Sociation Today

Framing Negotiations and Negotiating Frame: The Case of Vendors and Security Personnel at Grateful Dead Concerts

by

Matthew P. Sheptoski

Grambling State University

For nearly thirty years, ending in 1995 with the death of guitarist Jerry Garcia, the American rock band, The Grateful Dead, conducted annual concert tours of North American cities. After Garcia's death, however, the surviving members continued to tour in various incarnations, relying heavily on the Dead's musical catalog, basically appealing to the same audience while gathering a handful of new fans, or Deadheads. The "core four" surviving members re-united in the summer of 2015 for the band's fiftieth anniversary; the celebration took place over a series of six stadium shows, culminating at Soldier Field in Chicago over Fourth of July weekend. These would be the band's final shows as The Grateful Dead, yet three of the four surviving members continue to tour as Dead and Company, having added bass player Oteil Burbridge from the Allman Brothers Band as well as well-known pop musician and guitarist, John Mayer. Having completed a two-night stand at Fenway Park in Boston, the summer tour will wrap-up July 30, 2016 at the Shoreline Amphitheatre in California The enduring popularity and success of Grateful Dead incarnations more than twenty years after the death of Garcia provides an interesting opportunity to re-visit one interesting sociological aspect of the Dead: the band developed a large and loyal following who participated in these concerts as both a musical experience and a way of sustaining a countercultural way of life developed in the 1960s and '70's. Before and after concerts a variety of economic activities, defined as illegal by authorities, occurred in parking lots adjacent to the concert venues. Vendors of goods and services were generally "deadheads" who used earnings from their activities to support an alternative lifestyle and to allow them to follow the band's tours and participate in the Grateful Dead culture.

Based on qualitative research techniques that included participant observation in the roles of both merchandise vendor and concertgoer during the 1990s, as well as formal and informal interviews, I present a case study analysis of vending on Grateful Dead concert tours. More specifically, I examine the relationship between cognitive frames that vendors and security personnel brought to situations in which they were mutually involved, and negotiations that they conducted with one another within these situations. Emphasis is on the interaction work participants engaged in to achieve and maintain both frames and specific definitions of situations. On a theoretical level, the study will seek to incorporate and bridge Erving Goffman's (1974) idea of frame with Anselm Strauss's (1978) notion of the negotiated order. The analysis will focus on the collective "accommodation frame" that was negotiated between vendors and security personnel at Grateful Dead concerts. This frame represented the shared expectations of vendors and security personnel that developed through negotiation at prior concerts, understandings which had to be continually renewed through ongoing accommodative work. Practices which constituted this accommodation frame had very real consequences: in enabling vendors and security personnel to merge their lines of action, vending continued while security personnel maintained order and kept up the appearance of legal control, which Bittner (1967) has identified as one of the main goals of policing. I am interested in the specific ways in which security personnel and vendors were both able to achieve their goals in the situation: vendors were able to vend and security personnel maintained a sense of order. A description of this accommodation frame as well as the practices which were involved in its negotiation and maintenance will be the focus.
Discussion will address issues of power within the world of vending at Grateful Dead concerts. In addition, I will also attempt to clarify the relationship between frames and negotiations. This will be accomplished by analyzing the routinization of human activity (Giddens 1984) and the more specific question of when and how negotiations become structured and routinized to such an extent that they are no longer negotiations.

Theory: Frames and Negotiations

    In analyzing encounters between vendors and security personnel I have found Goffman's use of the concept of frame to be helpful. With some oversimplification, frame can be thought of as all the knowledge, ideas, and expectations participants bring to encounters. Frames structure possible lines of action in such a way that certain types of behavior are defined as appropriate or possible while others are not. In short, frames indicate the range of options open to interactants and can thus be thought of as both enabling and constraining particular lines of action (Giddens 1984). Within the boundaries of the frame, participants work out negotiated definitions of the situation in which they are engaged.

    Anselm Strauss's negotiated order perspective must be viewed as "not only consistent with but derived from symbolic interactionism" (Maines and Charlton 1985:276). As Mead's overriding concern centered upon the ways in which social order can be maintained at the same time society is undergoing continuous, processual change, so too are negotiated order theorists interested in addressing this issue. Arguing that social order and change fit together and give rise to negotiation, Strauss and his adherents firmly believe that order is not stable and fixed, but must be achieved and maintained by the participants in the interaction. That is, social order is the product of the negotiation process.

    The negotiated order perspective raises the question: "What is the point of negotiation?" Strauss's (1978) succinct answer is that human beings negotiate in order to get things accomplished. Finding ourselves confronting situations on a daily basis, we must actively deal with them in the best way we know how in order to go on with the business of living. People find themselves wanting to engage in particular lines of action to achieve their various goals within certain already established social and physical structures. It is during and through the process of actors aligning or coordinating their actions that negotiation takes place, social order is achieved, and purposive behavior is accomplished. The negotiation process enables social actors to align or merge their lines of action, further their goals, and avoid the potentially volatile consequences which may arise when social situations break down. This is the point of negotiation.

Vendor and Security Frames

    Having outlined the theoretical perspective to be employed in this case study, the next task is to articulate and describe the vending frame and the security frame. The vendors' frame defined vending as an integral part of the Grateful Dead experience. Far from defining their vending as a problematic endeavor which should be limited or stopped, however, vendors viewed their activity as a means of sustaining an alternative lifestyle and subculture that developed over the course of the thirty-odd years that the Grateful Dead toured the United States. From this perspective, vending functioned as an enabler or facilitator, a structural and material support system for their continued participation in the Deadhead subculture. To state the matter simply, vendors felt that they should be allowed to vend without being harassed or intimidated by security personnel. Furthermore, it is important to note that within the vending frame the activities of security personnel were viewed as an unjust encroachment on the freedom and autonomy of individual vendors as well as the wider Deadhead subculture. More to the point, attempts to limit vending were perceived by vendors as an injustice (Gamson, Fireman Rytina 1982).

    As part of the security frame, on the other hand, it was well understood that vending was problematic and had to be controlled. Therefore, it was the job of security personnel to make sure that vending did not get "out of hand." Their more general goals included maintaining order as well as their authority; these were the dominant values of the security frame.

    This brief elucidation of the vendor and security frames would not by complete without addressing the issues of stake and commitment to frames, as it will become clear that the need for an accommodation frame sprang from these issues. For vendors, their ability to vend, upon which their lifestyle and identity rest, was at stake. Vending provided the means by which participants were able to construct and sustain feelings of connectedness, community, and group consciousness which arose from shared spiritual experiences. At its core, the parking lot scene and the Deadhead subculture offered vendors a safe haven for the development of a positive identity and sense of self. Staying on the road and seeing shows for up to three weeks at a time without opting for the vending alternative was simply out of the question for many. At approximately thirty-five dollars per ticket, it cost fifteen hundred dollars to see fifty shows in a year, not including travel expenses. One vendor stated the matter simply: "It is difficult to hold down a 'regular' job and be a touring (Dead)Head." Vendors thus had much at stake: their ability to sell their goods and wares, which was their primary means of financing their Grateful Dead experience. Vending functioned as an enabler: without it, the continuation of the Grateful Dead experience would have been difficult, if not impossible, for many. Since their identity was at stake, vendors opted for a frame that accommodated with the security frame.

    The stakes for security personnel depended upon which type of security guard is being discussed. There were two main types of security personnel: those who approached their work as 'just a job' and those who approached their work as a career. Among the first group were younger people, many of whom were college students working part-time or summer jobs. They did not really care if vending took place as long as the appearance of order and authority were maintained so that they kept their jobs. Most security personnel wished to avoid major incidents; they were not looking for confrontations. Some were, but most just wanted to put in their day of work and get paid. It can be said of all security guards that their jobs were at stake: if they did not maintain the appearance of order and authority their employment may have been terminated. For most, this was their overriding concern. For those who saw their work as 'just a job,' the prospect of losing their security job was less threatening than for those who internalized the security frame. For these security personnel their sense of self and identity, not just their job, were at stake. To put the matter of stakes simply, vendors would have had to get new lives if vending were eliminated, while security guards, even those who internalized the security frame, would have to get new jobs. Vendors had more at stake than security personnel.

    Each side's level of commitment to its frame depended upon the stakes: the stakes for vendors were high, so their overall level of commitment to that frame was quite high as well. While the stakes for most security personnel were not as great, they too were committed to their respective frame. Both vendors and security personnel, however, were more highly committed to certain aspects of their respective frames than to others. Vendors felt that they should be able to vend without being harassed or intimidated by security personnel, viewing encroachment by security personnel as an unjust encroachment on the freedom and autonomy of individual vendors as well as the wider Deadhead subculture. However, vendors' greatest commitment was to furthering their Grateful Dead experience. This was their overriding commitment. Ironically, their level of commitment put them in a position where they had to be willing to negotiate and accommodate. If they were to vend at all they had to be flexible about it. Though the vending frame said vendors should operate unhindered, they knew reality was otherwise. If they insisted on vending when, where, what, and how they pleased they might not have been able to vend at all. Thus, in their desire to experience the Deadhead subculture again and again, they abandoned their notion that vending proceed unhindered, in effect accepting limits on vending activity.

    The security frame defined vending as illegal and problematic. It was not to be openly tolerated. As previously indicated, for most security guards, however, their greatest commitment was to keeping their jobs. This was their goal, and to achieve it they had to maintain the appearance of order and authority. Security, in order to maintain the appearance of order and authority, and thus their jobs, were willing to forgo the notion that no vending will be tolerated. They accepted that some vending would take place, as long as it was done within limits. Each side gave something up and each side got something in return: vendors were able to vend and participate in the Deadhead subculture, and security personnel were able to maintain the appearance of order and authority, thus keeping their jobs.

    Paradoxically, each side's commitment to its' frame and goals meant they must be willing to accommodate in order to preserve those frames and achieve those goals. The level of commitment led to the need for negotiation and accommodation: these two frames had to be aligned, with each side giving something up and each side getting something in return, a process that was ultimately functional for both sides.

    Based on prior social experience, the members of both groups recognized that their lines of action were dependent on the lines of action of the other group, and that in order for either or both sides to achieve the desired outcome their actions would have to be coordinated or aligned. Vendors and security personnel seemed to implicitly realize the need for negotiation and accommodation. Their frames needed to be modified in order to "fit" with the frame of the other group, if not perfectly and to the liking of all participants, then at least enough so that the production of social order was achieved and maintained. Neither side was completely satisfied. Frequently, there was tension and struggle. Negotiation entails giving something up: each side must be willing to concede certain points in the service of their larger goals.

    In the interest of preserving their overall frames and meeting their goals, vendors and security personnel were willing to make concessions. The result was an agreement, a new frame, an accommodation frame, the construction of which enabled both vendors and security personnel to achieve their main goals: vendors were able to vend, thus continuing their participation in the Deadhead subculture, and security personnel maintained the appearance of order and authority, thus retaining their jobs, and for some, fostering a positive sense of self and identity.   Discussion of this accommodation frame entails the following steps: (1) discussion of the expectations in the accommodation frame; (2) an outline of the more specific points of conflict that necessitated negotiation and accommodation as well as several properties of the negotiation context that affected the shape of vendors' and security personnel's agreement; and (3) addressing the occurrence of frame cracks and the negotiative activity undertaken to seal them.

The Accommodation Frame

    The accommodation frame, which was achieved through the aggregate and repetitive negotiative activities of vendors and security personnel, resulted from the alignment of the vending frame and the security frame. It was composed of a general set of behavioral guidelines and expectations regarding vending which both vendors and security personnel were expected to follow.   The frame informed vendors and security guards how they were to behave and what they could reasonably expect in return. Vendors and security guards confronted a pre-existing set of arrangements and expectations, learning about the accommodation frame through prior interaction and negotiation as well as from verbal accounts of other vendors and security guards. These experiences established social expectations which guided their parking lot conduct and interactions. Both sides were socialized to learn and accept the accommodation frame.

    As part of the accommodation frame, both vendors and security personnel expected that at least a minimal amount of vending would be tolerated and vendors' goods would not be confiscated as long as certain guidelines or parameters were followed. This is consistent with Meehan's (1992) findings: certain illegal behaviors may be allowed as long as the appearance of order is maintained.

    In exchange for being allowed to hawk their wares, vending was to be relatively inconspicuous, occurring as a background activity. Vendors were to conceal, or put away, their goods and cease selling in the presence of security personnel. In other words, vending was to remain at a "reasonable level." In addition, vendors were to avoid selling flagrantly illegal goods. A clear line was drawn between what could and could not be sold. Most vendors expected that the sale of alcohol and other drugs, including nitrous oxide filled balloons, would be highly targeted by security personnel. Though alcohol was one of the more profitable items sold in the lot, this was a risky venture. It was much less likely that someone walking around selling veggie burritos, handmade jewelry, or tie-dyed t-shirts, for example, would be hassled by security than someone selling bottled beer. If authorities caught vendors selling alcohol in the lot, the alcohol likely would have been confiscated or at least dumped out.

    Vending merchandise which violated copyright laws also attracted the unwanted attention of authorities. Though the most common copyright infringement involved the Dead's skull and lightning bolt logo, also known as the "Steal Your Face," there were many others, including designs which violated copyrights by Nike, McDonald's, Dunkin' Donuts, Ren and Stimpy, and The Simpsons. Security guards at the Deer Creek Amphitheater in Noblesville, Indiana, for example, told vendors they were only looking for balloons or tanks of nitrous oxide and copyright violations.   As Meehan (1992) notes, it is much easier for police to ignore certain activities than others. The vending of alcohol and nitrous oxide, as well as copyright violations, were difficult for security personnel to ignore.

    Vendors also expected token harassment from security. Obviously, they did not welcome the attention of security, but they did expect security personnel to wander the lot, occasionally informing specific vendors of the need to desist. When face-to-face encounters occurred, vendors were expected to show security personnel at least a minimum of deference and respect, avoiding arguments and actions that called into question the authority of security guards. Several vendors offered a model of the most appropriate way to interact with security personnel in order to avoid further harassment and or confiscation of goods: "Smile and nod and play like you are cooperating. Wait till they are gone. Go back to doing whatever." According to another: "I try to be honest with them and say, 'Oh, I wasn't aware of your vending ordinances. Thanks for informing me and I'll knock it off.' Granted, I don't. I'm just tryin' to kiss their ass." The most important behavioral prescription for vendors when dealing with security personnel in face-to-face situations was simple: be respectful and act as though you would comply with their request. These quotes also reflect the words of a vendor who said that dealing with security was "all part of the hustle." Again, this whole dynamic was somewhat akin to a game, which was flatly stated in the following quote:

I play the game. You know--close before they close me and open when they've moved on down the line. But always be respectful to their face unless they're way out of line and even then I try to be cool. Being an asshole doesn't help and it makes us all look bad.

    This approach was usually successful. Vendors were usually just warned that their activity was illegal and told to stop.

    The accommodation frame served as the basis for the construction of a definition of the situation which was used on that particular day. While vendors generally made concessions as part of the accommodation frame, it was the achievement and subsequent maintenance of this accommodation frame, despite emergent threats and occasional violations by vendors and security personnel, that constitute the specific aspect of the negotiation process in which I am interested. Put simply, vendors and security personnel constructed an accommodation frame, shared knowledge of which allowed both vendors and security personnel to effectively anticipate the reactions of others, a process which is necessary for the construction of any joint action. Many aspects of this accommodation frame were at some points negotiated, but eventually, through the repeated interactive practices of vendors and security personnel, solidified or structured so that they become part of the frame. Frames were brought to encounters, and specific definitions of situations were worked out or negotiated within those frames. Negotiations functioned as a way of making generalized frames applicable to specific situations. Over time, definitions which have been negotiated and enacted repeatedly became part of the frame. Put another way, negotiations are structured by the frame, with the outcomes of those negotiations being absorbed over time into the frame that will be utilized in future negotiation contexts. It is in this sense that negotiations are framed and frames are negotiated.

    In seeking to understand the ways in which the accommodation frame was maintained, one point is stressed: as long as vendors and security guards more or less followed the loose guidelines of the accommodation frame its maintenance was highly likely. Such frame maintenance typifies Goffman's (1959) notion of working consensus. Neither party to the encounter was necessarily in private agreement with the definitions of the other group, or the accommodation frame, but each side feigned acceptance during the encounter to avoid upsetting the flow of interaction and to keep the activity going. The construction of the working consensus made possible the avoidance of otherwise volatile situations.

Points of Negotiation

    Though vendors and security personnel brought to the parking lot general expectations as to how vending would proceed, definitions of specific situations were negotiated. Strauss (1978) raises an important issue: what is negotiable and what is non-negotiable? As regards the parking lot scene under investigation, which issues were on the negotiating table were not open to negotiation by individual vendors or security guards. Individual vendors and security guards did not choose which issues were open for negotiation. For example, vendors were not in a position to negotiate what they were allowed to vend. This issue was not open to negotiation. Negotiation did occur in the process of working out definitions of what constituted a "reasonable level" of vending in specific situations. Since everyone went home at the end of the concert, these definitions were renegotiated at each new concert. As Strauss (1978) says, changes in the negotiated order require renegotiation. Three specific issues were negotiated in the course of constructing a definition of "reasonable level." These points of negotiation included: when vending was to take place, where vending was to take place, and how vending was to take place.

    Vending usually occurred at two points: before and after the band's performance. The issue was: how far in advance of the performance, and how long after the performance would vending be allowed to take place? There was, of course, much activity in the parking lot before and after the performance, making it easier for vendors to avoid detection, and making it easier for security personnel to "not see" vendors. Vendors knew their activities were more likely to attract unwanted attention if they occurred too far in advance of, or following, the band's performance. No reasonable vendor expected to vend with impunity two hours after the concert had ended. However, vendors, especially those with more parking lot experience, attempted to push the bounds of the accommodation frame: they would vend as long as they could. No experienced vendor stopped selling the first time he or she was told by security to "pack it up". Vendors typically followed the rules of the accommodation frame, treating security personnel with respect and acting as though they would comply with requests to cease vending, usually gaining twenty to thirty minutes of vending time. Sometimes they gained considerably more. The skilled vendor knew how far an individual or small group of security personnel could be pushed and would delay until threatened by confiscation of her goods.

    Where in the parking lot did vending take place? Did it take place right at the main parking lot entrance or in a remote section of the parking lot? This, too, was negotiated. As a result, vending was more or less confined to and tolerated in areas of the parking lot where groups of concertgoers congregated, typically in the section of the parking lot that opened earliest. The successful vendor knew it is not a good idea to stand alone at the parking lot entrance holding up merchandise that was clearly for sale. Vendors expected, and usually experienced, less trouble with security if they hawked their goods in the middle of large groups of people who were congregating in the parking lot. The result was the carving out of a space or spaces, depending on the size and configuration of the parking lot, where vending took place in an orderly way, enabling both vendors and security personnel to achieve their goals.

     As for how vending took place, the issue to be negotiated revolved around the size and complexity of the vendor's vending set-up. Individual vendors negotiated with individual security guards in an attempt to obtain, almost always tacit but occasionally explicit, permission to have a bigger set-up. A larger set-up was more likely to attract the attention of potential customers. Potential customers wandering the parking lot were, of course, much more likely to see, for example, a tarp laid on the ground with thirty t-shirts on it than a single t-shirt draped across a vendor's arm, which they may not even realize is for sale. By being respectful of security in face-to-face encounters, by appealing to security personnel's sense of justice and fairness, and by occasionally giving security guards free goods, vendors hoped security guards would overlook or 'not see' larger set-ups. Again, the experienced vendor knew how far security could be pushed, as well as which appeal was most appropriate in a given situation.

    Many vendors set out tarps on which to display their wares, and some even set up booths with signs advertising their goods. In general, these vendors staked out a small area, set up their operation, and remained there for the duration of their vending for that day. The more goods they had out and the more elaborate their set-up, the more likely they were to attract the unwanted attention of security guards. Just as the sale of certain items attracted the attention of authorities, so too did the size and complexity of one's set-up affect the chances of being hassled. Simply put, the bigger and more complex the set-up, the greater the possibility that the vendor would be hassled by the authorities. This did not mean that there were no intricate and complex vending booths or stands. There were quite a few, but they were more likely to attract unwanted attention than simpler operations. The most effective way to avoid such attention was to keep things simple.   Things such as tables and signs were good to avoid. A sign communicated to anyone who could read that something was being sold. In terms of avoiding the attention of security, the best display was simply a laid-out tarp with a few goods on it. A simple set-up not only made it less likely that security would even notice your vending but made it less likely that anything would be done to you if you were caught vending. Simpler set-ups reduced the risk of being hassled or having your goods confiscated. The more complex and out- in-the-open the vending, the harder it was for authorities to "not see it." A vendor caught with two shirts or a cardboard box of burritos was in a better position to negotiate with security than a vendor with forty shirts laid out on a tarp and twenty dresses hanging under a canopy. In Las Vegas I saw just such a scene: security personnel told a young woman selling burritos that she would have to quit vending. She said, "But people gotta eat!" Then she gave each of the three security guards a free burrito. They smiled and took the burritos. The head of the team said, "OK, I can see you're not actually selling those, right?" She nodded, knowingly. They began eating their burritos. Then they went and told the vendor with the forty shirts and dresses to "pack it up."

Properties of the Negotiation Context

    Negotiations between vendors and security personnel took place within a negotiation context, the properties of which impact the results of the negotiation (Strauss 1978). I shall briefly discuss several of these properties: the overall balance of power, vendor's and security guard's respective levels of experience, the public nature of the vending scene, and the perceived options of each side.

    The overall balance of power favored security personnel: the law was on their side and they had the legal authority to stop vending. This was their biggest advantage; it tilted the balance of power in their favor. This power imbalance that existed between vendors and security personnel ensured that vendors were more willing to negotiate and more apt to accommodate. However, security personnel did, at times, exercise this power ineffectively.

    The ineffective use of power was likely to bring about negotiation: a security guard who appeared to be weak or tentative, possibly due to lack of experience, invited negotiation from vendors, who sensed they could push the bounds. On the other hand, overzealous security guards were likely to crack or violate, frame. For security, effective use of power meant managing these competing constraints: not appearing weak, thereby inviting vendors to push the bounds, and not appearing overzealous, thereby cracking the accommodation frame and inviting negotiation and challenge. The situation was similar to that which police confront in dealing with juveniles. They must strike a balance between competing demands: on the one hand, they seek to prevent citizen complaints by taking action against juveniles. But they also seek to maintain consensus with juveniles (Meehan 1992).   Citizen complaints demand action, but overzealous policing leads to complaints about the police. Individual police officers manage these constraints by socializing kids to their expectations and adopting strategies, one of which is negotiation, to gain cooperation of juveniles (Meehan 1992).

    Two other properties of the negotiation context, level of experience and the public nature of the vending scene, favored vendors. Hall and Spencer-Hall (1982) identify several circumstances that invite negotiation, one of which was inexperience. Individual vendors typically had much more parking lot experience than individual security personnel, giving them an advantage in face-to-face interaction. They were more likely to have been in the situation before, so they were more likely to know how to "play the game" successfully. It was very common for a vendor to have vended at over a hundred Grateful Dead shows. Security guards had much less experience dealing with vendors than vendors had dealing with security personnel. At times it was quite humorous to see the looks of puzzlement on the faces of security personnel, most of whom had never encountered a parking lot situation such as this. Vendors' advantage in experience offset some of securities' official authority, pulling them closer in terms of power, making negotiation more likely.

    Hall and Spencer-Hall (1982) also say that public activities in which there is accountability, what Strauss (1978:225) calls "visibility," facilitate negotiation. The public nature of the vending scene favored vendors because they could, and did on occasion, cause a scene if they perceived security to be acting arbitrarily. When a dispute arose between vendors and security personnel, it quickly attracted the attention of other vendors and non-vendor Deadheads cruising the lot. Deadheads tended to be anti-authoritarian, to begin with. A crowd of them could bring pressure to bear on security personnel whom they believed to have acted unjustly, confiscating a vendor's goods, for instance. In Las Vegas I saw just such a situation resolved in favor of a vendor who had a t-shirt confiscated by security. It certainly appeared as though the crowd that had gathered around this burgeoning dispute contributed to its resolution.

    Finally, perceived options (Strauss 1978), that is, the alternative courses of action each side perceived as available, favored security personnel. Vendors could quit vending, attempt to vend as they please, or 'play the game.' As previously indicated, quitting was not a realistic option, as their continued participation in the Deadhead subculture depended on it. Vending as they pleased would have provoked a strong response from security. Thus, the only pragmatic option for vendors was to play the game. A willingness to negotiate and accommodate was essential. Security guards, on the other hand, could let vending proceed unhindered, but it could cost them their jobs. At the other extreme, they could take a hardline position, attempting to squelch any and all vending, but this would meet with overt resistance and hostility on the part of at least some vendors as well as non-vendor Deadheads cruising the lot. For security personnel, negotiation and accommodation were not absolutely necessary, but served as a pragmatic solution since their overriding goal of maintaining the appearance of order and authority could still be achieved.

Sealing Cracked Frames

    Both vendors and security guards tested the expectations of the accommodation frame, vendors with the goal of gaining more time to vend and security personnel desiring more order and, after the show, desiring to go home. Vendors, however, pushed more because they had more at stake. If one side felt the other pushed too far and made an issue of it, in effect saying to the other side "you're not following the expectations of the accommodation frame," the accommodation frame cracked. Vendors cracked the frame in several ways: first, by failing to show enough respect to security in face-to-face encounters, overtly refusing to comply with requests to quit vending or arguing with security personnel, for example. This type of crack occurred infrequently. Vendor- precipitated cracks more commonly occurred when vending took place at the wrong time or the wrong place, or when an item was displayed in the wrong way. Security personnel cracked the frame by acting in ways vendors defined as arbitrary, such as vigilant enforcement of anti-vending policies or confiscation of a vendor's goods. Cracks were usually sealed, however, through face-to-face interaction. Frame breaks, that is, cracked frames that are not repaired or are beyond repair, were fairly rare and represented a breakdown of the negotiated order.

    When vendors or security personnel engaged in actions that were seen to violate the accommodation frame, they typically received an explicit appeal from the other interactant emphasizing the importance of abiding by the accommodation frame. An explicit appeal was essentially a warning to all participants that the frame was in danger and that potentially volatile situations may emerge. The warning was usually heeded, setting in motion a retreat into the appropriate frame.

    However, even after a particular vendor was told several times by the same security guard to quit vending, the guard might still attempt to seal the crack through negotiation. When the Dead played at the Palace in July of 1994, I remember sitting next to a vendor in the parking lot who had at least twenty to thirty t-shirts on a tarp. Security personnel came by a couple times and told him to stop vending. He kept doing it until a guard came back again and said: "We really don't want to take your stuff. Just lay low, have two or three out, not a whole bunch." And at the Deer Creek Amphitheatre in Noblesville, Indiana, I saw a guard go right up to a vendor and tell him: "Don't make it look like it's being sold." In his attempt at frame maintenance, the security guard was willing to allow vending, as long as it was done in such a way that a sense of order and authority were upheld. Using explicit coaching he implored the vendor to adhere to the accommodation frame, to "play the game," the tacit but usually understood and followed rules of which said that vending was not to take place in plain view of security, especially after repeated warnings.

    These encounters can be viewed as processual, multi-stage attempts to draw the vendor back into the appropriate frame or to talk her back into the accommodation frame. At first, the security guards did not make explicit appeals to the vendors, instead relying on what was presumably a shared frame that would ensure the vendor's compliance with the guard's request to quit vending. The guard either really thought he would stop the vending or he thought the vendor would begin adhering to the appropriate frame. Obviously, the vendor did not comform to the frame, which is why the third encounter brought about a more serious invocation of the need to "play the game." The security guard did not want to abandon the accommodation frame, but the actions of the vendor made it extremely difficult for him to maintain it. This series of encounters clearly displays the extent to which participants to an encounter are reliant upon each other in their attempts at frame maintenance. It became difficult for the security guard to maintain frame because the vendor was refusing to do so. Further, this illustrates that frame maintenance and attempts to repair cracks in the accommodation frame also constitute accommodative or negotiative practices.

    It was also possible for security personnel to crack the accommodation frame. In most cases, this occurred when security personnel employed sanctions in what vendors defined as arbitrary or extreme ways, often through confiscation of goods or arrests, which vendors defined as violations of "the agreement". For the most part, even if vendors themselves cracked the frame, they did not expect, nor did they view as justified, the confiscation of their goods. In fact, security could not legally confiscate a vendor's goods unless the goods themselves were illegal or violated copyright law. The law stipulates that vendors may be ticketed but that their goods may not be confiscated.

    One incident that cracked the accommodation frame was set in motion by the actions of security personnel at the Sam Boyd Silver Bowl in Las Vegas, Nevada, in the summer of 1994. During the pre-show vending, a security guard confiscated a single t-shirt which was being offered for sale by a vendor. The taking of the shirt was met with loud verbal disagreement on the part of several vendors and other bystanders, who invoked their power to act disruptively by following the pack of security guards in which the offender was working, letting it be known to all what had happened. The situation continued to escalate in this manner until a security supervisor arrived on the scene several minutes later. The encounter ended with the vendor getting his shirt back, thereby resolving the situation to the satisfaction of the vendor and bystanders. A round of cheers could be heard as the crack was sealed. Thus, initial action on the part of security brought about a potential frame-break but was followed by an attempt to seal the crack through negotiation, which was successful. The accommodation frame was restored. The preceding illustrations make clear that vendors and security personnel relied on each other in their attempts at frame maintenance. The construction of joint action through negotiation enabled not only frame construction but also frame maintenance and restoration. When vendors cracked the accommodation frame, both sides usually negotiated in order to seal it. Likewise, when security personnel violated the accommodation frame, both vendors and security personnel typically engaged in the kind of negotiative activity which would repair the damage, thereby sealing the accommodation frame.

Conclusion

    Prior to concluding this paper a few comments about power, both in the world of vending and in Struass's theoretical scheme, are in order. The analysis does not imply that power was absent as an issue that hovered over and informed the interactions between vendors and security personnel. Bittner's (1967:714) observations in regard to peace-keeping on skid-row are informative here: "The reality of the policeman's potential power lurks in the background of every encounter." The reality of the situation was that there was a very real power differential, with security personnel having more power than vendors. However, overt power was not often brought to bear, because it did not need to be. Both vendors and security personnel had a personal investment in maintaining the accommodation frame: vendors had a much greater stake, as the continuation of their lifestyle and the Grateful Dead experience depended on the money they made from vending, with which they purchased food, gas, and concert tickets. For many, their identity and sense of self were at stake. The stake for security personnel was less, but still significant. Failure to maintain the accommodation frame may have resulted in the breakdown of the order which security were hired to preserve. For these reasons frame breaks were relatively rare and usually repairable.

    With regard to Strauss's theoretical position, it can be maintained that he has not painted himself into a corner by making the bold and, arguably, erroneous assertion that all encounters are characterized by negotiation and accommodation, for to do so would limit the scope, theoretical power, and ultimately the usefulness of, the negotiated order perspective. Strauss (1978:209) has made it quite clear that negotiation is not the only form interaction can take, but is only "one of the possible means of getting things accomplished when parties need to deal with each other to get those things done." More specifically, he goes on to identify the "use of coercion or coercive threat." There were times when vendors or security guards invoked their power. For vendors, this typically meant the power to act disruptively, while security guards were able to invoke their legal and extra-legal authority to halt vending. In general, however, encounters between vendors and security personnel were characterized by negotiation and accommodation.

    This paper's theoretical base forces confrontation of the question of the relationship between frames and negotiations. When human activity becomes routinized, interaction may become structured to the extent that it can no longer be accurately referred to as negotiated. It can be argued, however, that negotiations are structured by frames, with the outcomes of those negotiations being absorbed into frames over time, as a result of repetitive human action. It is in this sense that negotiations are framed, and frames are negotiated.   Negotiations thus function as points of connection between generalized frames and participants' definitions of specific encounters and situations. Whenever new contingencies occur in the interaction, negotiation is required to restabilize the participants' frame. Therefore, it is appropriate to conclude with a strong recognition of the extent to which each specific, real-world negotiation or encounter is shaped and structured by the frame which surrounds it, while frames emerge over a period of time as negotiated solutions to interactants' conflicts become regularized. In short, all encounters are shaped by frame, but the frame which is operative in any particular encounter often involves some spontaneous negotiation by its participants. Individuals can disrupt, but cannot overthrow a frame, for that is done only over a period of time and through the practices of many people.

Works Cited

Bittner, Egon. 1967. "The Police on Skid Row: A Study of Peace Keeping." American Sociological Review 32(5):699-715.

Gamson, William, Bruce Fireman and Steven Rytina. 1982. Encounters With Unjust Authority. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, Peter and Dee Ann Spencer-Hall. 1982. "The Social Conditions of the Negotiated Order." Urban Life 11(3):328-349.

Maines, David and Joy Charlton. 1985. "The Negotiated Order Approach to the Analysis of Social Organization." Pp. 271-308 in Foundations of Interpretive Sociology: Original Essays in Symbolic Interaction. JAI Press.

Meehan, A.J. 1992. "'I Don't Prevent Crime, I Prevent Calls': Policing as Negotiated Order." Symbolic Interaction 15(4):455-480.

Strauss, Anselm. 1978. Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

A Member of the EBSCO Publishing Group
Abstracted in Sociological Abstracts
Online Indexing and Article Search from the
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

Return to Home Page to Read More Articles

Sociation Today is optimized for the Firefox Browser

The Editorial Board of Sociation Today

Editorial Board:
Editor:
George H. Conklin,
 North Carolina
 Central University
 Emeritus

Robert Wortham,
 Associate Editor,
 North Carolina
 Central University

Board:
Rebecca Adams,
 UNC-Greensboro

Bob Davis,
 North Carolina
 Agricultural and
 Technical State
 University

Catherine Harris,
 Wake Forest
 University

Ella Keller,
 Fayetteville
 State University

Ken Land,
 Duke University

Steve McNamee,
 UNC-Wilmington

Miles Simpson,
 North Carolina
 Central University

William Smith,
 N.C. State University