Usually you are just checking IDs and making sure everyone is behaving themselves. Bouncers cannot hit anyone for any reason. If they hit someone, it will cause legal troubles not only for them, but also for the bar. Another challenge bouncers face is on slow nights, when they are stuck standing around, struggling to find something to keep themselves preoccupied. For most door supervisors, bouncing is not their primary and only job. The main misconception of bouncers is their portrayal as big, mean men who are always trying to start something.
In early Nazi Germany , some bouncers in underground jazz clubs were also hired to screen for Nazi spies, because jazz was considered a "degenerate" form of music by the Nazi party. Bouncers also often come into conflict with football hooligans , due to the tendency of groups of hooligans to congregate at pubs and bars before and after games. In the United Kingdom for example, long-running series of feuds between fan groups like The Blades and groups of bouncers in the s were described by researchers.
Bouncers have also been known to be associated with criminal gangs, especially in places like Russia, Hong Kong or Japan, where bouncers may often belong to these groups or have to pay the crime syndicates to be able to operate. Hong Kong also features a somewhat unusual situation where some bouncers are known to work for prostitutes, instead of being their pimps. Hong Kong police have noted that due to the letter of the law, they sometimes had to charge the bouncer for illegally extorting the women when the usually expected dominance situation between the sex worker and her 'protector' was in fact reversed.
In the s and s, a number of bouncers have written "tell-all" books about their experiences on the door. They indicate that male bouncers are respected by some club-goers as the ultimate 'hard men', while at the same time, these bouncers can also be lightning rods for aggression and macho posturing on the part of obnoxious male customers wanting to prove themselves.
Bouncers were selected as one of the groups studied by several English researchers in the s because their culture was seen as 'grounded in violence', as well as because the group had increasingly been 'demonised', especially in common liberal discourse see Research section of this article. In the early s, an Australian government study on violence stated that violent incidents in public drinking locations are caused by the interaction of five factors: aggressive and unreasonable bouncers, groups of male strangers, low comfort e.
The research indicated that bouncers did not play as large a role " Many seem poorly trained, obsessed with their own machismo, and relate badly to groups of male strangers. Some of them appear to regard their employment as giving them a licence to assault people. This may be encouraged by management adherence to a repressive model of supervision of patrons "if they play up, thump 'em" , which in fact does not reduce trouble, and exacerbates an already hostile and aggressive situation.
In practice many bouncers are not well managed in their work, and appear to be given a job autonomy and discretion that they cannot handle well. A article "Responses by Security Staff to Aggressive Incidents in Public Settings" in the Journal of Drug Issues examined violent incidents involving crowd controllers bouncers that occurred in bars in Toronto, Ontario , Canada.
The controllers' actions involved gratuitous aggression, harassment of patrons and provocative behaviour. At least one major ethnographic study also observed bouncing from within, as part of a British project to study violent subcultures.
Beyond studying the bouncer culture from the outside, the group selected a suitable candidate for covert, long-term research. The man had previously worked as a bouncer before becoming an academic, and while conversant with the milieu, it required some time for him to re-enter bouncing work in a new locality.
One of the main ethical issues of the research was the participation of the researcher in violence, and to what degree he would be allowed to participate. The group could not fully resolve this issue, as the undercover researcher would not have been able to gain the trust of his peers while shying away from the use of force. As part of the study it eventually became clear that bouncers themselves were similarly and constantly weighing up the limits and uses of their participation in violence.
The research however found that instead of being a part of the occupation, violence itself was the defining characteristic, a "culture created around violence and violent expectation". The bouncing culture's insular attitudes also extended to the recruitment process, which was mainly by word of mouth as opposed to typical job recruitment, and also depended heavily on previous familiarity with violence. This does not extend to the prospective bouncer himself having to have a reputation for violence—rather a perception was needed that he could deal with it if required.
Various other elements, such as body language or physical looks muscles, shaved heads were also described as often expected for entry into bouncing—being part of the symbolic 'narratives of intimidation' that set bouncers apart in their work environment. Training on the job was described as very limited, with the new bouncers being 'thrown into the deep end'—the fact that they had been accepted for the job in the first place including the assessment that they should know what they are doing though informal observation of a beginner's behaviour was commonplace.
In the case of the British research project, the legally required licensing as a bouncer was also found to be expected by employers before applicants started the job and as licensing generally excluded people with criminal convictions, this kept out some of the more unstable violent personalities.
A bouncer at the door of a Norwegian club checking customer identification for proof of age. An ability to judge and communicate well with people will reduce the need for physical intervention, while a steady personality will prevent the bouncer from being easily provoked by customers.
Bouncers also profit from good written communication skills, because they are often required to document assaults in an incident log or using an incident form. Well-kept incident logs can protect the employee from any potential criminal charges or lawsuits that later arise from an incident.
However, British research from the s also indicates that a major part of both the group identity and the job satisfaction of bouncers is related to their self image as a strongly masculine person who is capable of dealing with — and dealing out — violence; their employment income plays a lesser role in their job satisfaction.
Bouncer subculture is strongly influenced by perceptions of honour and shame, a typical characteristic of groups that are in the public eye, [33] as well as warrior cultures in general. Factors in enjoying work as a bouncer were also found in the general prestige and respect that was accorded to bouncers, sometimes bordering on hero worship.
The camaraderie between bouncers even of different clubs , as well as the ability to work "in the moment" and outside of the drudgery of typical jobs were also often cited. The same research has also indicated that the decisions made by bouncers, while seeming haphazard to an outsider, often have a basis in rational logic.
The decision to turn certain customers away at the door because of too casual clothing face control is for example often based on the perception that the person will be more willing to fight compared to someone dressed in expensive attire.
Many similar decisions taken by a bouncer during the course of a night are also being described as based on experience rather than just personality. Movies often depict bouncers physically throwing patrons out of clubs and restraining drunk customers with headlocks, which has led to a popular misconception that bouncers have or reserve the right to use physical force freely.
However, in many countries bouncers have no legal authority to use physical force more freely than any other civilian—meaning they are restricted to reasonable levels of force used in self defense , to eject drunk or aggressive patrons refusing to leave a venue, or when restraining a patron who has committed an offence until police arrive.
They generally live by their own rules, and ignore the law. If a bouncer beats up a person he has thrown out because he has been resisting, even if the person had a right to resist, the Bouncer will not be charged with assault, and the person he beat up will spend the night in jail.
A merry guy walks past the door minding his own business, perhaps he's looking for someone; Bouncer : You're too drunk, get out. The guy: What? I'm fine Bouncer: No you're not, you're coming with me. The bouncer grabs the guy by the arms The guy: What are you doing? Let go of me. The guy shrugs the Bouncers hands off. The Bouncer then takes that as an excuse to grab him harder and push him out the door.
During these times, brothels looked like respectable mansions, with games rooms, ball rooms and bars. In the late 19th century, bouncers at small town dances and bars physically resolved disputes and removed troublemakers, without worrying about lawsuits.
In the main bar in one Iowa town, there were many quarrels and fights, but all were settled on the spot. There were no court costs for the bouncers or the bar, only some aches and pains for the troublemakers.
0コメント