Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Status Distinctions in Interaction: Social Selection and Exclusion at an Elite Nightclub

  • Published:
Qualitative Sociology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although social status plays a crucial role in the generation and maintenance of social inequalities, how status processes operate in naturalistic social contexts remains less clear. In the following article, I provide a case study of doormen—individuals who simultaneously represent status experts and status judges—at a highly exclusive nightclub to investigate how people draw status distinctions in micro-social settings. Using interview and ethnographic data, I analyze on what bases doormen evaluate the relative worth of patrons and confer the status prize of admission. I find that in making such decisions, doormen drew from a constellation of competence and esteem cues, which were informed by contextually specific status schemas about the relative material, moral, and symbolic worth of particular client groups. Moreover, the ways in which doormen used these cues and schema depended on the identity of the specific patron being evaluated. As such, I argue that processes of interpersonal evaluation and status conferral are contextually specific, culturally embedded, and interpersonally variable. Despite such variations, a patron’s perceived social connections seemed to outweigh other types of cues in admissions decisions. I conclude by discussing these findings in light of both status characteristics theory and Bourdieu’s work on the transubstantiation of capital to suggest that social capital is a powerful status cue that can, under certain conditions, be a more potent source of social distinction and status advantage, or hold a greater conversion value, in systems of stratification than other types of qualities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Berger et al. (1977) define salience as whether the characteristic has relevance in the group. For example, gender would not be a salient cue in single-sex company but would be salient in male-female interaction.

  2. As noted by SCT practitioners and scholars using the minimal groups paradigm, nearly any trait can acquire status value given the right circumstances (see Ridgeway 1991; Tajfel and Turner 1979).

  3. In naturalistic contexts: (1) the status cues displayed by actors are often multiple (see Collins 2000) and may be ambiguous, overlapping, and/or contradictory; (2) status information is often communicated not only through direct interaction but also through an individual’s reputation and his/her embeddedness in networks of social relations (see Podolny 2005); and (3) status rewards may be conferred on the basis of performance on multiple tasks in potentially different domains over time.

  4. For exceptions see Bunderson (2003) and Grant (1984).

  5. The purpose of this article is not to devise an alternative theory of the emergence of status cues or symbolic boundaries in interaction but rather to study how individuals draw from the various status cues and schemas available to them in naturalistic social settings when evaluating the relative worth of others and conferring status prizes.

  6. “Bouncer” is a slang term for doorperson.

  7. I have purposefully omitted the names of particular publications so as to protect the identity of the club and its staff.

  8. Celebrities were also given such tables.

  9. However, this door person declined to be interviewed.

  10. However, it important to note that the dearth of nonwhite customers was likely compounded by self-selection. Door staff reported that the numbers of African Americans and Latinos attempting to enter the club had dwindled over the past several years. Door staff attributed this decline in the number of non-foreign minorities to an intentional decision on the part of management to stop playing hip hop music in the club in favor of strictly European, techno, Latin, and Middle Eastern music. Consequently, a certain amount of self-selection may be occurring on the part of African American and Latino Americans. Moreover, the lack of racial diversity that currently characterizes the club may make it a less desirable destination for these groups. Finally, given that US-born Latinos and blacks are regularly turned away from the door, it may be that the club has gained a reputation for being unfriendly to members of these groups, resulting in further self-selection and low numbers within the club.

References

  • Adler, P., & Adler, P. (1996). Preadolescent clique structure and the hierarchy of identity. Sociological Inquiry, 66, 111–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (1999). Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 538–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banaji, M. (2001). Ordinary prejudice. Psychological Science Agenda, 14, 8–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Webster, M. (2006). Expectations, status, and behavior. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 268–300). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Fişek, H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation states approach. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., Webster, M., Ridgeway, C., & Rosenholz, S. J. (1986). Status cues, expectations, and behavior. Advances in Group Processes, 3, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, D. (2005). Hey, bartender, can you break $1,000? New York Times, 18 December.

  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 557–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerulo, K. (2000). Overcoming rigid conceptualization: Culture, cognition and new approaches to old ideas. Poetics, 28, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2001). Grounded theory. In R. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 335–352). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society: The social life of the teenager and its impact on education. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (2004). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, K., & Emerson, R. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43, 721–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review, 69, 93–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Mohr, J. (1985). Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. The American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1231–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasoph, N., & Lichterman, P. (2003). Culture in interaction. The American Journal of Sociology, 108, 735–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, B. (1996). Culture, class and connections. The American Journal of Sociology, 102, 217–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, W., & Stevens, M. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feagin, J. (1991). The continuing significance of race: Anti-black discrimination in public places. American Sociological Review, 56, 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foschi, M., Lai, L., & Sigerson, K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 4, 326–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta, D., & Hamill, H. (2005). Streetwise: How taxi drivers establish their customers’ trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe, J., & Chan, T. W. (2007). Class and status: The conceptual distinction and its empirical relevance. American Sociological Review, 72, 512–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. (2002). The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. The American Journal of Sociology, 107, 1143–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, L. (1984). Black females’ “place” in desegregated classrooms. Sociology of Education, 57, 98–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grazian, D. (2004). The production of popular music as a confidence game: The case of the Chicago blues. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grazian, D. (2007). On the make: The hustle of urban nightlife. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigoriadis, V. (2003). A Chelsea girl makes a name all over town. New York Times, 29 June.

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingston, P. (2001). The unfulfilled promise of cultural capital theory. Sociology of Education, 74, 88–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M. (1992). Money, morals, and manners: The culture of the French and American upper-middle class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M. (2002). The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class, and immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6, 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamont, M., & Molnar, V. (2002). The study of boundaries across the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 167–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, R., & Candiotti, S. (2009). Students: Chicago nightclub barred blacks. CNN.com. Accessed October 30, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/25/illinois.bar.racism.allegations/index.html

  • Lin, N. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lizardo, O. (2009). Social psychological processes as mechanisms for the explanation of cultural phenomena. San Francisco: Presentation at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. A. B. (2001). Talkin’ at Trena’s: Everyday conversation at an African American tavern. New York: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. A. B., & Chaplin, K. (2008). Cracking the code: Race, class, and access to nightclubs in Urban America. Qualitative Sociology, 31, 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milner, M. (2004). Freaks, geeks, and cool kids: American teenagers, schools, and the culture of consumption. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkin, F. (1974). Strategies of social closure in class formation. In F. Parkin (Ed.), The social analysis of class structure (pp. 1–18). London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. (2005). Status signals: A sociological study of market competition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rashotte, L., & Webster, M. (2005). Gender status beliefs. Social Science Research, 34, 618–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Gender as an organizing force in social relations: Implications for the future of inequality. In M. Brinton, F. D. Blau, & D. B. Grusky (Eds.), The declining significance of gender? New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2007). Gender as a group process: Implications for the persistence of inequality. Advances in Group Processes, 24, 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on cultural beliefs in social relations. Gender & Society, 18, 510–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. (1995). Status structures. In K. Cook, G. Fine, & J. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281–310). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L., Backor, K., Li, Y. E., Tinkler, J. E., & Erickson, K. G. (2009). How easily does a social difference become a status distinction? Gender matters. American Sociological Review, 74, 44–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M. (2005). Symbols and contexts: An interactionist approach to the study of social status. Sociological Quarterly, 46, 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M. (2006). Third parties and status systems: How the structures of status systems matter. Theory & Society, 35, 299–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M. (2009). The influence of intermediaries on organizational status: A theory of status judges. Working paper, University of Iowa.

  • Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shilling, C. (1993). The body and social theory. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M. (2007). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaisey, S. (2009). Motivation and justification: A dual-process model of culture in action. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1675–1715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, D., & Berger J. (1993). Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Theoretical research programs: Studies in the growth of theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. New York: Bedminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, M. (2003). Working on status puzzles. Advances in Group Processes, 20, 173–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, M., & Driskell, J. (1983). Beauty as status. The American Journal of Sociology, 89, 140–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. (2007). Wielding power, bottle by bottle. New York Times, 18 February.

  • Zerubavel, E. (1999). Social mindscapes: An invitation to cognitive psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, E. (1999). The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. The American Journal of Sociology, 104, 1398–1438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Michèle Lamont, Prudence Carter, Jason Kaufman, Natasha Warikoo, Chana Teeger, Simone Ispa-Landa, members of the Qualitative Analysis seminar at Harvard University, Javier Auyero, and the anonymous reviewers at Qualitative Sociology for helpful comments on previous drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL, 60208-2011, USA

    Lauren A. Rivera

Authors
  1. Lauren A. Rivera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren A. Rivera.

Appendix: Interview Guide

Appendix: Interview Guide

  1. A.

    Opening/Warm Up Questions

    • How long have you been working as a doorman? How long have you been working at [club]?

    • How did you come into this line of work?

  2. B.

    Work

    • Which nights do you work? Do you have a favorite night to work? If so/not why? Do you have a least favorite night to work? If so/not why?

    • How do you feel about your job? Are there aspects you like about it? Dislike about it? What do you think is the most difficult part of your job?

    • How do you explain your line of work to people who are not other door staff?

    • How do your friends feel about your being a bouncer? Your family?

  3. C.

    Selection Process—Door

    • What are the different roles you work at the club [for each, probe responsibilities, attitudes towards the role]

    • When you work the door, do you ever have to turn people away? [If yes] Under what circumstances does this happen?

    • What percentage of customers would you guess you turn away on a given night?

    • What do you look for in a customer?

    • How do you personally assess whether to admit a specific customer?

    • How do you personally assess whether to turn away a specific customer?

    • Tell me about the last three customers whom you admitted

    • Tell me about the last three customers whom you rejected

    • Please describe an ideal customer

    • Is there a dress code? What is it for men? Women? Are there exceptions?

    • When the club is close to capacity (or there is space for only a few people), how does selection work? Are the criteria similar or different than when the club is less busy?

    • Do patrons ever try strategies for getting in? What are some of these strategies?

      • ○ Probe for bribes, flirtation, name-dropping

    • How does the promoter list work?

    • Have you ever had to turn away a “regular” (i.e., someone you know from the club)? For what reason(s)?

    • How do you feel when you have to turn people away? What kind of reactions do you get when turning people away?

  4. D.

    Selection Process—VIP (If bouncer regularly works the VIP area)

    • You said that you work the VIP room on the weekends. How does someone get into the VIP area?

    • Is the selection process for the VIP different from selection at the door? How so?

    • Do people ever try things to get into the VIP area? If so, what kind of things do they do? What do men do? What do women do?

  5. E.

    Clients/Club Climate

    • How would you describe the people inside the club?

  6. F.

    Relationship with Other Club Staff

    • On a typical night, how much do you interact with the club management? In what ways do you interact with them? Does this change depending on which role you are working each night?

    • Do you have formal meetings with management? If so, how often? What usually happens during these meetings?

    • Does the management have official rules that they want you to follow? If so, what are they? How do you feel about these rules?

      • ○ Probe for policies about selection, “special treatment” for particular guests

    • Have you ever had formal training with the managers? If so, what has this training consisted of?

    • Overall, how do you feel about the management? Have you ever had conflicts with them? If so, about what?

    • On a typical night, how much do you interact with the club promoters? In what ways do you interact with them?

    • How do you feel about the club promoters? Do you ever have conflicts with them? If so, why?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rivera, L.A. Status Distinctions in Interaction: Social Selection and Exclusion at an Elite Nightclub. Qual Sociol 33, 229–255 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9152-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-010-9152-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation