Talking City Trouble: Urban Micro-Ethnography and the Moral Order of Public Space by Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

Talking City Trouble: Urban Micro-Ethnography and the Moral Order of Public Space (Revised)

Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D. 

Abstract

This essay revisits Mitchell Duneier and Harvey Molotch's landmark 1999 study "Talking City Trouble" and extends its analysis by proposing a theory of multiple interaction orders operating simultaneously in urban public space. While Duneier and Molotch revealed how power and inequality are enacted through "interactional vandalism," their framework assumes a dominant interaction order being violated. I argue instead that the city sidewalk hosts competing, overlapping, and sometimes incompatible interaction orders—gendered, racialized, sexual, class-based, and subcultural—that clash, negotiate, and occasionally harmonize. Through analysis of street harassment, gay cruising zones, ethnic enclaves, drug markets, and street outreach encounters, this essay shows how urban "trouble" emerges not only from violations of civility but from the collision of incompatible moral grammars in shared space.

I. The Legacy of Urban Ethnography

The earliest studies of street life emerged from the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, where Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and their students developed what came to be known as urban ethnography. William Foote Whyte's Street Corner Society (1943) remains its emblematic achievement—an immersive account of the social organization of an Italian-American neighborhood in Boston. Later, Elliot Liebow's Tally's Corner (1967) and Elijah Anderson's A Place on the Corner (1978) extended this tradition into African-American urban contexts, combining participant observation with narrative portraiture. These studies illuminated the dignity and discipline embedded in street corner life, refuting stereotypes of disorder and moral collapse. Yet their methods, while deeply interpretive, were largely thematic and biographical. They rendered the structure of life worlds more than the structure of interaction. The conversation itself—the delicate exchanges through which race, respect, and recognition were enacted—remained at the level of anecdote.

By mid-century, Erving Goffman turned this ethnographic gaze inward, toward the micro-rituals that compose public life. In Behavior in Public Places (1963) and Relations in Public (1971), he identified a tacit code of civility governing urban encounters: forms of avoidance, deference, and mutual regard that sustain the fragile peace of co-presence among strangers. "Civil inattention," his famous term, names the delicate balancing act through which individuals acknowledge one another's presence without inviting engagement. For Goffman, the city was not simply a physical space but a moral one—an arena of "face work," "territories of the self," and ritual order. His final essay, "The Interaction Order" (1983), called for systematic study of these moment-to-moment negotiations as the foundation of sociological analysis.

Duneier and Molotch took up that call, armed with EM/CA's methodological discipline, to show how the urban interaction order is both moral and stratified. Their study would not describe the city from afar but analyze, turn by turn, how inequality is accomplished in the briefest exchanges.

II. Talking City Trouble: The Original Analysis

"Talking City Trouble" (1999) is an ethnomethodological field study of the streets of New York City and Santa Barbara, focused on encounters between male street persons and female pedestrians. The data consist of recordings and field observations of unsolicited talk—greetings, comments, flirtations, refusals—between men identified as socially marginal (street vendors, homeless men, panhandlers) and women passing through public spaces. Duneier and Molotch's central analytic innovation was the concept of interactional vandalism, defined as the deliberate or patterned violation of the tacit rules that sustain routine public civility. Just as graffiti defaces the surfaces of buildings, interactional vandalism marks a communicative transgression against the ordinary order of the street.

Their approach combined conversation-analytic detail with ethnographic contextualization. They did not merely catalog harassment; they examined the sequential organization of talk—who initiates, how openings are managed, how recipients display affiliation or avoidance, how participants negotiate rights to attention, and how social asymmetry—especially along axes of gender, class, and race—is displayed and sustained. The sidewalk thus becomes a site of moral work: every exchange demands delicate calibration between recognition and avoidance, friendliness and fear.

III. A Classic Example: Street Encounters as Sequential Trouble

Consider one of their canonical fragments:

Man: Hey sweetheart, how you doing?
Woman: (keeps walking, eyes averted)
Man: Oh, I see, too good to talk?
Woman: (no response)
Man: That's okay, you have a nice day anyway.

On its surface, this is a banal street encounter. Yet through the lens of conversation analysis, every turn is consequential. The man's opening "Hey sweetheart" constitutes an unsolicited summons; it breaches the norm of civil inattention by demanding acknowledgment from a stranger. The woman's silence is not mere absence of speech but a socially meaningful response: it displays resistance without direct confrontation, invoking the protection of the very norms being violated. The man's follow-up, "too good to talk?" reframes her silence as arrogance, converting her defensive avoidance into moral failure. In this moment, the asymmetry of gendered vulnerability is exposed. The woman's strategy of safety—non-engagement—is reinterpreted as insult, requiring her, in effect, to defend herself by remaining silent.

For Duneier and Molotch, the exchange is a miniature morality play. It enacts how structural inequalities—between housed and unhoused, male and female, affluent and poor—are reproduced through everyday talk. The encounter also illustrates the double bind women face in public: to acknowledge is to invite, to ignore is to offend. The "trouble" is not an aberration but a constitutive feature of urban life, where civility and domination coexist within the same communicative frame. In retrospect, their analysis anticipated the gender politics later foregrounded by #MeToo and contemporary studies of street harassment.

IV. From Goffman to Critical Interactionism

Talking City Trouble extends Goffman's concept of the interaction order by embedding it in relations of inequality. Whereas Goffman emphasized the generic conditions of co-presence, Duneier and Molotch insisted that those conditions are differentially distributed. Who gets to claim attention, who must yield space, whose words are heard—all are structured by power. Their method thus fuses Goffmanian dramaturgy with ethnomethodological reflexivity. The city is not a neutral stage upon which actors play; it is a contested field in which categories of personhood—"lady," "bum," "citizen," "threat"—are invoked and stabilized.

This synthesis anticipates what I call Critical Interactionism: an emerging framework that unites EM/CA's micro-analytic rigor with the moral and political insights of critical theory. (The term has appeared sporadically in sociological writing, but here it refers specifically to the effort to link interactional detail with moral critique.) Candace West's analyses of gender and accountability, Douglas Maynard's studies of diagnostic talk, and Deirdre Boden's work on institutional interaction share this orientation: that power and justice are not external "contexts" but are built into the sequential and categorial structures of ordinary action. Duneier and Molotch made this visible on the street.

V. Urban Space as Moral Order

Urban micro-ethnography treats the city as a moral ecology. Each act of recognition or avoidance participates in the ongoing construction of social order. Duneier and Molotch's ethnography, like Whyte's before them, takes seriously the idea that deviance and civility are co-produced. The street vendor, the busker, and the passerby all collaborate—often unwittingly—in sustaining the social boundaries that keep the city legible. The moral grammar of the street operates through attentional rights, spatial proprieties, and discursive cues. When these are disrupted—by mental illness, homelessness, or gendered aggression—the urban order momentarily reveals itself.

A second example from the article captures this exposure:

Vendor: You can look, you don't have to buy.
Passerby: (laughs nervously) No thanks.
Vendor: That's all right, you too good for my stuff?
Passerby: (walks off)
Vendor (to another man): They all think they better than you.

Here, the vendor's speech performs dual functions: it markets goods and demands recognition. When the passerby declines, the rejection is moralized as class insult. The vendor's final remark converts a personal slight into a collective grievance, marking the structural position of the marginalized speaker. Interactional vandalism thus becomes a defensive strategy—a way to reclaim agency in an environment structured against one's dignity. The encounter is not merely harassment; it is an attempt to reverse humiliation by asserting voice. Duneier and Molotch treat this with empathy rather than moralism. They show that domination and resistance can be inseparable features of the same sequence.

VI. Beyond Vandalism: The City as Multiple Interaction Orders

While Duneier and Molotch's analysis powerfully reveals how inequality operates in micro-interaction, their framework of "interactional vandalism" contains a theoretical limitation: it assumes a single dominant interaction order being violated. The metaphor of vandalism implies graffiti defacing an otherwise intact wall—a transgression against a unified moral code. But what if the city sidewalk does not host one interaction order but many?

I propose that urban public space operates as a site of multiple, overlapping, and sometimes incompatible interaction orders that coexist, compete, and collide. These orders are not merely individual violations but alternative moral grammars—complete systems of attentional rights, bodily codes, spatial proprieties, and communicative norms. Some are compatible and can operate side by side; others clash violently, producing the "trouble" Duneier and Molotch documented.

The Theory of Multiple Interaction Orders

An interaction order (following Goffman) is a bounded domain of social reality with its own:

1. Attentional norms: Who may look at whom, for how long, with what kind of gaze
2. Rights to initiation: Who may speak first, approach, or make contact
3. Spatial codes: How bodies move, what proximity means, which territories are claimed
4. Moral accountability structures: What counts as respect, insult, recognition, or violation
5. Categorial work: How persons are classified (stranger/acquaintance, threat/safe, insider/outsider)

The mainstream bourgeois interaction order that governs much urban pedestrian traffic emphasizes:

• Civil inattention as the default
• Minimal verbal engagement with strangers
• Bodily autonomy and personal space
• Efficiency of movement
• Class and racial "respectability"

But this is only one grammar among many. Consider these alternative interaction orders operating in the same urban space:

VII. Case Studies in Clashing Interaction Orders

Case 1: The Gendered Interaction Order vs. The Recognition-Seeking Interaction Order

Duneier and Molotch's own data reveals not one but three competing interaction orders:

Order A: The Bourgeois Female Pedestrian Order

• Organized around civil inattention as protection
• Right to move unmolested through public space
• Silence as legitimate boundary maintenance
• Male strangers categorized as potential threats

Order B: The Marginalized Male Recognition Order

• Organized around verbal acknowledgment as dignity
• Greeting as fundamental human right
• Silence as class/racial contempt
• Middle-class women categorized as snobs who refuse to "see" the poor

Order C: The Patriarchal Entitlement Order

• Organized around male rights to female attention
• Women's bodies as publicly available for commentary
• Female non-response as arrogance requiring correction
• Women categorized as obligated to be friendly/available

The street encounter is not a case of Order B vandalizing Order A. It is a three-way collision in which each party operates according to legitimate (within their framework) moral intuitions, but these intuitions are structurally incompatible. The woman cannot simultaneously:

• Maintain safety boundaries (Order A)
• Provide recognition (Order B)
• Perform feminine availability (Order C)

The city does not resolve this impossibility—it merely contains it through differential enforcement of which order "counts."

Case 2: The Clandestine Gay Cruising Order

Consider this ethnographic vignette:

A straight man in his 30s cuts through a city park at dusk, taking a shortcut home from work. Within minutes, he notices something strange: men keep making eye contact. Not the quick glance of civil inattention, but sustained, meaningful looks. One man, leaning against a tree, holds his gaze for several seconds. Another man, passing on a bench, lets his eyes linger. The straight man feels increasingly uncomfortable—Why is everyone staring at me? As he quickens his pace toward the exit, another man approaches from the opposite direction and, as they pass, deliberately brushes his hand.

Confused and unsettled, the man exits the park and mentions the incident to a friend. "Oh," the friend says, "that's a cruising spot."

This encounter reveals a collision between two interaction orders operating in the same physical space:

The Mainstream Pedestrian Order:

• Civil inattention governs eye contact
• Sustained gaze = aggression or mental illness
• Touch = accident (apologized) or assault
• Space = neutral transit zone

The Gay Cruising Order:

• Sustained eye contact = sexual interest and consent negotiation
• Returned gaze = reciprocal interest
• Averted gaze = "not interested, move on"
• Light touch = escalation of interest
• Space = charged erotic territory with complex choreography

The straight man experiences ontological confusion: the rules he knows don't apply, and he lacks the cultural competence to read what's happening. To insiders, the park operates as an elaborate moral-erotic grammar with precise rules about:

• How long to hold a gaze before it becomes an invitation
• How to decline interest without hostility
• How to navigate police surveillance
• How to distinguish between participants and outsiders

To the uninitiated, it appears as chaos or harassment. But it is neither—it is a different interaction order entirely, one that has developed precise norms for managing desire, risk, and recognition in a hostile world.

The "trouble" here is not vandalism but category confusion: the straight man doesn't realize he's been temporarily miscategorized as a potential participant in a subcultural interaction order he doesn't understand.

Case 3: The Ethnic Enclave Order

Walk down Stockton Street in San Francisco's Chinatown, and you'll encounter a radically different interaction order:

The Chinese-American Street Market Order:

• Vendors call out to passersby with aggressive enthusiasm
• Touching produce before buying is expected (elsewhere it's rude)
• Price negotiation is standard (elsewhere it signals distrust)
• Elderly women push through crowds without apology (assertiveness as survival)
• Multiple conversations happening simultaneously at high volume
• Multigenerational family groups move as units, claiming collective space

A white tourist, accustomed to the bourgeois pedestrian order, experiences this as overwhelming, chaotic, perhaps even hostile. Vendors seem "pushy." People seem "rude." There's "no personal space."

But to participants, this is a coherent moral order with roots in Hong Kong street markets, where:

• Verbal enthusiasm signals quality goods and honest dealing
• Silence suggests deception
• Physical proximity signals community trust
• Negotiation displays respect (fixed prices suggest the customer is a fool)

The clash occurs when two complete moral systems meet in the same square block. Neither is vandalizing the other—they are incompatible ways of being human in public.

Case 4: The Drug Market Interaction Order

Urban drug markets operate according to an elaborate interaction order that remains invisible to outsiders:

The Street-Level Drug Market Order:

• Specific corner positions signal different roles (lookout, dealer, holder)
• Verbal codes disguise transactions ("you got the time?" = "are you selling?")
• Eye contact rules are inverted: too much or too little signals police/outsider
• Hand signals communicate product, price, and police presence
• Rapid, ritualized exchanges minimize exposure
• Clothing, posture, and walk signal insider status

A middle-class pedestrian walking through an open-air drug market experiences profound disorientation:

• People seem to be watching but not watching
• Conversations stop as you approach
• You feel simultaneously hypervisible and ignored
• The space feels "dangerous" but nothing overt happens

Meanwhile, participants in the drug market order are engaged in sophisticated risk management:

• Categorizing each passerby (customer/police/civilian/threat)
• Coordinating transactions through minimal cues
• Maintaining plausible deniability
• Balancing the competing demands of visibility (for customers) and invisibility (from police)

The "trouble" emerges when police attempt to impose the mainstream interaction order through enforcement, or when gentrification brings middle-class residents who demand that their interaction order become dominant. The drug market order doesn't vandalize civil inattention—it replaces it with an alternative system adapted to criminalization and survival.

Case 5: Street Outreach and the Helping Interaction Order

Consider this encounter from my own street outreach work:

I approach a man sitting against a wall, cardboard sign beside him, sleeping bag pulled up. I crouch down to eye level and say softly, "Hey, how's it going? I'm Wayne from the church—just checking if you need anything. Water? Socks?"

He looks up, surprised. Most people pretend he doesn't exist.

"You got socks?"

"Yeah, what size?"

"Large."

I hand him a pair from my backpack. He nods, makes eye contact for the first time. "Thanks, man."

"You staying warm enough?"

"Yeah, I'm good. Thanks for asking."

This brief exchange operates according to a street outreach interaction order that differs from both the bourgeois pedestrian order and the marginalized person's survival order:

The Street Outreach Order:

• Eye contact signals respect, not threat
• Crouching equalizes power (standing over someone is domination)
• Offering choice (not charity) preserves dignity
• Names are exchanged as recognition of personhood
• Silence is respected (not everyone wants to talk)
• Refusal is honored without judgment

This order is intentionally designed to bridge the chasm between:

• The bourgeois order (which requires ignoring homeless people)
• The marginalized person's order (which expects hostility or invisibility)

The outreach worker must be multilingual in interaction orders—able to shift between mainstream civility and the complex codes of street survival. The "trouble" comes when:

• Housed residents complain that outreach "encourages" homelessness (collision with bourgeois order)
• Police demand that homeless people "move along" (collision with punitive order)
• Housed people perform "random acts of kindness" in ways that humiliate (failed bridge between orders)

VIII. The Spatial Layering of Interaction Orders

These multiple orders don't just exist sequentially—they exist simultaneously in overlapping territories:

The Same Park, Different Orders:

Morning (7-9 AM):

• Dog-walking order (owners greet, dogs sniff, humans chat about pets)
• Jogging order (civil inattention with spatial deference for runners)
• Tai chi order (slow, synchronized movement; observers maintain respectful distance)

Afternoon (12-2 PM):

• Lunch-break order (food, phones, minimal interaction)
• Tourist order (photos, pointing, asking directions)
• Drug market order (operating underneath, invisible to outsiders)

Evening (7-10 PM):

• Cruising order (emerges as light fades, specific zones activate)
• Family order (playgrounds, strollers, different spatial claims)
• Skateboarding order (performance, risk-taking, youth autonomy)

The same bench can be:

• A rest stop (bourgeois order)
• A sales location (drug order)
• A waiting spot (cruising order)
• A homeless person's bedroom (survival order)

Each order has temporal and spatial boundaries that participants must learn to read. "Trouble" often emerges from temporal misalignment—arriving at the park at the wrong time and not understanding why the interaction order has shifted.

IX. When Orders Clash: Typology of Urban Trouble

Type 1: Category Confusion

One party miscategorizes the other as participant in their interaction order.

• Example: Straight man in cruising zone misreads sustained eye contact as hostility
• Resolution: Recognition of mistake; quiet exit

Type 2: Incompatible Moral Demands

Both parties correctly understand the situation but operate according to incompatible norms.

• Example: Woman's safety requires ignoring street vendor; vendor's dignity requires recognition
• Resolution: Impossible; managed through power (police enforce bourgeois order)

Type 3: Colonization

One interaction order attempts to eliminate or displace another.

• Example: Gentrification brings residents who demand police enforcement of bourgeois norms, displacing cruising zones, drug markets, and homeless survival spaces
• Resolution: Spatial displacement (marginalized orders move to less visible locations)

Type 4: Strategic Code-Switching

Participants are fluent in multiple orders and strategically shift between them.

• Example: Street vendor switches between recognition-seeking order (with men) and respectful distance (with white women) to avoid police attention
• Resolution: Successful navigation requires reading others' category memberships accurately

Type 5: Bridge-Building

Intentional creation of hybrid orders that honor multiple moral grammars.

• Example: Street outreach worker crouches down, offers choice, uses first names—bridging bourgeois and survival orders
• Resolution: Temporary harmony; fragile; easily disrupted

X. Race, Power, and the Hierarchy of Interaction Orders

Not all interaction orders are equal. The city enforces a hierarchy:

Dominant Orders (Protected by Law/Police):

1. White bourgeois pedestrian order
2. Commercial order (shopping, property)
3. Automobile order (drivers have right of way)

Tolerated Orders (Allowed in Specific Zones): 4. Ethnic enclave orders (Chinatown, Little Italy) 5. Youth orders (skateparks, basketball courts) 6. Tourist orders (designated districts)

Criminalized Orders (Subject to Police Harassment): 7. Homeless survival order 8. Drug market order 9. Sex work order 10. Cruising order (decriminalized recently, still surveilled)

The question "Whose interaction order gets to structure public space?" is always a question of power. When Duneier and Molotch documented "interactional vandalism," they captured one form of conflict. But the deeper dynamic is that the city continuously enforces one interaction order as legitimate while criminalizing, displacing, or surveilling others.

XI. The Double Bind Revisited: When No Order Fits

Duneier and Molotch identified the double bind women face: acknowledge or ignore? But we can now see this as a systemic problem of multiple interaction orders:

The woman at the bus stop exists at the intersection of:

• Gendered order: Be friendly but not inviting
• Class order: Don't humiliate the poor
• Racial order: Don't perform white superiority
• Safety order: Don't engage with strange men
• Bourgeois order: Maintain civil inattention

No single response satisfies all demands. Every choice violates someone's interaction order. This is not her failure—it is the city's structural impossibility.

Similarly, the street vendor exists at the intersection of:

• Recognition order: Demand to be seen as human
• Commercial order: Sell goods to survive
• Racialized order: Navigate white fear of Black men
• Marginalized order: Assert dignity against humiliation
• Legal order: Avoid arrest for "aggressive panhandling"

He too faces an impossible bind. The city manufactures these contradictions and then punishes individuals for failing to navigate them.

XII. Critical Interactionism and Plural Moral Grammars

The theory of multiple interaction orders pushes Critical Interactionism in a new direction. Rather than simply analyzing how one moral order reproduces inequality, we must analyze:

1. How multiple moral orders coexist in urban space
2. Which orders are rendered invisible vs. hypervisible
3. How participants become multilingual in interaction orders (or fail to)
4. How power determines which orders count as legitimate
5. What forms of trouble emerge when orders collide vs. when they harmonize

This framework allows us to ask new questions:

• How do immigrants navigate between ethnic enclave orders and mainstream orders?
• How do LGBTQ people learn to read cruising codes while remaining legible to straight society?
• How do homeless people develop interaction competencies that bridge survival orders and service orders?
• How do police enforce interaction order hegemony through "quality of life" policing?

XIII. Toward a Cartography of Urban Interaction Orders

Future research might develop a spatial-temporal cartography of interaction orders:

Spatial Mapping:

• Which city blocks host multiple orders?
• Where do boundaries between orders exist?
• How do orders claim territory through time?

Temporal Mapping:

• When does each order emerge and recede?
• What triggers transitions between orders?
• How do seasonal, weekly, and daily rhythms structure order activation?

Participant Mapping:

• Who has fluency in multiple orders?
• Who is excluded from which orders?
• How do categories (race, class, gender, sexuality, housing status) predict access?

Conflict Mapping:

• Where do orders clash most frequently?
• Which clashes produce violence? Displacement? Negotiation?
• How do institutions (police, business, social services) manage clashes?

XIV. The New Urban Micro-Ethnography

The analytic path opened by Talking City Trouble has since converged with what might be called the new urban micro-ethnography, a family of studies using video and multimodal analysis to examine public interaction in situ. These approaches extend the project beyond talk-alone, showing that the moral order of the street is sustained through bodily orientation, gesture, and the use of space.

Scholars such as Lorenza Mondada, Eric Laurier, and Robin James Smith have expanded ethnomethodology into the visual and spatial domains. Mondada's research on pedestrian crossings and café encounters demonstrates how the "interaction order" is multimodal: bodies, technologies, and material artifacts all participate in turn-taking. Laurier's Driving and the City (2017) reveals how car interiors become moving interactional spaces where drivers coordinate attention between conversation, traffic, and navigation. Robin J. Smith's The Ordinary City (2014) re-situates these analyses within a broader reflection on urban modernity, arguing that contemporary cities are held together not by shared ideology but by shared interactional competence—or, as this essay argues, by the fragile coexistence of incompatible competencies.

XV. Conclusion: The City as Moral Pluriverse

Talking City Trouble is more than an ethnographic vignette of street harassment. It is a methodological and theoretical milestone—a bridge between interpretive ethnography and empirical conversation analysis, between descriptive sociology and critical theory. Its transcripts show that the moral order of the city is neither abstract nor automatic but continually performed, contested, and repaired in interaction.

But the city is not one moral order. It is a moral pluriverse—a space where multiple, often incompatible interaction orders coexist, overlap, compete, and occasionally harmonize. The "trouble" Duneier and Molotch documented is not merely vandalism against a unified code. It is the permanent friction of moral pluralism in densely shared space.

The sidewalk is where:

• The bourgeois woman's right to safety collides with the homeless man's demand for recognition
• The straight pedestrian's civil inattention collides with the gay man's erotic semiotics
• The tourist's curiosity collides with the drug dealer's need for invisibility
• The outreach worker's care collides with the police officer's mandate to "clean up the streets"

For contemporary sociology, the challenge is to map this pluriverse without flattening it into a single hierarchy or romanticizing conflict as diversity. The city's moral fabric is woven from incompatible threads. To study urban interaction is to study the impossible labor of coexistence—how strangers navigate between worlds without a common language, how power determines which worlds count, and how, in the briefest exchanges, we enact the city's fragile, improvised, and deeply contested experiment in living together.

References

Anderson, Elijah. A Place on the Corner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.

———. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.

Boden, Deirdre. The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994.

Duneier, Mitchell, and Harvey Molotch. "Talking City Trouble: Interactional Vandalism, Social Inequality, and the Urban Interaction Order." American Journal of Sociology 104, no. 5 (1999): 1263–1295.

Goffman, Erving. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press, 1963.

———. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books, 1971.

———. "The Interaction Order." American Sociological Review 48 (1983): 1–17.

Laurier, Eric. Driving and the City. London: Routledge, 2017.

Liebow, Elliot. Tally's Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.

Maynard, Douglas W. Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Mondada, Lorenza. "Multimodal Completions." Journal of Pragmatics 41 (2009): 2131–2155.

———. "Embodied Action and the Organization of Participation." Discourse Studies 16, no. 2 (2014): 123–146.

Smith, Robin James. The Ordinary City: Between Modernity and Postmodernity. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014.

West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. "Doing Gender." Gender & Society 1, no. 2 (1987): 125–151.

Whyte, William Foote. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943.