More thoughts on the Sidewalk

Aside from my bewilderment , I've become rather intellectually interested in the "sidewalk thing." The testing phase is over, and I've positively identified it as a national cultural trait. And, interestingly, I think I'm beginning to place into a kind of psychological context. First, a few general rules to define the "ideal case," allowing for slight varations, of course. Just like Real Gases are allowed to differ from Ideal Gases, so long as they're more-or-less the same. (I'm feeling very engineery.) Here we go:

1. Walkers will be aware exclusively of themselves.
2. Therefore they will consciously offer no concessions to other pedestrians.
3. On a subconscious level, however, they will sense other walkers . . . and they'll respond to this sensation by subconsciously veering into the other person's space or trajectory.
4. There are no concepts, even vague ones, defining right-of-way or direction-of-flow. Right side, left side, longitudinal motion, transverse motion: it's all fair play.
5. Given a choice of places to pause, the walker will always choose a place that is congested by either people or objects.
6. For walkers in groups, there's an "entropic" principle of expansion: A group never condenses but always expands, even when confronted by a constricting space.

I had a conversation a few weeks ago that helped me place these observations into a kind of psychological context. Well, rules #3 and #5 in particular; rule #6 seems contradictory, doesn't it? I'm going to have to call it a paradox for now; maybe my next run will shed some light on how it coexists with rules #1-#5.

The conversation was about TV. Italian houses typically have at least one TV in every room, sometimes more than one, and they're always on. I hadn't actually noticed this myself, but when someone in my language class pointed it out, I realized that it's absolutely true. Even given the American couch potato image, I'm giving the blue TV ribbon to the Italians. Anyway, my classmate asked - basically - "What's the deal?" The professor, I thought, gave a great answer: The Italian culture generally values "relationships" more than other cultures. People want to have company, to be accompanied, to talk, to feel, etc . . . a preference that's easily contrasted with a British culture that values a stiff upper lip or an American one that values lots of space and lots of independence.

I really liked this explanation because it concords with my own experience. In Sicily, I felt constantly bombarded by people. Unless I was sleeping or running ( - ecco! that's probably why I started both sleeping and running excessively in Sicily!) - there was Zero Chance to be alone or silent. I'm not saying that I wanted to move into a convent, but . . . it's just too much for me to be constantly engaged. How can you think?! I got up one morning very early and sat in the kitchen with a book. It was great . . . and it lasted about five minutes. The Signora had heard me rise, dragged herself out of bed, still bleary-eyed and sleepy, and got up herself to - this is the quote - "give me company." ("But the last thing I want is company!" didn't seem like quite the right thing to say . . .) In any case, there is, I think, this real need to be accompanied. Hence the TV. If you're the only one around, who can accompany you? Your pals from the game shows. Walker, Texas Ranger. Possibly the TV newscaster.

Which brings me back to the sidewalk. I think the tendencies to veer subconsciously into other people and to stop in construction bottlenecks are tendencies that satisfy precisely this need. Maybe you don't know the other person - maybe you don't even consciously know that he's there - but, in a way, when you veer into him, you're also nearing him emotionally: you're being accompanied. And maybe where you stop to have a smoke is in the middle of a construction scaffold. Not the most personable environment I can think of - but better than being alone with all that . . . space! . . . around you!

So that's my analysis. I'll admit I'm stymied as I try to fit Rule #6 into the theory. Any ideas?