Whose Side Are We On?

8/10/2019 Whose Side Are We On?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/whose-side-are-we-on 1/10

Whose Side Are We On?Author(s): Howard S. BeckerSource: Social Problems, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Winter, 1967), pp. 239-247Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social

Problems

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/799147 .

Accessed: 04/07/2014 10:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.17.215.85 on Fri, 4 Jul 2014 10:17:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sssp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/799147?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/799147?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal



WHOSE SIDE

ARE WE

ON?*

HOWARD S. BECKER

Northwestern

niversity

To

have

values

or not to have

values: the

question

s

always

with

s.

When

sociologists

ndertake

o

study

problems

hat have relevance o the

worldwe live

n,

they

ind

hemselves

caught

n

a crossfire.

ome

urge

them

not to

take

ides,

o

be

neutral

nd do

research hat

s

technically

orrect

nd

value

free.Others ellthemheirwork

is shallow nd useless f it does not

express

deep

commitmento a value

position.

This

dilemma,

hich eems

o

pain-

ful to

so

many,

ctually

oes

not

exist,

for

one of its

horns s

imaginary.

or

it to

exist,

ne

wouldhaveto

assume,

as

some

pparently

o,

thatt s

indeed

possible

o

do research

hat

s uncon-

taminated

y

personal

and

political

sympathies.

propose

o

argue

hat t

is notpossible nd, therefore,hat he

question

s notwhether e

should ake

sides,

since

we

inevitably

will,

but

rather

hose

idewe are on.

I

will

begin

y

onsidering

he

prob-

lem

of

taking

ides as it

arises

n

the

study

f

deviance.

An

inspection

f

this

ase

will soon

reveal o us

features

that

ppear

n

sociological

esearch f

all

kinds.

n the

greatestariety

f

sub-

jectmatterreas ndin workdoneby

all

thedifferent ethods t our

dis-

posal,

we cannot

void

taking

ides,

forreasons

irmly

ased

n social truc-

ture.

We

may

ometimeseel

that

tudies

of deviance xhibit oo

great

sym-

pathy

with he

people

studied,

sym-

pathy

eflected

n the research arried

out.

This

feeling, suspect,

s enter-

tained

ff

nd

on both

by

those

f us

whodo suchresearchndbythose f

us

who,

ourwork

ying

n

other

reas,

only

ead

he

results.

Will the

research,

we

wonder,

e distorted

y

that

ym-

pathy?

Will it

be of

use in

the con-

structionf scientific

heory

r in

the

application

f scientific

nowledge

o

the

practical roblems

f

society?

r

will the

bias

ntroduced

y aking

ides

spoil

t for hoseuses?

We

seldom

make

the

feeling

ex-

plicit.nstead,tappears s a lingering

worry

or

sociological

eaders,

who

would

ike

to be

sure

they

an

trust

what

hey

ead,

nd

a troublesomerea

of

self-doubt

or those

who do the

research,

ho

would like to

be sure

thatwhatever

ympathies

hey

eel

are

not

professionally

nseemly

nd will

not,

n

any

case,

seriously

lawtheir

work. That the

worry

ffects

oth

readers nd researchersndicateshat

it iesdeeper han he uperficialiffer-

ences thatdivide

sociological

chools

of

thought,

nd

that ts rootsmust e

sought

n characteristicsf

society

hat

affect

s

all,

whatever

ur

method-

ological

or

theoretical

ersuasion.

If

the

feeling

were

made

explicit,

t

would takethe form

f

an

accusation

that

the

sympathies

f

the researcher

have

biased

his work nd

distortedis

findings.eforexploringts tructural

roots,

etusconsider hat he

manifest

meaning

fthe

harge

might

e.

It

might

mean hatwe

have

cquired

some

sympathy

ith the

group

we

study

ufficiento deter

s from

ub-

lishing

those

of

our

results

which

might

rovedamaging

o them.

One

can

imagine

liberal

ociologist

ho

set out to

disprove

ome

of

thecom-

mon

stereotypes

eld

about

minority

group. o hisdismay,is nvestigation

revealsthat some

of

the

stereotypes

are

unfortunately

rue.

n the

nterests

of

ustice

nd

iberalism,

e

might

ell

be

tempted,

nd

might

ven

succumb

to the

temptation,

o

suppress

hose

findings,

ublishing

with

scientific

*Presidential

ddress, delivered

at

the an-

nual meetingof the Societyfor the Study

of Social

Problems,

Miami

Beach,

August,

1966.







240

SOCIAL PROBLEMS

candor

the other

resultswhich

con-

firmed

is

beliefs.

But this eemsnotreally o be the

heart f the

harge,

ecause

ociologists

who

study

deviance

do

not

typically

hide

things

about the

people

they

study. hey

re

mostly

illing

o

grant

that here s

somethingoing

on

that

put

the

deviants

n the

position

hey

are

in,

even f

they

re not

willing

o

grant

hat t

is what the

people

they

studied

were

originally

ccused

f.

A more

likely

meaning

of

the

charge, think,s this. n thecourse

of our work

nd

for

who knows

what

private

easons,

efall

nto

deep

sym-

pathy

with

he

people

we are

studying,

so thatwhile the restof the

society

views hem s unfitn one or

another

respect

for

the

deference

rdinarily

accorded

fellow

itizen,

we

believe

that

hey

re at east

s

good

as

anyone

else,

more

inned

gainst

han

inning.

Becauseofthis,wedo notgivea bal-anced

picture.

We focus oo much n

questions

hose

nswershow hat

he

supposed

eviants

morally

n the

ight

and

the

ordinary

itizen

morally

n

the

wrong.

We

neglect

o ask those

ues-

tionswhose nswerswould show

that

the

deviant,

fter

ll,

has done

some-

thing retty

otten

nd, ndeed,

retty

much

eserves

hathe

gets.

n

conse-

quence,

ur overall ssessment

f

the

problembeing studied s one-sided.

What

we

produce

s a whitewash

f

the deviant nd

a

condemnation,

f

only

by

mplication,

f those

especta-

ble citizens

ho,

we

think,

ave

made

the

deviant

whathe

is.

It

is

to this

version hat

devote

the restof

my

remarks. will

look

first, owever,

not at the truth

r

falsity

f the

charge,

ut rather

t

the

circumstances

n which

t is

typically

made nd felt. hesociologyfknowl-

edge

cautions

s to

distinguish

etween

the

truth

f

a statementnd an

assess-

ment

f the

circumstances

nder

which

that

statements

made;

though

we

trace

n

argument

o its source

n

the

interests

f

the

person

whomade

t,

we

have

still

not

proved

t false.

Recog-

nizing

the

point

and

promising

o

address t eventually, shall turn o

the

typical

ituations n

which

the

accusation

f

bias

arises.

When

do we

accuse

ourselves

nd

our

fellow

ociologists

f

bias I

think

an

inspection

f

representative

n-

stances

would show

that

the

accusa-

tion

arises,

n

one

important

lass

of

cases,

when

he

esearch

ives

redence,

in

any

serious

way,

o

the

perspective

of

the

ubordinate

roup

n

somehier-

archical elationship.n the case of

deviance,

he

hierarchical

elationship

is a

moral

one. The

superordinate

parties

n

the

relationship

re

those

who

represent

he

forces f

approved

and official

orality;

he

subordinate

parties

re

those

who,

it

is

alleged,

have

violated hat

morality.

Though

deviance s

a

typical

ase,

it s

by

no

means

he

only

ne.

Similar

situations,nd similar eelingshat urwork s

biased,

ccur n the

study

f

schools,

ospitals,

sylums

nd

prisons,

in the

study

f

physical

s well

as

mental

llness,

n

the

study

f

both

normal

and

delinquent

youth.

n

these

ituations,

he

uperordinate

ar-

ties re

usually

heofficial

nd

profes-

sional

authorities

n

charge

of

some

important

nstitution,

hile

he

subor-

dinates

re

thosewho

makeuse

ofthe

servicesf that nstitution.hus,the

police

re

the

uperordinates,rug

d-

dicts re

the

subordinates;

rofessors

and

administrators,

rincipals

and

teachers,

re

the

superordinates,

hile

students

nd

pupils

are

the

subordi-

nates;

physicians

re

the

superordi-

nates,

heir

atients

he

subordinates.

All of

these

ases

represent

ne

of

the

typical

ituations

n

which

re-

searchers

ccuse

themselves

nd are

accusedof bias. It is a situationn

which,

while

onflict

nd tension

xist

in

the

hierarchy,

he

conflict

as

not

become

penly olitical.

he

conflict-

ing

segments

r

ranks re

not

orga-

nized

for

conflict;

o one

attempts

o

alter he

hape

f

the

hierarchy.

hile







Whose

ide

Are

Wle

On?

241

subordinates

ay

complain

bout

the

treatment

hey

eceive rom hose bove

them,hey o notpropose o moveto

a

position

f

equality

ith

hem,

r

to

reverse

positions

n

the

hierarchy.

Thus,

no one

proposes

that

addicts

should make and

enforce

aws

for

policemen,

hat

patients

hould

pre-

scribe

or

doctors,

r that

dolescents

should

give

orders

o adults.

We

can

call

this he

political

ase.

In

the

econd

ase,

he ccusationf

bias

is made

in a situation

hat

is

frankly olitical.The parties o the

hierarchical

elationship

ngage

in

organized

onflict,

ttempting

ithero

maintain r

change xisting

elations

of

power

and

authority.

hereas n

the

first ase subordinates

re

typically

unorganized

nd

thus

ave,

s we

shall

see,

littleto fear from

researcher,

subordinate

arties

n a

political

itua-

tion

may

have

muchto lose. When

the

ituations

political,

he

researcher

mayaccusehimself r be accusedof

bias

by

someone lse whenhe

gives

credence

o

the

perspective

f

either

party

o the

political

onflict. leave

the

political

or ater ndturn

ow

to

the

problem

f

bias

n

apolitical

itua-

tions.1

We

provoke

he

suspicion

hat

we

are

biased

n

favor f the

subordinate

parties

n an

apolitical

rrangement

when we tell the storyfrom their

point

of

view.

We

may,

for

nstance,

investigate

their

complaints,

even

though

they

are

subordinates,

bout

the

way

things

re run

ust

as

though

one

ought

o

give

their

omplaints

s

much

credence

s

the

statements

f

responsible

fficials.

e

provoke

he

charge

when

we

assume,

or the

pur-

poses

of our

research,

hat

ubordinates

have as much

right

o be heard

as

superordinates,hat hey re as likely

to be

telling

he ruth s

they

ee it

as

superordinates,

hat what

they say

about he nstitution

as a

right

o be

investigated

nd

have ts

truth

r

fal-

sityestablished,

ven

though

espon-

sible officialsssure

us

that t is

un-

necessary

ecause he

charges

re

false.

We

can use the

notion f

a

hier-

archy

f

credibility

o understand

his

phenomenon.

n

any ystem

f

ranked

groups,participantsake it as given

that

members f the

highest

group

havethe

right

o

define

he

way

hings

really

are. In

any organization,

o

matter

hat the

rest f

the

organiza-

tion

hart

hows,

he

rrows

ndicating

the

flow f

information

oint

up,

thus

demonstrating

at

least

formally)

hat

those t the

top

have

access

o

a more

complete icture

f what s

going

on

thananyone lse. Members f lower

groups

will have

incomplete

nforma-

tion,

ndtheir iew of

reality

ill

be

partial

nd distorted

n

consequence.

Therefore,

rom he

point

f

viewof

a

well

socialized

articipant

n the

sys-

tem,

ny

tale

told

by

those t the

top

intrinsically

eserves

o

be

regarded

as themost

redible

ccount

btainable

of

the

organizations'

orkings.

nd

since,

s Sumner

ointed

ut,

matters

ofrank nd status recontainedn the

mores,2

his

eliefhas

a moral

uality.

We

are,

f

we are

proper

membersf

the

group,

morally

ound

o

accept

he

definition

mposed

on

reality

by

a

superordinate

roup

n

preference

o

the

definitions

spoused

by

subordin-

ates.

(By

analogy,

hesame

argument

holds for

the

social classes

f a

com-

munity.)

Thus,

credibilitynd the

right o

be

heard re

differentialIy

is-

tributed hrough he ranks of the

system.

As

sociologists,

we

provoke

the

1

No

situation

s

necessarily

olitical

or

apolitical. An

apolitical situation can betransformednto a political one by the

open

rebellionof

subordinate

anks,

nd a

political

situation

can subside into one in

which an

accommodation

as

been reached

and

a

new

hierarchy

een

accepted

by

the

participants.

The

categories,

while

analyti-

cally

useful,

do not

represent

fixeddivi-

sion

existing

n real

life.

2

William

Graham

Sumner,

Status

in

the

Folkways, Folkways,

New

York:

New

American

Library,1960,

pp.

72-73.







242

SOCIAL PROBLEMS

charge

f

bias,

n ourselves

nd

others,

byrefusing

o

give

redencend defer-

ence to an establishedtatus rder,n

which

knowledge

f

truth

nd

the

right

o

be

heard

re not

equally

dis-

tributed.

Everyone

nows that re-

sponsible professionals

now more

about

things

han

aymen,

hat

police

are

more

respectable

nd theirwords

ought

o

be takenmore

eriously

han

those of

the

deviants

nd criminals

with

whom

hey

eal.

By

refusing

o

accept

he

hierarchy

f

credibility,

e

express isrespector he entire stab-

lished

order.

We

compound

ur sin and

further

provoke

harges

f

bias

by

not

giving

immediate

ttentionnd

equal

time

to the

apologies

nd

explanations

f

official

uthority.

f,

for

nstance,

e

are

concerned

ith

studying

he

way

of

life

inmates n a mental

hospital

build

up

for

hemselves,

e will natu-

rally

e concerned

ith

he

constraints

and conditions reated ythe actions

of the administratorsnd

physicians

who run

the

hospital.

ut,

unless

we

also make

the

administrators

nd

physicians

he

object

of

our

study

a

possibility

will

consider

ater),

we

will not

inquire

nto

why

those

con-

ditions and

constraintsre

present.

We will

not

give

responsible

fficials

a

chance

to

explain

themselvesnd

give theirreasons oracting s they

do,

a chance o show

why

the com-

plaints

f nmates

renot

ustified.

It

is odd

that,

whenwe

perceive

bias,

we

usually

ee

it

in

these ircum-

stances.

t

is

odd

because t is

easily

ascertained

hat a

great

many

more

studies

re

biased

n the direction f

the

interests f

responsible

fficials

than the other

way

around.

We

may

accuse n occasional

tudent

f

medical

sociology f havinggiventoo much

emphasis

othe

omplaints

f

patients.

But

t

is

notobvious

hatmostmedical

sociologists

ook at

things

from he

point

of view of the doctors?

A

few

sociologists

may

be

sufficiently

iased

in favor f

youth

o

grant

redibility

to their

account

of

how the adult

world

reats

hem. ut

why

do

we not

accuse othersociologistswho study

youth

of

being

biased in

favor

of

adults?Most

research

n

youth,

fter

all,

s

clearly

esigned

o

find

ut

why

youth

re

so

troublesomeor

adults,

rather

han

asking

he

equally

nter-

esting

ociological

uestion:

Why

do

adults

make so much

trouble

for

youth

Similarly,

e

accuse hosewho

take

he

complaints

f

mental

atients

seriously

f

bias;

what about

those

sociologistswho only take seriously

the

complaints

f

physicians,

amilies

and others bout

mental

atients

Why

this

disproportion

n thedirec-

tion

of

accusationsf bias?

Why

do

we

more

often ccusethosewho are

on the

ide

of subordinates

han hose

who

are onthe

ide

of

superordinates

Because,

when

we make

the former

accusation,

we

have,

like the

well

socialized

members f our

societymost f us are, cceptedhehierarchy

of

credibility

nd taken over the

accusation

ade

by

responsible

fficials.

The reason

esponsible

fficials ake

the

ccusationo

frequently

s

precisely

because

hey

re

responsible.hey

have

been

ntrusted

ith he

are nd

opera-

tion

f

one

or

anotherf our

mportant

institutions:

chools,

ospitals,

aw

en-

forcement,

r

whatever.

hey

are the

oneswho,by virtue f theirofficial

position

nd

the

authority

hat

goes

with

t,

re

n a

position

o

do

some-

thing

when

hings

re

notwhat

hey

should

be

and,

similarly,

re the ones

who

will be

held

to

account f

they

fail

to

do

something

r fwhat

hey

do

is,

forwhatever

eason,

nadequate.

Because

hey

re

responsible

n

this

way,

fficials

sually

ave to lie.

That

is a

grossway

of

putting

t,

butnot

inaccurate. fficialsmust ie because

things

re

seldom

s

they

ught

obe.

For

a

greatvariety

f

reasons,

well-

known

o

sociologists,

nstitutionsre

refractory.hey

do

not

perform

s

society

would

ike them o.

Hospitals

do not

cure

people; prisons

o

notre-







Whose

ide

Are We On?

243

habilitate

risoners;

choolsdo

not

educate tudents. ince

they

re

sup-

posed to, officialsevelopwaysboth

of

denying

he failure f the

nstitu-

tion to

perform

s

it

should and

ex-

plaining

hose

ailures hich annot

e

hidden.

An

account

f an

institution's

operation

rom he

point

of viewof

subordinates

hereforeasts

doubt

on

the officialine and

may

possibly

x-

pose

tas

a

lie.3

For

reasons hat re

a mirror

mage

of those f

officials,

ubordinates

n an

apolitical ierarchicalelationshipave

no

reason o

complain

f thebias

of

sociological

esearch riented

oward

the nterestsf

superordinates.

ubordi-

nates

typically

re not

organized

n

such

fashion s to be

responsible

or

the overall

peration

f an institution.

What

happens

n

a school

s

credited

or

debited

o the

faculty

nd

adminis-

trators;

hey

anbe

identified

nd

held

to account. venthoughhe failure f

a school

may

ethefault

f the

pupils,

they

re not

so

organized

hat

ny

one

of

them

s

responsible

or

any

failure

but

his own.

If he

does

well,

while

others ll

around

him

flounder,

heat

and

steal,

that

s

none

of

his

affair,

despite

he

attempt

f

honor odes

to

make

t

so.

As

long

as the

ociological

report

n his

school

says

that

every

student

here ut

one

is a liar

and

a

cheat,ll the tudents illfeel ompla-

cent,

nowing

hey

re

theone

excep-

tion.

More

ikely,

hey

will never

hear

of

the

report

t

all

or,

f

they

o,

will

reason

hat

they

will be

gone

before

long,

o

what

difference

oes

t make?

The

ack f

organization

mong

ubor--

dinate

members

f an

institutionalized

relationship

eans

hat,

aving

no

re-

sponsibility

or

the

group's

welfare,

they

ikewise

have

no

complaints

f

someone

maligns

t. The

sociologist

who

favors

fficialdom

ill

be

spared

theaccusation f bias.

And thus we

see

why

we accuse

ourselves

f bias

only

whenwe

take

the

side of the

subordinate.

t is be-

cause,

n

a situation

hat

s not

openly

political,

ith he

major

ssues

efined

as

arguable,

we

join

responsible

ffi-

cials

and

the

man n the

streetn an

unthinking

cceptance

f the

hierarchy

of

credibility.

e assumewiththem

that the man at

the

top

knowsbest.

We do not realize hat here resides

to be

taken

and

that we are

taking

one

of

them.

The same

reasoning

llows

us

to

understand

hy

heresearcher

as the

same

worry

bout

the

effect f

his

sympathies

n his

work as his unin-

volved

colleague.

The

hierarchy

f

credibility

s

a feature

f

society

hose

existence e cannot

eny,

ven

f we

disagree

with ts

njunction

o believe

theman at thetop.When we acquire

sufficient

ympathy

ith

ubordinates

o

see

things

rom heir

erspective,

e

know hatwe are

flying

n

the face

of

what

everyone

nows.

The knowl-

edge gives

us

pause

and

causes

us to

share,

however

riefly,

he doubt

of

our

colleagues.

When a

situation as beendefined

politically,

he

second

type

of case

I

wanttodiscuss,mattersrequitedif-

ferent. ubordinates

ave

some

degree

of

organization

nd,

with

hat,

pokes-

men,

their

equivalent

f

responsible

officials.

pokesmen,

hile

hey

annot

actually

e held

responsible

or

what

membersf

their

roup

o,

make sser-

tions

n

their ehalf nd

are

held

re-

sponsible

orthe

truth

f those

sser-

tions.

The

groupengages

n

political

activity esigned

to

change

existing

hierarchicalelationshipsndthe redi-

bility

f

its

spokesmen

irectly

ffects

its

political

ortunes.

redibility

s not

the

only

nfluence,

ut

the

group

can

ill-afford

aving

he

definition

f

real-

ity

proposed

by

its

spokesmen

is-

credited,

or

the

immediate

onse-

3

I have stated

a

portion

of

this

argu-

ment

more

briefly

n Problems

of

Publica-

tion

of

Field

Studies,

in

Arthur

Vidich,

Joseph

Bensman,

nd

Maurice Stein

(Eds.),

Reflections

on

Community

Studies,

New

York:

John

Wiley

and

Sons,

1964,

pp.

267-

284.







244

SOCIAL

PROBLEMS

quence

will

be some oss of

political

power.

Superordinateroups have their

spokesmen

oo,

nd

they

re

confronted

with he ame

problem:

o

make

tate-

ments bout

reality

hat

re

politically

effectivewithout

being

easily

dis-

credited.

he

political

ortunes

f

the

superordinate roup-its

ability

to

hold

the status

hanges

emanded

y

lower

groups

o a minimum-donot

depend

s

much

n

credibility,

or

he

group

has other

inds

f

power

vail-

able as well.

When we

do researchn a

political

situationwe

are in

double

eopardy,

for the

spokesmen

f

both

nvolved

groups

will

be sensitiveo the

mplica-

tions f our

work. ince

they

ropose

openly onflicting

efinitions

f

reality,

our

statementf our

problem

s in it-

self

likely

o call into

question

nd

make

problematic,

t leastfor he

pur-

poses

of our

research,

ne or

theother

definition.ndourresults illdo the

same.

The

hierarchy

f

credibility

perates

in a

different

ay

in the

political

situation

han

t

does

in

the

apolitical

one.

In

the

political

ituation,

t is

precisely

ne of the

things

t

issue.

Since

the

political

truggle

alls into

question

he

egitimacy

f

the

existing

rank

system,

t

necessarily

alls

into

question t the same timethelegiti-

macy

of the

associated

udgments

f

credibility. udgments

f who

has a

right

o define

he

nature f

reality

that re

taken or

granted

n an

apoli-

tical

situation become

matters of

argument.

Oddlyenough,

we

are, think,

ess

likely

to accuse ourselves

nd one

anotherf bias

n a

political

han

n

an

apolitical

ituation,

or at

least two

reasons. irst, ecause hehierarchyf

credibility

asbeen

openly

alled

nto

question,

we are aware hat here re

at

least

two sides

to the

story

nd so

do

notthinkt

unseemly

o

investigate

the situation

rom ne or another f

the

contending oints

of view. We

know,

or

nstance,

hatwe must

rasp

the

perspectives

f

both the

resident

of Watts and of the Los Angeles

policeman

f

we are

to

understand

what

went n in

that utbreak.

Second,

t is

no

secret

hat most

sociologists

re

politically

iberal to

one

degree

or

another. ur

political

preferences

ictate he

idewewill

be

on

and,

since

those

preferences

re

shared

y

most

f our

colleagues,

ew

are

ready

o

throw he

first tone

or

are

even

aware

hat

tone-throwing

s

a possibility. e usuallyake heside

of the

underdog;

we

are for

Negroes

and

against

ascists.

We do

not

think

anyone

iased

who

does research

e-

signed

to

prove

that the

former re

not as

bad

as

people

think r that he

latter re

worse.

n

fact,

n

these ir-

cumstances e

are

quite

willing

to

regard

he

question

f bias as a matter

to

be dealt

with

y

heuse of technical

safeguards.We are thus

pt

to takesides with

equal

innocence

nd lackof

thought,

though

or

different

easons,

n

both

apolitical

nd

political

ituations.n

the

first,

e

adopt

the

commonsense

view which

awards

unquestioned

credibility

o the

responsible

fficial.

(This

is

notto

deny

hat few

of

us,

because

something

n our

experience

has

alerted hem o the

possibility,

ay

questionheconventionalierarchyf

credibility

n

the

special

area

of our

expertise.)

n the

econd

ase,

wetake

our

politics

o

for

granted

hat

t

sup-

plants

convention

n

dictating

hose

side

we

will be on.

(I

do

not

deny,

either,

hat ome

few

sociologists

ay

deviate

politically

romtheir

iberal

colleagues,

ither o the

right

r

the

left,

nd

thusbe more iable

to

ques-

tionthat

onvention.)

In any vent,ven f ourcolleagues

do

notaccuse s of bias n

researchn

a

political

situation,

he

interested

parties

will. Whether

hey

re

foreign

politicians

who

object

to

studiesof

how the

stability

f their

overnment

may

be

maintained

n

the

interestf







Whose ide

Are We On?

245

the United

States

as

in the

Camelot

affair)4

r

domesticivil

rights

eaders

who object to an analysisof race

problems

hat centers

n

the

alleged

deficienciesf

the

Negro

family

as

inthe

reception

iven

o the

Moynihan

Report),5

interested

arties

re

quick

to make

accusations

f

bias and

dis-

tortion.

hey

base the accusation

ot

on failures f

technique

r

method,

buton

conceptual

efects.

hey

ccuse

the

ociologist

otof

getting

alse

data

butof

not

getting

ll the

data relevant

to theproblem. heyaccusehim, n

other

words,

f

seeing

hings

rom

he

perspective

f

only

one

party

o

the

conflict.ut the

accusation

s

likely

o

be made

by

nterested

arties

nd not

bysociologists

hemselves.

What have

aid

so far s

all

sociol-

ogy

of

knowledge,

uggesting

by

whom,

n

what

ituations

nd

for

what

reasons

ociologists

ill

be

accused

f

bias

and distortion.

have not

yet

d-

dressed hequestion f the truth f

the

accusations,

f

whether

ur find-

ings

are

distorted

y

our

sympathy

or

thosewe

study.

have

mplied partial

answer,

amely,

hat

here s no

posi-

tion from

which

ociological

esearch

can

be

done that

s not

biased

n one

or another

ay.

We

must

lways

ook

at the

matter

from

omeone's

point

of

view.

The

scientist ho proposes o understand

society

must,

s

Mead

ong

go

pointed

out,

get

into the

situation

nough

o

have

a

perspective

n

it.

And it is

likely

that

his

perspective

will

be

greatly

ffected

y

whatever

ositions

are

taken

by

any

or

all of the

other

participants

n

that

varied situation.

Even

if

his

participation

s

limited o

reading

n

the

field,

e

will

necessarily

read

the

rguments

f

partisans

f

one

or another

ide to a

relationship

nd

will hus e

affected,

t

east,

y

having

suggested o him what the relevant

arguments

nd ssues re. A

student

f

medical

ociology

may

decide that

he

willtake

neitherhe

perspective

f

the

patient

nor the

perspective

f

the

physician,

uthe will

necessarily

ake

a

perspective

hat

impinges

n

the

many

questions

that arise

between

physicians

nd

patients;

no

matter

what

perspective

e

takes,

his

work

either

will take nto account he

atti-

tudeofsubordinates,r it willnot. f

he

fails

to consider he

questions

hey

raise,

he will

be

working

n the

side

of

the officials.

f he does raise

those

questions

eriously

nd does

find,

s

he

may,

hat heres somemeritn

them,

he will

then

expose

himself o

the

outrage

f

theofficials

nd

of all

those

sociologists

ho

award them he

top

spot

in the

hierarchy

f

credibility.

Almost ll the

topics

hat

ociologists

study, t least those thathave some

relation o the

real

world

round

us,

are seen

by

society

s

morality

lays

and

we shall

find

urselves,

illy-nilly,

taking

art

n those

lays

on one

side

or

the

other.

There is

another

possibility.

We

may,

n

some

cases,

akethe

point

of

view

of some

third

arty

ot

directly

implicated

n the

hierarchy

e

are

investigating.

hus,

a Marxist

mightfeel that tis notworth istinguishing

between

Democrats nd

Republicans,

or between

ig

business nd

big

labor,

in

eachcase

both

groups

eing

qually

inimical o

the nterestsf the

workers.

This

would

indeed

make

us

neutral

with

respect

o the two

groups

at

hand,

but

would

only

mean

that

we

had

enlarged

he

cope

of the

political

conflict o

include

party

not

ordi-

narilybrought n whose view the

sociologist

as

taking.

We can

never

avoid

taking

ides.

So we

are

left

with

the

question

f

whether

aking

ides

means

hat

ome

distortions

introduced

ntoour

work

so

great

s to

make t

useless.

Or,

less

4

See

Irving

Louis

Horowitz,

The

Life

and Death of

Project

Camelot,

Transac-

tion,

3

(Nov./Dec.,

1965),

pp.

3-7,

44-47.

5

See

Lee

Rainwater

and

William

L.

Yancey, Black Families and

the White

House,

ibid.,

3

(July/August,

966,

pp.

6-11,

48-53).







246

SOCIAL PROBLEMS

drastically,

hether

ome

distortion

s

introduced

hatmust

be taken nto

account efore heresultsfourworkcan be used. I

do

not refer

here

to

feeling

hat

the

picture

iven by

the

researchs not

balanced,

he

ndig-

nation

aroused

by

having

a

conven-

tionally

iscredited

efinition

f

real-

ity given

priority

r

equality

with

what

everyone

nows,

or

t

is clear

that

we

cannot

void that.

hat s the

problem

f

officials,

pokesmen

nd

interested

arties,

ot ours.

Our

prob-

lem is to makesure that,whatever

point

of view

we

take,

our

research

meets he

standards

f

good

scientific

work,

hat

ur

unavoidable

ympathies

do not

render

urresults

nvalid.

We

might

istort ur

findings,

e-

cause

of

our

ympathy

ith

ne

of

the

parties

in the

relationship

we

are

studying,

y

misusing

he

tools

and

techniques

f

our

discipline.

e

might

introduce

oaded

questions

nto a

questionnaire,r act n someway n a

field

ituation

uch

that

people

would

be

constrainedo tellus

only

he

kind

of

thing

we

are

already

n

sympathy

with.

All of

our research

echniques

are

hedged

about

with

precautionary

measures

designed

to

guard

against

these

errors.

imilarly,hough

more

abstractly,

very

ne

of

our

theories

presumably

ontains set

of

directives

which xhaustivelyovers hefieldweare to

study,

pecifying

ll the

things

we

are to ook

at andtake nto

ccount

in our

research.

y

using

our

theories

and

techniquesmpartially,

e

ought

to

be

able

to

study

ll the

things

hat

need

to be

studied

n

such

way

s

to

get

all the facts

we

require,

even

though

ome

f the

questions

hatwill

be raised nd some

of the

facts

hat

will

be

produced

un

counter o

our

biases.

But the

question

may

be

precisely

this. Given all our

techniques

f

theoreticalnd technical

ontrol,

ow

can webesure hatwe

will

apply

hem

impartially

nd across

he

board

s

they

need to be

applied?

Our textbooks

n

methodology

re no

help

here.

They

tell

us how to

guard gainst

rror,

ut

they o nottell us howto make ure

thatwe

will use all

the

safeguards

available

o us. We

can,

for a

start,

try

to avoid

sentimentality.

e

are

sentimental

hen

we

refuse,

or

what-

ever

eason,

o

investigate

ome

matter

thatshould

properly

e

regarded

s

problematic.

We are

sentimental,

s-

pecially,

whenour

reason s

that

we

would

prefer

not to know

what

is

going

on,

if

to know

would be

to

violate ome ympathyhose xistence

we

may

not

evenbe aware

f.

What-

ever

ide we

are

on,

we

must

se

our

techniques

mpartially

nough

that

a

belief o which

we are

especially

ym-

pathetic

ould

be

proved

untrue.

We

must

lways

nspect

urwork

arefully

enough

to

know whether

ur

tech-

niques

and

theories re

open enough

to allow

that

possibility.

Let

us

consider,

inally,

hat

might

seem simpleolutionotheproblems

posed.

f

the

difficulty

s

that

we

gain

sympathy

ith

underdogs y

studying

them,

s

it notalso

true

hat

he

uper-

ordinates

n a

hierarchical

elationship

usually

ave

their wn

superordinates

with

whom

hey

must

ontend?

s

it

not true

that

we

might

tudy

hose

superordinates

r

subordinates,

re-

senting

heir

point

of

view

on their

relations ith heiruperiorsnd thus

gaining

deeper

ympathy

ith hem

and

avoiding

the

bias of

one-sided

identification

ith

hose

below

them?

This is

appealing,

ut

deceptively

o.

For

t

only

means hat

wewill

get

nto

the same

troublewith

a

new

set of

officials.

It is

true,

or

nstance,

hat

he

ad-

ministrators

f

a

prison

re

notfree o

do

as

they

wish,

not

free

to

be re-

sponsivefthedesires f inmates,or

instance.fone

talks

o such

n

official,

he

will

commonly

ell

us,

in

private,

that f

course

he

subordinatesn

the

relationship

ave some

right

n

their

side,

but

that

hey

ail to

understand

that is desire

o

do

betters

frustrated







Whose ide Are We

On?

247

by

his

superiors

r

by

the

regulations

they ave stablished.hus, f a prison

administrators

angered

because we

take the

complaints

f his inmates

seriously,

e

may

feelthatwe can

get

around

hat

nd

get

a

more

balanced

picture

y

interviewing

im and his

associates.

f

we

do,

we

may

hen

write

a

report

whichhis

superiors

ill re-

spond

to with criesof

bias.

They,

in their

urn,

ill

say

hatwehavenot

presented

balanced

picture,

ecause

we havenot ooked t their ideof it.

And

we

may

worry

hatwhat

hey ay

is

true.

The

point

s obvious.

By pursuing

this

seemingly

imple

solution,

we

arrive

t

a

problem

f infinite

egress.

For

everyone

as

someone

tanding

above

him

who

prevents

im from

doing things ust

as he likes.

f

we

question

he

superiors

f

the

prison

administrator,

state

department

f

correctionsr prisons, heywill com-

plain

of the

governor

nd the

egisla-

ture.And if we

go

to

the

governor

and

the

egislature,

hey

will

complain

of

lobbyists,

arty

machines,

he

public

and

the

newspapers.

here s no

end

to

it and

we

can never

have a bal-

anced

picture

ntil

we

have studied

all of

society

imultaneously.

do not

propose

o

hold

my

breath

ntilthat

happyday.We can, think,

atisfy

hedemands

of our science

y

always

making

lear

the

limits

f what we

have

studied,

markinghe boundaries eyondwhich

our

findings

annot e

safely

pplied.

Not

just

the conventional

isclaimer,

in whichwe warnthatwe have

only

studied

prison

n New

Yorkor

Cali-

fornia

nd

the

findings ay

not

hold

in

the

other

forty-nine

tates-which

is not useful rocedurenyway,ince

the

findings

ayvery

well

hold

f the

conditions re the

sameelsewhere.

refero a more ociological isclaimer

in

which

we

say,

for

nstance,

hat

we

have

studied he

prisonthrough

he

eyes

of

the

inmatesnd not

through

the

eyes

of

the

guards

or other

n-

volved

parties.

We

warn

people,

hus,

that

ur

tudy

ellsus

only

how

things

look from

hat

vantage

point-what

kinds of

objects

guards

are in the

prisoners'

world-and

does not at-

tempt

o

explain

why

guards

o

what

theydo or to absolvetheguardsof

what

may

seem,

from he

prisoners'

side,

morally

unacceptable

ehavior.

This will

not

protect

s from ccusa-

tions

f

bias,however,

orthe

guards

will still e

outraged

y

heunbalanced

picture.

f we

implicitly ccept

the

conventional

ierarchy

f

credibility,

we willfeel he

ting

n that ccusation.

It is

something

f a

solution

o

say

that over the

years

ach

one-sided

studywill provokefurthertudies

that

radually

nlarge

ur

grasp

f all

the relevant acets f

an

institution's

operation.

ut that s a

long-term

olu-

tion,

and not

much

help

to

the in-

dividual esearcherhohas to

contend

with he

nger

f

officials ho feelhe

has done them

wrong,

hecriticismf

those f his

colleagues

ho think e is

presenting

one-sided

iew,

and

his

own worries.

What

do

we

do in

the

meantime?

I

suppose

he

nswersre

more r less

obvious.

We

take ides s our

personal

and

political

ommitments

ictate,

se

our

theoretical

nd technicalesources

to avoid

the

distortionshat

might

introducento

ur

work,

imit ur

con-

dclusions

arefully,ecognize

he hier-

archy

f

credibility

or

what s

is,

and

fieldas best we can the accusations

and

doubts

hatwill

surely

e

our

fate.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cesar-ceriani
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Whose Side Are We On?

Documents