Taylor Comerford

Steven Herbert
LSJ 495
June 3, 2016

Despite its claim to individuality, Seattle is composed much like other major metropolitan

cities. There are pockets and divisions separating socioeconomic class, age, and race, organizing

millions of individuals into distinct areas, and providing few outlets where such genres cross paths.

A perfect model for such a sector of convergence is the block of streets surrounding the inaugural

Nordstrom store, including sections of Pine Street, and 5th and 6th Avenue. What is clear about such

a community is that it has a system of control largely founded in time of day. While daytime

provides a prolific informal order, nighttime reduces the role of most facets of social control as a

whole, raising singularly the status of formal enforcement agents. Despite such dramatic differences,

this site is able to provide a foundation of social order that is as unique as it is effective.

To establish the nature of social control in such a complex area, one must first explain the

physical landscape of the area. Pine, 5th, and 6th Avenues are all major city streets, and experience

an extreme flow of car traffic, creating a pseudo-barrier to pedestrians in all areas but crosswalks.

The outer walls of Nordstrom also act as a barrier, funneling paying customers into the store doors

and foot traffic along the sidewalk. There are awnings that extend 4-5 feet from the walls of the

retail store as well, intended to shelter paying customers from the frequent Seattle rains, either as

they enter the store, wait for their cars, or walk along the street. There are a few sets of steep stairs

leading into Nordstrom, intended to serve as a separation between the “dangers” of the city streets

and the “safety” inside the store. On the far side of the sidewalks, closest to the streets, are a series

of structures including street lamps, garbage cans, and strategically planted trees. These also act as a

barrier, funneling foot traffic along the sidewalk and off the street itself.

In ones experience on the sidewalks, it is simple to identify the four major groups of people

that inhabit this space. Firstly are the shoppers, which are usually mid to upper class women and their
children, and occasionally their husbands or partners. Less frequently is a shopper an

unaccompanied man. These people can be identified by their dress, either in the quality of their

clothing, or the upscale or chic nature of its style; another identifier is the carrying of large shopping

bags and purses. The second group is business people, usually single men or groups of both genders.

They are marked by professional dress (suits or work appropriate dresses and skirts) and the carrying

of briefcases. The business people rarely stop in the store, rather walk in a hurried manner toward

restaurants or their place of employment. These first two groups make up the upper echelon, and are

attracted to the area by the retail, restaurants, and business opportunities nearby. On the antipodal

front, there are two populations of lower class individuals- the “merchants” and peaceful homeless.

The homeless typically sit or lie quietly on the edges of the sidewalk, either usually under the awning

or against one of the structures on the outside of the sidewalk. These people are attracted by the

shelter and residual heat of the building. The merchants are either panhandlers, musicians, or those

aggressively selling items. This demographic is usually more outgoing, directly addressing and even

harassing other groups on the street. This last group is attracted by the prospects of wealthy shoppers

and workers in the area as customers. There is little interaction between these to major subsets, and

when it occurs a level of discomfort and fear is experienced.

The last population present in this space cannot be lumped with the inhabitants of the area.

These are employees (mostly valets), security officers, and police that all function as enforcement

agents of formal control. The workers and security officers are both hired by Nordstrom, while the

police officers are under the realm of the state and/or city governments, however both function in

similar ways. Both represent the rules and regulations of the regimes they are a part of, and enforce

such laws through coercive force and physical removal from the property. Despite this role, these

entities often selectively choose which rules to enforce and operate outside of their prescribed duties,

operating in a style of formal control dictated by (and also shaping) informal norms.
 Aside from the agents of control, there are few other institutions maintaining order in a

formal manner. The infrastructure previously referred to can be categorized as such due to its

foundation in government execution. Other aspects include signs and traffic signals, which control

the flow of cars and people, and security cameras, providing the threat that formal law will be

enforced. These few facets are the only true forms of formal order, indicating its limited role.

Ironically, the interaction between the formal structure of the space and its inhabitants is

often very different than the infrastructure was designed to create. As previously mentioned public

structures, such as light posts, garbage cans, trees, and stairs, are government or business created

elements formally designed to influence specific movement. Furthermore, to increase the emphasis

on efficient traffic flow, there are no benches or areas created for sitting. Despite both of these

efforts, informal control, especially during the daytime, is overwhelming, and multitudes of

impoverished loiterers use the present structures as areas to sit, converse, and beg. It is common to

see a musician playing on the edge of the stairs exiting Nordstrom, or a person with a dog lying

against a tree trunk for support. On the other hand, shoppers and business people rarely stop moving,

however not due to the formal control of structure, but rather to avoid contact with plebeians. Rather

than succumbing to the whims of government built constructions, these people move out of the

knowledge that if they remain sedentary too long they will be approached by a member of the lower

class. Much like Anderson’s description of “street etiquette” and “street wisdom, these people utilize

a practiced form of etiquette that allows them to simply exist unmolested in this environment,

walking quickly with eyes down cast (Anderson 220).

To further elucidate upon the use of informal control, one can witness this within the

interactions between upper class members- shoppers and businessmen. These people are rarely the

target of formal control, so they function heavily around norms. First they hardly ever touch each

other outside of their immediate groups of friends and family; in fact they often go to drastic lengths

as to avoid bodily contact, changing speed and contorting their bodies even in thick crowds of
people. There is also minimal eye contact, though if eye contact is met it is customary for the two

people to smile or nod at each other in a sign of mutual respect. These people also are friendly with

the agents of formal control, while very rarely conflicting with them. It is not odd to see a customer

chatting with a valet or a passerby to politely acknowledge or thank a police officer, while

interactions between the lower class and such agents are not as positive.

This calculated medium between a friendly demeanor and maintained autonomy is not

paralleled in daytime interactions between upper and lower class individuals. The majority of

interactions come from attempts of merchants to create sales. I myself experienced such a conflict

while studying the site in the late afternoon. As I was observing from the outer edge of the sidewalk,

a man approached my female friend and me, offering us a CD. He was white and clearly of the

lower class, and started to pitch the tape as a production of a inner city music program that worked

with young children. Both my friend and I, who are of the upper class and not experienced city

dwellers, immediately experienced the uneasiness that comes from the breaking of our typical norms.

I quickly took the CD and spoke to him in a obviously nervous, but polite voice. When he asked for

a “donation” in exchange for his product, I lied saying I didn’t have any cash, which is a well

understood code between upper and lower class members for a refusal of payment. Further violating

my norms, the man offered me a smart phone with a credit card scanner attachment, and started to

use a more intense tone. Finally I gave him the CD back and left, ignoring his continued attempts to

barter. In this circumstance several things become apparent. Firstly there are several norms of the

upper class that became clear through their violation- the separation of social classes, body contact,

and eye contact. Secondly, it is clear that as a non-regular of this area, I too adopted “street

etiquette”, without the knowledge or experience to better navigate the situation effectively (Anderson

207). It is also important to note that it is illegal for aggressive panhandling to occur, and in many

areas of the city (i.e. those with lower homeless populations) that interaction would have been

classified as so, however there was no intervention by enforcement agents. In this case, these
“merchants” become informal exceptions to formal order with the discretion of police and security,

who have to weight small, uncomfortable interactions behind more drastic public safety risks. In this

way, events that would in other locations be policed by formal law fall under the realm of norms, and

such a style of panhandling becomes acceptable. This highlights a complex mix of social control

leading to a structured order.

In the same vein, the interactions between law enforcement and the lower class are also

revealing. It is common to see a multitude of panhandlers and loitering homeless along the

sidewalks, especially during busy times of the day, and while these actions violate Seattle civil code

they are usually tolerated. Reminiscent of the ideas expressed in Duneier’s “The Magazine

Vendors”, these homeless, with their instrument playing or overall aesthetic, are an incorporated as

part of the culture of the area (Duneier 74). While in many situations, these people are not as well

received as the men described in the New York neighborhood, it is clear that their presence is

allowed through the informal norms of the space.

The nature of these interactions become very different during the nighttime, as most social

control becomes weak and sparse with the reduction of people. Right around 9, when the dinner rush

is over and stores are closing, the foot and vehicle traffic is significantly decreased. While the

physical of structure of the area remains the same, the lack of people changes the environment

significantly. There are less homeless and enforcement agents, while both have a deeply, if not

increased significance. Traffic signals, signs, and the intended nature of physical structures, lose

most of their formal power, as the few people walking by continually J-walk, loiter, and perform

other illegal activities, such as smoking joints (marijuana cigarettes) in public.

Despite this frightening and lawless image, formal control is readily enforced by police

officers. While their are fewer members of the police force on the streets, they have a considerable

presence and take a more active stance in enforcing laws. During my experience studying the site

during the day I never witnessed a confrontation between police and homeless without considerable
provocation, while at night I experienced the removal several loiterers, either sleeping or sitting in

the area. Either due to the decrease in people, leading to lessened informal power, or the reduction of

conflicts necessitating police attention, the power of formal control under enforcement agents

becomes of crucial significance.

While it is clear that formal control plays a more prevalent role, informal control is not

completely irrelevant due to the change in time. This is especially clear in uninterrupted interactions

between upper and lower class individuals at night. Lingering shoppers in the area move in a fear-

motivated manner, and augmented version of daytime norms. Eyes quickly scan the area for threats,

while immediately become cast down at the sign of another person. As described by Anderson, it is

also typical for a person to cross the street as to avoid contact with another individual (Anderson

220).

When such an individual is approached, as I witnessed during one of my night visits to the

sight, there were two distinct reactions. Firstly, several people either speed walked or began to run,

evoking the flight instinct of confrontation. The other predominant reaction was to approach other

individuals perceived to be of the same class. On several occasions I was joined by single women, or

a mother with children, both of whom were looking for normative strength in numbers. The goal of

these figures was the hope that by creating an “us” verses “them” mentality, it would invoke some

sense of informal control, therefore creating an element of protection. In support of the lingering

power of informal control, this joining of forces usually was successful at ending the advances of

homeless individuals.

The last facet of the night experience is the interaction between figures of power, men and

enforcement agents, and upper class individuals. While at night it is clear police officers enforce the

law more drastically, they step outside their prescribed roles as well, in an ironic contrast to the

decreased role they play during the daytime. As a young, single female, I was consistently

approached by police officers asking if I was in need of help or wanted them to walk with me to my
car, even in safe situations where the action was unnecessary. Similarly officers were quick to

intervene if I was approached in anyway by a homeless person, even if that individual was simply

attempting to speak to me. While there is no law preventing speech between socioeconomic classes,

and in fact there are constitutional amendments protecting such rights, law enforcement officers

utilized their discretion to step outside of their legal roles. I both experienced and witnessed similar

actions from adult men who were not enforcement agents, indicating a informal role of protector in

such a situation. In the two situations this occurred, one younger man played the position of hero,

yelling at an advancing homeless man to walk away, while another man in his 50s pretend to be my

father, beckoning me away from the apparent risk. Much as described by Anderson, it is as if the

normative role of male is to be the guardian of any “at risk” females, as they are considered to be less

endangered in such situations (Anderson 209).

While social control at this site is a complex combination of informal and formal order, it is

clear that the local of Pine Street, and 5th and 6th Avenues experiences a variance in control caused

by the time of day. Daytime is characterized by a clear institution of informal control, often

overtaking the present formal law, however at night it becomes apparent that formal agents of social

control hold the most distinct power. From the structure of the space to the demographics of people

who inhabit it, this site is unique in the way it enforces a complex but effective social order.
 Works Cited

Anderson, Elijah. Streetwise: Race, Class and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.

Duneier, Mitchell. Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1999. Print.