was reading a book and two others were reading a folded newspaper. Three people were sipping on travel mugs. Many people watched as the cars drove up and filled up. Others seemed to be in their own little world – staring into space. The line was quiet again accept for three people on cell phones (two of them softly and the third – a Caucasian man in his 40s in a suit appeared to be talking to someone at the office and was giving them instructions – a bit too loudly. I felt a little embarrassed for him although he didn't seem to be phased at all…After a while, a black Nissan pulled up and I heard "two for Rosslyn." The driver already had two passengers but someone at the head of the line asked her if she would take 3 and I saw her shake her head affirmatively. I then heard confirmation: "one more for Rosslyn." I hesitated a moment before I stepped out of line. I wanted to make sure that no one in front of me was going to Rosslyn. I got in behind the driver. She pulled away from the line before I had my seatbelt fastened. It was 7:25am. [Fieldnotes: 8/7/2006]. Sometimes, someone in the position of ―head slug‖ may forget to announce a vehicle‘s destination to other slugs standing in line. This can cause unnecessary confusion. I regret to report that one day, I was one of those ―head slugs‖ who failed to perform her duty: I got to the slug line a little after 7:30am and I only had to wait about 2 minutes for a ride. As I approached the place where the slug line usually begins, I noticed two guys getting into a white SUV. There was room for one more, but they did not offer – So much for the slug etiquette ―rule‖ of never leaving a woman standing alone at the slug line. Two guys came up and joined me in line shortly after I arrived. I dropped the ball at the slug line today. When the first car came along, I walked up to it and the man told me "Pentagon." Since this was not my preferred destination today (I was trying to get a little variety), I told the driver "no thank you" and walked over to the second car to see where she was headed. I looked back and saw the guy who had been standing directly behind me get into the Pentagon car. The second guy must not have heard the driver tell me his destination, and approached the car hesitantly – why? Because I had not announced the destination. Oooops! [Field notes: 9/18/2006] The commuter lot from which I first picked up slugs was the one nearest to my home located off of U.S. Route 17 in Falmouth, Virginia, approximately one-half mile north of the entrance to I-95. At the beginning of this study, this slug line was considered

86

relatively new (LeBlanc 1999; 2001). However, it seems to have gained popularity over the past six years. The description below is one of my early encounters with the Route 17 slug line: It was still dark we when arrived at the commuter parking lot off Route 17, but tall post lights illuminated the lot. It was 44 degrees and the sky was clear. As I drove down the entrance lane and turned left into the main part of the lot, we could see that a line of about 15 people had formed behind the bus shelter. The line extended from the edge of the curb nearest the handicapped parking spaces and extended backward. Most of the people standing in line were wearing jackets, although one man was in military fatigues and another man had a suit on with no coat. No one appeared to be talking as we pulled up to the curb. A few people were sipping on travel coffee mugs and one person appeared to have music earphones on with a music device hidden inside his jacket. Several of them seemed to be watching the car as we approached, but I could not make eye contact with anyone except for the woman at the head of the line. She was a Caucasian woman in her 30‘s with blond hair and dressed business casual. When I yelled out "Pentagon," she stepped off the curb and opened the back passenger side door. She said, "thank you," as she was getting into the back passenger seat of my car. [Field notes: 3/14/2001] Some morning commuter lots have a single slug line like the Route 17 lot, whereas others may have a line for northern Virginia and another for Washington, DC destinations, as is the case for two commuter lots off Route 610 in Garrisonville in north Stafford County. If there are no other drivers, you can pull right up to the front of the slug line. If more than one driver is looking to pick up passengers, all drivers are expected to form a line usually beginning near a bus shelter to wait their turn to pick up passengers. With a line of cars and very few slugs, it is not uncommon to see slugs, ―working the line‖ – going up to each car to determine destinations rather than waiting by the bus shelter: The Route 610 lot is set up differently than the Route 17 lot. It has two general destination lines: one for slugs heading to northern Virginia and the other for slugs headed to DC. To get to the northern Virginia slug line,

87

you need to go to the back around to the back side of the lot and follow the outside lane (past the DC line which is midway up along the way – rarely has more than 5 people in it – today there were none) until you can turn left on your way to the bus shelter. Some cars may attempt to get to the bus shelter using the outside line from the front of the lot, but this is considered cheating. The northern Virginia slug line forms along the curb just before you reach the back side of the bus shelter and extends toward the line of oncoming cars. Today, there was no actual slug line, a line of 6 cars ahead of us, and three or so slugs "working the line" -- going up to each car to determine their destination. We only waited about 5 minutes before a Caucasian man in his 30's approached our car and accepted a ride when we told him we were "Rosslyn." [Field Notes: 3/17/2006] In response to the sometimes unpredictable nature of slugging, morning slugs and drivers may go beyond the typical public negotiations where a driver announces a destination and the slug either accepts or declines. I call this strategy, ―let‘s make a deal.‖ It was a cold Thursday morning when I negotiated with an older well-dressed business man who was trying to get a ride to the Navy Yard. After we reached an initial agreement, he tried to renegotiate more favorable terms: It was dark and 34 degrees when we arrived at the commuter lot shortly before 6:30am. There were 2 cars in line when we pulled up and no slugs in sight. As slugs started to straggle in, the first car loaded up quickly (probably a Pentagon), but the one directly in front of us was going to Rosslyn - we learned this from a woman who was working her way down the line and got into the car behind us. We waited a few minutes before deciding to play "let's make a deal." It was not long before a gray haired man in his late 60's or early 70's approached my car. He was dressed in a suit with a long wool coat. I rolled down the passenger side window and told him that we preferred Rosslyn, but asked where he was headed. He said, "Pentagon" and I replied, "Sure." Then he asked, "L'Enfant?" I smiled and told him that I "would prefer the Pentagon." He said, "That‘s fine, thanks," and got in to the back seat passenger side of the car. It was not until after we were headed down the road that he learned he was "actually going to the Navy Yard." [Field Notes: 1/26/2006]. Friday mornings frequently have an abundance of cars and a shortage of slugs. Perhaps this is reflective of flexible schedules that many federal employees keep (e.g., four ten-hour days per week; nine hours per day five days per week with every other

88

Friday off). On one of these ―typical‖ Friday mornings, I arrived at the commuter lot to find a long line of cars and only a handful of slugs. As soon as I saw the ―head slug‖ turn down the entire line of cars ahead of me, I decided to try to negotiate a deal: When I arrived at the commuter lot around 6:10am, there was a line of about 5 cars and three slugs. Slugs began to straggle in, but the cars ahead did not seem to be moving. The head slug was making her way down the row of cars. I listened carefully and I thought I heard Pentagon at least once. When this woman (Caucasian woman in her 50s with grayish blond hair, professionally in a pants suit) approached my car, I told her that I could take Pentagon, Rosslyn, Crystal City, L'Enfant Plaza or any where else north as long as we could get a second person to go to the same location and she could tell me how to get to Maryland after I dropped them off. She asked if I would consider dropping off at 14th Street and I told her that I would as long as she showed me where to go (I had only dropped off there twice before) and how to get to Maryland after I dropped her off (I had gotten lost both times before). She agreed, thanked me, announced "14th Street" to the line ahead and got into the back passenger seat of my car. [Field Notes: 11/18/2005]. The following Monday morning I negotiated a similar but slightly more complex deal with a man and a woman unknown to each other: The head slug, a Caucasian woman in her 50's with brown hair, was apparently "working the line" and eventually walked up to my car. Through the open passenger side window, I offered ―Pentagon or Rosslyn.‖ She gestured to the other two slugs who were standing near the bus shelter and told me that one was going to the Navy Yards and the other two of them were going to DC. I told her that I would go to L'Enfant and she asked if I would consider 14th. Since I had been just been there, I said ―sure, why not‖ and she proceeded to get in the back seat. A graying blond haired man with a receding hairline (50's), professionally dressed and carrying a brief case was standing slightly behind her when we reached our agreement and he asked if I would also consider the Smithsonian Metro, which (he claimed) was only a few blocks down from the 14th Street drop off. Considering the potential wait time, I told him, ―okay.‖ He cheerfully said ―thank you‖ and got into the front seat of my car. [Field Notes: 11/21/2005]. Negotiations are not always as amicable as the ones described above. While sitting in the back of one woman‘s SUV one Monday morning, I witnessed

89

as she rudely rejected one slug‘s attempt to negotiate beyond what she had originally offered: When I approached the car, she said "Pentagon or L'Enfant." I told her, "that'll work" started to get in to the back seat. As I was getting in, she asked "which one," and I said "either -- I just need a metro." Shortly thereafter, a man approached the car and she told him the same thing and he shook his head and walked away. Then he returned and asked which way she went to L'Enfant – ―by way of 14th?‖ She replied, "No, no way!" The man seemed a bit taken back by her abrupt response and backed away from her car. As he walked off, she said, "I just hate when they're picky." I acknowledged her (although not actually agreeing with her) and made sure to emphasize that I was "not picky." [Field Notes: 9/18/2006]. Afternoon Slug Lines Unlike the morning slug lines I utilized, afternoon slug lines were clustered with others, but demarcated by official looking signs indicating specific destinations. My first afternoon encounter picking up slugs and several subsequent ones took place in the south Pentagon parking lot.33 Although I had followed my friend‘s instructions to get to the parking lot, travel lanes around the perimeter of the parking lot were very congested with cars and pedestrians and I was confused. After enlisting the assistance of two strangers along the way, we eventually found the slug lines. Below is a description of my first experience with Pentagon slug lines: We entered the Pentagon parking lot according to the instructions that my friend had provided. It was rather confusing and we were not quite sure where to go…We waited in a line of cars, turned left into 33

During the first few months of this study, the afternoon slug line I frequented in the Pentagon south parking lot serviced cars destined for one of four main areas: Tackett‘s Mill, Potomac Mills/Horner Road, Montclair and Stafford. As a result of construction on the new Metro Entrance Facility project expected to be completed in November of 2001, and in an attempt to ease traffic congestion, a new lane adjacent to Fern Street between N. Rotary Road and S. Rotary Road was dedicated to slugs and drivers commuting to areas in Stafford and Fredericksburg. Four tall ―official‖ looking metal signs were set in cement near the edge of the sidewalk nearest the travel lane to designate specific destinations: Rt. 3 – Fredericksburg, Rt. 17 – Stafford, Rt. 630 – Stafford and Rt. 610 – Stafford. As the Rt. 630 line became increasingly unpopular, a typed paper sign encased in plastic, indicating the newly established destination, ―Mine Road‖ was taped over the old sign and was eventually replaced by new metal sign indicating ―Mine Road – Stafford.‖ Slug lines were also temporarily relocated in the days immediately following the plane crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

90

the access lane and pulled up to another official looking sign indicating "Stafford." There was a line of about 10 people waiting. A few of the people had newspapers and almost everyone was carrying a brief case or a purse. We pulled up to the sign, opened the passenger side window and I called out "2 for 17." Only one man stepped forward out of the line and got into the back seat. A few people looked up at the car as the man got in, but most of them seemed to be occupied with something (newspaper) or staring off into space. I saw men and woman (Caucasian and African American). Most of them appeared to be professionals (one guy in fatigues). As we passed the other lines (Montclair, Potomac Mills/Horner Road & Tackett‘s Mill), it looked like a sea of people, brief cases, purses, book bags, duffle bags, newspapers and the like. There were probably 50 or more people waiting in those lines. [Field Notes: 2/6/2001] The presence of the destination signs provides an opportunity for nonverbal ride sharing negotiations. Sometimes the nonverbal negotiation involves only gestures as I observed one Friday afternoon at the Rosslyn Route 610 slug line: Shortly after that, a Honda SUV pulled up and as the two slugs ahead of her were getting in, she gestured with three fingers to ask the driver if he would take 3 slugs. The driver shook his head in agreement and she hurried around the car and got in behind the driver. [Field Notes: 8/4/06]. Another Friday afternoon at the Route 610 slug line in the south Pentagon parking lot, I observed a driver gesture using three fingers to indicate his willingness to take three slugs. Without a word, three of us got into this stranger‘s car: He was a Caucasian man in his 30s with brown hair. He had a military style hair cut and was wearing jeans. He held up 3 fingers as he pulled up to the slug line. I was second in line and went around the vehicle and got into the back seat behind the driver. The other two got into the front and back passenger side seats. [Field Notes: 9/29/2006]. I was part of a similar nonverbal ride sharing negotiation one Tuesday afternoon at the Pentagon. At the same time I also participated in a nonverbal negotiation of seating arrangements initiated by another slug: The guy standing in front of me in line was an African American man in his 40s dressed in a naval uniform (khakis) and was either an officer or E7+. His hair was so short it was almost shaved. When the black VW

91

pulled up with the driver holding up two fingers, he smiled at me and gestured to the back door, indicating that I could have the back seat if I wanted it. (This was a rare occasion – the first slug usually B-lines for the back seat without giving a second thought to the other slug). I smiled back, and graciously accepted. He proceeded to get into the front seat and I got into the back passenger seat. [Field Notes: 8/22/2006] Sometimes the only gesture used is the establishment of eye contact between driver and slug. This was the case another Tuesday afternoon in the Pentagon parking lot where I immediately recognized an African American man in his 30s who had ridden with me several times before: As I pulled up to the 17 line, I made eye contact with and recognized the guy who was standing at the lead of the line…He recognized me immediately and went for the front seat. The woman behind him looked a little confused (probably because most head slugs head for the back seat). …After recognizing that the first slug had elected to sit in the front seat, she proceeded to get into the back passenger seat. [Field Notes: 11/22/2005]. Other times, the simple act of pulling up to the slug line is enough to begin negotiations. Verbal exchanges and overt gestures are not necessary: The cars were steadily flowing – stopping quickly at their chosen line and speeding off, sometimes before the last slug closed their door. While I was waiting in line, three cars came and went through the 610 line…the third was a truck where the driver…held up 2 fingers indicating the number of slugs he was willing to take. As each car drove up, two slugs stepped out from the front of the line and headed for the front and back passenger seats. No words were exchanged. It seems that slugs assume that if the driver pulls up to the 610-Stafford sign that he/she is agreeing to transport at least the minimal number of passengers to that location. At the same time, the drivers assume that if people are standing in line at the 610Stafford sign these people are "slugs" and are looking for a ride to that location. [Field Notes: 8/22/2006] As the process of picking up slugs became second nature to me, I found that I more frequently dispensed with words and body gestures, and the only gesture I used to communicate my willingness to transport a stranger to a specific location was to pull up

92

to the destination sign. This was the case one warm spring Monday afternoon. Even with my car windows closed, two slugs waiting in line quickly got into my car without a single verbal exchange: Traffic was very good today. The weather was fabulous and it was 85 degrees. I had the windows closed and the AC on high. When I arrived at the Pentagon, all the lines were long – A sea of people. I pulled up to the Rt. 610 slug line and an African American woman in her 30's at the head of the line got into the back passenger side seat and a Hispanic man in his 30's who had been standing behind her got into the front seat. [Field Notes: 3/13/2006]. Regardless of the length or style of the ride sharing negotiation, or whether it occurs in the morning or afternoon, once an agreement has been made, slugs are expected to get into the car quickly. Although the majority of drivers will at least wait long enough for a slug to get both feet into the car before pulling away from the slug line, some drivers may lose patience quickly and renege on a deal: Right before I caught a ride, it appeared that someone at the head of the line and the back seat passenger of a car at the head of the line were trying to negotiate with a driver to take an additional slug. Right before the negotiations were complete, a second car came along rolling down the passenger side window as they pulled up. Within seconds I heard, "two more for the Pentagon." Two guys stepped out near the head of the line and headed for the second car. As they were getting into the back seats, I saw the guy in the back passenger seat of the first car turned around, one foot in and one foot out of the car and say something to someone at the head of the line. Then I heard, "one more for the Pentagon." There was a moment of hesitation before the guy in front of me (Caucasian man in his 30's wearing jeans & a light weight jacket and carrying a duffle bag – military?) stepped out of line. He walked behind the back of car and opened the driver side rear door. Before he could get his right foot into the car, the car suddenly sped off. The slug was obviously stunned. Another guy somewhere near the front of the line jestingly asked, "What did you do to him?" He extended his arms outwardly, shrugged his shoulders, and headed back to the line while shaking his head. Another guy said, "Guess he was in a hurry." Several people laughed. [Field Notes: 10/2/2006].

93

Unpredictability of Slug Lines Although there are some characteristics about slugging that one can expect (e.g., you can usually get a ride if you get to the slug line at least a half hour before the HOV opens to all traffic), the number of people standing in slug lines and the flow of drivers at any given time can be unpredictable. Some days when I arrive at a pick up point, there are no slugs, and several drivers, and other mornings the opposite is true. Even if you arrive at the commuter lot around the same time everyday, there is no guarantee that the slug line or the line of drivers will be similar to a previous day: We arrived at the lot around 6:15 am. It was 40 degrees and the sky was sort of gloomy (daylight but overcast). As we pulled up to the slug line, there were about 25 or more people standing in line. I rolled down the passenger side window and announced, "Rosslyn." The guy at the head of the line (Caucasian man in his 30's wearing military fatigues) turned toward the line and yelled, "Rosslyn!" A Caucasian man wearing jeans in his 30's with black hair stepped out from near the end of the line, walked up to the car, and got into the passenger back seat. As he shut the passenger door, he thanked me for the ride. I commented that he must be feeling lucky today since he was able to just step out from the end of the line. He was quite friendly and offered that he was actually going to DC but decided to accept Rosslyn and take the Metro since he didn't want to wait in the line. I agreed that the line was a bit long today and he admitted that he was a little surprised when he pulled up this morning and saw it. We exchanged a few words about how the lines have been unpredictable lately. He mentioned that when he slugged last Thursday and got to the line around the same time, "there were no slugs," and he "got a ride right away." I agreed that, "you can never tell." He smiled and nodded in agreement. [Field Notes: 3/28/2006] Although summer seems to increase the volume of people participating in slugging, one can only speculate why lines may be long one day and not the next. One summer afternoon a slug, who had ridden with me on several occasions, commented on what he determined was a noticeable change in line patterns: The front seat passenger slug has ridden with me before. He is a tall Caucasian man in his 50's with graying hair and was wearing a suit and

94

tie. He is usually grumpy, but was surprisingly pleasant today. Looks like . When I commented on how short the line was today, he said that ―the lines have been weird lately: long in the morning and short in the afternoon.‖ He thinks that it's ―probably because of the heat – people have been taking the train home.‖ At my prompting, he told me that he has been slugging for 19 years and has never failed to get a ride. A few times it felt "too close for comfort," so he took the bus. [Field Notes: 7\21\06]. Although I anticipated a reduction in the volume of slugs one morning as that day was declared a federal holiday by President Bush for former President Gerald Ford‘s funeral, I expected that some people would still be slugging since HOV restrictions remained in effect. However, I soon found that this was not the case: Today was the day of President Ford's funeral. The federal government was closed, but the HOV restrictions remained in place. I decided against stopping at the Rt. 17 lot. I figured that there is more volume out of the 610 lot and that I would have a better chance of picking up slugs there. I arrived at the 610 lot at 5:45. There was no slug line, no line of cars, and very few cars in the parking lot. I waited for a few minutes and when I heard on the radio that I-95 was "flowing without incident," I decided to forgo picking up slugs and take my chances with the main lanes. [Field Notes: 4/18/2006]. Interactions and Negotiations in Private Space As a driver, you essentially invite strangers into your private space – your private vehicle. As a slug, you essentially accept rides from a stranger – something your mother probably told you never to do. These strangers may or may not look familiar to you, and you may or may not ever see them again. The only thing you know (or think you know) for certain is their destination. Stranger Interaction Management Styles In order to get through the often awkward experience of sharing a small confined space with strangers, both drivers and slugs rely on a number of different strategies either to disengage or otherwise to manage these encounters. Using these strategies in various

95

combinations, drivers and slugs develop easily identifiable ―interaction management styles.‖ These management styles are not constant, and individuals employ different ones depending upon their moods and how they interpret their environment. It is usually the driver who sets the tone. Driver Interaction Management Styles Essentially, if a driver wants to ride in silence, slugs are expected to be quiet. If the driver wants to talk, the slugs (especially those sitting in the passenger seat) are expected to talk. Drivers may employ one or more interactional strategies to convey their expectations to slugs riding in their car – the strangers temporarily sharing their personal space. These include staring/concentration on driving, failure to acknowledge expressions of gratitude or comments, or attempting to engage one or more passengers in conversation. Other interaction strategies include the use of silence, gestures, props (e.g., radio, cell phone, food, sunglasses), and exclusive conversations with a ―familiar‖ passenger. I observed drivers utilizing one or more of the aforementioned interactional strategies in the formation of two basic stranger interaction management styles: the Reticent Driver and the Verbal Communicator (See Table 2). The Reticent Driver The most common stranger interaction management style that I observed both male and female drivers utilizing was the Reticent Driver (See Table 3). Those employing the Reticent Driver management style are disinterested in verbal interaction with the strangers riding in their car. Their desire to travel in silence is often conveyed through their own silence. Although many drivers at least acknowledge expressions of gratitude with a minimal ―uh huh,‖ some drivers fail to verbally acknowledge slugs.

96

Table 2. Stranger Interaction Management Styles Used by Drivers Management Style

Frequency

Percent

Reticent Driver

20

69.0%

Verbal Communicator Conversationalist Attuned Communicator Preoccupied Driver

9

31.0%

29

100.0%

Total

These drivers may gesture in acknowledgement, whereas others may respond with guttural noises. The driver‘s silence is usually used in combination with one or more props, and may include the car radio, cell phone, food, or drink. Drivers may also use a ―familiar‖ traveling with them in the front passenger seat as a ―prop;‖ exclusive conversation between these ―withs‖ effectively communicates the driver‘s disinterest in verbally engaging any strangers sitting in their back seat. The radio is the most common prop used by Reticent Drivers to communicate that they are not interested in talking to their passengers. Essentially, the radio serves as a deterrent for any unwanted verbal interaction. Drivers may have the radio on when slugs are getting into the car, and may at some point to turn the volume up to ensure a level that is not conducive to conversation. Many drivers leave the radio on one station, whereas others may ―station hop,‖ changing stations periodically throughout the commute.

97

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Drivers Encountered in Private Space: Race and Gender by Stranger Interaction Management Style Stranger Interaction Management Style Characteristics

Reticent Driver

Verbal Communicator Attuned Conversationalist Communicator

Combined* Preoccupied Driver

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

13

65.0%

4

100.0%

2

66.7%

1

50.0%

20

69.0%

6

30.0%

0

0.0%

1

33.3%

1

50.0%

8

27.6%

1

5.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

3.4%

20

100.0%

4

100.0%

3

100.0%

2

100.0%

29

100.0%

5

25.0%

4

100.0%

1

33.3%

1

50.0%

11

37.9%

15

75.0%

0

0.0%

2

66.7%

1

50.0%

18

62.1%

20

100.0%

4

100.0%

3

100.0%

2

100.0%

29

100.0%

Race Caucasian

98

Black Other Total Gender Male Female Total

f = frequency % = percentage of occurrence * = an aggregation of Reticent Driver and Verbal Communicator

One driver dressed in military fatigues with an "airborne" patch on his right upper arm combined the use of his car radio with gestures and grunts to ensure that his passengers did not attempt to strike up a conversation: He was driving a Nissan SUV with shaggy seat covers with apparent pet hair (no smell, though). The radio was loud and sound was coming from back speakers. When I said thank you as I got in to the back passenger seat, he looked back at me in acknowledgement, but said nothing. After I got in the backseat, I realized that the seat I was sitting in was partially reclined – very uncomfortable. If the driver had said even one word to me, I might have considered asking him if he minded if I adjusted it. I debated whether I should just adjust it, but I decided not move it and left it as it was. When the second slug got in, the driver merely grunted. He listened to NPR (mostly) and two other radio stations & channel surfed….He turned off the radio at the light before the lot which was a little odd. We rode in silence for a few minutes before he pulled up to the drop off point [Field notes: 9/18/2006] Another driver combined silence with the radio to communicate her disinterest in verbal communication: As I got in I said thank you and the woman said nothing. I interpreted her silence as a cue that she was not interested in communicating, so I made no attempt. She was listening to WTOP and turned it up every once in a while when the traffic came on. She was driving a black Nissan (sun roof, very clean). She drove back and forth from the right to left lanes and seemed to be going around or slightly above the speed limit. She went a different way to Rosslyn which made me a little nervous at first - I was afraid that perhaps I had misheard the destination call and wished I had confirmed the destination with the driver before getting in. We eventually reached Rosslyn, although this alternative route seemed a bit longer. As we sat at a traffic light on Lynn Street, she said "Everyone Metro?" and we all confirmed this. We all thanked her getting out and she said nothing. [Field notes: 8/7/2006.] Although a third driver verbally acknowledged his ―guests,‖ he combined subsequent silence with the use of dark sunglasses (impossible to get eye contact), ―station hopping‖ and consumption of refreshments to convey his disinterest in talking: He was a professionally dressed Caucasian man approximately in his 50s with gray hair and a beard. He wore dark sun glasses & a wedding ring.

99

He said "you're welcome" when I thanked him for the ride…. He was silent until the end. Along the way, he ate a granola bar & drank a soda… and changed the radio station 4 times. The radio was a little loud, so I interpreted this as a sign that he was not interested in social interaction. For the majority of the time, I looked out the front windshield and tried not to look his direction since he did not invite conversation [Field notes: 9/29/2006] A driver‘s use of a ―familiar‖ traveling with them as a ―human prop‖ is not as common as other interactional strategies among reticent drivers. However, this strategy effectively isolates these ―withs‖ from their back seat passengers and allows drivers to pretend that there are no strangers sitting in their back seat. I rode with one such Reticent Driver and his female companion on a Friday afternoon: The driver had very short hair (stubble), was wearing dark sunglasses, and had a mustache and goatee. The car only had 1/4 tank of gas (living on the edge...). He was drinking Diet Pepsi…The car was a red VW Jetta with leather interior, sun roof and was clean. I thanked him for the ride, but I don't think he heard me. He started out with WTOP and kept the volume up. I thought this was rather curious since he and his passenger practically had to yell to communicate with each other. He would turn the volume down every once in a while, but then he would turn it up again. I felt a little uncomfortable eavesdropping on their conversation, but it was essentially impossible not to. They carried on as if I was not even in the car…After entering the main lanes, he changed the radio from WTOP to 101.5. At the commuter lot traffic light, the driver almost forgot to turn, but did in response to the front passenger's gesture pointing that he should turn…He dropped me off at the AM pick up location which was unusual. He told me "There you go." and I thanked him for the ride as I got out. [Field Notes: 8/25/2006]. Although the there may be clear signs that the driver is not interested in talking, sometimes it is difficult to refrain from making a comment about an event experienced by all the passengers in a car. However, if you are attuned, it doesn‘t take long to realize that you have overstepped the boundaries: I thanked her for the ride as I got into the front passenger seat and she smiled in acknowledgement. She was driving a tan Chevy SUV which was pretty clean and averaged around 70 mph…She listened to Wash FM 97.1

100

the whole time…She drank water along the way. The water was in the cup holder closest to me rather than closest to her which was a little awkward and I thought a bit odd. At one point, I commented on a low flying helicopter near the Pentagon. There was a gap of silence and then she replied, but I couldn't hear what she said over the radio. She was silent for the remainder of the trip. I got the impression that she really wasn't interested in talking, so after the Pentagon comment, I did not say another word until I thanked her for the ride getting out of the car [Field notes: 10/13/2006]. Some slugs do not take time to assess driver intentions, or are oblivious to social cues that the driver is providing. One man, for example, commenced talking the moment he entered the vehicle. As a result, the driver ended up initiating multiple strategies before she was able to successfully communicate her desire for his silence: I thanked her for the ride as I got in, and she said "of course!" enthusiastically. She was listening to WTOP when I got in. The speakers in back were turned on but low at first. She was driving a Honda SUV. It was very clean and recently vacuumed…The second slug came along shortly after I did. He was a thin and tall Caucasian man in his 30's with black greasy hair…He thanked her for the ride and started talking immediately before he had even buckled his seatbelt…The driver glanced over at him a few times as he was chatting away, nodding her head at one point with a forced half smile. Although she was polite, I got the distinct impression that she was not interested in the one-way conversation and that she was getting a little annoyed with his chattiness. She then turned up the volume on the radio. I think he finally got the hint because he suddenly stopped talking. She was quiet throughout the trip and did not attempt to engage either one of us in conversation. She switched the radio 7 times (103.5, 101.5, 99.5) along the way and looked ahead as she drove except to reach for her coffee and change the radio station. [Field Notes: 8\4\06]. The Verbal Communicator Some drivers seem to prefer conversation over silence. Although all drivers exhibiting a Verbal Communicator management style appear to be interested in verbal interactions, they may only direct efforts to engage passengers sitting in the seat next to them. In addition, Verbal Communicators may employ the use of props, such as a cell phone or radio, to bridge gaps of silence or as tools to interject new topics to encourage

101

conversation. I identified three varieties of Verbal Communicators: Conversationalist, Attuned Communicator and Preoccupied Driver. The Attuned Communicator Although Attuned Communicators are interested in verbal exchanges with passengers, they are not forceful in their attempts to stimulate conversation. They often attempt to engage passengers by essentially ―opening the door‖ for verbal interaction. Typically, they ask questions or make comments suggesting they are open to verbal exchange. If one or more of passengers accept the sometimes subtle invitation, Attuned Communicators will continue to verbally interact until the commute is over, unless their conversation partner(s) gives an indication that they are no longer interested in conversation, or the conversation becomes strained. One Monday morning, I rode to L‘Enfant Plaza with an Attuned Communicator who was talkative as well as accommodating. She made it clear from the beginning that conversation was welcomed and engaged in a three-way conversation with me and the front passenger seat slug: The driver took a deep breath and proclaimed: "I've got my Chic Filet – I'm good to go." With that, she pulled away from the slug line. The front passenger asked her if she ―got the little chicken biscuits.‖ She shook her head in confirmation and added, "I even went inside for the sauce." We both shook our heads that we understood, and the front passenger said, "Oh, yes, you have to have the sauce"…The front passenger told us that she…―grew up on yeast biscuits‖ and ―remembers the dough rising in the bowl on the stove.‖ She continued with the cooking theme…The topic switched to allergies after front passenger sneezed…. The driver asked her what she takes for her allergies and she said that she takes Claritin everyday but had run out. She said that she'd have to "pick some up today sometime"…The driver said that she was really glad that she didn't have any allergies and couldn‘t imagine having to deal with them. As we crossed over the 14th Street Bridge, the driver offered to drop front passenger "at the other metro near the CVS" if she wanted so that she could get some Claritin. The front passenger told her, "That would be

102

wonderful. Do you mind?" and the driver said, "not a problem. It's on my way." [Field Notes: 9/18/2006]. On a different Monday morning, I accepted a ride to Rosslyn from another Attuned Communicator. He seemed interested in talking and engaged in friendly conversation with the passenger next to him. However, when the conversation lost momentum, he turned up the volume on the radio and disengaged: He was driving a Ford SUV with leather interior, a digital compass (N, W, SE, etc), and digital radio indicating song, artist & year of release. The interior was immaculate. He was listening to an 80's station (satellite radio?). As I got in the SUV, I told him that the two cars in front of him had also been Rosslyn. He said, "That‘s okay. Someone else will come before too long." I thanked him for the ride and he said "sure." We waited less than a minute before another slug came along. When this guy asked if he would take two more, the driver said "sure." The front passenger and the driver started chatting – First about an earlier accident around Dumfries and then about deer…the driver indicated that he worked "at DHS near GW." [That is, he worked at the Department of Human Services near George Washington University]. He also indicated that he used to live in Colorado…By the time we reached the HOV, the conversation essentially died. The driver stopped initiating conversation and turned the volume up slightly on the radio. For the entire length of the HOV, no one talked. All you could hear was the radio. [Field Notes: 9/11/2006] Another driver, on her way to the Pentagon, seemed to open the floor for conversation as she responded to a slug who had just been literally ―left in the dust‖ of the impatient driver: She was a professionally dressed African American woman in her late 20's. As I got in to the front passenger seat, the guy in the back asked her, "you're not goin' to tear off and leave us, are you?" She laughed and said "no." I asked if she had witnessed the incident in front of her and she said that she had. She jestingly said to the other slug, "I guess you weren't moving fast enough." I thought for sure she was going to start chatting with one or both of us, but after a gap of silence, she adjusted the radio…. When we said thank you, she replied, "Thank YOU." which suggested that she appreciated our service and was acknowledging its value.

103

The Conversationalist In contrast to Attuned Communicators, Conversationalists are more active in their attempts to verbally engage their passengers. They are willing to make multiple attempts if necessary to achieve this goal. In addition, they tend to dominate conversations and can essentially carry on one-way verbal ―exchanges‖ as long as at least one passenger appears to be actively listening. I rode with a Conversationalist one rainy Friday morning: It was obvious that he wanted to talk and he dominated the conversation. As I got in, I apologized for splashing water (it was raining really hard and I was wearing a rain poncho and carrying an umbrella) and he told me "don't worry about it...really." Once I was seated, he showed me where the seat adjustment button was and recommended that I put the seat back since there was plenty of room which I did (other slug was sitting behind he driver since there was a car seat in the back passenger seat). We got on the conversation of cars and he told me that he just bought a new truck. It has everything he has always wanted in a truck and he "just LOVES it." I asked if he was referring the SUV we were riding in and he replied, "No, my wife is driving it today."…He told us that he works for the government as a mechanic. I thought this was a little odd since he was wearing a suit -I wondered if he was management. He said that he works for a general that he rarely sees…The driver shared that he has a brother in the Coast Guard who is a rescue swimmer. He is proud of his brother…The driver said he used to work at a Mercedes dealership. He is married with two kids and one on the way. [Field Notes: 9/1/2006] I traveled with another Conversationalist on a different morning who was obviously interested in talking, but met with some resistance from a front passenger slug who was not particularly interested in verbal interaction. After multiple attempts, the driver was finally successful in engaging his front passenger in a conversation on auto racing: He drove a dark colored Honda SUV (clean with a few items lying around). He had a brief case on the seat behind him…He had a very annoying laugh and tried to start up a conversation with the slug beside him shortly after we pulled away from the commuter lot. He started talking about how unusual it was that we haven't had any named storms yet. The front passenger had already leaned his head back against the head

104

rest (preparing to sleep?), but turned his head slightly, nodding in agreement and acknowledged that, "this time last year we already had 5 hurricanes and 12 named storms"…The driver…launched into an essentially one-way conversation about the complexities of forecasting. The front passenger slug leaned forward slightly and glanced over once or twice to provide what I would call "reserved responses" before returning to his original position with his head square in the middle of the head rest and head tilted back -- he clearly did not want to talk. When the conversation didn‘t seem to be going anywhere, the driver turned up the radio…Within a minute or so, he started talking about alternative fuels, then Alaska and eventually auto racing. It was at this point that the conversation finally took off…I was bit surprised when the passenger slug, who at first had seemed a bit stuffy, joked about the use of "reverse profiling" at the racing event security check points: "Beer gut. T-shirt two sizes two small. 12 pack of Bud Light. Yeah...you're a fan." [Field Notes: 8/14/2006]. Preoccupied Driver Although interested in conversing, Preoccupied Drivers are periodically distracted with other activities at the same time they are trying to engage their passengers in conversation. These activities involve the making and receiving cell phone calls. The driver usually apologizes at the beginning of the ride in anticipation of cell phone calls or as phone calls occur and attempts to convey to passengers that they are not trying to ignore them and are interested in interacting. I caught a ride from a local politician one afternoon who demonstrated this interaction management style: When I thanked him, he replied "No problem." He drove a Ford SUV with leather interior. There was a crochet afghan underneath the floor mat under my feet (WEIRD!) and a stack of things on the seat next to me (a stack of papers – perhaps some kind of reports and a soft leather brief case with suit jacket draped over them). Shortly after we got in, he apologized that he might have to be on the cell phone on the drive home. "With modern technology, you can't get away from your desk these days." On his first call, he told the person that he was "supposed to meet a camera crew coming down from DC – Channel 9 News." He asked the person if they had heard...The second call was about his granddaughter‘s birthday. When he got off of this phone call, he told us…"I quit worrying about mine and started focusing on hers." (his daughter‘s kids?). The next three calls were also about his press conference, laws, options… At one point, it was

105

apparent from his conversations that he was overbooked for some speaking engagements. He explained to us some of the details… He looked back several times using his rearview mirror…About 3 miles before our exit…he took out his ear piece and started talking to the front passenger slug…After he put his ear piece way, he seemed to be focusing his attentions on the front seat passenger. I felt like a fly on the wall. [Field Notes: 9/25/2006] Another afternoon, I caught a ride in Rosslyn from an African American woman in her 40's who also demonstrated this management style: She was driving a Mazda 5-speed and listening to WTOP when I got into the car. I thanked her for the ride as I sat in the back passenger seat…She confessed that her AC was acting up and had already had it fixed once recently. Apparently ―it cools fine as long as you are moving.‖ I told her a hot ride was better than no ride and she responded, "I like your attitude!" She was finishing a bag of animal crackers and drinking a soda as I got in….Throughout the commute, she chatted on and off with us between phone calls. Apparently her daughter had gone to TN with husband and the car he borrowed from his brother broke down. She told several callers, "He better find a way to bring my baby home even if he has to carry her on his shoulders." Not long into our commute, I asked the driver if she minded if I drank my water. She said, "Are you kidding? Look at this car?" (Insinuating that her car was a mess)…Between calls, she told us that she lives in Fredericksburg & commutes to DC (DuPont Cr.)…She used to be in the military. We also talked about the Andrea Yates case…We also talked about DC sniper case…At one point, the driver asked about difference between inner/outer loops -she said it has always confused her. I drew a picture for her and explained the difference, and she was very appreciative. [Field Notes: 8\4\2006]. Slug Interaction Management Styles Like drivers, slugs may employ one or more interactional strategies to convey their social interaction intentions to drivers – strangers whose personal space they temporarily share. These include closing eyes, sleeping, staring (e.g., an object in the car, out one or more windows), looking around the vehicle while avoiding eye contact, engaging or attempting to engage others in conversation, other slugs or familiars traveling with them, and the use of props (e.g., sunglasses, reading materials, crossword puzzles, electronic devices with earphones). I observed five basic stranger interaction

106

management styles employed by slugs who utilized one or more of the aforementioned interactional strategies in different combinations: Sleeper, Talker/Hybrid, SelfContained/Busy Bee, Mouse/Watcher, and Sideliner (See Table 4).

Table 4. Stranger Interaction Management Styles Used by Slugs Management Style

Frequency

Percent

Sleeper

213

44.2%

Talker/Hybrid

116

24.1%

Self-Contained/Busy Bee

58

12.0%

Mouse/Watcher

54

11.2%

Sideliner

41

8.5%

482

100.0%

Total

The Sleeper The most common stranger interaction management style that I observed both male and female slugs utilizing was the Sleeper (See Table 5). The main objective of Sleepers is to disengage by closing their eyes and sleeping or pretending to sleep. Although Sleepers are often willing to engage in the initial niceties which may include answering questions from the driver, they are not really interested in verbal interaction. Given the first opportunity to disengage, many of them will immediately close eyes and go to sleep. They may read, stare out the window or temporarily occupy themselves in

107

Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of Slugs Encountered in Private Space: Race and Gender by Stranger Interaction Management Style

Characteristics

Sleeper f

%

Stranger Interaction Management Style SelfMouse/ Talker/Hybrid Contained/ Watcher Busy Bee f % f % f %

Sideliner f

%

Combined* f

%

Race Caucasian Black Other 108

Total

131

61.5%

80

69.0%

40

69.0%

32

59.3%

25

61.0%

308

63.9%

65

30.5%

30

25.9%

18

31.0%

19

35.2%

11

26.8%

143

29.7%

17

8.0%

6

5.2%

0

0.0%

3

5.6%

5

12.2%

31

6.4%

213

100.0%

116

100.1%+

58

100.0%

54

100.1%+

41

100.0%

482

100.0%

128

60.1%

61

52.6%

38

65.5%

42

77.8%

25

61.0%

294

61.0%

85

39.9%

55

47.4%

20

34.5%

12

22.2%

16

39.0%

188

39.0%

213

100.0%

116

100.0%

58

100.0%

54

100.0%

41

100.0%

482

100.0%

Gender Male Female Total

f = frequency % = percentage of occurrence + = error due to rounding * = an aggregation of Stranger Interaction Management Styles

108

some other activity for a short time right before and after closing their eyes in order to disengage or avoid conversational engagement. Others can fall asleep in "record time." Although they spend the majority of the commute with their eyes closed, they may occasionally awaken and quickly survey their surroundings before immediately closing their eyes again. One slug, a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 40s, was very forthcoming about his management style one afternoon: When I asked him if it was challenging to slug everyday, he said, "no, not at all. You've got the hard job. My job as a slug is simple: get in, sit down, shut up and go to sleep.‖ Soon after that, he fell silent. and I chatted like we normally do and I‘m pretty sure our slug had fallen asleep. He began to stir shortly before we arrived at the 17 lot. [Field Notes: 2/6/2001] Another slug, a professionally dressed Caucasian female in her 40‘s with short straight blond hair, was equally blunt about her intentions and those of her traveling companion: Slug # 1 immediately announced that she was planning to sleep on the way in. She said that her ―partner‖ was planning to do the same, ―but he is too polite to say so up front.‖ I asked her quickly how long she had been slugging-she said she has been slugging for 2 year and never had a bad experience. She said that both she and her partner work at the same place. Almost immediately after that, she closed her eyes and fell asleep. Right after we took the exit for the Pentagon, they both woke up. I asked them if they ―had a nice nap,‖ and Slug #1 stated that she had had ―a very nice one, thank you.‖ [Field Notes: 5/9/2001]. Most slugs are not as forward as this woman and are a little more subtle about their intentions to sleep. Many will engage in initial niceties such as expressions of gratitude, and general discussions about weather or traffic before attempting to doze.

109

However, they will disengage at the earliest opportunity – sometimes with assistance from the driver‘s radio – as one woman did on our way to Rosslyn one Thursday morning: She thanked us for the ride. asked her if she worked in Rosslyn, or if she took the Metro there to her job. The woman stated that she worked for the State Department and takes the Metro up one stop to Foggy Bottom. She chatted with us for a few minutes (weather/forecast) before closing her eyes (as we were listening to the latest traffic and weather report on the radio) and going to sleep. She slept the rest of the way and didn't open her eyes until we were almost in Rosslyn. [Field Notes: 12/15/2005]. Others slugs will take the opportunity to go to sleep while the driver is distracted with traffic. For example, one professionally dressed African American woman managed to disengage during the time I was trying to navigate my way out of Rosslyn and onto the HOV: When I asked, the woman stated that she had been waiting for about 10 minutes which is longer than usual. She commented that it was really cold and thanked us for the ride. By the time we got on the interstate, she had leaned her head back and closed her eyes. She slept most of the way and woke up shortly after we exited the interstate. [Field Notes: 2/13/2005]. On a foggy Monday morning another slug, a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 50s with black hair, planned to drive that morning until he saw the long line of cars. Once in my car, he managed to get comfortable and close his eyes before we had even left the commuter lot: When he approached the car, we told him that we preferred Rosslyn, but that we would take Pentagon, Crystal City or just about any place short of DC. He said he wanted to go to Rossyn. He thanked us as he got into the car and told us that he had planned to drive today, but that he changed his mind at the last minute. I told him that we were glad he changed his mind. He said he was glad, too, because he would be waiting in line behind us right now. I smiled back at him and chuckled. Before we even left the parking lot, he seemed to have settled in; he had tilted his head back and

110

closed his eyes. He slept most of the way and woke up right as we were pulling into Rosslyn. [Field Notes: 1/30/2006]. I was continuously amazed at how many people could fall asleep so quickly in a stranger‘s car. At one point, I began to wonder if people were actually sleeping since so many managed to ―wake up‖ just moments before or after I exited the interstate or shortly before the drop off point. I am convinced, however, that at least some slugs sleep – their snoring gives them away. One heavy set professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 30s with glasses and a mustache even woke up his sleeping co-slug with his loud snoring: The car got quiet all of a sudden and I realized that both slugs had closed their eyes and nodded off to sleep. At one point, #2 began to snore loudly. #1 woke up, looked over and seemed rather annoyed. ( and I joked later about this after they got out of the car.) & I chatted quietly amongst ourselves as the slugs slept. Both of them awakened as I pulled up to the traffic light at the commuter lot. [Field Notes: 7/6/2001]. Although most slugs are very courteous and respectful, some are not willing to waste precious sleep over the exchange of niceties. This was the case for a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his 60‘s who didn‘t even waste time with an expression of gratitude; he was asleep and snoring in record time: When he got in, he did not say thank you. He just wanted to confirm that we were going to the "Big Lot." That was unusual because most people refer to the 610 lot as the "old lot." He didn't say anything after that, closed his eyes immediately and went right to sleep. He snored loudly almost the whole way. and I both think that he was the "610" guy from the other day. He did thank me for the ride when he got out. [Field Notes: 12/6/2005] The Talker/Hybrid Talker/Hybrids are mainly interested in passing the time with conversation. They are easily engaged and seem to enjoy verbal interaction with the driver and/or other slugs. Given the opportunity, they will chat throughout the commute. Talker/Hybrids are

111

usually very respectful of slugging etiquette and follow the driver‘s lead. They are distinguishable from other management styles in that when a conversation is stalled due to some event that temporarily distracts the driver (e.g., traffic report on the radio; cell phone call), they will wait to see what the driver does afterwards. If the driver does not initiate conversation or indicates that they no longer wish to talk, individuals using this management style will resort to interactional strategies other than talking to pass the time (e.g., sleeping, reading or staring). In some cases, Talker/Hybrids may disengage if they feel the continuation of conversation might lead to potential conflict with the driver (e.g., conversations about politics). One Friday afternoon a particularly chatty Caucasian woman in her 20s rode with me from the Pentagon to the Route 17 commuter lot. Despite the fact that I temporarily suspended discourse several times for a traffic update and to answer my cell phone, she was willing to maintain conversation throughout for the entire commute: This passenger seat slug was very friendly and chatty. She talked about her cat (we swapped cat stories) and lives alone in an apartment. She has been looking for a house...She loves to plant and wants to find a nice place so she can do lots of gardening. She offered advice on planting… called a few times and we listened to the traffic report several times. Each time, we picked up our conversation where it left off. As she was getting out at the commuter lot, she thanked me for the ride and wished me luck with deciding on plant barriers. [Field Notes: 3/30/2001]. Another slug was very willing to share her slugging experiences. She was a Caucasian woman in her 40‘s with long strawberry blond hair and engaged in a three-way conversation with me and my carpooler one spring afternoon: She thanked us immediately for giving her a ride as she was getting into the back seat. She was very friendly and chatty. I asked her about her slugging experiences and she said that she thought "slugging is a great system" and said that she "surprisingly feels safe as a woman slugging alone." She told us that "slugs look out for each other" and you "don‘t have to accept a ride

112

if you don‘t want to." When we asked, she said that she had never really had a bad experience and that so far, "it works" for her. started asking her additional questions...She told us during the course of conversation that she lives in a house in Stafford County on several acres of land that was given to her by her parents…She mentioned ―we‖ several times, but never said husband, partner or children…As we pulled up to the drop off point, she very sincerely thanked us for the ride (almost as if we had gone out of our way for her) before exiting the car. [Field Notes: 4/5/2001]. One afternoon, my carpooler and I engaged in a lively conversation with a professionally dressed African American man in his 50s. The exchange was amicable and continued through the majority of the trip. It ended abruptly. It is difficult to be certain exactly what caused the end our friendly discourse; it could have been the humor I found in a political bumper sticker, his discomfort from revealing the instability of the Department of Homeland Security, or something else entirely. However, my carpooler and I speculated that the man may have disengaged to avoid any potential conflict over differing political opinions: This guy was rather chatty for the first two-thirds of the trip (up until the merge)…Talked about slug rules/etiquette. Talked about HOT lanes (bad idea). He is a government contractor and works with Homeland Security with border issues. He says HLS has lots of jobs - new and unstable agency - struggle for power going on. I saw a bumper sticker (―Somewhere in Texas a village is missing an idiot‖) and read it out loud and laughed with Shortly thereafter, the man fell silent and didn't say anything else until we got to the commuter lot and thanked us getting out. and I wondered if he was a fan of President Bush and was insulted when we laughed at the bumper sticker. [Field Notes: 3/23/2006]. Even with suspicions of strangers and their intentions on the rise after the worst terrorist attack in our nation‘s history, slugs were willing to converse with strangers and perhaps even more willing to use the Talker/Hybrid management style. A little over a week after the plane crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, I picked up two very talkative slugs just outside the Pentagon compound – a Caucasian woman in her

113

30‘s and a Hispanic man in his 30s. Although we had never met and were complete strangers, we engaged in conversation -- primarily about slugging – for the entire commute: When I asked if they worked at the Pentagon, #1 said that she did not and that she worked for an attorney in an office behind the White House…#2 said that he worked for a ―government contractor‖ in Crystal City…They both said they had been slugging for about 2 years. I asked them how their families felt about them slugging. #1 said that when she first told them, she said, ―My father thought I was crazy! They could not believe that I was doing this.‖ #2 chimed in, ―I guess nobody loves me because no one has said anything to me about slugging‖…She said that ―word travels fast‖ when there is any thing out of the ordinary happens…I then asked them if they had been slugging on the day that the plane hit the Pentagon. #1 said that she was off of Route 123 on her way to a client‘s office…#2 said that he did slug that day. I asked him what he did. He told me that he ―made a sign and stood on the corner hoping someone would give me a ride.‖ I asked him if someone did, and he said he was able to get a ride. He said that he was really afraid that he would not get home and if he hadn‘t left early (many of his coworkers stayed), he thinks that he wouldn‘t have gotten home…She said that she has been slugging although her commute has increased from 1 ½ hours to 3 ½ hours…I asked them how they learned where to go for the slug lines after the plane crash. #1 said that she had heard it on the radio and had gone onto one of the websites to get details. She said that before then, it was chaos and she ended up taking the bus for a few days (although finding the buses was a challenge in and of itself). [Field Notes: 9/19/01]. The Self-Contained/Busy Bee Individuals employing the Self-Contained/Busy Bee management style actively disengage with the assistance of props and may unintentionally violate slugging etiquette as they try to create personal space in the middle of someone else‘s private space. For the majority of the commute, Self-Contained/Busy Bees may engage in one or more activity such as reading, working a crossword puzzle, sorting papers, paying bills, or using a computer. These activities are cues to others that these individuals are unavailable for conversation, and they may become annoyed if repeatedly interrupted. They may also

114

shield their eyes or ears with dark sunglasses, cell phone, or earphones connected to an electronic device, making it even more difficult to get their attention and to engage them in conversation. Although Self-Contained/Busy Bees may be willing to talk to a limited extent, it is often difficult to engage them in any lengthy conversation. They may occasionally survey their surroundings before resuming their activity, and occasionally doze off although they do not usually sleep for any length of time. Two "withs" who chat amongst themselves for the majority of the commute are also examples of individuals using the Self-Contained/Busy Bees management style. Self-contained/Busy Bees may engage in a single activity or they may multi-task. One Friday morning on our way to Rosslyn, I observed a Caucasian man in his 30s multitasking as he employed this management style: He thanked me as he was getting into the back passenger seat. I mentioned how irritated I was at the woman who tried to cut in line. He replied that "most of the slugs know the rules" and pointed out that he "walked right past this car without even acknowledging it.‖ As we were leaving the lot, he put on ear phones to his MP3 player and started reading a book. He read for a good portion of the trip before eventually putting the book back into his leather bag. He had dark sunglasses on, so I couldn't see if he had his eyes closed or not after he put his book away. [Fieldnotes: 3/17/2006]. I observed another slug using the Self-Contained/Busy Bee management style on a cold Tuesday afternoon. Instead of multi-tasking, this professionally dressed African American woman in her 30s used props in succession (i.e., food and a cell phone) to avoid verbal engagement with strangers: She thanked me as she got into the car. Shortly after she put on her seat belt and I pulled away from the slug line, I heard a crinkling noise. I looked back and saw that she was trying to open a bag of Twizzlers -- first with her hands and then with her teeth. She proceeded to eat the entire package. Soon after she finished her Twizzlers, she made a cell phone call and talked on the phone for the remainder of the trip. She never asked if I minded if she ate in my car, nor did she ask if I minded if she talked on her phone. I

115

found this very irritating but I said nothing. I scowled at her through the rear view mirror but she was too absorbed in her eating her candy and talking on the phone to notice. Another slug, a professionally dressed Caucasian woman in her 40s, used the Self-Contained/Busy Bee management style but expanded her area of ―personal space.‖ Her complete absorption in spreading out, sorting and stapling invoices sent a clear message that she was not available for conversation: Slug #2 confirmed Route 17 and as she tried to get into the car, she was struggling with a small suitcase. I suggested that she might want to put it in the backseat so she could have more room. She seemed frustrated and said something under her breath about how she "needed stuff" that was in there. She finally decided to part with the suitcase and dug out a few things (invoices and a stapler) before passing it to the woman sitting in the backseat. As soon as she was settled, she began to sort and staple the invoices. I didn‘t feel comfortable trying to talk to her since she was so busy with her paperwork. I wondered if this was work she was taking home or personal business. It felt really awkward as she spread out the papers – a few pieces ended up covering my emergency break. I was rather annoyed, but I didn‘t say anything. I was somewhat surprised that she decided to take up this activity while sitting in the front seat. This went on for over 30 minutes. [Field Notes: 4/27/2001] Because Self-Contained/Busy Bees are obviously attempting to avoid social interaction with the aid of highly visible props, some may become agitated or annoyed if a stranger attempts to circumvent these barriers to communication. Such was the case one Friday afternoon when I gave a ride to a professionally dressed Caucasian man in his late 40s. Although I felt justified in attempting to engage the man who sat next to me in my car, he only grudgingly interacted with me: He started off reading a book, then a magazine, and then the newspaper – using a highlighter. As I tried to spark some conversation, he would speak up every now and then but seemed almost annoyed with my attempt to socialize. When he realized that the HOV backed up at Dumfries, he seemed very annoyed and growled, "from now on I will be taking the train." I stopped trying to talk to him after this point. He seemed a bit

116

grumpy to me and a bit ungrateful. He did, however, thank me as he was getting out of the car at the lot. [Field Notes: 4/13/2001] Although as a rule, slugs do not usually talk to each other for any length of time. When they do, it is usually because they have been invited into a three- or four-way conversation by the driver. I observed one exception when I picked up for the first time at the Route 610 Pentagon line early on a Tuesday afternoon. The two African American women in their 30s dressed business casual got into the back seat and a third woman got into the front seat. The private conversation held between the two women in back made it awkward for me to engage them and illustrates how two ―withs‖ use the SelfContained/Busy Bee management style and essentially utilize each other as ―human props‖ to disengage from the other strangers with whom they are sharing a ride: Slugs #2 & 3 chatted between each other most of the way. Although they were polite and answered my questions about their slugging experiences, I got the distinct impression that they knew each other and were not really interested in talking to anyone else. After a while, I stopped trying to engage them. Slugs usually do not talk to each other and I was surprised they did and for so long. Perhaps they felt comfortable since I ―opened the floor‖ or perhaps because I was so talkative with slug #1. Regardless, it was rather awkward. [Field Notes: 6/19/2001] The Mouse/Watcher The Mouse/Watcher actively disengages without the aid of props. These individuals are usually quiet and male. They rarely, if ever, close their eyes for any length of time, and never sleep. They will engage minimally in verbal exchanges, which are usually in the form of expressions of gratitude. Mouse/Watchers spend most of the commute looking around or staring out windows. It was 36 degrees, windy and getting dark when I arrived at the Pentagon south parking long and pulled up to the Route 610 sign. There were about 15 people standing in

117

line and the man standing at the head of the line got into the back seat passenger of my car. He was a courteous African American man who clearly demonstrated the Mouse/Watcher management style: He thanked us as he got into the car. He was wearing fatigues and I assumed active duty military. As he was fastening his seat belt, I made a comment about how windy it was and he replied "yes ma'am -- it certainly is." By the time I got to the HOV and looked back, he seemed to be entranced as he stared out the window. He was quiet the entire time. I commented once or twice out loud in response to the traffic report (expecting that he might chime in), but he either didn't hear me (in his own world staring out the window) or chose to pretend he didn't hear me. As we exited the interstate, I looked in my rear view mirror and he appeared to be looking around – when he saw that I was looking in the rear view mirror, he quickly resumed his gaze out the back passenger window. [Field Notes: 1/31/2006] One chilly Friday afternoon my carpooler and I went by the Pentagon to pick up slugs. I observed a Caucasian man in his 30s with a military-style haircut use ―staring‖ as a stranger interactional strategy while he stood in line at the Mine Road sign. He resumed this strategy shortly after getting into my car and employed the Mouse/Watcher management style during the commute: We pulled up near the pick up point and called out, ―‘Mine Road!‘ The first guy in line glanced over in our direction but did not make a move for the car. He continued to stare off into space like we weren‘t there and seemed to be ignoring us…The guy next to him nudged the first guy and pointed to us. He walked over to the car and got in to the back passenger seat of my car…He had a duffle bag with him that I suspect held his uniform…I greeted him and he thanked me for the ride. As and I talked, I tried to open the floor for conversation and made a few general comments about the weather (pretty cold today), but he either didn't here me or was not interested in talking. I decided not to push it. When I looked back at him several times along the way, I saw him look around the car once or twice, but he avoided eye contact and spent most of his time looking out the passenger side window. As we pulled up to the drop off point, he thanked me again for the ride and told us to "have a great weekend." [Field Notes: 1/6/2006].

118

It is my opinion that many of the slugs who utilize the Mouse/Watcher management style essentially tune out their surroundings. Just because people do not respond immediately to attempts to verbally engage them does not necessarily mean that they are ignoring you. On one cold Wednesday afternoon, a female Mouse/Watcher did not realize that I had attempted to verbally engage her: She was a Caucasian woman in her 30s with blond hair. She was dressed business casual and has ridden with me before. She and her husband rode with me on the morning that 95 N was shut down because of the turned over tractor trailer and & I had taken Route 1 as an alternative…She thanked us for the ride as she got into the back passenger side seat. Before I recognized her, I asked her if it was cold enough for her. She didn't respond and was looking out the passenger side window. She was silent for the entire trip and continued to stare out the window. As we pulled up to the drop off point, I turned around and our eyes met. She thanked me for the ride and I smiled and nodded my head affirmatively. After she got out, I asked if she realized that the woman was deaf. She said she had not and thought the woman was ―just being rude when she didn't answer‖ my question. said she felt bad for thinking this, and realized now that the woman had not responded because she didn't hear me. [Field Notes: 1/25/2006]. The Sideliner Sideliners are primarily interested in passing time by listening rather than participating actively in verbal interactions. They are usually quiet, and socially but not always verbally engaged. As they tune into a conversation between other occupants of the car, they may show interest through facial expressions (e.g., smiles, nodding their heads), and may periodically interject a comment or two. They may occasionally look away out the window, but not for any length of time. When a conversation ceases, Sideliners will – like the Talker/Hybrids – resort to the use of other interactional strategies to pass time such as sleeping, reading or staring.

119

One summer afternoon on my way home after picking up three slugs at the Pentagon, I engaged in an essentially three-way conversation with two of the men. The third man, a heavyset Caucasian man in this 50s wearing a suit and tie sat in the passenger side back seat and was fairly quiet. Although he was not very actively involved verbally, he seemed to follow the conversation and chimed in every once in a while (See references to Slug #3): I asked how everyone was as they got settled and someone replied, ―Better now that we got a ride.‖ Slug #2 was very chatty and did most of the talking…#1 made a comment about the ―executive decision‖ made with #2‘s move and #2 responded, ―Yes, my wife made that decision.‖ We talked about a variety of topics: ozone alert; slug driver that makes people pay for AC – #1 questioned weather this was an urban legend. He commented that if he ever ended up in the AC guy‘s car, he ask him to pull over on the side of the road on the HOV and get out. He would then tell the guy to pay him $5 to get back in car to be the third passenger. We all laughed. #3 mentioned the old lady who wouldn‘t get onto the HOV (just picks up passengers for the company) and #2 said that he had not heard the story and wanted details. He found this story amusing. They kidded me about the HOV and said suggested that I might be hesitant to go on the HOV. I teased them back and that I had posed as a little old lady and wore a gray wig. [Field Notes: 6/28/2001]. Another afternoon after picking up two slugs at the Pentagon, I observed another professionally dressed man utilize the Sideliner stranger management style. While sitting in the back passenger seat, he listened in on a conversation I was having with another man in the front seat, but only interjected once. When that lively conversation eventually fizzled out, this man switched interactional strategies from listening and observing to sleeping: He was pretty quiet throughout the commute, but chimed in occasionally as the man in the front passenger seat and I were talking. When I mentioned North Dakota and the town where I used to live (pop. 2800), he remarked, "that sounds like a place I'd like to live." He was silent after that and went to sleep after the conversation ended. [Field notes: 4/10/2006].

120

Although one slug who had ridden with me before usually employed the Talker/Hybrid management style, one chilly rainy morning on our way to Rosslyn, he switched to the Sideliner management style. Perhaps the presence of my regular carpooler caused a shift in social dynamics to which this slug reacted: He thanked us as he was getting into the car. This guy has ridden with me before. He has bleached blond hair, which looks rather awkward…When I asked, he said he had been waiting for about 20 minutes. He is usually very chatty, but I have not ridden with him when has been with me. He was awake the entire time and seemed to be interested in what and I were talking about, but said very little. He looked out the window every once in a while, but for the majority of the trip, he was looking toward us and appeared to be listening. He chimed in twice (once about how he avoids Burger King because his daughter is obsessed with the chicken fries & once regarding how this type of weather encourages HOV cheaters since the state troopers usually don't patrol in the rain). He asked to get out right before Lynn Street (before official drop off point) and I agreed – we were already standing still due to traffic. He thanked us for the ride as he got out of the car. [Field Notes: 2/22/2006].


121

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Essence of Public Space Slugging encounters as they transition from public to private space resemble many aspects of transient nonintimate sociality in public space. Most notably, there are evident situationally defined social norms that give order to process. Like individuals in other waiting, transportation and other public environments, ―regulars‖ or ―die hards‖ have a clear understanding of the social rules that govern the ―social order‖ (Goffman 1963) and for the most part abide by these standards. This includes the practice of avoiding verbal exchange in public space except to negotiate some ride sharing agreements. One notable exception is the part-time slug who is not always completely familiar with slugging etiquette and may inadvertently violate these rules. Any violations of slugging etiquette threaten the social order of slugging and may affect the efficiency of the system. Bus drivers describe similar experiences with ―newcomers‖ and ―new drivers,‖ (Nash 1975), as do cabdrivers when they encounter ―non-cab users‖ (Davis 1959). In public, slugs are equally vulnerable to others just like those in other waiting settings, riding on subways, seeking sex in public bathrooms, and patronizing pornographic bookstores (see Goffman 1961, 1963, 1971; Humphries 1970; Karp 1973; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973; Lofland 1972a, 1973). As a result, slugs standing in public space often engage in similar self-management techniques or strategies, such as staring, use of props, body positioning or posture, or verbal interaction with ―withs,‖ in an effort to create an element of privacy (Goffman 1961, 1963, 1971; Henderson 1975;

122

Humphries 1970; Karp 1973; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973; Lofland 1972a, 1973; Nash 1975). As do strategies employed in other public settings where strangers necessarily co-exist, slugging interactional strategies effectively communicate to others their unavailability for verbal interaction (Goffman 1961, 1963, 1971; Henderson 1975; Humphries 1970; Karp 1973; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973; Lofland 1972a, 1973; Nash 1975). On rare occasions, as with strangers in some other public settings, slugs may break the rule of silence to honor the ―public bargain,‖ and band together to confront rule violators when violations are serious and threaten to disrupt the social order that keeps the system running smoothly (Humphries 1970; Lofland 1972a, 1972b; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). At the point of negotiation in public space, slugs and drivers are on relatively equal footing. Neither is under obligation to agree upon a less than optimal ride sharing agreement and can refuse any terms or conditions offered by the other. Unlike bus drivers, cab drivers and presumably subway operators who have little control over who they pick up (Davis 1975; Nash 1975), drivers of slugs can refuse to provide transportation to strangers seeking transportation. Furthermore, although drivers may be encouraged to ―maximize,‖ they have the unquestioned right to refuse anyone. This is clearly demonstrated by drivers who refuse to take additional riders when available seats remain in their vehicle. At the same time, as both parties attempt to secure ―services‖ from the other, it is the slug who has a slight advantage over the other at the onset of negotiations. If a slug elects to decline a driver‘s offer to a specified location, that driver is delayed and must solicit the ―services‖ of another slug. Although there may be only a brief delay, a

123

shortage of slugs, as is often the case on Friday mornings and during the winter months, may lead to extensive delays, which may potentially defeat the main purpose of picking up slugs (i.e., time savings afforded with qualification for HOV lanes). When slugging encounters transition into private space, they still maintain some of the characteristics of other public space transient nonintimate relationships. However, the transition from public to private space leads to a remarkable shift in power, which redefines the dynamics of the relationship between slugs and driver. Although slugging is essentially a two-way service relationship mutually beneficial to both parties, once a slug enters the private space of the driver‘s vehicle, interactional control is shifted to the driver. The nature of any further interactions is dictated by the driver. Inside the private space of the driver‘s vehicle, the dynamics of the slug-driver relationship takes on the characteristics of a ―professional‖ service relationship (Lofland 1995). Despite the fact that the driver is providing a public transportation service similar to cab and bus drivers and has no special skills or training related to this service, the nature and structure of the setting (i.e., confined private space owned by only one of the players and traveling at a high rate of speed) allows the driver to presume superior status as slugs resign themselves to a subordinate position. Under these new conditions, slugs become more vulnerable than the driver, and the driver assumes the ―crown‖ (Lofland 1995). Fortunately for the slug, this subordinate status is temporary. At the conclusion of slugging encounters in public space, the balance of power is restored. Furthermore, unlike the subordinate/super-ordinate dynamics of public transportation service provider relationships, the power differential is not defined by the livelihood of the transportation

124

provider, and roles are not fixed. That is, an individual has the right to assume either role of driver or slug, and the relationship between slugging participants is redefined with each encounter. It is not uncommon for an individual like me to take command over the environment and interactions among strangers in my private space in my role as driver, only to relinquish any claims to control the following day as I assume the role of slug. Despite the obvious power differential within private space, slugs and drivers both employ interactional strategies as they attempt to manage the copresence of strangers, which includes concealment of any discomfort, creation of privacy, and reduction of uncertainty. Slug strategies include the use of props, attire, and seat selection, which is consistent with interactional strategies employed in bus depots and other waiting settings, subways, and buses (Goffman 1961, 1963, 1971; Henderson 1975; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973; Lofland 1972a, 1973; Nash 1975). In addition, slugs often utilize staring or surveying the environment, silence and body posturing, also common in the aforementioned public settings as well as ―tearooms‖ and pornographic bookstores (Humphries 1970; Karp 1973). Although some slugs may prefer conversation as a means to pass the time and manage stranger encounters, this strategy can only be achieved and maintained with the permission of the driver; the only acceptable and expected verbal utterance without driver initiation is an expression of gratitude. Verbal interaction is also less common in other public settings, and usually employed by older and more seasoned ―regular‖ commuters (Davis 1959; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973; Nash 1975) or among ―withs‖ (Goffman 1971; Nash 1975; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). Nevertheless, the most common interactional strategy employed by slugs is to close their eyes and sleep or pretend to sleep. The manner in

125

which slugs ―fall asleep‖ and arouse shortly before their destination closely resembles the behavior of a ―competent‖ subway commuter (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). Not surprisingly, drivers rely on similar interactional strategies, but may afford slugs little more than ―civil inattention‖ once they enter the driver‘s private vehicle as is common in other public settings (Goffman 1963, 1971; Humphries 1970; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973; Lofland 1989; Nash 1975). While some drivers will only communicate via gestures like tearoom patrons (Humphries 1970), others may be willing to engage in minimal discourse with strangers sharing their private space. Most often, however, drivers utilize silence in combination with props - the most common of which is the radio - to disengage and communicate their disinterest in verbal exchange. Unlike relatively complete silence that dominates pornographic bookstores and tearoom public environments, the silence of the driver is frequently replaced by the sound of music, a radio talk show, or other electronically produced ―noise.‖ In addition, it is not uncommon for drivers, especially when traveling with a familiar, to treat slugs as ―nonpersons‖ (Goffman 1963; Lofland 1989), just as cab passengers often treat their driver (Davis 1959). In the event that drivers initiate or permit a verbal interaction with strangers sharing their private space, the nature of these conversations may be limited to discussions of weather, traffic, the slugging system, or slugging experiences. This is not unlike the extent of conversations on public buses (Nash 1975). In general, personal identifying information is rarely revealed by slug or driver as is the case with patrons of buses and tearooms (Humphries 1970; Nash 1975). There are times, however, when either driver or passenger engages in the taboo of sharing personal data, which may prompt the other to equally indulge. These situations are not unlike

126

some conversations between cabdriver and fare, and are possible because of the fleeting nature of the relationship (Davis 1959). Similar to what has been observed in public settings, isolated use of a single interactional strategy by slugging participants is rare, and is more often employed in combination with other interactional strategies (Henderson 1975; Humphries 1970; Karp 1973; Lofland 1972a, 1972b; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973). Through utilization of these various interactional strategies, both drivers and slugs develop distinct and recognizable management styles as documented in the previous chapter. These stranger interaction management styles reflect the integration of different combinations of interactional strategies than those documented in other transient nonintimate relationships in public space (Henderson 1975; Humphries 1970, Karp 1973, Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973; Lofland 1972b; 1973). Most notably, because the private space drivers and slugs co-occupy is so confined, movement (i.e., beyond body posturing and during the use of props) as a distinctive interactional strategy is not a viable option. The exception is the cabdriver and his fare, although dynamics of this confined public transportation service relationship exhibits the transposition of the power differential observed in slug and driver relationships in private space. Whereas strangers in waiting settings and on subway trains or public buses may elect to move around or at minimum change seats (Henderson 1975; Lofland 1972a, 1972b; Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973, Nash 1975), slugs and drivers are confined to one location for the entire duration of private space encounters. Even strangers seeking ―sexual activity‖ in public places of limited area enclosed by four walls often incorporate movement about the setting in their stranger interaction management style (Humphries 1970; Karp 1973). In summary, the absence of

127

movement about the setting as an integrated strategy and the unique combination of a variety of other interactional strategies may explain why stranger interaction management styles documented in this study do not completely correspond to descriptions found elsewhere in the literature on transient nonintimate encounters in public (Levine, Vinson and Wood 1973; Lofland 1972b; 1973) and appear to be unique to this population. Essence of Private Space Regardless of commonalities between slugging encounters and other transient nonintimate relationships in public space, these ―service‖ relationships also reflect attributes characteristic of transient nonintimate relationships in private space. Superficially, comparison of stranger encounters among occupational professionals as they participate in an unconventional public use private transportation system to ―service‖ relationships between prostitutes and their clients might seem absurd. However, similarities between these fleeting and sometimes serial relationships are undeniable. The most obvious similarity is comodification of the human body in exchange for financial benefit (Brewis and Linstead 2000). Before progressing further, I want to make it clear that slugging is not an illegal activity, and does not involve exchange of money for sexual services. Furthermore, its practice is not predominately carried out by ―socially subordinated persons (especially women and ethnic minorities) in both mainstream and normatively marginal places with restricted access‖ (Morrill and Snow 2005:3). In fact, a majority of slugging participants are Caucasian men whose outward appearances (i.e., attire) reflect occupationally professional identities, and master statuses unrelated to their morning and afternoon transient nonintimate ―service‖ relationships (i.e., their method of commuting). Slugging

128

is, however, a norm breaching activity that fosters subordinate/superordinate service relationships also characteristic of prostitution encounters. Encounters between slugs and drivers are intentionally sought, negotiated in public through minimal talk or gestures, and conducted primarily away from the public eye -- rituals similar to those enacted by street prostitutes and their clients (Browne and Minichiello 1995; Brewis and Linstead 2000). Nevertheless, transient nonintimate slugging encounters are negotiated in the spirit of mutual benefit and may arguably be more similar in character to bartered ―service‖ relationships among ―tearoom trade‖ patrons in public space (Humphreys 1970). As are sexual acts for many prostitutes, casual carpooling is a means to an end, though for some prostitutes and all their clients, as well as for tearoom patrons, the process is an end in itself (Browne and Minichiello 1995; Brewis and Linstead 2000; Humphreys 1970). Another similarity between casual carpooling and prostitution is unpredictable and potentially dangerous circumstances that may evolve before or during transient nonintimate encounters in private space (Brewis and Linstead 2000; Browne and Minichiello 1995). The discomfort of being in close quarters with strangers, the power differential characteristic of these ―service relationships,‖ and parallelisms between these encounters and current or former more socially intimate relationship (i.e., ―love‖ relationships of prostitutes and ―normal‖ carpool relationships of slugs or drivers) can make navigating these two types of transient nonintimate relationships difficult. For this reason and as previously discussed, slugs and driver, as well as prostitutes, utilize interactional strategies to manage their copresence with strangers in private space and reduce uncertainty. Strategies such as development of typologies, similar to those

129

developed by public transportation service workers (Davis 1959; Nash 1975), can help reduce anxiety produced by unpredictable and sometimes frightening experiences that can result from stranger encounters in private space (Brewis and Linstead 2000; Browne and Minichiello 1995). Similar to prostitution encounters, and often in tandem, slugs and drivers routinely attempt to maintain social or ―professional‖ distance in their ―service‖ relationship. As prostitutes who enjoy small talk and a cup of coffee before getting down to business (Brewis and Linstead 2000), stranger interaction management styles of slugs and drivers may involve various levels of verbal exchange in combination with employment of props. Likewise, slugs and prostitutes customarily attempt to assess the nature and extent of interaction desired by the dominant actor. Even though assessment of subordinate actor preferences by dominate actors may not necessarily determine the extent of interaction, many drivers are attuned to their passengers and respond accordingly. It may be that these more ―sensitive‖ drivers either acknowledge mutual benefit from this twoway service relationship, or have assumed the role of slug on previous occasions. In stark contrast to fixed roles in prostitution encounters and more permanent marginal status of prostitutes, flexibility of roles and short-term imbalance of power reduce fear and facilitate the maintenance of social order within this realm of transient nonintimate sociality in private space. Private and Public Space Qualities of Casual Carpooling Encounters Although I would like to speak conclusively about the effect of space in terms of private and public on the dynamics of brief stranger encounters and types of interactional strategies used in these kinds transient nonintimate relationships, I cannot. Although my

130

sample is large, diverse and provides considerable evidence of distinct patterns, it was selected purposefully rather than randomly. In addition, this study was more exploratory in nature and data were collected qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Consequently, findings are not necessarily generalizable to all transient nonintimate relationships. Nevertheless, data presented in this study suggest that a combination of several factors, including spatial relations, affect the dimensions of this type of relationship. The data presented in this study clearly suggest that casual carpooling encounters resemble many characteristics documented in other transient nonintimate interactions in public transportation and other public settings, as well as private transitory relationships in private space. Though space, as defined by public or private, seems to explain some differences in dynamics across nonintimate relationships, it is clearly not the only contributing factor. In addition, (1) transition across public and private space, (2) presumed ownership of private space, (3) interactional strategies and management styles used by participants, (4) master status of participants, (5) durability of subordinatesuperordinate status, (6) participation by predominately socially subordinated persons, (7) role flexibility, (8) focus of nonintimate encounter (i.e., focused or unfocused social encounter; physical or sexual encounter), (9) legal or norm breaching characteristics of encounter; (10) service or non-service nature of the relationship (service worker or professional; one-way or mutually beneficial), and (11) exchange of money, all seem to shape the nature and extent of interaction among and across different types of transient nonintimate relationships. Nevertheless, it is perhaps the transition of a relationship through space, rather than the definition of space alone, that has a greater effect on the creation of power differentials.

131

Power differentials within relationships are typically influenced by gender, age, race/ethnicity, SES, education, familiarity, and/or master status. However, the transition of transient nonintimate relationships from public to private space seems to provide an opportunity to redefine relationship dynamics. Specifically, results of this study suggest that transition from public to private space creates an environment of situational inequality where the influence of structural and normative factors is reduced. In other words, factors such as physical proximity to other encounter participants, presumed ownership of space, physical barriers between encounter participants, ability to move about the setting, control of physical environment (i.e., car and its interior environment), opportunity to safely flee an encounter, and/or availability of potential protectors/rescuers appear to play a more significant role in defining relationship dynamics. In addition, the counter-shift from private back to public provides another opportunity to redefine the dynamics of transient nonintimate relationships, and can restore previous public (i.e., preprivate) space social status. Limitations and Retrospection Findings of this study, specifically those documenting stranger interactional strategies and interaction management styles, ―rang true‖ with current and former members of the slugging community with whom I shared these results. Nevertheless, there are ―lessons learned‖ and if I ―had to do it all over again,‖ I would probably consider expanding my data collection efforts. Although I feel most confident in my ―intimate familiarity‖ (Lofland 1975) with the driver‘s perspective of private space encounters with slugs, I think that my study could have been strengthened with inclusion

132

of more participant observation experiences as a slug, or face-to-face interviews with slugs. In addition, more extensive direct, rather than participant, observation of slug lines I frequented and negotiations in public space at these and other locations would have allowed me to identify and compare any differences that might exist in slugging encounters originating and returning to more northern Virginia morning slug lines and other Washington DC afternoon slug lines. Furthermore, I would consider using ―team ethnography‖ to avoid ―many of the difficulties that lone researchers can face with respect to avenues and barriers to multiple actors and information in the field‖ (Morrill, Snow and White 2005:x-xi). While I tried and succeeded in securing rich data, I feel I missed other valuable information as my attention was often spread thin across multiple actors. All of these alternative strategies could be addressed in future research. Contributions to the Study of Transient Nonintimate Relationships This study provided additional empirical evidence of interactional strategies used by individuals involved in transient nonintimate relationships. Furthermore, the different patterns of integrated strategies revealed additional stranger interaction management styles that appear to be unique to this population. In addition, data presented here provided insight not only into dynamics of nonsexual transient nonintimate relationships in private space, but also dynamics of transient nonintimate relationships as they routinely transition across public and private space.

133

Conclusion Suffice it to say that for being an unregulated system without written rules, the concept of slugging has a very structured approach that operates by the will of the people (LeBlanc 2007). Slugging is a unique public transportation system, one that involves daily interaction and cooperation on the part of strangers. It is not regulated by any public transportation authority and depends upon use of privately rather than publicly owned, operated and maintained vehicles. Although the basic definition of this activity breaches a well established societal norm (i.e., do not provide or accept rides from strangers), it is not an illegal activity and is recognized, though not supported, by official transportation authorities. Moreover, it is supported by universally accepted rules of social etiquette that create social order and maintain the efficiency of this system. Within this unique social environment, encounters with strangers are purposeful rather than inadvertent. Beyond initial negotiations in public space, they are conducted in a confined space, are generally unfocused and time-limited. Dynamics of these initially balanced ―two-way‖ mutually beneficial ―service‖ relationships drastically alter as they transition across space, and take on characteristics of subordinate-superordinate one-way service relationships in private space. This inequality is situational rather than normative or structural. Interactional strategies are adaptable and employed in different combinations in both open public space and confined private space to manage copresence of strangers. Roles are flexible, and the dynamics of slugging encounters are continuously renegotiated in new or serial encounters. These findings support Henderson‘s (1975) conclusion that, techniques are almost always seen in dynamic combinations. There is no simple ―one‖ activity that an individual employs. His behavior is a simple

134

complex network of strategies. And, it is of primary importance to recognize the flexibility and uncertainty of these and other interaction strategies. There are no guaranteed or fixed techniques; no sure-fire actions or narrowly predictable responses in this or other situations. Rather, these (and other) techniques are used flexibly (p. 455).


135

Appendix A. Compilation of Slugging Etiquette from Slugging Websites (2001)34 DRIVERS

SLUGS

1.

Greet and thank slugs

23. Greet and thank driver

2.

Do not cut in line

24. Know your place in line and don't cut in line.

3.

Be clear and firm on destination(s), and don't change destinations after you pick up a slug.

25. Ask driver for final destination

4.

Drive a safe and dependable vehicle

5.

Keep interior of vehicle clean

27. The person at the head of the slug line should check to see if anyone in line is going to the driver‘s destination before negotiating another location.

6.

Adjust temp & phone/beeper/radio volume to a comfortable level

7.

Maximize slug pick-up; if the slug line is long or the weather is bad please try to fill your car.

30. Ask driver to take additional slugs

8.

If the slug line is short - take the minimum to get into the HOV lanes and leave slugs for other drivers

32. Ensure that car doors are closed after entering or exiting a car

9.

Do not drive recklessly (e.g., speed)

10. Accept no money 11. Be careful at pickup and drop-off points – there are a lot of moving cars and people. 12. Ensure that all slugs are wearing seat belts. 13. Fill up with gas before picking up slugs. 14. Limit use of cellular phones to times when you are stopped or emergencies.

26. The first person in line gets the choice of front or back seat.

28. Limit personal items (e.g., bags) 29. Adjust phone/beeper/walkman volume

31. Do not obstruct driver's view (e.g., newspaper)

33. Do not slam car doors 34. Offer no money 35. Do not apply makeup 36. Don't mess with anything in the car without first asking (e.g., heat/AC controls, visors, and radio) 37. Do not eat, drink, or smoke. 38. Do not talk unless driver initiates conversation 39. Do not engage in conversations of religion, politics, or sex

15. Take responsibility for setting the tone – only drivers are supposed to initiate conversation

40. Do not leave a woman standing alone at a slug line location.

16. Do not eat while driving

42. Avoid using perfume and cologne, as it may be offensive and even harmful to people with allergies and asthmatics.

17. Music/radio – select non-controversial music 18. Don‘t smoke while driving or just prior to picking up slugs. 19. Avoid using perfume and cologne, as it may be offensive and even harmful to people with allergies and asthmatics.

41. Make an attempt to clean mud/snow off shoes, and shake excess water from umbrellas before getting in the car.

43. Don't make unreasonable requests of drivers 44. Limit cell phone calls 45. Don't leave a driver after a break down or accident until help arrives. 46. If in doubt - don't get in - wait for the next car.

20. Use the established slug lines.

47. Wear your seat belt.

21. Know how to get in and out of slug line locations.

48. Pay attention to where you are on the road.

22. Don‘t pick up a slug before they get to the line.

49. Be careful getting into and out of cars; Stay focused on where you are. Once you're close to your destination get ready. 50. Check your bags and personal belongings before exiting the car

34

(LeBlanc 2001; Minyard 2001; Wilson 2001)

136

Appendix B. Summary of Slugging Etiquette from “Official” Website (2007)35 Summary of Slugging Etiquette for Slugs and Drivers 1.

Slugs should not talk unless conversation is initiated by the driver.

2.

Neither slugs nor drivers should engage in conversations of sex, politics or religion.

3.

Slugs should not offer and drivers should not ask for money or gifts in exchange for a ride.

4.

Cell phone use by slugs should be kept to a minimum.

5.

The last slugs standing in line will not accept a ride if it will leave a woman standing alone.

6.

No smoking or eating by drivers or slugs.

7.

Slugs do not have the right to negotiate radio stations or climate settings (e.g., heat; AC).

8.

Slugs should not open or close the windows of a driver‘s car.

9.

Slugs and drivers should thank each other at the beginning and end of rides.

10. Unless negotiated with a driver prior to accepting a ride, drivers are not obligated to drop off slugs anywhere other than the universally accepted destination they agreed upon. 11. Slugs are expected to stand in line and wait their turn. 12. Slugs have a right to decline a ride without losing their place in line. 13. Drivers are expected to wait their turn in line and are discouraged from "body snatching" (e.g., cruising the parking lot for slugs on their way to the slug line) when car lines are long. 14. Drivers are obligated to drop off slugs at the universally accepted destination they announced when they picked up slugs, and should not ―stop short‖ of that agreed upon location. 15. Drivers have the right to ―will call,‖ which means they can select a particular slug out of line (e.g., usually a friend). 16. Slugs and drivers are expected to wear seat belts and drivers should allow slugs time to put these on before driving away from the slug line. 17. Slugs and drivers should practice common courtesy (e.g., keep car clean and radio/climate at comfortable settings, maintain personal hygiene and avoid heavy use of colognes. 18. Slugs and drivers are expected to take care of Personal Hygiene before accepting/providing a ride (e.g., don‘t apply make up, comb hair, etc.).

35

(Leblanc 2007)

137

REFERENCES Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 1987. Membership Roles in Field Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Arlington County Commuter Assistance Program. 2001. ―Slug Lines.‖ Retrieved September 20, 2001 (http://www.commuterpage.com/slug.htm). BMI, TYLIN International, Travesky and Associates, Ltd., SG Associates, Inc., Gallop Corporation, and MCV Associates, Inc. 1999. I-95/I-395 HOV Restriction Study. Volume 1: Summary Report. Virginia Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division. Beroldo, Steve. 1999. ―Casual Carpooling 1998 Update.‖ Oakland, CA: RIDES for Bay Area Commuters, Inc. Retrieved February 2, 2007 (http://rideshare.511.org/research/pdfs/casualcarpool.99.pdf) Bradford, C. Daniel. 1997. ―Slugging it Out: An Ingenious Solution to Commuter Woes.‖ The Freeman 47(10):597. Brewis, Joanna and Stephen Linstead. 2000. ―The Worst Thing is the Screwing: Consumption and the Management of Identity in Sex Work.‖ Gender, Work and Organization 7(2):84-97. Browne, Jan and Minichiello, Victor. 1995. ―The Social Meanings behind Male Sex Work: Implications for Sexual Interactions.‖ The British Journal of Sociology 46(4):598-622. Burris, Mark W. and Bill R. Stockton. 2004. ―HOT Lanes in Houston—Six Years of Experience.‖ Journal of Public Transportation 7(3):1-21. Burris, Mark W. and Justin R. Winn. 2006. Slugging in Houston—Casual Carpool Passenger Characteristics. Journal of Public Transportation 9(5):23-40. Casey, Robert F., Lawrence N. Labell, Ross Homstrom, Joseph A. LoVecchio, Carol L. Schweiger, and Terrence Sheehan. 1996. Advanced Public Transportation Systems: The State of the Art Update ’96. (FTA-MA-26-7007-96-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Casey, Robert F. , Lawrence N. Labell, Leisa Moniz, Jackson W. Royal, Michael Sheehan, Terry Sheehan, Alex Brown, Malinda Foy, Margaret Zirker, Carol L. Schweiger, Buck Marks, Bruce Kaplan, and Doug Parker. 2000. Advanced Public Transportation Systems: The State of the Art Update 2000. ( FTA-MA-26-700700-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.

138

Cornick, Carter. 1999. ―Warner Supports Pentagon ‗Slug Lines.‘‖ Press Release: January 22, 1999. Davis, Fred. 1959. ―The Cabdriver and His Fare: Facets of a Fleeting Relationship.‖ American Journal of Sociology 65:158-65. De Corla-Souza, Patrick. 2005. ―FAIR Highway Networks: A New Approach to Eliminate Congestion on Metropolitan Freeways.‖ Public Works Management and Policy 9(3):196-205. Ehrenreich, Brabara and Arlie Russell Hochschild. 2002. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books. ------. 1961. Encounters: Two Studies in the Study of Social Interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. ------. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. ------. 1971. Relations in Public Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row. Hammersley, Martyn and Paul Atkinson. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. New York: Routledge. Henderson, Margaret. 1975. Acquiring privacy in public life. Urban Life and Culture 3(4):446-455. Humphreys, Laud. 1970. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. New York: Aldine. Karp, David A. 1973. ―Hiding in pornographic bookstores: A reconsideration of the nature of urban anonymity.‖ Urban Life and Culture 1:427-251. Kogan, Marcela. 1997. ―Slugs and Body Snatchers.‖ Government Executive 29(6):39-42. Retrieved January 29, 2007 (http://www.govexec.com/features/0697s4.htm). Kowshik, Raghu, John Gard, Jason Loo, Paul P. Javanis and Ryiuichi Kitamura. 1993. ―Development of User Needs and Functional Requirements for a Real-Time Ridesharing System.‖ California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways (PATH). Working Papers: Paper UCB-ITS-PWP-93-22. Retrieved February 2, 2007 (http://repositories.cdlib.org/its/path/papers/UCB-ITS-PWP-93-22).

139

LeBlanc, David E. 1999. Slugging: the Commuting Alternative for Washington, DC. East Point, GA: Forel Publishing. ------. 2001. The Slugging Homepage. Retrieved September 14, 2001 (http://www.sluglines.com). ------. 2006. Slug-Lines.com. July 2006 (http://www.slug-lines.com). ------. 2007. Slug-Lines.com. Retrieved February 2, 2007 (http://www.slug-lines.com). Levine, Janey, Ann Vinson, and Deborah Wood. 1973. ―Subway Behavior.‖ Pp. 208-216 in People in Places: The Sociology of the Familiar, edited by A. Birenbaum and E. Sargarin. New York: Praeger Publishers. Lofland, John. 1976. Doing Social Life: The Qualitative Study of Human Interaction in Everyday Life. New York: Wiley. Lofland, John and Lyn H. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Lofland, John, David Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Lofland, Lyn H. 1972a. ―Self Management in Public Settings: Part I.‖ Urban Life and Culture 1:93-108. ------. 1972b. ―Self Management in Public Settings: Parts II.‖ Urban Life and Culture 7:217-231. ------. 1973. A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Space. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc. ------. 1989. ―Social Life in the Public Realm: A Review. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 17:453-482. ------. 1995. ―Social Interaction: Continuities and Complexities in the Study of Nonintimate Sociality.‖ Pp. 176-201 in Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, and J. S. House. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. ------. 1998. The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

140

Meyers, George. 2001a. ―From Slug to Judge, Jury and Anti-Vomit Ventilator.‖ The Free Lance-Star, March 11. Retrieved January 20, 2007 (http://fredericksburg.com/ News/FLS/2001/032001/03112001/225278/index_html). ------. 2001b. ―Ask the Commuter: Slug Etiquette and Other Issues.‖ The Free LanceStar, February 11. Retrieved September 11, 2001 (http://fredericksburg. com/News/FLS/2001/022001/02112001/Column/20316502252001/index_html). ------. 2001c. ―Commuters have a choice of wheels to make the trip.‖ (May 6, 2001). The Free Lance-Star. Retrieved January 29, 2007 (http://fredericksburg.com/News /FLS/2001/052001/05062001/272826). ------. 2001d. ―Here‘s an Etiquette Lesson for HOV Slugs, Drivers.‖ The Free LanceStar, July 29. Retrieved January 20, 2007 (http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2001/072001/07292001/346965). Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Minyard, Chuck. 2001. Slug Virginia. Retrieved September 1, 2001 (http://www.slugvirginia.com). Morrill, Calvin, David A. Snow, and Cindy H. White (eds.). 2005. ―Preface.‖ Pp. 1xi-xv in Together Alone: Personal Relationships in Public Places. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Morrill, Calvin and David A. Snow. 2005. ―The Study of Personal Relationships in Public Places.‖ Pp. 1-22 in Together Alone: Personal Relationships in Public Places, edited by C. Morrill, D. A. Snow, and C. H. White. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Murray, Gail, David Koffman, Cliff Chambers, and Peter Webb. 1997. ―Strategies to Assist Local Transportation Agencies in Becoming Mobility Managers.‖ Transit Cooperative Research Program: Report 21. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved February 2, 2007 (http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2595) Nash, Jeff. 1975. ―Bus Riding: Community on Wheels.‖ Urban Life 4:99-124. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Touchtone. Reno, Arlee T., William A Gellert and Alex Verzosa. 1989. "Evaluation of Springfield Instant Carpooling," Transportation Research Record 1212: 53-62.

141

Shaffer, Ron. 2001. ―Blazing Trails for 'Slugs' in Falls Church and Franconia.‖ The Washington Post, September 6, T13. Spielberg, Frank, and Phillip Shapiro. 2000. ―Mating Habits of Slugs: Dynamic Carpool Formation in the 1-95/1-395 Corridor of Northern Virginia.‖ Transportation Research Record, No. 1711 (Paper No. 00-0823): 31-38. Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Turnbull, Katherine, Herbert S. Levinson, Richard H. Pratt, John E. (Jay) Evans, IV and Kiran U. Bhatt. 2006. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Chapter 2 – HOV Facilities. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved February 3, 2006 (http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=6995) 2Plus, Inc. 1999. ―Grassroots Carpoolers: The D.C. Commute Is Fertile Ground for Slugs.‖ The Commuters’ Register: The Cost-Cutting Guide for Smart Commuters 1(2). Retrieved September 1, 2001 (http://www.commuterregister .com/li/articles/9905/cover.htm). Wilson, Al. 2001. Slug-Lines: Free commuter carpools for HOV. Retrieved September 1, 2001 (http://www.slug-line.com).

142

VITA CAROL A. HAGEN PERSONAL INFORMATION Date of Birth: December 26, 1963 Place of Birth: Fredericksburg, Virginia EDUCATION University of Kentucky, Sociology (Ph.D. candidate - expected graduation date: 5/07) University of North Dakota, Sociology (M.A., 1997) University of Hawaii - LCC (1991) Mary Washington College, Sociology (B.A., 1986) PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS 1999-Current

Research Analyst: Westat, Rockville, MD

1997-1999

Teaching Assistant: Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

1998

Research Assistant: Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

1998

Record Control Specialist: Administrative Office of the Courts, Frankfort, KY

1996-1997

Consultant: North Dakota Supreme Court, Bismarck, ND

1995-1997

Research Associate: Social Science Research Institute, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND

1991-1993

Social Worker (also Acting Director and Support Counselor): Joint Military Family Abuse Shelter, Honolulu, HI

1991-1992

Volunteer Guardian ad Litem: Family Court, First Circuit, Honolulu, HI

1990-1991

House Manager, Children‘s Emergency Shelter: Child and Family Service, Honolulu, HI

1986-1989

Court Advocate (also Night Resident Manager and Volunteer Crisis Counselor): Rappahannock Council on Domestic Violence, Fredericksburg, VA

143

SCHOLASTIC AND PROFESSIONAL HONORS 1997-1999

Graduate Teaching Assistantship, University of Kentucky

1996-1997

John M. Gillette Memorial Scholarship, University of North Dakota

1996-1997

Alpha Kappa Delta, International Sociology Honor Society

1995-1997

Graduate Teaching Assistantship, University of North Dakota

1984-1986

Faculty Wives Scholarship, Mary Washington College

PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS Tiemann, Kathleen A., Morten G. Ender, Carol A. Hagen and Clifford O. Hagen, Jr. In Press. "'No Food, No Water, No Problem': Cultural Production Following the Red River Valley Flood of 1997." Chapter 3 in The Popular Culture of Disaster: Views from the Social Sciences and Humanities, edited by Gary R. Webb and Enrico L. Quarantelli. Philadelphia, PA: XLibris. Hagen, Carol A., Morton G. Ender, Tiemann, Kathleen A., and Clifford O. Hagen, Jr. 2005. ―Graffiti on the Great Plains: A Social Reaction to the Red River Flood of 1997.‖ Pp. 181-190 in Experiencing Social Research: A Reader, edited by Kerry J. Strand and Gregory L. Weiss. Boston, MA: Pearson Publishing. [Reprinted from Applied Behavioral Sciences Review 7(2):145-158, 1999.] Mark, Tami L., Henry R. Kranzler, Virginia H. Poole, Carol A. Hagen, Caroline McLeod, and Scott Crosse. 2003. ―Barriers to the Use of Medications to Treat Alcoholism.‖ American Journal on Addictions 12(4):281-294. Cantor, David, Scott Crosse, Carol A. Hagen, Michael J. Mason, Amy J. Siler, and Adrienne von Glatz. 2002. A Closer Look at Drug and Violence Prevention Efforts in American Schools: Report on the Study on School Violence and Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Crosse, Scott, Michele Burr, David Cantor, Carol A. Hagen, and Irene Hantman. 2002. Wide Scope, Questionable Quality: Drug and Violence Prevention Efforts in American Schools. Report on the Study on School Violence and Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Morton G. Ender, Carol A. Hagen, Clifford O. Hagen, Jr., Corina A. Morano-Ender, and Kathleen A. Tiemann. 2000. ―The Sociologist as Rubbernecker: Photographing the Aftermath of the Red River Flood of 1997.‖ In Intersections: Readings in Sociology, edited by Ralph B. McNeal, Jr. and Kathleen A. Tiemann. Boston, MA: Pearson Publishing. [Reprinted from North Dakota Quarterly 65(4):276-285, 1998.]

___________________________________ Carol A. Hagen

144

_______________________ Date

Slugging in the HOV

Slugging in the HOV

Suggest Documents

HOV - Merritt

HOV Lanes

HOV - CE-CERT

The Detection of Liquid Slugging Phenomena in ...

Slugging in Multiphase Flow As a Mixed Initial ... - MINES ParisTech

Controllability Analysis of Severe Slugging in Well-Pipeline-Riser

Research Article Severe Slugging in Air-Water Hybrid ...

Occupant monitoring system for traffic control in HOV ... - RobeSafe

Use of Videotape in HOV Lane Surveillance and Enforcement

Reproducing slugging oscillations of an oil well

Simplified Dynamic Models for Control of Riser Slugging ... - CiteSeerX

Measuring Slugging Bed Dynamics with Acoustic Sensors - CiteSeerX

Evaluation of Incorporating Hybrid Vehicle Use of HOV Lanes - Merritt

SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program Westbound ... - wsdot

HOV & HOT Lanes Preliminary Investigation - 3-25-13 - California ...

HOV & HOT Lanes Preliminary Investigation - 3-25-13

HOV or General Purpose Lanes? - CEProfs - Texas A&M University

HOV & HOT Lanes Preliminary Investigation - 3-25-13 - California ...

Driver Cell Phone Usage Detection From HOV/HOT NIR Images

Dynamic Evaluation of Pre-Entry HOV Signage Using a ... - CiteSeerX

Driver Cell Phone Usage Detection From HOV ... - Semantic Scholar

Life-Cycle Graphical Representation of Managed HOV ... - CiteSeerX

I-395 HOV Ramp and Auxiliary Lane Extension Questions and ...

SR 520 Bridge Replacement and HOV Program Westbound ... - wsdot