Is this an article, or a hagiography?
11
This article lacks the balance that would only be possible with some consideration of just who sociologists are, what sociology is. Americans tend to think they are academics, and their field a social science discipline.
To the rest of us they look like members of a strange cult, pretending to study society, but doing so under very restrictive rules. They are not allowed to report on power, money, or social class. Indeed, it seems plausible that their bogus discipline was invented entirely to obscure the exclusion of these topics from American academic study.
Their place in academia is made safe, it seems to me, only by the relentless rightwing attacks on sanity and intellect everywhere which make these pallid fantasiasts look legitimate.
-dlj.
To the rest of us they look like members of a strange cult, pretending to study society, but doing so under very restrictive rules. They are not allowed to report on power, money, or social class. Indeed, it seems plausible that their bogus discipline was invented entirely to obscure the exclusion of these topics from American academic study.
Their place in academia is made safe, it seems to me, only by the relentless rightwing attacks on sanity and intellect everywhere which make these pallid fantasiasts look legitimate.
-dlj.
1
the unasked and unanswered question is how Ms. Goffman's presence affected her subjects' behavior. If, as her dad argued, social life is performance, how did her act of observing affect the actors in this particular playlet. Both Ms. Goffman and the author of the article are naïve if they think she was just another fish swimming along in the ocean and her presence did not affect the behavior of the school.
12
Alice Goffman’s book represents the best kind of ethnography—engaging, important, in depth and rigorous.
The article accuses Goffman of paying “scant attention to the dominant mode of her data-preoccupied field” & yet acknowledges Goffman's “obsessive fidelity—often transcribing hours long conversations as they happened in real time”. As an ethnography, those transcript are her data, so it’s difficult to reconcile these two statements,.
Goffman does address the issue of her positionality. It’s a large part of what her book is about. She acknowledges the awkwardness of her position—as a privileged, white person, female, outsider, and then after yrs living on 6th St, the limitations of her position as she became immersed in the culture of the street. We can believe or take these comments with a grain of salt. The point is she acknowledges the limitations and problems associated with her position, which is all an ethnographer can do.
In a recent article from that other social science, education, Harvard’s Catherine Snow, writes about the need for more qualitative research. “We do not need any more studies estimating effect sizes for exposure to early childhood education," she writes. "We need instead careful studies of what defines quality in early childhood programs”. While grants and legislators favor the “figures, charts, and graphs” of the Cold War era, quant. research can only tell us so much. “What we need” now is qualitative research, what Goffman is doing so well.
The article accuses Goffman of paying “scant attention to the dominant mode of her data-preoccupied field” & yet acknowledges Goffman's “obsessive fidelity—often transcribing hours long conversations as they happened in real time”. As an ethnography, those transcript are her data, so it’s difficult to reconcile these two statements,.
Goffman does address the issue of her positionality. It’s a large part of what her book is about. She acknowledges the awkwardness of her position—as a privileged, white person, female, outsider, and then after yrs living on 6th St, the limitations of her position as she became immersed in the culture of the street. We can believe or take these comments with a grain of salt. The point is she acknowledges the limitations and problems associated with her position, which is all an ethnographer can do.
In a recent article from that other social science, education, Harvard’s Catherine Snow, writes about the need for more qualitative research. “We do not need any more studies estimating effect sizes for exposure to early childhood education," she writes. "We need instead careful studies of what defines quality in early childhood programs”. While grants and legislators favor the “figures, charts, and graphs” of the Cold War era, quant. research can only tell us so much. “What we need” now is qualitative research, what Goffman is doing so well.
11
I am a "graphs and numbers" quantitative social scientist. One of the most brilliant and powerful works of sociology I've ever read was Carol Stack's 1974 'All Our Kin' (subtitled 'Strategies for Survival in a Black Community), the result of a white woman's ethnographic immersion. That book has more insightful and policy-relevant things to say about supposedly "broken" Black families than dozens of data-driven studies I've read. I can't wait to read Goffman's book.
10
Tthe smug look on Miss Goffmans face in the photo is immediately offputting. Then there is the cliched proclamation of outrage that shes not considered suspect in airports unlike dark complexed men. If she was a 70 year old black woman shed been considered less suspect than a 25 year old white woman who looked poor and like a drug addict but that goes unnoticed. Then there are her detractors who seem equally smug and sanctimonious. I suspect both sides have valid points and both act in ways that they believe is for the greater good of oppressed people. Ultimately I believe that little good trickles down to the oppressed from the labors of either group. I find the message of both sides to be clouded by my emotional reaction, which is dislike of the messenger.
6
I don't see smug there at all. Not a bit. Perhaps you are projecting?
5
I have some concern, as a former journalist and current academic (who's studied Goffman) about Lewis-Kraus' comment re: journalists: he writes that the language of journalism "is almost always the language of individual moral responsibility." As a matter of fact, journalism is supposed to be about societal responsibility, about larger issues, rather than about an individual's morals or personal liabilities. That he sees the profession as "necessarily personal" concerns me, but that attitude may also be emblematic of the larger problem.
Many people don't trust journalists because of this alleged bias, and in fact as I study journalism and how it covers social programs I see this in the dichotomy of attitudes within the public sphere. Generally speaking, news stories try to balance what most reporters see as the two sides to every story, though writers who specialize in larger issues like healthcare or policy understandably come to realize the societal impact and influence of programs and governmental actions upon the individual. Because, from what I can tell, Lewis-Kraus has not apparently been a beat reporter, he may see journalism this way--as all about personal stories, and focused on individual personal responsibility--but I'd sure be interested to hear what the Times' own reporters say about that belief. Journalism has been, historically, about reporting rather than reportage.
Many people don't trust journalists because of this alleged bias, and in fact as I study journalism and how it covers social programs I see this in the dichotomy of attitudes within the public sphere. Generally speaking, news stories try to balance what most reporters see as the two sides to every story, though writers who specialize in larger issues like healthcare or policy understandably come to realize the societal impact and influence of programs and governmental actions upon the individual. Because, from what I can tell, Lewis-Kraus has not apparently been a beat reporter, he may see journalism this way--as all about personal stories, and focused on individual personal responsibility--but I'd sure be interested to hear what the Times' own reporters say about that belief. Journalism has been, historically, about reporting rather than reportage.
3
I seem to recall that for many years academic sociologists took the field away from the field to long distance survey research from their offices with no contact with actual persons. Goffman's work is a welcome return to the roots of the field in the tradition of William F. White's "Street Cornier Society."
1
My impression is that Alice Goffman wrote a very compelling book, one that gives outsiders a genuine, close-up view of what life is like for many young, black boys/men in the urban ghetto. But I also sense that she engaged so closely with her subjects that her book did not pass muster as an academic study. Should she have still done what she did, enmeshed herself and written the book? Yes, absolutely. Are the academics upset because of the attention she's received. Yes, it seems so. But some of their claims are also legitimate. A sociologist writing an academic study does need to follow a discipline. In my mind Alice Goffman is a journalist who uses her academic training to enlighten readers. It's not wrong. It's just different.
4
I am a former sociologist, a white person, and can tell you that the political correctness insanity has gone so far that doing ethnographic studies or even quantitative studies of any group that you are not part of is looked on suspiciously. My colleague in the history department at the major university where we studied was told by an associate professor that only lesbians could write women's history. I was told by a visiting professor in my department that only Hispanics could 'authentically' write about Hispanics, etc. It is hard not to see that this is a way for professionals to carve out areas of research for themselves, and to protect the field from competition by others. (Shades of Erving Goffman's professionalism analysis!) This same debate happens in writing for popular consumption: authors who add characters who are not the same race/ethnicity/gender are criticized for that. The value of ethnographic studies is that, as one of the quotes in the article says, you must know yourself while you are learning about others. The intriguing and exciting part of doing this kind of sociology is that you CHANGE as you learn about others. And wouldn't the world be a bit better if we all took time to try to learn about someone else's life without making judgments, or assessing them against our own standards?
15
I'll be honest -- I skipped over several paragraphs in this article that describe the minutia of the academic establishment's criticism of her book, because, really, who cares? This young woman immersed and integrated (ingratiated?) herself for YEARS into a world that most of us reading the article will never know, and wrote a compelling book about it. Why are we focusing on the controversy surrounding her rather than her subject(s)? Even if it were invented whole cloth (it wasn't), any reasonable person would agree the societal problems she sheds light on will not get better on their own and must be confronted and addressed. The discussion surrounding the book's author is the very definition of a red herring.
9
First of all, does anyone believe she burned those notes??
Secondly, despite being white, I do not go through the day having my dignity affirmed. Often the exact opposite occurs.
Secondly, despite being white, I do not go through the day having my dignity affirmed. Often the exact opposite occurs.
19
Actually you do have your dignity affirmed daily. You are just so used to it that you no longer notice.
7
Her dignity being affirmed probably has less to do with being white and more to do with being a young attractive upper-middle class educated woman. If she was a white middle aged homeless person who was unattractive there would not be these same affirmations. If she looked like Beyoncé or Riyanna there would be significantly more.
5
"Remember too that women were only admitted there a few years before Dr. Hoffman was born. I leave it to the reader to connect any perceived dots. Just sayin'"
Dr. Goffman was born in 1981 or 1982. Female undergrads arrived at Princeton in 1969; female grad students (of which Goffman was one) gained entrance as early as 1961. I can't guess what "huh" is "just sayin'".
Dr. Goffman was born in 1981 or 1982. Female undergrads arrived at Princeton in 1969; female grad students (of which Goffman was one) gained entrance as early as 1961. I can't guess what "huh" is "just sayin'".
3
A fascinating article about a fascinating sociologist. Yes, she may be from the "old school," as one of her more pretentious, dismissive colleagues suggested, but it was the founding school of the discipline and the most insightful and enlightening school. And her father, Erving Goffman, was one of its most brilliant heirs. Alice Goffman carries on this tradition with integrity and apparently with Mike's mom's parting admonition well in mind.
3
I found Goffman's book (when I read it a few years ago) provided me with an understanding of the relationship between law enforcement and the poor, black, community that brought insights that I had not been privy to before, despite having read extensively. I read it before the extensive public conversation engendered by the BLM movement but at about the same time as Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow. Goffman's book powerfully illustrated the day to day reality of Alexander's thesis and went beyond it in some areas. The modern day debtors' prison aspects of criminal justice was new to me and is just beginning to be talked about several years later. The critiques seem to stem more from envy or an attempt to suppress the realities Goffman's work illustrates, than to come from real concern for truth.
18
The article states up front that most critics are taking issue with the question of whether a white, outsider sociologist should be writing a sometimes-sensationalistic account of an inner-city social unit--I would have hoped for, and expected, more discussion of the field's whiteness, more analysis of the obstacles sociologists of color face in their field, and to hear the voices of both sociologists and community members who take issue with Goffman's book. Otherwise, this article just reads as a face-saving ritual for Alice Goffman.
9
The " . . .unsigned, 60-page, single-spaced document [that] was emailed from a throwaway address to hundreds of sociologists," reminded me of the book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" an Internet-age cautionary tale of gotcha moments and anonymous viral rage. Comes with the territory. Goffman may indeed find her experience in the sequel along with a Jonah Lehrer Update.
1
This seems in a way to echo the theme of the recent article about how philosophy was made inconsequential when it was rendered to the academy. The academy like most of our other institutions depends on donations from the rich, either directly or from the governments that they control, so anything that makes the profit system look bad will catch a lot of flack from mainstream academics.
2
Non-sociologist, non-academic here. Would someone be willing to compare Goffman's work with a part of one of the Freakonomics books, in which I recall a discussion of a young sociologists work with urban youth? I recall a whole section on what it was like to be young, marginalized, poor etc. with some extremely salty language. Very similar to Ms. Goffman's story. In fact I recall that the sociologist also got into academic trouble re citation, attribution, etc. Also there was a good story about Ms. Goffman a while ago in the Penn Gazzette, the alumni mag of the U. of Pennsylvania.
I'll spare everyone my opinions about Alice Goffman and her book and instead simply express my gratitude for this thorough, well-written piece, one fewer and fewer news outlets are committed to providing - or have the resources to provide.
8
Central to the brouhahas echoing around Ms. Goffman's situation are questions of legitimacy and intellectual property rights: the right to write. What right does an upscale white woman have to write about ghetto black men?
I smell the spoor of political correctness, academic conservatism and social justice warriorism at work. If i was Ms Goffman, i would ignore academic culture and return to fieldwork and writing.
I smell the spoor of political correctness, academic conservatism and social justice warriorism at work. If i was Ms Goffman, i would ignore academic culture and return to fieldwork and writing.
5
So some people think that white people have no right to study black people. Do you think this is racist? If not, why not?
2
the critique seems to be that:
1) she's too close to the situation ("gone native"), or
2) she's too much of an outsider
Somehow lost in the debate is the reality and waste of what it means for the lives of these young people to be constantly "on the run". Other rarely asked questions are what the participants of "On the Run" think about the book, what the community in their neighbourhood thinks, and what if any policy impact the book has had.
1) she's too close to the situation ("gone native"), or
2) she's too much of an outsider
Somehow lost in the debate is the reality and waste of what it means for the lives of these young people to be constantly "on the run". Other rarely asked questions are what the participants of "On the Run" think about the book, what the community in their neighbourhood thinks, and what if any policy impact the book has had.
8
Thank you. It's really a shame the focus here is trashing the investigator. Very few comments on the topic Goffman wrote about! I hope the article spurs at least a few people to read the book. It's a great book and pretty eye opening.
3
I was once interrogated for alleged mail theft by Postal Inspectors. It was found that there was no theft of any kind and all the mail had been accounted for. I naively refused a legal counsel because I knew I was innocent and saw no need for a legal counsel.
During the interrogation the agent had his gun on the table the entire time with the barrel pointed at me.
I am white, so I can only imagine the tactics used with blacks.
During the interrogation the agent had his gun on the table the entire time with the barrel pointed at me.
I am white, so I can only imagine the tactics used with blacks.
11
I'm curious: Would Goffman have been criticized if she was Asian or American Indian and writing about the African American community? Probably not, because she would have been seen as another "minority". But I have news for those who categorize Goffman simply as "white": She's Jewish. That's actually an ethnicity, folks, and it actually constitutes a striking minority ethnicity in America. Academia, particularly, needs to stop dismissing Jews as minorities.
6
Until I read this story, I had never heard of Alice Goffman or her book. But you can count me among those who don't really care what she does for a living--we just need many more people out there like her, doing what she does. Wouldn't this world be a much better place if we had the benefit of more people rolling up their sleeves and prejudices and approaching life and understanding other cultures/communities the way she does? If others in ethnography have quibbles with her practices, procedures, etc., I suspect she will have no absolutely problem finding another profession to welcome her with open arms. What a gem of a human being comes through in this account. Thank you, Gideon Lewis-Kraus!
9
Quite an article/essay, about the validity of Goffman's methodology and how her work fits into the history of ethnography, but also about an amazing foray across cultural boundaries. The simple fact of a white girl of privilege not merely entering into, but actually joining, an urban community of blacks without privilege, I must say, despite my initial skepticism, challenges so many of our most basic assumptions -- about race and class, about sex, about people. I have not read the book, but based on Lewis-Kraus' thorough, even-handed piece, it passes the sniff test. I admit it's hard for me to accept that Goffman could actually love these people and that they could love her, but in the end, isn't that the whole point? That she can and we can't.
3
It sounds like you're saying poor Black people aren't lovable. Is that really what you meant?
1
I am intrigued by and will probably read "On the Run". I did, however, pause when I read that the treatise author's experience of being partially raised "by Italian[s]" was, according to the NYT author, distinctly different from life with her "professor" parents, to the extent that she took copious notes on the experience". That reference was particularly jarring, especially as the author of the piece made note of casual racism which creeps into society. Was this meant as an example?
7
I've read the referred-to commentary about her book and the numnber of contradictory details cited in her books and talks are quite impressive.
I would suggest that people actually download the critique, read it and then try to understand how all those contradictions could be explained.
The idea of burning field notes and not having an IRB for this kind of work seem totally implausible.
I would suggest that people actually download the critique, read it and then try to understand how all those contradictions could be explained.
The idea of burning field notes and not having an IRB for this kind of work seem totally implausible.
5
I know nothing about sociology as an academic discipline, but when I started this article I told myself that Alice Goffman was going to provoke the anger of her professional colleagues because she garnered publicity with her story. I was not proven wrong. Whether her work constitutes sociology, "new" journalism, or narrative (non) ficition seems irrelevant to me. It is an interesting story, although perhaps not worth several hundred pages as a book. It is very much a tale of a young person having an experience "outside of her comfort zone;" being enough of a writer to relate the story to others; make money out of it; and end up identifying with her chosen subjects. I feel it was another good piece of journalism by the Times.
1
Maybe read the book before announcing how many pages it's worth.
It's a page turner.
It's a page turner.
1
Sociology is the poster child of academic junk science. At best, it belongs in journalism.
5
I might be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that Weber only really talked about "verstehen," and that it was Dilthey who make the contrast between "verstehen" and "erklären" central to his thesis on the disparate roles of the humanities/social sciences and the natural sciences.
Why the hand wringing over the plight of blacks but not the same advocacy for Native Americans? Natives are a far smaller and powerless community. This obsession in itself seems a pathology that seems harmful.
1
Perhaps it's time for another Goffman to shake up the field. Sociology is devouring itself with rigid and petty arguments. Critiquing methodology through academic commentary and conference sessions is appropriate. Destroying scholarship through anonymous emails is the wimp version of bullying.
6
I found this quote from a sociologist in the article the most thought-provoking: ‘‘At the end of the day, we have to be careful about how much pandering we do to the masses.’’
In order to make a difference in the real world, rather than just the insular world of Sociology, you do need to reach the masses. It would be of great benefit to society for academic institutions to cultivate those who are willing and capable of doing this.
In order to make a difference in the real world, rather than just the insular world of Sociology, you do need to reach the masses. It would be of great benefit to society for academic institutions to cultivate those who are willing and capable of doing this.
5
You can either be a scientist, and therefore maintain emotional and personal detachment, or you can be a storyteller. But if you choose the latter you cannot call yourself a scientist or even pretend that your findings have the required validity and reliability.
6
It is stupid to fit sociology to the quantitative scientific model. I would think that sociology that pretends to be a quantitative science is most likely worthless. It is naturally a humanity, like history or cultural anthropology.
3
I understand the debate about where this work fits - journalism or ethnographic research or something else - and whether it meets the standards of whichever slot is appropriate for it. What I don't understand is why this work is considered "brilliant." It tells a story that has been told many times before, in many different ways, in many different disciplines. What makes this version so brilliant and the author so deserving of the attention (good, bad, or otherwise)? The answer is not clear from this article.
And by the way, many of us who are not petite and childlike white females would probably like to have others "arrange themselves to take care of" us, including some of the young men in Philadelphia whom she wrote about. But alas, I have to remember to plug in my cell phone and find my way to my room from the elevator all by myself.
And by the way, many of us who are not petite and childlike white females would probably like to have others "arrange themselves to take care of" us, including some of the young men in Philadelphia whom she wrote about. But alas, I have to remember to plug in my cell phone and find my way to my room from the elevator all by myself.
2
Excellent article. Looking forward to reading the book.
1
At one point Goffman said... "tear down the prisons’’ ??
Tear them down? The world and the US are building more prisons every day. What planet is this spoiled academic living on? (Rhetorical question: she lives in the educational academy: a parallel - - and bizarre - - universe.)
Prisons are a growth industry because people reliably keep committing crimes. And nothing a bunch of whiny sociologists publish will change that. They should stop living in their liberal bubbles and do something to honestly assist the poor. What a sad waste of paper, ink, and manpower. Pathetic.
Tear them down? The world and the US are building more prisons every day. What planet is this spoiled academic living on? (Rhetorical question: she lives in the educational academy: a parallel - - and bizarre - - universe.)
Prisons are a growth industry because people reliably keep committing crimes. And nothing a bunch of whiny sociologists publish will change that. They should stop living in their liberal bubbles and do something to honestly assist the poor. What a sad waste of paper, ink, and manpower. Pathetic.
2
The author provides no support for his assertion that "[m]any claims against her are also easy to rebut independently." He gives two examples. The first: "Some critics called far-fetched, for example, her claim that an F.B.I. agent in Philadelphia drew up a new computer surveillance system after watching a TV broadcast about the East German Stasi. If you search the Internet for ‘‘Philadelphia cop Stasi documentary,’’ a substantiating item from The Philadelphia Inquirer from 2007 is the second hit." As Ross Salinger points out in his comment, the item was about a simple $39 computer mapping program, not a "surveillance system."
The second is even worse: "When it comes to Goffman’s assertion that officers run IDs in maternity wards to arrest wanted fathers, another short Internet search produces corroborating examples in Dallas, New Orleans and Brockton, Mass., and a Philadelphia public defender and a deputy mayor told me that the practice does not at all seem beyond plausibility." Goffman's assertion was that maternity wards in Philadelphia give police logs of patients and visitors. There are six hospitals in Philadelphia with maternity wards and all six deny that they hand over logs to the police (it is a serious charge as the disclosure of patient information would violate federal law). Whatever happened in Dallas or New Orleans cannot corroborate Goffman's claim about what allegedly happened in the Philadelphia hospital she is unwilling to identify.
The second is even worse: "When it comes to Goffman’s assertion that officers run IDs in maternity wards to arrest wanted fathers, another short Internet search produces corroborating examples in Dallas, New Orleans and Brockton, Mass., and a Philadelphia public defender and a deputy mayor told me that the practice does not at all seem beyond plausibility." Goffman's assertion was that maternity wards in Philadelphia give police logs of patients and visitors. There are six hospitals in Philadelphia with maternity wards and all six deny that they hand over logs to the police (it is a serious charge as the disclosure of patient information would violate federal law). Whatever happened in Dallas or New Orleans cannot corroborate Goffman's claim about what allegedly happened in the Philadelphia hospital she is unwilling to identify.
8
A beautiful article of a beautiful story.
The unfortunate mania for numbers in social "sciences" has resulted in disciplines that are of marginal relevance to the world at large; this is tragic as humanity cannot be distilled to simple numbers.
The academic argument is similar to the debates between Hedley Bull and Morton Kaplan, who represented the classical approach and the systems approach, respectively, in international relations. The tragedy of the debate is that both approaches have much to offer, and in combination they could do much. So it is with sociology and "ethnography."
The unfortunate mania for numbers in social "sciences" has resulted in disciplines that are of marginal relevance to the world at large; this is tragic as humanity cannot be distilled to simple numbers.
The academic argument is similar to the debates between Hedley Bull and Morton Kaplan, who represented the classical approach and the systems approach, respectively, in international relations. The tragedy of the debate is that both approaches have much to offer, and in combination they could do much. So it is with sociology and "ethnography."
I absolutely loved this book!! I found it far more informative than the bland, detached ethnography of the past.
1
Gee whiz the book is half baked. I've been writing articulately on this subject for thirty-five years. But then again, I'm not the daughter of super famous sociologist Erving Goffman.
3
the importance of professional demeanor in academics is not trivial. the article does a good job of describing the issues over inquirer positioning, but may be omitting the most fundamental: the willingness of the sociologist to be the subject of an article like this. an investigator/scholar who can't resist the popular limelight will ultimately, without any exceptions, betray the trust of readers, the integrity of the training of hers students, and subvert her ultimate hopes to make a serious contribution. when an academic poses for publicity pictures, seeks a trade publisher for the first book, and cultivates serial interviews, there is no diagnosis but: panderer in progress. if it hasn't happened yet, it will. this somebody who doesn't care about the subject -- she cares about their image of somebody who cares about the subject.
4
Sour grapes
1
What narrative about the night time drive in search of the killer would be the "true" one if they had located him and killed him? The idea that those who still insist on trying to identify what really happens are naively supporting the power structures of society has infected both the social sciences and much of the humanities. Edward Said carried the banner through the academy a generation ago, and here we have a case of one who is criticized both for her appropriation and for her relativism. You can't win.
1
I'm amazed at the superficial comments, and the refusal to accept that there is bias in our society. I've seen bias all my life; i see it in myself: I try not to be.
Tear down the prisons! The fact that half of black males in the U.S. are missing - either dead or in jail - should upset any fair minded person. Or we can shoot the messenger.
Tear down the prisons! The fact that half of black males in the U.S. are missing - either dead or in jail - should upset any fair minded person. Or we can shoot the messenger.
1
A lot of people seem obsessed with the destruction of the field notes. May I point out that
1) if you decide to question her integrity from the get-go, no notes will help. A lot of errors and misrepresentations, or even lies, could be found in the notes themselves.
2) she had the ethical duty to make sure that her notes could not be sub-poenaed and used against her informers. Journalists' sources are protected, not so for the ethnographer. Anonymizing the notes to the extent needed for them to be useless to law enforcement would have represented a huge amount of work; more importantly, the whole POINT of it is that afterward, the notes could not have been used to check anything specific, be it by the police or by the NYTimes commentators.
3) if the system worked normally, there have been numerous checks of the validity and integrity of her work. She had a thesis committee, she has surely presented her work numerous times (before publication), has discussed it, has had her work (book and possible articles, which would be richer in methodological discussions etc.) undergo a double-blind peer review by several outside reviewers.
If you radically distrust the system, the discipline and all social scientists, then it's useless anyway. Field notes or no field notes, you're not going to trust what they are saying unless it validates your very own private experience, which makes the whole discussion pointless.
1) if you decide to question her integrity from the get-go, no notes will help. A lot of errors and misrepresentations, or even lies, could be found in the notes themselves.
2) she had the ethical duty to make sure that her notes could not be sub-poenaed and used against her informers. Journalists' sources are protected, not so for the ethnographer. Anonymizing the notes to the extent needed for them to be useless to law enforcement would have represented a huge amount of work; more importantly, the whole POINT of it is that afterward, the notes could not have been used to check anything specific, be it by the police or by the NYTimes commentators.
3) if the system worked normally, there have been numerous checks of the validity and integrity of her work. She had a thesis committee, she has surely presented her work numerous times (before publication), has discussed it, has had her work (book and possible articles, which would be richer in methodological discussions etc.) undergo a double-blind peer review by several outside reviewers.
If you radically distrust the system, the discipline and all social scientists, then it's useless anyway. Field notes or no field notes, you're not going to trust what they are saying unless it validates your very own private experience, which makes the whole discussion pointless.
3
My guess is that you have not read the 60 page article that reviewed the inconsistencies in her papers as published. Disregarding the issue of the field notes there are many discrepancies that cast significant doubt on what she wrote.
1
Goffman became friends (family) to those who lived in a specific neighborhood in a poor area of Philadelphia. She documented how "her" people lived, partly inside and outside of what we would call conventional life-styles. There is nothing wrong with any of this, since we who live in the middle class really need to know how many people have to live in today's cities. It would be wrong to say that most people of color live the life she describes, but some do. From this article, I decided to order a copy of the book and can say that the magazine's author does understand and correctly references many of the key historic players in sociology. Disclaimer:I am a sociologist. but of the much more empirical persuasion.
2
Just as. traditionally, anthropologists were the cutting edge of imperialist/western occupation and domination of regions, so today ethnographers like Goffman are the cutting edge of gentrification. No matter what her "intentions" are, the fact is that she is a representative of the nearby university community/society that is expanding into the "Sixth Street" area. If her reportage manages to ameliorate the lives of her interviewees, it will also, by reining in the ferocity of the policy, make the area more appealing to middle class settlers.
2
In no way were anthropologists the cutting edge of anything to do with imperialism--they were way behind the curve. Leave that cutting edge to the missionaries from the various countries. Cross and Sword, my friend, Cross and Sword.
1
Thank you for your masterful and respectful report, somewhat in itself demonstrating the dichotomy between the original social workers going out into the field, as its called, and over time almost embedding, certainly as close to assimilating, sort of looking through the window after the window has been opened...and on the other hand the standards for sociology which have become similarly to other "helping professions" such as medicine, not so much law, so enslaved to objectivity and distance as to remove any resemblance of the humanity from which they have originated. In short, "verstehen", a word I learned from the crazy quilt of immigrants where I grew up, becomes structurally denied and excluded from the profession. In other words, they were not there. I will read Ms Goffman's book, all the while seeing a mentor showing me the way, through her faithful allegiance to contemporary case study.
1
Is this book similar to RANDOM FAMILY by Adrian Nicole Leblanc? I was surprised that book wasn't referenced in the article.
2
Based on years in universities, I can tell you that a. senior academics have titanic egos; b. left-wing academics tend to eat their own children; c. there is a serious problem with the TED-ization of work in the social sciences in the younger generation. I will attempt to outline each one.
a. Can you imagine the envy and rage that Goffman must have inspired in academics? You spend years researching, writing, studying, taking care over your notes and experimental ethics... and then some kid gets all the glory for work which reads like a Sunday magazine piece.
b. Be an organic nut, and you should be a vegetarian. Be a vegetarian, and you should be a vegan. Be a vegan, and you should be a Buddhist. No position is ever good enough. Makes it impossible to effect real change.
c. High quality social science research is really hard. When I see it reduced to the peppy little bromides of a TED talk, I get nervous, but I assume the speaker is merely condensing years of study for us mortals. I get especially worried when I see students go the other way, and present research that goes no deeper than a 15 minute pitch. Sadly it's becoming common. They think research is a few Google's and a Bing away, not painstaking data collection under high ethical standards with rigorous record keeping.
And they wonder why people think sociology is a joke as subject.
a. Can you imagine the envy and rage that Goffman must have inspired in academics? You spend years researching, writing, studying, taking care over your notes and experimental ethics... and then some kid gets all the glory for work which reads like a Sunday magazine piece.
b. Be an organic nut, and you should be a vegetarian. Be a vegetarian, and you should be a vegan. Be a vegan, and you should be a Buddhist. No position is ever good enough. Makes it impossible to effect real change.
c. High quality social science research is really hard. When I see it reduced to the peppy little bromides of a TED talk, I get nervous, but I assume the speaker is merely condensing years of study for us mortals. I get especially worried when I see students go the other way, and present research that goes no deeper than a 15 minute pitch. Sadly it's becoming common. They think research is a few Google's and a Bing away, not painstaking data collection under high ethical standards with rigorous record keeping.
And they wonder why people think sociology is a joke as subject.
2
An outsider to learn and understand a foreign language must immerse. When she returns to her native language there is almost always a part of her that is forever the other. How can anyone expect the Spokane lady with two black siblings to be sister and not identify as black? There are times when you must step back and away or else commit.
deTocqueville still has one of the most important works ever written for any wishing to understand ourselves.
I spent months in advanced chinese with a Hong Kong raised, cantonese speaking american officer. Every day we two worked for about two hours in a situation with the chair, Mr Hardy Lee, of the DLI chinese department.
He each day gave us a difficult situation set in Beijing for us to persuade him to change his decision. He told us that he was fascinated that we, a native speaker and a total outsider, did the best work he had ever encountered. I saw what few chinese would ever notice. But sometimes I was way wrong. My native born partner would say "No." And tell me why.
So it is in ethnomusicology. And it should be so in sociology --if the statistics do not suggest the opposite. (Then the statistics need to be examined with great and careful exploration of their data. And maybe new data searched for. ) Guba and Lincoln were perhaps as good statisticians as they were qualitative researchers. It needs both to make good policy.
deTocqueville still has one of the most important works ever written for any wishing to understand ourselves.
I spent months in advanced chinese with a Hong Kong raised, cantonese speaking american officer. Every day we two worked for about two hours in a situation with the chair, Mr Hardy Lee, of the DLI chinese department.
He each day gave us a difficult situation set in Beijing for us to persuade him to change his decision. He told us that he was fascinated that we, a native speaker and a total outsider, did the best work he had ever encountered. I saw what few chinese would ever notice. But sometimes I was way wrong. My native born partner would say "No." And tell me why.
So it is in ethnomusicology. And it should be so in sociology --if the statistics do not suggest the opposite. (Then the statistics need to be examined with great and careful exploration of their data. And maybe new data searched for. ) Guba and Lincoln were perhaps as good statisticians as they were qualitative researchers. It needs both to make good policy.
That Alice Goffman -- the white author -- continues to dominate the media spotlight, photographed as though painted by Vermeer in this NYT Magazine profile, and not the people she wrote about -- the black men at the center of the study -- illustrates the very problem of ethnography.
She continues to be the story, the focus, not they.
The perverse effect of the ethnographic practice of pseudonyming the sources in order to "protect" them is that their identities are erased, so that no third party (not only the police, but journalists, social workers, lawyers, other scholars) can identify, locate, or talk to them, and only the identity of the author remains.
Ethnography as practiced by Goffman effaces the subjects and celebrates the author.
Mr Lewis-Kraus, the reporter here, missed a unique opportunity, in having access to the original sources of an ethnographic study, to do a story exclusively on them, for the international readership of the New York Times, rather than providing yet another profile of Alice Goffman.
She continues to be the story, the focus, not they.
The perverse effect of the ethnographic practice of pseudonyming the sources in order to "protect" them is that their identities are erased, so that no third party (not only the police, but journalists, social workers, lawyers, other scholars) can identify, locate, or talk to them, and only the identity of the author remains.
Ethnography as practiced by Goffman effaces the subjects and celebrates the author.
Mr Lewis-Kraus, the reporter here, missed a unique opportunity, in having access to the original sources of an ethnographic study, to do a story exclusively on them, for the international readership of the New York Times, rather than providing yet another profile of Alice Goffman.
3
I'm gonna say you haven't read the book. Newsflash: many of the subjects of the book have spent most of their adult lives as fugitives - when they weren't actually locked up. They didn't want their names used in the book - honest. Just give it two minutes' thought.
3
Ms. Goffman is very able and very sharp in her own naive way.
She will survive her critics.
She will survive her critics.
2
Has anyone checked with the novelist David Bradley, whose Philadelphia roots on the same turf so well informed his novels "South Street" and "The Chaneysville Incident"? I'd trust his ear and his sensibility, as well as his academic background as a university professor, in determining whether Ms.
Goffman's writings were fact or fiction.
Goffman's writings were fact or fiction.
Unfortunately, the academic bickering over “On the Run,” overshadows the contribution the book has made to understanding how the justice system uses the cycle of arrest, court date, missed court date, fine, warrant, missed court date, larger fine, warrant, etc., arrest to fund municipal coffers. Rather than examine and remedy the structural issues that cause this cycle, it’s allowed to continue and extend our nation’s problems with mass incarceration and poverty. Along with The New Jim Crow, Just Mercy, Ghettoside, The Other Wes Moore, and many more recent books written for those outside of academia, Goffman’s book adds needed insight to the larger national discussion of criminal justice reform.
4
Sociology chose to become a dying field in the 1980's. I begin with Ms. Goffman and then become more general:
1) Goffman's ethnographic work captures the "lifeworlds" of particular human beings -- what they think, feel, and do, as individuals. A structural or "systemworld" analysis explains the context in which humans develop these lifeworlds (often not seeing causation as dialectical, leading to....).
2) After the rise of "post-modernism" in the 1980's, any systemworld explanation became merely a "hegemonic discourse" that "reduced" the (equally privileged) lifeworlds to the sociologists' hegemonic theory. Structural theory was disprivileged.
3) Meanwhile, to maintain the posture of a "science," "mainstream sociologists" remained attached to "doing statistical analysis." (of what!?!) Such analyses implied causal connections between the variables, but there never was a careful theoretical specification of the causal links. Thus non-cumulative "data" piled up. (A real science develops its "methods" from its own exemplary work.)
4) Sociologists still resist the insights of an evolutionary view of human nature in the dialectic between lifeworld, structure, and (natured) humans.
5) Sociology will not revive until causal links are specified that begin with the interaction of human nature and social facts, producing the lifeworld and behavior, and behavior structures, which interact systematically, generating the conditions of the lifeworld. Sociology needs better theory.
1) Goffman's ethnographic work captures the "lifeworlds" of particular human beings -- what they think, feel, and do, as individuals. A structural or "systemworld" analysis explains the context in which humans develop these lifeworlds (often not seeing causation as dialectical, leading to....).
2) After the rise of "post-modernism" in the 1980's, any systemworld explanation became merely a "hegemonic discourse" that "reduced" the (equally privileged) lifeworlds to the sociologists' hegemonic theory. Structural theory was disprivileged.
3) Meanwhile, to maintain the posture of a "science," "mainstream sociologists" remained attached to "doing statistical analysis." (of what!?!) Such analyses implied causal connections between the variables, but there never was a careful theoretical specification of the causal links. Thus non-cumulative "data" piled up. (A real science develops its "methods" from its own exemplary work.)
4) Sociologists still resist the insights of an evolutionary view of human nature in the dialectic between lifeworld, structure, and (natured) humans.
5) Sociology will not revive until causal links are specified that begin with the interaction of human nature and social facts, producing the lifeworld and behavior, and behavior structures, which interact systematically, generating the conditions of the lifeworld. Sociology needs better theory.
1
The reporter here missed a unique opportunity to do a "reverse" ethnographic study: Having gained access to Goffman's sources, he could have written her profile from *their* perspective.
After all, they spent as much time observing her as she did them and their insights and observations are just as valuable for academics in the field.
Who was this white woman in the eyes of these black men? What did they think of her, of what she was doing? Did they go "native" in *her* world, in coming to identify with a white Princeton Ph.D. student? Did she engage in any inappropriate behavior or illegal activity that they would need to protect her from by pseudonyming her?
Such would have been a much more fascinating profile. Perhaps the reporter could have debunked her entire book, perhaps he could have done some pulitzer worthy reporting, perhaps he could have created a whole new field of "reverse" ethnography. One will never know.
After all, they spent as much time observing her as she did them and their insights and observations are just as valuable for academics in the field.
Who was this white woman in the eyes of these black men? What did they think of her, of what she was doing? Did they go "native" in *her* world, in coming to identify with a white Princeton Ph.D. student? Did she engage in any inappropriate behavior or illegal activity that they would need to protect her from by pseudonyming her?
Such would have been a much more fascinating profile. Perhaps the reporter could have debunked her entire book, perhaps he could have done some pulitzer worthy reporting, perhaps he could have created a whole new field of "reverse" ethnography. One will never know.
19
It wouldn't be a 'whole new field.' In particular, see Ira Bashkow's book The Meaning of Whitemen, which is an ethnography of how Papua New Guineans construct the figure of the 'whiteman' within their own cultural system.
The NY Time readership provides a collective yawn to this bit of petty academic in-fighting (note that an bad review of the restaurant Per Se has 5x the number of comments over a similar period).
Alice Goffman's only fault was doing her job in a more interesting fashion than anyone else. Any claim of academic wrongdoing is fundamentally undermined by the fact that the most serious criticisms have been leveled anonymously.
Alice Goffman's only fault was doing her job in a more interesting fashion than anyone else. Any claim of academic wrongdoing is fundamentally undermined by the fact that the most serious criticisms have been leveled anonymously.
3
Buried in this attempt to smear criticism of Alice Goffman as nothing more than ivory-tower identity politics is the one, critical piece of information that speaks volumes about the reliability of her work and her own personal motivation for publishing:
Alice Goffman destroyed her field notes.
There is no legitimate reason for doing this. She could easily have kept those notes and protected the identities of the people she engaged with. She chose not to. Why?
Reputable scientists and scholars do not discard field data. It doesn't matter that her work was 'qualitative.' In any other field, this simple fact would have immediately disqualified her work and probably ended her career. The fact that there is any controversy about this at all does not reflect well on the social sciences.
Alice Goffman destroyed her field notes.
There is no legitimate reason for doing this. She could easily have kept those notes and protected the identities of the people she engaged with. She chose not to. Why?
Reputable scientists and scholars do not discard field data. It doesn't matter that her work was 'qualitative.' In any other field, this simple fact would have immediately disqualified her work and probably ended her career. The fact that there is any controversy about this at all does not reflect well on the social sciences.
21
The whole thing reminds me of an old National Geographic article or what my (South Asian descent) college classmate called "Look at the quaint brown people" social studies filmstrips we suffered through in high school. The brave explorer goes among People Not Like US and brings back tales intended to excite and disgust or scare us at the same time.
3
So what you propose, I take it, is that we NOT read about people not like us?
1
Alice Goffman, who grew up where, knows about Black lives in Philly? I lived in Plainfield, New Jersey for ten years and can honestly say I "know" about Black lives, at least within that environment and from the inside out.
I learned that in a democracy anyone could write about anything, without panels of critics bunched by profession, sex, color, size or origin determining the right to publish. When you write you are your voice, not 'the voice of' whoever happens to appear in your writing. Sociologists are included in the above opinion, just as much as Ms. Goffman.
1
I am not sure what the point of this article is. That Ms. Goffman is a nice person? That she engages cab drivers on the subject of racism? Its just not clear. The article suggests she is recovering from a crisis over the validity of her research yet little mention is actually made of the issues raised by her critics. She has the year off and is spending it at Princeton but what is she doing there? She allegedly destroyed her research notes (an ethical and methodological violation of research principles) yet displays some for the author of the piece. Seriously, what is the point of this piece of puffery? I can only conclude that Ms. Goffman is a nice person.
7
Sure is a lot of love here. The bug-eyed subject clearly loved her sources. The magazine writer seems to love his subject. And readers - many here on this board at least - seem to love her too.
Whatever happened to detachment - in academic research or in journalism?
Whatever happened to detachment - in academic research or in journalism?
8
I thought this book was magnificent. Those who hate it (a) didn't read it, (b) are jealous of her success, or (c) are threatened because it further brings to light the extent of white privilege and discrimination against people of color in the United States. Chin up, Alice.
4
A few years ago I took a class on Native Americans at a well-known university, hoping to, well, learn something about Native Americans.
Boy was I disappointed. There was no factual information - everything was about 'positionally', 'white privilege', 'narrative' - politically correct pablum. You could see the self-censorship on the part of the faculty, who clearly were what they had to in order to keep their jobs in the face of the departmental PC police. This is not only the case for anthology, ethnography and sociology - but for most of the humanities. There is a proliferation of classes that bring good grades but provide zero job prospects or knowledge (gender, queer studies, self-victimization and flagellation, ethnic partisanship classes). This is the Closing of the American Mind in action. And yet the universities love these classes. And parents pay for them.
Boy was I disappointed. There was no factual information - everything was about 'positionally', 'white privilege', 'narrative' - politically correct pablum. You could see the self-censorship on the part of the faculty, who clearly were what they had to in order to keep their jobs in the face of the departmental PC police. This is not only the case for anthology, ethnography and sociology - but for most of the humanities. There is a proliferation of classes that bring good grades but provide zero job prospects or knowledge (gender, queer studies, self-victimization and flagellation, ethnic partisanship classes). This is the Closing of the American Mind in action. And yet the universities love these classes. And parents pay for them.
13
It may not have been Goffman's choice to destroy all of her field notes. Institutional Review Boards can require any notes, transcripts or documents containing identifying information to be destroyed following the publication of research in order to preserve participant confidentiality.
4
The real issue is about the insidiousness of bias in journalism and academics. Can a Catholic Mexican-American intellectual with top grades from Berkeley or Yale right her thesis on and post grad work on American Jewry and accept praise for brilliant work. Doubtful; she and it would be shot down before anyone even read it. Period. End of Story. She would be questioned as to why she would even make that her subject. The fact she had no interest in converting would be a certain death knell to her work and her success.
3
The author really should have informed readers what was new or informative about Goffman's results and what, if anything, was theoretically advanced. Instead the author is entirely silent on the only substantive questions that matter and devotes a vast text to all the superficial trivia.
5
There seems to be on the part of the author of the article and Goffman, an assumption of rationality in the behaviour of the various participants. At the age of 71 I believe that homo not so sapiens is often driven by "impulses- emotions- hormones!!!-impulses!! in some cases beyond control or barely controlled (possibly later rationalized.) the psychological/hormonal components are rarely considered. OTOH "I'll show you a young man with so many a reason why!!"" may not be accurate. Weoften do things w/o knowing why-- or against our better judgement. We now know that the human brain does not mature until age 26 and at my more advanced age I still wonder if wisdom is ever realized. (Not a matter of age for sure.) EG. Consider which of the presidential candidates you consider most impulse driven? consider which you consider sociopathic? Consider which you consider humane? Consider which you consider someone's puppet? Consider which if any you consider educable? Just saying... (can someone explain to me why religious beliefs are OK?? I am serious. Except for the eithical component if one... I think I prefer the beliefs of Mother Ann Lee, the founder of the Shakers... look her up on WikiP for a fun read. On the other hand having Diana or Zeus as your family god ain't a bad thing.
Good piece, though this story has received far more attention than it deserves (I say this as a scholar myself). This isn't to diminish Goffman's work. Rather, it is to suggest that equal attention be paid to the amazing scholarship being pursued by other sociologists and anthropologists today on race, class, and urban life in the US and elsewhere. Goffman's book is but one example.
As for the ethnographic method and positionality, these are old debates worth revisiting time to time, but they don't pose the kind of existential threat suggested here. Everyone has an interpretive viewpoint, and almost always debate of some kind ensues, regardless of the background of the scholar.
Ethnography is meant precisely for circumstances when statistical data is hard to get. It is not an either/or choice. I applaud Goffman for her commitment against challenges that many others would perceive as insurmountable.
As for the ethnographic method and positionality, these are old debates worth revisiting time to time, but they don't pose the kind of existential threat suggested here. Everyone has an interpretive viewpoint, and almost always debate of some kind ensues, regardless of the background of the scholar.
Ethnography is meant precisely for circumstances when statistical data is hard to get. It is not an either/or choice. I applaud Goffman for her commitment against challenges that many others would perceive as insurmountable.
20
Acquiring knowledge is never neutral. Goffman is an engaged scholar who recognizes this and speaks from a certain place. This is this threatening to establishment scholars using the "scientific method." The so called scientific method often begins with certain assumptions. Once one dismantles those assumptions, it falls on its face like a house of cards.
The attack on Goffman is not for lack of rigor but for her daring to challenge power both in the academy and the "justice" system.
The attack on Goffman is not for lack of rigor but for her daring to challenge power both in the academy and the "justice" system.
4
The internecine squabbling in sociology reminds me of the way graduate English departments require rigid adherence to the latest intellectual fad, and the viciousness of those in circles where their main audience is each other. Ms. Goffman's critics lost me completely when they criticized her for not announcing her "privilege" - i.e., not apologizing for not being poor and oppressed.
6
A fascinating account! I applaud Lewis-Kraus for the clarity with which he conveyed the intricate and paradoxical tensions inherent in Goffman's work.
In the discussion of the book's final story (the "vengeance ride"), and the possibility that both characterizations of it can be true -- I was reminded of a famous duality in physics: light clearly exhibits behavior consistent with its composition as continuous waves, and also as a stream of particles, though these seem irreconcilable.
It seems to me that Goffman's work is of much inherent interest, and holds the potential for great value ... whether or not it fits comfortably inside the box of ever-changing disciplinary norms.
In the discussion of the book's final story (the "vengeance ride"), and the possibility that both characterizations of it can be true -- I was reminded of a famous duality in physics: light clearly exhibits behavior consistent with its composition as continuous waves, and also as a stream of particles, though these seem irreconcilable.
It seems to me that Goffman's work is of much inherent interest, and holds the potential for great value ... whether or not it fits comfortably inside the box of ever-changing disciplinary norms.
2
The most important issue: is it true?
If it is, then she has written a memoir of a particular time in her life.
If it is not, then she has written fiction that might be based upon people whom she has met.
If it is, then she has written a memoir of a particular time in her life.
If it is not, then she has written fiction that might be based upon people whom she has met.
2
Being in academia myself, I can tell that what befall Alice Goffman is the pettiness and jealousy rampant in certain corners of the academic world, where the so-called "gatekeepers" cannot stomach that young, up and coming scholars are doing meaningful work with little concern for their egos and mostly out of genuine curiosity and wonder that drives true research efforts. Alice Goffman, you are brilliant at what you do, you are a true scholar, and you will continue producing insights that push for real change. Don't even think of giving up what you do best, but as Mike's mom suggested, "keep going."
10
If you're right, people may get mad at you.
People are mad at me.
Therefore I must be right!
Yup....
People are mad at me.
Therefore I must be right!
Yup....
1
Except, di, that Goffman hasn't said anything of the sort.
1
It is so easy to criticize and much harder to effect real change in bettering the social systems in our world. The negative comments regarding this well-written article by Ms. Carucci highlight the many reasons why, in my junior year of undergraduate school, I quit my Sociology Major and fled back to the Music Department. Slam Poetry does more to benefit the man on the street than the School of Sociology. The large number of substantial people that appreciate Ms. Goffman's work and her methods are the figures I'll log. Ignore the rest, especially anyone that would ANONYMOUSLY write a 60-page critique. What nonsense.
2
How can one write objectively about a group while becoming like family to them? Impossible! For this reason, while her work might be a fascinating read for those who have never been or worked outside their privileged enclaves, it may not be worthy of pure sociology which benefits greatly from distance and perspective. Additionally, the fact that she burned her notes when attacked speaks volumes about her lack of transparency. It doesn't make sense, given the fact that she clearly discloses this group's location, crimes, comings and goings. If she were truly trying to protect these people, law enforcement must be dumber than we all think they are!
3
I don't really understand her point that people are "affirming her dignity" all day long by holding the door open for her because she is white. It's called manners. I apply them without regard to race, and I believe most others do as well?
9
The dichotomy this article makes between Goffman the participant and Goffman the observer breaks down immediately. Goffman is ALWAYS the participant. In her second account of the "manhunt" as "ritual", she is only behaving like a participant who has just been accused of conspiracy to commit homicide, and any post-hoc rationalization she comes up with is just a defense that any defendant would assert in the face of prosecution.
In other words, if one of her black gangsta friends got arrested today and charged with conspiracy, his legal defense would be indistinguishable from the "scholarly observation" proffered by her, the white sociology professor.
In other words, if one of her black gangsta friends got arrested today and charged with conspiracy, his legal defense would be indistinguishable from the "scholarly observation" proffered by her, the white sociology professor.
4
It does seem that white liberals often advocate and "study" black Americans as some sort of thrill seeking behavior and unexamined condescension. I don't think they mean to do it. But yes, upper middle class well educated whites living with poor uneducated blacks to study them seems cringe inducing in the year 2015.
11
I think what is so confounding about Goffman to so many people is that she seems truly not to have condescended to them in any way, and her subjects clearly are not cringing.
1
This critique focus on what Goffman has done that has been inconvenient for her, nothing about what has been truthful. The primary question is whether we can know the world through dispassionate analysis. I have also seen online a number of pictures of Lewis-Krauss and by studying his hair I can understand the compulsions that led him to his unfair article.
The only criticism a scientist should address is whether or not her science is good. Her color, ethnicity, hair style, etc are all meaningless. Only the quality of the science matters.
Given that, I've always been dubious of qualitative sociology vs quantitative, but then, I'm not a sociologist and much prefer behavior modeling and statistical analysis used in theoretical economics and econometrics.
I guess qualitative studies help form a foundation upon which to build quantitative ones, but it surely seems that the criticism of Dr. Goffman should be strictly confined to the field's standards for such research.
Given that, I've always been dubious of qualitative sociology vs quantitative, but then, I'm not a sociologist and much prefer behavior modeling and statistical analysis used in theoretical economics and econometrics.
I guess qualitative studies help form a foundation upon which to build quantitative ones, but it surely seems that the criticism of Dr. Goffman should be strictly confined to the field's standards for such research.
and so it should be that ms goffman gets a shot at a pulitzer for:
"opting to work in a hybrid fashion, as
something between a reporter and an
academic. She has also mostly refused to
play the kinds of political games that can
constitute a large part of academic life,
eschewing disciplinary jargon and citing the
work of other scholars only when she felt
like it."
but, please...cobbling justification after the fact reduces both the spirit of inquiry and the and the singularity of experience.
"one sociologist" is past fallacy when he limits any line of inquiry (into "elite institutions, like banks," add universities, too) by race or social class...and shabbier still, venning ms goffman's difficulties inside a wider prohibition on writing "about poor black people (sic)."
papa, too (sez one of his greatest fans) is off the park here, there is a sub class of courtesy stigmatic who are always past ready to carry, indeed actively seeking, burdens they can bear
as badges of moral superiority, "crimeless victims," if you will, nurtured by confrontation.
"opting to work in a hybrid fashion, as
something between a reporter and an
academic. She has also mostly refused to
play the kinds of political games that can
constitute a large part of academic life,
eschewing disciplinary jargon and citing the
work of other scholars only when she felt
like it."
but, please...cobbling justification after the fact reduces both the spirit of inquiry and the and the singularity of experience.
"one sociologist" is past fallacy when he limits any line of inquiry (into "elite institutions, like banks," add universities, too) by race or social class...and shabbier still, venning ms goffman's difficulties inside a wider prohibition on writing "about poor black people (sic)."
papa, too (sez one of his greatest fans) is off the park here, there is a sub class of courtesy stigmatic who are always past ready to carry, indeed actively seeking, burdens they can bear
as badges of moral superiority, "crimeless victims," if you will, nurtured by confrontation.
I remember an article about Goffman from Science of Us that sought to verify her claims. The author of that piece confirms pretty much everything Goffman related was said to her. Whether some of what was said to her was accurate is unverified but that it was said to her is supported.
1
"On the Run" isn't filled with the type of sensational episodes one would expect if the author had concocted fictional events. The book is engrossing, but the lives the characters live outside jail cell is nearly as boring as the lives they live outside jail cells.
This is a really well done article, and it adds significant constructive content to this debate. A number of years ago I decided to depart from the orthodoxy of my own social science discipline and venture into writing about activists in post-communist Europe. The work was informed by academia, but it was much closer to journalism than anything else. The result was a number of published articles and talks that gathered far more attention than any other work I had done. I received awards from my Ph.D. alma mater and even my professional organization. The irony here was that by departing from the core of my discipline and doing something meaningful for me, I was unexpectedly acknowledged by the very discipline I thought I had left behind. In the end, this speaks to the relevance of the topic I was addressing, not any distinctive talent on my part. I had decided to pursue something I thought was important, regardless of whether it fell within academic disciplinary boundaries, and others ended up agreeing it was important too. The large complex problems in life do not abide by circumscribed disciplinary limits: They are unruly, and require some unruly approaches in order to better clarify. Such expansiveness is not only what Goffman did in her work, but what this journalist did with hers. Both should be applauded.
5
Ethnography has been overrun by Deconstructionists. This is no longer a science, it is a social cause. This book, which I read last year, is nothing more than a tissue of critical legal theory that denies objective reality in favor of discourse, narrative, and biased opinion. That being said, the book was very engaging and her slightly unhinged writing style is unique among books in the field.
9
Clearly you know very little about the field of ethnography, or the disciplines of sociology or anthropology, for that matter.
The allusion (or appeal) to "objective reality" is a vestige of a bygone era in ethnography. And "critical legal theory"--what book did you read? This book has a great deal of weaknesses to point out, but you shouldn't mischaracteriize Goffman's theoretical paradigm here.
The allusion (or appeal) to "objective reality" is a vestige of a bygone era in ethnography. And "critical legal theory"--what book did you read? This book has a great deal of weaknesses to point out, but you shouldn't mischaracteriize Goffman's theoretical paradigm here.
Funny, I found the belief in an objective, reportable "reality" to be the rather naive assumption that rendered much of the reported criticism of the work suspect.
My experience in multiple top-shelf academic institutions has been that major facet of academic culture is profound conservatism. Anything that challenges established dogma and academic/peer-review literature power structure is often vigorously, sometimes brutally censured. Academia, disappointingly so, is often not a place for truly open, intellectual thought.
8
Does Sociology really change anything? As they say, "well-off, expensively educated" people writing about poor people and presenting TED talks to other well-off people doesn't mean much in the long run.
This appears to be mainly about petty academics jealous of one another. And in Goffman's case, I wonder if she would have come under such fire, or gotten as much attention, if she were a man.
This appears to be mainly about petty academics jealous of one another. And in Goffman's case, I wonder if she would have come under such fire, or gotten as much attention, if she were a man.
10
I wonder if she would have been able to "imbed" herself so deeply in her subjects lives if she were a man.
It means a lot to the well-off, expensively educated people.
‘‘My best friend was killed in front of me; I ended up in juvie.’’ But [Rios] resisted it, out of worry about his tenure prospects and also on principle. ‘‘How much do we sacrifice to become public intellectuals?’’ [Rios] said. ‘‘At the end of the day, we have to be careful about how much pandering we do to the masses.’’ So he winds up (very understandably) pandering to a select committee of people who have contempt for the "masses."
5
Once again, "Who's your Daddy?"
Every assertion I made in my master's thesis had to be proved. But sociology was the softest "science" I studied and yes, we covered , "Talley's Corner" and the fact that a white academic could describe another culture. Ignore the value differences it describes at your peril. But this author? Hold her to the same standards I faced; anyone willing to cooperate should be warned of possible consequences.
Every assertion I made in my master's thesis had to be proved. But sociology was the softest "science" I studied and yes, we covered , "Talley's Corner" and the fact that a white academic could describe another culture. Ignore the value differences it describes at your peril. But this author? Hold her to the same standards I faced; anyone willing to cooperate should be warned of possible consequences.
3
Very nice piece of journalism!
Erving [Goffman's] notion of "framing" gets at the dilemma of distinguishing ourselves from what we attempt to observe and understand. Your picture of Alice sounds like she's [dutifully?] dealt with the issue.
Ethnographers such as James Spradley made students aware of this up front as he mentored them through their work.
Inquiry that is conceived in terms of the methods of physical science with quantified problems, hypotheses, variables, controls, and experiments, is inadequate to the hardly visible, complex, and constantly adaptive processes of social systems. Are there sociologists still wrestling with this?
Erving [Goffman's] notion of "framing" gets at the dilemma of distinguishing ourselves from what we attempt to observe and understand. Your picture of Alice sounds like she's [dutifully?] dealt with the issue.
Ethnographers such as James Spradley made students aware of this up front as he mentored them through their work.
Inquiry that is conceived in terms of the methods of physical science with quantified problems, hypotheses, variables, controls, and experiments, is inadequate to the hardly visible, complex, and constantly adaptive processes of social systems. Are there sociologists still wrestling with this?
4
I didn't realize that ethnographers aren't required to save supporting evidence for their work. What's to prevent them from making the whole thing up?
52
Nothing. Think Carlos Casteneda
@Liz - Fraud could always be uncovered if the subject comes forward to object. Also, Ms. Goffman is not trying to prove she cured cancer or discovered cold fusion - she is writing an account that is already understood to be inherently subjective. Different professions - different standards.
2
Shhhhhh, it's not about the facts and pesky evidence, it's all about her FEEEELS and how empathetic she is. Statistics are boring and dry, didn't you know.
1
It sounds like many of her Goffman's detractors, both inside and outside of the academy, are jealous of her success. However, my issue is with the field of ethnography. My mother, an African-American woman, was a University of Chicago-trained sociologist, and still, I'm not convinced of the purpose of sociology. I think as a public policy tool, journalism does a much better job. And since sociology doesn't even pretend to be neutral, I don't believe that it can be widely persuasive or enlightening.
25
Unfortunately journalism is not published in scientific journals. If you think about it you realize that in our society if it isn't "scientifically" supported it isn't considered true. Dumb but Columbus is still considered to have discovered America.
1
I have a problem with all the "soft" sciences in academia in general. It is one thing to combine element A and element B in a chemistry tube and watch an interaction, and another to "objectively quantify" the interaction between person A and person B. And given the internecine combativeness that exists in academic circles today, especially with the dependence on grants for funding and the waning public financial support of education, the ability of anyone to truthfully and reliably report on human social issues without incurring professional jealousy would be difficult at best. Human ego--a chameleon at best, and voracious.
I'm slightly troubled that she pays participants royalty fees, I haven't read the book yet and plan to this weekend.
6
Well LLK, if you buy the book, you'll be paying the participants some royalty fees too.
Why? Presumably she did not offer money upfront--like paying for sources. At least she exhibits some fairness. After all, without them, there would have been no book.
1
This was a great article. I remember much and learned more about the ebb and flow of sociology over the years. My sense is that she deserves the benefit of the doubt as a sociologist although burning her records does cause my eyebrows to raise a bit. I have not read the book, but did see a few long form excerpts and her TED talk. At a guess, knowing a bit about the criminal justice system (from a career as a researcher/program evaluator), she did select a group to embed with that is more troubled than the average person in that demographic category. Some of this sounds like sour grapes (sociologists are people too!). I guess what I have not heard or read about is critique from the community she inhabited. What do they say or think? Surely, she knows she is priviledged and her lens is distorted by that, but do the members of the community think she is telling essential meaningful truths.
21
"burning her records does cause my eyebrows to [rise] a bit"
So, you don't believe her story that her notes contained evidence that could have led to the conviction of her informants, were they to be arrested, a very likely occurrence.
So, you don't believe her story that her notes contained evidence that could have led to the conviction of her informants, were they to be arrested, a very likely occurrence.
2
Sometimes I think I am the only one who ever clicks on a link. The Phil Inq article is not about a "surveillance system" at all. It's about using mapping to locate people who might have committed a crime or know something about it. There's no surveillance involved at all. Frankly, this kind of thing has been around since we had computerized mapping data back in the 90's. It sounds as if she (I have not read the book) may have distorted things in this case. Strange to see another person claim rebuttal based on this article.
25
"Surveillance" and "mapping people" seem to be pretty close to the same thing.
1
"using mapping to locate people who might have committed a crime or know something about it"
That is an *excellent* thumbnail description of both surveillance and pre-emptive policing! It's astonishing that you consider it to be exactly the opposite, Mr. Salinger.
That is an *excellent* thumbnail description of both surveillance and pre-emptive policing! It's astonishing that you consider it to be exactly the opposite, Mr. Salinger.
1
I’ve lived in or near Philadelphia for more than 20 years but Alice Goffman’s book was a real eye-opener. The guys she writes about are obviously no angels, but it was infuriating to learn what people who live just a few miles from me must go through in their dealings with law enforcement. Alice, please continue what you’re doing, and thank you.
27
Dear Andymac,
If in fact they make their living by committing crimes, I don't see why it would be a concern that law enforcement attempts to disrupt their crimes.
If in fact they make their living by committing crimes, I don't see why it would be a concern that law enforcement attempts to disrupt their crimes.
1
people in Philadelphia who have been mugged by people like those that Goffman writes about. They would view the police and her subjects in far different lights.
I haven't read her book, but this remarkable report calls to mind the cliche that academic politics is so vicious because so little is at stake. So little in the actual world. Retired now, but as working journalist I saw my job as touching people with other people's lives. Whatever anyone calls her, journalist, academic or make-up-a-word (as some academic will surely try to do and try to base a career on it, the Ms.Goffman as seen in this story, has told true things that we need to know and with courage and a human heart.
26
It was an interesting article but I did not understand the writer's obsession with the state of Ms. Goffman's hair, or indeed much of the poor waif motif that from alternative descriptions it sounds like she would object to.
She has grandiose possession? What? Would you say a man has grandiose possession? No, you would say she is confident and single-minded, and you would respect that. If she didn't pay attention to details like dress, or direction that would not be a sign of her inability to take care of herself, but only her single-mindedness.
I can not help but think that much of the furor comes from the fact that she is a woman, and a not a world striding, gorgeous blond everyone is supposed to worship or the political, "angry" (note the quotes please) black woman we are supposed to fear but the kind of short, unprepossessing white woman people overlook and condescend to only she's done work you can't condescend to. Work for whatever its flaws that is big and dramatic, and that is reserved for men in all caps.
She has grandiose possession? What? Would you say a man has grandiose possession? No, you would say she is confident and single-minded, and you would respect that. If she didn't pay attention to details like dress, or direction that would not be a sign of her inability to take care of herself, but only her single-mindedness.
I can not help but think that much of the furor comes from the fact that she is a woman, and a not a world striding, gorgeous blond everyone is supposed to worship or the political, "angry" (note the quotes please) black woman we are supposed to fear but the kind of short, unprepossessing white woman people overlook and condescend to only she's done work you can't condescend to. Work for whatever its flaws that is big and dramatic, and that is reserved for men in all caps.
54
Based on the evidence which the author specifically provided to substantiate his obsession, it seems reasonable to say that Goffman has tendencies toward grandiosity.
1
That is a real reach to find a feminist angle in this story.
1
I guess you haven't heard about the obsession with Donald Trump's hair.
Oh, good grief. The self-righteousness of this woman, who feigns drama and shock at the TSA line for not having been stopped and frisked for carrying a -- gasp! -- bag that may have at one time held -- gasp! -- spent bullet casings...maybe. And the "brown" person going through with her was stopped, even though she had that suspicious looking BAG! Full of RECEIPTS!
This just confirms my feelings about sociologists.
This just confirms my feelings about sociologists.
45
She's young, that will all change
4
And your point is?
Where is the alleged "self-righteousness"?
I see only awareness of the pervasive racism in this culture.
Having been through dozens of TSA lines myself, I see the same thing all the time.
Where is the alleged "self-righteousness"?
I see only awareness of the pervasive racism in this culture.
Having been through dozens of TSA lines myself, I see the same thing all the time.
1
lotta judgment based on so little evidence.
Let me get this straight. Is this the same Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton that Albert Einstein used to play ping-pong at? Cause if it is, I would like my deposit back.
23
Dolezal without the cosmetics.
18
As the author of this article suggests, Alice's father, Erving, is widely considered the most influential sociologist of the 20th century--per his wiki page, "an outlaw theorist who came to exemplify the best of the sociological imagination", and "perhaps the first postmodern sociological theorist". He's best known for his work on the social construction of self--that is, the thoroughly postmodern notion that the self is just a construct that changes depending on the situation. He died the year she was born, but were he alive, I have no doubt he would be proud of his daughter. Her compassion and empathy are thoroughly welcomed in a field that has in recent years become overly dominated by statistical analysis.
33
Virtue-signaling. On behalf of a constructed self.
1
Her compassion and empathy are thoroughly welcomed in a field that has in recent years become overly dominated by statistical analysis.
yes, let's drop quantitative analysis and go by "gut analysis". Its a good way to advance the study of science.
yes, let's drop quantitative analysis and go by "gut analysis". Its a good way to advance the study of science.
1
I suggest commentators read the article before posting a comment. A large number are focused on the tagline at the very top of the article (concerning who gets to speak for whom) and not the body of the article itself, which deals mostly with the complications of doing this type of research, how her field got to its current ideas about what proper work it, how she got to this point in her life, the criticism her work has received from inside and outside of her field, and how she handles it. It's a very interesting article, more than a mere launching pad for your rant about political correctness or reverse racism.
30
Terrific article! Illuminating about the field of sociology - told me much I didn't know and, more important to me, didn't know I would be interested in knowing. Illuminating, too, about the character of Alice Goffman. And fair, in my view, justly balancing criticism and sympathy. Goffman could not have asked for a better depiction of her and her work. She is, after all the academic jargon and prestige and backbiting and all the media representations and misrepresentations, just a person like the rest of us who have to pull our pants up and keep going. Thank you.
24
I'm a little confused here. 6th Street in North Philly is certainly a ghetto neighborhood, but there is no 6th Street in West Philly. In Philly, the numbered streets run North-South, starting near the Delaware River in the eastern part of the city. West Philly begins around 30th St or so.
6
It's a pseudonym used in place of the neighborhood's real name. Like her use of fake names to protect the identity of her informants.
12
I haven't read the book, but I assume she changed the street to protect the privacy of her subjects. I kinda wonder if it was along 56th Street and she just dropped the first digit. It would fit.
10
This seems ultimately like a very long rationale as to why it isn’t fair to hold blacks to middle-class societal norms. To this I respond:
The Law of Double-Standard Decline: Any systematic attempt to help a group which involves holding members of that group to lower standards of societal norms will result in decline rather than improvement.
The Law of Double-Standard Decline: Any systematic attempt to help a group which involves holding members of that group to lower standards of societal norms will result in decline rather than improvement.
21
"This seems ultimately like a very long rationale as to why it isn’t fair to hold blacks to middle-class societal norms."
Unless the blacks have the privilege of whiteness and access to the benefits of middle-class income and middle-class education.
"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed."
- Herman Melville
Unless the blacks have the privilege of whiteness and access to the benefits of middle-class income and middle-class education.
"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed."
- Herman Melville
1
Well put! No doubt some of what Goffman witnessed is a product of LDSD.
What? Obviously you didn't bother to read the article. It's not about your obvious obsession - "blacks" - it's about the author of a much ballyhooed book, her methods, background, reactions to the book etc. Spare us the inane comments and the one note resort to your obvious racial antagonisms. Note, the President of the U.S. is black, but hey I guess that family is not living up to middle-class societal norms because, wait for it, oh yes they're black.
Um, I'm a white woman and I'm stopped by the TSA and have had the pat down about a million times. Because of her experience, she sees everything, literally, as black and white and it just isn't. That said, she has the perfect right to write about whomever she wants to. I don't understand why what she has done is in any way a problem.
26
Another interesting part about that bit in the story is that there is no way anybody gets through airport security with bullets in their carry-on luggage, without some questioning and so on. They show up quite clearly in fluoroscopes so what Ms. Goffman claimed was in her bag could not possibly have been in her bag. Just more evidence that she's prone to exaggeration or fraud.
14
(Not Mark) I think the problem is she destroyed her notes. How do we know any of this is actual and not made up. We don't. Period.
18
People have taken all kinds of things via TSA. They are not that observant or attentive.
1
So people are okay with the fetishization of blackness?
26
Perfect example of the negative responses to her work that focus on her race or SES. The bastardization of social science in the name of "critical theory"--the notion that a white person dare not ask, observe, study, talk to, or discuss anything about another race. Rather than look at the body of work, one gets out the "crit" phrase generator and starts with the awkward phrases ("fetishization" "erasure" "narrative") constantly tossed about by the new wave of social "scientists." Erving Goffman is probably rolling in his grave.
1
"So people are okay with the fetishization of blackness?"
Why not? Aren't you? "He who smelt it dealt it," right? Besides, it's going to take a lot of effort for you to persuade anybody that a non-Jewish, white ethnic of Middle-European heritage is concerned about how other white people regard black people.
Why not? Aren't you? "He who smelt it dealt it," right? Besides, it's going to take a lot of effort for you to persuade anybody that a non-Jewish, white ethnic of Middle-European heritage is concerned about how other white people regard black people.
1
I think the issue here is that white people may feel that either we are fetishizing blackness, or we are guilty of not wanting to know what black people endure.
Radical chic royalty.
19
Contrary to the author's assertion, what frustrates critics most of all is not Goffman's race or how expensively educated she is. What is most frustrating is that she appears to be a fabulist, whose claim of destroying her notes to protect her sources should be viewed with very healthy skepticism.
61
Those who have gone to the trouble of finding and speaking with her sources support her story. Calling her a fabulist as things stand therefore is baseless slander.
4
"whose claim of destroying her notes to protect her sources should be viewed with very healthy skepticism"
Why, Terry? Because you can't imagine how a few academic field-notes could possibly represent a future legal problem for a law-abiding, white citizen?
Why, Terry? Because you can't imagine how a few academic field-notes could possibly represent a future legal problem for a law-abiding, white citizen?
In this day and age it seems Ms. Goffman's crime, in the eyes of much of the establishment, is that she has portrayed the people on the bottom of American society as human beings. Too bad the learned Dr. Rios can't understand something so simple as that.
12
Dear Tom,
Actually from the article it seems Ms. Goffman's crimes were primarily aiding someone in an attempted homicide, and in fabricating an anthropological study. Nobody minds her treating humans as humans, it's the exaggerations or untruths in the book that are a problem. That and, of course, aiding someone intent on murder.
Actually from the article it seems Ms. Goffman's crimes were primarily aiding someone in an attempted homicide, and in fabricating an anthropological study. Nobody minds her treating humans as humans, it's the exaggerations or untruths in the book that are a problem. That and, of course, aiding someone intent on murder.
26
Tom, I don't think that Goffman presented her subjects as human. I think she presented them as exciting, charismatic fauna.
Maybe that's how you want to see them.
Maybe that's how you want to see them.
2
Was any of that proven? The author of this piece saw the final scene as two views of the same thing. And unless you've researched and established untruths and exaggerations, I'll keep an open mind.
It's absurd that "tone" is the issue here. Accuracy, relevance and intelligence: these are important. Self-flagellation as a penance for the sin of being a white woman writing about black men is not only unnecessary, it is a distraction from the subject.
32
I have to inform you that you are being politically incorrect and will be subject to punishment.
2
This reinforces an old saying: There's nothing so savage as academic politics.
20
The Daesh who urged their followers to commit cannibalism beg to disagree.
6
connecticut, do you mean on the part of Goffman (who helped in a murder, fraudalant studies) or her critics?
Critic of Goffman are beyond insider/outsider debates, and I wish the journalist would have interviewed a few who framed it as such.
This piece quotes someone who says that Victor Rios claims whites cannot study people of color, but that is untrue. At the author-meets-critics, Victor was holding Jamie Fader's book--which is an example of a white person doing good, reflexive, urban sociology.
This piece quotes someone who says that Victor Rios claims whites cannot study people of color, but that is untrue. At the author-meets-critics, Victor was holding Jamie Fader's book--which is an example of a white person doing good, reflexive, urban sociology.
5
And perhaps RIos was reading it getting ready to attack it.
So what exactly did the “born on third base-Princess-of-Sociology” Ms. Goffman produce that had not already been produced by Elliot Liebow in “Tally’s Corner” in 1967? As far as I can tell (and I have not read her book but I read Liebow’s) she pretty much reprised the same fundamental study as did Liebow and therefore the initial reaction to her work seems a bit over-the-top. Do not misunderstand, there is nothing wrong with adapting and using an approach developed by a colleague – academics do that all the time – but what cannot ever happen is to have one’s basic integrity challenged. It is one thing to be considered a sloppy researcher; it is another thing entirely to be considered a dishonest one.
8
Well she produced something about people living 48 years later which matters. And why would it be dishonest?
14
"and I have not read her book" . . . OK, perhaps you should and answer your own question.
3
Jason's statement that "I have not read her book" says all that needs to be said, NSH.
2
Ms. Goffman seems to embrace much from Critical Race Theory as does much of the university today.
Per CRT, storytelling and counter-storytelling create narratives which illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression. The personal narrative and "naming one's own reality" is of critical importance. Issues can be framed almost completely through the experiences of the writer. The stories can be based completely or only partially on actual events - just as long as they convey "truth". This is very much how Ms. Goffman's writes. As such, the claim that she is using a “writing style that today you can’t really use in the social sciences” rings false. She uses a style widely found in academia today.
OTOH, some say that her problem is with ‘‘positionality’’, white privilege, and the supposed limitations of empathy that prevent Ms. Goffman from being able to write credibly about Blacks. Worse, her efforts can be seen as yet another round of exploitation. She appropriates (even if unintentionally) the Black experience and benefits from Black bodies through her studies and books.
On one side, her storytelling is acceptable within the university because tells politically correct stories. On the other side, her stories are not acceptable because she is a privileged White woman writing about Blacks. Bravo to Ms. Goffman, but I am afraid that she is the victim of both her own worldview, and that of the modern university.
Per CRT, storytelling and counter-storytelling create narratives which illuminate and explore experiences of racial oppression. The personal narrative and "naming one's own reality" is of critical importance. Issues can be framed almost completely through the experiences of the writer. The stories can be based completely or only partially on actual events - just as long as they convey "truth". This is very much how Ms. Goffman's writes. As such, the claim that she is using a “writing style that today you can’t really use in the social sciences” rings false. She uses a style widely found in academia today.
OTOH, some say that her problem is with ‘‘positionality’’, white privilege, and the supposed limitations of empathy that prevent Ms. Goffman from being able to write credibly about Blacks. Worse, her efforts can be seen as yet another round of exploitation. She appropriates (even if unintentionally) the Black experience and benefits from Black bodies through her studies and books.
On one side, her storytelling is acceptable within the university because tells politically correct stories. On the other side, her stories are not acceptable because she is a privileged White woman writing about Blacks. Bravo to Ms. Goffman, but I am afraid that she is the victim of both her own worldview, and that of the modern university.
16
Indeed.
The notion that studying any group is a "appropriation" is something that the crit people really need to get over.
The notion that studying any group is a "appropriation" is something that the crit people really need to get over.
1
She is, rather, a victim of presumptuous dunderheads abusing the right of free speech to "demonstrate" that a woman just can't get anything right, whatever she does.
1
"Black bodies" - oh, is that what they are? I thought they were people. Anyway, I think you are on to something in your final paragraph.
Ten cheers for Alice Goffman. Her book is an amazing ethnographic accomplishment, and has the practical and important effect of informing middle class and white communities about the conditions of black urban lives, and particularly how the criminal justice system traps them. Such reporting and insight are needed for thinking about how to shape a better, fairer justice system that does not multiply the disadvantages already faced by the urban poor. These folks struggle to keep their lives and families together in our cities partly because of what those in power don't know about the effects of that system in contributing to the cycle of poverty and despair.
83
Why do so many members of our society need well-off white people to tell us the same things black people have been saying for decades before we pay attention?
15
You can see it from the responses here accusing Goffman of making things up. They cannot believe it from a well-off white person who can at least claim to have started off at some distance why would they believe it from black people?
1
Your question is disingenuous. The enduring presence of endemic racism in the United States is the answer to it, Mr. Burgos. What book on this topic written by any black person that you can think of would have garnered this kind of attention?
If Goffman grew up poor white trash, and her father was not an eminent professor, few people would care.
Take that to the bank.
Take that to the bank.
22
The people that need to read this book probably never heard of it and will never read it
4
(Not Mark) Yes it would have mattered. How can we tell if she is telling the truth? We can't. She supposedly destroyed all her notes, how convenient. So she writes a story that confirms what she believes. It's not fact, it's not truth. It's a novel.
11
Except that speaking to her sources confirms the story she told was not her invention.
1
Interesting...I don't recall any of this kind of heated criticism when Alex Kotlowitz wrote, "There Are No Children Here" 25 years ago.
13
Maybe it was a better book. Methodologically and otherwise.
6
Maybe the hard Left had yet to become as entrenched as it is today.
1
It's because it was a lot more shocking that there were no children there. Whereas criminals living on the run is not terribly surprising.
2
Why did Elinor Carruci rip off Vermeer for Goffman's portrait? Is it meant to suggest that Goffman's melodramatic pose as an ethnographer may have been inspired by her father's seminal "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life"?
10
"Is it meant to suggest that Goffman's melodramatic pose as an ethnographer may have been inspired by her father's seminal 'The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life'?"
Is it meant to advance Elinor Carruci's career as a professional photographer. What do you think, a Phadraig?
Is it meant to advance Elinor Carruci's career as a professional photographer. What do you think, a Phadraig?
I have not read her work - but from this article, it's quite clear that she's held affectionately by the community she was studying. In fact, well enough for her to go back there many times. Also she was not dishonest about her true job at any point.
Some of the criticisms she faced seem to me to come from two things:
1. Journalists who do not understand the methodology of that type of research - so they declare it terrible or against their 'journalistic' standards.
2. Some of the discouraging pettiness that pervades Academia when a member suddenly gains fame with the rest of us. It reminds me of the pettiness that followed Carl Sagan, who was disparaged as a 'TV Celebrity Scientist' by colleagues for his willingness to use mass media to popularize the sciences. This is in spite of the real ground breaking work that he was doing in Cosmology/Astronomy/Planetary Science.
Ms. Goffman is doing very difficult, often very controversial research and (at least to my eyes) seems very self-aware and introspective about it and has the right intentions. That is enough for me.
Some of the criticisms she faced seem to me to come from two things:
1. Journalists who do not understand the methodology of that type of research - so they declare it terrible or against their 'journalistic' standards.
2. Some of the discouraging pettiness that pervades Academia when a member suddenly gains fame with the rest of us. It reminds me of the pettiness that followed Carl Sagan, who was disparaged as a 'TV Celebrity Scientist' by colleagues for his willingness to use mass media to popularize the sciences. This is in spite of the real ground breaking work that he was doing in Cosmology/Astronomy/Planetary Science.
Ms. Goffman is doing very difficult, often very controversial research and (at least to my eyes) seems very self-aware and introspective about it and has the right intentions. That is enough for me.
80
No it's not. If something is true then show the notes to back it up. Redact the names if you need too. Destroying the notes destroys the evidence either way.
13
Uh-huh. That's a practical approach. Have you read the cases about police subpoenaing sociology/anthropology notes?
1
No it doesn't. Mark, why are you claiming that you wouldaccept the notes as "evidence"? If you believe that the book is faked, then why wouldn't you believe that the notes that it's based on are faked, too?
‘Alice used a writing style that today you can’t really use in the social sciences.’
The social sciences of today are an irrelevant navel-gazing discipline hijacked by the politically correct crowd. "Positionality' is an oxymoron.
The social sciences of today are an irrelevant navel-gazing discipline hijacked by the politically correct crowd. "Positionality' is an oxymoron.
59
Yes, but is it a valid critique to suggest that the author should balance her authenticity with a bit of navel-gazing?
From the article (I have not read Ms Goffman's book) it certainly sounds to me as if what she was doing used to be called anthropology. It involved the study of societal cultures by a researcher, typically an outsider. And the great "danger", according to the anthropologist establishment, was "involvement" by the researcher in the local culture and society, which would (theoretically) impede their "scientific" detachment.
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer for 3 years and the worst epithet any of the bosses could utter about volunteers was that they had "gone native". Never mind that, if you didn't go at least partially native, you couldn't get anything done. From the article, it seems that what Ms Goffman did was "go native"; as a result she has produced a work that makes most of us, who are not anthropologists, think about a situation in an entirely different way.
So, bully for her! say I.
And congratulations to the Institute for Advanced Study for having hired her.
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer for 3 years and the worst epithet any of the bosses could utter about volunteers was that they had "gone native". Never mind that, if you didn't go at least partially native, you couldn't get anything done. From the article, it seems that what Ms Goffman did was "go native"; as a result she has produced a work that makes most of us, who are not anthropologists, think about a situation in an entirely different way.
So, bully for her! say I.
And congratulations to the Institute for Advanced Study for having hired her.
61
Ethnography is akin, if not tantamount to, storytelling. Truth? Fiction? Likely a blurring of lines. But ultimately, in an academic sense, it is anecdotal and it is certainly not generalizable, which most "science" is wont to do.
As well, to not cite others' work is to plagiarize, and if she does not know why that is improper, then she is not deserving of her PhD. Too, jargon is jargon, and in that sense it is only important to the field to which it belongs; its importance is one of communication, viz. speaking the language which, ironically, she should understand quite well, presuming some of the language in her work constitutes jargon of a population, thus seems to be important.
As for her immersion, well, it seems rather obvious and in arguable that if one becomes 'X' to understand 'X' (murder, junkie, rapist, politician, mother, etc.), one is not an observer only; one is a participant; one *is*. And, all crimes, responsibilities, and consequences that come with being a participant cannot be excused in any way.
Were it otherwise, one would simply have to decide to indulge in auto-ethnography, commit whatever crimes one desires to commit, write it up, publish it (perhaps earn a PhD along the way), and viola, Get Out Of Jail Free...and perhaps a teaching position.
That would be quite wrong.
As well, to not cite others' work is to plagiarize, and if she does not know why that is improper, then she is not deserving of her PhD. Too, jargon is jargon, and in that sense it is only important to the field to which it belongs; its importance is one of communication, viz. speaking the language which, ironically, she should understand quite well, presuming some of the language in her work constitutes jargon of a population, thus seems to be important.
As for her immersion, well, it seems rather obvious and in arguable that if one becomes 'X' to understand 'X' (murder, junkie, rapist, politician, mother, etc.), one is not an observer only; one is a participant; one *is*. And, all crimes, responsibilities, and consequences that come with being a participant cannot be excused in any way.
Were it otherwise, one would simply have to decide to indulge in auto-ethnography, commit whatever crimes one desires to commit, write it up, publish it (perhaps earn a PhD along the way), and viola, Get Out Of Jail Free...and perhaps a teaching position.
That would be quite wrong.
21
"Ethnography is akin, if not tantamount to, storytelling."
Then, your own comment is also non-distinct from "story-telling," D. How are you not able to discern that? Is it that you've made up your mind that Goffman is "just not right"? Hence, what you've decided to comment is necessarily not story-telling, but truth-telling?
Then, your own comment is also non-distinct from "story-telling," D. How are you not able to discern that? Is it that you've made up your mind that Goffman is "just not right"? Hence, what you've decided to comment is necessarily not story-telling, but truth-telling?
1
As an 'American studies type,' I've always loathed the walls of academe that shut out social truths. Alice Goffman is to be commended. She is a participant/observer in the best sense. The recent fame of The Making of a Murderer on Netflix, should dispel anyone's belief in the criminal justice system's legitimacy-- and this is in rural Wisconsin white people, so that class issues and bureaucratic corruption are central. Remember: lies, damn lies and statistics.
15
Never met an ethnographer in the late 20th and 21st century conducting longitudinal ethnographic research who never used an audio recorder for interviews and transcriptions to ensure that the data was accurate. Never. The ability to keep such detailed field notes in a seemingly chaotic environment by hand borders on the absurd and any ethnographer conducting this kind of work knows that. It is literally impossible to accurately account conversations without recorded interviews to supplement the field notes and more importantly to triangulate whether what the ethnographer observed is indeed accurate. Methodologically, cannot begin to grasp how an IRB would even let some of these issues go unchecked.
33
Goffman is not conducting interviews. She lives on Sixth Street and is part of the community. On its face, it is stupid to suggest that she walk around with an audio recorder.
16
She didn't live on "Sixth Street", she 4 blocks west of the University of Pennsylvania in a nice community. She just visited sixth street (and lived there for about 8 weeks). Her lack of notes and purposely evasion when pushed for specific dates allows some to think she lived there, or that "Sixth Street", about 8 blocks from St Joe's University, is some "other" that needs a Penn undergrad to decipher.
2
Since you are so interested in methodology, lets start from the beginning: how many ethnographers have you actually met? How did you select this sample, and how do you know that your sample is representative? How do you know whether they record every conversation, or just some, and how do you know that they transcribe and code (let alone consult) the recordings before writing up their findings, as opposed to consulting only the fieldnotes?
3
From my perspective is that Goffman is a sociologist doing ethnography without any anthropological training which is why there are so many flaws in her data collection process. It has left her open to criticism from sociologists who generally do not respect ethnographic research and the ones with strong qualitative training who clearly see the flaws. Even this article focuses on the politics of the criticism leveled at her and not the flaws that are obvious in her work to any anthropologist.
28
The kind of rancor Goffman's intrepid work calls forth demonstrates the sad state of academia: more concerned with political correctness and backbiting than compassion or social change. I would posit that most of her colleagues are in fact jealous of her intrepid work, and prefer to remain behind the gloss of criticism (or hide behind Anonymity, i.e. 60-page accuser). Let's now reflect on how many white folks are content to hand-wringing at the quantitative level of statistics about inequity, yet never set foot in a neighborhood like West Philadelphia (unless you count stepping foot on the gas while they swiftly pass through to their comfortable suburban enclaves). I'm not calling Goffman a hero, but Good Lord! Wake up America! You created an enormous underclass still suffering the effects of slavery. You hate to see what you've done, but even more you hate when those of your kin in academia best you at what you do at a safe remove. Let's celebrate courageous research and reporting, in the service of social change, instead of nit-picking such compassion and bravery to death. Our culture needs more confrontations with truth, not less. Even if she embellished some facts, look at what it's in service of. Now, look at what you work in service of, each and every day. What you toil at your desk for. Weigh the two. Tell me who is succeeding-- at breaking down barriers and serving the dignity of the dispossessed. Tell me who is succeeding at keeping their heads in the sand
44
right on!
For Alice Goffman to destroy her Philadelphia field notes and later to throw away two years' worth of her post-doc field notes suggests awareness of doing wrong, not just an effort to protect informants.
As someone who studied and practiced participant observation and field work back in the day, I can state that there are many legitimate and accepted ways to preserve informants' anonymity, up to and including coding or changing informants' names in field notes during or after observation.
Also, one of the major lessons taught in sociology and cultural anthropology courses is to avoid over-identifying with those who are being observed, a not uncommon phenomenon referred to in the old days as "going native," which inevitably colors or even distorts one's research and writing. While every observer of course has some bias, it is expected that true scholars will make a concerted effort to identify and disclose their own biases, and to communicate how these biases might have affected their observations, analyses and conclusions.
It seems that Ms. Goffman is trying to walk an untenable line between sociology and journalism/activism, and will need to make a choice whether to become a recognized scholar or an object of ridicule like Sean Penn the journalist/activist/actor (or is it actor/journalist/activist).
As someone who studied and practiced participant observation and field work back in the day, I can state that there are many legitimate and accepted ways to preserve informants' anonymity, up to and including coding or changing informants' names in field notes during or after observation.
Also, one of the major lessons taught in sociology and cultural anthropology courses is to avoid over-identifying with those who are being observed, a not uncommon phenomenon referred to in the old days as "going native," which inevitably colors or even distorts one's research and writing. While every observer of course has some bias, it is expected that true scholars will make a concerted effort to identify and disclose their own biases, and to communicate how these biases might have affected their observations, analyses and conclusions.
It seems that Ms. Goffman is trying to walk an untenable line between sociology and journalism/activism, and will need to make a choice whether to become a recognized scholar or an object of ridicule like Sean Penn the journalist/activist/actor (or is it actor/journalist/activist).
125
I believe it's Sean Penn the actor/meddler/self-publicist.
6
That is an incredibly naive view in today's world of electronic footprints - cell phones; tweets; posts could all identify any anonymized source despite a fake name.
1
Try defending field notes from a prosector's subpoena.
5
I've not read Dr. Goffman's work so I'm reacting only to what I've read in the article. Two things strike me. First, why is no one from her dissertation committee at Princeton University speaking up? She was recruited to their doctoral program by some unnamed professor. The juxtaposition of many academics' voices reaching back 14 years or more and the lack of any voice from her more recent Princeton years is striking. And having defended a dissertation myself, which requires committee approval, I'm aware that one only is awarded a degree if the work is "blessed" by the committee. Bottom line: They approved her work. And by inference her methods. Remember too that women were only admitted there a few years before Dr. Hoffman was born. I leave it to the reader to connect any perceived dots. Just sayin'
Second, if she spent three months in hospital recovering from a near fatal accident while bike riding, it seems completely logical that she suffered major head trauma. Her inability to recall dates, lose focus easily, not remember to charge her phone or recall which way to turn in a hallway may not be the ditzy, charming ways of a modern day absent-minded professor, but sequilae to traumatic brain injury.
Full disclosure: I lived in Princeton Township for 10 years and have two masters degrees and a doctorate in three disciplines, none sociology. I am also very familiar with TBI.
Second, if she spent three months in hospital recovering from a near fatal accident while bike riding, it seems completely logical that she suffered major head trauma. Her inability to recall dates, lose focus easily, not remember to charge her phone or recall which way to turn in a hallway may not be the ditzy, charming ways of a modern day absent-minded professor, but sequilae to traumatic brain injury.
Full disclosure: I lived in Princeton Township for 10 years and have two masters degrees and a doctorate in three disciplines, none sociology. I am also very familiar with TBI.
20
You have "a doctorate in three disciplines"?
Now, what kind of school would grant that kind of degree?
And having lived in Princeton Township affects your qualifications in what way??
Proximity to greatness?
Now, what kind of school would grant that kind of degree?
And having lived in Princeton Township affects your qualifications in what way??
Proximity to greatness?
10
He means three doctorates in different disciplines, silly.
Intentionally misreading.
The question of who speaks for whom is among the most loaded today in the academy and the arts.
For a white person to write about a non-white person is considered racist and neo-colonialist. Not of course, the other way around.
The zeitgeist that created this falls under the heading of "Political Correctness." Totally corrosive to creation and intellect.
BTW, a certain Donald surfs ably on this zeitgeist.
For a white person to write about a non-white person is considered racist and neo-colonialist. Not of course, the other way around.
The zeitgeist that created this falls under the heading of "Political Correctness." Totally corrosive to creation and intellect.
BTW, a certain Donald surfs ably on this zeitgeist.
11
"For a white person to write about a non-white person is considered racist and neo-colonialist. Not of course, the other way around."
That is, it's not considered racist and neo-colonialist for a non-white person to write about a white person. That's quite bizarre, given that non-white people did not invent racism and have never colonized the lands of white people.
That is, it's not considered racist and neo-colonialist for a non-white person to write about a white person. That's quite bizarre, given that non-white people did not invent racism and have never colonized the lands of white people.
Goffman is a fabulist, but she is no dummy. She has crafted a narrative that somehow strengthens her hand, taking in journalists, despite writing outlandish things and contradicting herself. She'll go far, I fear.
28
And she has the family name to help that along.
1
This is a thorough article on the issues at stake in sociology, but it could benefit from closer consideration of the current political-economic context of academia more generally.
When 2/3's of college instructors are working as low-paid part-timers and a whole generation of PhD candidates in the social sciences are facing an employment black hole, the meteoric rise of Alice Goffman, (a woman that, yes, was born into the academic .00001 percent) was clearly more than many in sociology could tolerate quietly, particularly when her work is considered by many (and perhaps even herself, as discussed in this article) to be pretty derivative. In the words of her taxi driver interlocutor, the well-connected Goffman moved with shocking speed from A (undergrad) to Z (tenure track hire at top program with book deals, Ted talks, breathless media profiles, and the wholesale endorsement of disciplinary elites) at a time when many aspiring social scientists find themselves, despite doing decent work, lost in a sea of 1,000 + applications for underpaying jobs at failing universities.
Goffman’s book had been written numerous times already, by other authors, but perhaps without the cinematic panache that she gave it. Did this warrant her being so quickly anointed as the public face of sociology? For many in sociology, no.
When 2/3's of college instructors are working as low-paid part-timers and a whole generation of PhD candidates in the social sciences are facing an employment black hole, the meteoric rise of Alice Goffman, (a woman that, yes, was born into the academic .00001 percent) was clearly more than many in sociology could tolerate quietly, particularly when her work is considered by many (and perhaps even herself, as discussed in this article) to be pretty derivative. In the words of her taxi driver interlocutor, the well-connected Goffman moved with shocking speed from A (undergrad) to Z (tenure track hire at top program with book deals, Ted talks, breathless media profiles, and the wholesale endorsement of disciplinary elites) at a time when many aspiring social scientists find themselves, despite doing decent work, lost in a sea of 1,000 + applications for underpaying jobs at failing universities.
Goffman’s book had been written numerous times already, by other authors, but perhaps without the cinematic panache that she gave it. Did this warrant her being so quickly anointed as the public face of sociology? For many in sociology, no.
28
Hhhm. People at Princeton, Penn and Wisconsin thought so. And they knew something about her.
As for the wave of people who made the mistake of majoring in the currently silly social science field, I can understand your frustration and jealousy. Poor vocational choice.
As for the wave of people who made the mistake of majoring in the currently silly social science field, I can understand your frustration and jealousy. Poor vocational choice.
Do many not in sociology give a Roosevelt dime? No.
It's not at all uncommon for social scientists' notes to contain information that could be damaging to the people with whom they work. Longstanding, commonsense precautions are used to protect identities and I've never heard of anyone voluntarily destroying their data.
27
You have, now. So, what?
1
This is an incredibly informative piece thanks to the care and detail provided by Mr. Lewis-Kraus. He has pushed me to order and read "On the Run." This is almost like a primer on the recent history of two fields, sociology and journalism, unfortunately held in low regard by some who enjoy white privilege to the max. Without having read Goffman's work, I would still say that there is lasting value in telling peoples' stories. She seems to have acted as the caretaker of those stories for her 6th Street family members. What they think of a white woman writing their story can only be answered by them. It seems to me that objecting to the validity of her work because she is white and they are not (oversimplified, I realize) is simply an attempt to suppress the facts embedded in the story. I would love to hear what Goffman and her 6th Streeters think would be initial steps toward bettering their conditions and the future for their children. Thanks, Gideon, for an eye-opening piece.
7
The author's "Compare that to the interactions I’ve had at this airport — people smiling at me, holding the door for me. You don’t think, as a white person, about how your whole day is boosted by people affirming your dignity ..."
Ms. Goffman, you received all that comfy treatment because you are a young and good looking woman, not because of the color of your skin. Take it from an old, fat white guy, at whom nobody smiles and for whom holds doors open.
When your looks fade with age, you'll find those smiles few and far between.
Your assumptions are appalling.
Ms. Goffman, you received all that comfy treatment because you are a young and good looking woman, not because of the color of your skin. Take it from an old, fat white guy, at whom nobody smiles and for whom holds doors open.
When your looks fade with age, you'll find those smiles few and far between.
Your assumptions are appalling.
52
LOL, that is precisely what I thought, only my version was "just wait until you are over 50 and not cute anymore". You won't get any of that warm smiling and doors being held open. It has nothing to do with skin color.
I absolutely assure you that Beyonce is treated with warm smiles, and doors held open, too.
I absolutely assure you that Beyonce is treated with warm smiles, and doors held open, too.
27
Oh, I think race has something to do with it. Youth and gender help too. Even if you are, like me, a 40ish white woman if you're even close to presentable you'll get much more courtesy than most people of color. Beyonce being an outlier here.
"I absolutely assure you that Beyonce is treated with warm smiles, and doors held open, too."
Quite so. But not because she's young and beautiful, despite being black, but because she's a star and white people know who she is. Apparently, you're not aware that a Parisian sales assistant, refused service to Oprah, not wanting to waste her time with _une noire_ who clearly couldn't afford to buy. And there was the time when a patron at an upscale restaurant, upon exiting, handed the President, waiting for the Secret Service to bring the car around, her keys, having assumed that the colored boy was the valet.
Dr. Goffman's point is that white people treat her with casual respect, despite the fact that perhaps only twenty people, including her own family, know who she is or care anything about her, other than that she's not obviously non-white. If she wasn't white, then, as Mr. Citizen points out, she would have to be rich, beautiful, and a world-renowned pop star to get that kind of treatment.
Quite so. But not because she's young and beautiful, despite being black, but because she's a star and white people know who she is. Apparently, you're not aware that a Parisian sales assistant, refused service to Oprah, not wanting to waste her time with _une noire_ who clearly couldn't afford to buy. And there was the time when a patron at an upscale restaurant, upon exiting, handed the President, waiting for the Secret Service to bring the car around, her keys, having assumed that the colored boy was the valet.
Dr. Goffman's point is that white people treat her with casual respect, despite the fact that perhaps only twenty people, including her own family, know who she is or care anything about her, other than that she's not obviously non-white. If she wasn't white, then, as Mr. Citizen points out, she would have to be rich, beautiful, and a world-renowned pop star to get that kind of treatment.
This article brings back to my mind the hope that sociology can still be a humanistically relevant field. It refreshes my disappointments with "establishment" sociology. Sociology used to be in the United States what it still is in Europe: a source of learned information and knowledge about the important issues of the day. In these critical days we are living through it is difficult to find work of sociologists that makes a difference. There is not understanding of what the French sociologists Pierre Bourdieu has called "reflexive sociology," that is to say, a sociology that finds a place in common political discourse. Infatuation with mathematical models and the pretense of scientism dampened the enthusiasm of young sociologists who wanted to do research of the kind done by Alice Goffman. This is, I think, an epoch making study in the tradition of participant observation that made sociology a field of importance by the 60's for the changes it helped promote at that time. Obviously,an academic discipline like Sociology does not have color. It is stupid to think that only blacks can understand the black experience. They may have an existential understanding of it, but that does not mean that they can always explain and express the way a social scientist (properly understood as such) can. I have read Christopher Jenckins review in the NYReview of Books and I fully agree with him in regarding Goffman's work as theoretically and methodologically extraordinary.
41
Unfortunately, many in the African-American world of academia, have made their history their sole property, and this mindset has become almost politically correct. However, in the 50's, 60's. etc/. during the Civil Rights very active movement years, it was permissible for non-African-Americans to write, to report, to bring the news of injustice to the rest of America. Here, the latter mindset hasn't either spoken of, or found actions to handle the issues Ms. Goffman raises, and so she is condemned. Hypocrisy is a two-way street.
6
What nonsense, lorenzo212bronx! During the era of Jim Crow and during every other era of American history, any white person, publicly or privately, has been able to write, commit to film, or draw whatever he wanted about any black person on the face of the earth. The only thing that has changed is that, now, if black people don't like what's said, written, or filmed about them, they can complain *publicly* about it - unless it's on the Web - without fear of having the Klan come for them in the night.
Why bigots see civil rights only as a zero-sum game - if the blacks gain their rights to *anything*, then we whites lose our rights to *everything*! -
Why bigots see civil rights only as a zero-sum game - if the blacks gain their rights to *anything*, then we whites lose our rights to *everything*! -
1
Thanks for the excellent history of sociology that provides essential context for understanding Alice Hoffman's work, and the controversy it inspires. I'm not sure why she can't simply turn herself into a journalist. Would her methods inspire equal doubt, and equal vitriol outside the academic world? Or does her work rely in part on inspiring debate within the academy? Why not quit the academy, Alice?
7
Goffman says Philly cops put guns on the table. I believe it.
My team was implementing a city wide information system for the City of Philadelphia. We had to visit each department individually to explain the system and gather any unique requirements a department might have.
Several senior officers came into the requirements meeting room and sat down at the large table. The first thing they did was put their service weapons on the table. The next thing they did was present several non-negotiable requirements.
IMO the system changes they wanted would make it difficult (but not impossible) to detect fraud and corruption. They claimed the changes were necessary because of the unique aspects of police work, the type of schedules they worked, and so on. Maybe those were the real reasons - who knows? Either way, their guns were on the table.
We took their request back to the Administration. The cops got their requirements approved, no questions asked.
My team was implementing a city wide information system for the City of Philadelphia. We had to visit each department individually to explain the system and gather any unique requirements a department might have.
Several senior officers came into the requirements meeting room and sat down at the large table. The first thing they did was put their service weapons on the table. The next thing they did was present several non-negotiable requirements.
IMO the system changes they wanted would make it difficult (but not impossible) to detect fraud and corruption. They claimed the changes were necessary because of the unique aspects of police work, the type of schedules they worked, and so on. Maybe those were the real reasons - who knows? Either way, their guns were on the table.
We took their request back to the Administration. The cops got their requirements approved, no questions asked.
33
No one who has ever read anything about the history of the police in Philly would question for a moment that someone might be questioned with guns on the table.
Started to read On The Run and found it lacking in and POV that made me question veracity of whether these people were real or not.
Decide for yourselves...
Decide for yourselves...
9
This is an article about the academy, i.e., about academia, i.e., specifically about the sociology academy, talking to and arguing with itself. There is nothing more banal than the academy talking and arguing with itself, particularly when it is over who among them should be afforded status as their celebrity sociologist.
Woody Allen might have been able to make this tale interesting, in an obsessive/compulsive NY Jewish sort of way, but that's only because he would be do so by poking sardonic fun at the idea of a celebrity sociologist and all the inane jealousies and backstabbing that afflict academia.
In all this internecine squabbling, nobody seems to mind much that nothing of mankind's sociological problems are getting fixed in the process. And fixing some human problem is the point of studying it, no matter the discipline. Isn't it?
Woody Allen might have been able to make this tale interesting, in an obsessive/compulsive NY Jewish sort of way, but that's only because he would be do so by poking sardonic fun at the idea of a celebrity sociologist and all the inane jealousies and backstabbing that afflict academia.
In all this internecine squabbling, nobody seems to mind much that nothing of mankind's sociological problems are getting fixed in the process. And fixing some human problem is the point of studying it, no matter the discipline. Isn't it?
10
We're going through a strange new era of cultural segregation. I think the point is self-assertion rather than actual separation and perhaps it will finally lead to somewhere better once it works itself out. But it seems seems a twisted path that at its heart fails to see people as people.
10
"I'm sorry, you do not meet the racial purity standard to hold a valid opinion on this subject." Ad hominem, plain and simple.
7
The profile is marred by the too-long delayed fact that Alice is Erving Goffman's daughter. It makes sense not to overemphasize the point, but there's not good sway to slip it in as the profile attempts as her personal'background.
8
and your point is?
4
What a weak article for both sociology and the reporter. She did not see 3 men arrested in a maternity ward in Philadelphia. If you bothered to check police records, you would see it didn't happen. While she hides her lies behind the shield of anonymity the very community she claims to represent, support, champion, and even be a member of, suffers from real problems. Alice is a distraction for the field and needs to get off the stage... Her book is full of inconsistencies that morphed into lies. This doesn't belong in the academe or journalism...
41
Ah yes, "police records", those bastions of truth and accuracy.
7
You're kidding, right? The cops changed the records, nobody in the hospital noticed or said anything, etc. Yeah, her records are air-tight.
10
truth and accuracy - she claimed 3 men were arrested in front of her eyes. I don't believe her, I don't believe they existed, I don't even believe there were police in the maternity ward when she was there. She could tell me the name of the hospital and the date if she wanted, and it could be proven through a hospital security report, interviewing staff, checking videos. She chose not to disclose, take her at her word. I don't believe it, and without evidence, her book now reads like a novel to me, not a non-fiction, journalism, sociology, or anything remote to the academy.
1
What a mess. As a work of journalism, ethnography or sociology, there doesn't seem to be enough academic rigor present to make her work useful - in fact, the book has been deemed by many to be unapologetically sloppy; though her clever to this criticism is that as a "privileged" white person, my validation of her work is unimportant.
The for whom and for what was this book written? The author doesn't seem to know or care. I suspect it was written for herself, meant to affirm a bizarre sense of righteousness.
As a helpful work of academia: Failure. What does it reveal that is not already common knowledge?
As a docu-drama, maybe - but I feel this ground has already been covered by "The Wire".
The for whom and for what was this book written? The author doesn't seem to know or care. I suspect it was written for herself, meant to affirm a bizarre sense of righteousness.
As a helpful work of academia: Failure. What does it reveal that is not already common knowledge?
As a docu-drama, maybe - but I feel this ground has already been covered by "The Wire".
12
It was written by Goffman for Goffman, on behalf of her status in her moiety.
Ostentatious declarations of concern for minorities are a tried-and-true method for white bourgeois persons to enhance their social and professional status. Someone should write a paper about it.
Ostentatious declarations of concern for minorities are a tried-and-true method for white bourgeois persons to enhance their social and professional status. Someone should write a paper about it.
1
Read the book. It is superb both as journalism and as sociology. Or if you are not interested in the people she knows and their environment, don't read the book, but also refrain from commenting.
2
Bob, come to Philadelphia.
Or refrain from commenting.
Or refrain from commenting.
1
One gets the sense that the criticism from academia stems from idiotic identity politics, political correctness and plain envy. If academia is looking for a systemic problem they ought to visit their optometrist- no doubt the diagnosis will be myopia .
42
Good for her. Academia writes for 8 other people who don't really read the work. Meanwhile the world ignores us. Surprised?
She is the way forward. Making an impact with thousands of hours of hard work, writing and traveling.
As it is, you spend 10 years writing a dissertation/monograph nobody on earth cares about, even your partners or parents.
She is the way forward. Making an impact with thousands of hours of hard work, writing and traveling.
As it is, you spend 10 years writing a dissertation/monograph nobody on earth cares about, even your partners or parents.
23
She isn't the only working those thousands of hours writing and traveling. The article cited a few more examples of young sociologists of her generation doing equally important work. Yet, they are not famous.
She is not particularly special.
She is not particularly special.
An anonymous email that was nonetheless investigated and discounted by her department.... That says more than enough.
10
Of course her department would protect her, wouldn't look good on them for having a liar in their midst would it now.
Certainly no conflict of interest there...clearly /sarcasm
just as Goffman could not write critically about her "friends" the Times writer grew too intimate to speak objectively about Goffman. One example: if Goffman's reply to her critic is so top secret, why would she let the author read it and talk extensively about it. This smells like Sean Penn journalism to me.
25
If an affluent white woman can be criticized for writing about non-affluent black men (apparently because she, allegedly can't relate), then can we also criticize a black man for writing about white women. Or an Asian female for writing about American Indian culture, etc, etc. This is a ridiculous argument.
69
uy gavalt, she did what few others would dare to do, and did it with passion and conviction - of course the decenters would line up to bash her into dust - that's what cowards do best.
10
uy vay, it would appear that alice goffman's brand of research is analogous to sabrina erdely's brand of journalism. passion and conviction are great, but they should never be confused with verifiable data and replicable research.
14
You mean she made stuff up that certain people like to hear?
8
The role of ethnography to a sociologist is not replication, notes are not raw data. The resulting research is more idiographic than nomothetic...what that means is that unlike a drug trial where generalizable results are desired and nomothetic knowledge is the focus; "On the Run" is about understanding uniqueness and recognizing the subjectivity of the observations consequently this knowledge is idiographic. Destroying the notes can protect the researcher and the subject from unanticipated consequences of the documented behavior.
The preoccupation that this discussion has about the destruction of the notes is misplaced and it highlights the misunderstanding of ethnography as it is practiced in sociology.
The preoccupation that this discussion has about the destruction of the notes is misplaced and it highlights the misunderstanding of ethnography as it is practiced in sociology.
Sorry. Ethical social scientists don't destroy field notes that are the basis of published research.
106
@campesino
Destroying field notes? No sane/legitimate social scientist would do that. Goffman is goofy and irritating, like an obnoxious play-acting child. I don't believe anything she says.
Destroying field notes? No sane/legitimate social scientist would do that. Goffman is goofy and irritating, like an obnoxious play-acting child. I don't believe anything she says.
1
As someone who has been following the controversy around Goffman with interest, I'm disappointed that the reporter devoted so much space to mind-numbing sociological verbiage but didn't give the reader more detail about Goffman's explanations for her more outlandish claims.
For instance: "Around that time a friend of Chuck’s had been shot and killed while exiting my car outside a bar; one of the bullets pierced my windshield, and the man’s blood spattered my shoes and pants as we [presumably Goffman and Chuck] ran away. I had been staying at Mitch’s spare apartment in Princeton for a few days until things calmed down." Umm, what happened when the police came calling about her car with the bullet hole in the window that had been abandoned at a murder scene? It doesn't sound like the sort of thing that they would forget about after a few days. The reporter refers to "a quite reasonable clarification of the mild confusion over what she witnessed firsthand and what she reconstructed from interviews", but this seems more like Goffman 'sexing up' her book than justifiable anonymisation for her informants' sake.
This issue is important as how can we judge controversial and important claims about police misconduct - like Goffman personally witnessing three men arrested on the maternity floor of a hospital (including her friend for a very minor parole violation) after police check the visitors' name list - if we still don't know whether they are really just nth hand urban legends?
For instance: "Around that time a friend of Chuck’s had been shot and killed while exiting my car outside a bar; one of the bullets pierced my windshield, and the man’s blood spattered my shoes and pants as we [presumably Goffman and Chuck] ran away. I had been staying at Mitch’s spare apartment in Princeton for a few days until things calmed down." Umm, what happened when the police came calling about her car with the bullet hole in the window that had been abandoned at a murder scene? It doesn't sound like the sort of thing that they would forget about after a few days. The reporter refers to "a quite reasonable clarification of the mild confusion over what she witnessed firsthand and what she reconstructed from interviews", but this seems more like Goffman 'sexing up' her book than justifiable anonymisation for her informants' sake.
This issue is important as how can we judge controversial and important claims about police misconduct - like Goffman personally witnessing three men arrested on the maternity floor of a hospital (including her friend for a very minor parole violation) after police check the visitors' name list - if we still don't know whether they are really just nth hand urban legends?
57
"It doesn't sound like the sort of thing that they would forget about after a few days."
It sure doesn't. Not in a white neighborhood, anyway. Even on TV, the police don't bother about stuff like that in a black neighborhood.
It sure doesn't. Not in a white neighborhood, anyway. Even on TV, the police don't bother about stuff like that in a black neighborhood.
1
Seems to me that it's fine that Ms. Goffman is white and privileged but writing about black, impoverished people. It would be fine for a black woman from the South Bronx to write an ethnography about the Princeton rowing team, right?
I don't think it's fine to make stuff up in an academic book though, it's not supposed to be fiction. And it seems undeniable that this is what she did. Destroying all the notes doesn't look like the best course of action in this case, since there's no accounting for why her narrative contradicts itself.
Overall I think she got too close to her subjects, and that whether she knows it or not, she's lucky to be alive. When she rode out with the guy set on revenge, she could easily have been involved in the traditional shoot out and gotten plugged. When the SWAT team busted into the den of thieves she was residing in, she could have made a too-hasty move for her Dictaphone and been riddled with bullets.
I'm sure some of her work is useful but then again, it seems to just confirm what people already suspected about the life of impoverished criminals in an urban environment. Turns out they do not run well-managed apiaries, or spend a lot of time crocheting, but we sort of suspected as much.
I don't think it's fine to make stuff up in an academic book though, it's not supposed to be fiction. And it seems undeniable that this is what she did. Destroying all the notes doesn't look like the best course of action in this case, since there's no accounting for why her narrative contradicts itself.
Overall I think she got too close to her subjects, and that whether she knows it or not, she's lucky to be alive. When she rode out with the guy set on revenge, she could easily have been involved in the traditional shoot out and gotten plugged. When the SWAT team busted into the den of thieves she was residing in, she could have made a too-hasty move for her Dictaphone and been riddled with bullets.
I'm sure some of her work is useful but then again, it seems to just confirm what people already suspected about the life of impoverished criminals in an urban environment. Turns out they do not run well-managed apiaries, or spend a lot of time crocheting, but we sort of suspected as much.
18
the african american woman could write about the sociology of the Princeton players , but only if she lived with them and handed out checks to them like Ms. Goffman did. Both the Times writer and Goffman abanoned all clains to credibility because they got too enamored of their subjects. It befuddles credibility to say that Goffman refuses to give out her defense to critics of her book, but then hands them over to the obscure New York Times , which then paraphrases them in this very friendly Sean Penn form of "journalism".
10
"It would be fine for a black woman from the South Bronx to write an ethnography about the Princeton rowing team, right?"
We'll never know for certain, because it's unlikely that any black person, male, female, or trans, would ever have any interest in the ethnography of any subset of white people. Nevertheless, I doubt that any black at all person would be permitted the same kind of access to any aspect of Princeton University, under any set of circumstances, that Dr. Goffman was able to get in the black community by simply by being white and wanting it. She could have done the same thing on the rez or in Chinatown.
She's white.
We'll never know for certain, because it's unlikely that any black person, male, female, or trans, would ever have any interest in the ethnography of any subset of white people. Nevertheless, I doubt that any black at all person would be permitted the same kind of access to any aspect of Princeton University, under any set of circumstances, that Dr. Goffman was able to get in the black community by simply by being white and wanting it. She could have done the same thing on the rez or in Chinatown.
She's white.
"the african american woman could write about the sociology of the Princeton players."
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
Her biggest sin appears to be saying what people don't want to hear, in language that forgets to stop and genuflect before proceeding.
Positionality, indeed. For Pete's sake--is there truth in her portrayals, or not? What else really matters here?
Positionality, indeed. For Pete's sake--is there truth in her portrayals, or not? What else really matters here?
116
Yay. This is what I had as my first thought.
Its interesting that white scholars particularly ethnographers are privileged in the academy to talk about positionality in their work, never read an ethnography by one scholar of color where the academy romanticizes their positionality in conducting similar work with similar populations. If a white scholar engages poor communities on the ground its exotic, if a a scholar of color does it, there is no value in the work, which is insane because scholars of color often face similar if not greater challenges with conducting ethnographies in poor communities. Determining the accuracy of her account is debatable but had she been a scholar of color doing the same work, the work would have never gained the same kind of attention because no one cares about the positionality of scholars of color and it would be impossible for a scholar of color to gain access to a similar socioeconomic class of whites to conduct a study. Image rural or suburban America granting access to a scholar of color to study whites addicted to heroin or meth. Never going to happen and if it did, highly doubt that the academy would embrace the positionality of the researcher. Her race, gender, age and class benefited her, it was really the backdrop for the academy to make her the darling of urban ethnography, now the very same factors in addition to her questionable narratives have raised more scrutiny. How ironic.
6
A few things: Interactionism goes back further than the 1920s Chicago. It was founded by psychologists and sociologists (Dewey, Mead, et al.). It's difficult to do outside of a qualitative methodology. Mixed method, qualitative and quantitative approaches have been more the norm than something novel for quite awhile, across the social sciences.
Early sociologists enshrined marginalization as a source of objectivity, but even as long ago as the 50s and the work of people like Herbert Gans and Goffman's father did consider the roles of their own backgrounds and why they chose their populations, settings, points of entry, and the circumstances they used for data collection. These seem to be the issues that younger Goffman needed to better address. Race, social or economic status aside, being honest about what you bring and how you made your choices is essential for ethnography and has been reasonable rxpectation for decades.
Early sociologists enshrined marginalization as a source of objectivity, but even as long ago as the 50s and the work of people like Herbert Gans and Goffman's father did consider the roles of their own backgrounds and why they chose their populations, settings, points of entry, and the circumstances they used for data collection. These seem to be the issues that younger Goffman needed to better address. Race, social or economic status aside, being honest about what you bring and how you made your choices is essential for ethnography and has been reasonable rxpectation for decades.
6
Sorry. Just another white apologist.
10
That's OK, Mr. McCabe, we accept your apology.
7
It used to be called 'slumming'.
This is a well researched book and a good read. Young black men used to write books back in the 1960s and 1970s. Now so many tell their stories through their music. Different but the same in so many ways.
2
Oh, those young black men!
Black folks have been writing books for a while. Word is, they're still doing it.
Black folks have been writing books for a while. Word is, they're still doing it.
1
SHe is white and writes about inner city black youth (emphasis on black). Hence academia thinks she is a criminal (because of her "whiteness"). This is her crime. Another example of PC racism and irrationality running amuck.
It really forces one to ask the question of whether or not universities are "centers" of learning. Have they lost that function?
It really forces one to ask the question of whether or not universities are "centers" of learning. Have they lost that function?
5
No, her crime is that she lies. She can't back any of her story up because she conveniently destroyed all her notes.
9
Of course she has the right to write about anyone she wants. It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The real issue is did she fabricate, embellish or manipulate her research for the sake of sensationalizing her work? Her credibility and integrity as a scholar is the key, not her gender or race.
The teaser copy underneath the headline certainly doesn't help. One wonders if it's intentionally misleading to sensationalize the article. The very crime Ms. Goffman is accused of.
The teaser copy underneath the headline certainly doesn't help. One wonders if it's intentionally misleading to sensationalize the article. The very crime Ms. Goffman is accused of.
74
Hats off to Alice for sticking to her beliefs even when being criticized by those in her field. Academia is stagnant with its mandate to push young scholars onto the path that has been laid before their time. Are her critics jealous that she has a book and had been able to cross class, race and socioeconomic boundaries? Ethnography is the real way to study populations, subsets etc. It is this method that puts meaning and a face on those being studied. Statistics merely are numbers, hard cold and perhaps unreliable. For validation Alice might want to study another similar population in another part of the country and compare notes. I sometimes provide ethnographic research for corporations studying their consumers. We don't spend as much time as Alice but hopscotch the country speaking with our target. End result is a story of who these people really are.
18
"Statistics merely are numbers, hard cold and perhaps unreliable."
And one individuals "experiences" are more reliable? Our memories and perceptions are equally, if not more, unreliable.
What's called for a is a fair and balanced use of both methods/ways of analysis.
And one individuals "experiences" are more reliable? Our memories and perceptions are equally, if not more, unreliable.
What's called for a is a fair and balanced use of both methods/ways of analysis.
1
I worked during 1960 to 2000 as an economist, and frequently observed, and occasionally experienced, the tension between qualitative and quantitative analysis. In my view, which is clearly supported supported by changes in the literature, economics (after Adam Smith!) before the mid-20th century was too heavy on theorizing without empirical investigation. During the second half of that century, the availability of computers facilitated an exaggerated shift to the other extreme; in the 1960s there was a common joke about the grad student who said, "I'm ready to do my PhD dissertation; I have a computer program to do the statistics; now all I need is a subject and some data." The profession more recently has reversed that over-correction and is again interested in details about how actual people and actual institutions behave -- inserting what could be called "field work" where unsubstantiated but computationally convenient assumptions used to reign.
The odyssey of sociology described in this essay is different but contains this same tension. It is impossible to avoid because neither discipline has neither theories (I would prefer to say "models") that contain all the possibly relevant variables, nor data that closely approximate the variables in the theory. Empirical testing of theories, which is crucially important, is therefore unavoidingly limited.
Unfortunately the goodwill and the wisdom needed to balance these tensions is hard to find in today's academic world.
The odyssey of sociology described in this essay is different but contains this same tension. It is impossible to avoid because neither discipline has neither theories (I would prefer to say "models") that contain all the possibly relevant variables, nor data that closely approximate the variables in the theory. Empirical testing of theories, which is crucially important, is therefore unavoidingly limited.
Unfortunately the goodwill and the wisdom needed to balance these tensions is hard to find in today's academic world.
55
I cannot address Professor Goffman's work directly as I have not reviewed it.
However, I strongly believe that anecdotal reporting in the social sciences is of more lasting value than analysis or statistical work.
As time passes today's theories will fall out of fashion to be replaced by new theories, which in turn will be replaced themselves. Moreover, due to confounding most statistical work in the social sciences is of little value.
However, witnesses' accounts, even if they come from adventurers serve as primary sources and are of continual value.
The charge that whites shouldn't report on black culture, or the other way around is without merit. Sometimes an outsider will see things that an insider will take for granted. The best situation is when you have both sorts of accounts, from both inside the group, and from outside the group.
If Professor Goffman is not citing others work, work which she takes credit for, that would be a serious offense if true; as would publishing a fictional or sloppy account.
However, I strongly believe that anecdotal reporting in the social sciences is of more lasting value than analysis or statistical work.
As time passes today's theories will fall out of fashion to be replaced by new theories, which in turn will be replaced themselves. Moreover, due to confounding most statistical work in the social sciences is of little value.
However, witnesses' accounts, even if they come from adventurers serve as primary sources and are of continual value.
The charge that whites shouldn't report on black culture, or the other way around is without merit. Sometimes an outsider will see things that an insider will take for granted. The best situation is when you have both sorts of accounts, from both inside the group, and from outside the group.
If Professor Goffman is not citing others work, work which she takes credit for, that would be a serious offense if true; as would publishing a fictional or sloppy account.
26
"However, I strongly believe that anecdotal reporting in the social sciences is of more lasting value than analysis or statistical work. "
Gibbering radical subjectivism.
Gibbering radical subjectivism.
Something about this research seems to treat poor blacks like a different species to be observed like zoo animals. Something about it rubs me the wrong way, never mind the citation issues and other issues.
20
I found "On the Run" singularly informative. It altered my outlook on lots of things, which is what great writing can do. Thanks for this account of Alice Goffman, and thanks to her.
23
There is a rule in science, be it 'hard' or 'soft' science: if you can back up your case with solid research, then it is up to others to disprove it or take the hypothesis and run it to another level. The research rests on the data, analysis and findings. If you had to be a certain gender, skin color, cultural background to have valid social findings, then valid research would be a hell of a harder to do. I found that qualitative research has amazing rewards, and includes recognition by 'hard' scientists, as in my research on the social effects of earthquake in China, and I am not Chinese. The "Chicago" school was great, because it insisted that you do field research and experience, directly view, and interact with people. The article quotes one youngster researcher saying Goffman's writing was dated. That young man needs to put on some walking shoes, get out of his office chair, and learn something about real life, not just the academy.
32
At least for hard science, you have it backwards. The standard is not whether others can disprove your claim. The standard is whether they can prove it.
If you have excellent research that can't be reproduced, then it goes into the trash bin with the rest.
This is why many people trained in hard science have trouble taking sociology seriously. discourse in that field can't seem to ignore irrelevant ad-hominem questions like positionalism, and instead focus on core issues like documentation and burning the research notes.
If you have excellent research that can't be reproduced, then it goes into the trash bin with the rest.
This is why many people trained in hard science have trouble taking sociology seriously. discourse in that field can't seem to ignore irrelevant ad-hominem questions like positionalism, and instead focus on core issues like documentation and burning the research notes.
4
I took sociology courses at Penn while an undergraduate there in the late '60's.
Reading this article rekindled my intense dislike for the field, its verbosity, and the inanities of its precepts and methods.
Reading this article rekindled my intense dislike for the field, its verbosity, and the inanities of its precepts and methods.
31
Was it the class where you're taught it is okay to write checks to those who you "observed" for their assistance with your book that turned you off?
Oh my!
Oh my!
3
Nope.
I read the book soon as it came out. It is great. I lived in those Philadelphia neighborhoods about five years and settled in pretty good. Goffman's book has the ring of truth about it. Appalling truth: when I lived in South an West Philadelphia, it seemed there was hope that life was getting better and that the dominant society was going to let black people enjoy a taste of peace, prosperity and respect.
There have always been white people who have integrated themselves into black families and neighborhoods, adopting roles and responsibilities. Go to an African-American family reunion and see who shows up. Goffman was no more an adventurer than any of those people.
My own feeling is that the reaction against her and her work is partly because it so vividly describes the terrible conditions the dominant society imposes on black people, partly a turf battle among academics, and partly because some people see her as what used to be called a "race traitor."
There have always been white people who have integrated themselves into black families and neighborhoods, adopting roles and responsibilities. Go to an African-American family reunion and see who shows up. Goffman was no more an adventurer than any of those people.
My own feeling is that the reaction against her and her work is partly because it so vividly describes the terrible conditions the dominant society imposes on black people, partly a turf battle among academics, and partly because some people see her as what used to be called a "race traitor."
162
The "positionality" issue is addressed in detail in the book's Methodological Afterword. It's hard to escape the impression that Goffman's accusers haven't actually read carefully what she wrote and are reacting out of a combination of fear of what her work implies about our society, or from professional jealousy, or some combination of these. On the Run is essential reading for people who aren't afraid to learn something of what life is like for communities that many of us would prefer to blame for their own problems or just forget about.
85
Excellent comment.
1
"She has also mostly refused to play the kinds of political games that can constitute a large part of academic life, eschewing disciplinary jargon and citing the work of other scholars only when she felt like it."
Since when is citation a "political game"?
Since when is citation a "political game"?
151
On the road to tenure, grants and promotions, don't think that the number of times the academic applicant's work is cited by other "scholars" isn't taken into account. And citing doesn't always represent quality or importance of the work. I know; been there.
11
The journalist means she just wrote her own thoughts, instead of quoting (and citing) other scholars. The point is that she chose not to make references to other scholars' work, and that bothered people; it is not that there are any suspicions of plagiarism (there aren't).
14
The "political game" here is not citation per se, but the bowing down to other (usually well-established) scholars in the discipline, the framing of one's own work in terms of existing theoretical approaches, compare your explanation to competing explanations, etc. This is a very political game, in that it forces everyone to choose sides in theoretical debates, elevates certain scholars, research programs and theoretical schools above others.
15
excellent article. well done!
14
Anyone gets to speak for anyone he (she in this case) wants to.
It's called free speech and free press.
If you don't like it, use your freedom of speech and press to disagree. But don't try to bully others; they have those rights too.
It's called free speech and free press.
If you don't like it, use your freedom of speech and press to disagree. But don't try to bully others; they have those rights too.
116
"...a fight within sociology on who gets to speak for whom."
I have visions of angels dancing on a pinhead. Anyone can write a book and speak for anyone. It's called free speech.
I have visions of angels dancing on a pinhead. Anyone can write a book and speak for anyone. It's called free speech.
48
Yes, but not anyone can expect that sociology recognizes their writing as being sociology. And that's essential for Goffman because she needs tenure.
2
I guess some black sociologists would deem it affirmative action if they were the only ones allowed to study blacks. And males should have no right to study women. Etc etc ad nauseum.
I don't know… what's the point of this "research?"
It's hard being poor.
It's hard being black.
It's really hard being poor and black.
What academia should be focused on is how to alleviate the poverty, the dysfunction, the lack of real role models within these communities (that aren't ministers….).
I partially blame the white culture for making successful black men--- those outside of the rap or sports cultures--- invisible.
It's time to publicize, widely, the success stories of the men (and women) born in poverty that choose other paths besides crime--- and succeed.
Goffman's work isn't even interesting: it's exactly what one would expect.
It's hard being poor.
It's hard being black.
It's really hard being poor and black.
What academia should be focused on is how to alleviate the poverty, the dysfunction, the lack of real role models within these communities (that aren't ministers….).
I partially blame the white culture for making successful black men--- those outside of the rap or sports cultures--- invisible.
It's time to publicize, widely, the success stories of the men (and women) born in poverty that choose other paths besides crime--- and succeed.
Goffman's work isn't even interesting: it's exactly what one would expect.
29
You miss the point. The point is to bring the story to those that haven't experienced it. The middle class doesn't care enough about the poor because they have no stories in their heads to inspire the necessary empathy. This book carries those stories.
4
Well, I think the book does help to alleviate poverty. It's not as sociologists have a laboratory with big microscopes and what-not they get into to figure out how to alleviate poverty. They do their part by studying and chronicling the phenomenon.
As someone who grew up in affluent suburbs, I had no real appreciation at how much more difficult and complicated life was until I was an adult and had a job working with low-income people. It's one thing to know in the abstract that being poor is hard, it's another to really see HOW it is hard.
It's like asking a doctor to cure a disease, but saying it's not really necessary for the doctor to see the patient. "Well, all you need to know is the patient is sick. That's obvious."
As for the lives of those who escape poverty, that may well be a worthwhile project. But there are multiple sociologists capable of multiple projects. It's as though we fear too much knowledge.
As someone who grew up in affluent suburbs, I had no real appreciation at how much more difficult and complicated life was until I was an adult and had a job working with low-income people. It's one thing to know in the abstract that being poor is hard, it's another to really see HOW it is hard.
It's like asking a doctor to cure a disease, but saying it's not really necessary for the doctor to see the patient. "Well, all you need to know is the patient is sick. That's obvious."
As for the lives of those who escape poverty, that may well be a worthwhile project. But there are multiple sociologists capable of multiple projects. It's as though we fear too much knowledge.
The point of the research is to facilitate narcissistic identification with the mythologized subjects of her "research". You can charge money for that.
2
When white authors write about minorities, this question about their "right" to do this always comes up. When minority authors write about whites, they are often applauded for their imagination; authentic, original insights; and courageous portrayals of contemporary society, even when the characters are quite stereotyped. Do only minorities have the ability to understand someone else? Goffman's work should be judged on its merits, not her personal demographics.
200
Did you read the article closely enough to notice that was addressed? The article points out that if you deny her legitimacy in writing about a socio-economic or ethnic group that is her own, it would also delegitimize scholars who grew grew up poor and/or in marginalized ethnic groups who research economically elite or demographically priviliged groups, and that would obviously be unjust: thus it is unjust to challenge her on this.
6
Name one ethnography when a scholar of color has written about whites from similar or even a different socioeconomic class? When you find that ethnography let us know.
3
Dear Workingclass Intellectual,
Actually you bring up a good point. There are many ethnographers who are women or minorities, here's a list of 50:
http://www.krazykioti.com/articles/anthropology-was-not-all-white-males-...
However, hardly anyone ever does ethnographies on whites at all, and those few that are done are written by white people. They don't get a lot of public notice either. I think the unconsciously racist attitude causing this is that white peoples' lives are normal, standard, and thus uninteresting sociologically, and mostly the lives of minorities merit study, because they're departures from the norm.
Actually you bring up a good point. There are many ethnographers who are women or minorities, here's a list of 50:
http://www.krazykioti.com/articles/anthropology-was-not-all-white-males-...
However, hardly anyone ever does ethnographies on whites at all, and those few that are done are written by white people. They don't get a lot of public notice either. I think the unconsciously racist attitude causing this is that white peoples' lives are normal, standard, and thus uninteresting sociologically, and mostly the lives of minorities merit study, because they're departures from the norm.
13