Strangers in Common by Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

 Strangers in Common

A Critical Interactionist Sociology of Stranger Relations

Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

 25 September 2026 

Introduction

Most of the people any of us encounter in a day are strangers. We pass them on sidewalks, stand beside them in elevators, wait behind them in line, sit next to them on buses. Almost none of these encounters becomes an event. That uneventfulness is an achievement. Strangers must see one another without staring, share space without claiming it, and—on the rare occasions when talk begins—find something to say to someone about whom they know almost nothing. The order that makes a world of strangers livable is produced moment by moment, by the people who inhabit it.

That order is also unequal. Some people move through public space as unremarkable members of the crowd. Others are stared at, commented on, approached without invitation, told to move along, or looked through as if they were not there. Women walking alone learn that their presence can be treated as an invitation to comment. People without housing learn that passersby can refuse them the most elementary sign of recognition. The same practices that make public life possible can be withheld, bent, or turned into instruments of exclusion.

This essay develops a critical interactionist sociology of strangers by joining close analysis of observable conduct to the study of the institutions that organize its consequences. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis show how an approach, greeting, refusal, or withdrawal is accomplished in sequence; symbolic interactionism and urban ethnography examine the meanings and identities at stake; institutional ethnography traces how local encounters connect to rules, records, property, and services. These traditions do not automatically form one method. Their combination is a research proposal: begin with what participants demonstrably do and then follow the material and institutional conditions that give their actions unequal consequences. A formal account of civil inattention can miss its unequal distribution, while a structural account of exclusion can miss how that distribution is locally produced.

The review moves from Georg Simmel’s classic formulation, through Erving Goffman’s interaction order and Lyn Lofland’s public realm, to the conversation analytic study of how strangers become acquaintances in the work of Douglas Maynard and Don Zimmerman. It then turns to the critical edge of the tradition: Carol Brooks Gardner on gender and public harassment, Mitchell Duneier and Harvey Molotch on “interactional vandalism,” and the non-person treatment of unhoused people by the housed. It closes by sketching what a critical interactionist program for stranger relations might study next.

Two meanings of stranger must be held apart. Simmel's stranger is a member positioned at once within and at a distance from a group; the everyday public stranger is someone whose personal biography we do not know. An immigrant can be familiar to neighbors yet remain a Simmelian stranger, while two native residents may never have met on a train. The encounter between the unacquainted can reproduce the durable position, but it cannot be equated with it.

This inquiry also develops a question I posed in “Encountering Strangers in Public Places” (Mellinger 2011). I described the hurried sidewalk glance and the many small exceptions to anonymous passage, calling the ritual “doing modernity.” That phrase named an observable accomplishment and opened a comparative question. In rural and nomadic settings, people may instead receive an outsider through hospitality, negotiate a required greeting, or regulate contact by posture and distance within an encounter. The city passerby’s brief acknowledgment followed by withdrawal is one local solution to possible contact, not a universal marker of modernity. My earlier contrast with a medieval village remains a hypothesis about watchfulness, not evidence that watchful attention was the premodern default.

I. Simmel: The Stranger as a Form of Relation

Georg Simmel's short excursus “The Stranger” (1908) remains the starting point. Simmel's figure is the person “who comes today and stays tomorrow,” a potential wanderer incorporated into a group without an inherited claim to its place. Strangeness is a relation combining proximity and distance, rather than a deficit of familiarity. The stranger can be inside a social world and still be regarded as having arrived from elsewhere.

Three features of Simmel’s account matter for what follows. First, strangeness is a form of interaction, not a property of a person. One is a stranger only in relation to some group, and the relation has a definite structure. Second, that structure has consequences. Because the stranger is not bound by the group’s local commitments, he can be granted a peculiar objectivity; people confide in him things they would conceal from intimates. Third, the stranger is known in general rather than individual terms. Relations with strangers rest on qualities the parties share only as members of broad categories—nationality, occupation, common humanity—rather than on what is unique to each. That last observation anticipates a central theme of later work: stranger relations are categorical relations.

In “The Metropolis and Mental Life” (1903), Simmel generalized the point to urban experience. The intensity of stimulation in the city, he argued, fosters a protective “blasé attitude” and a stance of reserve toward others, which from the outside can look like coldness or even aversion. The reserve is not a failure of sociability but a form of it—an adaptation that makes coexistence among multitudes possible, and the price of the freedom the city offers.

Simmel's examples include the trader and the European Jew, whose mobility and assigned position carried economic and political consequences. His text also describes how a group may know strangers through a generalized type rather than their individual qualities, and notes the uniform tax imposed on Jews in medieval cities. The critical question is who makes a person into this kind of stranger, by what classification, and with what consequences for belonging and resources. A newcomer may also contest the group's habits and see what settled members overlook. Alfred Schutz's account of the stranger (1944) develops the interpretive difficulty of learning a group's taken for granted recipes, though no group should be imagined as internally uniform.

II. Goffman: The Interaction Order Among the Unacquainted

Erving Goffman turned Simmel’s forms into an empirical program. Behavior in Public Places (1963) distinguishes unfocused interaction—the management of mere co-presence—from focused interaction, in which people openly cooperate to sustain a single focus of attention. Much stranger conduct is unfocused, and its central ritual is civil inattention: one gives the other enough visual notice to show that one has seen them, then withdraws attention to show that they are not a target of special curiosity or design. The glance that passes and drops is a courtesy; it says “I see you, and you have nothing to fear from me.”

Goffman also specified when strangers may legitimately open talk. Contact between the unacquainted requires some warrant. Certain situations loosen the rules—shared crises, the presence of a child or dog, carnivals and celebrations—and certain persons are treated as open persons, whom others feel entitled to address. Goffman’s examples include those in service roles, the very young and very old, and people who display a special status. The concept will prove crucial for gender and for homelessness, because “openness” is not something persons choose; it is something others impute to them.

Relations in Public (1971) extended the analysis to the “territories of the self”—personal space, stalls, turns, use space, possessional territory, and conversational preserves—and to the remedial work (apologies, accounts, requests) through which strangers repair the small intrusions of shared life. Stigma (1963) examined mixed contacts between the stigmatized and “normals,” and the careful management of information and visibility they require. In “The Interaction Order” (1983), his presidential address to the American Sociological Association, Goffman argued that face-to-face interaction is a domain of social life in its own right, with its own orderliness, only “loosely coupled” to social structure.

Goffman also described non-person roles in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) and nonperson treatment in Behavior in Public Places (1963). In the latter’s discussion of civil inattention (pp. 83–88), he contrasts courteous visual notice with the racist “hate stare” and with treating others as if they were not present or worthy of a glance. His own example of nonperson treatment includes children, servants, Black people, and mental patients in the language of his period. He does not, in this passage, specifically name a person asking for alms. These formulations are related but need not be collapsed: a present person can conventionally be placed outside others’ encounter, or ordinary public regard can be withheld. Civil inattention ordinarily conveys awareness of a co-present person while declining engagement. Whether a particular silence amounts to nonperson treatment cannot be determined from the absence of eye contact alone. Sequence, setting, prior approach, and subsequent conduct matter.

Goffman's description remains indispensable, but the apparently ordinary participant in a public scene is not socially unmarked. The capacity to pass without explanation depends on how one is read, the site one occupies, and the authorities others can invoke. His claim that the interaction order is only “loosely coupled” to social structure preserves the specificity of face-to-face analysis; it should also become an empirical question. We can study when a category is made relevant in a sequence, when a third party intervenes, and when a fleeting judgment becomes a durable institutional record.

III. Lofland: A World of Strangers and the Public Realm

Lyn Lofland made the city of strangers a sociological object in its own right. A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Space (1973) asked how urban life is possible at all when most of the people one encounters are personally unknown. Her answer was historical as well as interactional. In the pre-industrial city, she argued, public order rested largely on an appearential ordering: people could be “read” at a glance by dress, bodily markings, and other visible signs of status. The modern city increasingly relies on a spatial ordering, in which who a person is can be inferred from where they are—particular people in particular places at particular times. Either way, urbanites know one another categorically rather than personally: they know what kind of person the other is, not who the other is.

The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory (1998) distinguished three realms: the private realm of household and intimate networks, the parochial realm of neighbors, workmates, and acquaintances, and the public realm, populated by people who are strangers or only categorically known to one another. Lofland identified a set of interactional principles that organize the public realm, among them cooperative motility (people jointly manage movement through shared space), civil inattention, audience role prominence (people act as appreciative onlookers to one another), restrained helpfulness (strangers help with small requests such as the time or directions), and civility toward diversity. She also insisted that the public realm is more than a space of indifference. It offers pleasures—people-watching, unexpected encounters, the “fleeting relationship”—and it is a site of learning, where people encounter difference and practice tolerating it.

Lofland was also frank about the public realm’s enemies. She traced a long tradition of anti-urban sentiment and argued that the public realm is continually threatened by privatization, by design that discourages lingering, and by the control of “undesirable” people in public space. Her work supplies a normative anchor for a critical approach: if the public realm is where strangers learn to live with difference, then practices that expel or erase particular strangers diminish public life for everyone, not only for those expelled.

Stanley Milgram's familiar stranger—the person regularly seen at the same stop or on the same train but never addressed—adds an intermediate case. Repeated co-presence can make absence noticeable or a greeting possible without producing intimacy. Familiarity may also license unwelcome questions; it does not automatically grant one person a claim on another's story. The transition from anonymous passage to acquaintance remains open to negotiation and refusal.

IV. Maynard and Zimmerman: Getting Acquainted as a Practical Accomplishment

If Goffman and Lofland describe how strangers avoid focused interaction, conversation analysis asks what happens when they enter it. How do two people with no shared history find something to say, and how does their talk itself build or display a relationship?

Harvey Sacks had already noticed that strangers ordinarily need something like a “ticket” to begin talking—some warrant, such as a request for the time or a remark about a shared circumstance—and that membership categorization is central to how people make sense of those they do not know. Douglas Maynard and Don Zimmerman’s “Topical Talk, Ritual and the Social Organization of Relationships” (Social Psychology Quarterly, 1984) brought these ideas to bear on getting acquainted. Working with recorded conversations between pairs of acquainted and unacquainted university students, they compared how topics were generated in each.

Unacquainted participants made substantial use of “pre-topical sequences”: question and answer exchanges that discovered and displayed categorical memberships and activities, enabling fuller topical talk. Acquainted pairs could instead use a shared biography and prior activities. Setting talk and topical announcements also helped organize the conversation. These practices displayed and managed a degree of intimacy or distance rather than simply revealing a relationship already established elsewhere. The pairs had been instructed to warm up or get to know one another before a debate; that experimentally arranged warrant for talk should not be silently carried over to a street encounter, where a recipient may have no reason to continue.

The study's enduring contribution is to make relationship a matter of sequential management. What topic is offered, whether it is taken up, and how a participant retreats from it show how closeness is attempted or withheld. Jan Svennevig's Getting Acquainted in Conversation (2000) extends this line of inquiry through first conversations and the balancing of self-presentation, elicitation, and common ground. These findings do not imply that all strangers ought to become acquaintances. Momentary warmth can preserve anonymity, and silence can be a legitimate boundary.

A critical interactionist can ask when pre-topical categories create a shared footing and when they sort or stigmatize. “What do you do?” may be an easy opening for two students and an intrusive demand directed to someone unemployed. The same form of question can perform different actions in a campus warm-up, an outreach visit, or an eligibility interview. The analyst must show the action in the sequence and the institutional consequence, rather than infer both from the speaker's presumed motive.

V. Other Interactionist Studies of Stranger Encounters

A wide body of work extends these themes. Stefan Hirschauer’s “On Doing Being a Stranger: The Practical Constitution of Civil Inattention” (2005), a study of elevator rides, treats strangerhood not as a given condition but as something passengers actively do—through positioning, gaze management, and the careful avoidance of anything that might look like an overture. The title’s ethnomethodological echo is deliberate: being a stranger is an ongoing practical accomplishment.

Elijah Anderson’s urban ethnographies take the analysis into racialized public space. Streetwise (1990) examined how residents and passersby in a changing Philadelphia neighborhood read one another across lines of race and class, often relying on crude categorical cues that fell hardest on young Black men. The Cosmopolitan Canopy (2011) identified settings—markets, plazas, certain public venues—where people of different backgrounds meet with comparative civility, while showing how quickly that civility can be ruptured by moments that remind Black participants of their provisional standing.

Mitchell Duneier’s Sidewalk (1999), a study of Black men who sold books and magazines or panhandled on Greenwich Village sidewalks, showed how people often dismissed as disorderly constructed their own moral order on the street, and how their interactions with passersby were shaped by suspicion, race, and policy. It is the ethnographic background to the Duneier–Molotch paper discussed below.

Other studies complicate the apparently uniform figure of the public stranger. Richard Ocejo and Stéphane Tonnelat's subway research (2014) follows teenagers who experience riding among strangers as engaging, detached, or precarious, and whose travel in groups changes the situation. Anderson's later Black in White Space (2022) further examines the presumption that a Black person's presence in a white setting calls for explanation. These cases ask who may remain unremarkable and who must manage the attention of others.

Mervyn Horgan (2020) distinguishes “uncivil attention” from “uncivil inattention” in a typology of breaches of civil inattention. Drawing on 326 short interviews about recent rude encounters with strangers in urban public space, he analyzes unwanted bids for engagement as well as failures of expected recognition. The interviews elicit experiences of incivility, rather than measuring the prevalence of all kinds of street encounter. My 2011 essay also used the phrase “uncivil attention” for intrusive notice; Horgan supplies a later, explicit comparative scheme. Neither usage establishes that all notice of an unfamiliar person is uncivil. An exchange may be protective, welcome, obligatory, or oppressive depending on the activity and the parties’ ability to end it.

VI. Carol Brooks Gardner: Gender, Openness, and Public Harassment

Carol Brooks Gardner’s work is the most sustained feminist revision of Goffman’s public order. In “Passing By: Street Remarks, Address Rights, and the Urban Female” (1980), she examined street remarks directed at women, asking what gives strangers the presumed right to address them. In “Analyzing Gender in Public Places: Rethinking Goffman’s Vision of Everyday Life” (1989), based on eighteen months of participant observation in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and interviews with local residents, she identified three areas where Goffman’s framework needed gender-conscious revision: the “normalized distaste for public places” encouraged in women through fear of crime; street remarks, which prove difficult to manage; and the access information women inadvertently disclose about their identities and whereabouts.

Her book Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment (1995) developed these observations into a full account of public harassment as a routine feature of women’s public lives. Gardner showed that the practices Goffman described as neutral features of the public order—openness to address, the right to glance, the management of approach—are distributed by gender. Women are treated as open persons whom men may evaluate aloud, question, follow, or instruct. Civil inattention, far from being universally extended, is something women often cannot count on receiving. And the burden of managing these incursions falls on those subjected to them: women develop elaborate strategies of avoidance, timing, dress, companionship, and route selection, which in turn restrict their use of public space.

Gardner’s contribution to a critical interactionism is methodological as well as substantive. She took Goffman’s categories seriously enough to show where they break down, and she located the breakdown not in abstract social structure but in the observable conduct of particular encounters. The unequal distribution of public civility, she showed, is done—remark by remark, glance by glance—and it is experienced as a pervasive, cumulative condition by those on the receiving end.

Gardner’s work is also the hinge of the argument that follows. She established three propositions that reach well beyond gender. First, openness is imputed, not chosen: some people are treated as available for address and evaluation by virtue of a social category. Second, the protections of the public order—civil inattention, restraint, cooperative closings—are unequally extended. Third, the costs of that inequality are borne as interactional labor by those on the receiving end, who must anticipate, deflect, and absorb incursions, and whose use of public space narrows as a result. Section VIII applies these propositions to people without housing.

VII. Duneier and Molotch: Interactional Vandalism

Mitchell Duneier and Harvey Molotch’s “Talking City Trouble: Interactional Vandalism, Social Inequality, and the ‘Urban Interaction Problem’” (American Journal of Sociology, 1999) brought conversation analysis directly to bear on stranger conflict. Using recordings of exchanges between men working on a Greenwich Village sidewalk and women passing by, they analyzed how the men initiated talk that the women tried to avoid or close, and how the men persisted by exploiting the ordinary machinery of conversation—the expectation that a greeting or question will receive a response, and that a conversation will be closed cooperatively.

Duneier and Molotch call the trouble “interactional vandalism”: the disruption of tacit conversational expectations through persistent openings or pursuits of response after a recipient displays resistance. The timing and sequence matter because the recipient may recognize that a boundary has been crossed without having an ordinary name for the procedure. Their analysis connects the encounters to racial and class inequality and to different capacities to claim sidewalk space. It should not be read as proof that every initiator intends to vandalize talk, or that marginalized people have little stake in civility. The value of the concept lies in a demonstrable account of particular encounters, not a moral diagnosis of a population.

The paper is valuable because it examines actual exchanges while taking the women's experiences of intrusion and the men's structural marginality seriously. The combination is difficult. To label all discomfort prejudice would miss the interactional boundary; to label the men inherently threatening would make the record of what they did superfluous. A critical analysis must also examine the rights of exit, the availability of police intervention, and the economic conditions of the street work. Duneier's Sidewalk (1999) supplies broader ethnographic context that no short transcript can carry by itself.

Molotch’s later work extended attention to the built and institutional settings of stranger encounter. Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing (2010, edited with Laura Norén) examined one of the most intimate forms of stranger co-presence and the inequalities embedded in who has access to it—a question with obvious consequences for people without homes. Against Security (2012) analyzed how security regimes at airports, subways, and other “sites of ambiguous danger” shape the way strangers perceive and treat one another, often training suspicion rather than producing safety.

VIII. Looked Through: The Non-Person Treatment of Unhoused People

People without housing make the unequal terms of the public order particularly visible. Some must conduct necessities—rest, sleep, eating, care for belongings—in places organized chiefly for passage and consumption. Their interactions with housed people vary; no single pattern describes everyone who is unhoused or every passerby. Yet the contrast between being unheard as a claimant and scrutinized as a presence recurs in street ethnography and in accounts by people who panhandle. This section joins Goffman's nonperson treatment to Gardner's analysis of unequal address rights, while preserving the difference between a respectful refusal and a degrading response.

Respectful refusal and non-acknowledgment

A request for money or conversation does not oblige a stranger to accept it. A brief spoken refusal can acknowledge the request while declining it; an ordinary passerby may also protect privacy or safety by moving on without an answer. The analytic question is whether the response, in its setting and sequence, treats the requester as a participant who can make a claim, or displays contempt and denies even ordinary regard. A single averted glance cannot settle that question. The meaning of silence depends on what was said, what happened before it, the possibilities for response, and the pattern of treatment across encounters.

Nonperson treatment becomes especially visible when a person speaks and others continue to discuss them in the third person, step around them as an obstacle, or address only an accompanying worker or guard. These actions may withhold the standing of a co-participant. By contrast, civil inattention normally acknowledges presence while allowing a person to proceed without inquiry. The distinction is ethical and empirical: it identifies a possible denial of reciprocal standing without converting every refusal to give, every silence, or every protective boundary into an offense.

The request can involve money and recognition at once, but the two should not be conflated. Some people want a reply, others want privacy, and a reply can be condescending or dangerous. Interview evidence from Philadelphia reports both being ignored and receiving kindness, alongside experiences of violence (Tate et al. 2022). The task is to study what particular people seek and how an encounter actually unfolds, while taking seriously the repeated humiliation that an isolated pedestrian may never witness.

Ignored when asking, scrutinized when present

An unhoused person can be overlooked when seeking assistance and closely watched when resting, carrying possessions, or remaining near a business. Neither response is universal, and the visibility of encampments or panhandling differs across sites. The analytical point is the possible switch: a person's account receives no uptake while their presence becomes actionable for surveillance or removal. The same body may be unread as a speaker and intensely read as a problem.

Gardner’s work supplies the key to this paradox. Her analysis of women in public showed that Goffman’s “open persons” are not people who choose to be approachable but people whom others treat as available for comment, evaluation, and instruction. Women on the street, she showed, are open in this sense: strangers presume a right to address them, remark on them, and extract access information about who they are and where they are going. At the same time, the courtesies that would protect them—civil inattention, restraint, a cooperative close to unwanted talk—are unreliably extended. The result is a condition of simultaneous exposure and vulnerability that restricts women’s use of public space and places the burden of managing incursions on those who suffer them.

Extending Gardner's framework to housing status is a central move of this essay, and it should remain an analogy to be tested, rather than an identity between gendered harassment and homelessness. A person can be treated as open to strangers' scrutiny, instruction, and requests for explanation while being denied a reciprocal claim to address those strangers. In some settings, a housed person or official can terminate the interaction and call for enforcement; an unhoused person must manage the consequences of that ending. Gardner's insight directs attention to the distribution of address rights and to the labor imposed on those whose boundaries are least respected.

Lankenau’s street ethnography

Stephen E. Lankenau's Washington, D.C., street ethnography offers a detailed view from the side of people who panhandle. He observed street encounters and conducted thirty-seven recorded interviews during fieldwork from 1994 to 1996; he also spent two days panhandling to examine the bodily and emotional demands of soliciting. “Panhandling Repertoires and Routines for Overcoming the Nonperson Treatment” (1999a) studies how requests are designed to turn passing into an encounter. “Stronger Than Dirt” (1999b) examines humiliation, identity management, and the status significance of continuing relationships with givers. Panhandlers are a subset of people without housing, so the findings should not be generalized to everyone unhoused.

Lankenau draws on Gardner's distinctions among exclusionary, exploitative, and evaluative harassment to describe incidents experienced by panhandlers. One person is driven from a storefront, another is abused, another is judged aloud by appearance or presumed employability. The categories come from Gardner's study of gendered public harassment; their application here is instructive precisely because the mechanisms and histories of poverty and gender are not identical. Being ignored is another part of the encounters, while close inspection can be its opposite rather than its cure.

Lankenau also shows panhandlers responding actively: managing anger after a rejection, adjusting presentations of need and respectability, using familiar responses to recurring insults, and cultivating regular givers. A continuing giver may provide conversation or work as well as money. This movement from unfamiliar passerby to a known person connects Lankenau to Maynard and Zimmerman, but repeated acquaintance does not eliminate inequality. One party may remain dependent on the other's discretionary assistance; the recipient of a gift may have to display gratitude while risking suspicion for appearing too well supplied.

David Snow and Leon Anderson's Down on Their Luck (1993) studies identity work among unhoused people in Austin, including efforts to resist or reframe stigmatizing classifications. Duneier's Sidewalk (1999) details the moral and practical organization of street work in Greenwich Village. Together these studies show people interpreting and contesting the terms on which they are publicly recognized. They also warn against treating the panhandler, the vendor, the person sleeping outside, and the person staying with friends as a single social type.

An inverted public realm

Lofland's principles offer questions for studying this unequal public realm. Is motility genuinely cooperative when one person repeatedly yields a seat or a doorway? Is restrained helpfulness available when a request is presumed fraudulent? Does audience behavior become surveillance? At what point is difference treated as a legitimate presence, and at what point as a reason for removal? These are hypotheses about actual places, not a claim that every encounter reverses each principle.

The analysis cannot stop at the glance. Dorothy E. Smith's institutional ethnography asks how local experience is coordinated by texts and relations that originate elsewhere: ordinances, trespass notices, complaint systems, shelter rules, intake forms, and design standards. In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024), the Supreme Court held that enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not, in itself, constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The holding does not determine the morality or all other legal questions surrounding such ordinances. A critical interactionist inquiry would trace how a particular rule enters an encounter—through a sign, a complaint, an officer's instruction, or a record—and what choices remain for the person addressed. It would not claim that the ruling causes any particular pedestrian to look away.

Repairing the order

Outreach can sometimes repair a damaged interaction: a greeting, a name used with permission, a question that leaves room for refusal, or an offer that can actually be delivered may establish a different footing. It can also demand intimate disclosure, enter that disclosure into a database, and fail to produce housing. The effects must be studied rather than presumed. Housed pedestrians can decline money or talk without humiliation; organizations can secure restrooms, places to rest, care, and housing so that ordinary needs need not become public offenses. Vigils that read names may offer collective acknowledgment, but public recognition does not substitute for the resources and rights that would have protected people while alive.

IX. Beyond Urban Civil Inattention: Comparative Questions

The city-centered account poses a comparative question: what recognition, avoidance, and inquiry are expected when people encounter someone they do not know in places without dense anonymous crowds? The frequency and social legibility of unacquainted others matter. Lofland’s account of the public realm suggests that people can recognize strangers by category, appearance, and place without knowing their biographies. Where repeated encounters and shared histories make more people identifiable, Goffman’s ritual of anonymous passage may have less routine work to do; markets, travel routes, and arrivals can still bring unfamiliar people into view. This is a hypothesis about encounter conditions, not an explanation established for the absence of direct comparative tests. The available ethnographies illuminate distinct practices, but they do not constitute a controlled cross-cultural test of Goffman’s exact sequence. Nor can “nomadic” or “peasant” name a single interaction order.

Ibrahim Ag Youssouf, Allen Grimshaw, and Charles Bird’s “Greetings in the Desert” (1976) is the closest comparison here. Their study of Tuareg encounters describes an approaching rider as a possible bearer of news, companionship, or danger. Participants attend to identity cues and negotiate greetings and information exchange through complex verbal rules. In that described desert situation, simply passing an unknown rider as one might pass a city pedestrian would miss practical and social stakes. The contrast concerns a particular encounter ecology; it cannot show that nomads everywhere greet every stranger or that urban people never need to establish identity. Robert Murphy’s earlier study of the Tuareg veil (1964) offers a second, more tentative comparison concerning social distance. Its title and ethnographic setting are verified, but without the full argument in hand the veil should not be treated as a proven functional equivalent of averting one’s gaze.

Julian Pitt-Rivers’s “The Law of Hospitality” (1977; reprinted 2012) analyzes the unstable position of the visitor and the reciprocal obligations through which a host receives a guest. Caroline Humphrey (2012) shows hospitality in rural Mongolia as a crafted practice that mediates the mutual vulnerability of host and guest, sometimes with disquieting forms of distance beneath the ideal of reassurance. Hospitality can make an outsider temporarily intelligible without making that person a community member. These analyses direct us to ask when a stranger is assigned a role and who has the authority to assign it. They do not prove that every rural passerby must become either guest or enemy; even Pitt-Rivers discusses degrees of incorporation and the possibility of becoming strangers again. Judith Irvine’s account of Wolof greetings (1974) shows how a recurrent greeting can negotiate relative status. Its object is the social work done by greetings in that setting, rather than a direct observation of two unidentified villagers passing in silence.

Kamala Russell’s study of hospitality in Dhofar, Oman (2020) provides a particularly close functional comparison. Posture, gaze, movement, and seating attenuate the intensity of contact by managing participants’ accessibility to one another. This is distance achieved inside a focused occasion of hospitality; Goffman’s civil inattention concerns people passing without entering a focused exchange. Alessandro Duranti’s analyses of Samoan ceremonial greetings (1992) and the general and culture-specific properties of greetings (1997) further locate gaze and embodied positioning within patterned, status-sensitive arrivals. Neither a ceremonial welcome nor a guest’s moderated exposure is equivalent to the fleeting street glance, though all regulate how contact begins and how much of a person becomes available.

Comparative gaze research sharpens the methodological warning. Rossano, Brown, and Levinson (2009) compare gaze during question-and-answer sequences among Italian, Tzeltal Maya, and Yélî Dnye speakers. Stivers and colleagues (2009) compare the timing of responses to questions across ten languages, including speech communities far from industrial cities. Their findings show that comparative microanalysis is possible and can reveal both shared organization and local variation. Yet these participants are already talking: conversational eye contact and turn timing are not the same event as the brief acknowledgment and withdrawal Goffman described among passersby. Goffman himself conducted his 1953 dissertation research in a Shetland island community, a reminder that his empirical world was not exclusively metropolitan. A separate textual and archival comparison would be needed to establish exactly how those observations informed his later formulation of civil inattention.

The stronger conclusion is that unfamiliarity is organized through locally specific rituals of recognition, distance, and access. Hospitality, greeting, attenuation within contact, and civil inattention are useful comparative possibilities, not an exhaustive taxonomy or mutually exclusive cultural types. A comparative study could sample actual passages, arrivals, greetings, refusals, and hospitality sequences across sites, then examine who is considered entitled to ask for identification and who may remain anonymous. It should include cases where city strangers must acknowledge one another and follow unequal consequences: a person without housing may be addressed by authorities when privacy is desired and ignored by passersby when assistance is requested. Nonperson treatment can deny the possibility of reciprocal greeting, reception, or respectful distance, but whether any one response is a denial must be demonstrated in its sequence. Watchfulness remains an open comparative question rather than a historical default.

X. Toward a Critical Interactionist Program

Reading these literatures together suggests five commitments for a critical interactionist sociology of strangers.

Strangerhood is an accomplishment. Following Simmel, Goffman, and Hirschauer, the status of stranger, acquaintance, or non-person is produced in conduct, not given in advance. Research should specify the practices—gaze, spacing, address, categorization, topic—through which each is done.

Categorization is where interaction and inequality meet. Lofland’s categorical knowing, Sacks’s membership categorization, and Maynard and Zimmerman’s pre-topical sequences show how strangers make one another intelligible. The same machinery sorts people into the open and the protected, the recognizable and the invisible.

The public order is unequally distributed. Following Gardner’s three propositions—openness is imputed, protections are unequally extended, and the costs fall as interactional labor on the disadvantaged— the work of Anderson, Duneier and Molotch, Lankenau, and Snow and Anderson shows that civil inattention, openness, and non-person treatment follow lines of gender, race, class, and housing. The distribution is itself an empirical object.

Interaction is institutionally coordinated. Local encounters are shaped by codes, designs, policing, and markets that originate elsewhere. Institutional ethnography supplies methods for tracing those connections without dissolving the encounter into structure.

Repair is possible. Because the interaction order is produced by its participants, it can be produced differently. Outreach, vigils, design that invites lingering, and policy that stops treating presence as offense are all interventions in the order of strangers.

Several lines of research follow. Recordings and field observations of outreach could show how workers make an offer, how a recipient grants or withholds access, and how case notes shape later encounters. Comparative observation of sidewalks, transit, shops, and service offices could ask when strangers receive civil inattention, unsolicited scrutiny, respectful refusal, or nonperson treatment. Researchers should seek contrary cases and examine the histories and consequences of an event, including whether a complaint or classification travels into an institutional record. Interviews with people subject to these encounters can identify injuries, protections, and practical choices a transcript alone cannot reveal. Consent and unequal exposure must guide the use of recordings.

Conclusion

Simmel saw that the stranger is a form of relation combining nearness and distance. Goffman showed that this relation is sustained by exquisitely fine rituals of attention and inattention. Lofland showed that those rituals make possible a public realm of real value. Maynard and Zimmerman showed that even the passage from stranger to acquaintance is organized in the sequential details of talk. Gardner showed that the same order is unequally shared, and that the people it leaves exposed pay for that inequality in interactional labor. Duneier and Molotch, Lankenau, and the students of homelessness showed that for some people the ordinary courtesies of public life are withheld altogether: ignored when they ask, scrutinized when they stay.

A critical interactionist approach holds these insights together by examining how strangers are recognized, approached, refused, and classified in real sequences, then tracing the institutions that give those sequences unequal stakes. Public life is valuable partly because people can pass without inquiry, sometimes meet across difference, and ask for assistance without surrendering their standing. Its measure is not compulsory friendliness. It is whether the rights to privacy, safe passage, respectful response, and material support can be exercised by people whom the city most readily casts as strangers.

References

Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Anderson, Elijah. 2011. The Cosmopolitan Canopy: Race and Civility in Everyday Life. New York: W. W. Norton.

Anderson, Elijah. 2022. Black in White Space: The Enduring Impact of Color in Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. ___ (2024).

Duneier, Mitchell, and Harvey Molotch. 1999. “Talking City Trouble: Interactional Vandalism, Social Inequality, and the ‘Urban Interaction Problem.’” American Journal of Sociology 104 (5): 1263–1295.

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

Duranti, Alessandro. 1992. “Language and Bodies in Social Space: Samoan Ceremonial Greetings.” American Anthropologist 94 (3): 657–691. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1992.94.3.02a00070

Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. “Universal and Culture-Specific Properties of Greetings.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 7 (1): 63–97. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1997.7.1.63

Gardner, Carol Brooks. 1980. “Passing By: Street Remarks, Address Rights, and the Urban Female.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 328–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00026.x

Gardner, Carol Brooks. 1989. “Analyzing Gender in Public Places: Rethinking Goffman’s Vision of Everyday Life.” The American Sociologist 20 (1): 42–56.

Gardner, Carol Brooks. 1995. Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.

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

Goffman, Erving. 1963b. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

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

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

Hirschauer, Stefan. 2005. “On Doing Being a Stranger: The Practical Constitution of Civil Inattention.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35 (1): 41–67.

Horgan, Mervyn. 2020. “Urban Interaction Ritual: Strangership, Civil Inattention and Everyday Incivilities in Public Space.” Pragmatics 30 (1). https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19022.hor

Humphrey, Caroline. 2012. “Hospitality and Tone: Holding Patterns for Strangeness in Rural Mongolia.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18 (S1): S63–S75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2012.01761.x

Irvine, Judith T. 1974. “Strategies of Status Manipulation in the Wolof Greeting.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, edited by Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, 167–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611810.014

Lankenau, Stephen E. 1999a. “Panhandling Repertoires and Routines for Overcoming the Nonperson Treatment.” Deviant Behavior 20 (2): 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396299266551

Lankenau, Stephen E. 1999b. “Stronger Than Dirt: Public Humiliation and Status Enhancement among Panhandlers.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (3): 288–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124199129023451

Lofland, Lyn H. 1973. A World of Strangers: Order and Action in Urban Public Space. New York: Basic Books.

Lofland, Lyn H. 1998. The Public Realm: Exploring the City’s Quintessential Social Territory. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Maynard, Douglas W., and Don H. Zimmerman. 1984. “Topical Talk, Ritual and the Social Organization of Relationships.” Social Psychology Quarterly 47 (4): 301–316.

Mellinger, Wayne. 2011. “Encountering Strangers in Public Places: Goffman and Civil Inattention.” Everyday Sociology, December 26. https://everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/12/26/encountering-strangers-in-public-places-goffman-and-civil-inattention/

Milgram, Stanley. 1977. “The Familiar Stranger: An Aspect of Urban Anonymity.” In The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Molotch, Harvey, and Laura Norén, eds. 2010. Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing. New York: New York University Press.

Molotch, Harvey. 2012. Against Security: How We Go Wrong at Airports, Subways, and Other Sites of Ambiguous Danger. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Murphy, Robert F. 1964. “Social Distance and the Veil.” American Anthropologist 66 (6). https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.6.02a00020

Ocejo, Richard E., and Stéphane Tonnelat. 2014. “Subway Diaries: How People Experience and Practice Riding the Train.” Ethnography 15 (4): 493–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138113491171

Pitt-Rivers, Julian. 2012 [1977]. “The Law of Hospitality.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.14318/hau2.1.022

Rossano, Federico, Penelope Brown, and Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. “Gaze, Questioning and Culture.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Russell, Kamala. 2020. “Facing Another: The Attenuation of Contact as Space in Dhofar, Oman.” Signs and Society 8 (2): 290–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/708145

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. 2 vols. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.

Schutz, Alfred. 1944. “The Stranger: An Essay in Social Psychology.” American Journal of Sociology 49 (6): 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1086/219472

Simmel, Georg. 1950 [1903]. “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” In The Sociology of Georg Simmel, translated and edited by Kurt H. Wolff, 409–424. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Simmel, Georg. 1950 [1908]. “The Stranger.” In The Sociology of Georg Simmel, translated and edited by Kurt H. Wolff, 402–408. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

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

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

Stivers, Tanya, N. J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, et al. 2009. “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (26): 10587–10592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106

Svennevig, Jan. 2000. Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.64

Tate, Alyssa, Kaéla Edwards, Nichole Holmes, Steven Buffer, Zachary Fusfeld, Willie Baronet, and Rosemary Frasso. 2022. “‘Even a Smile Helps’: Exploring the Interactions between People Experiencing Homelessness and Passersby in Public Spaces.” International Journal of Social Psychiatry 68 (3): 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764021989385

Youssouf, Ibrahim Ag, Allen D. Grimshaw, and Charles S. Bird. 1976. “Greetings in the Desert.” American Ethnologist 3 (4): 797–824. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1976.3.4.02a00140