Research that matters

When I was reading Chapter 1, I was first interested in the use of Jack’s Hill as a microcosm of the greater issues of violence and a way to lead into the discussion of the larger history of Jamacia and causes of violence.

Since Jack’s Hill started as exceptionally as an exceptionally non-violent community before a gang war in the mid-1990s to early 2000s. This first presents as sudden, which allows for the discussion of the reasons for systemic violence. Since the site of Jack’s Hill allowed for the study of a larger problem, I connected it to Chapter 2 of the Murchensons reading. The periods of relatively low crime and the gang war in Jack’s Hill is a much more specific research topic than violence in modern Jamacia and the history while still connecting to the larger picture. The preexisting period of different classes and political party affiliations coexisting well as an exception to the general trend and why it changed both also make Jack’s Hill good for investigation.

Jack’s Hill is also effective in demonstrating that the issue is structural rather than cultural, a point made in the introduction, as there was no culture change yet there was a rise of gang violence, which along with the other systemic issues in Jamaica derive from colonialism- putting the responsibility on external pressures and supporting reparations.

I thought that this week’s reading was a bit more on the difficult side. While I could understand most of the concepts being discussed, I struggled with some of the language and terms used. There were several topics from the Introduction that I thought were very insightful and important. First, the idea that in many cultures, particular Latin America and the Caribbean in this discussion, have structural violence engrained into everyday life. Thomas states that “neoliberalism is the culprit–shaping civil wars, legitimizing U.S. interventions, and generating gross social inequalities–and states (and those who lead them) have been partners in these processes” (11). In these countries, intervention by the United States as well as other powerful countries has helped perpetuate a culture of daily violence in Latin America and the Caribbean. I also thought the author’s discussion of the difference between violence in countries such as India compared to violence in the United States. In certain countries, there is a logical reason for the culture of violence that exists. This violence is due to a very long term subjectivity struggle, violence that is a culmination of many centuries of ethnic and religious conflict. On the other hand, Thomas states that in some countries the “latter is lacking any rationale other than violence itself” (10) – there is deeply engrained violence in the culture of these places. I thought this discussion was very interesting because I had never thought about violence in this way, varying from country to country. I am curious as to how the author will build upon this concept later on.

When getting deeper into the reading, I was honestly a bit confused about Thomas’ goals that were listed for the study. I could be incorrect but I believe that the author plans to investigate how gang war is mobilized, how violence is related to the links and relationships between and within communities, to show how violence ties broader institutional structures, and the spacial impacts of violence. I am excited to dive deeper into this reading and witness Thomas’ plans fall into place for the study.

Thomas’ utilization of reparations as a framework for research serves to further dismantle the persistent manifestations of biological determinism. It’s clear that her ethnographic work aims to dispel the belief that Jamaican culture is the core reason for these postcolonial streaks of violence. Thomas argues too that “reparations could help to expose how and why biopolitical strategies of social control never fully eclipse disciplinary modes of power within postcolonial Atlantic worlds” (7). I’m interested to know what you all think about the dynamic between these two methods of social control. Apart from her framework, I find her discussion on what makes the violence exceptional to be intriguing. As Joseph Roach puts it, the violence expends a “human surplus” as well as an excess of “social energy” (11). How can we use this concept of exceptional violence to analyze the modern development of once colonized nations?

After reading these chapters, I’m left to consider how we rationalize the violence that targets people of color in the U.S. I find that our perceptions fall in line with what Veena Das speaks of as the “routine violence of everyday life” (26). This is not to say that the violence in Jamaica and the U.S. are entirely comparable situations, though I do think that black deaths at the hands of law enforcement and the media coverage surrounding them lends to the wide acceptance of state sanctioned violence in everyday life. It’s no wonder that we can also accept the violence our government has propagated around the world. 

The first thing I thought about when the author mentions the extremely high rates of violence and poor economy of the Caribbean region is how that region was the first to be colonized by Columbus. When the author then established the book’s focus on looking at the region with regards to New World colonization, I felt really smart that I made that connection. I like the way that Thomas is working to reframe how culture is discussed within the anthropological community, as I feel it does so in a way that is better to solve problems among people in that culture. Another thing I found interesting was Thomas’s incorporation of genealogy and possible use of a kinship chart. Especially because she brought up biological ties between people in a way that was still conscious of the unique social structure among people in Jacks Hill.

One part of the chapter that left me with questions was Thomas’s mentioning of “modern blackness”, I don’t really know besides the context within Jacks Hill what she meant by this. Mainly, is this concept of modern blackness also transnational, especially in areas with considerable parts of the population having ties to the transatlantic slave trade?

I feel Thomas does a good job in pointing out the non-obvious by connecting the social structure of Jacks Hill, a town that’s social structure is unique to many parts of Jamaica. Jacks Hill itself is non-obvious, a hidden, small rural town, but through her study of the town and its sociocultural structure Thomas reveals how it applies to the anthropological idea of frontiers, but also how deeply engrained the consequences of settler colonialism are. It seemed that the deep importance of loyalty and fragmentation among the community was occurring in patterns that have been repeated since black Jamaicans were enslaved on plantations. When this information is acknowledged under the reparations framework Thomas establishes in the introduction, it is obvious that the people who’s communities are still greatly damaged by colonization are in need of retribution.

I found the selections from Deborah Thomas’s work, Exceptional Violence: Embodied Citizenship in Transnational Jamaica, incredibly thought provoking. I like how she starts out with a broad call to reframe anthropology’s role in defining and describing “culture.” When she calls for shifting the focus away from the “rubric of comparison and explanation” and toward themes of history, politics, and practice at a broader level, it seems to me like she’s directly calling out some early thinkers in the field, Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict (4). I think this is necessary, but I’m not sure it’s fair to say that modern anthropologists are still comparing cultures to one another in the way the discipline used to. Next, she makes the move to discuss how violence is not a cultural phenomenon, but an “effect of class formation,” which is also racialized and gendered (4). When she moves into talking about reparations, she argues that the reparations framework “requires that we focus on structural, rather than cultural lineages and inheritances” (6). As she points out, it’s extremely racialized and racist to associate violence in Jamaica and other Caribbean countries with a lack of agency and patterns of pathology in violence (12). While it’s certainly problematic to talk about violence in Jamaica and the Caribbean more broadly in terms of psychopathy and as if it were out of people’s control, it is interesting to argue that the systems of oppression that created the conditions of violence are not inherently part of culture. I’m wondering, what does this thinking mean for what “counts” as culture? Why can’t culture encapsulate the structures that produce the diverse forms of violence? Or in a broader sense, why can’t culture encapsulate all of the structural forces at work in any society? I wonder if she will tackle this in further depth in other parts of the book that we haven’t engaged with.

Another thing I’m thinking about with Thomas are the broader questions she discusses in relation to how we “make and remake” ourselves in the contemporary world. She talks about Hegel, Arendt, and Fanon, highlighting each thinker’s context and how that drove their arguments for how people “produce themselves.” I’m wondering about how the question she poses, “In a postcolonial, post-Cold War context, do we redefine citizenship so that it is a meaningful concept” already frames her project within the overarching structures of nationalism and people’s relationship, or lack thereof, to the state. Can there be citizenship with no state? I like how she extends the state to mean trans-national organizations, though. Especially in the global health world, it’s so easy to see how NGO’s can wield power over governments, both local and national, (not to mention the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Health Organization) wielding/controlling the entire economic structure. Given this framing, I wonder what Thomas would say about current “decolonization” movements in the global health and global aid space? Is decolonization in these spaces even possible, given their structure and funding, as well as their transnationalism?

Lastly, I was struck by the anecdote at the beginning of chapter one, in which the police are afraid to investigate her friend’s murder because they don’t know the “bush,” or the local rural area. This underlines the high levels of fear and the lack of trust in institutions that pervade Jamaica, in a really powerful way.

Upon reading from Thomas’s book, I was fascinated by her view of the central role that history continues to play in our daily lives and our study of the world around us. Thomas consistently references colonialism and encourages her audience to consider the origin of Jamaica and other countries in how we analyze societal and political phenomena today.  One line that particularly struck me was, “It is not, in other words, that we have incomplete, imperfect democracies, but that democracy in the Americas has been founded on a house of cards” (13). With my interest in Latin America, I have studied the history of the conquistas in various classes from distinct perspectives over several years. However, it seems to me, that until quite recently, this history has been kept separate from the present day, especially in the way it is analyzed and taught. The importance of understanding the conquests in Latin America, Spanish rule, the dismantling of the Aztec and Incan empires and other elements of the founding of the countries we know as Latin America today is emphasized greatly in the study of Latin America, but it seems, as Thomas implies, that there is a lack of emphasis on the connection between this history and the present realities throughout the region. This chaotic and violent history, while seemingly so incredibly distant, is the basis for the social, political and economic structures in place in Latin America today, and Thomas makes clear that this is precisely the case in Jamaica as well. 

Additionally, another quote that struck me was Thomas’s statement that “unless they are from the region, the Caribbean seems to them to be small, far away, and relatively inconsequential as world regions go.” (5) So, my question is, why is this the case? Why as an undergraduate student who had a concentration in Latin America and the Caribbean did I graduate college with a clear understanding of Latin America but so little knowledge of the Caribbean? I am curious to know if other students have also experienced this themselves in their education. Because as Thomas says, the Caribbean is “central to all of the processes that came to shape our understanding of modernity over the past five centuries.” (5)6

When reading Exceptional Violence, especially alongside the Murchison reading, I couldn’t help but break up my analyses into two distinct parts: the book’s content/main research and the formation/structure of the presentation of her argument. From the content perspective, I found her approach to be particularly well-structured as she centered around the theme of violence and continuously elaborated on the historical, social, economic, and political dimensions that impact its presence in contemporary Jamaica. I am familiar with Deborah Thomas from some of her other books and from her talk last semester. Her lifelong preoccupation in anthropology seems to be a commitment to the decolonization of the discipline as a whole. I noticed on several occasions that she referenced commonly used methods or assumptions that have been used in anthropology and how she was working against those tendencies in her own research in order to dispel stereotypes and biases associated with Jamaican culture.

I liked that she created her own framework through which she expected the reader to view her research. Thomas’ “reparations logic” allows the reader to better understand her goals of clarifying the connections (“conspiracies are uncovered, lies are revealed, facades fall away, and suddenly what everyone knew was true all along is finally legitimated.” (5)) and acknowledging accountability. This is the first of her many metaphors used to explain her unique perspective on the issue of violence in Jacks Hill Village. Another is her insistence on understanding “citizenship as a set of performances and practices directed at various state and non-state institutions or extraterritorial or extralegal networks…” (6) However, when reading this, my next question was: Who establishes what performances and practices are implicit in citizenship and how do they change? As anthropologists, we often find ourselves analyzing a force that acts upon a population but find it difficult to determine the source of said force.

In terms of Thomas’ main structure of her introduction and chapter 1, I was happy to see many of the themes presented in the Murchison reading. Although a book differs from a research proposal in many ways, there was still a pretty straightforward statement of the problem, lots of literature review, background, methodology, and even a general summary of her findings/chapter overview. If I’m honest, this is kinda a tough read. Her language and references required a lot of rereads and filtering of important information, but I was happy to see that anthropological data can be presented in more creative ways than simply in a journal article. Her incorporation of real stories and her connection to her informants made the reading more engaging. Now thinking of my own project, I know I will have to focus closely on finding relevant published material but am excited to see how I can incorporate literature or other creative sources into attempts to gain insight into my topic.

One of Deborah Thomas’s central arguments is that “violence generally is not a cultural phenomenon but an effect of class formation, a process that is immanently racialized and gendered.” While I partly agree with this claim, since the attribution of violence to culture can be problematic. Culture is often viewed as a set of ingrained traditions, practices, and traits of a group of people. In this sense, citing a culture as a cause of violence prompts prejudiced views and social stigma toward the people within that culture. Moreover, as Deborah pointed out, it often results in a cursory examination of the issue. Lastly, attributing a culture to violence implies that violence will persist so long as the culture exists, thereby discouraging attempts to mitigate or eliminate the issue. However, I wonder whether it is possible to shift from a restrictive view of culture to a more expansive one. Instead of thinking of culture as a static concept, what if we conceptualize it as something that evolves with time and both shapes and be shaped by political and historical forces? What is the idea of culture is inclusive of the traces of British colonization, the formation of garrisons, and the socio-economic division in Jamaica?

I also find it interesting how Deborah Thomas reveals that “older
structural underpinnings are often obscured by more recent pressing concerns about the development of democratic political participation after
the Second World War.” The author seems to describe this process as happening naturally. Yet, what if obscuring previous structural underpinnings in favor of recent issues is purposefully done? If so, what might be the hidden agenda? While Deborah Thomas’s effort to reveal and raise awareness of this neglect is enlightening, a step further might be to question why this is the case and how we can shift attention to the other direction.

Lastly, I question who might be Deborah Thomas’s intended audience and what impact she hopes to make. The book’s language and content points to an audience of scholars. However, these scholars may not be the decision makers who can adopt insights from the book to make positive influences in Jamaica. The book surely carries a lot of practical implications for those working toward social change, yet its language and style might limit its accessibility to these groups.

My first impression of Exceptional Violence is that the subject is not what I expected in ethnographies. How can you study violence but be ethical at the same time? That’s the first question that came up to me. However, while reading the Introduction, I got a more concrete sense of what Thomas is trying to express.

In the Introduction, one thing I found interesting is that he stated: “citizenship is a set of performances and practices directed at various state and non-state institutions or extraterritorial or extralegal networks.” I have never perceived citizenship in that way, especially not in the way that takes global practices into consideration. Format wise, I related this introduction to what Murchison suggests the format of a project proposal. Although the Introduction is not as structured, it is still obvious that Thomas discussed previous works of related subjects and stated his argument. When he mentioned “each of the chapters that follow focuses on a different temporal and conceptual moment regarding the ways violence, citizenship, public representation, and counter-narratives have suffused the development of Jamaican subjectivities.” This is different from what I perceive that ethnographies are usually written chronically. I am interested to see how he executes that. It’s also interesting to me that he said his topic exceed the conventional methods, so he varied his way of explaining. This inspires me that ethnographic methods are not limited to a certain types of method, but can be expanded (in an ethical way, of course). It also reminds me that ethnographies don’t have to be written in a specific way. My understanding is that here is not a structured set of “rules” in ethnographic research.

In Chapter 1, it is interesting to me how Thomas started the chapter with first person voice, but included a section of introducing the situation right afterwards. He also separated his explanation into sections, while making each section more separated and distinguishable. I also discovered techniques that were mentioned in the Murchison chapter regarding confidentiality and using pseudonyms.

The first portion of Thomas’ novel was a dive deeper into anthropologists’ traditional notions of what social and economic factors contribute to both the presence and persistence of violence in a community or culture. Her definition of the central concept of “exceptional violence” outlined in the introduction as, “the attempt to think through the repertoires and cyclical histories that expand to incorporate and accommodate the new while always giving us the sense that we have somehow seen this before” (pg 4), is able to account for a more profound examination of culminating violence considered across time and space instead of through the lens of isolated instances. We can see this idea actualized in Chapter 1 when she elaborates on how providing slaves in Jamaica with provision grounds played a part in developing the patterns of political authority and hegemony during the nationalist period. In this section, she explains the social and economic impacts of provision grounds on the basis of two central ideas. The first is that the providing of provision grounds, which from my understanding were basically lands of poor quality, to slaves caused “structural vulnerability”. Essentially, while the lands provided seemingly provided economic freedom, they also inevitably tied the slaves to a specific land plot or plantation, which contributed to the development of social and economic hierarchies among the slaves and their considered “superiors”. The second is that, naturally, the providing of provision grounds to many slaves increased the frequency and intensification of slave disputes over the properties. In discussing the provision grounds in the nationalist period of Jamaica, Thomas was able to effectively demonstrate this concept of “exceptional violence” by illustrating an example across both space (geographic divisions) and time (in a historical sense), and also showed the cyclical, repetitive nature of this type of violence throughout this period in history.

A couple of questions that came to mind throughout the reading — How can we see the lingering effects of the institution of provision grounds in the modern day Caribbean today? Where do we see instances of exceptional violence in our contemporary world? What is the best way to go about preventing the perpetuation of the harmful impacts of exceptional violence?

I particularly thought it was interesting how Thomas acknowledges an anthropologist’s role in studying culture, but also clarifies that culture is a difficult concept to understand in the complex “institution of the academy and the politics of knowledge production” (4). I think this points back to the power that the anthropologist holds in relaying to other audiences outside of a realm they are studying what this “culture” is like. Their “objective” perspectives have the means to dictate the relatively unknown lived experience of an entire demographic of people. This reminds me of Tsing’s view on companies versus individuals that extract resources from the land – everyone has their own reasons for doing so, and such reasons differ in their intentions according to each group. I like how both Tsing and Thomas tie in their research to larger political and economic phenomenon that forces people into their way of living. This methodology helps to capture the larger realities and applications of what they are studying, and for Thomas, within a broader context of Jamaican conflict. Thomas then uses this idea to propose that “violence generally is not a cultural phenomenon but an effect of class formation, a process that is immanently racialized and gendered” (4). One question I have regarding this if she is implying that racialization and gender roles are always inherent rather than culturally founded.

As for the Murchison reading, I was a little surprised that today it is usually expected to share with your ethnographic participants the results and analysis of your data (to avoid an “exploitative relationship”). I hadn’t considered the nature of the relationship between ethnographer and subject/informant in this context, and I think it will be interesting to hear the feedback and opinions of people I interview and study after they provide me with their own thoughts. I’m also wondering how I can apply my research into a broader context outside of its specific area of study. Who is my intended audience? Am I simply telling my research or encouraging people to adopt a certain point of view?

Thomas’s ethnography on Jamaica’s violence works well as an example of an ethnography. Thomas is well-immersed in the community, and she does a fascinating job explaining the landscape (for example “up the road” and “down the road”) while still using as neutral of a language as possible preferring to describe these groups through the eyes of the community members. Although I find it ironic that she starts the book admitting she did not want to focus on violence in Jamaica due to issues of stereotypes, then goes on to discuss the exceptional violence she finds in Jamaica in length, I do appreciate how she contextualizes Jamaica’s history as a former British colony and current relationship with the United States. This was important for my own study as a reminder of how important it is to connect the macro events with the micro-level observations I may do. Another feature of this study I enjoyed is how Dr. Thomas connects how cross-cultural elements impact violence in Jamaica specifically how U.S. television such as westerns factor into an individual’s mindset on violence. This reminds me of last week’s reading were discovering the non-obvious can benefit the work.

In terms of questions, I was confused on how Thomas’s discussion of the Redemption Song contributes to her overall arguments regarding violence in Jamaica. I see how the statute is a great example of political/cultural discussions within Jamaica, however, not how it connects to violence overall. A quibble I have is the use of dehumanizing language (i.e. slaves in lieu of people who were enslaved), however, I understand the practice of using humanizing language wasn’t as centered when the book was published in 2011. Overall, this was a wonderful example and an enjoyable read.

It was a cool afternoon, I walked into Kissam and was met with the smell of dining hall, not really good or bad but definitely food. There was music playing pretty loud and I was first greeted by the sights of a few dining hall staff cleaning up from the lunch rush. To my left there was an older white woman sitting behind the register. She had dark red/brown short hair and wore a black dining hall uniform instead of a white one like the chefs cleaning up from lunch. The Munchie Mart room was empty and there were coolers bordering the room. I went to one of these fridges and grabbed a blue Gatorade zero. I was worried that the woman behind the register would be annoyed by my presence, especially as I was the only student in the dining hall space. I quickly walked to the register and asked the lady how her day was going. She smiled and with a seemingly New Jersey accent she answered it was good and called me sweetheart. She asked me about mine and I replied it was good as she scanned my Gatorade. I told her I’d be paying with meal money and tried to make a point of doing so before she had to ask. I scanned my phone and she handed me my Gatorade. She smiled and I told her to have a good rest of her day, to which she replied “you too doll”. I was so relieved that I didn’t seem to be a bother to her and was comforted by her strong accent.

The encounter that I had was when I went to Popeyes and bought me some food for me and my sister. Pulling up the Popeyes with is on Jefferson Street that I frequently go to is always packed. It is very unusual because the inside is never open but this time that I went it was open. I cannot remember the last time the inside was open due to COVID restraints so the majority of the time when I would go, I will go through the drive-through. I went after my last class on Thursday which ended at 4:00 so it was traffic around Popeyes on Jefferson Street is only a two-lane road. Popeyes is not the best parking lot at there are potholes all over the place and I must be careful when driving through the parking lot, so you make sure your tires do not hit a pothole. The Popeyes I went to is not in the best location which is very skeptical to some customers as they will not attend later in the day because of the environment that the Popeyes is locating it. The Popeyes on Jefferson Street is just like any other Popeyes with the same type of building structure and the way you look on the inside for dining.

The Popeyes is very crowded as many people on Thursday evening were trying to get them some chicken including me. There were cars in the drive-through which I was also because I did not go inside as I was tired from a long day. Pulling up to the drive-through order station the work greeted me calmly with “what is your order” in which I proceeded to state my order. It was about a 20-minute visit to Popeyes ask it varies or what the people in front of me order and how long it taste to fix it. Pulling up to the window I was able to see that there were many workers busy with the task at hand. I calmly paid as wanting to workers took my debit card this swiped it while also handing me the food at the same time. People that work at a fast-food restaurant have to do a great job of multitasking as they may be asked to do different tasks at the same time. The worker calmly handed in my food and the drinks that I have ordered. I had to ask the worker to have extra sauce which he politely gave me some more and told me to have a good rest of the day.

Field Notes

Location

The chosen field site where the food was purchased was at Grins cafe on Vanderbilt campus. Situated in between Branscomb residence hall, Memorial Gymnasium, and the first portion of greek row, Grins sits on an extremely accessible street corner on the very edge of main campus. This commercial site is widely recognized as not only physically accessible given its short walking distance to many lecture hall locations, but is also accessible to many populations given its numerous options for different diets. Grins cafe is one of the relatively smaller dining options on Vanderbilt’s campus, made up of three smaller sectioned rooms. The customer meets the first room upon entering the building. It is in this room that an individual can wait in a designated line before ordering, outlined by black barrier posts and rope. In front of the line, in this same room is the counter with to-go options and drinks in a cooler to the right of the cashier, and the register to purchase or order your desired items to the left. Above the counter on the ceiling overhang is the signature sign for the restaurant reading “GRINS Vegetarian Cafe”, in white bold lettering against a green background. There are an additional two other rooms in the building, both to be used for eating food or studying, adding to be a total of three divided sections. Although not divided by doors, different rooms are designated by different entryways and types of flooring. One of the other rooms consists of several larger, rounded plastic tables that easily sit larger groups of people (approx 5-9 people). This space is not only used by grins but also able to be reserved for clubs or groups on Vanderbilt’s campus, explaining its ability to equip larger groups. The third and final room is located opposite the second room, and consists of smaller, rectangular or square metal tables with metal chairs. This space is more frequently used for smaller groups (2-5) of people, or individuals looking to eat and then study after. 

The site is usually not too noisy in the more lull hours of the morning and evening, but is definitely louder around peak lunch hours when it is most attended. Furthermore, the site is one in which people can either socialize or study, but more frequently people can be found talking and socializing with others as opposed to the latter, especially during lunch. This being said, there are still people who choose to study at this site after they finish eating. Aside from noises of people talking, one can hear the employer at the counter calling names, fairly loudly, of the customers whose food or orders are ready. This is done to ensure that those who have already gone to sit in other rooms can hear their names and get their orders as soon as possible. In addition to sound, the site smells as one would expect of a typical restaurant— like warm, savory food. If one attends in the morning, they could expect to smell the aroma of coffee being brewed and served with other pastry items, whereas if one attends during lunch or dinner hours one could smell food items such as warm sandwiches. 

For restaurants, an important aspect of the field site is the degree of comfort it provides to its constituents. This being said, the seating situation at Grins is not optimal— between the rigid, low-quality plastic chairs in the second room and the cold, metal chairs in the third room the seating options are sub-par, but then again it isn’t a place where a customer would spend hours eating or studying, but rather serves as an option for a quick bite or for a bit of studying after you’re finished eating. 

Subjects

The vast majority of the demographic of this site consists of Vanderbilt students, who typically age around 18-22. The dynamic between men and women is one that is slight, but nonetheless still prevalent. Being a cafe that typically serves vegan and vegetarian individuals, I’ve found that most frequently women will outnumber the men in the seating areas, being as they are typically the ones who come in larger groups. As it pertains to ethnic communities, Grins caters to a wide variety of individuals that span a wide range of racial groups, thus there is no visible or extremely noticeable difference in terms of this aspect of the demographic.The sentiments of the people in the location generally vary based on which part of the process they’re engaged in. For example, if the line is on the longer side around lunchtime, those waiting in line might be impatient or frustrated if the orders become backed up. However, generally those who are in the seating areas and have their food are sociable and lively, especially if they are in larger groups or with friends. In terms of interactions between different individuals at the site, they are typically in friendly conversations that one could hear between peers in their day to day life. This fits in with the larger characterization of the environment of Grins as sociable and overall pleasant for the subjects.

The Action 

After the end of my class at approximately 12:05pm on main campus, I made the short walk to Grins, arriving around 10 minutes later. Upon entering the cafe, I noticed that the line was nearly to the back of the black barriers that contain those waiting to order. While initially displeased, the line seemed to move fairly quickly and I reached the front 10-15 minutes after. It was during this wait that I had the opportunity to ponder what selection I was going to make, and eventually landed upon the vegan grilled cheese. Upon reaching the front of the line, I was motioned by the man at the register to come forward. He greeted me with a smile, but I recognized that he was stressed from the sweat on his forehead and the quick manner in which our conversation proceeded. He asked me simply, “What can I get for you?”, without taking a moment to look me in the eyes. Rather, he went straight to his screen and had his finger posed and ready to tap on the selection based on what I was about to say. I responded “I’ll take the vegan grilled cheese please”. I had already begun to reach for my phone to pay when he paused, looked back at his fellow workers in the kitchen and yelled, “Do we still have grilled cheeses?”. A woman from the back frantically responded, “Nope, all out”. Hearing this interaction and anticipating what he was about to say to me I quickly responded before he broke the news, “I’ll just have a black bean burger then, thanks”. He reaffirmed my order and then asked me for a name to go along with it, I responded “Payton”. Admittingly, I was dissatisfied with the fact that I couldn’t get the grilled cheese sandwich, as I’d had it before and liked it, whereas I had never had the black bean burger and was unsure if I’d enjoy it. I scanned my phone, paying with ‘Commodore Cash’ for the meal. Still sweating, and most likely more stressed than before, he then quickly motioned for the next individual to come forward as I went to take my seat and wait for my food to be prepared.

I went to get breakfast and coffee from Suize’s Cafe at Central Library last week. Suzie’s is located at a fairly easily accessible location on campus that is on main campus(where sophomores and upperclassmen who live on campus live) and by the bridge that connects to the freshman residential commons. The cafe was fairly crowded with a line that stretched outside to order despite the cold. Inside it was warm with blue-green walls decorated with a large picture of a yellow flower and another large picture of a dandelion. The line passed refrigerators to grab food and drink orders and payment were handled at the counter. 

Inside the cafe was noisy with conversation coming from groups of people both in line and waiting for drinks and one person making a phone call. This crowdedness was likely due to a rush from people’s morning classes ending at the same time. None of the interactions between people sounded confrontational. The interaction of ordering a drink and paying with a meal-swipe was very straightforward, without pleasantries or any perceived rude demeanor. Unsurprisingly, the people at Suzie’s were all college aged. I noticed in this particular group the patrons were predominantly white, but without counting there appeared to be an even amount of men and women. 

Adjacent to the cafe is a common room, an area of the library that allows food or drink, where I went to write out bullet points to be converted into written field notes and then work on other work while having breakfast. The room had many spread out tables and was full of people but also quiet. The walls are the same color as in the cafe, but are only decorated with empty shelves, signs requesting mask compliance, and a sign that identifies the location as part of Vanderbilt’s library system. The most beneficial feature of the common room is the lighting, as the dim overhead lights combined with many windows make the lighting not dark, but not overwhelmingly bright which is good for a place to spend mornings.