Paper short abstract:

The systematisation of qualitative material collected between 2012 and 2018 by means of a thorough ethnographic investigation carried out in different bars in Barcelona, is a res- ponse to the detection of an obvious lack of a formulation of a solid problematic theoretic- methodological that evidences the depth of the relationship between urban anthropology and the bar, as a builder of urbanity. We thus propose the opening of a new strand of analy- sis, based on the contributions of urban studies, proxemics, sociology, architecture and anthropology of feeding, which in the field opened by this discipline, Gastropology, find their connective structure. The proposal departs from the notion of "frontier" as an analytical category of the urban, within which whose dimensions, the margin and the centre constantly touch. In Gastropo- logy, the bar is configured as a paradigmatic and unique space-frontier: a physical, symbo- lic, cognitive and political framework, perceptible only through its movement, endowed with meaning as a product of its dialectical relationship with what is outside from the frontality. Frontality is the condition of interacting from the front and implies spatial and social proxi- mity. Being outside is the antagonistic position that is assumed with respect to that of the dog- matic. The border allows the simultaneity of the two conditions giving rise to, or generating space for, unprecedented social and political practices, consolidating the infinity of possible out- comes. In gastropology, the bar is interpreted as an irreplaceable socialising agent, stage and trig- ger of the non-hierarchical encounter. In other words, frontal, everything with everything: the bodies, the spaces, their components and their coordinates.

Paper long abstract:

the form of sociability that develops in bars, in all its modalities, corresponds to the idea of worldliness, which obliges each participant to maintain at all times a plurality of language that allows them to feel comfortable in the variety of social frameworks in which they are involved. This relational versatility presupposes a certain sideways glance of one’s identity in order to facilitate its adaptability, since an excessive degree of protago- nism on the part of the speaker would be considered impolite, in a context in which mutual praise and mutual signs of interest prevail. As noted, those attending a bar – regulars, if they are habitual – hope to meet people who, like them, want and try to remain at the same time both unknown and available. This is an example in miniature of what Lyn H. Lo- fland (1973) calls, referring to social life in public places in general, "a society of strangers", or, in other words, a society of people who maintain a link that can be deep, but not strategic, like those linked by ties of friendship. (Cucó, 2001).

Social life in bars implies, in effect, a “school of worldliness”, in which each of those pre- sent displays an ability to behave in public in scenarios open to relationships, predisposing themselves to submit to the requests and judgements of those who share with him that same space and to move in this world with a certain agility. It is thus about an “indetermi- nate sociability”, open to a constant "anticipation of what’s coming", for which this abstrac- tion of social identity and the privilege of the mask and disguise is indispensable.

Given that those in attendance join each relationship as indeterminate characters, they must do so by instantly becoming sociologists or ethnologists, being continuously able to

interpret what others are saying and doing, which is essential to know what attitude to take at any given moment. It refers to that process of instruction that every individual, in modern and urban contexts, performs throughout their life, through which they acquire a whole re- pertoire of meanings and competences that enables them to know how to read and mana- ge the social code in and through the variety of scenarios that make up the urban scene (Lofland, 1973: 97). Those who meet in a bar, whether regularly or sporadically, apply in their meetings a layman’s sociology, understood by Garfinkel (2006 [1968]) as that practi- cal knowledge available to every individual to interpret what happens and understand and execute what must be done from the detection of patterns of behaviour shared with those with whom they communicate in meetings, such as those of a bar, ephemeral and infor- mal.

The environment of each room, the distribution of its movable elements, the lighting, the spatial behaviour of those present, as well as the proxemic and kinetic dimensions of the behaviours that are recorded, from an ethology inspired viewpoint, will be described in de- tail.

Beyond the traditionally understood participant observation, we know that this practice of ethnographic investigation takes different forms in the scenario investigated, being able to be used “simultaneously, sequentially or alternatively” (Ferrándiz, 2011: 90). What is known as non-obtrusive observation or simple observation (Webb et al., 2000) consists in following the flows of action without actively intervening or interfering with them.

Naturally, semi-structured and in-depth interviews are going to take place. These inter- views will be considered complementary tools to the participant and non-obtrusive obser- vation, seeking the way in which the subjects themselves rationalise their experiences in these meeting places.