Accounting for everyday incivility: an Australian study.

Introduction

Much of daily social life in modern societies is experienced in public settings inhabited by unknown others. Whether catching the train, shopping at the supermarket or going to the movies, it is more than likely that we will usually find ourselves in the midst of strangers. Sociological analysis has an established interest in the question of how we live among strangers in the course of going about our everyday lives. A predominant concern has been to examine the achievements of the individual in rendering daily life among unknown others possible. However, less attention has been directed towards investigating questions of failure. Taking this neglected aspect of everyday life as an important point of reference, this study aims to describe how the individual person understands and makes sense of a commonplace form of interactional breakdown, incivil relations with strangers.

How to deal with strangers encountered in everyday life situations has been a key concern in 20th century sociological thought. Goffman's (1963) civil inattention, Simmel's (1997) blase attitude and Benjamin's (1997) flaneur have emerged as vital ideas for thinking about being in public among unknown others. What these types of orientation share in common is a way of seeing the stranger that is intellectual, un-emotional and non-critical (Bauman, 1995). In highlighting such attitudinal forms, these analyses emphasize the manner in which the individual under conditions of modernity had adapted successfully to living among strangers. Yet, consistent with the more optimistic vein of theories of modernity, more generally, these studies have given less consideration to the regulated ways in which failure has continued to manifest itself within this domain of everyday life. Bearing out a diminished emphasis on the dark side of daily life among strangers, there is a distinct absence of analytic concern in these formulations with the conditions under which the cool and distant urban attitude finds its limit.

In contrast to this earlier body of work, the problem of living with strangers has in recent times started to develop gradually as a more explicit theme in sociological research and analysis. For Bauman, it is the postmodern condition that has emerged to render the stranger as an irreducible problem. Whereas in the modern environment it was reasonably evident what social category the stranger was in and how to act towards them accordingly, in the postmodern setting this clarity had faded away. Rather than being able to label a stranger as a familiar neighbor or an alien and conduct ourselves towards them in kind, we now confront an irresolvable and constant problem in everyday life, 'it is never quite clear who they are' (Smith 1999, pp. 161). As we are unable to pre-emptively label them with certainty, the morally distant stranger has the capacity to live and act physically close by, lurking unrecognizable within our immediate bodily proximity. It is only then through their actual conduct towards us that we are able to know how ethically remote they are from us. Yet, by then, it may be too late to forestall or avoid their treatment of us (Bauman, 1995, 2001).

Bauman's observations about the suitability of current social conditions for the experience of troubling social encounters with strangers would seem to be prescient in light of the recent appearance of dedicated empirical and policy-oriented studies on the challenges of going about everyday life in the company of unknown others. This body of work has developed in a general climate where commonplace rudeness, disrespect and selfishness among strangers has been seen more and more as a social problem (Carter, 1998). Surveys have documented the level and forms of everyday incivility in contemporary societies (Phillips and Smith 2006), and the seriousness with which the general public view the phenomenon as a problem in their daily lives (Farkas et al., 2002). Focus group interviews have shed light on what people-in-general define as incivil behavior in commonplace situations (Phillips and Smith 2003; Smith and Phillips 2004). One branch of research has exhibited a particular concern with the correlates and meanings of 'road rage' (Dukes et al., 2001; Lupton, 2002). Rude and disrespectful behavior among people travelling on mass transportation systems has also emerged as the subject of preliminary empirical work (Public Agenda, 2003).

General Perceptions of Rudeness in Everyday Life

The contemporary individual is invariably able to manifest a general detached, cool and self-controlled orientation in much of everyday life in public settings around unknown others. Yet, there are inevitably times when such an even-handed mode of perception is exhausted. In these moments our usual disposition fades into the background, displaced by a more passionate and judgmental attitude. A common trigger for making us feel and think in this more involved way at any particular moment is the conduct of the unknown other. The behavior they exhibit may make us feel angry or disgusted, reflecting what we may take to be our loss of status or their moral indifference (Bauman, 1990, Sennett, 2002). Whatever emotions are invoked or reasonings applied, the actions of the other have become unacceptable to us. In our eyes they are now, in some sense, uncivilized (Alexander, 1992).

The switch from detachment to involvement in our orientation towards strangers in everyday situations is a result of how we recognize and interpret the specific events we experience (Elias, 1987). Our propensity to read the commonplace actions of a stranger as an expression of disrespect or moral deficit is a reflection of the more general knowledge we have built up reflexively over the course of a lifetime concerning how people should and should not live and act around unknown others in everyday situations (Elias, 1978). Furthermore, this abstracted information is constantly reworked and applied in light of our most recent experiences of commonplace life in public settings (Giddens, 1991). However, feelings and emotions play an important part in mediating applications or non-application of this data in particular everyday life situations (Kemper, 2002).

A central aim of this study is to retrieve the basic stock-of-knowledge that individual people have formulated about commonplace encounters with uncivilized strangers from their own personal catalogue of lived experience, and to use the emergent information to describe the common threads of understanding that have developed around such events. How prevalent are they? What brings them about? What can be done about them? By unpacking qualitative data around these questions, the research will seek to provide a detailed rendering of the general ways of thinking that individual people bring into everyday experiences of incivil encounters with strangers, and to enhance understanding of the broader cultural meanings they construct around the phenomenon.

The study investigates how individual people make sense of commonplace incivil relations between strangers using data from a focus group study undertaken in mid-2000 in the city of Melbourne, Australia. A total of 54 people were involved in the project. Each participant took part in a group interview. Groups were formed around gender, age, class and ethnic criteria. Seven group interviews were undertaken. Each group was comprised of between seven and eight participants. The groups are designated females, males, elderly, young, white collar, blue collar and Anglo. Group names were assigned to reflect the social attributes shared by members. An experienced moderator conducted all interviews. A standardized semi-structured interview schedule was used with all groups. Discussion topics covered issues of experience, feeling and perception. Interviews ranged between 60 and 75 minutes in length. Conversations were taped and transferred in verbatim form to written text. (Phillips and Smith, 2003; Smith and Phillips 2004).

The data for the current study is the record of discussion on perceptions of incivil associations. These materials capture the talk that took place on the issues of prevalence, reasons and remedies. Transcript analysis was guided by a predominant concern with drawing out the main ways in which participants reflected upon these three different approaches to thinking about incivil dealings between strangers in everyday life. Quotations are used to show how participants gave expression to the emergent discursive patterns.

Prevalence of Commonplace Incivil Relations

Much of the talk among participants about incivil relations among strangers in everyday life was framed in terms of perceived differences between the past and the present. This sense of change tended to be articulated either by reference to people-in-general or particular social groups (specifically young people). The first way of conversing about change emphasized felt-differences between people-in-general today and people-in-general in earlier times. Little mention was made in these kinds of stories of the possibility of changes being confined to particular subgroups. Within the transcripts, this type of account found its most ready expression in the idea that commonplace uncivil associations are 'worse' today. As a phenomenon many participants saw it as becoming more and more pervasive. The following comments suggest a level of disenchantment with what was seen to be a declining state of affairs.

   20 years ago, that's different. No swear words or sex or anything.
   Things are more lax these days (blue collar).

   I think people then were a lot more courteous. I think courtesy
   has gone out the window now and even in shop environments and
   road situations ... (blue collar).

   I reckon it's a classic because I've, I've predominantly been
   on the road for about 20 years and I do believe in the last
   three to five years it's gone from bad to worse ... (males).

While not expressed as widely, the opposing view that everyday incivil dealings are not as bad today also found some support. An Anglo group member felt the situation was getting 'better' across 'society as a whole'.

   (in relation to parents hitting children in public) I don't see that
   as much now. About ten years ago I used to see it a lot (males).

   I think it's probably better. I mean ... society as a whole, like 20
   years ago you call people wogs and all sort of stuff and it didn't
   really mean anything to me you know, wog is not such a bad thing to
   call someone but these days ... people are aware that it's offensive
   now, you know ... that it's wrong (Anglo).

Some participants contested the idea that commonplace incivil relations are in a 'better' or 'worse' state nowadays. For them, such events are no more or less prevalent today than they have been in the past. Instead, it was thought that there is an increased general awareness of the phenomenon. This more critical view was strongly evident among members of the elderly group.

   I feel it hasn't changed, I think you hear about it more that is why
   you form a view and you've got to be careful to what you "re
   listening to on the radio or reading on the news (elderly).

   I don't think there is a problem with it. I don't think there is
   more rudeness and rude behavior than there used to be. I think
   it's just that we notice it more. I think it's brought to our
   attention ... It becomes less ignorable (elderly).

Continuing in this more reflective vein, some discussants stressed the idea that definitions of commonplace incivil behavior change over time. For them, the issue of whether relations between strangers in everyday life are in a 'better' or 'worse' state today seemed to be the wrong question to be asking of a phenomenon that assumes a changing form. This perspective was evident in the following quotations, with the elderly group member suggesting the futility of comparing everyday incivil conduct in the past and the present.

   I think maybe people are probably still rude but in different ways,
   I don't know what ways but you know (young).

   The bad language that we hear today ... I'd say it's getting worse,
   I don't know whether that's worse or better or what it is. I have
   no idea. Is it worse? Is bad language bad? I don't know (elderly).

Besides making reference to people-in-general, a good deal of the talk about perceptions of change in the state of incivil associations among strangers in everyday life proceeded in a different way, making allusion to felt-differences between young people today and in previous eras. In this narrative form, change was infrequently spoken about as something carried by all social groups. Instead, it was seen as conveyed by the attitudes and actions of a new young generation. A recurrent theme in the discussions was the complicity of young people today in the general condition of commonplace uncivil relations. Talk around this issue downplayed the idea of incivil conduct as on the rise across all social groups, seeing it instead as concentrated within the ranks of present-day young people.

   ... I think kids are generally rude, a lot ruder than we were, we
   would have got belted ... (Anglo).

   They don't seem to have any regard for what's right and proper any
   more some of these young people (females).

A prevalent theme in this strand of discussion was the negative consequences of the appearance of incivil conduct among young people today for the elderly. Here the stories highlighted the idea that social contact between the two groups nowadays is less harmonious and pleasant than it used to be, an occurrence due in no small part to the failures of the present day young people to recognize and redress the lapse of their generation into uncivil habits. Lack of respect was mentioned recurrently as a key area where behavior was seen to have fallen away. The following comments reflect the sense of incredulity a number of participants felt about the generational changes they believed had occurred.

   But it's also disrespectful of the elders. Our generation, you had
   so much respect for our grandparents (Anglo)

   I actually use public transport a bit ... the students that use
   public transport .. I mean the bus can actually be full and like
   a little old lady might get on and none of the students would,
   gee isn't that, there used to be a rule, like students used to
   have to get up for elderly people but I'm not quite sure
   whether it's still around (females).

However, against this position, some participants expressed the view that the everyday social conduct of young people today and in previous times was not really all that different at all. In fact, one female participant felt that any increased presence of incivil conduct among young people today was simply consistent with a wider prevalence of the phenomenon across all social groups.

   I don't think they've changed a lot at all (elderly).

   I don't think it's just young people ... I think everybody has
   got a bit ruder (females).

Reasons Behind Commonplace Incivil Relations

Talk about the reasons behind uncivil relations between strangers in everyday life was found to proceed along two distinct lines. One strand covered the broad characteristics that were seen to account for the presence of incivil associations within society-in-general. A second thread examined the specific qualities perceived to explain the occurrence of the phenomenon across particular social groups. The question of what brings about commonplace incivil interactions in Australian society today received dedicated consideration across the discussion groups. Talk was found to converge around the themes of (i) too much self-interest (ii) a disregard for others (iii) a hyper-competitive ethos, and (iv) materialist attitudes. Each theme found expression in multifarious ways. In terms of (i) too much self-interest, discussion emphasized how selfish behavior in public settings in everyday life could make uncivil relations happen. Being out for yourself, being too self-centered and seeing yourself as more important than others were all spoken about as dispositions that could result in people failing to properly take strangers into account when going about their everyday business in public places. One participant from the male group felt such an orientation could go beyond a lack of consideration to assume a more mean-spirited form.

   I've seen every different sort push, shove you know, it's a
   humanity that says me first (elderly).

   I think there are some people that are always going to be a bit
   rude you know, people that place themselves in front of other
   people, who see themselves as more important (Anglo).

   A lack of concern about other people ! suppose. Urn, I'll do what I
   want and what you want doesn't matter at all. In fact I'd like to
   sort of grind you into the ground a bit too ... it's probably just
   a lack of interest or concern about what your fellow beings feel.
   Or if anything you're trying to make them feel worse (males).

Departing from these more general observations, the point was emphasized repeatedly that placing excessive value on personal time and space could give rise to the occurrence of commonplace incivil interactions between strangers. On the question of time, it was mentioned that with the emphasis in modern social life upon saving time, hurrying and doing things as quickly as possible, there can be impatience, frustration and diminished tolerance felt towards unknown others who we may hold to blame for holding us up in everyday situations (Kaufman-Scarborough and Linquist, 2003).

   ... an older person attacked the (tram) driver asking him why he
   was late (elderly).

   I think life has got faster and faster, people have got less time
   to be bothered with putting up with people's behavior I suppose
   (white collar).

   I think we just go a little bit too hard and well that's the point,
   we're all just going a bit harder and a bit faster ... (there are)
   times that we're all inconsiderate because we're sort of in a hurry
   to do something ... (Anglo).

In a social environment where such a high value is placed on the personal time of the individual, a number of participants spoke about the role that pre-existing emotions, such as stress and tension, could play as potential catalysts of everyday incivil associations with strangers.

   ... I mean I think it all stems down to a, what kind of day a person
   has actually had, I mean if you've had a really horrible day you
   could get really agro pretty fast--some one sort of does something
   wrong to you well you can just fly off the handle ... (females).

   Sometimes if your sort of really tired ... I'd certainly put up
   with less crap when I'm tired and ready to have a bit of a dig at
   someone ... I feel it more quick if I'm tired I'm a little bit more
   likely to sort of bite ... (white collar).

Alongside time, the theme of space also came up consistently in conversation. The attribution of a heightened value to personal space was seen to create the circumstances for commonplace incivil events between strangers to occur. This orientation may involve an overblown sense of one's own entitlements, alongside a lessened regard for the claims of others. The flavor of the discussion was that incivil incidents can result when such dispositions are present in circumstances where personal space is scarce. A female group member explained this point in relation to the act of car parking.

   ... maybe a lot of it has to do with space and everyone wants their
   space (blue collar).

   ... I have always thought I can almost smell the tension, the stress,
   the lack of time, personal space. I think everybody is trying to
   claim their space in the supermarkets, on the road, everywhere
   (elderly).

   ... if you are waiting and you miss out on a car park ... I've seen
   people get really furious and they chase the people and abuse them,
   you know, like the people that have wrongly taken their car parks,
   they get really involved in it (females).

On the issue of (ii) disregard for others, commonplace incivil relations among strangers were spoken about as arising as a result of withdrawal from basic forms of consideration and regard for people we don't know personally, and devaluation of the stranger as a category of person. A sense of community, which may work to bind unknown others together in everyday situations, was felt to be increasingly absent. In fact, for one participant this state of affairs was evidenced by a general falling away of social contact with strangers, the consequence being that people may simply lack skills for interacting with unknown others.

   I think ah, people don't respect each other very much. And
   especially if you're, you're strangers there is no um need to be
   polite because you know you don't know them they're just, they're
   not a person (young).

   ... there is that loss of sense of community I think ... its just
   every man for himself. Its dog eat dog ... (white collar).

   I think people are lacking the social networks that they used to
   rely on. I think they forget how to relate to, not their intimate
   friends and not their family but people who are one step outside of
   that ... (blue collar).

A further theme that emerged from discussion of this theme was that everyday incivil behavior between strangers is not only more tolerated nowadays, it is also more accepted. In the blue-collar group in particular it was mentioned as having become increasingly normalized.

   Anything goes now (males).

   ... it has become more accepted and I think the majority of people
   don't see it as being that bad anymore (blue collar).

   ... sometimes you have just had a hard day somewhere and someone
   cuts you off and you just yell abuse at them and you just think
   it's sort of accepted now as a way of life (blue collar).

The issue of acceptability tied in with the idea that incivil associations can happen when people feel a diminished sense of responsibility for their actions in commonplace public settings. An emergent view here was that people may behave badly towards strangers because they think they can get away with it. Regardless of whatever other reasons might well be in play, it was felt that in the end people do it because they can. One blue-collar participant gave voice to this theme, seeing incivil relations to be an unwitting result of the freedom that is extended to people today.

   I think it's also a matter of what you can get away with, some
   people think oh what can I get away with, like oh I'll just take
   that person's car park even though they're all waiting first cos
   you know, I can just get away with it or that queue you know, I'll
   just get my drink even if they were there first (white collar).

   Yeah, so maybe having freedom and freedom and freedom to swear and
   freedom to think what you want to do and freedom to be rude and get
   away with it, maybe that is just part of society (blue collar).

This line of discussion gave rise to expression of a sense of resignation, a feeling that there was nothing you could really do about even the most outrageous exhibition of commonplace incivil conduct. It was felt that no matter what you said or did, in the absence of a recognized authority, the poorly behaved stranger can easily elude attempts by a non-mandated other to bring them to some kind of account for their actions. This could potentially involve the stranger responding in a spirit of righteous anger, or presenting themselves as the true victims of the situation.

   But this is the thing, they're all sort of programmed, oh well,
   there is nothing I can do about it, we'll just let it go ... (blue
   collar).

   I tend to think that society at the moment breeds people into ...
   dragging out a victim mentality of you don't understand what I'm
   going through.... But also you have to remember that any amount of
   pain does not give you any right to put that onto anybody else
   (young).

   Everyone is always saying, you see someone doing something annoying
   but you feel like you can't say anything ... if you do though,
   they'll turn (males).

Commonplace incivil associations between strangers were also viewed as a sign of the economic times we live in, reflecting in particular the pervasive influence of (iii) a hyper-competitive ethos, and (iv) materialist attitudes. Such ideas as making money, being driven by the dollar, being the best and getting ahead were all mentioned as importantly implicated in generating incivil interactions. A key point idea here was that the dominant beliefs that drive individual economic conduct today have filtered down to everyday life, giving shape to individual behavior between unknown others in public settings. In this way, uncivil events could be the very real result of people approaching mundane everyday activities, such as finding a parking space, queuing or getting on (or off) public transport, in an overly competitive spirit.

   What is socially unacceptable now? Not making money is not socially
   acceptable but that is about it really (males).

   I think these days everyone has sort of been brought up to be so
   competitive and strive for the dollar and they will be rude to
   each other in other ways ... (blue collar).

Furthermore, the suggestion was made that everyday incivil associations might arise from a kind of 'reification' of unknown persons who may be encountered during consumer activity. In this way, activities such as pushing & shoving others who get in the way can be a result of a propensity to reduce strangers to a thing-like status when consumption is experienced in a deeply impassioned form (Belk et al., 2003).

   Well lying behind the whole thing is we're living more as a
   materialistic society ... Therefore we are not being taught what's
   right and what's wrong (elderly).

   Um, big corporations these days and their image urn, to young
   people, it's an I, I thing. It's not an us sort of thing now ...
   it's just do it you know, ... it's the value of the person is the
   one that can make the most and show it off the most ... so they
   have an attitude they don't care about anyone else and so they can
   be brash and say what you like (males).

Alongside talk about general reasons behind commonplace incivil interactions between strangers, conversation focused on distinct factors seen to contribute to the manifestation of the phenomenon among the members of specific social groups. Transcripts revealed discussion converged around three groups: young people, the elderly and ethnic minorities. Young people were commonly identified as a social group implicated in the occurrence of everyday incivil actions towards unknown others. Redolent of the ideas explored in the popular Dudesons and 'Jackass' films (Hilden and Laasala, 2006; Tremaine, 2002), such conduct was seen by a number of participants as a means for achieving social status or alleviating boredom within social gatherings of young people in public settings.

   I think sometimes it's one-up-manship you know, the showing off
   or you know, if someone is on their own they probably wouldn't
   behave that badly (Anglo).

   ... abusing an old woman ... They were just school kids who were
   bored (blue collar).

Family, school and the media were also mentioned. Insufficiently strict parenting at home, a lack of discipline at school and unfettered media content were each discussed as factors that contributed to the enactment of commonplace incivil behavior among young people. On the topic of the media, particular allusion was made to the perceived influence of poor role models (in politics and sporting life) and Americanization.

   ... some sort of dysfunction within the family is really the reason
   why these sort of inappropriate behaviors are urn, occurring ...
   (white collar).

   I mean you get a group of school children together and that's when
   you get bad behavior ... It's just a complete break down of
   discipline, laws ... (elderly).

   ... (Footballers) are the ones that you see on television and their
   mates and the courts say oh that's ok, he's a good fella. He 'S not
   a good fella, he 's a bastard. He should be in jail (elderly).

   ... I think certainly the media can be a big influence and has
   probably changed ... It was perhaps more a focus on British things,
   fairly civil sort of society whereas the American was in much more
   ... an aggressive approach and they sort of dominate almost
   everything now (males).

Apart from the young, the elderly were mentioned with some frequency as a social group where incidents of everyday uncivil action towards strangers were noticeably present. The main reason identified here was an exaggerated sense of entitlement. Commonplace uncivil behavior was seen as a means by which older people sought to achieve a sense of social recognition they felt was owed to them. Some participants thought that the elderly believed they had a right to behave badly towards unknown others if they weren't being socially acknowledged in a way they deemed appropriate. In particular, it was suggested that insufficient deference from young people was a key motivating factor at play.

   There are some old people who think they're old and they're got a
   right to you know ... push in front ... I've been on this earth
   eighty years, I should be ... first (females).

   And that they're kind of entitled to jump queues. I've seen it
   happen at banks at times (young).

   I think old people can expect from the old days just to have any
   younger people do anything (Anglo).

Participants also made recurrent mention of ethnic minorities for their perceived involvement in acts of commonplace incivil conduct towards unknown others. Talk about the reasons behind the occurrence of such conduct among ethnic group members was often prefaced by pronouncements about definitional problems arising from cultural difference. A key point made here was that actions regarded as in some way rude or uncivilized in everyday situations in Australia may not be seen in the same way under comparable circumstances in other countries.

   Our cultures are different (elderly)

   I think ... the cultural thing where sometimes what some people see
   as rude another culture wouldn't see as being rude ... with a lot
   more migrants coming in, there might be more perceived rudeness,
   what they're doing may be perfectly acceptable in their society,
   but you know, like spitting on the, the path ... (Anglo).

Yet, while acknowledging that the presence of cultural difference could mitigate against any particular action being taken as incivil, for several participants this was not reason enough to fully admonish the conduct itself from such a reading. This was because the individual behavior-of-interest could typify a negative cultural trait associated more widely with a particular national or ethnic group. So, while cultural differences were recognized, the idea that some cultures are ruder than others also held some sway in accounts of the reasons behind members of ethnic minorities partaking in acts of everyday incivil behavior towards strangers.

   ... they had their own values which had rudeness instilled into it
   (Anglo).

   ... I actually live in an area that is dominated by Asians but I'm
   not racist but that's brought a new meaning of rudeness to shopping
   (females).

   It's a bit like, have you ever been down to Phillip Island for the
   penguins with all the Japanese buses and Japanese ... they don't mean
   to be rude but they're just used to it, it's just the way they are
   in that they'll push and shove and you
   just think oh hell, but it's probably because they are so used to
   that in their own country (blue collar).

Participants nominated divergent reasons behind the perceived complicity of the young, the elderly and ethnic minorities in acts of everyday incivil conduct towards strangers. Yet, the discussions also hinted at alternative renderings of the manifestations of incivil action felt to be associated with these groups. These supplementary narrations draw attention to how for various participants 'the silent majorities' are themselves implicated in such charges of incivil behavior (Baudrillard, 1983a).

   ... older people are invisible ... mainly from young businessmen
   and young businesswomen ... they just walk straight at you
   (elderly).

   Being in a minority group as well. I've got a few Asian friends who
   have to deal with all sorts of comments you know, just being rude
   for no other reason than that they're Asian (young).

   ... people of my generation, I've seen them acting in an aggressive
   way against the kids for no real reason (females).

Remedies to Commonplace Incivil Relations

Discussion about possible solutions to everyday uncivil relations among strangers was less developed than was the case with reasons. In comparison to the air of confidence that characterized talk about what lay behind these events, conversation around what to do about them was decidedly more hesitant in character. This was particularly the case when discussion turned to the issue of civilizing the unruly adult in public places.

The transcripts showed that participants were at their most self-assured when considering solutions to commonplace incivil behavior enacted by young people. Family and school were nominated recurrently as domains through which interventions might be made. Several participants mentioned that through these channels young people could be educated to know the difference between 'what is acceptable (behavior) and what's not' (Anglo), and to apply this information to their own conduct so as 'to behave properly' (White collar). Furthermore, it was mentioned such standards needed to be taught in black and white terms, and instilled with discipline if required.

   (To stop kids swearing) Well maybe the parents should put soap and
   water in their mouths (females).

   ... I think they should reintroduce that (the cane)!(blue collar).

Looking to the 'old ways' of doing things was a common theme in the strands of talk that focused on solutions to everyday incivil conduct performed by young people. However, in regards to people-in-general, there was less clarity about how to address the phenomenon. Quite simply, participants struggled to go beyond the family and school options mooted in relation to young people, to identify specific avenues of action that might be suitable for grown adults. Legal sanctions came up as option, but participants quickly expressed reservations about the appropriateness of alleviating commonplace incivil action in this way. There was some mention of the possibility of imposing on-the-spot fines, with young people mentioned as a conceivable constituency for their application. Yet, even such a comparatively light form of deterrence was viewed with ambivalence, especially when talked about in relation to people-in-general.

   But if you actually got a fine out in public for swearing they
   (kids) might consider to perhaps not swear (females).

   If we have fines like yeah, you can pay 5100 for your mobile phone
   cos yeah, you'd never do it again unless you were extremely rich
   ... but on the other hand I hate the whole intervention, legal
   sanctioning, blah, blah (white collar).

In contrast to the palpable apprehension about legal intervention, participants were more open to the idea of some kind of education program directed towards adults. However, uncertainty was expressed about the prospects for such a scheme actually working. For example, one member of the white-collar group felt skeptical about people applying general guidelines for dealing expertly with potentially frictional situations in everyday life.

   ... I dare say some level of education program might help but I
   don't know, don't really have much confidence (Anglo).

   ... you can educate people but it's whether they will take it away
   and use it that makes the difference (white collar).

In sum, in posing possible solutions to the phenomenon of commonplace incivil relations among strangers, participants by and large expressed discomfort with legal sanctioning and lacked confidence in educational programs. Discussion of these issues suggested the prevalence of an indifferent attitude towards top-down interventions. Yet, running beneath this conversation another quite different discussion was taking place about an alternative kind of solution. What this line of talk revealed was a determined belief in the idea that addressing everyday incivil relations should be a bottom-up process, something that ought to be able to be remedied by everyday people. For participants who spoke in this way, there seemed to be a faith in the idea that well-intentioned individuals of like mind could redress the occurrence of routine incivil events through an active dedication to infusing encounters with strangers in everyday life with such qualities as responsibility and tolerance.

   You've just got to try and do the best you can and not to say just
   bugger it I'm going to be a creep like everybody else (Anglo).

   If we were 20% more tolerant people would be less rude wouldn't
   they? Because we'd accept more (white collar).

   Well I think um, ... (do) unto others as you'd like done to
   yourself is probably good. It's something for people to think about
   these days (females).

Discussion

This research has been concerned with drawing out the key discourses and themes that characterize how individual people talk about the phenomenon of incivil relations between strangers in everyday life. Focus group methodology was employed to capture the common-sense ways used to reflect upon and understand this micro-level phenomenon. The study was limited to some degree in respect to sample composition and analytic strategy. Given the aim of capturing common threads of understanding socially diverse adults shared about phenomenon-of-interest, there was an unfortunate absence of groups based upon the salient social factors of minority, ethnic-racial group membership and non-metropolitan residence. Yet, with groups formed around gender, age, class and ethnic criteria, key aspects of social diversity in contemporary societies were factored into the research design. Also, with the analytic emphasis on the meanings that the socially divergent groups shared, less attention was regrettably paid to the understandings that separated them. However, it was decided to resist developing the study much in this way given that focus groups are a less effective means for addressing issues of group difference (Morgan and Krueger, 1993).

Drawing on data from seven group interviews on the topic of commonplace incivil interactions among unknown others, the study aimed to elicit and narrate the main discourses and ideas that typified discussion around the topics of prevalence, reasons and solutions. On the matter of pervasiveness, whether it was seen as better, worse or the same (or not even a valid comparison to be making), felt- transformations between the past and present tended to be talked about in terms of shifts spread across people-in-general or concentrated within subgroups-in-particular (especially young people). This distinction carried through into talk about reasons and solutions. In reference to people-in-the-main, participants identified a constellation of general attitudes that it was felt could give rise to incivil relations by expression through individual conduct towards strangers in everyday situations. Discussion congealed around the ideas of too much self-interest, disregard for unknown others, a hyper-competitive ethos and materialistic attitudes. The young, the elderly and ethnic minorities were talked about in terms of specific manifestations of commonplace incivil action towards unknown others, thought to be the result of institutional failures, an exaggerated sense of entitlement and cultural difference respectively. In terms of addressing the phenomenon among people-in-general, there was an emergent preference for bottom-up rather than top-down solutions. Yet, in relation to young people, an interventionist approach was seen as more appropriate.

These findings might be seen to contribute to sociological understanding of how the contemporary individual makes sense of everyday incivil interactions between strangers in a number of ways. In the first instance, the results showed participants made implicit use of particular kinds of historical thinking in accounting for the current state of incivil relations. Over-time changes in the extent of incivil interactions were seen as occurring either across the entire society or within the younger generation. These modes of reflection can plausibly be seen as lay articulations of the long-established sociological ideas of period and generational effects. Period effects are attitudinal changes that may occur within a society over time in relation to a particular issue. All members of a society convey them. Generational effects are the attitudinal dispositions that an age group might exhibit as a result of having grown up in the same historical period. Distinct age groups carry generational effects (Park, 2000). Yet, regardless of which of these historical ways of thinking was used, an important emergent theme was envisaging the past as a kind of golden age of less incivil times (Carter, 1998). In this form of talk, the past acted as the reference point against which current conditions were invariably viewed as less than satisfactory. Some of the older participants in particular contested the symbolic elevation of a 'better past'. However, more generally the idea tended to be used in a largely unproblematic, unspecified and taken-for-granted way. These observations suggest that on the question of commonplace incivil relations, favorable images of the past play an important role in perpetuating ideas of crisis in the present.

The findings revealed that the language of modern social and economic life was widely used in talk about what makes everyday incivil events between strangers happen. Recurrent reference was made within group discussion to terminological indicators of the ideas of individualism, community and capitalism. Commonplace incivil interactions were seen to result from excessive individualism, runaway capitalist values and a diminished sense of community. More particularly, it was felt that when these orientations found expression through individual conduct around unknown others in everyday settings, the prospects for incivil relations occurring were magnified. Yet, while bolstering feelings of community and restraining individualism were articulated as possible remedies to commonplace incivil interactions, little direct corrective action was suggested with respect to capitalist values. In other words, while the hyper-distended state of the competitive ethos and consumer culture were seen as giving rise to incivil events in everyday life, the groups did not entertain the idea of reigning in their influence. There was quite simply a distinct absence of talk about the possibility of alleviating incivil occurrences between strangers by placing limits around the reach of capitalist values into the sphere of everyday life (Habermas, 1987). This point is significant in that it would seem to suggest that participants found it hard to countenance how a solution to incivil relations among strangers might require a questioning of the felt-excesses of dominant economic values such as laissez-faire and the work ethic (Bellah et al, 1985).

Turning to the ideas that emerged about everyday incivil behavior among subgroups, the propensity to associate young people with such events is well documented in extant sociological research (Girling et al., 2000). In this study, blame was attributed in the main to waning social institutions and laxness in media content. Yet, only schools and families were talked about explicitly as suitable avenues for bringing about remedies. By contrast, the media were mentioned only casually and in passing as a preferred means for redressing acts of commonplace incivil conduct among young people. This result perhaps suggests that participants found it difficult to imagine curtailing the images and representations felt to give rise to everyday incivil conduct among this group in a larger environment of pervasive media saturation (Baudrillard, 1983b).

Ethnic minorities and the elderly were also seen to be distinguished from people-in-general in terms of the manifestation of particularistic forms of commonplace incivil behavior towards strangers. Recent sociological analysis of 'the new racism' has pointed to a shift from inferiority to difference as a dominant way of expressing racist beliefs (Leach et al., 2000). In the current study various participants talked about the enactment of everyday incivil action by ethnic minority group members in terms of cultural difference. Yet, the data also suggested another scenario, the idea of cultural difference acting as a way of qualifying an attribution of cultural inferiority. This emergent way of thinking enabled 'old racism' to work beneath 'new racism' in framing discussion. Regarding the elderly, the readiness of participants to see the aged as a guilty party, in the enactment of commonplace uncivil action towards strangers raises interesting questions about what general perceptual shifts might be occurring in respect to the group's more established status as victim (Akerstrom, 2002).

The findings from the study suggest prevalent styles of thinking that individual people use to understand the reasons behind a ubiquitous experience within modern social life: unsatisfying encounters with unknown others in everyday situations. Yet, participants struggled with the question of what, if anything, should be done about the phenomenon. There was a reluctance to subject commonplace incivil behavior to legal sanction, putting it in the same class as a criminal event. Educational programs were viewed with ambivalence as a means for dealing with the problem. In sum, there was a clear lack of enthusiasm in the groups about the prospects for administrative solutions flowing down from a 'gardening state' (Bauman, 1987). Instead, what emerged was an imagining of another kind of remedy, one that would see the moral realm of everyday life among unknown others energized with such ideals as tolerance and responsibility by like-minded individuals acting beyond the reach of a central authority. The extent to which such an idealized ethic for being around strangers (Bauman 1997) actually finds its way into the cut and thrust of real-time on-the-ground encounters is perhaps an interesting question for future research on everyday incivility. This is because it offers the possibility of shedding light on what remains today a vital sociological question (Wright Mills 1959): how individuals act to try and correct on a personal level what they see as a public issue.

References

Akerstrom, M. (2002) 'Slaps, Punches, Pinches - But Not Violence: Boundary-Work in Nursing Homes for the Elderly' Symbolic Interaction 25 (4): 515-536.

Alexander, J. (1992) 'Citizen and Enemy as Symbolic Classification: on the polarizing discourse of civil society', pp. 289-308 in M. Lamont and M. Fournier (eds) Cultivating Differences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baudrillard, J. (1983a) I11 the Shadow of the Silent Majorities. New York: Semiotext(e).

Baudrillard, J. (1983b) Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).

Bauman, Z. (2001) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity.

Bauman, Z. (1997) Postmodernity and Its Discontents. Cambridge: Polity.

Bauman, Z. (1995) Life in Fragments. Cambridge: Polity.

Bauman, Z. (1990) Thinking Sociologically. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bauman, Z. (1987) Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge: Polity.

Belk, R., Ger, G. And Askegaard, S. (2003) 'The Fire of Desire: a multisited inquiry into consumer passion' Journal of Consumer Research 30 (3): 326-35L

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A. And Tipton, S. (1985) Habits of the Heart. London: Hutchinson

Benjamin, W. (1997) Charles Baudelaire. London: Verso.

Carter, S. (1998) Civility. New York: Basic Books.

Dukes, R., Clayton, S., Jenkins, L., Miller, T. And Rodgers, S. (2001) 'Effects of Aggressive Driving and Driver Characteristics on Road Rage' Social Science Journal 38 (2): 323-331,

Elias, N. (1987) Involvement and Detachment. Oxford: Blackwell.

Elias, N. (1978) The Civilising Process Vol.1: The History. of Manners. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A. And Collins, K. (2002) Aggrevating Circumstances. New York: Public Agenda Research Report.

Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity.

Girling, E., Loader, I. And Sparks, R. (2000) Crime andSocial Change in Middle England. London: Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. New York: Free Press.

Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action Vol.2. Cambridge: Polity.

Hilden, J. and Laasala, J. (dir) (2006) The Dudesons Movie. Oy Rabbit Films Ltd.

Kaufman-scarborough, C. and Linquist, J. (2003) 'Understanding the Experience of Time Scarcity' Time & Society 12 (2-3): 349-370.

Kemper, T. (2002) 'Predicting Emotions in Groups', pp. 53-68 in J. Barbalet (ed) Emotions and Sociology. Malden, MA: Oxford.

Leach, C., Peng, T. And Volckens, J. (2000) 'Is Racism Dead? comparing (expressive) means and (structural equation) models' British Journal of Social Psychology 39 (3): 449-465.

Lupton, D. (2002) 'Road Rage: driver's understandings and experiences' Journal of Sociology 38 (3): 275-290.

Morgan, D. and Krueger, R. (1993) 'When to Use Focus Groups and Why', pp. 3-19 in D. Morgan (ed)Successful Focus Groups. California: Sage.

Park, A. (2000) 'The Generation Game', pp. 1-21 in R. Jowell, J. Curtice, A. Park, K. Thomson, L. Jarvis, C. Bromley and N. Stratford (eds) British Social Attitudes. The 17th Report: London: Sage.

Phillips, T. and Smith, P. (2006) 'Rethinking Urban Incivility Research: strangers, bodies and circulations' Urban Studies 43 (5/6): 879-901.

Phillips, T. and Smith, P. (2003) 'Everyday Incivility: towards a benchmark' The Sociological Review 51 (1): 85-108.

Public Agenda (2003) Push Comes to Shove. New York: Public Agenda Research Study.

Sennett, R. (2002) Respect in an Age of Inequality. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Smith, D. (1999) Zygmunt Bauman. Cambridge: Polity.

Smith, P. and Phillips, T. (2004) 'Emotional and Behavioral Responses to Everyday Incivility: challenging the fear/avoidance paradigm' Journal of Sociology 40 (4): 378-399.

Simmel, G. (1997) 'The Metropolis and Mental Life', pp. 174-185 in D. Frisby and M. Featherstone (eds) Simmel on Culture. London: Sage.

Tremaine, J. (dir) (2002)Jackass: The Movie. Paramount Pictures and MTV Networks.

Wright Mills, C. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. New York: OUP.