Personally, I found that reading Goffman's book was a much better use of time than reading this article about opportunistic mudslingers that don't have an original thought so they seek any avenue to tear down (and thereby gather some of the attention occasionally offered) those that do.
9
The golden rule in science is not to interfere in the experiment so as to influence the outcome. In quantum mechanics, merely *observing* an experiment can *change* the outcome of the experiment. So it is in ethnography: merely *being* there *alters* the behavior of all participants, subject and observer alike.
So the problem with Goffman's participation in driving around with a gun looking for revenge is that her very *presence* changed the dynamics and behavior of the young men around her. For her part, she surely appreciated the fact that if the young men actually did something, it would make for a more dramatic ending to her book.
There is no way that one can be observed, and knowing that he is being observed, that his behavior would not be altered. That is the entire basis of reality TV: the viewer knows and expects the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore crew, the Housewives of Whatever, to act up and to act out in front of the camera.
Goffman's crew acted out in front of her, and she milked every bit for what it was worth: a PhD, a book, a job.
So the problem with Goffman's participation in driving around with a gun looking for revenge is that her very *presence* changed the dynamics and behavior of the young men around her. For her part, she surely appreciated the fact that if the young men actually did something, it would make for a more dramatic ending to her book.
There is no way that one can be observed, and knowing that he is being observed, that his behavior would not be altered. That is the entire basis of reality TV: the viewer knows and expects the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore crew, the Housewives of Whatever, to act up and to act out in front of the camera.
Goffman's crew acted out in front of her, and she milked every bit for what it was worth: a PhD, a book, a job.
6
So, blacks need to be explained by whites to other whites and to blacks themselves, observed and secretly noted down in a field book. Blacks don't live their lives just for whites to write up a report about.
What are the ethical guidelines for informing, getting meaningful consent, giving meaningful right of refusal, compensating and otherwise giving proper credit to these unwitting and perhaps unwilling participants to white liberal academics' quest for publication and tenure?
If Ms. Goffman had written a best selling ethnographic study of white undergraduates at Princeton, you'd better believe she'd have 100 lawsuits on her hands demanding royalty payments and co-ownership of her data and co-authorship of her book (not to mention 100 lawyers scrubbing her book for sensitive personal information and potential liability).
What are the ethical guidelines for informing, getting meaningful consent, giving meaningful right of refusal, compensating and otherwise giving proper credit to these unwitting and perhaps unwilling participants to white liberal academics' quest for publication and tenure?
If Ms. Goffman had written a best selling ethnographic study of white undergraduates at Princeton, you'd better believe she'd have 100 lawsuits on her hands demanding royalty payments and co-ownership of her data and co-authorship of her book (not to mention 100 lawyers scrubbing her book for sensitive personal information and potential liability).
1
Ms. Goffman describes an incident of brutal violence by the police while she and others sit by, and then goes on to say that no one would talk about that incident or mention it again later. And I wonder, do they simply not talk in front of her?
Because these events are being discussed, very much. Poor black people are capable discussing and evaluating things, Ms. Goffman. And they do.
I doubt the accuracy of the book as I find it truly questionable if the black men described in the book had that kind of trust in her, that they 'dodged police' with her, or discussed events in detail.
Ms. Goffman focuses on the crime, the babydaddies, crack and flashy bang like any middle class white girl being excited to visit the hood.
She's stereotyping. Most black males with low income that I know are not like that.
I'm white, female and did grow up in a predominantly black, low income neighborhood.
Ms. Goffman unwillingly supports stereotypes, because she's lacking the sensitivity needed to write about the hood. A sensitivity writers from the hood, or writers who could identify, actually have.
The people who are involved in crime and crack and roach infested apartments are not the majority.
Unless you will the ghetto to be like that, unless your focus is locked in on that. Unless you grew up with that subconscious perception of minority life and automatically zoom in on these things.
The book is the self-aggrandizing, immature story of someone who understood nothing.
Because these events are being discussed, very much. Poor black people are capable discussing and evaluating things, Ms. Goffman. And they do.
I doubt the accuracy of the book as I find it truly questionable if the black men described in the book had that kind of trust in her, that they 'dodged police' with her, or discussed events in detail.
Ms. Goffman focuses on the crime, the babydaddies, crack and flashy bang like any middle class white girl being excited to visit the hood.
She's stereotyping. Most black males with low income that I know are not like that.
I'm white, female and did grow up in a predominantly black, low income neighborhood.
Ms. Goffman unwillingly supports stereotypes, because she's lacking the sensitivity needed to write about the hood. A sensitivity writers from the hood, or writers who could identify, actually have.
The people who are involved in crime and crack and roach infested apartments are not the majority.
Unless you will the ghetto to be like that, unless your focus is locked in on that. Unless you grew up with that subconscious perception of minority life and automatically zoom in on these things.
The book is the self-aggrandizing, immature story of someone who understood nothing.
7
She wrote that the reason she said she was certain the night would not end in violence is that it was common knowledge that the person who had committed the murder had fled town immediately afterwards. (This is in her reply to Lubet - see her faculty page at U Wisconsin.)
2
When Professor Goffman presented her work in Philadelphia with Mayor Nutter's Deputy Mayor of Public Safety and his Chief of Staff serving as discussants, these city officials stated that what Goffman reports about policing in the city was indeed accurate. Having conducted fieldwork in the neighborhoods she worked in, I am in awe of this research. It is a masterpiece, did Goffmaake risky and reckless choices, probably. What confuses me is how the same mainstream media and academic colleagues who celebrated the work of Eli Anderson, Mitch Duneir and Sudhir Venkatssh never questioned the ethical lines they walked, indeed, these male scholars were rewarded for their cowboy research tactics and going native with endowed chairs and movie deals. Goffman's critics sound more like haters...
16
Eli didn't destroy his notes and there were no doubts that he actually conducted the research he said he did. That is not the case with this piece of "long form narrative journalism". Alice conducted a significant amount of research living in a mixed race middle income neighborhood near Penn. There are numerous factual errors in the book that couldn't occur if she had actually been there. Worst example: juvenile courts in philly are closed. She didn't hear any cases. she might have been in the waiting rooms, but everything she describes afterwards is "made up". May be with good intentions, but still not worthy of Anderson's legacy, let a lone a magazine like Rolling Stone.
2
I would love to investigate why so many white people, especially women, devote their lives to passionately studing a group of people (blacks, particularly black men) in order to "help" them when this group makes it clear they don't like them. It is not dissimilar to colonialism. I think these white liberals believe these people could, and should, be more like them. I'm sure their subjects would like the affluence these people have and all the comforts it brings but at heart the white "research" community and the "downtrodden black" community have different cultural norms and values. The whites want the blacks to be more like them while at the same time these whites declare that they have respect for blacks and their culture. If this were true, they wouldn't spend so much time and effort trying to impose upper middle class progressive norms on this very different culture, would they?
8
Gangster chic. How much nonsense is produced in this country by sociologists.
11
In her response to Mr. Lubet Dr. Goffman states that she is/was an ethnographer and that she used the methodology of Participant Observation to conduct her study.
One thing is that Participant Observation is but one technique of many needed to produce 'an Ethnography'.
In the methodology section of her book -which is not the actual thesis, much whose data we have been told has been destroyed, to protect identification of actual people and events and oh btw Dr. Goffman's activities as well - the entire description of her methodology consists of the statement that she took daily notes. Not enough! Where and how was ANALYSIS conducted? Ethnography is not just one story after another -however vivid- in an account that cannot be verified.
Furthermore: turning vigilante, facilitating drug trade, and driving a get away car while packing a gun, does not constitute 'participant- observation'. Please do accept that message as the take away from her work.
One thing is that Participant Observation is but one technique of many needed to produce 'an Ethnography'.
In the methodology section of her book -which is not the actual thesis, much whose data we have been told has been destroyed, to protect identification of actual people and events and oh btw Dr. Goffman's activities as well - the entire description of her methodology consists of the statement that she took daily notes. Not enough! Where and how was ANALYSIS conducted? Ethnography is not just one story after another -however vivid- in an account that cannot be verified.
Furthermore: turning vigilante, facilitating drug trade, and driving a get away car while packing a gun, does not constitute 'participant- observation'. Please do accept that message as the take away from her work.
8
Some of the assertions made by Dr Goffman seem unfounded. But they can never be falsified. Scientists and social scientists are increasingly asked to provide the 'raw data' on which they base their arguments. Most recently, the much-cited article on attitudes to marriage equality foundered because it could be shown that it did not exist. A few years ago the academic career of Michael Bellesiles was destroyed because he cited non-existent archival sources. These are examples from the hard or hardish disciplines where evidence can be sought and verified independently. Then we have totally self-reported "disciplines". One can suspect that Margaret Mead or Napoleon Chagnon embroidered their accounts, but no one was there at the time to verify that. These are squishy disciplines that stand on a slippery slope leading to unchecked fabrication.
8
"But some sociologists counter that ethnography is concerned not just with facts but with people’s perceptions of those facts, which powerfully shape their behavior and experience."
This is idiotic. If a serious ethnography is not concerned with facts, how can perceptions of the facts have any meaning at all.
If this is just about her FEELINGS about reality, label it as such. And if there are no differences between facts and feelings about facts, then ...
Lubet's charges concerning other facts .. like arresting new fathers in a maternity ward for prior charges -- its a big deal. Or 3 years of probation for an 11 year old. And it isn't enough to say that even if it didn't happen, it could have happened or might as well have happened. That is why there is a category of books labeled fiction.
This is idiotic. If a serious ethnography is not concerned with facts, how can perceptions of the facts have any meaning at all.
If this is just about her FEELINGS about reality, label it as such. And if there are no differences between facts and feelings about facts, then ...
Lubet's charges concerning other facts .. like arresting new fathers in a maternity ward for prior charges -- its a big deal. Or 3 years of probation for an 11 year old. And it isn't enough to say that even if it didn't happen, it could have happened or might as well have happened. That is why there is a category of books labeled fiction.
7
@David Foster Wallace: "If a serious ethnography is not concerned with facts, how can perceptions of the facts have any meaning at all."
You don't seem to understand the issue. Joe says he believes X. Is that a fact? Or is he lying? The truth of X is a separate issue.
You don't seem to understand the issue. Joe says he believes X. Is that a fact? Or is he lying? The truth of X is a separate issue.
7
@Steve: Goffman said in her book, "I got there a few hours after the baby was born, in time to see two police officer come into Donna's room to place Alex in handcuffs." The author said that she she saw it. Not that Alex or someone else in her study believed it.
Regardless.
I have changed my mind and am now interested in the book regardless of the current controversy.
Regardless.
I have changed my mind and am now interested in the book regardless of the current controversy.
1
Thank you, Mr. Wallace. A rational voice in a sea of biased charges and counter-charges.
2
I read the book review, also. This sounds pretty terrible for all concerned. Actually, depressingly soul-destroying.
The big question is "How can we make this better?", whatever "better" means. The first thought is to legalize drugs, and to provide heroin substitutes. This is the norm in Germany. So send some sociologists to Germany to find out whether that approach is better.
The big question is "How can we make this better?", whatever "better" means. The first thought is to legalize drugs, and to provide heroin substitutes. This is the norm in Germany. So send some sociologists to Germany to find out whether that approach is better.
3
I have to wonder if the detractors aren't a bit jealous.
5
Mr. Lubet: "Ms. Goffman’s statement suggests that “the story in the book wasn’t true,” ................ “One has to wonder what else she embellished.""
Another case of fake but accurate "embellishment"?
Another case of fake but accurate "embellishment"?
1
An objective, dispassionate sociologist from UW Madison. How delightful.
2
I just finished reading the book. This discussion actually confirms her thesis that reality is much too unbelievable...because people outside of the community cannot relate. So they deny the arrests, the inner city world activities, and the reality of that life. They are too outrageous - so they can't be believed - until we see it on a cell phone video shown on the front page of the NYT.
Some of these naysayers just made her point.
Some of these naysayers just made her point.
7
"until we see it on a cell phone video shown on the front page of the NYT."
Well, a publicly available arrest record would suffice for me. Or even the statements of persons caught up in this scenario, published on page 10 of the NYT.
Well, a publicly available arrest record would suffice for me. Or even the statements of persons caught up in this scenario, published on page 10 of the NYT.
2
Come on Folks, she was either "on the wagon" or fictionalizing. The later puts all her "stuff" on the line. I'd rather believe she was "involved." But, several peeks at her front photo makes me think this is a all a romantic tilt into what might have been clean-cut and straight-arrow report of what it means to be "on the lam" from any number of infractions under white law. Its the usual in the ghetto or the hood.
Look, do we wanna mess with this lady's motives? Why not give her some Glory for telling most of the TRUTH; rare enough these days. And reflect on what it means to be part of something that's moving with deadly force.
Or go to your local recruiter if your not a felon and sign up to kill people of different color.
Although not black or brown and no longer on-the-street, as an attorney once before the Sup Ct., I do know the value of candor and confession. If the writer's original motives are pure then her lurid stories right themselves in our heart of hearts.
Even so anything "wrong" puts off the blind, the lame, and the lost. Do we look for a reason not to believe?
Maybe SF offers a more tranquil idea because a person's perception of an ostensible "fact" is the hinge-point of how an actual event is interpreted in the "real" world where there is no consensual reality with regards to much of anything.
So much for "false memory" and other kinds of wishful thinking. I do not think this young woman was "taken for a ride". Allow her a writer's creative license.
Look, do we wanna mess with this lady's motives? Why not give her some Glory for telling most of the TRUTH; rare enough these days. And reflect on what it means to be part of something that's moving with deadly force.
Or go to your local recruiter if your not a felon and sign up to kill people of different color.
Although not black or brown and no longer on-the-street, as an attorney once before the Sup Ct., I do know the value of candor and confession. If the writer's original motives are pure then her lurid stories right themselves in our heart of hearts.
Even so anything "wrong" puts off the blind, the lame, and the lost. Do we look for a reason not to believe?
Maybe SF offers a more tranquil idea because a person's perception of an ostensible "fact" is the hinge-point of how an actual event is interpreted in the "real" world where there is no consensual reality with regards to much of anything.
So much for "false memory" and other kinds of wishful thinking. I do not think this young woman was "taken for a ride". Allow her a writer's creative license.
4
What is most astonishing is Goffman's glaring lack of judgment. She drives an angry young man who is carrying a gun to an expected confrontation? Because her intuition tells her that he's just going to blow off steam? Had there been a killing, she rightly would be charged as an accessory to murder, if not a murderer herself, under the felony murder rule.
If she is the kind of academic that Scott Walker's plans would remove from tenure consideration, more power to him. If hers is the kind of "adult judgment that academics are teaching our children, said academics should try their hand at selling insurance.
If she is the kind of academic that Scott Walker's plans would remove from tenure consideration, more power to him. If hers is the kind of "adult judgment that academics are teaching our children, said academics should try their hand at selling insurance.
8
The only relevant critiques are those from working sociologists. Too often today, the study of sociology is a race to quantify something that is eternally elusive and slippery: human behavior. Policy-makers (and grant-funders) only want a clear line between cause and effect. Conducting purely qualitative research in today's academic climate is a brave and difficult exercise.
TL;DR? If you don't know what you're talking about, close your mouth.
TL;DR? If you don't know what you're talking about, close your mouth.
5
The minute I hear the original data is no longer available, I start to smell rodents.
She went so far as to destroy the hard drive on which some or all of it was stored?
As others have noted, it is never acceptable to destroy the original data once an academic paper, study or book purporting to be the fruit of field work has been published.
Many things in life can be simultaneously true. Ms. Goffmann can have inspired considerable peer jealousy; men in academia can resent and try to thwart the rise of women in academia; and her work can still be legitimately questioned.
But it's never true that destroying that data is a good thing...
She went so far as to destroy the hard drive on which some or all of it was stored?
As others have noted, it is never acceptable to destroy the original data once an academic paper, study or book purporting to be the fruit of field work has been published.
Many things in life can be simultaneously true. Ms. Goffmann can have inspired considerable peer jealousy; men in academia can resent and try to thwart the rise of women in academia; and her work can still be legitimately questioned.
But it's never true that destroying that data is a good thing...
12
Data that can put actual real living people in danger can and perhaps should be destroyed.
2
I found it confusing to read that the assertion that some police had said that they would look to arrest black men at hospitals was followed by an explanation that ethnography would be about the perception of such a practice. This begs the question of whether the alleged interviews with the police officers occurred. Good ethnography states both the observations accurately as well as the subjects understanding of their environment.
2
Oh, how shocking. A witch hunt over a junior female academics work. The chances of multiple blog posts and public inquiry if she were old, white, and male? Zero.
2
The chance that this type of shoddy work would be defended if the assistant professor were white and male? Particularly if he became part of the daily workings of something foreign to him, like an abortion clinic?
Zero.
Zero.
5
Sorry to be writing again, but the turn that this comments section and other articles have taken is worrying. It is one thing to be have an academic critique but it is quite another to try to shred someone's career because you disagree with their methodology or findings. This has devolved to a sort of piling on that is doing nothing to advance methods or theory.
3
I read every word of the book. I teach high school anthropology and plan to use it with 11th and 12th graders. Did Goffman face tough ethical choices? I think so. How did she handle them, and what priorities do those choices reflect? I hope these questions will get my students thinking.
The fact these questions now are being asked does not mean Goffman did anything wrong. And if she did err, it was in the service of exposing the daily onslaught of institutional racism to (among others) under-policed White readers like me. Doesn't that matter? The fact she is white and upper middle class matters less to me than the fact she knows what this entails. She frequently cites Elijah Anderson and other ethnographers who critics might say have the "right" background to research the over-policed lives of young Black men.
I hope academia's worst tendencies (jealousy being #1) don't limit the potential impact this book could have.
The fact these questions now are being asked does not mean Goffman did anything wrong. And if she did err, it was in the service of exposing the daily onslaught of institutional racism to (among others) under-policed White readers like me. Doesn't that matter? The fact she is white and upper middle class matters less to me than the fact she knows what this entails. She frequently cites Elijah Anderson and other ethnographers who critics might say have the "right" background to research the over-policed lives of young Black men.
I hope academia's worst tendencies (jealousy being #1) don't limit the potential impact this book could have.
5
It seems that the majority of Times reader is for Ms Goffman, that she's a well-intentioned academic who might have crossed some lines and cut some corners, but did solid field work nonetheless.
But there is just too much wiggle room in ethnography for stuff that is simply unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Has ANYONE actually met ANY of these people she was embedded with? Can ANYONE verify a SINGLE fact related in her study?
Isn't it curious that not a single person written about in her book has come forward to confirm or deny Ms. Goffman's account? Everything is through her filter, through her voice, through her eyes, through her interpretation. It is as though the black men in her book were ghosts, silent, invisible, gone.
But there is just too much wiggle room in ethnography for stuff that is simply unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Has ANYONE actually met ANY of these people she was embedded with? Can ANYONE verify a SINGLE fact related in her study?
Isn't it curious that not a single person written about in her book has come forward to confirm or deny Ms. Goffman's account? Everything is through her filter, through her voice, through her eyes, through her interpretation. It is as though the black men in her book were ghosts, silent, invisible, gone.
10
What passes as social science research is, too often, neither science nor research but rather political advocacy. In this case, a dose of self-promotion, class privilege, and an academic establishment so bent on youth worship that it can't think straight anymore combined to create a huge embarrassment for the field of sociology , The Times, and the activists who confuse truth with commitment.
7
As an anthropologist trained and experienced in participant observation and participatory action research, I may have a clearer insight into Goffman's experiences and her analysis of them than does Lubet, a professor of law. Lubet's charges and many of the comments seem to re-present the gaping and widening chasm between perspectives of privilege and perspectives of marginality in our society. I would like to echo the recommendation of another commentator: Before posting, at least read Goffman's thoughtful response to Lubet's charges: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/docs/goffman/A%20Reply%20to%20Profes...
1
Is there any positive changes for this population as a result of being "studied" by people like Ms. Goffman? I don't think so since this population has been studied in this way for over half a century and they still exist en mass.
I believe the motives of Ms Goffman and her ilk are good, well intended. But like many readers it makes me cringe to see blacks studied by white people who, while well intended, the power imbalance can't help but make it seem patronizing. And I do believe many of the researchers and those who follow their studies often live vicariously through the suffering of the subjects and are more in love with the feeling of "goodness" it brings them then they are with the people depicted. I do not think if forced to live in the same community with the subjects for non-research purposes these advocates would have the same compassion and warmth.
I believe the motives of Ms Goffman and her ilk are good, well intended. But like many readers it makes me cringe to see blacks studied by white people who, while well intended, the power imbalance can't help but make it seem patronizing. And I do believe many of the researchers and those who follow their studies often live vicariously through the suffering of the subjects and are more in love with the feeling of "goodness" it brings them then they are with the people depicted. I do not think if forced to live in the same community with the subjects for non-research purposes these advocates would have the same compassion and warmth.
5
I haven't read the book, but the criticism that the author made an ethical or criminal violation by being deeply involved with her subjects seems petty at best and disingenuous at worst.
It seems the real complaint is a worry that studying criminals might lead to humanizing them and seeing them sympathetically. That complaint comes only from those who seek to promote an ideology that criminals aren't human and don't merit the moral considerations uniquely given to humans. That's an opinion, but it isn't validated by scientific evidence.
And funny, I didn't hear the same objections when Vice president Cheney said the nation must actually go over to "The Dark Side" to defend our ideals. In retrospect, that strategy is now seen to have been a mistake that simply provided factual recruiting material for our adversaries. The author of this book didn't do anything nearly as extreme as what Cheney directed, yet is being severely criticized.
It seems the real complaint is a worry that studying criminals might lead to humanizing them and seeing them sympathetically. That complaint comes only from those who seek to promote an ideology that criminals aren't human and don't merit the moral considerations uniquely given to humans. That's an opinion, but it isn't validated by scientific evidence.
And funny, I didn't hear the same objections when Vice president Cheney said the nation must actually go over to "The Dark Side" to defend our ideals. In retrospect, that strategy is now seen to have been a mistake that simply provided factual recruiting material for our adversaries. The author of this book didn't do anything nearly as extreme as what Cheney directed, yet is being severely criticized.
3
Black people can tell our own story, white people never get fact and history about Black people even 205 right. they are only in it to make tons of money, period.
3
If it was money she wanted to make she would have become a dentist, economist or hedge-fund manager. Would have been much safer choices.
This is the sort of rubbishy attack women scholars and writers have to face. Years ago Bharti Mukherjee was criticized for being a privileged woman writing about the poor. As I remember, her response said that the critic sought to assassinate her imagination. People with narrow thoughts often believe that scholars and writers can only know and describe people from one's own milieu. Rather depressing to those with wide-ranging minds.
Very, very troubled. If this passes for sociology, the field should be expelled from the academy. As a grad student at Penn at the time, this work smacks of truthiness that is far too common among undergrads. Look, I know rape and the criminal justice system are two things that need reform, but if Susan Erdkey and Alice Goffman can't find factual bits of evidence to support "what everyone knows", they don't deserve to be alumni of Pennn, let alone tenure track at UW or Rolling Stone ...
15
As an emergency physician with 25 years of experience in both public and private urban hospitals serving a diverse population, I have NEVER seen or heard of a patient being arrested in the emergency department because "police officers run the names of patients." This information is not available to police unless there is an active investigation. Arrests have been made for a current or active investigation - say a shooting where one of the victims is getting treatment in the emergency department or a car accident relating to driving under the influence. This information in Miss Goffman's book is false.
22
the person in question was a VISITOR to the hospital, not a patient. patient info is protected by HIPAA but visitor logs are not. and just because you didn't see something happen where you live and work, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened elsewhere.
3
As was pointed out in another context, the real peer review begins after publication.
If this book is fundamentally flawed it will quickly pass into obscurity. At the moment it's been cited 39 times according to scholar.google.com.
If it's still at 39 a year from now then the real reviewer have decided.
If this book is fundamentally flawed it will quickly pass into obscurity. At the moment it's been cited 39 times according to scholar.google.com.
If it's still at 39 a year from now then the real reviewer have decided.
7
It can take 20 or more years before the flaws are revealed and meantime various untruths have become imbedded in the public consciousness. I have certainly heard about people being afraid to go to the hospital ( in this case illegal Latinos) before. And it does seem to make sense that people might be afraid even if it was unlikely that what they feared might happen did happen.
STATISTICS please.
STATISTICS please.
2
Dear Mr. Lubet: if I'm a journalist, and I'm embedded with troops in the act of covering an illegal war, does that make me guilty of war crimes?
17
If you drove a soldier to massacre a family of Arabs during war, knowing what the soldier was about to do, then you are guilty, Josh.
She was not embedded with Mike. She was driving him to a potential kill. She knew he had heat packed.
She was not embedded with Mike. She was driving him to a potential kill. She knew he had heat packed.
2
Not a few would say yes, but that would be unfair. As a journo pumping news and perhaps opinions on this adventure, however, you could be tagged with abetting a poisonous political agenda, being a tool of bad people, or perhaps a loose-cannon media person who perhaps never understood the strictures and mores, such as they are, of journalism. There are few journalists today among the legions of "media people." Many people believe journalism is, actually, just taking dictation. Others believe you have the power of a prosecutor. The answer is not somewhere in between.
1
If a soldier turns to you and says, "They just killed my buddy. Will you drive me to this house so I can shoot everyone inside?" Then yes, you are guilty of a war crime.
2
Like many of the writers, I am and have been a tenured teaching and research faculty member in both private and public institutions of higher learning. The survival of any faculty member grows from productive participation in the academy, which can be defined as teaching, committee work, collaboration with networks, or most prestigiously, publications. Yet, the academy is essentially conservative and is not interested in new, pioneering, challenging research but in publications that validate existing knowledge, hence the intrinsic tension. Indeed, much social science and even humanities research is increasingly couched in theory, rather than fieldwork (in the broadest sense). If a faculty member manages to be awarded tenure, s/he has much more leeway to pursue innovative research (the difficulty in eliminating tenured faculty becomes obvious). However, Ms. Goffman makes others feel uncomfortable because she has dared to present provocative research before the commonly accepted "right time". I am glad that she did.
22
"The academy is essentially conservative" on some planet, but it's not ours.
2
Please note conservative with a "c", not a "C", as in resisting change. It is not used in a political sense. Instituting even minor obviously-needed change related to either teaching or research or anything else is very difficult. Introducing innovative research can be especially difficult.
2
It is common practice, in my view, for police to do a "check" on any and everyone around a crime incident. If you're a passenger in a vehicle, especially if you're male, you've got to produce identification and your name is sent through their database.
4
Someone's probably mentioned this, but it seems passing strange the article did not mention that the author is the daughter of Erving Goffman, one of the most notable social scientist of the 20th century. A scholar who greatly influenced the work of my own dissertation sponsor at Columbia and I suppose by osmosis my own work (such as it was) as well.
4
What is the point of this comment?
2
If Alice Goffman were Alvin Goffman, nobody would fuss. If Steven Lubet had achieved anywhere near the media attention and fame as Dr. Goffman, he'd also not be fussing. Oh, in my opinion.
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com
8
Charging sexism is the easy way out here for Goff's defenders.
2
Ms. Goffman played a very fun game. The game is called "pretend you're oppressed." Like many bourgeois white people before her, she played this game by exploiting the tragic realities of economically disadvantaged African-Americans. Under the guise of "scholarship" and "social science" and "activism", Goffman got to pretend that she is hunted and oppressed. She was able to immerse herself in an environment of constant drama; she got to be "down"; she had the opportunity to imagine that she had a "beef".
And then she went home.
This is an experience that is so desirable to white bourgeois pseudo-humanists that her book received many positive reviews, in the Times (of course) and elsewhere, and has sold quite well. When people read the book, they believe that they have "done something"; they believe that they may have even, in some sense, committed an act of activism themselves. And the subjects of her work - the sources of her fame - continue to make the same bad decisions in the same terrible environment.
And all, I guess, is well.
And then she went home.
This is an experience that is so desirable to white bourgeois pseudo-humanists that her book received many positive reviews, in the Times (of course) and elsewhere, and has sold quite well. When people read the book, they believe that they have "done something"; they believe that they may have even, in some sense, committed an act of activism themselves. And the subjects of her work - the sources of her fame - continue to make the same bad decisions in the same terrible environment.
And all, I guess, is well.
16
A young sociologist writes a book which is much heralded because of it's relevance to current shocking events that are unfolding as a result of long simmering problems which have been neglected because it affects basically a segment of our population completely disenfranchised. I remember an early book by an author who claimed to have lived the life of these unfortunate people for a few days ( I forget the name of the author ). It was much heralded like this book only to be debunked, as all the incidents in the book were concocted. I am therefore reticent to believe Alice Goffman's experiences. If she had touted this book as fiction then I would be cheering her for her awareness of what's wrong with our society today. But as facts from her personal foray for a few days, is slightly hard to digest. Suffice to say, I will not buy her book but I will continue my subscription to the New York Times.
4
Hers was not a foray of a few days but of six years and counting.
1
If all her accounts in the book are true, then she must face the rap of (1) obstructing justice (not telling cops where Mike was when they showed up with warrant for arrest and when she knew) and of (2) Conspiracy to commit murder (she had mens rea in that she was overcome with a sense of vengeance and that she transported a guy who was packing heat with the intent to kill).
If at least some of her accounts are false, then she must be fired from UW and her Ph.D degree taken away.
Lose-lose proposition, Alice.
If at least some of her accounts are false, then she must be fired from UW and her Ph.D degree taken away.
Lose-lose proposition, Alice.
10
Should UW take away her undergraduate degree too? What about her high school diploma—should UW take that away? How about her high school library card—and her 6th grade soccer trophy too?
Only UW can terminate Goffman from her position, which would be imprudent given that she has not been arrested or charged with misconduct, let alone a crime or civil suit. And only U.Penn could rescind her Ph.D. (not UW), but that would require that Goffman acted out the charged misconduct during her doctoral studies AND hid those actions from her doctoral faculty, dissertation committee, or university.
I think the criticism of her book and ideas are valid, but your comment and many others are reminiscent of mob rule and a public hanging.
Only UW can terminate Goffman from her position, which would be imprudent given that she has not been arrested or charged with misconduct, let alone a crime or civil suit. And only U.Penn could rescind her Ph.D. (not UW), but that would require that Goffman acted out the charged misconduct during her doctoral studies AND hid those actions from her doctoral faculty, dissertation committee, or university.
I think the criticism of her book and ideas are valid, but your comment and many others are reminiscent of mob rule and a public hanging.
1
"Ms. Goffman describes driving the car when a young man named Mike went looking for the man who had recently killed their close friend Chuck. In Ms. Goffman’s account, Mike, with a gun tucked into his pants, gets out of the car to approach someone. The man turns out not to be the killer, and no shots are fired, but Ms. Goffman describes being deeply shaken by the recognition of what she calls “my desire for vengeance.”
Whether or not this shows that Alice Goffman was involved in a conspiracy to murder does not determine whether her account of events is valid. But because it shows involvement in a potentially dangerous event it does show that she was too close to her subject, which can raise the question of whether her account is objective.
Whether or not this shows that Alice Goffman was involved in a conspiracy to murder does not determine whether her account of events is valid. But because it shows involvement in a potentially dangerous event it does show that she was too close to her subject, which can raise the question of whether her account is objective.
13
Nonsense. why is President Obama a educated person, why is Colin Powell, Charles Rangle, and thousands of other "Black" citizens law abiding citizens? Has any body talked or worked with black co workers? Nobody seems to really know the reasons for crime anywhere in any group. America fought a civil war to end slavery but the black prejudice continues. the black so called underclass is it's worst enemy.
2
I haven't read her book so I should be careful in judging both academics, but I feel the topic is so much more important then nitpicking the details of the topic. It's like discussing the accuracy of the true colors of a Nazi banner instead trying to understand the rise of national socialism. It is a bit of a bold comparison but the inequality in America should be the real topic. Even if she fantasized parts of the story, the story still stands. America should rise up against the inequality and really try do something about it. (I'm an European living in the US)
4
Facts matter.
1
Re: "... I feel the topic is so much more important then [sic] nitpicking the details ..."
Sure fella. Because when something is "important", the "details" don't matter.
Sure fella. Because when something is "important", the "details" don't matter.
1
You totally got it!
I haven't read the book and a couple of things stand out:
1) She destroyed her field notes, which is essentially the data upon which her book is based. In my discipline, you hold on to your data indefinitely so it can always be proven if need be. It is never acceptable to destroy data for any reason!
2) Even if she were worried about her subjects' identities, she could have deidentified the data, which is the mandated procedure according to most Institutional Review Boards.
3) I seriously doubt that her subjects were willing to expose their inner lives as described in the article. I am an African American woman and I study African Americans. One of the initial barriers that I have to work through is scientific mistrust. In every academic job I have held, African Americans did not trust anyone (including me) claiming to do research from those respective institutions. There is a history of exploitation (e.g., Tuskegee Experiment) among African Americans so the mistrust is warranted. Every time I begin a new project, I have to work through feelings of mistrust even though I am African American. I find it extremely difficult to believe that low-income African Americans freely trusted an upper class White woman with such sensitive topics.
1) She destroyed her field notes, which is essentially the data upon which her book is based. In my discipline, you hold on to your data indefinitely so it can always be proven if need be. It is never acceptable to destroy data for any reason!
2) Even if she were worried about her subjects' identities, she could have deidentified the data, which is the mandated procedure according to most Institutional Review Boards.
3) I seriously doubt that her subjects were willing to expose their inner lives as described in the article. I am an African American woman and I study African Americans. One of the initial barriers that I have to work through is scientific mistrust. In every academic job I have held, African Americans did not trust anyone (including me) claiming to do research from those respective institutions. There is a history of exploitation (e.g., Tuskegee Experiment) among African Americans so the mistrust is warranted. Every time I begin a new project, I have to work through feelings of mistrust even though I am African American. I find it extremely difficult to believe that low-income African Americans freely trusted an upper class White woman with such sensitive topics.
23
You have a point but maybe read her book (get it from the library if you don't want to buy) and then see what you think.
I don't agree with the position that Ms. Goffman is criminally culpable. Well, perhaps technically. But you are out of your mind if you think a jury would convict her.
But, I do think that, like the study retracted in Science last week on attitudes toward gays, the woman is a little too invested in, and cozy with, the subject(s) of her study.
Indeed, the politicization of research and science - something we see more & more - is worse than the crime of which Ms. Goffman is accused.
But, I do think that, like the study retracted in Science last week on attitudes toward gays, the woman is a little too invested in, and cozy with, the subject(s) of her study.
Indeed, the politicization of research and science - something we see more & more - is worse than the crime of which Ms. Goffman is accused.
8
Sounds as though Mr. Lubet wants to sell more articles or write a book.
6
The terrible thing is that while Lubet considers the author committed a crime by being with someone looking for revenge, millions of Americans everyday arm themselves, shoot first and kill, claim self defense and find out later the black kid was carrying skiddles and soda pop. This author may have a lot of things wrong, but the greatest wrong is white prejudice leading to deaths of unarmed blacks without punishment for the often white and gun toting offenders.
4
What I get from Professor Lubet and a lot of the commentators is a lot of ill will towards someone who has been far too successful at too young an age. Alice Goffman has performed a gutsy urban ethnography that has told us something new about the fraught world of poor blacks in a way that brings out the context in which their hostile and fearful interactions make sense. In doing so, she joins an estimable sociological tradition that runs from W I Thomas through to William Whyte to Laud Humphreys among others. My concern is that the petty attacks on her research and her reputation will discourage other young scholars from taking similar risks in behalf of an original and vital sociology- a tonic urgently needed by the discipline and far more useful than the endless and meaningless statistical drivel currently in fashion.
16
I support this comment for 110%
It's a book not an academic paper ... but in any case, let those who disagree bring their own work to the table.
9
If you want to write fiction, do not pretend it was research.
12
What do you know? Apparently you never tried to find out what it means to take notes for 6 years and gain the trust of the people you observe.
1
Doesn't Mr Lubet have any real criminals to out? I suppose he could make a citizen's arrest of Ms. Goffman, but no actual murder happened, and a conspiracy trial might be more trouble than it's worth. Just Twitter shame her. That's what the outraged-in-passing are doing these days.
7
How many times am I going to stories about see male professionals trying to trash female professionals over trivial issues? She may have committed a crime? She's going to be tried and convicted in the press by male "prosecutors"? I think there are real issues about white liberal academics trying to vicariously experience the lives of disadvantaged non-whites. She's already been criticized for that and will continue to be. Please skip the trivial "crime" accusations that nothing to do with anything.
11
Charging sexism here is complete avoidance of the issues.
3
This is so not about female vs. male. As a feminist I find that insulting. Alice Goffman is a fraud. Please don't defend with the cloak of "sexism."
2
the violent poses struck by underclass young men often seem directed to a mainstream audience, a way of saving face in the presence of material inequality. i hope goffman accounted vigilantly for the effects she may have had on her subjects' behavior. perhaps the car ride in question was never a conspiracy to do anyone harm; rather, it was a made-up drama meant to impress someone unmistakably from a more privileged class.
10
Prissy white academics have no understanding that because of the criminalization of nearly everything, most people are doing something illegal most of the time. But cops aren't watching prissy white academics, they watch poor blacks and hispanics, so that's who get caught. These professors criticizing one of their own who broke the mold should descend from their ivory towers and help to solve the problems, instead of bolstering their own publication records like leeches.
6
Shame on the New York Times for giving credence and even prominence to this story. I have not read Goffman's book, but the criticisms are standard fare for attacks on any social science that is not strictly driven by quantitative analysis.
The kind of research Dr. Goffman conducted is difficult, dangerous and requires substantial sacrifice. She deserves respect for attempting to shine a light on a part of the population of this country that most people would frankly prefer to ignore. Does this mean her methods or conclusions are above criticism? No. But to criticize the book by saying that an episode it discusses "was not good behavior" is to completely miss the point.
There is a real question about whether outsiders (especially white elites) can effectively give voice to people in "the hood," but that's a separate issue, one that people doing ethnographic research are generally well aware of.
Nonetheless, this is mostly an academic dispute over method that does not belong in the Times. Its presence here feels a bit too much like another piece in an effort by some to undermine the credibility of academia. That, itself, is news. This dispute is not.
The kind of research Dr. Goffman conducted is difficult, dangerous and requires substantial sacrifice. She deserves respect for attempting to shine a light on a part of the population of this country that most people would frankly prefer to ignore. Does this mean her methods or conclusions are above criticism? No. But to criticize the book by saying that an episode it discusses "was not good behavior" is to completely miss the point.
There is a real question about whether outsiders (especially white elites) can effectively give voice to people in "the hood," but that's a separate issue, one that people doing ethnographic research are generally well aware of.
Nonetheless, this is mostly an academic dispute over method that does not belong in the Times. Its presence here feels a bit too much like another piece in an effort by some to undermine the credibility of academia. That, itself, is news. This dispute is not.
6
The dispute is not about her method of study here; it is rightly about what she passes off as facts in her research. Those facts, if true, expose her to criminal rap; if untrue (some of them clearly are: cops going to maternity wards to demand and go through list of patients and visitors to arrest women on warrants, etc.), then she does not deserve the riches she made from her book and speeches.
That's all.
That's all.
1
Funny stuff
1
About a month after I met Mike, the cops raided his uncle’s house in the middle of the night. Mike, who was 22 at the time, had slept at his girlfriend’s that night, and his uncle called there around 4 a.m. to tell him to leave immediately, since they would probably come to her place next. Mike was wanted on a shooting charge, though he denied being involved in any shooting or even owning a gun. (From Ms. Goffman's oped in the Times in May 2014)
-------------------------------------
If the above account in her book is true, then she must also be guilty of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and sheltering a fugitive from law.
The only way she can get out of all these criminal raps is to claim that she made all of that up, in which case, she is guilty of exploiting black experiences to enrich herself and to fool gullible liberals.
-------------------------------------
If the above account in her book is true, then she must also be guilty of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and sheltering a fugitive from law.
The only way she can get out of all these criminal raps is to claim that she made all of that up, in which case, she is guilty of exploiting black experiences to enrich herself and to fool gullible liberals.
7
?????
Could you explain? She wasn't present or involved in any way, from what I can tell.
Could you explain? She wasn't present or involved in any way, from what I can tell.
I can now see why stop and frisk may be a good policy to keep neighborhoods safe and free of suspects, what with so many in our 'sixth streets' wanted on outstanding warrants and so many working the underground drug economy because they cannot get jobs in regular economy.
Inmates are running the asylum, folks.
Inmates are running the asylum, folks.
2
The truth is, the vast majority of sociology would not survive serious scientific scrutiny regarding data, methods, and interpretations -- if these were even open and publicly available in the first place (in most cases these are not, certainly not to a sufficient extent). Yet sociology goes on because most of it is irrelevant enough to the real world and real world decision-making these days that nobody bothers to look very closely. Groupthink, academic tribalism and politics mostly carries the day.
For starters, I suggest a recent book by a rogue sociologist at UCSD, Reinventing Evidence in Social Inquiry: Decoding Facts and Variables, for those who want to find out more about the inconvenient truths lurking within the "science" of sociology as it is currently practiced - http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/reinventing-evidence-in-social-inqui...
If the author weren't so nice (or weren't so worried about his own job), he really could just as well have called out his sociological colleagues for being intellectual frauds.
For starters, I suggest a recent book by a rogue sociologist at UCSD, Reinventing Evidence in Social Inquiry: Decoding Facts and Variables, for those who want to find out more about the inconvenient truths lurking within the "science" of sociology as it is currently practiced - http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/reinventing-evidence-in-social-inqui...
If the author weren't so nice (or weren't so worried about his own job), he really could just as well have called out his sociological colleagues for being intellectual frauds.
3
You're over-hyping this whole deal. I hope it's not simply because you have an ax to grind with sociology.
Seriously. Trying to become part of the group you're studying, and then expecting to provide a truthful picture of that group, is like traveling back in time to examine a society by walking around its marketplaces and renting a room in one of its villages, and imagining that your mere presence has not profoundly altered the way people behave around you.
I would imagine Ms. Goffmann was taken for many rides by these young men, and did not have the self-awareness or maturity to discern that.
Margaret Mead was roundly made a fool of by the Samoans, who weren't fools, and had considerable laughter at her expense. I don't doubt that Ms. Goffmann's subjects did the same.
I would imagine Ms. Goffmann was taken for many rides by these young men, and did not have the self-awareness or maturity to discern that.
Margaret Mead was roundly made a fool of by the Samoans, who weren't fools, and had considerable laughter at her expense. I don't doubt that Ms. Goffmann's subjects did the same.
9
We all know about the famous Milgram experiment. Read the "ethics" section here if you do not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Today the academic community would condemn Stanley Milgram without hesitation...while standing on his shoulders.
Today the academic community would condemn Stanley Milgram without hesitation...while standing on his shoulders.
2
This sensationalist piece merely distracts from the elephant in the room. Where is data on which her book is based? Where is the replication of her results? Until the time that she makes her data and analysis public, her book is a (well-written) piece of fiction. An episode of The Wire. Entirely plausible, but not science. Not close to it. There have been to many academic frauds recently for us to take her on her word.
10
replication of results? this is an ethnography. it is not possible to replicate the results of an ethnography - there's no way you could recreate the same time, people, and place. that doesn't make it any less valid as research, though. many, many academic fields rely upon research that's not replicable, and they're still valid. (anything related to real cities and real communities for example.)
3
Exactly! But it is also possible to fabricate or embroider field notes...
2
I haven't read the book but reading this article makes me ill. What a bunch of jealous men. One of them questions why she didn't publish her work as an academic paper instead of a book. Could she have hoped for a greater impact and wider audience for a story that is timely and important to public understanding of the racial crisis at hand? Most of the attackers here seem not to have much, if anything, to back up their own claims! Yet here they are, publishing suppositions and trying to tear down someone who is 'not like them.'
5
The point in regard to the paper vs book is quite clear. Books do not get peer reviewed, academic papers do. It is a fair question to ask. In fact, all real academics welcome others in their field testing their theories and claims. They don't take it personally. If that is your best argument then it seems more like deflection. Sorry, but at this point it has been shown that this woman's work is very questionable. More people should question things, we'd all be better off.
2
I will amend my earlier comment regarding hospitals in Philadelphia asking visitors to sign in. The article doesn't mention it, but Goffman does say that many hospitals in Philly do this. I didn't know that - I live in Philly but my personal experiences are not at inner city hospitals, where perhaps this is more common. She also states that Children's Hospital of Philadelphia asks visitors to sign it. It seems to be about protecting patients. Goffman rightly points out that HIPAA protects patients' privacy, not that if visitors.
4
The article does not mention that Alice Goffman is the daughter of the distinguished Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman who died when she was a year old.
2
Why or how does it matter that she is the daughter of her father?
1
I guess this matters because it shows that, at least in the selection of a father, she was capable of good judgment.
2
It is always a good thing to dissect supposed reported facts and accurately determine what was or was not.
If she fabricated anything, that should be known.
If she broke the law, that too should be acknowledged. As the case seems to be.
Perhaps if the author was trained as an unbiased anthropologist rather than as a pseudo sociologist the conversation about her book might be more in line with how good the ethnography is, because it would be a different story.
But that seems not to be the case; now that others have read and dissected its content, as others, readers, should.
Let the reviews continue.
If she fabricated anything, that should be known.
If she broke the law, that too should be acknowledged. As the case seems to be.
Perhaps if the author was trained as an unbiased anthropologist rather than as a pseudo sociologist the conversation about her book might be more in line with how good the ethnography is, because it would be a different story.
But that seems not to be the case; now that others have read and dissected its content, as others, readers, should.
Let the reviews continue.
4
Why is it that these bleeding hearts pay tribute to the worst of us? Isn't the more interesting story not those who willing choose to be violent drug dealers (and justifiably suffer for it) but the poor and working class folks who struggle but manage to NOT commit crimes? Shouldn't our concern and understanding extent to the struggles of honest citizens?
5
What if "the worst among us" are those who call others "bleeding hearts"?
Lubet, who is a well regarded trial advocacy teacher and writer, is way off base on this matter. Ms. Goffman's work has probably been overpraised and deserves some correction, but for someone with Mr. Lubet's position and seniority to accuse her of conspiracy to murder smacks of bullying and publicity seeking by Mr. Lubet. Shame.
12
"smacks of bullying" Really, so if someone calls into question or ask a question or doubt someone it is NOW bulling.
2
"Whether police really run the names matters,” Mr. Cohen said. “But what Goffman is really arguing is that the justice system, including the beliefs these men have about it, contaminates their relationship to hospitals and other institutions."
Mr. Cohen clearly did not read the relevant vignette. Ms. Goffman is not reporting the claims of her respondents, but rather claims to have personally witnessed the arrest and confirmed the practice by interviewing unnamed officers. If the claim is indeed false, which I have not doubt it is based on over 25 years experience on both sides of the trial bar and never having any client, defendant or officer mention such a practice, she is the one creating the false impression and thereby damaging those she supposedly cares about. Given that she has destroyed all of her notes and even her hard drive making verification impossible, nothing she claims should be believed until verified by completely independent, reproducible sources.
Mr. Cohen clearly did not read the relevant vignette. Ms. Goffman is not reporting the claims of her respondents, but rather claims to have personally witnessed the arrest and confirmed the practice by interviewing unnamed officers. If the claim is indeed false, which I have not doubt it is based on over 25 years experience on both sides of the trial bar and never having any client, defendant or officer mention such a practice, she is the one creating the false impression and thereby damaging those she supposedly cares about. Given that she has destroyed all of her notes and even her hard drive making verification impossible, nothing she claims should be believed until verified by completely independent, reproducible sources.
12
So she's being criticized for being a privileged white woman slumming in the name of sociology? Not intending to draw an equivalency between the observed groups, but Jane Goodall was accepted by her subjects; she is praised, but Goffman is criticized? This doesn't pass the smell test. In another field- history- first-hand accounts of events are considered "primary source material." Maybe Goffman should change her area of study; her observations might be considered in a more positive light.
9
Has no one Black and from these neighborhoods anything to say about the accuracy of the book? This isn't an animal study: the subjects can speak.
38
As a lawyer reading this review, I am compelled to ask how Prof. Lubet can go so far on so little. Murder involves intent, proving conspiracy is a delicate and complex process in criminal law, and possession of a gun these days does not mean anything, although it probably should. I would suspect that just going into neighborhoods such as Ms. Goffman did risks being caught up in criminal activity, but her intent was to investigate, not to kill. Should anyone interested in finding out what is happening in our distressed society always have to contend with this knee-jerk response about the law, we would find out nothing about the serious issues we face today.
49
In the book, Professor Goffman says she drove the car the night Mike and friends went looking either for the killer of their friend Chuck or the killer's friends/family. She says she "wanted Chuck's killer to die."
That's plenty of intent. Whether a prosecutor would bother with this or a court would convict is a separate question.
That's plenty of intent. Whether a prosecutor would bother with this or a court would convict is a separate question.
2
Why is he Prof. Lubet and she Ms. Goffman? (Doesn't she have a PhD and teach in a university? Prof. or Dr. Goffman is appropriate, unless you're meaning to undermine her.)
4
If the level of scholarship at UW has descended to a level that a tenure track assistant professor destroys all supporting data for an acclaimed book, then Scott Walker is absolutely right in curtailing tenure.
9
Wow, talk about leaps of logic. There is no indication that UW approved of this study/book, or provided any level of funding. Ms. Goffman's scholarship will be subject to review annually by colleagues and the university. There is no guarantee she will receive tenure at some future date or ever, particularly if her record of scholarship is questionable. The tenure process provides accountability, not a cover for substandard scholarship.
Old news.
More to the point: that she may have done questionable things (or not) does not negate points she is trying to illustrate. She uses what she saw and experienced to identify themes or issues.
OF COURSE perception is involved...is implicit in all writing. No two people can view the same event, even the same object the same way given limitations of space and time.
All of these issues raised are important....but to focus solely upon them is to miss what Prof. Goffman is pointing to.
Critique away, but be open to what is being pointed out; like all research, it adds to a complexity of understanding, not in and of itself but in context with what we already know and have read.
More to the point: that she may have done questionable things (or not) does not negate points she is trying to illustrate. She uses what she saw and experienced to identify themes or issues.
OF COURSE perception is involved...is implicit in all writing. No two people can view the same event, even the same object the same way given limitations of space and time.
All of these issues raised are important....but to focus solely upon them is to miss what Prof. Goffman is pointing to.
Critique away, but be open to what is being pointed out; like all research, it adds to a complexity of understanding, not in and of itself but in context with what we already know and have read.
5
According to the article in the New Republic, Ms. Goffman shredded her field notes, used pseudonyms for all subjects - and hospitals, etc., and has criticized Mr. Lubet for trying to check her facts with police and prosecutors.
People love drama, and since fabricated stories from the Rolling Stone article on rape, the "composite" piece that won a Pulitzer Prize (later retracted), the story of Jessica Lynch and (according to Seymour Hersh at least) the assassination of Osama bin Laden sell magazines, books and politicians, we should by now have reached the stage where we can applaud the entertainment without actually believing anything. Since most of these stories confirm what we already believe, or would like to believe, why not?
Truth is so boring.
People love drama, and since fabricated stories from the Rolling Stone article on rape, the "composite" piece that won a Pulitzer Prize (later retracted), the story of Jessica Lynch and (according to Seymour Hersh at least) the assassination of Osama bin Laden sell magazines, books and politicians, we should by now have reached the stage where we can applaud the entertainment without actually believing anything. Since most of these stories confirm what we already believe, or would like to believe, why not?
Truth is so boring.
6
Far from discrediting Goffman, the pharisaical Lubet does her a service by proving her point: there are malevolent forces at work in American society at all strata of the socioeconomic scale that villify, discredit, incarcerate, and destroy whomsoever they wish, for whatever ridiculous reasons that occur to them, and usually for obvious material gain.
Tragically, the discussion has moved away from Goffman's brilliant, albeit damning critique of certain facets of American society--and it is this folks, which most urgently deserves discussion--to whether she herself is a criminal. Yes, this is the very sort of thing the book intended to address. I cannot be the only one who sees the irony here.
I have been through the system from booking, to prison, to halfway house. There wasn't anything in Goffman's book that seemed exaggerated or out of the ordinary. I have see for myself how the authorities relentlessly hunt down so-called offenders for petty nonsense. And aren't we the society, by the way, which throws kids in jail for being late or absent from school? Given this little, by now well-known gem of cultural insanity, should we really find anything in Goffman's book surprising? I know for a fact that cops do sweeps of homeless shelters, and bus stations. I've seen it many times. A hospital wouldn't surprise me at all. So I wonder whether if Mr. Forman interviewed any poor blacks as Ms Goffman would probably have done to get the real story?
Tragically, the discussion has moved away from Goffman's brilliant, albeit damning critique of certain facets of American society--and it is this folks, which most urgently deserves discussion--to whether she herself is a criminal. Yes, this is the very sort of thing the book intended to address. I cannot be the only one who sees the irony here.
I have been through the system from booking, to prison, to halfway house. There wasn't anything in Goffman's book that seemed exaggerated or out of the ordinary. I have see for myself how the authorities relentlessly hunt down so-called offenders for petty nonsense. And aren't we the society, by the way, which throws kids in jail for being late or absent from school? Given this little, by now well-known gem of cultural insanity, should we really find anything in Goffman's book surprising? I know for a fact that cops do sweeps of homeless shelters, and bus stations. I've seen it many times. A hospital wouldn't surprise me at all. So I wonder whether if Mr. Forman interviewed any poor blacks as Ms Goffman would probably have done to get the real story?
14
I think every kind of writing is interpretive; they all need a point of view. Goffman's book reminds of of "Man Child in the Promise Land." The stories told don't necessarily have to be completely accurate to be real, not all of them, anyway.
1
I 'd suggest to everybody who wants to see tenure dismantled, universities orivatized, and everything run like a business--don't be all that surprised when you see profs shading and exaggerating so they can crank out something hip.
2
None of the people in this article look good. Sociology appears to be almost as dismal as economics.
5
I have three now grown sons raised in a predominantly black neighborhood of NW Philadelphia who have been randomly set upon by groups of neighborhood kids throughout their youth.
I can rhetorically ask why, knowing my answer will stem from the reality of living in an underlying racist culture for almost eighty years.
Life under Nazi rule made it clear that many in European society felt the need to kick some one and the Jews were the most identifiable target. Here Black and Native Americans have been herded, murdered and oppressed without regard to their humanity
It seems my sons may unfortunately join the ranks of soft core racists who while they have limited friends among other racial communities will always be wary and keep a distance from the majority of any other ethnic group.
It appears that we humans find comfort and group among those who most resemble us in shape, form, color, belief, intellect, wealth, activity and any other number of attractions that strike our fancy. I think this is normal and acceptable.
It is when we are urged to group by virtue of race, religion or wealth and this grouping demands, whether mindful or mindless, offensive and defensive attitudes toward others outside the group that problems occur.
I don't harbor any allusion that all people will like or even accept me, but I also don't want to be marginalized or worse set upon by others simply because I exist.
"On the Run" starts in childhood and is in the hands of adult parents.
I can rhetorically ask why, knowing my answer will stem from the reality of living in an underlying racist culture for almost eighty years.
Life under Nazi rule made it clear that many in European society felt the need to kick some one and the Jews were the most identifiable target. Here Black and Native Americans have been herded, murdered and oppressed without regard to their humanity
It seems my sons may unfortunately join the ranks of soft core racists who while they have limited friends among other racial communities will always be wary and keep a distance from the majority of any other ethnic group.
It appears that we humans find comfort and group among those who most resemble us in shape, form, color, belief, intellect, wealth, activity and any other number of attractions that strike our fancy. I think this is normal and acceptable.
It is when we are urged to group by virtue of race, religion or wealth and this grouping demands, whether mindful or mindless, offensive and defensive attitudes toward others outside the group that problems occur.
I don't harbor any allusion that all people will like or even accept me, but I also don't want to be marginalized or worse set upon by others simply because I exist.
"On the Run" starts in childhood and is in the hands of adult parents.
Rightly so, it sounds like the Black and Latino communities are getting sick of white academics exploiting and capitalizing on their experiences and despair for careerist self-promotion. How can these privileged individuals possibly "relate" to any of the suffering and injustices they write about on a human level when they are so far removed from them. Their examination and research is akin to a scientist looking at bacteria through the lens of a microscope, hardly a compassionate approach or viewpoint.
3
There's a long tradition of observers losing objectivity in the field. Eg., William White in Street Corner Society committing voter fraud, not to mention many ethnographic non-interventions in other crimes. As to veracity, her father may have been open to the same charge, but his theoretical contributions stand.
3
I am surprised at the lack of mention of her father--Erving Goffman--though he was mentioned in the NYT 2014 story on her. What did he and other ethnographers do with their notes? Does her practice follow that of her father or other participant observers?
Lots of people lose objectivity, not just researchers. Helping professionals do. Journalists do. It is difficult to judge a book and person by one vignette. But, maybe what she wrote resonates so much because we can conceive of her emotional involvement's being true, rather than falsely dramatized.
Who knows? Now I want to read the book--but get it from the public library in.consideration of my finances and so as not to add to her supposed ill-begotten economic success.
Lots of people lose objectivity, not just researchers. Helping professionals do. Journalists do. It is difficult to judge a book and person by one vignette. But, maybe what she wrote resonates so much because we can conceive of her emotional involvement's being true, rather than falsely dramatized.
Who knows? Now I want to read the book--but get it from the public library in.consideration of my finances and so as not to add to her supposed ill-begotten economic success.
What nonsense - you think she's getting rich off this book???
Alice Goffman deserves better. She is human, richly so, problematically so. She is trying to tell it like it is. Her line of work is itself problematic: it is immersive, and she got immersed: she developed respect, trust and loyalty with the people she was researching - people who in turn learned to trust and respect her and, surely, her research.
On the Run would not be under attack today but for its splendid 50 page autobiographical Methodological Note. Without it, Professor Lubet has zero grist to grind in his prosecutorial mill. The Note is arguably the bravest part of a brave book. It puts many cards on the table. It's a gift to the reader and the field of ethnography.
It features Goffman's detailed account of her all but traumatic attempts to transition from the profound connectedness of the 6th Street neighborhood - a genuine connectedness born of oppression - to the flimsy connectedness of academic life at Princeton: a disconnectedness, actually, born of the absence of anything that might truly connect academics today. Goffman describes what it's like to leave a world of people who strike one as real for a world of people who strike one as unreal. A rich and fertile field, this latter world, for future ethnographic exploration!
BTW Anyone seriously concerned with Lubet's accusations should read Goffman's response to them: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/docs/goffman/A%20Reply%20to%20Profes...
On the Run would not be under attack today but for its splendid 50 page autobiographical Methodological Note. Without it, Professor Lubet has zero grist to grind in his prosecutorial mill. The Note is arguably the bravest part of a brave book. It puts many cards on the table. It's a gift to the reader and the field of ethnography.
It features Goffman's detailed account of her all but traumatic attempts to transition from the profound connectedness of the 6th Street neighborhood - a genuine connectedness born of oppression - to the flimsy connectedness of academic life at Princeton: a disconnectedness, actually, born of the absence of anything that might truly connect academics today. Goffman describes what it's like to leave a world of people who strike one as real for a world of people who strike one as unreal. A rich and fertile field, this latter world, for future ethnographic exploration!
BTW Anyone seriously concerned with Lubet's accusations should read Goffman's response to them: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/docs/goffman/A%20Reply%20to%20Profes...
31
Thanks for linking that. I find her defense far more convincing than Lubet's charges.
2
I often wonder: how often do news reporters and photographers stand by talking, taking notes, and shooting photos and videos, without offering a hand, while crimes and disasters of all descriptions are taking place in real time? In many of these cases, it is tempting to think they might be able to intercede, albeit at some risk to themselves. Yet do they ever get charged with conspiracy, or get called for their inaction, even though their unwillingness to help fellow human beings allows the ongoing crime to continue, or results in the deaths of people who could have been rescued? Do they ever ask themselves these questions? Why do some human beings who are investigating a story get a pass, and others don't? Sociologist study social behavior. They are no more agents of law enforcement than are reporters and news photographers. Yet criticizing Alice Goffman for having gone along for the ride, regardless of whether she had the ability to predict the outcome of her adventure, is acceptable? What does Professor Lubet think about the news media?
1
There may be something to criticize in Ms. Goffman's book, her research methods, and the issue of whites immersing themselves in and writing about black communities. Fair enough.
But the emphasis on one online reviewers assertion is ridiculous. It is unfortunate that we live in a time where online hate is the norm. You can find it anywhere, even (gasp!) in the comments sections of NYT articles and commentary. It doesn't deserve more than a passing acknowledgement, if that. It should not be made the center of a critique of the author's work. By all means, critique her work on the substance and the merits, not on some online troll.
But the emphasis on one online reviewers assertion is ridiculous. It is unfortunate that we live in a time where online hate is the norm. You can find it anywhere, even (gasp!) in the comments sections of NYT articles and commentary. It doesn't deserve more than a passing acknowledgement, if that. It should not be made the center of a critique of the author's work. By all means, critique her work on the substance and the merits, not on some online troll.
4
"But some sociologists counter that ethnography is concerned not just with facts but with people’s perceptions of those facts, which powerfully shape their behavior and experience."
So, according to one fellow "sociologist," when Goffman wrote that cops check hospital records for people with outstanding warrants, it didn't matter whether any actual cops checked any actual records to find actual fugitives, but only that some Black people thought they might.
Call me crazy, but couldn't Goffman then have written, "Black people sometimes believe X happens, although there is no evidence that it does." Yes, sociology is supposed to study belief systems, but that's not what Goffman did here, is it? Rather, she did her best to further bolster an unfounded belief, which makes her an advocate, a fabulist, but hardly a scientist.
So, according to one fellow "sociologist," when Goffman wrote that cops check hospital records for people with outstanding warrants, it didn't matter whether any actual cops checked any actual records to find actual fugitives, but only that some Black people thought they might.
Call me crazy, but couldn't Goffman then have written, "Black people sometimes believe X happens, although there is no evidence that it does." Yes, sociology is supposed to study belief systems, but that's not what Goffman did here, is it? Rather, she did her best to further bolster an unfounded belief, which makes her an advocate, a fabulist, but hardly a scientist.
7
She could have written that if that is what occurred or she could be telling the truth about what some cops told her--or something in between. Maybe cops do run names for outstanding warrants when they bring people to hospitals or are called there. I'm not talking about its being right to grab someone who's waiting for his kid to be born because he has an outstanding warrant for failure to appear for some minor offense. There are some really bad actors out there who staff might suspect. Or the cops who bring others in. Most ERs and hospitals that I know of do not have metal detectors so I'd feel better if cops grabbed those with outstanding warrants for serious violent offenses who just might be wandering the hospital with a gun.
We don't know the degree of truth or falsity in what she says, do we? Ethnography is not empirical research with experimental and control groups. Both the latter and the former can provide valuable insight or sadly mislead.
We don't know the degree of truth or falsity in what she says, do we? Ethnography is not empirical research with experimental and control groups. Both the latter and the former can provide valuable insight or sadly mislead.
So she basically wrote a novel (fiction) for Liberal White people who could live vicariously about Blacks, who of course they would never want to sit next to on the subway let alone know and she made some bucks of the suckers.
5
it sounds like a conspiracy to me: an agreement to commit a crime and an overt act or acts - driving around to find the killer while armed with a gun - which went beyond preparation / planning. Professor Goffman wrote that she was motivated by "vengeance." I think Professor Lubet's point is that Professor Goffman had crossed a line and compromised her objectivity as a scholar and researcher.
5
I am not interested in this subject but I would like to make a general comment: if you spend 6 years in ANY community, you become kind of part of it. If the community does not respect the law properly, you most likely do not have any choice but to join them. Otherwise your reporting will NOT be authentic.
Of course, the idea of young white woman 'studying' young black men seems bit strange to me but people make sometimes strange choices for reasons hard to understand.
Of course, the idea of young white woman 'studying' young black men seems bit strange to me but people make sometimes strange choices for reasons hard to understand.
5
Having just read an article in NY times About Gov. Scott Walker's
legislative agenda regarding tenure and budget cuts at Wisconsin
universities ,she just may be out of a job.
legislative agenda regarding tenure and budget cuts at Wisconsin
universities ,she just may be out of a job.
3
She is white. Therefore, beyond criticism?
Others who are black, do nothing or only question why they are being stopped. The police forget that the reaction is normal, then escalate matters and gun black men down.
Others who are black, do nothing or only question why they are being stopped. The police forget that the reaction is normal, then escalate matters and gun black men down.
2
Tenured full professor gets annoyed with uppity (smart) assistant professor and decides to teach her a lesson.
4
I wouldn't want my daughter to go live with these folks. It would be dangerous.
If she even walked around alone in these neighborhoods, let alone went on a revenge ride, she took serious, inadvisable risks to her own personal safety. Mr Lubet and her other critics wouldn't dare to do it. They have not the courage (or foolhardiness). I'll bet her mama didn't approve, either. I'll leave the evaluation of veracity, scholarly worth, and legality to others.
If she even walked around alone in these neighborhoods, let alone went on a revenge ride, she took serious, inadvisable risks to her own personal safety. Mr Lubet and her other critics wouldn't dare to do it. They have not the courage (or foolhardiness). I'll bet her mama didn't approve, either. I'll leave the evaluation of veracity, scholarly worth, and legality to others.
I know her Mama, and she supported AG in all her work, as did the rest of the family. They are generous, open-minded, tolerant people who similarly support all their children.
1
It is important that authors of non-fiction works be both truthful to a fault, and impartial to the story itself. Knowingly driving an armed (illegal gun) man to shoot another man strikes me as wholly partial. Does this indicate that the entire book is worthless? No, but it does raise questions and Ms. Goffman should answer them to our satisfaction, lest her book be rendered fiction. My questions are these: Ms. Goffman, do you think it's permissible for you to commit a crime just so you can get your story? What if the armed man you drove fired shots and his target was killed, would you have turned yourself in as an accomplice to murder - a felony?
1
I'm honestly convinced that the plethora of reality shows and talent-judging shows has created an atmosphere here in the US where everyone finds it necessary to find fault and watch the contestant suffer publicly, most often to the glee of a Schadenfreude-sated audience urging him on.
Interesting: she commits an act (driving a man with a gun) that is either a crime or not a crime, depending on her intentions. She expects us to believe she had no mens rea (evil intent), but if she were a young black man, how likely is it that a jury would believe her version?
3
I think you got the point of the book!
Reality check Alice book is just tip of ice berg in usa where this experitment in freedom shows maor flaws if not cracks .On one hand we have entire group people feel they are right or put it more blantly can do no wrong .Its entitlement mentality in culture where other people suffer or die tragic deaths at hands of those who are right. If only we all just spend little lest time multitasking an pay attention doing simple task like driving we can advoid killing people because they make mistake . No one is right all time people in general are human to make mistakes an learn from not only our mistakes but others . Old saying to truly see ones self is to see our self thru ones we love an how they perceive us that is true image
Well, thank goodness for all those other academics who write flawless books.
4
If you write a novel, the only measure that counts is if somebody wants to read it. If you write a work purporting to be non-fiction, it's not unreasonable for people to expect it to actually be true.
8
In our society, it seems that one only has to talk about young inner city black men to get shot at. Never mind being one.
4
So why not read Harlan Ellison's "Memo from Purgatory"?
And, oh please, academics who fudge the facts? I don't want to hear
lame excuses from Ethnographers that feelings trump truth.
"But some sociologists counter that ethnography is concerned not just with facts but with people’s perceptions of those facts, which powerfully shape their behavior and experience."
And, oh please, academics who fudge the facts? I don't want to hear
lame excuses from Ethnographers that feelings trump truth.
"But some sociologists counter that ethnography is concerned not just with facts but with people’s perceptions of those facts, which powerfully shape their behavior and experience."
2
Just based on this article, it seems nothing has changed in extremely poor black communities since the 1960s. These men lead hopeless lives of drugs, crime and violence.
Whatever its faults, if Dr. Goffman's book brings some attention back to these forgotten lives, then she her accomplishment far outweighs what seem to be fairly minor issues about her methods.
Pres. Obama, when he was a community coordinator in poor Chicago neighborhoods in the 1980s, decided to get into politics so he could do something meaningful. Sadly, his presidency - especially his first term - his been marked by a lack of effort to help inner-city blacks. The fact is, if he had focused on the plight of these communities, he wouldn't have been elected to one term, much less two.
Whatever its faults, if Dr. Goffman's book brings some attention back to these forgotten lives, then she her accomplishment far outweighs what seem to be fairly minor issues about her methods.
Pres. Obama, when he was a community coordinator in poor Chicago neighborhoods in the 1980s, decided to get into politics so he could do something meaningful. Sadly, his presidency - especially his first term - his been marked by a lack of effort to help inner-city blacks. The fact is, if he had focused on the plight of these communities, he wouldn't have been elected to one term, much less two.
5
The man turns out not to be the killer, and no shots are fired, but Ms. Goffman describes being deeply shaken by the recognition of what she calls “my desire for vengeance.”
When she got into the car, “I had good reason to believe that this night would not end in violence or injury,” Ms. Goffman said in the statement. She added, “I went because I knew these drives were about expressing anger and about grieving, not about doing actual violence.”
-------------------------------------------
If her drive was about catharsis, and if she knew it, then why did she become 'shaken' with a 'desire for vengeance'? if that night ride actually ended in death, she would be in deeper hell-hole than she is now.
Another thing: if all that "Mike" wanted was a car ride to express anger and grief, where was the need for a gun and why was he allowed to get out of the car to confront a stranger in hopes of meeting the 'killer'?
I would bet that under any State and even under Federal law, she would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Remember that she is from Wisconsin or teaches there, and she describes going to a different state to be the driver of a 'would-have-been' get-away car. That may be a crime under Federal laws as well.
She made money by exploiting black experiences and by embellishing them.
Shame on her.
When she got into the car, “I had good reason to believe that this night would not end in violence or injury,” Ms. Goffman said in the statement. She added, “I went because I knew these drives were about expressing anger and about grieving, not about doing actual violence.”
-------------------------------------------
If her drive was about catharsis, and if she knew it, then why did she become 'shaken' with a 'desire for vengeance'? if that night ride actually ended in death, she would be in deeper hell-hole than she is now.
Another thing: if all that "Mike" wanted was a car ride to express anger and grief, where was the need for a gun and why was he allowed to get out of the car to confront a stranger in hopes of meeting the 'killer'?
I would bet that under any State and even under Federal law, she would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. Remember that she is from Wisconsin or teaches there, and she describes going to a different state to be the driver of a 'would-have-been' get-away car. That may be a crime under Federal laws as well.
She made money by exploiting black experiences and by embellishing them.
Shame on her.
5
As they say: "There is no such thing as bad publicity." I hope Goffman at least sends a thank you card.
3
This article raises some valid questions about numerous kinds of reporting using anonymous and unnamed sources and other widely prevalent methodologies in very broad use in the book writing trade (including the merging of the imagined with the real). And they apply far beyond the covers of this book. Unfortunately few if any answers are to be found here.
3
"Privileged white woman studying the natives." That reminds me of what was said about Margaret Mead, a pioneering anthropologist.
3
much of what i have been reading in the academic blogosphere sounds more like jealousy than scholarly critique. this is a common problem in the social sciences whereby the study of people should not be accessible to people. the other, more dangerous issue, is the idea that individual sociologists should not be 'allowed' to study people who are different from themselves. this reminds of complaints (not critiques) of elliot liebow's 'tally's corner.' alice's dad erving, who once was anathema to sociology only to later become the president of the american sociological association is probably rolling (laughing) in his grave at this absurdity. i am sure there will be a fox news debate on how far the craft of sociology has fallen.
1
I recommend "The Police Tapes", a documentary film from 1976. It offers insight into the world of police interaction with mostly minority citizens in South Bronx. And the motivations for bad behavior on both sides.
1
In a world where political correctness reigns (academia) we should not have any expectation of quality, rational scholarship. This is the flip side of Bush's war on science; likewise it starts with the result (which is always about how awful white men are) and then cooks the books to get to the desired result. Maybe we should put the professor in a "safe room" so that her feelings don't get hurt.
4
As suggested, the responses, and range of them, are mostly an "ethnography" about us. In a book that has had such reception, that can be a really informing--spending time with our own "inner cites" of heroes, victims, wizards, and fools.
1
I tried to read this book when it was published. Put it down after a few chapters. Something about it wasn't kosher; instead of reporting she was writing a biased David Simon-esque melodrama. Neither fish or fowl.
As far as her committing a felony, no DA worth their salt would touch it with a ten foot pole.
As far as her committing a felony, no DA worth their salt would touch it with a ten foot pole.
6
From this article it is clear that Goffman's book is not a scholarly work being shared with the public but a work of advocacy trying to convince the public to accept her point of view. To allow one's feelings about things to become part of a reasonable effort can result in an unreasonable product. When a person becomes involved in what that person is attempting to observe and to grasp with clarity, the participation can change the circumstances and distort the observations and confuse the entire effort.
6
Lubet has some issues in his past, like getting innocent people to confess to crimes his celebrity defendants were charged with.
2
As I walked a 7 block stretch of Upper West Side Broadway this morning, I saw at least what appeared to be a half dozen homeless black men. I asked the question why? Why, for every white homeless man in NYC I see, there are 10 black homeless men? These are questions that trigger research by academics and sociologists. All power to Ms. Guffman for tackling these issues. One can disagree with her findings and research, but sour grapes don't taste good.
4
Well, I'll say this much: condescending, privileged white people going to study the natives has one upside, where we can see them fighting each other in the ivory Tower. Someone should do a study of *that*.
7
Actually, many people already have.
Give me any non-fiction book or soc\psych study and I can quickly find things that are either misleading or have the potential to be incorrect when put under a microscope. I read a lot of non-fiction books and with the volume of information in a book, there will always be something to attack. Other comments have mentioned that her father was in the same field as her. Is she being targeted because her peers think she didn't pay her dues?
She could of course be criticized in the same way that Barbara Ehrenreich was, that she was exploiting the people that she was studying, but I don't think anyone can say she didn't pay her dues.
She could of course be criticized in the same way that Barbara Ehrenreich was, that she was exploiting the people that she was studying, but I don't think anyone can say she didn't pay her dues.
4
Please read Elliot Lebow's Tally's Corner, a book that had a profound impact i the burning 60's. A great sociological study of black men in the Ghetto. BG
1
"James Forman, writing in The Atlantic, had queried public defenders and civil rights lawyers in Philadelphia and elsewhere and found no one who had heard of a man’s being arrested in a maternity ward after such a database check, as described in the book."
This sounds like a criticism looking for a target and not quite finding one. These sources say they have heard of no one being arrested in such a circumstance. Doesn't mean they haven't heard of the checks, doesn't mean the checks don't happen, and (the real point) doesn't mean the men Goffman described don't avoid hospitals owing to fear of these checks.
Why would you expect that these checks are going to be something anyone admits to? If they happen, they are obviously, putting it politley, extra-legal. To me it rings true because to whites it seems so counterintuitive, the same way we seemingly can't understand why someone who is innocent of wrongdoing would run from the police, yet in many urban black neighborhoods, fear of the police is historically quite justified, or even when in specific situations is not, it is still very understandable. It sounds to me like she presented this belief as a reason that some of these men might avoid going to the hospital and in that context it sounds to me almost certain to be true.
This sounds like a criticism looking for a target and not quite finding one. These sources say they have heard of no one being arrested in such a circumstance. Doesn't mean they haven't heard of the checks, doesn't mean the checks don't happen, and (the real point) doesn't mean the men Goffman described don't avoid hospitals owing to fear of these checks.
Why would you expect that these checks are going to be something anyone admits to? If they happen, they are obviously, putting it politley, extra-legal. To me it rings true because to whites it seems so counterintuitive, the same way we seemingly can't understand why someone who is innocent of wrongdoing would run from the police, yet in many urban black neighborhoods, fear of the police is historically quite justified, or even when in specific situations is not, it is still very understandable. It sounds to me like she presented this belief as a reason that some of these men might avoid going to the hospital and in that context it sounds to me almost certain to be true.
22
The point is that the only persons who stated that this happens were her "subjects". She should have recorded this story as a perception, rather than as a fact.
1
I don't know Philly. Nor have I read the book.
I do know the South Side of Chicago over nearly six decades. And this rings true in tone, tenor and substance. See "American Project" and "Gang Leader For A Day" by Sudhir Venkatesh which deals with black street life in a notorious former South Side Chicago public housing project.
I am amused when legal "scholars" and social "scientists" posture, preen and prance as though they are dwelling in the realm of factual objective testable hypothesis with known facts that can be controlled. Law and the social sciences are gender racial ethnic colored sectarian socioeconomic political American history plus arithmetic. There are too many unknowns and variables to make this any more than subjective internally logical opinion.
Back in my day a notorious legendary feared gang leader was my street protector and godfather. The rules of the streets require being able to answer four questions. Who are you? Where are you from? Who are you with? Who do you know? The last one was my only salvation Pony Soldier aka Mickey of the Main 21 of the Almighty BPSN.
He knew everything and if I ran into any trouble he offered to "help". But I never did take his offer. If I had would I have been complicit or smart or wise? The cops were never an option. They were part of my harassing threatening thug problem.
I do know the South Side of Chicago over nearly six decades. And this rings true in tone, tenor and substance. See "American Project" and "Gang Leader For A Day" by Sudhir Venkatesh which deals with black street life in a notorious former South Side Chicago public housing project.
I am amused when legal "scholars" and social "scientists" posture, preen and prance as though they are dwelling in the realm of factual objective testable hypothesis with known facts that can be controlled. Law and the social sciences are gender racial ethnic colored sectarian socioeconomic political American history plus arithmetic. There are too many unknowns and variables to make this any more than subjective internally logical opinion.
Back in my day a notorious legendary feared gang leader was my street protector and godfather. The rules of the streets require being able to answer four questions. Who are you? Where are you from? Who are you with? Who do you know? The last one was my only salvation Pony Soldier aka Mickey of the Main 21 of the Almighty BPSN.
He knew everything and if I ran into any trouble he offered to "help". But I never did take his offer. If I had would I have been complicit or smart or wise? The cops were never an option. They were part of my harassing threatening thug problem.
4
I sense intellectual snobbishness here, with jealousy on top. If you can't write a book yourself you can become famous writing critiques on other's books. This critique seems very suspicious of hatred and trying to catch this woman on something.
5
“Ït should be possible to say,” he said, “ ‘Here’s a promising young scholar who did a really impressive project. Her book is flawed. Let’s learn from the mistakes and move on.’ ”
First, ALL books, written by the young as well as the old, are flawed. That is the nature of human knowledge understanding. And obviously a privileged white person can´t really know what it is like to be poor black man.
But most importantly, no, it is not possible to learn from mistakes and move on. The scholarly person who wrote the comment should know this. Most people, especially in academia and the media, are more interested in debating the flaws in the writer´s facts and methods than in understanding the author´s arguments.
First, ALL books, written by the young as well as the old, are flawed. That is the nature of human knowledge understanding. And obviously a privileged white person can´t really know what it is like to be poor black man.
But most importantly, no, it is not possible to learn from mistakes and move on. The scholarly person who wrote the comment should know this. Most people, especially in academia and the media, are more interested in debating the flaws in the writer´s facts and methods than in understanding the author´s arguments.
4
Those such as Lubet who are attacking Goffman seem to be confusing the law with morality. Even if Goffman did technically participate in actions that potentially could lead to her conviction for a felony (had anyone actually been harmed, or anyone bothered to pursue the matter) that does not make her research somehow invalid, or suggest that she behaved immorally. It could be argued that, like journalists who protect their sources to the point of contempt of court, it would be impossible for her to do this important work without straying over legal lines.
It should be remembered that offenses such as harboring a member of a minority from legally sanctioned genocide, engaging in extramarital romance (or even appearing to perhaps be engaging in extramarital romance), questioning religious authority, and "treason" of any sort are all still quite commonly capital offenses in many parts of the world, as they were in the not so distant history of the United States.
Western academia, for the most part, no longer pursues serious criminal charges for those who undermine the status quo, but it still has a well entrenched system for punishing and marginalizing those who don't play by the establishment rules. While it is important that all results be questioned, it is equally important that the more cynical of the questioners be questioned in turn. And most important of all, it is critical that the basic issues not be overlooked in these internecine and political squabbles.
It should be remembered that offenses such as harboring a member of a minority from legally sanctioned genocide, engaging in extramarital romance (or even appearing to perhaps be engaging in extramarital romance), questioning religious authority, and "treason" of any sort are all still quite commonly capital offenses in many parts of the world, as they were in the not so distant history of the United States.
Western academia, for the most part, no longer pursues serious criminal charges for those who undermine the status quo, but it still has a well entrenched system for punishing and marginalizing those who don't play by the establishment rules. While it is important that all results be questioned, it is equally important that the more cynical of the questioners be questioned in turn. And most important of all, it is critical that the basic issues not be overlooked in these internecine and political squabbles.
7
I love the suggestion that abetting a murder attempt is not immoral, merely illegal.
1
“It should be possible to say,” he said, “ ‘Here’s a promising young scholar who did a really impressive project. Her book is flawed. Let’s learn from the mistakes and move on.’ ”
It's pretty clear that that is exactly what has happened, described, here. The young scholar has been recognized for her work amply. The mistakes have to be determined, discussed openly, and explained well if they are to result in learning anything.
"To Mr. Lubet, this undermines the credibility of “On the Run.” But some sociologists counter that ethnography is concerned not just with facts but with people’s perceptions of those facts, which powerfully shape their behavior and experience."
The people's perceptions of the facts are part of the facts and when they are inconsistent with reality they must be explained to understand the situation, not just dismissed in such a flippant way. Anyone who has ever studied psychology understands that perceptions are shaped by prior behavior and other experiences as well as states of mind.
It's pretty clear that that is exactly what has happened, described, here. The young scholar has been recognized for her work amply. The mistakes have to be determined, discussed openly, and explained well if they are to result in learning anything.
"To Mr. Lubet, this undermines the credibility of “On the Run.” But some sociologists counter that ethnography is concerned not just with facts but with people’s perceptions of those facts, which powerfully shape their behavior and experience."
The people's perceptions of the facts are part of the facts and when they are inconsistent with reality they must be explained to understand the situation, not just dismissed in such a flippant way. Anyone who has ever studied psychology understands that perceptions are shaped by prior behavior and other experiences as well as states of mind.
27
Sociology has long had a problem proving that, across its subject matter and interests, it actually deals with facts that can be objectively and empirically established and measured. There is a fair amount of speculation in sociology, which puts it in the camp of philosophy.
Then there is also unfortunately a fair amount of politics, too, which puts it in the camp of not being any discipline at all.
Then there is also unfortunately a fair amount of politics, too, which puts it in the camp of not being any discipline at all.
25
As opposed to what, economics?
Of course philosophers have to give arguments for their speculations and theories as well, at least analytic philosophers have to.
1
Care to elaborate on those bold claims? They seem a bit speculative ;-)
Why did this woman publish a book instead of presenting a research paper with methodology, conclusions, recommendations? Because books make money and research papers do not. There are so many people trying to make a name for themselves quickly instead of paying 'dues'. Shortcuts result in making errors, as this woman apparently did. She's not a sociologist, she's a writer and therefore what she published may have been good reading but it wasn't sociology.
36
Goffman has published articles. Generally one publishes at least one or more articles that are chapters of one's dissertation and then publishes the book. She followed the usual path. Http://m.asr.sagepub.com/content/74/3/339.short
The issue here isn't self-aggrandizement (although there's enough in the academy). I don't think that was Goffman's motive in publishing. It is about subjectivity, data and intersections of social class, race, the ethnographic gaze and power. Goffman's text also needs to be situated within the history of sociology and anthropology as disciplines.
The NYT article itself is problematic because it only gives you a very small sliver of the debate that is occurring in the academy.
The issue here isn't self-aggrandizement (although there's enough in the academy). I don't think that was Goffman's motive in publishing. It is about subjectivity, data and intersections of social class, race, the ethnographic gaze and power. Goffman's text also needs to be situated within the history of sociology and anthropology as disciplines.
The NYT article itself is problematic because it only gives you a very small sliver of the debate that is occurring in the academy.
1
In most social science and humanities fields, the only academics who publish "a research paper with methodology, conclusions, recommendations" rather than a book are those who fail to write something worthy of a book contract. What you are mistakenly calling a "shortcut" is every academic's goal: to get a book contract right out of the gate. This one was timely and so went big on the general market, but that's a separate matter from the perfectly normal, indeed ideal, academic career path she accomplished. Criticize the work, don't moralize, based on ignorance, on the form in which it was published.
2
Two sociology degrees, including a Princeton PhD, establish her credentials as a sociologist, and it is common to rewrite a successful or interesting dissertation, as Ms. Goffman did, for a popular audience.
I nearly spat my coffee pm the keyboard when I read "She's not a sociologist, she's a writer..." As an editor and former sociologist, I'd like to see more sociologists who can write!
It shouldn't be "either/or" unless you're Kierkegaard.
I nearly spat my coffee pm the keyboard when I read "She's not a sociologist, she's a writer..." As an editor and former sociologist, I'd like to see more sociologists who can write!
It shouldn't be "either/or" unless you're Kierkegaard.
4
I've read the book and am very unimpressed. I don't understand why she is being praised the way she is. It is not ground breaking at all. Victor Rios and Timothy Black (and there are many others) have done much better research on these types of communities and their writing is also far superior.
20
I've also read it. I think it's excellent and deserves the attention it's getting. I would think those who care deeply about the issues it documents and raises--prejudicial policiing and surveillance practices in poor urban communities aimed at young black and Latino men which seriously hamper their efforts to enter the legitimate economy and divides and weakens already fragile family relationships, often by forcing women to choose between their children and their male relatives and co-parents--would focus on ending abusive police practices and not on who gets the 'right' credit for documenting them. All serious researchers can enter this pool, and welcome to them. Each may bring different audiences to the table to start to end this deadend framework for addressing the structural issues in poor urban communities that need to concern us all.
2
Maybe it has something to do with her last name and famous father?:)
@Paul: "It is not ground breaking at all."
So what? Not all research can be "ground breaking".
"... their writing is also far superior."
Please provide an example of Ms. Goffman's writing that does not meet your standards.
So what? Not all research can be "ground breaking".
"... their writing is also far superior."
Please provide an example of Ms. Goffman's writing that does not meet your standards.
1
Mr Lubet's attack on Ms Goffman's book is an excellent ethnographic example of an academic's quest for vengeance. Here, Mr Lubet's seems to be acting out his feelings of envy with respect to Ms Goffman's acclaim for her book. I've seen it before. That being said, I don't doubt that Ms Goffman may in part have been motivated by a desire for acclaim in researching the book and selected opportunities to maximize that goal.
20
I think he is trying to get her to admit that she made up this entire book. I have only read selected passages, but not one of them rings true. I am sure she fabricated the entire thing and I cannot see how that is not obvious.
1
So as I understand it there is no actual proof of anything in the book being true? We are essentially relying on her word? That doesn't sound like good science, social or otherwise.
31
No more or less so than in any ethnography. The method involves immersion in the culture being studied, and rarely offers "proof" beyond the honor system in which academics reporting their findings are assumed to be telling the truth about what they observed, unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. There is no doubt the process is partly subjective, and the investigator's perceptions, emotions, loyalties, come into play - but that is a strength of the method as well as a weakness. There's no justification for dismissing the entire book because you don't have "proof" that she has described her experiences accurately to the best of her ability.
2
Let's call it "reporting" rather than "science".
1
Ms. Goffman may not be perfect, may have gotten herself in over her head, may have written a book that is not unimpeachable, but I'd take her over this Lubet person any day.
72
Based on what? Your feelings?
3
Because valid criticism is mean?
3
Agree. Sounds like professional jealousy is at work here.
Being hounded by jealous colleagues with conflicting points of view seems de rigeur these days in academia, particularly when the author is a woman, young, and courageous enough to think and act out of the box. As far as I can tell, this article is based almost exclusively on the quibbles of one man who takes Goffman to task because she became too involved with her subjects. But isn't this the method of the participant observer that we were taught about in social science 101? Congratulations to Ms. Goffman for making waves and forcing people to reconsider our racist justice system!
56
Her book is a very important piece of scholarship and exposes in vivid terms the tragedy of the young men whose story she tells. No amount of quibbling over methodology should be allowed to obscure this central fact.
27
This is no quibble about methodology. She couldn't keep her stories straight, which is often the sign of someone making things up. Lubet mentions a few problems. Another critic who has delved deeper mentions that she gives seeming conflicting accounts of a teen who shoots himself in the thigh, to the point that if both accounts are accurate, they have to separate incidents, yet she doesn't mention that he shot himself in the thigh a second time (which would be extraordinary). She has one central character die, then appear in a scene a few months later. Another is doing things with the gang at a time when other parts of her book have him in prison.
1
And so right you are!
Given that facts are often perceptions in the eye of the beholder and even the best methods have flaws, it would be strange if her ¨Heralded Book on Crime¨did NOT raise eyebrows and questions. Anyone who reads a book, no matter how well crafted the author´s arguments are, and then simply says to herself or himself, ¨That sounds right¨,hasn´t done due diligence intellectually.
9
“It should be possible to say,” [Mr. Cohen] said, “ ‘Here’s a promising young scholar who did a really impressive project. Her book is flawed. Let’s learn from the mistakes and move on.’ ”
Other academic writers would like to have the kind of financial success and recognition which the book has brought Ms. Goffman. If she used shortcuts, distortions, or embellishments to get there, then these other experts are well within their rights to continue to criticize. I question whether Mr. Cohen's financial stake in the continued success of the publisher is what is motivating him to tell people to "move on".
Other academic writers would like to have the kind of financial success and recognition which the book has brought Ms. Goffman. If she used shortcuts, distortions, or embellishments to get there, then these other experts are well within their rights to continue to criticize. I question whether Mr. Cohen's financial stake in the continued success of the publisher is what is motivating him to tell people to "move on".
10
I confused Mr Cohen with Mr. Katz. I apologize for my error.
I see the whole possibility of the crime/felony angle as a total red herring. The bigger issue here, I will bet, is fabrication. This thing stinks. It smacks of James Frey or a Janet Cooke-“Jimmy’s World” redux. Goffman has created a fantasy of black urban life for willing consumption by the mostly white reader. The part of the book about Shonda, the prison drug smuggler, who learned her trade at eight-years-old when she passed crack cocaine in a colorful kid’s balloon to her crack-smacked father just sounds like whole-cloth white person’s ghetto fantasy. And is unquestioned/unverified to boot.
The first part of Lubet’s review is instructional for highlighting the implausibility of Goffman’s tales. He rightly wonders: “I do not know if Goffman’s editors and dissertation committee held her to a journalist’s standard of fact checking.” Well, obviously not. Lubet also says that Goffman did not keep / destroyed her field notes and computer records. Why? Neither did Michael LaCour, the disgraced author of the completely faked gay marriage canvassers study. Newspaper and magazine features are subject to basic fact-checking – which Lubet alludes to. How does one get to be assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin without some basic verification of “data”/research? This cries for smoking-gun investigation. Where, who are these people whose “stories” she tells (embellishes, invents) - *she* tells, they don’t get to tell. I’m hoping some magazine journalist gets on this.
The first part of Lubet’s review is instructional for highlighting the implausibility of Goffman’s tales. He rightly wonders: “I do not know if Goffman’s editors and dissertation committee held her to a journalist’s standard of fact checking.” Well, obviously not. Lubet also says that Goffman did not keep / destroyed her field notes and computer records. Why? Neither did Michael LaCour, the disgraced author of the completely faked gay marriage canvassers study. Newspaper and magazine features are subject to basic fact-checking – which Lubet alludes to. How does one get to be assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin without some basic verification of “data”/research? This cries for smoking-gun investigation. Where, who are these people whose “stories” she tells (embellishes, invents) - *she* tells, they don’t get to tell. I’m hoping some magazine journalist gets on this.
25
The notion that there are journalistic standards for participant-observation studies is ludicrous on the face of it. None of the classics in this genre, from Street Corner Society to Asylums, for example, would stand this test, nor should they.
1
Some magazine journalist like the woman who reported on the rape at UVA? You remember that journalist tour de force published in Rolling Stone that was debunked by the Columbia University School of Journalism?
And, since you mentioned LaCour, you mean the article in the prestigious journal Science that slipped right through the rigourous review process?
Perhaps Fox News will conduct the witch hunt you seem to be promoting. Let Fox report, then you decide.
And, since you mentioned LaCour, you mean the article in the prestigious journal Science that slipped right through the rigourous review process?
Perhaps Fox News will conduct the witch hunt you seem to be promoting. Let Fox report, then you decide.
Rather telling that sociology these days has lower standards than journalism. Why do we need sociologists again? Why do we need made-up stories and theories about the world when we can have the real thing, WITH fact-checking and accountability, and at less cost?
Are sociologists really just glorified, overpaid journalists who don't even live up to the basic standards and integrity of actual journalists?
Are sociologists really just glorified, overpaid journalists who don't even live up to the basic standards and integrity of actual journalists?
1
A century ago Africans were on display at zoos for white people to gape at. What's changed? Of course, it would never occur to Goffman that she would be complicit in a crime. She knows that whiteness erases even the hint of wrongdoing. How I wish some black communities would send these gawkers packing. What do they get from all this analysis?Nothing. Guess what: the work of white sociologists and anthropologists will not translate into affordable housing, better schools, and jobs. At the end of the day, they still get to summer on Nantucket, using the lives of those poor blacks to regale friends at beachside barbecues.
30
That's a way of looking at her social ethnographic report. It has been written to inform us, the society, about a worry some situation involving juvenile black men being chased by the Philadelphia Police. That's it. With flaws and all. It never was written with the implicit goal to provide these people with housing or jobs. Your reference to 'the lives of those poor blacks' being an 'interesting' beachside barbecue conversation piece is downright evil.
unless somebody comes out and says with proof that she did not live these experiences and do this field work in a manner that is scholarly and following the highest standards of ethnography - then the effort stands on its own as a work of experience and scholarship. It is not surprising to find critiques- good work generates this kind of interest as well as counter attacks because once again somebody has looked in a penetrating way at our country and come up with disturbing conclusions.
26
More telling than Professor Lubet's allegations are identical ones made last summer by Dwayne Betts in Slate magazine about Professor Goffman's research and subsequent book, "On the Run..." Mr. Betts is a black man who had a similar upbringing to some of the young men Ms. Goffman lived with, befriended, and assisted while an undergraduate student a dozen years ago. Mr. Betts's most telling criticism isn't that he believes she may have broken the law. It is that he feels she focuses too exclusively on the criminality of her subjects/friends and their milieu, making her, and us, gawkers in an "urban jungle" world, which is a common trope often used to describe such subcultures.
Coming from a black man who served 8 years for carjacking, Mr. Betts's criticism stings a bit more. He is saying Professor Goffman's focus is too narrow, making it exploitive in a voyeuristic manner. He thinks the TV show, "The Wire" was more nuanced and complex in its take on Baltimore's black ghettos and the police officers who dealt with them than she is. This is damning stuff, coming from a position of friendly-fire.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/al...
21
The Wire, IMO, was the best TV ever produced. It's unlikely any TV series, newspaper reportage, or little sociology dissertation turned into a book, will surpass it, and it's unreasonable to complain that it doesn't.
@GPS in San Carlos, CA: you will get no argument from me about how great the TV show 'The Wire' was. It was some of the greatest television I've ever seen, although I will admit I think 'The Sopranos' is an even better show. Their subject matters only overlapped on occasion, but both were love letters by their creators to upper East Coast subcultures.
What makes The Sopranos is even more compelling, IMO, is that Tony Soprano is a more interesting man than the skunk-like Jimmy McNulty. The Sopranos is really a dark comic opera about modern NJ Italian-Americans as much as anything else. It is an update on what Mario Puzo and others had to say 30 years earlier. Sometimes it was just hilarious in a morbid manner.
1
It is reported that Ms. Goffman shredded all her field notes, destroyed the hard disk of her data, and sequestered her Ph.D. dissertation, upon all of which her book is based.
The reason she gives is apparently to protect her sources from criminal prosecution.
1) Judging from Mr. Lubet's critique of her participation in a conspiracy to commit murder, it'd appear she is protecting herself as well from criminal prosecution. (Plus, question to Mr. Lubet, isn't destroying evidence also another crime?)
2) More significant for the field of the social sciences, she destroyed her data. How is her work verifiable, at any level whatsoever, by other scholars?
3) If a NYT journalist told her editor-in-chief, she destroyed all her notes, but she swears it's a true story, so please publish it in the Sunday Magazine, I think her editor would laugh her out of the Times building.
4) How is her academic work different from a personal memoir? Without the data, it's just an HBO movie.
The reason she gives is apparently to protect her sources from criminal prosecution.
1) Judging from Mr. Lubet's critique of her participation in a conspiracy to commit murder, it'd appear she is protecting herself as well from criminal prosecution. (Plus, question to Mr. Lubet, isn't destroying evidence also another crime?)
2) More significant for the field of the social sciences, she destroyed her data. How is her work verifiable, at any level whatsoever, by other scholars?
3) If a NYT journalist told her editor-in-chief, she destroyed all her notes, but she swears it's a true story, so please publish it in the Sunday Magazine, I think her editor would laugh her out of the Times building.
4) How is her academic work different from a personal memoir? Without the data, it's just an HBO movie.
42
"It is reported" where?
It isn't poss to "sequester," a dissertation, unless perhaps it's in physics and there's a national security issue.
You just described the vast majority of sociological work. There is very little real accountability in the field -- though of course people make half-hearted motions about it. The only reason there aren't more scandals in the field is because most of it is irrelevant enough to the real world and real world decision-making these days that nobody bothers to look very closely.
1
Much more important than the question of "a crime" are questions about the value of the approach. I urge readers to click on the "fraught politics" link where they can read an essential analysis by English professor Christina Sharpe (Tufts) who makes two points that I simply report and leave for NYT readers to consider:
1) On the Run raises no alarms for most readers precisely because it is sociology as usual as it is done in “urban” communities.
2) In other words, prior to taking Anderson’s urban sociology class, when she is already at least one year into her study, Goffman is unable to discern as class difference the differences among black lower middle class, working class, and poor people. That blackness made that difference illegible as class is one problem that should raise questions about what else Goffman is unable to hear, see, and make sense of…
Class matters yet putting the spotlight on class – SES variables – instead of on simple blackness is all too neglected in what I manage to read.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
1) On the Run raises no alarms for most readers precisely because it is sociology as usual as it is done in “urban” communities.
2) In other words, prior to taking Anderson’s urban sociology class, when she is already at least one year into her study, Goffman is unable to discern as class difference the differences among black lower middle class, working class, and poor people. That blackness made that difference illegible as class is one problem that should raise questions about what else Goffman is unable to hear, see, and make sense of…
Class matters yet putting the spotlight on class – SES variables – instead of on simple blackness is all too neglected in what I manage to read.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
10
Hogwash. She is quite clear that she is describing one group of people who are representative of one aspect of local life. But she is also extremely clear about the ways in which our prison industrial complex keeps many young black men from being able to live life in the mainstream. The young man who is central to the story was well on his way to graduating from high school when a school yard fight got him into the prison pipeline. Read the actual book. She is very much aware of social class. As an ethnographer, I have no difficulty saying that she may have crossed some lines she shouldn't have, but don't blame her for not writing the book you wanted to read.
2
@ ceilidth you tell me you are a (professional) ethnographer but your opening line does not strike me as professional. Since I simply quoted directly from Professor Christina Sharpe leaving the quotations for readers to consider it appears that you believe Christina Sharpe’s observations on class are hogwash. If you believe this why don’t you write to her at Tufts. Nowhere do I blame Goffman for not writing the book I wanted to read.
My clearly stated aim was to suggest to Times readers that they read Sharpe’s essay in full. Did you do that before filing your “hogwash” reply? I had planned to write to her so I will inform her that an anonymous ethnographer has found her essay to be hogwash.
The reason for the closing note on class is that former US Census Bureau Director makes that point in Chapter 11 of “What Is Your Race?” in proposing that the 2020 census not have questions about race and ethnicity but should focus more on American Community Survey Data?
You can find my Gmail at Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
My clearly stated aim was to suggest to Times readers that they read Sharpe’s essay in full. Did you do that before filing your “hogwash” reply? I had planned to write to her so I will inform her that an anonymous ethnographer has found her essay to be hogwash.
The reason for the closing note on class is that former US Census Bureau Director makes that point in Chapter 11 of “What Is Your Race?” in proposing that the 2020 census not have questions about race and ethnicity but should focus more on American Community Survey Data?
You can find my Gmail at Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
One reply to celidith filed 20:00 GMT and since I then wrote to Professor Sharpe I report to ceiledith that Professor Sharpe is on Academic Leave and as all of us write when on leave - reading Email less frequently than usual and not always replying. Just wanted her to know that an anonymous ethnographer thinks my (1) and (2) from Professor Sharpe are "hogwash".
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
"For example, citing interviews with unnamed police officers, she writes that officers visiting hospitals regularly run the names of patients and visitors through criminal databases, arresting those with outstanding warrants — a practice, Ms. Goffman argues, that deters many men from seeking medical care or attending the births of their children."
If this is indeed true, law enforcement is committing a crime, each and every time this action takes place without a search warrant. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protects patients or should protect patients from the intrusion of protected medical and personal data. Anyone visiting a patient should never be interrogated or profiled by law enforcement, it at the patients discretion who visits and receives information regarding the patient status.
As for Ms. Goffman, her book reveals nothing new, if one has been paying attention, one already has this information, greater than four hundred years of documentation details the lives of African American males in this country. And Mr. Rios, “But then what we mostly get are stories of kids who are doing really horrible things” the same can be said about Wall Street and the Dennis Hassert's of this country.
If this is indeed true, law enforcement is committing a crime, each and every time this action takes place without a search warrant. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act protects patients or should protect patients from the intrusion of protected medical and personal data. Anyone visiting a patient should never be interrogated or profiled by law enforcement, it at the patients discretion who visits and receives information regarding the patient status.
As for Ms. Goffman, her book reveals nothing new, if one has been paying attention, one already has this information, greater than four hundred years of documentation details the lives of African American males in this country. And Mr. Rios, “But then what we mostly get are stories of kids who are doing really horrible things” the same can be said about Wall Street and the Dennis Hassert's of this country.
9
"As for Ms. Goffman, her book reveals nothing new, if one has been paying attention..."
If your fields is "the sociology of ordinary life", when you publish something and everybody says, "That's obvious", you're OK if you can say, "Yes, but nobody wrote it down before".
If your fields is "the sociology of ordinary life", when you publish something and everybody says, "That's obvious", you're OK if you can say, "Yes, but nobody wrote it down before".
So you are dismissing this whole book?
When I was a young teenager I helped a friend deliver newspapers in the poor segregated neighborhood where he lived. I became curious when I saw him put most of his payment collection deep into his socks, and keep a small portion in his pocket. The ritual's purpose soon became apparent. We were accosted by a neighborhood gang, and my friend was forced to give them what he had kept in his pants. I didn't have any. I always thought he had saved me from being roughed up.
It taught me the dark side of living in segregated poorer enclaves. In retrospect was I also suppose to report the crime to the police? My youth may be my main excuse since I had no sense of such a responsibility at that age.
Before critics jump to conclusions about Ms. Goffman's work, they should realize they weren't there. If they have a concern,let them go and interview those who were there at the time. They may learn what passes for routine when people are huddled together, and are poor, angry, and hopeless.
I believe Ms. Goffman took the risks she did because she had hypothesized that enforcement of laws was not going to solve the social problems she was studying.
It taught me the dark side of living in segregated poorer enclaves. In retrospect was I also suppose to report the crime to the police? My youth may be my main excuse since I had no sense of such a responsibility at that age.
Before critics jump to conclusions about Ms. Goffman's work, they should realize they weren't there. If they have a concern,let them go and interview those who were there at the time. They may learn what passes for routine when people are huddled together, and are poor, angry, and hopeless.
I believe Ms. Goffman took the risks she did because she had hypothesized that enforcement of laws was not going to solve the social problems she was studying.
11
I once served on a grand jury in DC where we were presented with around 60 homicide cases. I recall one young women who had gone in search for her boyfriend in a dangerous neighborhood, and when asked why she had a knife in her boot and a small gun in her purse. She responded that if someone attacked her and took her gun, she still had her knife, to protect herself.
It is hard for most white people in large cities to even grasp what crime may be like in neighborhoods somewhat far removed from where they reside. Honest citizens often arm themselves and take precautions that would never even dawn on us could be a way of life. Ms. Goffman's book probably isn't far off-base from the reality in large swaths of America's cities...
It is hard for most white people in large cities to even grasp what crime may be like in neighborhoods somewhat far removed from where they reside. Honest citizens often arm themselves and take precautions that would never even dawn on us could be a way of life. Ms. Goffman's book probably isn't far off-base from the reality in large swaths of America's cities...
Her book, the responses to her book, and the responses to the responses--including the most of the comments below--are so predictable. She wrote a highly political first person academic study involving crime by young black men. It's greatness (popularity) or lack thereof is not dependent on its academic quality, but on how her telling these stories strike the public and particularly the press.
This is the world we live in today: one in which first person stories are considered scholarly, anything about brings ad hominem charges and countercharges about who wrote the book in the guise of speaking about privilege and gender, and the press rides a story as long as it can. There are some good reasons for opening up the academic disciplines to first person accounts, but all too often they have little rigor. It is sometimes important who is telling the story, but not always. The press does the best it can, but it has to tell a story if it wants to make money.
This is the world we live in today: one in which first person stories are considered scholarly, anything about brings ad hominem charges and countercharges about who wrote the book in the guise of speaking about privilege and gender, and the press rides a story as long as it can. There are some good reasons for opening up the academic disciplines to first person accounts, but all too often they have little rigor. It is sometimes important who is telling the story, but not always. The press does the best it can, but it has to tell a story if it wants to make money.
6
I'm a person with a PhD in education who has dropped everything to advocate for sound environmental policy. I've no credentials on climate, so I drive a cab in the morning to help pay the bills. Recognizing her picture in your article, I realized I've given Prof. Goffman a ride in my cab on several occasions. Each time, I've found her to be a kind, and outgoing person. It's amazing how differently people can treat you when they see you not as a human being but as a mere role or function, and Prof. Goffman's outgoing nature has always been a welcome exception to that condescension.
Feel free to take my comment as a trivial aside, but I simply felt the urge to add a little appreciation of Prof. Goffman's character from beyond the academic sparring ring.
Feel free to take my comment as a trivial aside, but I simply felt the urge to add a little appreciation of Prof. Goffman's character from beyond the academic sparring ring.
24
I'm sure she tips well, too, but that has nothing to do with the issues surrounding the book.
1
That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
1
Thanks for this. Reading comments this morning I've had such a feeling of watching a woman attacked by jealous men. This is a refreshing moment, to read your honest perception of the woman you've met.
1
Publishing one's findings in a book is very much different from publishing them in a (respected) peer reviewed journal. The standard of review for publication is much lower in a book. The more highly regarded the journal, the more rigorous the vetting process, involving multiple referees and experts in the field and a process that could take up to a year in which more data is requested and tougher questions are asked.
As is, Ms. Goffman is answerable to no one for her "data," such that the possibility of "retracting" her book is zero versus the possibility of retracting her work if it had been an article published in Science, when other scholars could demand that she produce her "data" for public scrutiny.
And therein lies the trouble with her "data": Ms. Goffman's work is not backed up by any hard data, just her own mental impressions that she can change and alter to answer her critics anytime she wants, even if such later impressions contradict her earlier ones upon which her book is based.
Did she or did she not participate in an attempt to shoot someone? In her book, she did, in her answer to a former prosecutor, she did not. In the sciences, she would have had to produce her original lab notebook, which she would have had to keep contemporaneous with her lab experiment, dated and signed by a colleague. In ethnography, is there such minimum standard as a lab notebook?
As is, Ms. Goffman is answerable to no one for her "data," such that the possibility of "retracting" her book is zero versus the possibility of retracting her work if it had been an article published in Science, when other scholars could demand that she produce her "data" for public scrutiny.
And therein lies the trouble with her "data": Ms. Goffman's work is not backed up by any hard data, just her own mental impressions that she can change and alter to answer her critics anytime she wants, even if such later impressions contradict her earlier ones upon which her book is based.
Did she or did she not participate in an attempt to shoot someone? In her book, she did, in her answer to a former prosecutor, she did not. In the sciences, she would have had to produce her original lab notebook, which she would have had to keep contemporaneous with her lab experiment, dated and signed by a colleague. In ethnography, is there such minimum standard as a lab notebook?
11
Prof. Lubet's Northwestern bio states he teaches a course on legal ethics.
Unequivocally accusing someone of committing "conspiracy to commit murder" based solely upon a passage in a book and the opinions of unnamed former prosecutors is ethical?
Unequivocally accusing someone of committing "conspiracy to commit murder" based solely upon a passage in a book and the opinions of unnamed former prosecutors is ethical?
65
how is it not ethical? he merely points out that the facts she has herself given us appear to meet the legal definition of conspiracy to commit murder.
2
It's unethical to accuse someone of conspiracy to commit murder based on their own description of their participation in a conspiracy to commit murder?
1
Yes, because she present the facts herself and proper experts on the law noted that the made a prima facie case for conspiracy. It is always ethical to speak the truth.
2
This is why academics don't generally write for a popular audience (and most don't). Dry facts and real data are not obviously sexy (though they are to the in crowd -- others in that sub-field). They are the tortoise of the information world. To be the hare, you have to sex it up. And that means you probably aren't telling the dry truth.
Most academics who do write for popular audiences do it later in life or keep a wall between their academic and public work.
I see she is the daughter of the famous sociologist Erving Goffman. Another risk-taker? "Outside his academic career, Goffman was known for his interest, and relative success, in the stock market and in gambling. At one point, in pursuit of his hobbies and ethnographic studies, he became a pit boss at a Las Vegas casino," Going native has its risks.
Most academics who do write for popular audiences do it later in life or keep a wall between their academic and public work.
I see she is the daughter of the famous sociologist Erving Goffman. Another risk-taker? "Outside his academic career, Goffman was known for his interest, and relative success, in the stock market and in gambling. At one point, in pursuit of his hobbies and ethnographic studies, he became a pit boss at a Las Vegas casino," Going native has its risks.
14
Dr. Geoffman could easily avoided this controversy by simultaneously publishing a rigorous peer reviewed article, in which her supporting data would have been vetted by peers. By only publishing a book and destroying all field notes and raw data, she only has herself to blame. I would not like such a person to get tenure at a major research university and be responsible for shaping the minds of young scholars.
1
So who are you? The writer, researcher or messenger of things that matter in life or society? It looks like you have nothing more to say than gossip garbage.
The debates over Goffman's text are not new, nor are they unique to her case. Sudhir Venkatesh has also come in for a similar type of critique. Their texts are sensationalized and part of a practice of pornotroping that is focused on black bodies and black lawlessness and suffering to the exclusion of other information about the black urban communities.
The problem is that these narratives fit with common sense understandings and don't reflect reality. People living in urban core neighborhoods go to work and few are involved in serious offending behaviors. They are boring, involved with childcare issues and other minutia, just like the folks on the West Side. The problem is that a careful analysis of boring people's lives and the forces structuring those lives doesn't generate the interest of academic and trade publishers and thus doesn't look quite as good when it comes to tenure.
It is interesting to see these internal debates play out in the larger arena of the NYT. I am worried that the article doesn't really get at the nuances inherent in the issue. There is much to admire in Goffman's work, but that doesn't mean that it is immune from criticism.
The problem is that these narratives fit with common sense understandings and don't reflect reality. People living in urban core neighborhoods go to work and few are involved in serious offending behaviors. They are boring, involved with childcare issues and other minutia, just like the folks on the West Side. The problem is that a careful analysis of boring people's lives and the forces structuring those lives doesn't generate the interest of academic and trade publishers and thus doesn't look quite as good when it comes to tenure.
It is interesting to see these internal debates play out in the larger arena of the NYT. I am worried that the article doesn't really get at the nuances inherent in the issue. There is much to admire in Goffman's work, but that doesn't mean that it is immune from criticism.
20
I think that the scene that ends the text may be heightened for dramatic effect. Or perhaps Goffman is writing from her emotion at the moment. I can see a bunch of angry youth going out saying that they are going to go out and kill someone, but really just being angry and blowing off steam and later realizing that it was a bad idea. That is probably how most of these incidents play out, with nothing happening. Thus it is possible for what she wrote at the end of her chapter and the more measured narrative she wrote in her response to both be "true". One can be angry and get in the car but still know that the odds of anything happening are really low.
1
Busted! She made up her stories in order to get published, did not think the book would get out beyond academic circles, and then discovered that making up stories about dangerous, violent black men works 99% of the time, but not all of the time.
15
Wow, Steven Lubet needs to get a life.
55
Ahh, you don't know law professors. This is his life, and now he's mentioned in the NYTimes.
1
Anyone who has been in a position to hire people understands that a falsified resume has become the rule and not the exception. Sadly, it's the world we live in. Still, Ms. Goffman has some explaining to do. I am not familiar with her book, but now I know it won't be on my must-read list. Thanks to those who had the courage to call her out.
13
Professional envy is an ugly sight however it is concealed.
20
So, looking into the facts is personal envy? I must take as truth whatever someone has printed, without any facts or data to back it up, as truth or I am envious? I've got this great bridge to sell you, one of a kind!
ok mr, cohen, "her book is flawed, let's learn form the mistakes and move on."
discuss.
3
So the ersatz discipline of sociology produced make-believe results from a wander-around-and-talk-to-people-and-take-notes scientific survey.
I find that hard to believe.... next thing you'll say is that the taxpayer pays for this kind of junk-science.
I find that hard to believe.... next thing you'll say is that the taxpayer pays for this kind of junk-science.
13
Anti-intellectualism is alive and well in America. There is even a candidate for president running on that platform--Scott Walker.
1
Mr. Lubet needs to get a life. If this is a problem then all documentaries and investigative reporting could be criminal. This is so far fetched that no prosecutor will waste his time on it. I watch nature shows. Many times I wish the people filming could intervene and save the animals. However if you are there to document things as they are, short of criminal behavior you just document what you see. That is what she did.
I expected to read about serious misconduct. All I read was jealousy and white liberal angst. I am black. I have no problem with her book. I have seen documentaries on on black life that are far more questionable. Shame on her critics. If this was a fifty year old male "scholar" we would not be reading any of this. It is more of a case of "has this young woman earned the right to write such a book"?
Must one have to have played football to report on it? Get over it.
I expected to read about serious misconduct. All I read was jealousy and white liberal angst. I am black. I have no problem with her book. I have seen documentaries on on black life that are far more questionable. Shame on her critics. If this was a fifty year old male "scholar" we would not be reading any of this. It is more of a case of "has this young woman earned the right to write such a book"?
Must one have to have played football to report on it? Get over it.
52
No, that's not all there is. This is not supposed to be fiction, it's supposed to be 'sociology' based on facts. She destroyed her data. People are allowed to question both her facts and her methodology. I don't need to 'get over it'.
1
Actually, in her book she describes going along specifically to see the man killed, she personally wants him dead. So, that's not simply being there at the time, it is active participation in a crime. I can't see how anyone would excuse that and say such emotional involvement somehow equates to scholarship. Was she elevated because "Oh golly, she lived with actual black people and saw actual bad things"? I mean, I think the take home here is whites generally are completely out of touch with how bad it is in some poor areas, but that does not excuse her poor scholarship and failure to maintain her data. In most university systems she'd be shown the door, it is an indictment of her entire dissertation committee and the granting University, not just her--I think we can all understand her getting caught up and crossing these lines, but rewarding her for tossing objective research methods out to score pretty points that are in some cases clearly made up? No, that's not acceptable in academia, or did not used to be. Take the link to Lubet's critique if you think there are no "serious" charges here. Cheers.
1
Given the number of women who argue that men's views on childbirth and abortion should be discounted because they don't personally experience them, I'd say yes, women's views on football should be seriously discounted.
You get over it.
You get over it.
2
She got in a car with people that had a gun, who were looking for a man that killed a friend, with her own desire for vengeance, and didn't think it may end in violence ... really?
41
How long before Ms. Goffman does a "James Frey" on Oprah, and likewise goes on to have a successful career as a fiction author?
11
Having been a tenured female professor in both public and private universities, I would not have to do a lot of thinking about the politics of this situation. For a broad hint to the plot, see the article elsewhere in nytimes about the governor of Wisconsin and the plan to gut the University of Wisconsin system.
39
Right, it's all about gender? Like women never distort or lie? Like they never take short-cuts or tamper with data? Only men do that, right? Yeah it's the politics all right.
1
Yet another example of no good deed going unpunished.
5
Like gang members protecting their turf, so these professors are protecting theirs.
Rather than the Bloods vs. the Crips, we have the Ethnographers vs. the Law Professors, the Old School Sociology vs. the New School Sociology, the University Press vs. the Academic Bloggers...
What these academics are fighting over are not merely the details or methods of the book, but the very legitimacy of the field, of the profession.
What law professors and quantitative sociologists are really asking is: is ethnography a social "science" or just anecdotal story telling told by the most compelling story teller, here, a white privileged woman out for a joy (felonious) ride with a black underprivileged gang member, where she gets to publish it in a memoir couched in an academic tome?
Defenders of Ms Goffman and ethnography are answering with their own questions:
1) Who has the right to assert whose "professorial authority" from one field (law) over another (sociology)? Can a law professor criticize the legality of a sociological methodology? Can quantitative sociology criticize descriptive sociology?
2) When is data in ethnography merely a "fragment of evidence" and should quantitative social scientists have the right to "push them to provide more evidence to defend themselves"?
We expect no guns pulled, and no drive-by shootings, at the next gathering of sociologists, but plenty of sharp words and wounded pride.
Rather than the Bloods vs. the Crips, we have the Ethnographers vs. the Law Professors, the Old School Sociology vs. the New School Sociology, the University Press vs. the Academic Bloggers...
What these academics are fighting over are not merely the details or methods of the book, but the very legitimacy of the field, of the profession.
What law professors and quantitative sociologists are really asking is: is ethnography a social "science" or just anecdotal story telling told by the most compelling story teller, here, a white privileged woman out for a joy (felonious) ride with a black underprivileged gang member, where she gets to publish it in a memoir couched in an academic tome?
Defenders of Ms Goffman and ethnography are answering with their own questions:
1) Who has the right to assert whose "professorial authority" from one field (law) over another (sociology)? Can a law professor criticize the legality of a sociological methodology? Can quantitative sociology criticize descriptive sociology?
2) When is data in ethnography merely a "fragment of evidence" and should quantitative social scientists have the right to "push them to provide more evidence to defend themselves"?
We expect no guns pulled, and no drive-by shootings, at the next gathering of sociologists, but plenty of sharp words and wounded pride.
22
This strikes me as so in credibly typical that I could hum the tune. Goffman wrote a book involving research that someone doesn't like and it became popular and is doubtlessly being cited in many a debate. So, rather than come up with equally hard researched data that proves her position wrong, we are inundated with "anonymous" criticism, anger at the fact that a White person has broken ranks and used her privilege to prove that privilege exists and attacks on her as a person (not her research or evidence) by the only one who is willing to put his name on the line.
In order for her to have committed the supposed crime, the incident had o have happened. That means the book is truthful. If she is lying, then you can't make the accusation (and you'd have to prove that). It's a conundrum created by people who just don't like what she is saying and they attack on two fronts; both of them TREMENDOUSLY lazy.
In order for her to have committed the supposed crime, the incident had o have happened. That means the book is truthful. If she is lying, then you can't make the accusation (and you'd have to prove that). It's a conundrum created by people who just don't like what she is saying and they attack on two fronts; both of them TREMENDOUSLY lazy.
12
She destroyed her data.
As anyone who is white -- like me -- who has worked among minority populations knows, there is an expression, "Making it real." This is best understood as dealing with the facts as they are, not as they look when seen through a scrim of should-bes or oughta-bes.
It sounds to me as though Alice Goffman, in her attempt to understand the story she had gotten hold of and become a part of, was making it real for herself and her companions. The standard academic establishment, like Bob Dylan's Thin Man ("You know that something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?") is actively opposed to making things real. Of course she will be attacked.
It sounds to me as though Alice Goffman, in her attempt to understand the story she had gotten hold of and become a part of, was making it real for herself and her companions. The standard academic establishment, like Bob Dylan's Thin Man ("You know that something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?") is actively opposed to making things real. Of course she will be attacked.
11
You mean to tell me that the tale of a carriage trade young scholar being accepted into the ranks of a group of rough and raw thugs might have been exaggerated? Get out!
Seriously, all the wealth and privilidge that this Princeton grad was born into wasn't enough- not the fine schools, the comfortable cultured parents, the hometown with functioning civic life, the incredible gift of never knowing violence, of never having even once known 15 minutes of terror and real trouble? No, still more is coveted: the 'realness' of the ghetto, the cache of saying you know that world, to arrogate into your possession the sorrow and tears of the poor. What a despicable and delusional marker of a culture obsessed with possessing and owning things.
Seriously, all the wealth and privilidge that this Princeton grad was born into wasn't enough- not the fine schools, the comfortable cultured parents, the hometown with functioning civic life, the incredible gift of never knowing violence, of never having even once known 15 minutes of terror and real trouble? No, still more is coveted: the 'realness' of the ghetto, the cache of saying you know that world, to arrogate into your possession the sorrow and tears of the poor. What a despicable and delusional marker of a culture obsessed with possessing and owning things.
16
Actually, Ms. Goffman got her BA at Penn (University of Pennsylvania - - from which I also got my BA) and her PhD at Princeton.
Maybe she got too much credit in the first instance and is getting too much flak as a result. The bigger they are... Participant observer studies are fraught, yet they can be quite illuminating.
Another recent study that got taken down was the one about changing people's minds by telling personal stories. In both instances I have imperfect knowledge and want to keep an open mind.
Another recent study that got taken down was the one about changing people's minds by telling personal stories. In both instances I have imperfect knowledge and want to keep an open mind.
5
The second instance has been proven to be fabrication, no need to keep your mind open about it.
I have not read Goffman's book. I have read Schuessler's pieces.
Nor have I read Truants from Life by Bruno Bettelheim - as he asked me not to bother. He said I knew. He did not say that which mattered most: though essentially so, much of what he wrote was a composite, written to create the impression, not to convey fact.
What matters in such monographs is the appearance of truth. Impact is sought. The facts are close enough for government work. It is basic truth.
Regardless of any cockeyed interpretation of the law from UPENN law, it should be clear that Goffman is deeply committed... and was buried in the culture involved. She may have lost her balance. Who wouldn't? Let the critics walk in her shoes. They would not dare.
Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict lived distant cultures. Many were quite foreign to them, yet their reporting, however construed, did not engender such inquiry from armchair academics that would never dare to walk in their shoes.
Goffman's crime is attempting honesty. If she was overwhelmed by living what she studied, so be it. No surprise. This comes with the territory. Perhaps she should try Wall Street.
I'd like to see how a similarly inclined lawyer at a major, or an M & A focused arb or perp in the M & A department of a major would do reporting in a similar fashion. When has any of this breed spoken of the criminality they have witnessed?
Goffman deserves praise... not opprobrium from those that would not dare.
Nor have I read Truants from Life by Bruno Bettelheim - as he asked me not to bother. He said I knew. He did not say that which mattered most: though essentially so, much of what he wrote was a composite, written to create the impression, not to convey fact.
What matters in such monographs is the appearance of truth. Impact is sought. The facts are close enough for government work. It is basic truth.
Regardless of any cockeyed interpretation of the law from UPENN law, it should be clear that Goffman is deeply committed... and was buried in the culture involved. She may have lost her balance. Who wouldn't? Let the critics walk in her shoes. They would not dare.
Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict lived distant cultures. Many were quite foreign to them, yet their reporting, however construed, did not engender such inquiry from armchair academics that would never dare to walk in their shoes.
Goffman's crime is attempting honesty. If she was overwhelmed by living what she studied, so be it. No surprise. This comes with the territory. Perhaps she should try Wall Street.
I'd like to see how a similarly inclined lawyer at a major, or an M & A focused arb or perp in the M & A department of a major would do reporting in a similar fashion. When has any of this breed spoken of the criminality they have witnessed?
Goffman deserves praise... not opprobrium from those that would not dare.
14
In the natural world there are things called "pilot fish." These fish have evolved to accompany sharks as they travel through the oceans to get scraps from the sharks' kills. They are a sort of parasite.
Do I see a parallel here with the academics who are cruising after the author of this best-selling book? They are hoping to get some of that attention surrounding Ms. Goffman, by interrupting the acclaim.
Let them do their own research and write their own books.
Do I see a parallel here with the academics who are cruising after the author of this best-selling book? They are hoping to get some of that attention surrounding Ms. Goffman, by interrupting the acclaim.
Let them do their own research and write their own books.
17
Scholoarly works are always subject to attack and dispute. That's the nature of the beast. One proposes an idea, one expects it to be questioned. That's as true in the legal field, where witnesses are subject to cross examination.
What role does her gender play in attracting this following? I find it particularly odious to attack the ethnographic research (when the attackers have no understanding of this methodology) of a young female scholar. From my camp, I wish her all the best in the academic waters....I've seen vicious sharks and so will she.
1
The article says:
She added, “I went because I knew these drives were about expressing anger and about grieving, not about doing actual violence.”
Well, this is absolute nonsense. The idea that these revenge rides and retribution don't occur in such settings is the most dazzling prevarication I've seen written by a person claiming to be educated. In our town, there were three shootings in two hours last Saturday. After a young man was killed, his friends piled into cars and used AK47s to shoot up two suspected rivals neighborhoods, wounding two. I think the doe eyed look at this is absolutely amazing: if the night has no chance of ending in violence, leave the gun home. I'm wondering how close she got to these subjects, if she did this? Chose to drive on a revenge ride? Too close to remain objective, without question, which places the book into the pile of so many sociologists who emotionally drift into activism as opposed to research. She would lose all credibility if she drifted from research into violent activism. So, if she went she failed completely as a scientist, if she did not she lied. Which is it?
She added, “I went because I knew these drives were about expressing anger and about grieving, not about doing actual violence.”
Well, this is absolute nonsense. The idea that these revenge rides and retribution don't occur in such settings is the most dazzling prevarication I've seen written by a person claiming to be educated. In our town, there were three shootings in two hours last Saturday. After a young man was killed, his friends piled into cars and used AK47s to shoot up two suspected rivals neighborhoods, wounding two. I think the doe eyed look at this is absolutely amazing: if the night has no chance of ending in violence, leave the gun home. I'm wondering how close she got to these subjects, if she did this? Chose to drive on a revenge ride? Too close to remain objective, without question, which places the book into the pile of so many sociologists who emotionally drift into activism as opposed to research. She would lose all credibility if she drifted from research into violent activism. So, if she went she failed completely as a scientist, if she did not she lied. Which is it?
12
Another PC exaggeration.
9
Alice Goffman is a promising young scholar who executed an impressive project. Her book may well be flawed - let’s learn from the mistakes and move on.
10
So she was in a car with a friend after a mutual friend was murdered -- and she felt vengeance. And for this some, I would guess, green-eyed academic wants to run her in for attempted murder. Now isn't his purpose really just to eliminate another academic? A virtual murder. Well, anyone familiar with the brutal competition in universities is probably too much aware of how the struggle to survive there almost never breaks the physical service; but is, oh, so deadly. Give me an honest fistfight anytime. I think people should be allowed to be human, and reflect their millions of years of nature-based learning. I know nothing about Alice, but I'm already on her side. When Jane Goodall came back to -- I think it was Cambridge -- the powers that be in her department savaged her work for because she became so friendly with her monkey subjects -- even naming them. Fortunately, she recounts, as I recall "I knew from my relationship with my dog that I was right about this and they were wrong.
Now, we know her name, but not theirs.
So these things have a way of working out.
11
Goffman's point of view is a highly partisan one, as is clear from interviews with her, including with NPR's Terry Gross.
Far from making any real effort at objectivity or neutrality, she was clearly smitten with the fraught and dangerous lives of her subjects and both excited and flattered to be taken along for the ride. She identified so deeply with them that she lost any moral compass regarding their behavior, and how it might impact others.
She also seemed to lack the ability to apply any criticality to their behavior or stories, completely adopting their self-serving opinions about the police and their own victimization. I found listening to her deeply depressing, both for her naiveté and her smug self-assuredness.
Far from making any real effort at objectivity or neutrality, she was clearly smitten with the fraught and dangerous lives of her subjects and both excited and flattered to be taken along for the ride. She identified so deeply with them that she lost any moral compass regarding their behavior, and how it might impact others.
She also seemed to lack the ability to apply any criticality to their behavior or stories, completely adopting their self-serving opinions about the police and their own victimization. I found listening to her deeply depressing, both for her naiveté and her smug self-assuredness.
14
OK, I'll bite. Hospitals require visitors to sign in? Really? That must be an inner-city thing. I've never been to a hospital where visitors have to sign in, but then again, I've never been to an inner-city hospital. And now we are also to believe that at least one hospital routinely violates HIPPA privacy rules by allowing the police to rummage through the lists of patients and visitors?
I am not going to buy the book to find out how the author addresses this question, if at all, but if anyone commenting here has read it, please let the rest of us know how this question is addressed.
I am not going to buy the book to find out how the author addresses this question, if at all, but if anyone commenting here has read it, please let the rest of us know how this question is addressed.
8
I'm surprised that there are hospitals that don't make visitors sign in. I can't think of any hospital that I have visited (since the '70s), even non-inner city, that hasn't required it.
Unmarried fathers of any color skin may have more than one reason to shun the maternity ward. The scared-of-a-warrant excuse sounds good. Actually most warrants for minor crimes go unserved because the police have more immediate concerns than checking visitor sign-ins (if they exist).
I don't know how the book addresses it, but the article makes no mention of hospitals requiring anyone to sign in.
Perhaps her lawyer Mr. Rudovsky may want to brush up on variations of the Stockholm Syndrome if Professor Lubet's conspriracy theory grows legs. I liked the thesis of the book but I also liked Three Cups of Tea. I don't really care about whether the events are actual or illustrative until someone makes it an issue. The problem that Ms. Goffman describes in a scholarly manner you can get by watching local DC news every night if you are willing to endure the amateur delivery.
5
On the Run is an important book. Alice Goffman deserves praise not only for throwing a light on how poor black communities have been turned into police states but for having the guts to explore the lives of justice-involved men in these communities the way that she did. I doubt that her critics have as much courage and passion for social justice as she does.
11
This smear campaign against Ms Goffman is the perfect example of the "discredit those that expose the racist system" that keeps the system in place.
18
Hardly. It's about looking for the truth in scientific literature. She destroyed her notes (if she ever really had any) and tells us all to just believe. No.
Let me make sure I've got this right.
- Young Inner City Man A is a friend of the Liberal Author and Young Inner City Man B.
- Young Inner City Man Z murders Young Inner City Man A.
- Liberal Author picks up Young Inner City Man B, who has a gun, and drives him around looking for Young Inner City Man Z, to "express grief and anger."
Sounds like fiction to me.
- Young Inner City Man A is a friend of the Liberal Author and Young Inner City Man B.
- Young Inner City Man Z murders Young Inner City Man A.
- Liberal Author picks up Young Inner City Man B, who has a gun, and drives him around looking for Young Inner City Man Z, to "express grief and anger."
Sounds like fiction to me.
12
What I remember from Sociology 101, 45 years ago, is that if you wanted to become a sociologist and study a certain group, you should not observe, or judge from outside the group, but you must become part of the group to accept their normal and work from there. Without having read the book, but from reading the article, driving the car, fits within this description of what she was doing.
10
I did not read a book about crime. I read a book about life; Ms. Goffman's perceptions of life in a Black ghetto in America at the beginning of the 21st century. I found her story repetitive and difficult. The lives she observed and described seemed barely worth living. Having worked in the prison system, and talked to numerous minority prisoners over a span of years, I thought her description of life on the outside rang true. In this discussion, truth is all that matters, and change is the object.
61
This is the typical "discredit those that call out the system" syndrome of the racist system under which we live. Goffman has committed the unpardonable sin of exposing the iniquities of racism, so she must be destroyed by its minions. So predictable. Especially because she is a woman going against the white patriarchy that upholds this system.
27
Without any facts, she claims crime is caused by racism. This is madness.
1
Yes, she has gone against the 'white patriarchy' known as the American justice system, and now the 'white patriarchy' that is the academic world tries to put her down. Neither of these systems like to see the truth told, especially when it is told by women. Dr. Goffman will need all the courage she has already manifested to withstand these attacks, but fortunately a majority of scholars respect her integrity. Those who attack her reveal only their own petty, right-wing anxieties and envies.
1
i can't begin to explain how ridiculous and misguided all these criticisms are. she wrote and exposed a vital aspect of one of society's great and malicious flaws, before anyone had even noticed them. now, of course, that premise is universally accepted. as such, it's entered the realm of politics and policy, and lines are being drawn, sides chosen. all this criticism dovetails with the rise of the politics and self-serving agendas, the first tactic being shoot the messenger, ie, discredit her and her work. she exaggerated! she committed a crime! she's a criminal! who can believe anything she says! also, the privileged class of the academics and others who criticize using phrases like "it was not good behavior," seems awfully judgmental and coming from the viewpoint of an ivory tower. basically, easy for them to say. sainthood eluded ms goffman and now they're targeting her.
23
Goffman is part of the privileged class of academics and others.
1
Tempest in a teapot. Her book represented the feelings and suspicions about police running names in maternity wards rather than representing an analysis of police check data. Feelings and attitudes matter when dealing with an underclass. Scholars are competing for scarce publicity to advance their careers. This is but another example of the commercialization of scholarship.
12
Two words: "Sokal Hoax." Coming on the heels of the coverage of the young PhD candidate who lied about his research results in studying voter response to interviews about gay marriage, this story indicates a ripe field of study for ethnography: does academic pressure on young academics inevitably lead to lying and "cooking the books," or are these cases anomalies? Are there broader implications? Is academia rife with felons?
15
Firstly, you need to know and understand how painfully non-scientific and inadequate the discipline of sociology is and remains. Secondly, Sociology has a religious bent and bias typically. Observation of human behavior is most always inconclusive and flawed. Nevertheless, as noted, perception is a legitimate element that might indeed drive behavior more so than fact. This young (academic?) is just another sociologist hoping to be relevant and noticed using a journalism technique but not science. So, as a reporter, her work is likely meaningful but not repeatable. Similarily, using the popular press is a sign of academic muddle headed nothing to nowhere act.
10
Excellent, insightful, comment. Whatever one might think about sociology, it is not a science.
That last paragraph was the best one.
9
Alice Goffman's career seems driven by the echos of the career of the father she lost as an infant, though with very different focus. However, she seems to have become a member of the community she ostensibly studied. While her work may be a memoir it seems hard to regard it as scholarly work.
7
We should certainly "move on" when the time is right, but this is not simply another ethnography but one that has captured almost unprecedented attention, well beyond academic circles. As such, we potentially have much to learn about what _we_ wish to be true as well as about the publishing business and--to some degree--some of the current trends in popular social science itself--that cultivate and respond to our wishes. To the degree warranted--and I don't know the degree--I hope further discussion focuses, not primarily on Professor Goffman, but on us, the consumers and publicists of her work. If there are additional ethnographic lessons to be learned--beyond those illustrated in the book itself--I believe this is most like where they are to be found.
4
Gee whiz, Professor Lubet is right. Researchers and writers should never get their fingernails dirty doing while plying their trade, even if that means the truth goes unrevealed. And for that matter, Joe "Donnie Brasco" Pistone should be charged, tried and locked up for helping to expose the Mafia from the inside.
Sounds like a case of professorial sour grapes. But as they say, the arguments in academia are so intense because the stakes are so small. Evidently so are the personalities.
Sounds like a case of professorial sour grapes. But as they say, the arguments in academia are so intense because the stakes are so small. Evidently so are the personalities.
14
http://www.ted.com/talks/alice_goffman_college_or_prison_two_destinies_o...
What? By suspicious, VERY suspicious. There is NO way that this undergraduate would be so solely dedicated nor authorized, nevermind privy to such tales, actually. Further, there are 10,001 people who could speak from credible citizen tellings without having a U Penn undergrad to tell, Po O' Ghetto stories. I find this utterly racist and classist.
What? By suspicious, VERY suspicious. There is NO way that this undergraduate would be so solely dedicated nor authorized, nevermind privy to such tales, actually. Further, there are 10,001 people who could speak from credible citizen tellings without having a U Penn undergrad to tell, Po O' Ghetto stories. I find this utterly racist and classist.
10
Cohen is a mind-reader. What Goffman wrote is that the police arrested several men after checking maternity ward guest logs. He says what she is really arguing is that the justice system makes them think they might get arrested in maternity wards.
She also has a central character die, then somehow appearing months later; another who shoots himself in the thigh twice under different circumstances, in a way that strikes some as being contradictory descriptions of the same event.
To be "timely and important", a nonfiction book has to have its facts right.
She also has a central character die, then somehow appearing months later; another who shoots himself in the thigh twice under different circumstances, in a way that strikes some as being contradictory descriptions of the same event.
To be "timely and important", a nonfiction book has to have its facts right.
10
Nice white lady from sheltered background develops sweet spot for extremely masculine thugs -- haven't we heard this one before?
15
When she got into the car, “I had good reason to believe that this night would not end in violence or injury,” Ms. Goffman said in the statement. She added, “I went because I knew these drives were about expressing anger and about grieving, not about doing actual violence.”
I don't believe her. She's supposedly a very experienced sociologist and, as such, should be very mindful of what a bunch of guys like these in a car looking for vengeance are looking to do.
I don't believe her. She's supposedly a very experienced sociologist and, as such, should be very mindful of what a bunch of guys like these in a car looking for vengeance are looking to do.
10
I believe her. Young men in EVERY socioeconomic category, of every race, class, and time, have gone out driving around to let off steam, act tough, impress each other, relieve their feelings of inferiority or insecurity or anger or confusion, and generally pass time in which they don't have better things to do.
MOST of the time, probably well more than 99% of the time, nobody gets killed. If she lived with them she had no doubt understood that most of the time a car full of black young men driving around are not intending to kill anyone nor do they do so.
MOST of the time, probably well more than 99% of the time, nobody gets killed. If she lived with them she had no doubt understood that most of the time a car full of black young men driving around are not intending to kill anyone nor do they do so.
1
What the author of the book missed in all her research was simply the people she described are 'on the run' from personal responsibility. What is distorted is the author's idea that she needed to be part of a sociological 'clinical trial' to understand the issues of the people she was studying. What the author did in the least, was to promote criminal behavior.
10
Her explanation sounds credible. My buddies and I often took crying, screaming road trips where we'd gas up and incite each other with lyrics from Gershwin, then drive by our teacher's house and holler scenes from 'The Tempest'. Yes, we were angry. Yes, people got sung. Yes, we had flats. Yes, they called us Noel Cowards.
6
The indisputable conclusion that she sensationalized her book—for maximum impact—is to her discredit.
10
The real question is how this type of "study" can be taken seriously in any context, let alone be toasted by a wide assortment of academic, publishing and elite glitterati with an agenda. Truly shallow "junk scholarship" which panders to a liberal campus mindset for the purposes of tenure. Frankly I'm surprised this kind of ethnographic knock-off of Elliot Liebow's classic book "Tally's Corner: A Study of Negro Streetcorner Men" can still be played off for a tenure-track job by a young scholar. Well, I guess if Erving Goffman is your father, it opens a lot of doors. The ethnographic study I would be very interested in reading is about how the children of the academic elite have a very easy time in life, and are accountable to nobody. PS: why is her dissertation "sequestered"? Is she hiding something bigger?
11
This is an excellent comment except that it stops short of its larger point. Of course Ms. Goffman had doors opened to her because of her father and his reputation. Does anyone seriously doubt that? The bigger question is: Why should academia be different from law, banking, business, entertainment, politics, or any other professional career? The children of elites ALWAYS have an easier time in life - always have and always will. That is not a revelation, it's common sense reality.
1
Scholars permanently embargo (or "sequester") their dissertations so that they can later publish them as books. Publishers generally won't invest in publishing a manuscript that is otherwise available for free on the internet. Goffman's dissertation probably became the book in question. For most academic scholars, their first book is a revised version of their dissertation. That's how it works. There's nothing nefarious going on.
As for the rest of your comment, re. "how the children of the academic elite have a very easy time in life, and are accountable to nobody," I can't help you with your prejudices.
As for the rest of your comment, re. "how the children of the academic elite have a very easy time in life, and are accountable to nobody," I can't help you with your prejudices.
2
After reading this piece, I don't know what to think of the book. I do however, know what to think about academia. It's a mess. A certain amount of debate on anything academic is good and necessary, but there seems to be nothing that comes from academics anymore that is not immediately seriously suspect. Jealousy or lack of strict enough adherence to methodology? One begins to wonder.
49
Don't judge an entire class of people by one person. Academics publish thousands of articles a year. Are they all corrupt?
1
I think the whole country is corrupt and falling apart. Wonder what we'll look like in 50 years or so. Not pretty.
1
"After reading this piece, I don't know what to think of the book." Why not read the book. Then you will know what you think of it.
2
Ms. Goffman is well-versed in modern sociological strife, though medoubts she had any natural cause to find herself gritting the hard-n-tumble ghetto life, fer real. Her pops, perhaps, may have helped her sociological adventures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman
3
Me thinks envy energizes much of the criticism. How dare a 33 year old woman be so successful and achieve fame!
28
Marie Curie was 36 when she shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1903:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
It's not just a black problem, the criminal system is a men's problem. 90% of prisoners are male. 90% of police shootings are male. Where's the Feminist call for equality?
Her involvement seems to have reached a certain level of absurdity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Bites_Dog_%28film%29
Her involvement seems to have reached a certain level of absurdity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Bites_Dog_%28film%29
3
Here's another persuasive critique challenging Goffman's credibility that wasn't mentioned in the article: http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_2_liberal-elites.html
1
I would suggest you go back to the article you recommend and read the comments section. There are some searing sophisticated critical responses to the article concerning the socio political and economic misunderstandings of life in the US that are frequently perpetuated by right wing mags such as City.
1
I have no clue whether she did or did not drive the car in some sort of "criminal conspiracy", but judging from the uproar over the whole affair the facts are not important here except as a vehicle to attack Dr. Goffman and by extension her work.
I have seen this sort of thing before, and in many arenas. It is a form of "kill the messenger" when something unpopular or politically unacceptable is brought forth. By discrediting the author we may then safely ignore her work, no matter how true, cogent, or timely it may or may not be.
As for what I think of the society she describes, I think I shall keep my opinion to myself.
I have seen this sort of thing before, and in many arenas. It is a form of "kill the messenger" when something unpopular or politically unacceptable is brought forth. By discrediting the author we may then safely ignore her work, no matter how true, cogent, or timely it may or may not be.
As for what I think of the society she describes, I think I shall keep my opinion to myself.
34
Yes, she is appears to be a promising young scholar and no doubt will learn from her experiences and very likely come up with another scholarly study in the future. I've no doubt that prior to all this "criticism" she was aware of how she could have improved on her efforts. I think that her book is as flawed as many books in the social sciences are. I suspect that most of the clamor here reflects professional jealousies about all the attention she has been getting and that her critics haven't.
11
Mr. Lubet indeed does seem to have an agenda, and it sounds like sour grapes. As someone who has lived in various hoods and ghettos, and not by choice, but from necessity, it is very difficult to simply live without doing something that a privileged person - or a cop - would not find felonious. As for Mr. Lubet, I am sure if he searched his own neighborhood, he could find perhaps someone who had given a prescription painkiller to a friend with a migraine (felony!) or someone who had "conspired" (i.e., discussed) to commit a crime. Maybe he should become an investigator for the Bar association so he could find some real criminals and prevent them from practicing law.
88
"it is very difficult to simply live without doing something that a privileged person - or a cop - would not find felonious"
Someone asks you: "Will you drive me around to look for and kill another person?"
Why is it "very difficult" to just say no?
Someone asks you: "Will you drive me around to look for and kill another person?"
Why is it "very difficult" to just say no?
1
Ms. Goffman believes that the man she was driving around with did not want to kill anyone. Nevertheless he had a loaded gun and, had he run into the suspected killer of his friend, he may have felt compelled to kill him. Then he would have been a murderer and she an accessory to murder. Ms Goffman's defense rests on her view that sociology is something which happens inside of her head. Many sociologists would disagree. Certainly, judges would disagree as a matter of law. She seems to have confused conspiracy to commit murder, a crime dependent on the the probability of the victim being murdered with crimes such as sexual harassment which depend on the mental state of the perpetrator and the victim. Her actions, regardless of her and the man's intent, were likely to result in someone getting killed.
12
I know that I am commenting on comment but nevertheless to claim that the justice system contaminates her subjects experience of hospitals seems rather partial. Young men, or anyone, who breaks rules (the law) will have an anxiety about being caught. Through the process of what Freud termed transference they will invest any authority, such as a public body like a hospital, with a critical function and be wary of it.
4
I have not read this book, but it reminds me of Katherine Boo's "Behind the Beautiful Forevers," which claims to represent the lives of slum dwellers in Mumbai, India, even though she speaks no Indian languages. What strategy!--it was written around the time of "Slumdog Millionaire." In my view, these "slumming it" privileged white women are self promoters--just take a look at Alice Goffman's U of Wisconsin website--and the media goes along with this by giving them attention, prizes and accolades. I don't set much store by their narratives, which tells us probably more about them than about what they are writing about, though at least Hoffman could speak the language of those she "documents" in "On the run."
7
You criticize Goffman as a 'self-promoter' and suggest "just take a look at Alice Goffman's U of Wisconsin website." I did, and it's a pretty standard, even spare faculty member staff site, with one reference to a contact for press inquiries on her book. Nothing ostentatious or out of the ordinary for a professor. See it at: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/show-person.php?person_id=1335
1
I don't know what webpage you were looking at but there is nothing unusual about the one I've found: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/show-person.php?person_id=1335 . There is some promotion of her book, but that's completely normal.
This kind of frenzied, irrational resistance is what you're up against when you bring up narratives outside of those pushed by the economic and political elite.
It turns out crime and urban squalor happen in a book about crime and urban squalor--how blasphemous!
It turns out crime and urban squalor happen in a book about crime and urban squalor--how blasphemous!
12
Is anyone really surprised that a young professor and new author may have tweaked her book or her editor suggested, "do something sexy."
7
Twelve-hundred-plus words across twenty-six paragraphs and it is not until the third-from-last that we hear from someone with, presumably, an actual sociological link to the black and latino communities Ms. Goffman's book profiles (all irony intended).
Instead, we hear from a half-dozen of the usual cohort weighing in, pro and con, from behind their customary professional, economic, societal and ethnic firewalls; the net-effect of which is, as always, to place themselves at the center of -- and thereby effectively co-opt -- the conversation.
Instead, we hear from a half-dozen of the usual cohort weighing in, pro and con, from behind their customary professional, economic, societal and ethnic firewalls; the net-effect of which is, as always, to place themselves at the center of -- and thereby effectively co-opt -- the conversation.
17
Probably the only crime Ms. Goffman has committed is to make a wad of $$$ by writing about poor peoples lives -- and occasionally "dressing it up" a little. How much did her book costf?
3
What are Professor Lubet's motives in attacking a young, untenured, obviously talented female scholar in a way that is both personal and threatening? The accusation seems concocted to attract attention, undermining the credibility of an assistant professor who now finds herself at a university in a state whose governor is trying to undue tenure. Obviously, there are acceptable, respectful and constructive ways to critique an academic's findings and methods, but this is not one of them.
104
I don't know whether Mr. Lubet is right or not, but how in heaven's name is his critical approach to Ms. Goffman's work in any way personal or threatening? (And if it is personal, that's only fair, as Ms. Goffman made herself one of the subjects of her book.)
As I suggested, I don't know who's in the right here, but I'm tempted to side with Mr. Lubet et al. simply because so many of Ms. Goffman's defenders seem to be indulging in hyperbole.
As I suggested, I don't know who's in the right here, but I'm tempted to side with Mr. Lubet et al. simply because so many of Ms. Goffman's defenders seem to be indulging in hyperbole.
1
This appears to me to be a case motivated by professional jealousy. You have a young hotshot who does something really original, gains notoriety, then gets set upon by a bunch of nitpickers who focus on details to the exclusion of the big picture. There should of course be scrutiny, but sifting through every single detail as if she should have operated under the highest journalistic standards seems excessive.
Sure, she may have made some mistakes and cut some corners, but they do not seem to discredit her essential achievement, for which she deserves praise and study. As the article says, let's move on and learn from it.
Sure, she may have made some mistakes and cut some corners, but they do not seem to discredit her essential achievement, for which she deserves praise and study. As the article says, let's move on and learn from it.
160
Maybe she should write for some TV reality show if she likes to tweak the truth.
4
Rob Crawford: Being a nitpicker is what academic life is about. The details matter. If she some of the facts seem wrong, she should correct or explain them. "Praise and study" are for the religious.
2
I can't imagine ANY of those petty, horrible things EVER happening in academia.
1
I haven't read the book, but if she is claiming that as a white woman she was integrated into street gangs and treated like a comrade, I would find that unbelievable. As in not credible at all.
15
Curious about a comment by Cohen on the book "Her book is Flawed. Let's learn from the mistakes and move on". Whose mistakes and who should move on ?
4
Of course right-wing academics are attacking this book: they don't like to face facts.
6
How do you read right-wing into any portion of this?
8
As an academic myself I applaud Ms. Goffman for her innovative writing and research. She is stimulating debate - in sociology, law and ethics. This is what good research does. It is exceptionally difficult to conduct ethnographic research well and it cannot be done without closely identifying with the subject group and immersing yourself in their world. Too many tenured academics would rather remain in their ivory tower where it is all too easy to cast rocks with little consequence to themselves. Yes this book and Ms. Goffman's approach deserve robust review and debate, but intellectual snobbery has no place in this discussion. If you are looking for good behavior, academia is no more or less of a place to find it. I have left many a university meeting, sometimes determining the success or failure of a young professor's career, feeling "that human beings just shouldn't act like that."
69
Funny, I have left plenty of meetings with politicians thinking that human beings just shouldn't act like that.
1
Yeah. Tenure and Promotion committees bring out the best and worst in humanity, don't they? Ugh.
As an academic myself I applaud Ms. Goffman for her innovative writing and research.
Where is the verifiable data from the research?
Apparently all Dr. Goffman's data has been systematically destroyed by the researcher (Dr. Goffman, herself).
Therefore the book might better have been published as a "roman a clef," which it rightly seems to be.
Without verifiable data there is no research.
Where is the verifiable data from the research?
Apparently all Dr. Goffman's data has been systematically destroyed by the researcher (Dr. Goffman, herself).
Therefore the book might better have been published as a "roman a clef," which it rightly seems to be.
Without verifiable data there is no research.
2
I seem to rember that when I heard an interview with Ms. Goffman about this book, I wondered whether her close relationship with some of the subjects would degrade the level of its impact. Although they were very compelling, it felt like the stories she told were not based on a sufficiently objective perspective to be regarded as scientific reporting.
4
My suspicion is that "a measure of fame that is rarely visited on a young sociologist" has lead to a measure of jealousy among her peers.
72
It must be a really good book if the right wing is seeking to discredit her personally. Makes me think probably a defining book of the early 22nd Century.
3
What is your basis for assuming that the sociologist and other academics who have commented on her book are right wing?
You are attempting to discredit their opinions based on your assumption that they are right wing, is extraordinarily unlikely.
Rather than read the book or make an objective comment, you go right for the "they don't agree 100% with the narrative and therefore must be heard hearted right wingers" progressive narrative. It is narrow minded people like you who are preventing progress.
You are attempting to discredit their opinions based on your assumption that they are right wing, is extraordinarily unlikely.
Rather than read the book or make an objective comment, you go right for the "they don't agree 100% with the narrative and therefore must be heard hearted right wingers" progressive narrative. It is narrow minded people like you who are preventing progress.
Did she commit conspiracy to murder? Maybe.
Are less culpable people serving long sentences in prison today? Definitely.
Are less culpable people serving long sentences in prison today? Definitely.
3
Seems the privledged white men are keen to hold their position as guide to the meaning of black lives.
41
Thanks, Lubet, for distracting the news from a legitimate and important issue to a dubious claim about Goffman's ethics. And thanks, NYT, for treating these academic allegations as a big event. Does anyone actually challenge Goffman's evidence? Or her conclusions?
9
@ jng54-Verified Sleater and Unverified Professor emeritus Larry (U of R) recoomend you begin by reading Christina Sharpe - not named but see link "fraught politics"
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
FYI-Christina Sharpe is an associate professor at Tufts University in the department of English and the programs in Africana, American, and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. She is currently working on a book called In the Wake: On Blackness and Being.
Link to my iniitial comment plus reply from ceilidth (“ethnographer”)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/books/alice-goffmans-heralded-book-on-...
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
FYI-Christina Sharpe is an associate professor at Tufts University in the department of English and the programs in Africana, American, and Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. She is currently working on a book called In the Wake: On Blackness and Being.
Link to my iniitial comment plus reply from ceilidth (“ethnographer”)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/books/alice-goffmans-heralded-book-on-...
When looking for criminal behavior, remember few of us are able to go through a day without activities that could fall under some overly broad criminal statute, especially with all the possibilities for conspiracy. See Harvey Silverglate's book "Three Felonies a Day."
5
I find Mr. Cohen imploring the world at large not to "discredit [Ms. Goffman] as a person and scholar" quite funny when his blog does a far better job of discrediting her as a scholar than anything quoted in this piece. Based on his analysis of a survey she conducts and cites in the book, it is clear that Ms. Goffman forged or at least grossly misrepresented her results. Of course, Mr. Cohen merely says that he would like to see more information, but his analysis is damning to the point that I lost all trust in Ms. Goffman as a researcher. It is really worth a read (hyperlinked from this article as Cohen's "blog").
7
Regarding the sociologist at the University of Maryland who said he found the book disturbing because, um, "...human beings just shouldn't act like that..."--- I'm puzzled. How can a sociologist have an objection like that? This is like
2
...like a medical examiner disturbed in the presence of dead bodies.
3
"For example, citing interviews with unnamed police officers, she writes that officers visiting hospitals regularly run the names of patients and visitors through criminal databases, arresting those with outstanding warrants — a practice, Ms. Goffman argues, that deters many men from seeking medical care or attending the births of their children."
Poor things, I suppose there is a dual consequence for just about every action taken by every individual working in the criminal justice field. Exploiting them is the bread and chocolate of leftist propagandists.
Poor things, I suppose there is a dual consequence for just about every action taken by every individual working in the criminal justice field. Exploiting them is the bread and chocolate of leftist propagandists.
3
“ ‘Here’s a promising young scholar who did a really impressive project. Her book is flawed. Let’s learn from the mistakes and move on.’ ”
Yet the book is a commingling of personal and observed conduct. This will instantly make any question about the conduct of Ms. Goffman--part of her research methodology--integral to discussing flaws. Mr. Cohen should back away and let the criticism sort itself out.
Yet the book is a commingling of personal and observed conduct. This will instantly make any question about the conduct of Ms. Goffman--part of her research methodology--integral to discussing flaws. Mr. Cohen should back away and let the criticism sort itself out.
3
I think we have to remember that Alice began this project as an undergraduate. Most junior graduate students, much less undergraduates, have a sophisticated understanding of qualitative or quantitative methods. Is Alice a fraud? Doubtful. Did Alice push the boundaries of ethical research? Probably. Was she sloppy? It seems that way.
I think there is a bigger lesson for Princeton (and other PhD programs): Dissertation committees should be skeptical when PhD students use data they collected as an undergraduate or during their early years of graduate school.
We all want to believe that a promising, young student have a special gift. A gift that allows them to do accelerated work that is far better than her or his peers. I suspect that people assumed that Alice had this gift (she may have had the potential) and then gave her a pass on the nuances of her research protocol. That is the big lesson going forward, in my humble opinion.
I think there is a bigger lesson for Princeton (and other PhD programs): Dissertation committees should be skeptical when PhD students use data they collected as an undergraduate or during their early years of graduate school.
We all want to believe that a promising, young student have a special gift. A gift that allows them to do accelerated work that is far better than her or his peers. I suspect that people assumed that Alice had this gift (she may have had the potential) and then gave her a pass on the nuances of her research protocol. That is the big lesson going forward, in my humble opinion.
11
I lived in the same neighborhoods Dr. Goffman wites about, back in the days before Ronald Reagan, crack, and what Gil Scott Heron was singing about in "Winter in America." I was dismayed to read how bad things had got, and how terrible the prospects are for Black people these days. Back then, there was hope.
Dr. Goffman is telling the truth as she sees it, right there at ground zero. Lot of people, liberals included, aren't going to like it. I'd do the same in her place.
When some people talk about "privileged white women" as if that is some kind of black mark? All I can say is there have always been white women living in what "you people" call "the ghetto." They do not live privileged lives - they have to win or lose acceptance from the black women based on their actions in the community. Your opinion, Mr or Ms. pundit doesn't really count.
Did Dr. Goffman drive for someone who was out to kill an enemy? If so, is that right or wrong? What is the difference between a graduate student exploiting a community so she can get a thesis, and someone who is in for a dollar if she's in for a dime?
The social sciences have always put strictures onto researchers, warning them against "going native." It's kind of a holdover from the days of colonialism and white supremacy. My own feeling, and my own experience, is that if you have any kind of a heart, you can do nothing else.
Bravo for Dr. Goffman. read her book, then go out and do something about it.
Dr. Goffman is telling the truth as she sees it, right there at ground zero. Lot of people, liberals included, aren't going to like it. I'd do the same in her place.
When some people talk about "privileged white women" as if that is some kind of black mark? All I can say is there have always been white women living in what "you people" call "the ghetto." They do not live privileged lives - they have to win or lose acceptance from the black women based on their actions in the community. Your opinion, Mr or Ms. pundit doesn't really count.
Did Dr. Goffman drive for someone who was out to kill an enemy? If so, is that right or wrong? What is the difference between a graduate student exploiting a community so she can get a thesis, and someone who is in for a dollar if she's in for a dime?
The social sciences have always put strictures onto researchers, warning them against "going native." It's kind of a holdover from the days of colonialism and white supremacy. My own feeling, and my own experience, is that if you have any kind of a heart, you can do nothing else.
Bravo for Dr. Goffman. read her book, then go out and do something about it.
122
I concur with jon norstag. Read the book. It's excellent and speaks to what we need to know about policing practices in poor urban black and Latino communities.
@jon norstog: "Dr. Goffman is telling the truth as she sees it, ..."
Scientists are supposed to be objective, not subjective.
Scientists are supposed to be objective, not subjective.
1
WHO SHOULD WRITE A BOOK ABOUT UNDERCLASS CRIME?
Members of the criminal culture or a well educated sociological student who has the gifts, education and ability to discern the multifaceted aspects of the subject matter'
Swedish sociologist Gunner Myrdal (sp?) wrote a book which described racism in the U. S. around the 1950s. Should he get credit or blame? Whom else could write such an indictment.
This looks to me like academic jealousy.
Members of the criminal culture or a well educated sociological student who has the gifts, education and ability to discern the multifaceted aspects of the subject matter'
Swedish sociologist Gunner Myrdal (sp?) wrote a book which described racism in the U. S. around the 1950s. Should he get credit or blame? Whom else could write such an indictment.
This looks to me like academic jealousy.
9
Q:
Is Alice Goffman related to noted sociologist Erving Goffman?
Is Alice Goffman related to noted sociologist Erving Goffman?
1
Yes, she is his daughter.
1
She is his daughter. He passed away when she was an infant.
1
So her study and report on it is flawed. So what? SO IS EVERY OTHER.
Every study is a milestone. We take from them the good parts, and ignore the bad parts. But attacking the researcher rather than the research serves only to deter others from trying to do research, to shut down further study.
Every study is a milestone. We take from them the good parts, and ignore the bad parts. But attacking the researcher rather than the research serves only to deter others from trying to do research, to shut down further study.
5
It's interesting to note that Goffman's critics seem mostly to be men, but then again, it might also be interesting to think about how a book about the struggles of young urban African American women might be received had it been written by a young white man. Almost impossible to imagine it would have any kind of positive reception, much less even see the light of day.
4
@Andrew: "It's interesting to note that Goffman's critics seem mostly to be men, ..."
If you are going to play in the science sandbox, you are going to have to provide some actual data. How many critics did you actually sample? How did you select those critics for your sample? How did you determine their gender?
If you are going to play in the science sandbox, you are going to have to provide some actual data. How many critics did you actually sample? How did you select those critics for your sample? How did you determine their gender?
@Andrew-You clearly have missed Christina Sharpe's essay that I (10 recommends) and Sleater (85 recommends) urge Times commenters to read. Professor Sharpe is not named but only alluded to - see link "fraught politics)
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
I have not read Alice Goffman's book, so cannot comment on the veracity or the ethics of what she writes about. But it seems to me that the critics cited in this article (and there are fewer than the headline would lead you to believe) are all male, and don't seem to question whether their conduct, a public condemnation of a female colleague's research methodology, is ethically sound.
6
See "Black Life, Annotated" by Christina Sharpe in The New Inquiry.
1
I myself am always in favor of not venturing into dangerous neighborhoods and looking for trouble, but that is purely a personal preference, and I have no problem with other people doing it, provided they receive prior clearance from their psychiatrist.
2
Ms. Scheussler must not have read Goffman's reply to Lubet, which points serious and substantial errors in his citation of the law and in his statements about what police practices really are, as if no violations of the law by police have been observed. Professor Lubet answered her charges very selectively and he owes the world better than that.
8
I would like to hear Ms. Goffman's views on exactly what the police are supposed to do. Loosening the reigns is leading to some rather impressive increases in violent crime in some major cities. It is the law abiding citizen in low-income communities that stand to suffer the most but no one seems to care about them. Why are we always be called upon to be sympathetic to those committing crimes?
17
Because at the heat of liberal pathos is the idea that subjecting whites to the overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of crime committed by black males is justifiable vengeance, they just can't say that openly....yet.
1
Young scholars are pressured to write something groundbreaking in order, not simply to make a name for themselves, but to be hireable at good jobs. The system is very flawed, and it's no wonder it produces sensationalistic treatments of subjects that, with greater honesty and prudence, might produce a yawn from publishing houses. It sounds like Ms. Goffman was successful at the game, but she didn't make the rules. The whole academic publishing industry needs self-examination.
81
I agree. On May 31, reporter Noam Scheiber had an eye-opening piece in the Times on how young economists are pressed to get their work written up in the media even before it is peer-reviewed. The media are complicit. A year or so ago, the Times ran a sensational article claiming that kindergarten teachers could be worth over $300,000 if they get their pupils off to a good start. At that time, the research wasn't peer-reviewed.
The problem with Ms. Goffman's book is simply that it offers a narrow perspective on the lives of young black men in American cities
The problem with Ms. Goffman's book is simply that it offers a narrow perspective on the lives of young black men in American cities
Is there some reason this article failed to mention either of the very compelling critiques, by Reginald Dwayne Betts, which Professor Lubet approvingly cites in his New Republic essay and which he notes made him rethink his appraisal of the book, or the incisive review by Professor Christina Sharpe, in the New Inquiry? Of course there are others, but these are two of the best, and they both raise important questions about Goffman's work that shape the conversation Professor Lubet is entering.
Also, why is it a problem that a law school professor and insightful critic asks a legitimate question about possible criminal activity? Shouldn't legal scholars be attentive to such things? Should Professor Goffman be willing, as a scholar, to answer questions about her methods and research? Why are Lubet's important questions "tactics"?
Also, why is it a problem that a law school professor and insightful critic asks a legitimate question about possible criminal activity? Shouldn't legal scholars be attentive to such things? Should Professor Goffman be willing, as a scholar, to answer questions about her methods and research? Why are Lubet's important questions "tactics"?
89
Thanks so much for this comment which led me to read the outstanding pieces you cite by Betts and Sharpe.
4
"Should Professor Goffman be willing, as a scholar, to answer questions about her methods and research"
I am curious - has she refused to answer questions?
I am curious - has she refused to answer questions?
1
Lubet's (and Sharpe's) reviews show a clear bias and also a certain lack of generosity towards a much younger colleague who has written a flawed book. Granted, it is possible their irritation may well stem more from having read too many uncritically glowing reviews than the book itself. I have found Betts's critique more compelling.
It would have been useful to know what punishment someone risks for the alleged crime.
Unless I am misunderstanding something, Ms. Goffman did nothing wrong in the incident described. "Conspiracy to commit murder" seems to benefit from some of those broad descriptions which leaves too much discretion to prosecutors and jury. Lock 'em up only if they're black and poor or have bad breath and don't smile; but if you're a white sociologist, obviously there will be no charges. This is not just.
If the law applies in cases (such as this one) where one goes, "Well obviously she did nothing wrong," the law is too broad and should be written off the books.
Unless I am misunderstanding something, Ms. Goffman did nothing wrong in the incident described. "Conspiracy to commit murder" seems to benefit from some of those broad descriptions which leaves too much discretion to prosecutors and jury. Lock 'em up only if they're black and poor or have bad breath and don't smile; but if you're a white sociologist, obviously there will be no charges. This is not just.
If the law applies in cases (such as this one) where one goes, "Well obviously she did nothing wrong," the law is too broad and should be written off the books.
24
A conspiracy to commit murder exists when two or more people agree to kill someone and do in fact kill that someone. All members of the conspiracy are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder even if only one of the conspirators pulled the trigger or was even at the scene of the murder. I think it is a reasonable outcome and crime. As for your suggestion that it was devised to hurt black and Latino people, may I apprise you that conspiracy doctrine was part of English Law for centuries preceding our current racial quarrels.
1
@abo: "Unless I am misunderstanding something, Ms. Goffman did nothing wrong in the incident described."
What you are missing is this quote from Ms. Goffman's book: "I got into the car because, like Mike and Reggie, I wanted Chuck’s killer to die." That appears to establish intent to commit a crime. See Steven Lubet's review for more:
http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/ethics-on-the-run
What you are missing is this quote from Ms. Goffman's book: "I got into the car because, like Mike and Reggie, I wanted Chuck’s killer to die." That appears to establish intent to commit a crime. See Steven Lubet's review for more:
http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/ethics-on-the-run
6
It is not necessary for a murder to take place in order for individuals to be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. All that is necessary is for two or more people to plan and for one person to make an overt action.
Shooter wants to kill John Doe, who he believes killed his cousin. Shooter discusses with planner how to find John Doe. Shooter, unbeknownst to planner, recruits getaway driver to help him find John Doe and tells driver he wants to discuss his cousin's death with John Doe. Shooter finds John Doe with help of driver, fires his gun at John Doe. The gun misfires and shooter and driver are arrested by passing off-duty policeman.
No murder has taken place, only shooter had intent to commit murder, but planner, driver and shooter are all convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Shooter is also convicted of attempted murder. Planner and driver didn't even know each other existed.
Shooter wants to kill John Doe, who he believes killed his cousin. Shooter discusses with planner how to find John Doe. Shooter, unbeknownst to planner, recruits getaway driver to help him find John Doe and tells driver he wants to discuss his cousin's death with John Doe. Shooter finds John Doe with help of driver, fires his gun at John Doe. The gun misfires and shooter and driver are arrested by passing off-duty policeman.
No murder has taken place, only shooter had intent to commit murder, but planner, driver and shooter are all convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Shooter is also convicted of attempted murder. Planner and driver didn't even know each other existed.
1