Cocktail Waitress Summary

Historically, anthropologists have focused their research on foreign cultures, often considered exotic to westerners. Yet, globalization has created a continuously shrinking world and is increasingly providing sovereignty for developing nations, which may impede research opportunities for modern anthropologists. In their book, “The Cocktail Waitress,” James Spradley and Brenda Mann explain how this recent issue threatens trust and acceptance in these foreign communities and obstructs research funding. Luckily, there are countless subcultures in America’s back yard, in which most are eternally evolving, providing a multitude of research opportunities for anthropologists.
Alcohol establishments are home to a plethora of subcultures that display

clashing and harmonious interactions enjoyable for even the untrained human observers. Noticeably, bars contain the local regulars, occasional boozers, business men, college students, and multiple others, all there for a common goal, leisure. Whether the responsible sober driver, moderate drinker, or completely inebriated, every patron has exchanged workday courtesies for uninhibited behaviors. Additionally, lounges often exhibit social interactions between men and women which provide ethnographers opportunity to study the cultural roles considered masculine or feminine within our society and subcultures. Formerly, women employed in alcohol establishments were prohibited from managerial, bar keeping, or any other positions of authority, limiting them to traditional service roles. Discovering the vast amount of employed women in America, at the time, worked in the service industry, Spradley and Mann conducted a research project that inquired on the uniquely feminine role in American society by focusing on the traditional female role as a cocktail waitress. Historically, anthropologists rarely conducted research focused on women or their role in society. Yet when they did, it was from a male perspective. Recognizing females’ equal importance to males in western culture, Spradley and Mann designed this project with the goal of understanding the cocktail waitress’s life by literally walking in their shoes.
Submersing herself in the role, Mann worked as a cocktail waitress at the anonymous Midwestern bar, Brady’s, and utilized her intimate role to aid in the study as a participant, observer, and informant. However, mindful of the necessity of objectivity in ethnography, Spradley remained detached throughout the project and discussed Mann’s experiences every one to two nights, in which they jointly recorded everything in to field notes. Through involvement and detachment, the researchers examined the language, social structures, identities, and the customarily appropriate actions of women with the male customers and male coworkers. Naturally, complications occurred since Mann was similar in age and background experiences to the other employees at the bar, whom often clouded the line between personal and professional lives. Additionally, Mann’s intimate involvement eventually made it difficult to recall the minute daily details necessary for ethnographic studies, establishing the imperative involvement of Spradley.
Initially, the obvious separation of power was between the male bartenders and female waitresses.

The social hierarchy of Brady’s bar, diagramed in Spradley and Mann’s book (70), displayed female waitresses as one of the lowest tiers other than female customers and people off the street, adding to the legitimacy of male dominance. Countless examples support this unbalanced social structure. For example, bartenders often enjoy an alcoholic beverage before or on the job, yet waitresses needed special permission to do the same. Usually waitresses were allowed soda or water until Brady’s closed. Rarely, a bartender decided it was momentarily acceptable for a specific waitress to enjoy a cocktail before or during employment, but she was expected to flood the gracious bartender with praise and gratitude for this rare opportunity. Likewise, requested to tend the bar, waitresses were flattered and ecstatic to work within this prestigious position. However, a male would never lower himself to do a waitress’s duties, and female employees would not dare ask a man to stoop to their peasant level of work. During a particular event, Denise attempted to make light of this inequality and unwittingly treaded onto forbidden territory. Tending the bar temporarily, Denise was playfully asked by the bartender, Ted, for a drink. Reversing the roles on Ted, Denise told him no because he was working and he could have a soda instead. Ironically, this agitated Ted, although this was a typical

response he gave to Denise and other waitresses. Ted demanded the drink and Denise quickly complied. Spradley and Mann referred to these asymmetrical occupational rules as the “handicap rule,” and explained the development and disadvantages of this rule (36).
Additionally, the females constantly sought approval from the bartenders and nothing surpassed the compliment of being a “good waitress” at Brady’s bar. Quickly, the new waitresses learned that pleasing the bartenders surpassed the desires of customers. Creating stress-free environments for bartenders, waitresses were required to perform additional duties which would be more logical for the bartenders to execute. For example, not only did the waitresses have to remember the orders given to them by the customers, they were required to know the contents within the drinks and rearrange them in a simplified grouping for the ease of bartenders. Waitresses were also expected to quickly calculate drink prices, totals, and necessary change for the bartenders, although the barkeeps had access to the register. If the waitress could not calculate these prices quickly, the bartender commented on her stupidity and belittled her throughout the evening. Furthermore, bartenders utilized full control, to include if or when they took a waitress’s order. Stephanie illustrated this authority when she advised other waitresses, “[t]he bartender comes first . . . you have to cater to his particular personality . . ,” (Spradley and Mann 71). Clearly, the words Stephanie spoke portrayed the immeasurable amount of control the bartenders had over the waitresses.
Continually, male customers and coworkers sexually harassed and assaulted the waitresses, which displayed their supremacy within the bar.

Considered commonplace for male customers to touch or grab at them, waitresses smiled and cordially served the men who were degrading them to the level of an object, not unlike a toy or a trophy. Unfortunately, the waitresses were also harassed and assaulted by their coworkers and managers. When someone with authority over another person makes sexual comments or advancements in any way, it is an abuse of power. Obviously, the waitresses were unable to address this issue without risking losing their job. Spradley and Mann explain how one of the bartenders, Tom, incessantly attempted to unhook the waitresses’ bras. Although the waitresses noted they were not insulted by this, it is still another example of unbalanced reciprocity within the social structure and diminished the female employees to objectification. Female employees were required to comply with this banter or else risked losing respect, dignity, or honor of themselves or their superiors. Additionally, this joking was also asymmetrical, which limited the female participants. An instance was with Stephanie, John, and a customer bantering and unfortunately ended badly when Stephanie replied, teasingly, to a question regarding the legitimacy of John’s marriage. Although the customer was kidding, and Stephanie was reciprocating the banter, her reply, or lack there of, resulted in

John taking serious offence.
Similar to Stockholm syndrome, the females that started working at Brady’s were initially uncomfortable and disturbed with the severe inequality, sexual harassment, emotional abuse, and economic vulnerability. Yet, through time with the offenders, they learned to be thankful for the smallest forms of kindness. Additionally, reasons for tolerating or even desiring this degradation is why countless youths join violent gangs, for a sense of family, social prestige, and financial gain. Unfortunately, several of these issues were considered culturally acceptable in this time period. However, modern law has deemed these actions unacceptable and necessary repercussions would be dealt to the offenders. Ultimately, the most obvious potential bias the authors may have had would have been a bias of generational culture. However, Spradley and Mann were incredibly successful and disguising this possible bias, if there even was one. Undoubtedly, their book remained objective and factual in the description of the waitresses’ lives, and portrayed complete professionalism. Furthermore, the authors appeared to cover more aspects than expected. Dissecting every detail of culture, Spradley and Mann seem to have faced this ethnographic challenge equally as other anthropologists. Although no study is perfect, I am unable to uncover the imperfections and discern this as a successful discovery into the lives and minds of females in male dominant professions.