‘‘we’re often left telling them to hold off’’ (line 159). The boundary of the library’s physical space, then, is also one enclosing professional norms that are in conflict with general university rules. In other spaces, people may be ejected for not carrying proper identification, but in the library, members of the general public are to be treated as clients.
[4] I’m not sure what purpose it serves to characterize our patrons as ‘‘slavering perverts’’
because they make uses of the Internet that we would not make
It is possible that the listserv as a medium cannot support the subtle in- teraction by which such correction (to one’s own expression or another’s) can be made in a face-to-face conversation, where participants were quick to correct others or themselves to prevent appearing harsh or unprofessional toward clients. This effort introduced a stiff tone at times, rather than the natural flow of casual chat. In an example of this trouble in the talk (seg- ment 1, lines 45–50), Barbara (B) responds to a drift in the conversation toward labeling the mentally ill and homeless as a problem.
45 B ¼But not everyone //who-who’s// mentally unstable is a problem
[ ]
46 C: //( )//
47 patron //(.) sometimes// they’re jus swee:t //and sort of// nice and
[ ] [ ]
48 C: ¼No]no]no]no]no //that’s true// C: //that’s true//
49 (.)
50 C: ¼That’s true
In this exchange, Barbara sounds too good to be true (line 47), and Cathy (C) repeats her agreement three times (lines 48 and 50) to make sure it is heard ‘‘in the clear’’ in the conversation. What establishes that the conver- sation is not simply a false front, however, is the way participants use strategies such as laughter to hold one another accountable not just for being too harsh, as in the example above, but also for being too nice. For example, Frances (F) attempts to define problem patrons as (segment 2, lines 121–129):
121 someone from the outside, not necessarily a
122 student or professor although possibly one of those two (.) who: comes in 123 and causes11some]kind]of disruptive behavior or confrontation (.) in the 124 library (.2) but I-I11fortunately]have]never]encountered a professor 125 who fit (.) that description (.)nor{m} have I encountered // a stu-
[ ]
126 C: //(smile voice)Oh? {m}//
[ ]
127 E: //You havn’t?|h=h=h=h=h=|//
128 F: No (.) I haven’t (.) // I guess// I’ve just been lucky.
[ ]
129 C: (smile voice) //Oh? {k} //
Here, Cathy (C) and Evan (E) collaborate in good humor to prevent this attempted definition from standing. That is, professors as primary clientele may have more power in the service interaction than do students or non- affiliated clients, but it is not tenable to the group that professors are therefore never a problem.
Embedded in this careful, somewhat stiff conversation are moments of unguarded pleasure when participants recognize a description of a mutual client (segment 6, lines 36–48):
36 F: one student was someone who wanted a get into the (lab) (.) he didn’t have 37 any kind of identification on him I mean not even (.) a drivers license (.) 38 identification he insisted he was (.2) an]alum]I]believe (.) um (.) so I 39 was gonna have im sign in, like we normally do:? ya know and write their 40 social security number? he was adamant about not giving us his social 41 security number because he didn know what we were gonna do with that 42 //someone could take the social security number// and then use it an
[ ]
43 C: //Oh I’ve helped-helped this guy before I think//
44 sell it //and// steal his identity and //so it (.) // there
[ ] [ ]
45 C: //m hm// C: //yeah//
46 was this whole paranoic (.) kind of qual//ity ( )//
[ ]
47 G: //sounds like my Un(h)cle Bo:(h)b|heh heh heh//
[ ]
48 B: //|ha ha ha ha ha|//
The transcript cannot capture the thrill in Cathy’s voice at line 43, but it does show her sense of ownership in ratifying Frances’s description at line 45. Even more indicative of the role of such recognitions in the conversation is Grace’s contribution. Grace has had the least opportunity to serve the same clients as other participants. She introduces ‘‘Uncle Bob’’ as a fictive recognition that serves to bring her into the circle of laughter and mutual understanding.
Recognizing mutual clients here bolsters professional bonds and shared culture. As Moerman argues,
A world experienced together – perceived, oriented to, felt, and meaningful in the same way–is much like what anthropologists call ‘‘a culture.’’ In talk about the world, speak- ers show whether or not they share one. (Moerman, 1988, p. 112)
The pleasure of sharing a culture appears as excited vocal tone and laughter, and the further afield the tie across time and space, the more thrilling it is. In segment 9, lines 155–219, Evan and Barbara recognize a mutual client from a distant library where they had both been graduate assistants more than seven years apart.
155 E: Ya know the people that- a that research obsessively the //Kennedy (.)//
[ ]
156 B: //right//
157 assassination (.) for conspiracy theories and things like that (.) um-
158 B: Oh wow (.) yeah// oh man I had a guy like that at (State U) hoo: (.) yeah 159 E: ¼The same- y-it was //the same guy.// You knew the same //guy.//
[ ] [
160 G: //|ha ha ha ha|// F: //Would you 161 categorize him as a problem patron?//
The ability to recognize mutual clients serves several purposes in building professional identity. First, it affirms that others working in a context of rapid, overlapping encounters with similar professional norms are irritated or offended by the same kinds of behaviors. Second, it affirms that the problem was not caused by shortcoming on their part, because another professional also struggled to meet the client’s need while honoring profes- sional norms, local policies, and personal emotional boundaries. Finally, it
demonstrates the consistency of client needs and behaviors across time and location, providing a sense of continuity in a rapidly changing environment.