Attentional Orders: Toward a Sociology of Attention Allocation by Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

  Attentional Orders: Toward a Sociology of Attention Allocation

Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

Abstract

This essay develops a theoretical framework for understanding attention as a socially organized, structurally distributed resource whose allocation has direct consequences for survival. Drawing on Goffman’s analysis of the interaction order, on ethnographic studies of homelessness and public space, and on earlier work on civil inattention, cell phones, and public encounters, I introduce the concept of the attentional order: the organized, stratified, and institutionally reproduced system through which attention is allocated, withheld, and converted into social recognition, obligation, and care. The essay argues that attentional orders are historically variable, are contested through ongoing interactional labor, and operate simultaneously at interactional, institutional, and political levels. A central theoretical contribution is the identification of a transformation chain — Attention → Recognition → Obligation → Allocation → Holding → Survival — and its pathological inverse ending in premature death. The essay shows that the critical failure point in contemporary institutional arrangements lies not at the level of visibility but at the level of conversion: persons are routinely counted but not housed, diagnosed but not stabilized, recognized but not held. Drawing on Lankenau’s ethnography of panhandling as attention-claiming labor, on Dorothy Smith’s institutional ethnography of documentary practice, and on recognition theory (Honneth, Fraser, Butler), the essay proposes eight theoretical propositions toward a sociology of attentional orders. Homelessness serves as a revelatory case: it concentrates and makes visible a structure of attentional stratification that operates across the social order. Where attention ends, abandonment begins.

Keywords: attentional orders, civil inattention, interaction order, homelessness, recognition, institutional abandonment, documentary sedimentation, attention-claiming labor, Critical Interactionism

I. The Glance That Does Not Land

A man sleeps in a doorway on State Street. A tourist approaches, registers something — not quite a person, not quite an obstacle — and her gaze slides past him the way water slides past a stone. She has not ignored him, exactly. Ignoring would require first noticing. What she has performed is something more practiced: the organization of her own attention so that he never quite comes into view as a person deserving of recognition.

This is not cruelty. It is competence. She has done what urban life requires — managed the field of her attention across a landscape populated by more people than she could possibly engage. Erving Goffman called the basic mechanism civil inattention: the quick glance and deliberate look-away that acknowledges another's presence without inviting engagement. It is the foundational ritual of public life among strangers, the tacit agreement that we will coexist without making demands on one another.

But civil inattention is not evenly distributed. Some figures receive it reliably; others receive something more radical — a withdrawal so thorough that their presence is not registered as human at all. The man in the doorway does not receive civil inattention. He receives what Goffman elsewhere called the nonperson treatment: conduct organized as if he were not there. And this difference — between being passed over and being erased — carries consequences that extend far beyond the phenomenology of a single encounter.

This essay argues that attention is not simply a cognitive phenomenon or a matter of individual courtesy. It is a socially organized, structurally distributed resource — and like other resources, its distribution has consequences for health, survival, and the conditions of life. Drawing on Goffman's analysis of the interaction order, on the sociology of homelessness, and on my own earlier work on civility and public encounters, I develop a theoretical framework I call the attentional order: the organized, stratified, and institutionally reproduced system through which attention is allocated, withheld, and converted into social recognition, obligation, and care.

II. Civil Inattention and the Interaction Order

Goffman's (1963) analysis of behavior in public places established that urban life depends upon a complex set of tacit agreements about how strangers will manage one another's presence. Central among these is civil inattention: the practice by which persons in public settings acknowledge that they have noticed another person through a brief glance, then withdraw visual attention as a signal that they have no particular intent toward that person. The glance says: I see you. The look-away says: I make no claims on you, and you need make none on me.

Civil inattention is not rudeness. It is, as Goffman noted, the very texture of public sociability — the basic protocol that allows strangers to share physical space without the constant anxiety of mutual surveillance. It requires skill to perform well, and its disruption — the lingering stare, the too-direct gaze, the ostentatious avoidance — is immediately legible as a social violation.

What Goffman described as the interaction order (1983) was precisely this domain of face-to-face conduct: a domain with its own structural properties, its own norms, its own forms of competence and accountability. The interaction order is not reducible to larger social structures; it operates according to its own logic. Yet it is not insulated from those structures either. The distribution of attentional rights and obligations within the interaction order — who may look at whom, who may approach, who may speak first, who may demand acknowledgment — reflects and reproduces the stratifications of the wider social world.

Civil inattention, then, is Janus-faced. On one side, it is the enabling condition of urban public life: it makes coexistence among strangers possible. On the other, it is a mechanism through which certain persons are routinely denied the minimal recognition that public life affords. The man in the doorway does not fail to receive civil inattention because passersby are cruel. He fails to receive it because the attentional order has positioned him outside the field within which civil inattention normally operates.

III. The Attentional Order: Historical Variability and Sites of Struggle

The attentional order is not static. Technologies, institutions, and interactional practices continually reorganize its operation. In earlier work on cell phones and public interaction (Mellinger 2013), I argued that mobile communication technologies altered the structure of public encounters by allowing individuals to become simultaneously present in one interactional field and absent from another. People in public places are increasingly physically present while socially absent — both simultaneously "there" and "not there." The cell phone user standing on a sidewalk is physically present among strangers while interactionally committed elsewhere. The device functions as an attentional shield, reorganizing obligations of acknowledgment and participation in public space. Goffman observed that to remove oneself from the social situation — to fail to demonstrate presence — was to send a message to others that they are "non-persons"; yet mobile technologies have normalized precisely this withdrawal, producing what I termed uncivil inattention: a condition in which it becomes increasingly acceptable for strangers in public places to avert any contact whatsoever, so preoccupied with electronic devices that they need not even glance up to acknowledge others. Attentional orders, in other words, are historically variable. The methods through which attention is allocated, withheld, redirected, and protected change with technological and organizational conditions.

A similar theme emerged in my earlier analysis of civility and public encounters (Mellinger 2011). Civility depends upon the competent management of attention. Civil inattention itself, in Goffman's formulation, is a carefully calibrated attentional act: through it, we demonstrate that we recognize the other person's presence, are not seeking sustained interaction, and have no hostile intention. Greetings, acknowledgments, eye contact, waiting one's turn, and the ritual observances of everyday public life are fundamentally attentional practices. Civility is not merely politeness; it is the reciprocal allocation of minimal recognition among strangers. Incivility represents a breakdown in those allocations. Seen from this perspective, civil inattention appears as one component within a broader attentional order governing the distribution of recognition in public settings. The question is not whether attention is present or absent, but how it is organized, to whom it is extended, and under what conditions it may be legitimately withdrawn.

Lankenau's (1999) ethnography of panhandlers in Washington, D.C., demonstrates that the attentional order is not merely a backdrop to social life but an active and contested terrain. The nonperson treatment, civil inattention, and face engagement constitute distinct modes of response through which pedestrians manage encounters with panhandlers — a practical typology of attentional allocation that maps closely onto the structure of the attentional order itself. Most importantly, Lankenau shows that the nonperson treatment is often an active accomplishment rather than a passive default. Pedestrians deploy props, avert their gaze, stare straight ahead, pretend not to hear, accelerate their pace, or otherwise organize their conduct so that the panhandler may be treated as neither seen nor heard. Inattention, in this sense, is work. It requires effort, coordination, and interactional competence.

The interactional repertoires Lankenau documents among panhandlers represent the obverse labor. Humor, storytelling, personalized greetings, offers of service, dramatic self-presentation, and appeals to shared identity are not simply fundraising techniques. They are methods for overcoming attentional exclusion. Panhandlers work to secure entry into an attentional field from which they have been systematically excluded, while pedestrians work to prevent such entry. Panhandling thus appears not merely as economic activity but as attention-claiming labor — effort directed simultaneously toward income acquisition and social recognition. What Lankenau reveals is that attentional orders are not merely systems of distribution; they are sites of ongoing struggle. Recognition and invisibility are jointly produced through the interactional work of those seeking attention and those seeking to withhold it.

IV. Attention as a Stratified Resource

If attention is distributed unevenly — if some persons receive it reliably and others are systematically denied it — then we require a sociology of attentional stratification. The question is not simply who attends to whom in any given interaction, but how patterns of attentional allocation are organized across social settings and institutionalized over time.

Charles Derber's (1979) analysis of conversational attention demonstrated that attention is a contested resource in everyday interaction: some interactional styles systematically claim attention while others yield it. Derber showed that class position correlates with attentional dominance — those with more social power tend to receive more conversational attention and to direct interactions toward their own concerns. While Derber focused on conversation, the logic extends to the wider attentional order.

Simmel ([1903] 1950) had already identified the structural condition that makes attentional stratification possible: urban life produces what he called the blasé attitude — a dulling of responsiveness to stimuli as a protective adaptation to the overwhelming sensory density of the city. The blasé attitude renders many figures as background, as unremarkable — as not warranting the expenditure of attentional energy. It is not indifference to any particular person; it is a generalized reduction of attentional sensitivity that falls unevenly on those whom the city has already positioned as peripheral.

Herbert Simon (1971) formulated the structural condition from the other direction: in an information-rich world, attention is scarce. The wealth of information creates a poverty of attention. If attention is a limited resource and demands on it are unlimited, then attention will be rationed — and the question of how it is rationed, by what principles and in whose interests, becomes central to any sociology of social organization.

The concept of attentional orders integrates these insights. An attentional order is the socially organized system through which attention is distributed across a population. It specifies, implicitly or explicitly: which categories of persons are entitled to what kinds of attention; under what circumstances attention may be withheld without social sanction; what technologies and institutional arrangements structure the deployment of attention; and how attentional allocations become consequential for the distribution of other social goods.

V. From Attention to Institutional Abandonment: The Transformation Chain

The theory of attentional orders becomes most consequential when we trace the institutional pathways through which attentional allocation is converted — or fails to be converted — into material outcomes. I propose the following transformation chain as a theoretical model:

Attention                              Inattention

↓                                              ↓

Recognition                        Misrecognition

↓                                              ↓

Obligation                          Non-Obligation

↓                                              ↓

Allocation                           Non-Allocation

↓                                              ↓

Holding                               Abandonment

↓                                              ↓

Survival                              Premature Death

The central pathology of contemporary attentional orders lies not at the level of visibility but at the level of conversion. Modern institutions often excel at producing attention, recognition, documentation, and assessment while failing to generate durable obligation. Individuals are counted but not housed, diagnosed but not stabilized, recognized but not held. The critical sociological question is therefore not simply who receives attention, but how attention is converted into obligation, obligation into allocation, and allocation into sustained forms of holding capable of altering life trajectories.

Each stage in the chain represents a potential point of failure. A person may receive attention without recognition — noticed as a body or a category without being registered as a person deserving of response. Recognition may occur without obligation — the recognition that someone exists, or is suffering, may produce no felt duty to act. Obligation may arise without allocation — the acknowledgment of duty may not translate into the deployment of resources. Allocation may proceed without holding — services may be initiated and then withdrawn before they can alter trajectories. And the entire chain may operate with fidelity while the resources available at each stage are insufficient to alter outcomes.

Homelessness is the site where the consequences of this chain's failure are most visible. But the chain itself is not peculiar to homelessness. It describes the general structure of attentional conversion in any institutional domain — medicine, education, criminal justice, social services — where recognition is a precondition for access to resources, and where the allocation of resources is contingent on sustained organizational attention.

The six-operation transformation sequence I have developed in other work — Conditional Recognition, Burden of Legibility, Documentary Sorting, Documentary Sedimentation, Temporal Mismatch, and Administrative Death — can now be understood as a specification of how this chain operates within bureaucratic institutions. Each operation names a particular mechanism through which the conversion from attention to survival can be interrupted, redirected, or foreclosed.

VI. Documentary Vision and the Institutional Gaze

If attentional orders operate at the interactional level through the practices I have described — civil inattention, nonperson treatment, attentional shields — they operate at the institutional level through documents, records, classifications, and assessment technologies. Institutional attention is mediated by documentary forms that determine what organizations are capable of seeing.

Dorothy E. Smith's (2005) institutional ethnography demonstrated that texts coordinate action across dispersed settings, linking local activities to translocal institutional relations. Documents do not simply record events; they organize future courses of action by establishing what counts as relevant, reportable, and actionable. The documentary form is itself a set of instructions about what to see.

Within homeless service systems, assessments, case notes, eligibility determinations, behavioral incident reports, and discharge summaries accumulate across time and organizations. Past attentional verdicts become embedded in documentary records that accompany individuals from encounter to encounter, pre-structuring future perception. The result is what I term documentary sedimentation: the progressive layering of institutional interpretations that organizes, and progressively forecloses, future organizational response.

The file, then, is the organizational analogue of the gaze. The file is not merely a repository of information. It is institutionalized attention — the record of what an organization has seen, the template for what it will see next, and the mechanism through which attentional allocations made in one setting become binding on others.

And here the theory must confront its hardest problem. The transformation chain from attention to survival can fail at any point. But the failure that is most systematically produced — and most systematically invisible — is the failure at the level of obligation. Institutions may recognize, document, assess, and allocate while remaining organized in ways that prevent the sustained holding that survival requires. The person is seen; the file grows thick; the services are offered and withdrawn; the cycle continues. What is absent is not attention. What is absent is the organizational commitment to hold.

VII. Attentional Orders and Social Power

The theory of attentional orders joins a broader tradition in the sociology of power that locates domination not only in the overt exercise of force or the manipulation of resources, but in the organization of perception itself. To control what is seen — what demands attention, what recedes into background — is to exercise a form of power that is all the more effective for being invisible.

I propose three levels at which attentional orders operate and through which they intersect with social power:

The interactional level: Face-to-face practices of attention and inattention, including civil inattention, the nonperson treatment, attention-claiming labor, and the interactional management of visibility. At this level, attentional orders are produced through the ongoing, moment-by-moment work of interaction.

The institutional level: Documentary forms, assessment technologies, protocols, and organizational routines that structure what institutions can see. At this level, attentional orders are produced through the accumulated weight of records, classifications, and bureaucratic procedures that mediate between persons and organizations.

The political level: Public discourse, media representation, policy frameworks, and cultural narratives that determine which populations appear as legitimate objects of collective attention and concern. At this level, attentional orders are produced through the politics of visibility — who is made legible as a social problem, whose suffering is publicly grievable, and whose death passes unmarked.

The stratification of attention at each of these levels is not accidental. It reflects and reproduces the distribution of other social goods: income, housing, healthcare, legal standing, and the basic conditions of a livable life. To be denied attention at the interactional level is unpleasant; to be denied it at the institutional level is dangerous; to be denied it at the political level is potentially fatal.

This is the sense in which the analysis of attentional orders extends beyond the sociology of face-to-face interaction into a critical sociology of survival. The question of who receives attention, and what that attention is converted into, is not a question about courtesy or cultural style. It is a question about who lives and who dies, and under what social conditions.

VIII. Propositions Toward a Theory of Attentional Orders

Proposition 1: Attention is a socially organized resource distributed according to principles that reflect and reproduce social stratification.

Proposition 2: The attentional order specifies, for any social setting, which categories of persons are entitled to what kinds of attention, under what conditions attention may be withheld without sanction, and how attentional allocations are enforced.

Proposition 3: Attentional orders are historically variable. Technologies, institutions, and interactional practices continually reorganize the conditions under which attention is allocated, withheld, redirected, and protected.

Proposition 4: Attentional orders are not merely structures of distribution; they are sites of ongoing struggle. Recognition and invisibility are jointly produced through the work of those seeking attention and those seeking to withhold it.

Proposition 5: Recognition is a necessary but insufficient condition for the allocation of social resources. The conversion of attention into recognition, recognition into obligation, obligation into allocation, and allocation into sustained holding is a complex social process with multiple potential points of failure.

Proposition 6: Institutional attention is mediated by documentary forms that constitute organizations' capacity to see. The file is institutionalized attention.

Proposition 7: The systematic failure to convert attention into obligation — the condition in which persons are recognized but not held — is the central mechanism through which contemporary institutions produce premature death among marginalized populations.

Proposition 8: A critical sociology of attentional orders must attend to the differential distribution of all five forms of socially consequential attention: recognitional, surveillant, documentary, caring, and allocative attention. The last two — caring and allocative — are the most consequential for survival.

IX. Homelessness as a Revelatory Case

Why homelessness? The question deserves a direct answer. This essay has moved between the general theory of attentional orders and the specific case of homelessness, and the relationship between them requires clarification.

Homelessness is not the only domain in which attentional orders operate, nor is it the only site where their failures prove fatal. The same dynamics — the conditional allocation of recognition, the documentary mediation of institutional vision, the gap between recognition and obligation — are visible in medicine, in education, in the criminal legal system, and in the ordinary transactions of working-class life.

But homelessness is a revelatory case: a domain in which the consequences of attentional stratification are concentrated, visible, and extreme. The man in the doorway on State Street makes legible, in a single moment, a structure that operates diffusely across the entire social order. His nonperson treatment is not an anomaly; it is a clarifying instance of a general social logic. The analysis of attentional orders in the context of homelessness does not confine the theory to a single population. It uses an extreme case to illuminate a pervasive condition.

This is the methodological principle that Goffman's own work exemplified: the study of the margins of social life — of total institutions, of stigma, of interaction disorder — as a means of rendering visible the structures that govern ordinary social existence. The attentional order that produces nonperson treatment among the unhoused is the same attentional order that produces civil inattention among the housed. The difference is not in kind but in consequence. Where attention ends, abandonment begins.

Endnotes

Endnote X. Recognition, Obligation, and Grievability

The attentional-order framework intersects with, but is not reducible to, recognition theory. Axel Honneth (1995) argues that recognition constitutes a fundamental condition of human flourishing. Persons develop self-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem through participation in three relational spheres: love, legal recognition, and social esteem. Misrecognition produces corresponding forms of social injury — humiliation, disrespect, degradation — that impede the development of personhood and generate the motivational basis for social struggles. Honneth's central concern is the moral grammar through which subjects become recognized as worthy participants in social life.

Nancy Fraser (2000; 2003) criticized recognition theories that detached cultural status from material redistribution. For Fraser, injustice operates simultaneously through maldistribution and misrecognition, and neither dimension can be fully addressed without attending to the other. Recognition without redistribution may leave structural inequalities intact; redistribution without recognition may fail to address forms of status subordination that persist independently of economic arrangements. Her intervention is especially important for the present argument because it insists on the institutional and political dimensions through which recognition becomes — or fails to become — consequential.

Judith Butler (2009) extends these concerns in a different direction. In Frames of War, Butler asks which lives become publicly grievable and which remain outside dominant regimes of mourning. Grievability is not merely a cultural sentiment but a distributed social practice: some deaths generate collective response, public ceremony, and political demands for accountability, while others pass unremarked beyond intimate circles. Butler thus demonstrates that recognition is unevenly distributed not only in life but in death — a finding that bears directly on the dynamics of premature mortality among homeless populations.

The theory of attentional orders builds upon these traditions while addressing a somewhat different problem. Recognition alone does not guarantee intervention. Homelessness, addiction, severe mental illness, and premature mortality are frequently documented, counted, assessed, and publicly acknowledged. The problem is often not invisibility in any simple sense, but the failure of recognition to generate durable obligation. Individuals may be recognized, documented, discussed, and statistically counted while remaining effectively abandoned. The central question therefore becomes: under what conditions does recognition become institutionally actionable?

Recognition theory asks how persons become visible as moral subjects. Attentional-order theory asks how recognition becomes institutionally actionable.

Endnote Y. Panhandling, Nonperson Treatment, and Attention-Claiming Labor

Studies of homelessness have long documented the interactional consequences of marginality. Snow and Anderson (1987; 1993) demonstrated that unhoused individuals routinely confront identity degradation and nonperson treatment requiring extensive identity work to preserve claims to competent personhood. Their analysis of identity talk — distancing, embracement, and fictive storytelling — highlighted the interactional labor involved in maintaining selfhood under conditions of persistent stigma and public invisibility.

Duneier and Molotch (1999) extended this line of inquiry through their concept of interactional vandalism: situations in which marginalized actors violate conventional interactional expectations in order to compel engagement from unwilling audiences. Although frequently interpreted as deviant or disruptive, such behavior may be understood as the use of disruptive means to achieve ordinary interactional ends — specifically, acknowledgment and the minimal recognition withheld through conventional attentional practices.

Lankenau's (1999) ethnography of panhandlers in Washington, D.C., provides the most direct empirical investigation of attentional struggle in public space available in the literature. He identifies three modal pedestrian responses to panhandler solicitations — face engagement, civil inattention, and nonperson treatment — constituting a practical typology of attentional allocation. The nonperson treatment is often actively accomplished through gaze aversion, strategic use of props, feigned distraction, and accelerated movement — techniques designed to ensure the panhandler is treated as neither seen nor heard. Inattention is therefore not simply the absence of action. It is frequently a sustained interactional accomplishment requiring effort and competence.

Panhandlers respond by developing repertoires designed to overcome such exclusion — humor, personalized greetings, appeals to shared identity, storytelling, dramatized need, and offers of service — operating not merely as income-generating strategies but as efforts to secure entry into the attentional field of passersby. These repertoires demonstrate that marginalized actors frequently expend substantial labor simply to obtain minimal recognition from those who have organized their conduct to deny it.

Panhandling may be understood as labor directed simultaneously toward income acquisition and attentional acquisition.

Endnote Z. Documents, Organizational Vision, and the Institutional Allocation of Attention

Institutional ethnography and ethnomethodological studies of work provide crucial resources for understanding how organizations allocate attention. Dorothy E. Smith (2005) demonstrated that texts coordinate action across dispersed settings, linking local activities to translocal institutional relations. Documents do not simply record events; they organize future courses of action by establishing what counts as relevant, reportable, and actionable. The documentary form is itself a set of instructions about what to see.

Harold Garfinkel's analyses of documentary method reveal how organizational members use records as evidence of underlying patterns, while those patterns are simultaneously produced through the act of documentation. Particular events become meaningful through incorporation into documentary accounts; documentary accounts then shape the interpretation of subsequent events. Organizational attention is recursively organized through records — the file shapes what the next encounter will notice, and what the next encounter notices shapes the file.

Berg (1997) showed how medical records actively structure clinical reasoning rather than merely documenting it — they organize the sequence of examination, establish the relevance of particular findings, and make some information actionable while rendering other information peripheral. Timmermans and Berg (2003) extended this argument by demonstrating that standardized protocols, assessment instruments, and documentation systems constitute professional vision itself: they determine what practitioners are capable of perceiving within any given encounter. Documentation is not external to professional judgment; it is constitutive of it.

Within homeless service systems, these dynamics carry especially high stakes. Assessments, case notes, eligibility determinations, behavioral incident reports, and discharge summaries accumulate across time and organizations. Past attentional verdicts become embedded in documentary records that travel with individuals from encounter to encounter, pre-structuring future perception. The result is what this essay terms documentary sedimentation: the progressive layering of institutional interpretations that organizes, and progressively forecloses, future organizational response.

The file is not merely a repository of information. It is institutionalized attention. Documents determine not only what organizations know but what organizations are capable of seeing.

Endnote W. Attention Before the Attention Economy

Contemporary scholarship on the attention economy descends from Herbert Simon's (1971) foundational observation that information abundance produces attention scarcity. Where information is plentiful, the limiting resource becomes the cognitive capacity to process and act upon it. Simon's insight generated a substantial literature on how organizations, markets, and technologies compete to capture and direct human attention (Davenport and Beck 2001; Goldhaber 1997).

More recently, political economists of digital media have extended this framework to examine how platform architectures are designed to extract maximal engagement from users (Zuboff 2019; Wu 2016). In this literature, attention figures primarily as a resource to be captured, monetized, and deployed in the service of commercial or political ends. The subject of attention is the platform or advertiser; the object is the user whose engagement is solicited and converted into revenue.

The present essay examines a structurally different problem. Here attention is not a resource extracted from individuals by organizations but a form of recognition distributed — or withheld — among persons, categories, and populations. The question is not who captures attention but who receives it, who is systematically denied it, and how those distributions shape the allocation of care, resources, and the conditions of survival. The attention economy asks what attention is worth to those who extract it. The theory of attentional orders asks what the absence of attention costs those from whom it is withheld.

Most attention-economy research examines the extraction of attention from individuals by organizations and technologies. The present essay examines the allocation of attention among persons, categories, and populations. The question is not who captures attention, but who receives it, who is denied it, and how those distributions shape the allocation of care, resources, and survival.

References

Berg, Marc. 1997. Rationalizing Medical Work: Decision-Support Techniques and Medical Practices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Butler, Judith. 2009. Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable?London: Verso.

Davenport, Thomas H., and John C. Beck. 2001. The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Derber, Charles. 1979. The Pursuit of Attention: Power and Ego in Everyday Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Duneier, Mitchell, and Harvey Molotch. 1999. "Talking City Trouble: Interactional Vandalism, Social Inequality, and the 'Urban Interaction Problem.'" American Journal of Sociology104(5): 1263–1295.

Fraser, Nancy. 2000. "Rethinking Recognition." New Left Review 3 (May/June): 107–120.

Fraser, Nancy, and Axel Honneth. 2003. Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. Translated by Joel Golb, James Ingram, and Christiane Wilke. London: Verso.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places. New York: Free Press.

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

Goldhaber, Michael H. 1997. "The Attention Economy and the Net." First Monday 2(4).

Honneth, Axel. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lankenau, Stephen E. 1999. "Panhandling Repertoires and Routines for Overcoming the Nonperson Treatment." Deviant Behavior 20(2): 183–206.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2011. "Encountering Strangers in Public Places: Goffman and Civil Inattention." Everyday Sociology Blog, W.W. Norton, December 26.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. 2013. "Cell Phones and Civility." Noozhawk.

Mellinger, Wayne Martin. Monograph in development. Abandonment in Real Time.

Simon, Herbert A. 1971. "Designing Organizations for an Information-Rich World." In Computers, Communications, and the Public Interest, edited by Martin Greenberger, 37–72. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Simmel, Georg. [1903] 1950. "The Metropolis and Mental Life." In The Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited by Kurt H. Wolff. New York: Free Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 2005. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1987. "Identity Work Among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities." American Journal of Sociology 92(6): 1336–1371.

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on Their Luck: A Study of Homeless Street People. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Timmermans, Stefan, and Marc Berg. 2003. The Gold Standard: The Challenge of Evidence-Based Medicine. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Wu, Tim. 2016. The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Zuboff, Shoshana. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power.New York: PublicAffairs.