What I Found In the School Cafeteria --- Why Are Chinese Students Always Sitting Together

Yvonne Lian, 2019

Habitus is gained knowledge through socialization(Lemert, 2011). Knowledge about one’s surrounding environment in a specific cultural context influence the behaviors of individuals, which leads to predictable behavioral patterns that are enduring and repeated in different time and place. Even without teaching, people observe, obtain, then follow these subtle rules unconsciously, leading to herd-like behaviors in social groups. Moreover, since Habitus is related to personal knowledge, it can be shifted and changed under different situations, resulting in similarities as well as differences in varying cultural contexts. This can also be observed in daily life. The campus center cafe at Smith College is a public sphere where people mostly within the Smith community can buy food and sit at the tables. There are no explicit rules that strictly confine the behaviors of people posted at the cafe, such as fines, yet order is maintained at the CC cafe. I observed two nights (Thursday and Saturday) at the cafe from 8:00 to 9:00 and found consistent patterns. The theoretical concepts that I will examine in this paper are the “rules” of norms and Habitus as stated in the Lemert article, “Social things.” I hypothesize that social discipline and habitus will be observed even in such a micro setting, yet I also argue that Habitus is interlinked with personal integrity, instead of solely based on the social construct.

Methods of observation

The field notes were recorded by three group members, who took turn in observing the Campus Center Cafe on Thursday evening, Saturday evening, Sunday morning and Sunday evening for an hour each. This paper uses the information observed during these times to support the arguments made. The observer sat at the side of the cafeteria and did not cause any suspicion in the observed population. The observers also did not intervene in any incidences and remained neutral.

Habitus: Conforming to social discipline

The patterns that exist in a social environment create habitus. Habitus refers to a patterns are enduring and transferrable from one context to another habits of acting, seeing, and talking that are learned from these patterns in our social environment and, through their repeated use, tend to recreate similar environmental patterns over time. (Lemert, 2011)

Firstly, subtle rules are obeyed in every social group, from waiting in line, choosing seats, to taking public goods. These rules correspond to the “enduring patterns” described in Habitus. Queues are constructed by the customers at the campus center cafe. Although during the night there weren’t many people who are waiting in line (less than 5 per time), people still formed clear queues. Apart from forming the lines, people in the cafeteria also followed several subtle patterns in their queues. Firstly, the lines are always constructed in similar patterns even without instructions— customers compose the line closely near the counter, which gives way to people who need to pass from the counter to the food court area. In the two hours that I observed, the shape of the line is always maintained, though new customers didn’t have a model to follow. It seems that people have an ingrained sense of “getting in line.” From daily practices outside of the campus center cafeteria, people already learned “lines” and they practiced this learned knowledge in a different but similar setting.

Secondly, the principles of the lines are followed. Lemert states that in the movie theatre, members of the queue maintained certain “respect” of the line (Lemert, 2011). This also holds true for the queues at the cafe. Although people in line are oftentimes strangers and are all busy in their schedule, no individual jumped the line in the whole two hours I observed. Besides, when people arrive at the queue at a roughly similar time, people are polite and would not struggle to get in line first. There were two such similar instances in my observation. Additionally, participants of the line recognize certain freedom of others. Lemert states that one “has the rights to leave temporarily to relieve oneself, or perhaps, the right to advance one’s late-arriving partner” (Lemert, 2011). In my observation, I only saw the latter instance twice, where a friend joins the other who was already in the line. This, however, only occurs when the two people come in together and are not random acquaintances. This distinction between study companions and acquaintances demonstrates the fine line in principles people follow. Though others do not enforce these rules onto them, people obey these subtle self-imposed and society-influenced behavioral guidelines that are categorized as Habitus.

Habitus: practicing social disciplines

Although people tend to follow the social disciplines, conformity is only obeyed to a certain extent. Lemert explains the concept of Habitus proposed by Bourdieu:

Habitus accounts for the fact that the practical actions by which we comply with the rules are always loaded with potential for the individual to obey or resist society’s demands and to do either in sometimes highly inventive way. (Lemert, 2011)

Seating patterns, noise levels, and baristas’ behaviors in the cafeteria reflect how people generally conform to the social norms while only doing it in a tolerable manner. The most popular seats in the table section are the more secluded spots: the corners are the first to be occupied, the tables near the window and the sofa area against the wall are also more popular. In comparison, tables that are in the center are the least occupied. These seating choices reflect people’s wish to not disturb others. Nonetheless, people sometimes push the limits for what is appropriate. For example, on Saturday night at the cafe, three female students were seated near the window that is relatively near to the corner. The place they chose didn’t have any surrounding people seated nearby, which confirms their wish to not agitate others. However, they did speak quite loudly and instead of keeping their sound lower, they talked in their normal pitch. Another group of students played a video on their computer without using earphones, which is not generally seen as impolite in a public space. Yet, they kept the speaker level low so that others around them would not be aroused. Moreover, baristas are required by the guideline to focus solely on their work and not be distracted by other people. However, oftentimes in the smith cafeteria, a group of friends will come to visit the barista while engaging in playful activities with her, such as listening to music, slight dancing, chatting, and laughing. However, if the barista is doing their tasks promptly and properly, these behaviors are not restricted. Hence, people engage with social disciplines as explained by habitus: we behave inside the guidelines and conform to well-structured social norms with some room for some deviation.

In an ambiguous context, people followed the disciplines more loosely, demonstrating the different levels of Habitus people choose to follow. Although the campus center cafeteria is opened to the public, its main purpose is to sell food. However, it also serves as a study place at Smith where groups of students can study in a non-quiet space. In my observation, I found that not all people who sit in the cafe have ordered food, and some just use it as an alternative studying space. While pizza and wraps are popular choices, not many people buy food when they sit down at the booth or the tables. Furthermore, even if people did buy food, most of them are drinks instead of meals. A group of four people may only buy one cup of tea. This phenomena can be compared to customers’ behaviors at an actual restaurant. People acknowledges the social norm that in order to sit at a restaurant, it is mandatory to order food without any leeway. Whereas in the setting of Smith, people don’t feel the obligation to order food because the cafeteria serves as a supply center, a study space, and a restaurant. Hence, people adjust their habitus to specific situations, and choose to practice it in the vicinity of what is deemed appropriate.

Integrity with habitus

Due to these observations, I argue that personal morals help maintain social discipline, which contributes to behavioral patterns. On the other hand, personal integrity also determines the different levels to which people conform to social discipline.

To start with, Integrity helps explain why at places where no one is watching, people still follow discipline. The self-serv counter provides an example of self-discipline. The public or free goods provided at the campus center cafe are not exploited by the students in the three days of observation. From napkins, disposable tableware, to the self-served drink section, students at smith followed the unwritten guidelines: people didn’t take a thick pile of napkins, multiple straws, too many sugar packages, disposable tableware for future use, or use their water bottle to store soft drinks that are not free. In addition, the Sunday afternoon field note records an instance where a woman left the cafeteria when her service dog wouldn’t stop barking. Even though there are no specific guidelines that limit such behavior, not were people demonstrating distain toward the barking dog, the dog owner left. These examples demonstrate that in a place without direct supervision, people at the Smith cafeteria still follow common discipline. It can thus be argued that the social discipline presented at Smith are the common morals of most students it embodies. Moreover, discipline is reinforced by personal morals. Even if a student at Smith did not “learn” similar social discipline to wait patiently in line or take excessive common goods before, her integrity to not appear rude in this context make them conform to the common behaviors at the cafeteria. However, in a different context, people who do not acquire aligned integrity perform adversely. Though people at the Smith cafeteria do not exploit public common good, such behavior is accustomed to the public spheres elsewhere. Integrity, therefore, helps enforce social disciplines on individuals.

Habitus with culture and its relation to integrity

Integrity distinctions in divergent culture also account for the reason why individuals display alien habitus. Continuing the problem of the public common good, the observations recorded in the Watson article state that in HongKong fast-food restaurants, “Napkins placed in public dispensers disappear faster than they can be replaced” (Watson, 2004). This exemplifies that integrity disparities due to culture affect Habitus. Since Smith consists of people from a wide range of demographic and racial backgrounds, habitus varies. In the Smith cafeteria, though some behaviors are accepted, it is not adopted by all. In the following, Chinese and American customers’ different behaviors will be illustrated. Certain behaviors that are seen as normal at the Smith cafeteria are not adopted by all. To give an example, I observed that many people studying at the campus center cafe took off their shoes and placed their feet on another chair. This is unimaginable in China because people interpret such behavior as a lack of education and manner. Field notes recorded on Thursday and Saturday showed that no Chinese international students did it. Under contrasting personal morals, Chinese international students did not engage in such behaviors, thus showing different habitus. However, it is also recorded that they did not showcase any disdain when they observe others are doing it. Nevertheless, these students accept such social norms in American culture because they recognize the different social discipline that is adopted in that society. The patterns that exist in a social environment create habitus. In the context of Smith, the Habitus is that people have the freedom to choose their own behaviors. The international students quickly adopt such Habitus and therefore didn’t criticize the other domestic students. Showcasing that the integrity of the students also change depending on the social environment they experience, which in turn also change their own habitus.

Conclusion

In general, people, mostly Smith students, at the CC cafe follow the social norms while choosing to practice different levels of habitus partly based on their personal integrity, which may also be influenced by cultural background. The hypothesis proposed was found in the Campus Center Cafe at Smith: habitus is showcased in the way people formed lines, used the public space and the self-serve counter, and also in the ways people behave in that setting; Integrity and Cultural background are factors that determine the extent to which people follow habitus.

The findings of this observation paper is important because it demonstrates the power of habitus, and how it is engrained in individuals everyday behaviors. Habitus influences people and binds their behaviors to a certain extent that helps the society function smoothly. Without habitus, or the subconscious willfulness to conform to social discipline, the society might turn into chaos where lines at the restaurants wouldn’t be maintained, let alone social structures at a macro level. On the other hand, by realizing how habitus unconsciously constrains people, tabooed topics in society can be further discussed, such as starting “uncomfortable” conversations on inequality issues.

References:

1. Lemert, C. (2011). Social things an introduction to the sociological life. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

2. Watson, J.L. (2004). McDonald ' s in Hong Kong : Consumerism , Dietary Change , and the Rise of a Children ' s Culture.