Commuters
in New York City are a people that descend upon the streets and transit systems
during the hours of 8:00-10:00am and 5:00-7:00pm (a loose approximation), aptly
known as “rush hour.” This rush is ultimately dictated by a language of being
first—a pushy communication between fellow commuters who are all trying to
either get to work or go home, and will get there eventually, but play a game
of "every man for himself." Yet despite the way commuters overwhelm transit
centers they seem to leave little traces of evidence of their competitive interplay. The
language of commuting—of beating everyone else for a seat on the train or out the station door—can
hardly be read in the materiality of public transportation; it seems to only
exist in its own hectic world whenever it emerges.
For
example, one cannot read from seats that fit three on NJTransit trains that
some commuters will opt to stand in the aisles or vestibules rather than
sit in the middle seat wedged between two strangers. Or how, despite the many train cars that fit crowds of people, most commuters will not engage each other in conversation.
Nor
could anyone glean any accurate assumptions about commuter behavior by looking
at the thick yellow lines painted on each side of the train platform, which are
supposed to read as “Stand Back,” yet are largely ignored by commuters who
stand as close to the tracks as they can when a train arrives in order to beat
everyone else for a seat. The same phenomenon occurs on subway platforms, where
commuters are also given a warning through a friendly announcement: “There is
an uptown 1 train approaching the station. Please stand back from the yellow
line.” Many people will do the opposite and stand closer, or even directly on
top of the yellow line, hoping that the train will stop with a door that will
open right in front of them.
Perhaps
one could infer how hard it is to walk through Penn Station during the
afternoon rush, when commuters become large clots of people hovering around departure
boards, waiting for the track number of their train to appear; or how
impossible it is if you’re unfortunate enough to have to walk in the opposite
direction of a track that was just posted for an outbound train. The train
station alone can tell someone these things simply by revealing how it
operates—just add in a huge mass of people and one can imagine the difficulty
of navigating such a place at such a time. I wonder though, if one could also infer the “me
first” mentality that most people exhibit during rush hour. Can it be assumed
that the daily grind might naturally cultivate such behavior? Or is there any
other tangible evidence that could tell someone of how commuters are islands
who only interact by pushing past each other?
It
seems that ultimately, when everyone has finally made it to work or finally
gone home, there are hardly any traces left of the competition embedded in
commuter life. Perhaps this could be attributed to the fact that there isn’t
much materiality collectively involved in commuter culture; commuter passes, metro cards, styrofoam coffee cups—these things are indicative of traveling caffeinated
masses, and perhaps from this one can assume that there was rushing in these
masses, and therefore people might have been rude. But the daily, and somewhat
fruitless ritual of trying to be first on and off the train is hard to read
without being in the middle of it while it is happening. Commuter culture is an
ephemeral world that appears and disappears twice a day, and it asserts itself
with force during its peak hours, but when it is done it seems to take all
evidence of its competition with it.
2 comments:
Julia - Great Post! It's fun imaging what an excavation of our current world/lives might look like to academics of the future. A lot of questions come up (as you very nicely pointed out) about what will be leftover. What material will future academics be analyzing to figure out who we are and what we do everyday.
Your blog discussion made me think about smart phones and the subway. Almost everyday there is some sort of social tension that develops as a result of people playing loud games on their phones or walking painfully slow up up the subway stairs because they are reading texts.Will the future know about this? What will happen to these mundane moments? What trace do they leave?
Your post reminded me of Buchli's point that there is a continuum of belief regarding whether the past is retrievable, with some believing it is directly retrievable while others think it is only partially or even impossible to retrieve. It seems to me that the material text of commuter rush hour culture is inadequate for us to completely understand what occurs. In some cases the available text could also lead us to misguided interpretations, like with commuters blatantly ignoring the yellow line and approaching train warnings. How would we be able to infer this solely from material culture? I think it would be lost if you could not directly observe people ignoring these signs. I wonder if it would be easier to grasp commuter culture if there were simply more material left over from rush hour. Perhaps if trash was never removed from the subway cars or platform?
Post a Comment