Sociology 108
Thinking Critically about
Social Issues
Spring 2011
Anne Marenco, Ph.D.
Bring this workbook, a pencil with eraser,
a pen, and note paper to class every day.
Bring Unspun as indicated on the class
calendar
Table of Contents
Symbolic Interactionism ................................................................................................................. 2
Structural Functionalism ................................................................................................................. 3
Conflict Theory ............................................................................................................................... 5
The Spider Is Alive ......................................................................................................................... 7
Lost on the Moon ............................................................................................................................ 8
Learning Styles ............................................................................................................................... 9
Study Aids for Visual Learners..................................................................................................... 10
Study Aids for Auditory Learners................................................................................................. 11
Study Aids for Haptic Learners .................................................................................................... 12
Costa‘s Levels of Critical Thinking Questions ............................................................................. 13
Logic Puzzle #1............................................................................................................................. 15
Logic Puzzle #2............................................................................................................................. 16
Logic Puzzle #3............................................................................................................................. 17
The Corandic ................................................................................................................................. 18
Applying the Criteria for Sound Arguments ................................................................................. 19
With Hocked Gems ....................................................................................................................... 20
Against the Death Penalty ............................................................................................................. 21
A Feminist's Argument for McCain's VP ..................................................................................... 24
Ban on a Type of Prayer in School Allowed to Stand .................................................................. 27
Rule Enforcement without Visible Means: Christmas Gift Giving in Middletown ..................... 29
Meanwhile Backstage: Behavior in Public Bathrooms ................................................................ 38
―Getting‖ and ―Making‖ a Tip ...................................................................................................... 46
Handling the Stigma of Handling the Dead: Morticians and Funeral Directors........................... 54
The Rules of Sympathy................................................................................................................. 69
Masculinity as Homophobia ......................................................................................................... 78
In class fallacy exercise 1 ............................................................................................................. 82
In class fallacy exercise 2 ............................................................................................................. 85
In class fallacy exercise 3 ............................................................................................................. 88
In class fallacy exercise 4 ............................................................................................................. 91
In class fallacy exercise 5 ............................................................................................................. 94
Statements NOT Needing Defense ............................................................................................... 97
Statements Needing Defense ........................................................................................................ 97
How to Make Good Arguments Stronger ..................................................................................... 97
APA Guidelines ............................................................................................................................ 98
APA Practice ................................................................................................................................. 99
Correct reference list ................................................................................................................... 100
Annotated References Example .................................................................................................. 101
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 102
Sociology 108 Fallacy Evaluation Rubric .................................................................................. 103
Sociology 108 Debate Evaluation Rubric ................................................................................... 104
UnSpun Reading Log #1 (chapters 1-4) ..................................................................................... 106
UnSpun Reading Log #2 (chapters 5-8) ..................................................................................... 107
1
Symbolic Interactionism
Adapted from http://www.unc.edu/~kbm/
According to Symbolic Interactionism (or ―Interactionism‖), society is a social construct;
socially defined by people acting together in social groups (with multiple realities possible,
depending who you hang out with). Symbolic Interactionism sees reality as created by people
struggling to define themselves and the world around them and then to share those meanings
with others.
A micro theory, Interactionism explains our behavior in terms of the patterns of belief and
thought we have and in terms of the meanings we give to our lives. In this view, there is no
―objective‖ reality, but rather multiple realities depending on the experiences we bring to our
interactions and our definition of the situation. For example, a gang member who sees the police
as the storm troopers of a racist society will respond differently to an officer‘s call for help than a
banker who sees the police as the defenders of law and order.
Our interactions with others, which we collect over time and through past experiences, create
perceptions of ―reality‖ which are not objective but become internalized within us and make it
seem that these perceptions and definitions of reality are objective facts. However, these
perceptions and even our views of who we are (identity) can change when we come into contact
with different groups, organizations, and contexts (e.g. a prisoner who is falsely accused but goes
to jail anyway will radically change his self-definition in prison; a person who grew up in a very
rural area may completely change her identity when she moves to Los Angleles).
Key Terms
Socialization: A process of role-taking in which children learn to see the relationships among
many different roles and to see themselves as they imagine others see them.
Stigma: A socially-defined ―mark‖ that labels someone as discredited; some stigmas are
immediately visible (skin color; physical disability), while others can be hidden and thus make a
person ―discreditable‖ rather than immediately discredited (people living with HIV/AIDS, the
homeless, gays and lesbians). Stigmas tend to be internalized by members of discredited groups
and thus have a profound impact on our self-definitions and perceptions of reality.
Self-concept: The image we have of who and what we are (formed in childhood by how
significant others treat/respond to us). The self-concept is not fixed and unchanging.
Labeling Theory: A theory that sees crime, mental illness, and other types of deviance as labels
applied to those who break social norms, and which holds that branding someone as deviant
encourages, rather than discourages, deviant behavior. Someone who is labeled a ―criminal‖ is
likely to internalize and live out that label rather than try to oppose it.
Othering: A process in which individuals or social groups define who they are (their sense of
―we-ness‖) by discrediting or demeaning other individuals or groups. Othering gives us a sense
that we are better than ―other‖ groups, who we define as ―less than‖ us. For instance, after 9/11,
many Americans reinforced a shared sense of ―we-ness‖ by strengthening our sense of national
identity, but did so by ―othering‖ certain ethnic and religious groups.
2
Applications
Education
Schools play a vital role in shaping the way students see reality and themselves. Many
Interactionists have argued that the authoritarianism prevalent in schools impedes learning and
encourages undemocratic behavior later in life. Schools create serious difficulties for students
who are ―labeled‖ as learning disabled or less academically competent than their peers; these
students may never be able to see themselves as good students and move beyond these labels.
Teacher expectations play a huge role in student achievement. If students are made to feel like
high achievers, they will act like high achievers, and vice versa.
Crime
Criminal activity, like any other behavior, is learned through interaction. Thus, criminals are
likely to have been involved in deviant subcultures or groups that encouraged rule-breaking and
criminal activity. Involvement in ―deviant‖ groups teaches people that crime is okay and teaches
us the skills to engage in it. Crime is also promoted through comparison with others around us –
if those around us (reference groups) have wealth and material goods that we don‘t have, we
might be encouraged to engage in criminal behavior in order to obtain these things.
Sports
Kids are influenced to play sports by those who are important to them – family, siblings, friends,
and trusted role models. Labeling can play an important role – if people treat you like a good
player, you will believe you are a good player and carry yourself with confidence. Sports shape
how we see reality and ourselves – this can be good if we are successful.
Structural Functionalism
Adapted from http://www.unc.edu/~kbm/
According to Structural Functionalism (or ―Functionalism‖), society is an organism, a system of
parts, all of which serve a function together for the overall effectiveness and efficiency of
society.
Structural-functionalism is a consensus theory; a theory that sees society as built upon order,
interrelation, and balance among parts as a means of maintaining the smooth functioning of the
whole. Structural-Functionalism views shared norms and values as the basis of society, focuses
on social order based on tacit agreements between groups and organizations, and views social
change as occurring in a slow and orderly fashion. Functionalists acknowledge that change is
sometimes necessary to correct social dysfunctions (the opposite of functions), but that it must
occur slowly so that people and institutions can adapt without rapid disorder.
Functionalism focuses on macro level or grand-scale phenomena (large-scale social institutions
like ―society‖ as a whole, international networks (NATO), government, the labor force, etc.). It
pays little attention to individual agency and personality development. Some Functionalists
argue is that in order for society to function, it has to place and motivate individuals to occupy
the necessary positions in the social structure. There are two main ways society does this:
3
Society must instill in the proper individuals the desire (motivation) to fill certain
positions (e.g., motivate people to go to medical school).
Once the proper individuals are in these positions, society must offer them appropriate
rewards so that they maintain desire to fulfill their (difficult) positions (pay doctors well
for keeping up on current medical knowledge).
Functionalists argue that the positions (i.e. jobs) that are most highly rewarded are the most
important for society. Without doctors, we might not have stable health. However, critics have
argued that the most highly rewarded positions are not necessarily the most important. Why is a
stockbroker, for example, more socially important than a garbage collector? Would society be
worse off if people didn‘t have personal portfolios than if they had heaps of garbage polluting
their living quarters?
Key Terms
Structure: A system of status-roles, or positions, which are usually arranged in a hierarchical
fashion. Just as social structures (e.g. government, the family, etc.) contribute to the smooth
functioning of society, individuals must fill a set of positions (status-roles) to make social
institutions and society function smoothly.
Function: A complex of activities directed towards meeting a need or needs of the system.
Society develops institutions and patterns in order to maintain itself and keep it running
efficiently.
Structural-strain: Disturbances caused by rapid social change, which often cause social
problems. Structural-strains inspire adaptation in social systems (reform) in order to keep
society running (e.g. the government might pass laws to outlaw discrimination in hiring, but
racism still remains in society in other forms), but the system remains relatively stable. Disorder
occurs because of conflict between the parts that make up society, and therefore balance and
peace must be restored.
Dysfunction: Often caused by structural-strain, but not always. Structural-functionalists try to
point out that sometimes social systems don‘t operate ideally, and would identify the
dysfunctions of a given system (social institution, organization, etc.) as a way of improving its
smooth functioning.
Applications
Education
Structural-Functionalists see education as contributing to the smooth functioning of society.
Educational systems train the most qualified individuals for the most socially important
positions. Education teaches people not only the skills to maximize their potential, but also
teaches them to be good citizens and get along with others. They would NOT see education as
contributing to inequality (along class, race, gender, etc. lines) but rather as serving the positive
function of the overall society.
Crime
Structural-Functionalists view crime as a necessary part of society. Through public outrage and
legal punishment, the majority of people in a given society recognize, accept, and adhere to a
shared set of moral guidelines and rules. Without crime, there would be no legal system or
4
shared morals in our society. As well, a stable crime rate is a sign of a healthy society. If the
crime rate gets too high, people will lose trust and solidarity. If the crime rate is too low, this
suggests that people are either living under an authoritarian state (and have no freedom and
individuality) or there are no shared moral guidelines establishing what is right and wrong, moral
and immoral, normal and deviant.
Sports
Structural-Functionalists would say that sports serve important functions in our society and
should be justly rewarded. In fact, a sports team is a microcasm of the broader society, where
everyone learns their roles and contributes to the broader running of the system (winning games).
People who are not as qualified or talented should not make it to the top ranks, and those who do
must have the best character, discipline, and skill level of all competing athletes. Sports serve
the ritualistic function of keeping society bonded and people (fans and teams) in solidarity with
each other.
Conflict Theory
Adapted from http://www.unc.edu/~kbm/
According to Conflict Theory, society is a struggle for dominance among competing social
groups (classes, genders, races, religions, etc.). When conflict theorists look at society, they see
the social domination of subordinate groups through power, authority, and coercion. The most
powerful members of dominant groups create the rules for success and opportunity in society,
often denying subordinate groups such success and opportunities; this ensures that the powerful
continue to monopolize power, privilege, and authority. Most conflict theorists oppose this sort
of coercion and favor a more equal social order. Some support a complete socioeconomic
revolution to socialism (Marx), while others are more reformist, or perhaps do not see all social
inequalities stemming from the capitalist system (they believe we could solve racial, gender, and
class inequality without turning to socialism). However, many conflict theorists focus on
capitalism as the source of social inequalities.
The primary cause of social problems, according to the conflict perspective, is the exploitation
and oppression of subordinate groups by dominants. Conflict theorists generally view
oppression and inequality as wrong, whereas Structural-Functionalists may see it as necessary
for the smooth running and integration of society. Structural-Functionalism and Conflict Theory
therefore have different value-orientations but can lead to similar insights about inequality (e.g.,
they both believe that stereotypes and discrimination benefit dominant groups, but conflict
theorists say this should end and most structural-functionalists believe it makes perfect sense that
subordinates should be discriminated against, since it serves positive social ends). Conflict
theory sees social change as rapid, continuous, and inevitable as groups seek to replace each
other in the social hierarchy.
Applications
Education
Teachers treat lower-class kids like less competent students, placing them in lower ―tracks‖
because they have generally had fewer opportunities to develop language, critical thinking, and
social skills prior to entering school than middle and upper class kids. When placed in lower
5
tracks, lower-class kids are trained for blue-collar jobs by an emphasis on obedience and
following rules rather than autonomy, higher-order thinking, and self-expression. While private
schools are expensive and generally reserved for the upper classes, public schools, especially
those that serve the poor, are underfunded, understaffed, and growing worse. Schools are also
powerful agents of socialization that can be used as tools for one group to exert power over
others – for example, by demanding that all students learn English, schools are ensuring that
English-speakers dominate students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Many conflict
theorists argue, however, that schools can do little to reduce inequality without broader changes
in society (e.g. creating a broader base of high-paying jobs or equalizing disparities in the tax
base of communities).
Crime
Conflict theorists argue that both crime and the laws defining it are products of a struggle for
power. They argue that a few powerful groups control the legislative process and that these
groups outlaw behavior that threatens their interests. For example, laws prohibiting vagrancy,
trespassing, and theft are said to be designed to protect the wealthy from attacks by the poor.
Although laws against such things as murder and rape are not so clearly in the interests of a
single social class, the poor and powerless are much more likely than the wealthy to be arrested
if they commit such crimes. Conflict theorists also see class and ethnic exploitation as a basic
cause of many different kinds of crime. Much of the high crime rate among the poor, they argue,
is attributable to a lack of legitimate opportunities for improving their economic condition. They
would also be likely to point to racism as well as classism in the criminal justice system,
suggesting that crime will disappear only if inequality and exploitation in that system and in
society at large are also eliminated.
Sports
Conflict theorists would point out that while many people strive for big-time athletic success,
boys or girls from the lower classes may be under inordinate pressure to achieve athletic success
as their ―ticket out of the ghetto.‖ The conflict theorist would also be critical of the
commercialism pervading sports today, pointing out that athletes are not as socially valuable as,
say, teachers but make a lot more money. Some argue that athletes are often exploited by
corporate and university interests, thus becoming ―commodities‖ and possibly becoming
―alienated‖ from a sport they once loved. Because sports is such a big-time business, conflict
theorists would be concerned that college players in particular are being exploited by colleges
and universities, who may give them scholarships but make much more money off their talents
than the players do. In turn, colleges often ―use‖ players for their talents while investing little in
their education.
6
The Spider Is Alive
Excerpted from ―The Spider Is Alive‖: Reassessing Becker‘s Theory of Artistic Conventions
through Southern Italian Music, Lee Robert Blackstone, State University of New York, College
at Old Westbury, Obtained from Proquest—COC library
Our understanding of what is ―real‖ in our social worlds is the result of social
interaction and collaboration. Without the legitimation of an appropriate ―symbolic
universe,‖ the conversation between social agents would collapse (Berger and Luckmann
[1966] 1967:92–128; Berger [1969] 1970:34). Similarly, we make sense of the
social world through what symbolic interactionists refer to as the definition of the
situation: an agreement as to what are the boundaries and expectations of human
behavior. Where a definition is clear, people are better able to formulate their conduct;
where social situations appear nebulous, people struggle to establish a basis for
action (Hewitt 1984).
Within this context, I use and build on Howard Becker‘s famous work on artistic
conventions. In both ―Art as Collective Action‖ (1974) and Art Worlds (1982), Becker
defines ―conventions‖ as the established modes of artistic production. Becker
uses the term to treat art as the outcome of work processes. Artists are embedded
within a wider social network of support that Becker terms an ―art world.‖ Without
agreement on artistic conventions, people may not share a definition of the situation
whereby they understand the ―meaning‖ of an artistic work.
For today‘s artists producing pizzica tarantata, the music of the tarantism rite, the
sounds connote a wider range of meaning beyond the conventions that bound the
music to its defunct ritual. The music is now performed in a different context, often
with an expanded musical palette. Whereas tarantism had once been the basis of a
stigmatic identity in southern Italy, a repropositioning of the ritual has become a
foundation for asserting southern Salentinian identity and values. My research demonstrates
that the music has moved from a performative context focused on healing
an afflicted person to an entertainment that serves as a metaphoric form of group
exorcism for encroaching modernization.
This article features some of the leading advocates reclaiming southern Italian
culture, most notably the modern folk band Nidi D‘Arac. I argue that the case of pizzica
tarantata requires sociologists to reconsider Becker‘s classic (1974) discussion of
artistic conventions. I detail how contemporary artists and cultural activists use both
old and new musical conventions in a musical tradition long associated with deviance.
By concentrating on modern pizzica tarantata musicians, I broaden our understanding
of how musical conventions are formed not only by the musicians themselves but
also by negotiating sociocultural changes that impact the acceptance of the music.
1.
Think about how the author uses Symbolic Interactionism to make sense of music.
2.
How could you apply Symbolic Interactionism to the music you listen to?
7
Lost on the Moon
You are astronaut/scientists on a journey in the lunar rover to study the geology of
the moon. Two hundred kilometers from the lunar landing module, the rover
breaks down. Since survival depends on reaching the mother ship, the most critical
items available must be chosen for the 200 kilometer trip. Below are listed the 15
items left intact. Individually, rank order the importance of these items. Place a 1
by the item you value most, a 2 on the next most valuable item, etc. Place a 15 by
the item you value least.
When you are done, find your group and as a group, you must reach a consensus
on the order of importance of these items to you. It is important that you provide a
logical argument for your numbering system. If the group decides differently than
you did individually, cross out your number and enter the group‘s number, don‘t
erase your number.
_______ box of matches
_______10 kg dehydrated food
_______50 m of nylon rope
_______parachute silk
_______portable heating unit
_______two 45 caliber pistols
_______one case of dehydrated milk
_______two 100 kg tanks of oxygen
_______stellar map (of moon‘s constellation)
_______life raft
_______magnetic compass
_______traditional signal flares
_______first aid kit
_______solar-powered FM receiver/transmitter
_______10 liters water
8
Learning Styles
Read each sentence carefully and consider whether it applies to you. On the line, write 3 if the statement
often applies; 2 if it sometimes applies; and 1 if it never or almost never applies
Preferred Channel: VISUAL
___1.
I enjoy doodling and even my notes have lots of pictures, arrows, etc. in them.
___2.
I remember something better if I write it down.
___3.
When trying to remember a telephone number or something new like that, it helps me to
get a picture of it in my head.
___4.
When taking a test I can ―see‖ the textbook page and the correct answer on it.
___5.
Unless I write down directions, I am likely to get lost or arrive late.
___6.
It helps me to LOOK at a person speaking. It keeps me focused.
___7.
I can clearly picture things in my head.
___8.
It‘s hard for me to understand what a person is saying when there is background noise.
___9.
It‘s difficult for me to understand a joke when I hear it.
___10.
It‘s easier for me to get work done in a quiet place.
Visual Total _______
Preferred Channel: AUDITORY
___1.
When reading, I listen to the words in my head or read aloud.
___2.
To memorize something it helps me to say it over and over to myself
___3.
I need to discuss things to understand them.
___4.
I don‘t need to take notes in class.
___5.
I remember what people have said better than what they were wearing.
___6.
I like to record things and listen to the tapes.
___7.
I‘d rather hear a lecture on something rather than have to read it in a textbook.
___8.
I can easily follow a speaker even though my head is down on the desk or I‘m staring out the
window.
___9.
I talk to myself when I am problem-solving or writing.
___10.
I prefer to have someone tell me how to do something rather than have to read the directions
myself.
Auditory Total _______
Preferred Channel: HAPTIC
___1.
I don‘t like to read or listen to directions; I‘d rather just start doing.
___2.
I learn best when I am shown how to do something and then have the opportunity to do it.
___3.
I can study better when music is playing.
___4.
I solve problems more often with a trial-and-error rather than a step-by-step approach.
___5.
My desk and/or locker looks disorganized.
___6.
I need frequent breaks while studying.
___7.
I take notes but never go back and read them.
___8.
I do not become easily lost, even in strange surroundings
___9.
I think better when I have the freedom to move around; studying at a desk is not for me.
___10.
When I can‘t think of a specific word, I‘ll use my hands a lot and call something a ―whatchama-call-it‖ or a ―thing-a-ma-jig.‖
Haptic Total _______
9
Study Aids for Visual Learners
You will learn better when you read or see the information. Learning from a lecture will not be an easy
task for you. Here are some suggestions.
Write things down because you will remember them better that way (quotes, lists, dates, etc.).
Ask a teacher to explain something again when you don‘t understand a point being made. Simply say
―Would you please repeat that?‖ or ―I understand________, I don‘t understand________. Would you
please explain that again?‖ Or get another student to explain it.
Write vocabulary words in color on index cards with short definitions on the back. Look through them
frequently; write out the definitions again, and check yourself. Do not use highlighters for writing.
Take lots of good notes. Leave extra space if some details were missed. Borrow a dependable student‘s
notes. Recopying the day‘s notes every night is a great memory aid.
Use color to highlight main ideas in your notes, textbooks, handouts, etc. Use your favorite color for
highlighting.
Use Post-its to identify main ideas in your text when you cannot highlight.
Before reading an assignment set a specific study goal and write it down. Example: In the next hour I
will read pages 50-60, and answer questions 1-10.
Preview a chapter before reading by first looking at all the pictures, section headings, etc.
Look at people while they‘re talking. It will help you to stay focused.
Most visual learners study by themselves. Movement in a room will distract a visual learner.
It is usually better to work in a quiet place. However, many visual learners do math with music playing in
the background. The music however must be playing softly; it should background only.
Use instrumental music only, no words. Classical music is the best.
Never study with the TV on. Movement distracts a visual learner.
Select a seat furthest from the door and window and toward the front of the class if possible.
10
Study Aids for Auditory Learners
You will learn better when information comes through your ears. You need to hear the material. Lecture
situations will probably work well for you. You may not learn as well just reading from a book. Here a
few suggestions.
Recite aloud things you want to remember (quotes, lists, dates, etc.).
Ask your teachers if you can turn in a tape or give an oral report instead of written work. You also turn in
a tape with a written report.
Write vocabulary words in color on index cards with short definitions on the back. Review frequently by
reading the words aloud and saying the definition. Check the back to see if you are right. Use deep tones
of your favorite color. Do not use highlighters for writing.
Make tape cassettes of classroom lectures or read class notes onto a tape. Summarizing is especially good.
Try to listen to the tape 3 times in preparing for a test.
Use color to highlight main ideas in your notes, textbooks, handouts, etc. Use a color you like for
highlighting.
Use Post-its to identify main ideas in your text when you cannot highlight.
Before beginning an assignment, set a specific study goal to say out loud. Example: ―In the hour I will
read pages 45-50 and answer questions 1-8.‖
Preview a chapter before reading by first looking at all the pictures, headings, etc.
Read aloud whenever possible. In a quiet library, try ―hearing the words in your head‖ as you read. Your
brain needs to hear the words as your eyes read them.
Try studying with a buddy so you can talk out loud and hear the information.
When doing complicated math problems, use graph paper (or use regular lined paper sideway) to help
with alignment.
When taking a test, read aloud whenever possible - or at least mouth the words so that you can ―hear the
words in your head.‖ lt is best to let the teacher know beforehand that this technique is best for you.
Never study with the radio or TV on.
11
Study Aids for Haptic Learners
You will learn best by doing, experimenting, or experiencing. Getting information visually from a
textbook or auditorily from a lecture may not be as easy for you. Here are some suggestions.
To memorize, pace or walk around while reciting to yourself or looking at a list or index cards.
If you need to fidget when in class, cross your legs and bounce or jiggle the foot that is off the floor.
Experiment with other ways of moving; just be sure you‘re not making. noise or disturbing others. Try
squeezing a soft eraser or tennis ball (below your desk). Let your teacher know why you are doing this,
Write vocabulary words in color on index cards with short definitions on the back. Review them
frequently by walking around while reciting therm and checking yourself by reading the definitions aloud.
Use your creativity to connect an action or gesture to each word or concept. Example: for the word ―sly,‖
squint and make shifty eyes. Draw a picture on your card to help the connection.
Take lots of notes using color and the mapping technique. Borrow a dependable student‘s notes to make
sure you got all the important points.
Use color to highlight main ideas in your notes, textbooks, handouts, etc.
Use Post-its to identify main ideas in your text when you cannot highlight.
Before beginning an assignment, write out a specific study goal and say it aloud to yourself. This will
focus you. Example: ―I will read pages 45-50 and answer questions 1-8 within the next hour.‖
When reading a textbook chapter, first look at the pictures, then read the summary or end-of-chapter
questions, then look over the section headings and boldfaced words. Get a ―feel‖ for the whole chapter by
reading the end selections first, and then work your way to the front of the chapter.
If you have a stationary bicycle, try reading while pedaling. Some bicycle shops sell reading racks that
will attach to the handle bars and hold your book.
You may not study best at a desk; so when you‘re at home, try studying while lying on your stomach or
back. Also try studying with music in the background. Use instrumental music only. Classical music
works best.
When studying, study in short spurts with a brief break (3-4 minutes) in between. Be sure to get right
back to the task after the break A reasonable schedule is 15-30 minutes of study and a 5 minute break (TV
watching and telephone talking should be done during break time.)
When trying to memorize information, try closing your eyes and writing the information in the air, on the
desk, or on the carpet with your finger. Picture the words in your head as you do this. If possible, hear
them too. Later, when trying to recall this information, close your eyes and see it with your ―mind‘s eye‖
and hear it in your head.
Use a bright piece of construction paper in your favorite color as a desk blotter. This is called color
grounding. It will help focus your attention. Also try reading through a colored transparency. Experiment
with different colors and different ways of using color. Example: Use a bright piece of construction paper
as a ―reading guide‖ for your text; move it from paragraph to paragraph as you read.
12
Costa’s Levels of Critical Thinking Questions
Level one questions are often considered low-level questions that cause you to recall facts, data,
concepts, feelings, or experiences. This level of question causes you to input the data into short-term
memory, but if you don‘t use it in some meaningful way, you may soon forget. Level one questions
require you to complete, count, match, name, define, observe, recite, select, describe, list, identify, and
recall. Some examples of level one questions/statements and the related cognitive behaviors follow:
Question/Statement
Desired Cognitive Behavior
Name the characteristics of a bureaucracy.
Name
What did Karl Marx look like?
Describe
Which theorist goes with each theory?
Match
________________ is known for his theory of Anomie?
Complete
How many agents of socialization are there?
Count
What is the definition of a social group?
Define
What happened to the children when the mothers left the room?
Observe
Recite the main functions of the educational system.
Recite
Which theorists on this list are Europeans?
Select
List the three major perspectives in sociology.
List
Which of these theorists is known for the conflict theory?
Identify
Level two questions call for you to make sense of information that you have gathered through your
senses and retrieved from your long- and short-term memory. In order to process this information, you
need to compare it to what you already know and to draw meaningful relationships. When you make
sense of information in this way, you are much more able to use the information to make further connections and use it in other situations.
Level Two questions enable you to process information when you synthesize, analyze, categorize,
explain, classify, compare, contrast, state causality, infer, experiment, organize, distinguish, sequence,
summarize, group, and make analogies. Some examples of level two questions/statements and the related
cognitive behaviors follow:
Question/Statement
Desired Cognitive Behavior
Considering all three authors‘ points of view, what conclusions can you
draw about the media‘s effect on girls?
Synthesize
Analyze the character‘s intentions in this scene.
Analyze
Which of these theories come from conflict theory?
Categorize
Explain how individuals are influenced by societal conditions.
Explain
How does the differential association theory compare with the cultural
transmission theory?
Compare
How is the differential association theory different from the cultural
transmission theory?
Contrast
What are some causes of suicide?
State Causality
What do you think Marx was thinking when he wrote the
Communist Manifesto?
Infer
When you show girls ads of typical sized models, what happens?
Experiment
Distinguish social groups from social aggregates.
Distinguish
Arrange a group of individuals in some given order.
Sequence
In your own words, what is Weber‘s message?
Summarize
What other cultures operated on the same principles as this one?
Make analogies
13
Level three questions lead to output and require you to go beyond the concepts or principles you have
learned and to use these relationships in novel or hypothetical situations. To answer questions at this
level, you must apply your knowledge and understanding and may think creatively and hypothetically,
use imagination, expose or apply value systems, or make judgments.
Level three questions enable you to apply and or evaluate information when you apply a principle,
imagine, plan, evaluate, judge, predict, extrapolate, create, forecast, invent, hypothesize, speculate,
generalize, build a model, and design. Some examples of level three questions/statements and the related
cognitive behaviors follow:
Question/Statement
Desired Cognitive Behavior
Imagine that you were alive during the Industrial Revolution,
how would you react?
Imagine
Make a plan to complete a class project.
Plan
What would be the most equitable way to solve the problem?
Evaluate
Judge each of the arguments on its relative merit.
Judge
What will California‘s population be like in 2050 if we continue to grow as
we have for the past ten years?
Predict
Based on the American population today, make a conjecture of the
percentage change to be expected in 2001.
Extrapolate
Create some new technology to help you with your work.
Invent
Given the following artifacts about an extinct culture, form hypotheses about
how they lived and died.
Hypothesize
What will the status of social security be when you retire?
Speculate
What generalizations can you make about population density in the
year 2000?
Generalize
Build a model of an efficient mass transit system for our city in the
year 2020.
Build a model
Design an energy-efficient and ecologically sound crop and irrigation
system for this area.
Design
Critical thinking questions to ask yourself.
How did you arrive at that response, opinion,
What can you add to this?
idea?
Can you think of a different result?
Is there another way...?
Why is this one better than that one?
What strategy did you use?
How did you organize your information or your
What do you need to do next?
thinking?
How can you find out?
Does your response make sense in this situation?
What do you think the problem is?
When is another time you‘ll need to use this?
Can you think of another way to do this?
Why does your process work for you?
Why do you disagree?
Can you explain how your thoughts are different
Can you retell, restate, or rename someone else‘s
than/the same as _____?
explanation?
What do you think would happen if...?
How did you begin to think about this situation?
How would you feel if...?
What kinds of skills/concepts did you use?
14
Logic Puzzle #1
At a recent visit to the zoo, five friends (Ben, Wade, and Alex are boys and Jocelyn and Jennifer
are girls) enjoyed the apes the most. They each bought a souvenir costing a different amount of
dollars. Can you determine each child‘s souvenir and cost?
1. Ben‘s souvenir cost one dollar more than that of the girl who bought the ape antenna ball, but
less than at least one other.
2. The child who bought the flamingo cane (who isn‘t Jennifer) paid one dollar more than the
person who bought the elephant mug and less than the one who bought the alligator pointer (who
isn‘t Jennifer).
3. Alex bought a rubber snake and paid less than $3.
4. Wade‘s souvenir coast an even number of dollars.
5
Name
Alex
Ben
Jennifer
Jocelyn
Wade
Souvenir
Ape Antennaball
Rubber snake
Flamingo cane
Elephant mug
Alligator pointer
15
Alligator
pointer
4
Elephant
mug
3
Flamingo
cane
2
Rubber
snake
1
Souvenir
Ape
Antennaball
Cost
Logic Puzzle #2
Last Friday morning as Mary arrived to open her window at the Saugus post office she found
five people already waiting in line. They each had something different to mail. Can you figure
out what each person had to mail and what place in line he or she was?
1.
Anne (who was 3rd in line) was sending cookies to her son away at school.
2.
Allie (who wasn‘t the person who was mailing CDs) was the 5th person in line.
3.
Ben was standing somewhere in front of the person who was mailing a warm jacket to
someone back east (who wasn‘t the last person in line).
4.
line.
The person who was sending documents by overnight mail (who isn‘t Enrique) was 4th in
5.
Jon sent documents to his sister.
Place in line
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Cookies
Mail
CDs
Warm jacket
Documents
Books
16
Books
Documents
Wwarn jacket
CDs
Cookies
5
4Jon
Mail
3Ben
2Enrique
Allie
Anne
Anne
Person
Logic Puzzle #3
Recently Anne and four of her fellow professors took advantage of the weather and decided to go
for a walk about campus during their time. They were attracted by shiny objects at a booth
selling jewelry with colorful stones. Each professor bought something with a different color
stone. From the clues below can you work out each professor‘s last name and what color stone
each bought?
1.
Vince Jones isn‘t the man who choose the green necklace for his wife.
2.
Neither Anne or Wendy is the one surnamed Smith.
3.
The one surnamed Doe chose the purple pin for a sister whose favorite stone is amethyst.
4.
Neither Wendy (who isn‘t surnamed Doe) nor Vince is the one who choose the red
earrings.
5.
The one who choose the yellow hair clip (who isn‘t Vince) isn‘t the one surnamed Tills.
6.
Anne didn‘t select the purple pin.
First Name
Anne
Bob
Jeannie
Vince
Wendy
Color Stone
blue
green
purple
red
yellow
17
yellow
red
purple
green
blue
5
4Tills
Color Stone
3Smith
2Jones
Herald
1
Doe
Last Name
The Corandic
Corandic is an emurient grof with many fribs; it granks from corite, an olg which cargs like
lange. Corite grinkles several other tarances, which garkers excarp by glarcking the corite and
starping it in tranker-clarped storbs. The tarances starp a chark, which is expanrged with worters,
branking a storp. This storp is garped through several other corusees, finally frasting a pragety,
blickant crankle: coranda.
Coranda is a cargurt, grinkling corandic and borigten. The corandic is nacerated from the borigen
by means of loracity. This garkers finally thrap a glick, bracht, glupous grapant, corandic, which
granks in many starps.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
What is corandic?
What does corandic grank from?
How do garkers excarp the tarances from the corite?
What is coranda?
How is the corandic nacerated from the borigen?
What does the storp finally frast?
What do the garkers finally thrap?
18
Applying the Criteria for Sound Arguments
1. Dear Editor, I think that Governor Morgan is doing a great job in spite of all his Republican
critics. Just last week, Nancy Stone said in a news conference that she thought Governor
Morgan was one of the best governors this state has had and that he was doing an excellent job
dealing with the complex problems of the state. And she should know! She‘s the state chair of
the Democratic party.
2. Dear Editor, The seat belt law is unfair and a clear abuse of governmental authority. By not
wearing a belt we are not endangering anyone but perhaps ourselves. In some cases, wearing
seat belts can actually endanger your life. Recently, in an accident in Jackson County, the
vehicle hit a tree and was crushed except for a small space. Since the driver of the car broke the
law, his life was saved when he was thrown to the floor of the car.
3. Dear Editor, The American Heart Association is debating whether to fund a proposed study
that would involve drowning 42 dogs when a medical school received permission to use stray
dogs to determine whether the Heimlich maneuver could be used to save drowning people.
Dr. Heimlich has denounced the study as needless and classified as cruel. Others have stated that
a dog‘s windpipe and diaphragm are not comparable to humans and therefore cannot be used in
determining whether mouth-to-mouth resuscitation or the Heimlich maneuver would be
preferable. Concerned readers should urge the American Heart Association to reject the study.
19
With Hocked Gems
Financing Him
Our hero bravely defied
All scornful laughter
That tried to deceive his scheme.
An egg, not a table typify
Unexplored planet.
Now three sturdy sisters sought proof
Forging sometimes through calm vastness
Yet more often over turbulent peaks and valleys
Days became weeks as many doubters spread fearful
Rumors about the edge.
At last, welcome winged creatures appeared
Signifying momentous success
1. What/who is this about?
2. What helped you figure it out?
20
1
Against the Death Penalty from http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/OrnellasPaper.htm
2
Death Penalty Fails to Rehabilitate
3
What would it accomplish to put someone on death row? The victim is already dead-you
4
cannot bring him back. When our opponents feel ―fear of death‖ will prevent one from
5
committing murder, it is not true because most murders are done on the ―heat of passion‖ when a
6
person cannot think rationally. Therefore, how can one even have time to think of fear in the
7
heat of passion (Internet)?
8
9
ACLU and Murderers Penniless
10
The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) is working for a moratorium on executions
11
and to put an end to state-sanctioned murder in the United States. They claim it is very
12
disturbing to anyone who values human life.
13
In the article of the ACLU Evolution Watch, the American Bar Association said the
14
quality of the legal representation is substantial. Ninety-nine percent of criminal defendants end
15
up penniless by the time their case is up for appeal. They claim they are treated unfairly. Most
16
murderers who do not have any money, receive the death penalty. Those who live in counties
17
that are pro-death penalty are more likely to receive the death penalty (Internet).
18
19
Death Penalty Failed as a Deterrent
20
Some criminologists claim they have statistically proven that when an execution is publicized,
21
more murders occur in the day and weeks that follow. A good example is in the Linberg
22
kidnapping. A number of states adopted the death penalty for crimes like this, but figures
23
showed kidnapping increased. Publicity may encourage crime instead of preventing it
24
(McClellan, G., 1961).
25
Death is one penalty which makes error irreversible and the chance of error is inescapable
26
when based on human judgment. On the contrary, sometimes defendants insist on execution.
27
They feel it is an act of kindness to them. The argument here is - Is life imprisonment a crueler
28
fate?‖
29
citizens (McClellan, G. 1961)?
30
31
Is there evidence supporting the usefulness of the death penalty securing the life of the
Does the death penalty give increased protection against being murdered? This argument
for continuation of the death penalty is most likely a deterrent, but it has failed as a deterrent.
21
32
There is no clear evidence because empirical studies done in the 50s by Professor Thorsten
33
Sellin, (sociologist) did not give support to deterrence (McClellan, G., 1961).
34
35
36
Does not Discourage Crime
It is noted that we need extreme penalty as a deterrent to crime. This could be a strong
37
argument if it could be proved that the death penalty discourages murderers and kidnappers.
38
There is strong evidence that the death penalty does not discourage crime at all (McClellan, G.,
39
1961). Grant McClellan (1961) claims: In 1958 the10 states that had the fewest murders –fewer
40
than two a year per 100,000 population-were New Hampshire Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts,
41
Connecticut, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Utah, North Dakota and Washington. Four of
42
these 10 states had abolished the death penalty.
43
44
The 10 states, which had the most murders, from eight to fourteen killings per100,000
45
population, were Nevada, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Virginia-all of them enforce the
46
death penalty. The fact is that fear of the death penalty has never served to reduce the crime rate
47
(McClellan, 1961, p. 40).
48
49
50
Conviction of the Innocent Occurs
The states that have the death penalty should be free of murder, but those states have the
51
most murders, and the states that abolished the death penalty have less. Conviction of the
52
innocent does occur and death makes a miscarriage of justice irrevocable. Two states, Maine
53
and Rhode Island, abolished the death penalty because of public shame and remorse after they
54
discovered they executed some innocent men.
55
56
57
Fear of Death Does not Reduce Crime
The fear of the death penalty has never reduced crime. Through most of history
58
executions were public and brutal. Some criminals were even crushed to death slowly under
59
heavy weight. Crime was more common at that time than it is now. Evidence shows execution
60
does not act as a deterrent to capital punishment.
61
62
22
63
64
Motives for Death Penalty-Revenge
According to Grant McClellan (1961), the motives for the death penalty may be for
65
revenge. Legal vengeance solidifies social solidarity against law breakers and is the alternative
66
to the private revenge of those who feel harmed.
23
1
A Feminist's Argument for McCain's VP from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
2
bin/article/article?f=/c/a/2008/09/07/INB312NP3M.DTL
3
In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton
4
presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican
5
John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for
6
conservatives and independents what I term "the enthusiasm gap" for the ticket. For Democrats, she
7
offers something even more compelling - a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and
8
who represents a party that, while we don't agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to
9
take them seriously.
10
11
Whether we have a D, R or an "i for independent" after our names, women share a different life
12
experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we
13
come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has
14
come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin
15
nomination, maybe they'll realize it's not up to them any longer.
16
17
Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having
18
watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the
19
flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who
20
represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a
21
career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a
22
moose. For others, perhaps it's about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However
23
diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us.
24
It's that simple.
25
26
The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply
27
being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then
28
the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first female
29
Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried
30
nominee Barack Obama as "terribly sexist" and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for
31
his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.
32
24
33
Concerned feminists noted, among other thinly veiled sexist remarks during the campaign, Obama
34
quipping, "I understand that Sen. Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a
35
way of trying to boost her appeal," and Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in a television interview
36
comparing Clinton to a spurned lover-turned-stalker in the film, "Fatal Attraction," noting, "Glenn
37
Close should have stayed in that tub, and Sen. Clinton has had a remarkable career...". These
38
attitudes, and more, define the tenor of the party leadership, and sent a message to the grassroots and
39
media that it was "Bros Before Hoes," to quote a popular Obama-supporter T-shirt.
40
41
The campaign's chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic
42
National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women's
43
Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with
44
votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.
45
46
There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women's rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of
47
how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because
48
they were women. Clinton's "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" were mentioned a heck of a lot.
49
More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?
50
Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not
51
to promote a woman.
52
53
Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of
54
the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters - pro-choice women and gays to be specific - would
55
be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our
56
issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us - but
57
when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase
58
our personal wealth, power and political influence.
59
60
Make no mistake - the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah
61
Palin, and the party's increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.
62
The party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That's
63
why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues
64
of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have
65
considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.
25
66
They are deciding women's rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman,
67
not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.
68
Palin's candidacy brings both figurative and literal feminist change. The simple act of thinking
69
outside the liberal box, which has insisted for generations that only liberals and Democrats can be
70
trusted on issues of import to women, is the political equivalent of a nuclear explosion.
71
The idea of feminists willing to look to the right changes not only electoral politics, but will put more
72
women in power at lightning speed as we move from being taken for granted to being pursued,
73
nominated and appointed and ultimately, sworn in.
74
75
It should be no surprise that the Democratic response to the McCain-Palin ticket was to immediately
76
attack by playing the liberal trump card that keeps Democrats in line - the abortion card - where the
77
party daily tells restless feminists the other side is going to police their wombs.
78
The power of that accusation is interesting, coming from the Democrats - a group that just told the
79
world that if you have ovaries, then you don't count.
80
81
Yes, both McCain and Palin identify as anti-abortion, but neither has led a political life with that
82
belief, or their other religious principles, as their signature issue. Politicians act on their passions - the
83
passion of McCain and Palin is reform. In her time in office, Palin's focus has not been to kick the
84
gays and make abortion illegal; it has been to kick the corrupt and make wasteful spending illegal.
85
The Republicans are now making direct appeals to Clinton supporters, knowingly crafting a political
86
base that would include pro-choice voters.
87
88
On the day McCain announced her selection as his running mate, Palin thanked Clinton and Ferraro
89
for blazing her trail. A day later, Ferraro noted her shock at Palin's comment. You see, none of her
90
peers, no one, had ever publicly thanked her in the 24 years since her historic run for the White
91
House. Ferraro has since refused to divulge for whom she's voting. Many more now are realizing that
92
it does indeed take a woman - who happens to be a Republican named Sarah Palin.
26
1
Ban on a Type of Prayer in School Allowed to Stand from
2
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008802198_apscotusprayercontroversy.html
3
WASHINGTON (AP) — Coach Marcus Borden used to bow his head and drop to one knee
4
when his football team prayed. But the Supreme Court on Monday ended the practice when it
5
refused to hear the high school coach's appeal of a school district ban on employees joining a
6
student-led prayer.The decision on the case from New Jersey could add another restriction on
7
prayer in schools, advocates said.
8
9
"We've become so politically correct in terms of how we deal with religion that it's being pretty
10
severely limited in schools right now, and individuals suffer," said John W. Whitehead, president
11
of The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization that focuses on First Amendment and
12
religious freedom issues.
13
14
But Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
15
said some parents had complained about Borden leading prayers before the East Brunswick, N.J.,
16
school district ordered him to stop and banned all staff members from joining in student-led
17
prayer.
18
19
"The bottom line is people in positions of authority, like a coach, have to be extremely careful
20
about trying to promote their ideas, or implying that if you don't pray, you may not play," Lynn
21
said.
22
23
The high court without comment refused to reconsider the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals'
24
decision upholding the ban. The district established the ban in 2005 after parents complained
25
about Borden, coach at East Brunswick High School since 1983, sometimes leading prayers at
26
the Friday afternoon team pasta dinner or in the locker room before games. Borden said he
27
wanted to show respect for the students engaged in prayer by bowing his head silently and
28
dropping to one knee.
29
27
30
The district, Borden argued, was violating his free-speech rights by ordering him to stop action
31
he called secular signs of respect. After the ban, the coach stood at attention for the remainder of
32
the season while the students prayed.
33
34
Judge D. Michael Fisher, writing for the Philadelphia appeals court, said Borden's past action of
35
leading the prayers made his head-bowing seem inappropriate. "A reasonable observer would
36
conclude that he is continuing to endorse religion when he bows his head during the pre-meal
37
grace and takes a knee with his team in the locker room while they pray," Fisher said.
38
39
Messages left for Borden and lawyer Ronald Riccio were not immediately returned Monday.
40
"With teachers and students, individual expressions are being limited. There's just a concept out
41
there that religion doesn't belong in schools," said Whitehead, whose group acted as co-counsel
42
for Borden. He said he does not know what Borden would do now.
43
44
School employees should avoid looking like they're endorsing religion in any way, said Lynn,
45
whose group represented the school district. "Coaches are not supposed to be promoting
46
religion; that's up to students and parents and pastors," Lynn said.
47
The Supreme Court ended school-sponsored prayer in 1962 when it said directing that a prayer
48
be said at the beginning of each school day was a violation of the First Amendment. The justices
49
reaffirmed the decision in 2000 by saying a Texas school district was giving the impression of
50
prayer sponsorship by letting students use loudspeakers under the direction of a faculty member
51
for prayers before sports events.
28
Rule Enforcement without Visible Means: Christmas Gift Giving in Middletown
Theodore Caplow
A closer look at everyday and routine events can be revealing. In this 1984 article,
Theodore Caplow analyzes the ―rules‖ that underlie gift giving in Christian homes
during Christmas in ―Middletown.‖ As Caplow makes dear, although these rules
are not anywhere published, most people seem to know to follow them
scrupulously.
Questions
1. In your judgment, why is it deemed inappropriate by Middletown families to display or
photograph unwrapped gifts?
2. Which of the rules mentioned by Caplow are followed by you and your family or (if you don‘t
celebrate the holiday) by others known to you? Which aren‘t followed?
3. Caplow suggests that people who break the rules regarding gift giving run no risk of sanction.
Do you agree? Let us say, for example, that you found shopping to be more trouble than its
worth and decided to give your parents or your partner/spouse gift certificates for generous
amounts. Would you be sanctioned in any way? How so? Likewise, suppose you violated the
―scaling rule‖ by giving every person in your family the exact same thing. What would be their
response?
4. Consider other special times when gift giving is deemed appropriate—Chanukah or birthdays,
for example. What rules govern those sorts of interaction?
The Middletown III study is a systematic replication of the well known study of a midwestern
industrial city conducted by Robert and Helen Lynd in the 1920s (Lynd and Lynd 1929/1959)
and partially replicated by them in the 1930s (Lynd and Lynd 1937/1963). The fieldwork for
Middletown III was conducted in 1976-79, its results have been reported in Middletown Families
(Caplow at al. 1982) and in 38 published papers by various authors; additional volumes and
papers are in preparation. Nearly all this material is an assessment of the social changes that
occurred between the 1920s and the 1970s in this one community, which is, so far, the only place
in the United States that provides such long-term comprehensive sociological data. The
Middletown III research focused on those aspects of social structure described by the Lynds in
order to utilize the opportunities for longitudinal comparison their data afforded, but there was
one important exception. The Lynds had given little attention to the annual cycle of religiouscivic family festivals (there were only two inconsequential references to Christmas in
Middletown and none at all to Thanksgiving or Easter), but we found this cycle too important to
ignore. The celebration of Christmas, the high point of the cycle, mobilizes almost the entire
population for several weeks, accounts for about 4% of its total annual expenditures, and takes
precedence over ordinary forms of work and leisure. In order to include this large phenomenon,
we interviewed a random sample of 110 Middletown adults early in 1979 to discover how they
and their families had celebrated Christmas in 1978. The survey included an inventory of all
Christmas gifts given and received by these respondents. Although the sample included a few
very isolated individuals, all of these had participated in Christmas giving in the previous year.
The total number of gifts inventoried was 4,347, a mean of 39.5 per respondent. The distribution
29
of this sample of gifts by type and value, by the age and sex of givers and receivers, and by giftgiving configurations has been reported elsewhere (Caplow 1982).
In this paper, I discuss a quite different problem: How are the rules that appear to govern
Christmas gift giving in Middletown communicated and enforced? There are no enforcement
agents and little indignation against violators. Nevertheless, the level of participation is very
high.
Here are some typical gift-giving rules that are enforced effectively in Middletown
without visible means of enforcement and indeed without any widespread awareness of their‘‘
existence:
The Tree Rule
Married couples with children of any age should put up Christmas
trees in their homes. Unmarried persons with no living children
should not put up Christmas trees. Unmarried parents (widowed,
divorced, or adoptive) may put up trees but are not required to do
so.
Conformity with the Tree Rule in our survey sample may be fairly described as spectacular.
Nobody in Middletown seems to be consciously aware of the norm that requires married
couples with children of any age to put up a Christmas tree, yet the obligation is so compelling
that, of the 77 respondents in this category who were at home for Christmas 1978, only one—the
Venezuelan woman—failed to do so. Few of the written laws that agents of the state attempt to
enforce endless paperwork and threats of violence are so well obeyed as this unwritten rule that
is promulgated by no identifiable authority and backed by no evident threat. Indeed, the
existence of the rule goes unnoticed. People in Middletown think that putting up a Christmas tree
is an entirely voluntary act. They .know that it has some connection with children; but they do
not understand that married couples with children of any age are effectively required to have
trees and that childless unmarried people are somehow prevented from having them. Middletown
people do not consciously perceive the Christmas tree as a symbol of the complete nuclear
family (father, mother, and one or more children). Those to whom we suggested that possibility
seemed to resent it.
The Wrapping Rule
Christmas gifts must be wrapped before they are presented.
A subsidiary rule requires that the wrapping be appropriate, that is, emblematic, and another
subsidiary rule says that wrapped gifts are appropriately displayed as a set but that unwrapped
gifts should not be so displayed. Conformity with these rules is exceedingly high.
An unwrapped object is so dearly excluded as a Christmas gift that Middletown people
who wish to give something at that season without defining it as a Christmas gift have only to
leave the object unwrapped. Difficult-to-wrap Christmas gifts, like a pony or a piano, are
wrapped symbolically by adding a ribbon or bow or card and are hidden until presentation.
In nearly every Middletown household, the wrapped presents are displayed under or
around the Christmas tree as a glittering monument to the family‘s affluence and mutual
affection. Picture taking at Christmas gatherings is clearly a part of the ritual; photographs were
taken at 65% of the recorded gatherings. In nearly all instances, the pile of wrapped gifts was
photographed; and individual participants were photographed opening a gift, ideally at the
moment of ―surprise.‖ Although the pile of wrapped gifts is almost invariably photographed, a
30
heap of unwrapped gifts is not a suitable subject for the Christmas photographer. Among the 366
gatherings we recorded, there was a single instance in which a participant, a small boy, was
photographed with all his unwrapped gifts. To display unwrapped as a set seems to invite the
insidious comparison of gifts—and of the relationships they represent.
The Decoration Rule
Any room where Christmas gifts are distributed should be
decorated by affixing Christmas emblems to the walls, the ceiling,
or the furniture.
This is done even in nondomestic places, like offices or restaurant dining rooms, if gifts are to be
distributed there. Conformity to this rule was perfect in our sample of 366 gatherings at which
gifts were distributed, although, once again, the existence of the rule was not recognized by the
people who obeyed it.
The same lack of recognition applies to the interesting subsidiary rule that a Christmas
tree should not be put up in an undecorated place, although a decorated place need not have a
tree. Unmarried, childless persons normally decorate their homes, although they have no trees,
and decorations without a tree are common in public places, but a Christmas tree in an
undecorated room would be unseemly. It goes without saying that Christmas decorations must be
temporary, installed for the season and removed afterward (with the partial exception of outdoor
wreaths, which are sometimes left to wither on the door). A room painted in red and green, or
with a frieze of plaster wreaths, would not be decorated within the meaning of the rule.
The Gathering Rule
Christmas gifts should be distributed at gatherings where every
person gives and receives gifts.
Compliance with this rule is very high. Morethan nine-tenths of the 1,378 gifts our respondents
received, and of the 2,969 they gave, were distributed in gatherings, more than three-quarters of
which were family gatherings. Most gifts mailed or shipped by friends and relatives living at a
distance were double wrapped, so that the outer unceremonious wrappings could be removed and
the inner packages could be placed with the other gifts to be opened at a gathering. IN the
typical family gathering, a number of related persons assemble by prearrangement at the home of
one of them where a feast is served; the adults engage in conversation; the children play;
someone takes photographs; gifts are distributed, opened, and admired; and the company then
disperses. The average Middletown adult fits more than three of these occasions into a 24-hour
period beginning at Christmas Eve, often driving long distances and eating several large dinners
during that time.
The Dinner Rule
Family gatherings at which gifts are distributed include a
―traditional Christmas dinner.‖
This is a rule that participants in Middletown‘s Christmas ritual may disregard if they wish, but it
is no less interesting because compliance is only partial. Presumably, this rule acquired its
elective character because the pattern of multiple gatherings described above requires many
gatherings to be scheduled at odd hours when dinner either would be inappropriate or, if the
dinner rule were inflexible, would require participants to overeat beyond the normal expectations
31
of the season. However, 65 % of the survey respondents had eaten at least one traditional
Christmas dinner the previous year.
There appears to be a subsidiary rule that traditional Christmas dinners served in homes
should be prepared exclusively by women. There was not a single reported instance in this
survey of a traditional Christmas dinner prepared by a man.
The Gift Selection Rules
A Christmas gift should (a) demonstrate the giver‘s familiarity
with the receiver‘s preferences; (b) surprise the receiver, either by
expressing more affection—measured by the aesthetic or practical
value of the gift—than the receiver might reasonably anticipate or
more knowledge than the giver might reasonably be expected to
have; (c) be scaled in economic value to the emotional value of the
relationship.
The economic values of any giver‘s gifts are supposed to be sufficiently scaled to the emotional
values of relationships that, when they are opened in the bright glare of the family circle, the
donor will not appear to have disregarded either the legitimate inequality of some relationships
by, for example, giving a more valuable gift to a nephew than to a son, or the legitimate equality
of other relationships by, for example, giving conspicuously unequal gifts to two sons.
Individuals participating in these rituals are not free to improvise their own scales of
emotional value for relationships. The scale they are supposed to use, together with its
permissible variations, is not written down anywhere but is thoroughly familiar to participants.
From analysis of the gifts given and received by our survey respondents, we infer the following
rules for scaling the emotional value of relationships.
The Scaling Rules
(a) A spousal relationship should be more valuable than any other
for both husband and wife, but the husband may set a higher value
on it than the wife. (b) A parent–child relationship should be less
valuable than a spousal relationship but more valuable than any
other relationship. The parent may set a higher value on it than the
child does. (c) The spouse of a married close relative should be
valued as much as the liking relative. (d) Parents with several
children should value them equally throughout their lives. (e)
Children with both parents still living and still married to each
other may value them equally or may value their mothers
somewhat more than their fathers. A married couple with two pairs
of living, still-married parents should value each pair equally.
Children of any age with divorced, separated, or remarried parents
may value them unequally. (f) Siblings should be valued equally in
childhood but not later. Adult siblings who live close by and are
part of one‘s active network should be equally valued, along with
their respective spouses, but siblings who live farther away may be
valued unequally. (g) Friends of either sex, aside from sexual
partners treated as quasi-spouses, may be valued as much as
siblings but should not be valued as much as spouses, parents, or
32
children. (h) More distant relatives—like aunts or cousins—may
be valued as much as siblings but should not be valued as much as
spouses, parents, or children.
It is a formidable task to balance these ratios every year and to come up with a set of Christmas
gifts that satisfies them. Small wonder that Middletown people complain that Christmas
shopping is difficult and fatiguing. But although they complain, they persist in it year after year
without interruption. People who are away from home for Christmas arrange in advance to have
their gifts distributed to the usual receivers and to open their own gifts ceremoniously. People
confined by severe illness delegate others to do shopping and wrapping. Although our random
sample of Middletown adults included several socially isolated persons, even the single most
isolated respondent happened to have an old friend with whom he exchanged expensive gifts.
Given the complexity of the rules, errors and failures in gift selection can be expected to
occur, and they frequently do. Indeed, the‘ four or five shopping days immediately after
Christmas are set aside in Middletown stores for return or exchange of badly selected gifts. A
number of respondents described relatives who make a point of being impossible to please, like
the grandfather in Renata Adler‘s story:
The grandfather, who pretended not to care about the holiday,
every year, until the precise moment when the door to the study,
where the piano stood, was opened and the presents were revealed,
became every year, at that moment, hopeful, eager, even zealous
and then dejected utterly. No one had ever found a present that
actually pleased him. ―Very nice,‖ he would say, in a tight voice,
as he unwrapped one thing after another. ―Very nice. Now I‘ll just
put that away.‖ The year his sons gave him an electric razor, he
said, ―Very nice. Of course I‘ll never use it. I‘m too old to change
the way I shave.‖ When they asked him at least to try it, he said
―No, I‘m sorry, it‘s very nice. No I‘ll just put that away.‖ (Adler
1978, 136-37)
The standard disappointing gift is an article of clothing in the wrong size. Women are
particularly resentful of oversized items that seem to say the giver perceives them as ―fat.‖
Children are often insulted by inattentive relatives who give them toys that are too ―young.‖ The
spouse‘s or lover‘s gift that is disliked by the receiver is a sign of alienation. Two of the five
couples in our sample for whom such gifts were reported at Christmas 1978 had separated by the
time of the interview several weeks later.
The rigor of the Selection Rules is softened by several devices—joint gifts from and to
married couples, from children to parents, and from two or three siblings to another are common.
Such arrangements make it difficult to determine whether the comparative value of relationships
has been correctly translated into gifts, and that is the more or less conscious intention. Two
families in our sample drew lots for their gifts. That practice is nearly standard at nonfamilial
Christmas gatherings, like ward parties for hospitalized children, where presents are distributed
without any attempt to particularize relationships.
Fitness Rules
Rules about the fitness of gifts (e.g., women should not give cut flowers to men) are too
numerous to specify, but one deserves passing attention. Money is an appropriate gift from
33
senior to junior kin, but an inappropriate gift from junior to senior kin, regardless of the relative
affluence of the parties. This is another rule which appears to be unknown to the people who
obey it. Of 144 gifts, of money given by persons in our sample to those in other generations,
94% went to junior kin, and of the 73 money gifts respondents received from persons in other
generations, 93% were from senior kin. A gift certificate may be given to a parent or grandparent
to whom an outright gift of money would be improper, but we did not record a single instance of
a gift certificate having been given to a child or a grandchild, no substitution being called for.
The Reciprocity Rule
Participants in this gift system should give (individually or jointly)
at least one Christmas gift every year to their mothers, fathers,
sons, daughters; to the current spouses of these persons; and to
their own spouses.
By the operation of this rule, participants expect • to receive at least one gift in return from each
of these persons excepting infants. Conformity runs about 90% for each relationship separately
and for the aggregate of all such relationships. Gifts to grandparents and grandchildren seem to
be equally obligatory if these live in the same community or nearby, but not at greater distances
(see Caplow 1982, table 6). Christmas gifts to siblings are not required. Only about one-third of
the 274 sibling relationships reported by the sample were marked by Christmas gifts. The
proportion was no higher for siblings living dose than- for those farther away. However, gifts to
siblings do call for a return gift, this obligation is seldom scanted. ‗Gift giving to siblings‘
children, and parents‘ siblings and their respective spouses, appears to be entirely elective; fewer
than half of these are reciprocated. We have no way of knowing whether such gifts may be
reciprocated at another Christmas, but there were no references to deferred reciprocation in the
interviews.
The Reciprocity Rule does not require reciprocated gifts to be of equal value. Parents
expect to give more valuable and more numerous gifts to their minor children and to their adult
children living at home than they receive, in return. This imbalance is central to the entire ritual.
The iconography of Middletown‘s secular Christmas emphasizes unreciprocated giving to
children by the emblematic figure of Santa Claus, and the theme of unreciprocated giving
provides one of the few connections between the secular and religious iconography of the
festival—the Three Wise Men coming from a distant land to bring unreciprocated gifts to a child.
Equivalence of value tends to be disregarded in gift giving between husbands and wives
and between parents and their adult children. Husbands often give more valuable gifts to wives
than they receive from them. The gifts of parents to adult children are approximately balanced in
the aggregate—about the same number of substantial gifts are given in each direction—but there
is no insistence on equivalence in particular cases, and when we examine such relationships one
by one, we discover, many unbalanced exchanges which seem to be taken for granted.
Only in the relationship between siblings and sibling couples do we find any active
concern that the gifts exchanged be of approximately equal value, and even there it is more
important to give gifts of approximately equal value to several siblings than to exchange gifts of
equal value with each of them.
Empirically, the gift giving between adults and children in our sample was highly
unbalanced, in both quantity and value. Respondents gave 946 gifts to persons under 18 and
received 145 in return; 89 of these were of substantial value and six of the return gifts were. In
about one-third of these relationships, no gift was returned to the adult either by the child or in
34
the child‘s name. In most of the remaining relationships, the child returned a single gift of token
or modest value.
There is little reciprocity in the gift giving between non-kin; a large number of the gifts in
this category are addressed to persons who provide minor services; reciprocation in those cases
would be bizarre. Gifts from employers to employees, from grateful patients to physicians, and
from pupils to teachers do not call for reciprocation. The Christmas gifts exchanged en masse at
dub meetings and office parties are reciprocal to the extent that each participant gives and
receives some small gift, but there is no direct exchange between giver and receiver.
Discussion
Since the problem is to account for the uniformities of gift-giving behavior revealed by the data,
speaking of rules begs the question to some extent. Although we infer from the uniformities
observed in Middletown‘s Christmas gift giving that, somewhere in the culture, there must be
statements to which the observed behavior is a response, the crucial point is that we cannot find
those statements in any explicit form. Indeed, they are not recognized by participants in the
system. In effect, the rules of the game are unfamiliar to the players, even though they can be
observed to play meticulously by the rules. Instructions for Christmas gift giving are not found in
administrative regulations or popular maxims or books of etiquette; they are not promulgated.
Neither do they seem to be enforced by what Durkheim called ―the public conscience‖
(Durkheim 1895/1964, 2-3). People who scanted their Christmas obligations would not be
disapproved of by the public conscience in Middletown because Christmas gift giving is
visualized there as both a private, and a voluntary activity. We never heard anyone make an even
indirect reference to community opinion in connection with Christmas gift giving. As far as we
can tell, there are no customary forms of moral disapproval reserved for persons who neglect
their Christmas duties (which are not, of course, considered to be duties). The moral drift goes
the other way. Among Middletown‘s Protestant fundamentalists there are still vestiges of the
violent Puritan objection to the celebration of Christmas as a ―wanton Bacchanalian feast‖
(Barnett 1954, 1-23), which is commonly expressed in sermons about the ―degradation‖ and
―commercialization‖ of the festival.
Gift exchange, in effect, is a language that employs objects instead of words as its lexical
elements. In this perspective, every culture (there may be exotic exceptions, but I am unaware of
them) has a language of presentation to express important interpersonal relationships on special
occasions, just as it has a verbal language to create and manage meaning for other purposes. The
language of presentation, like the verbal language, begins to be leaned in early childhood and is
used with increasing assurance as the individual matures and acquires social understanding.
These natal languages are seldom completely forgotten, although new languages may be learned
by translation and practice. The problem of accounting for the enforcement of gift-giving rules
without visible means is simplified if we take them to be linguistic rules, or at least as similar to
them, because linguistic rules, for the most part, are enforced among native speakers of a
language without visible means and without being recognized explicitly. It may be objected that
school teachers do make linguistic rules explicit and then enforce them by reward and
punishment, but that is a rather special case of learning a new language or relearning a natal
language in more elegant form. The acquisition of language does not depend on schooling, and
the grammatical rules that are made explicit in school are only a small fraction of the ‗rules that
native speakers obey without being aware of their existence. The process whereby grammatical
rules acquire consensual support is partly instinctual, .partly cultural, and partly social. The
35
tendency to follow linguistic rules without explicit awareness appears to be innate in the
construction of new verbal combinations: young children acquire the language of the people who
raise them along with other elements of the ambient culture; and linguistic rules are selfenforcing insofar as the effective transmission of messages rewards both senders and receivers.
Visualizing Christmas gift giving as a language--or, more precisely, as a dialect or code
(Douglas 1972,1979) —helps to explain, among other matters, the insistence on wrapping and
other signs to identify the objects designated for lexical use and the preference for the
simultaneous exchange of gifts at family gatherings rather than in private.
In most cases such a gathering is composed of a parent–child unit containing one or two
parents and one or more children together with other persons who are tied to that unit by shared
membership in another parent–child unit, such as children‘s children, children‘s spouses,
parents‘ siblings, or parents‘ parents. Although there is room at a family gathering for a friend or
distant relative who otherwise might be solitary at Christmas, there is no convenient way of
including any large number of persons to whom no gift messages are owed.
Under the Scaling Rules, gift messages are due from every person in a parent–child
relationship to every other. The individual message says ―I value you according to the degree of
our relationship‖ and anticipates the response ―I value you in the same way.‖ But the compound
message that emerges from the unwrapping of gifts in the presence of the whole gathering allows
more subtle meanings to be conveyed. It permits the husband to say to the wife ―I value you
more than my parents‖ or the mother to say to the daughter-in-law ―I value you as much as my
son so long as you are married to him‖ or the brother to say to the brother ―I• value you more
than our absent brothers, but less than our parents and much less than my, children‖ These
statements, taken together, would define and sustain a social structure, if only because, by their
gift messages, both parties to each dyadic relationship confirm that they have the same
understanding of the relationship and the bystanders, who are interested parties, endorse that
understanding by tacit approval. The compound messages would have a powerful influence even
if they were idiosyncratic and each parent—child unit had its own method of scaling
relationships. In fact, there are some observable differences in scaling from one Middletown
family to another and from one subcultural group to another, but the similarities are much more
striking than the differences. We attribute this commonality to the shared dialect of Christmas
gift giving, hyper-developed lit Middletown and elsewhere in the United States in response to
commercial promotion, stresses in the family institution, and constant reiteration by the mass
media. Once the dialect is reasonably well known, these factors continue to enlarge its
vocabulary and its domain.
Another circumstance facilitating the standardization of the dialect is that nearly every
individual in this population belongs to more than one parent—child unit for Christmas giftgiving purposes. Because these units are linked and cross-linked to other units in a network that
ultimately includes the larger part of the community, they would probably tend to develop a
common set of understandings about appropriate kinship behavior, even without the
reinforcement provided by domestic rituals.
The most powerful reinforcement remains to be mentioned. In the dialect of Christmas
gift giving, the absence of a gift is also a lexical sign, signifying either the absence of a close
relation, as in the Christmas contact of cousins, or the desire to terminate a dose relationship, as
when a husband gives no gift to his wife. People who have once learned the dialect cannot
choose to forget it, nor can they pretend to ignore messages they understand. Thus, without any
complicated normative machinery, Middletown. people find themselves compelled to give
36
Christmas gifts to their dose relatives, lest they inadvertently send them messages of hostility In
this community, where most people depend on their relatives for emotional and social support,
the consequences of accidentally sending them a hostile message are too serious to contemplate,
and few are willing to ran the risk.
In sum, we discover that the participants in this gift-giving system are themselves the
agents who enforce its complex rules, although they do so unknowingly and without conscious
reference to a system. The dialect, once learned, imposes itself by linguistic necessity, and the
enforcement of its rules is the more effective for being unplanned.
37
Meanwhile Backstage: Behavior in Public Bathrooms
Spencer E. Cahill et al.
Erving Goffman, the founder of the dramaturgical perspective in sociology first
proposed that people behave in ways that they consciously manage in order to
foster the most favorable impression of themselves. They do this by scrupulously
adhering to the micro-social norms of individual and interactional behavior,
using backstage regions to prepare themselves for their frontstage, public
displays. To investigate these norms, Cahill and his students made systematic
observations in men’s and women’s public bathrooms, carefully recording
people’s behavior patterns. In a selection that is sure to generate both recognition
and amusement, Cahill, et al. describe and analyze the landscape of public
bathrooms, the common rituals found there, and the way people engage in
backstage behavior designed to support their appearance on the subsequent
reemergence into the public domain. The norms upheld in this private yet public
setting assert more fully how loyal members of society are to the behavioral
guidelines we share and the meaning that people attribute to them. Do you
recognize some of the behaviors that these authors describe? Have you ever
wondered why you do these things? How is the social order maintained by acting
in these ways?
Questions
1. Privacy is an issue when using the restroom? Goffman and the author of the article, Cahill,
suggest some reasons why privacy was important, what were they and what mechanisms or
techniques/devices are used to insure privacy?
2. What is so important about a line for the bathroom? Can the line be broken and if so, by who?
3. What is Civil In-Attention?
4. Describe the visual interaction in a typical male bathroom as described by the author.
5. After going to the bathroom, how do we go about putting our personal front back together?
6. Discuss how we are socialized to the norms/ritual of the bathroom.
7. Are the norms/rituals different here than in other countries?
Years ago the anthropologist Horace Miner (1955) suggested, with tongue planted firmly in
cheek, that many of the rituals that behaviorally express and sustain the central values of our
culture occur in bathrooms. Whether Miner realized it or not, and one suspects that he did, there
was more to tills thesis than his humorous interpretation of bathroom rituals suggests. As Erving
Goffman (1959: 112-113) once observed, the vital secrets of our public shows are often visible in
those settings that serve as backstage regions relative to our public performances:
…it is here that illusions and impressions are openly
constructed….Here the performer can relax; he can drop his front,
forgo speaking his lines, and step out of character.
Clearly, bathrooms or, as they are often revealingly called, restrooms, are such backstage
regions. By implication, therefore, systematic study of bathroom behavior may yield valuable
insights into the character and requirements of our routine public performances. . .
38
The Performance Regions of Public Bathrooms
Needless to say, one of the behaviors for which bathrooms are explicitly designed is defecation.
In our society, as Goffman (1959: 121) observed, ―defecation involves an individual in activity
which is defined as inconsistent with the cleanliness and purity standards‖ that govern our public
performances.
Such activity also causes the individual to disarrange his clothing and to ―go out of play,‖
that is, to drop from his face the expressive mask that he employs in face-to-face interaction. At
the same time it becomes difficult for him to reassemble his personal front should the need to
enter into interaction suddenly occur. [Goffinan, 1959: 121]
When engaged in the act of defecation, therefore, individuals seek to insulate themselves
from potential audiences in order to avoid discrediting the expressive masks that they publicly
employ. Indeed, over 60 percent of the 1000 respondents to a survey conducted in the early
1960s reported that they ―interrupted or postponed‖ defecation if they did not have sufficient
privacy (Kira, 1966: 58).
In an apparent attempt to provide such privacy, toilets in many public bathrooms are
surrounded by partially walled cubicles with doors that can be secured against potential
intrusions. In fact, public bathrooms that do not provide individuals this protection from potential
audiences are seldom used for the purpose of defecation. In the course of our research, for
example, we never observed an individual using an unenclosed toilet for this purpose. If a
bathroom contained both enclosed and unenclosed toilets, moreover, individuals ignored the
unenclosed toilets even when queues had formed outside of the enclosed toilets. In a sense,
therefore, the cubicles that typically surround toilets in public bathrooms, commonly called
stalls, physically divide such bathrooms into two distinct performance regions.
Indeed, Goffman (1971: 32) has used the term ―stall‖ to refer to any ―well-bounded space
to which individuals lay temporary claim, possession being on an all-or-nothing basis.‖ Clearly,
a toilet stall is a member of this sociological family of ecological arrangements. Sociologically
speaking, however, it is not physical boundaries, per se, that define a space as a stall but the
behavioral regard given such boundaries. For example, individuals who open or attempt to open
the door of an occupied toilet stall typically provide a remedy for this act, in most cases a brief
apology such as ―Whoops‖ or ―Sorry.‖ By offering such a remedy, the offending individual
implicitly defines the attempted intrusion as a delicate and, thereby, affirms his or her belief in a
rule that prohibits such intrusions (Goffinan, 1971: 113). In this sense, toilet stalls provide
occupying individuals not only physical protection against potential audiences but normative
protection as well.
In order to receive this protection, however, occupying individuals must clearly inform
others of their claim to such a stall. Although individuals sometimes lean down and look under
the doors of toilet stalls for feet, they typically expect occupying individuals to mark their claim
to a toilet stall by securely closing the door. On one occasion, for example, a middle-aged
woman began to push open the unlocked door of a toilet stall. Upon discovering that the stall was
occupied, she immediately said, ―I‘m sorry,‖ and closed the door. When a young woman
emerged from the stall a couple minutes later, the older woman apologized once again but
pointed out that ―the door was open.‖ The young woman responded, ―It‘s okay,‖ thereby
minimizing the offense and perhaps acknowledging a degree of culpability on her part.
As is the case with many physical barriers to perception (Goffman, 1963: 152), the walls
and doors of toilet stalls are also treated as if they cut off more communication than they actually
do. Under most circumstances, for example, the walls and doors of toilet stalls are treated as if
39
they were barriers to conversation. Although acquainted individuals may sometimes carryon a
conversation through the walls of a toilet stall if they believe the bathroom is not otherwise
occupied, they seldom do so if they are aware that others are present. Moreover, individuals
often attempt to ignore offensive sounds and smells that emanate from occupied toilet stalls,
even though the exercise of such ―tactful blindness‖ (Goffman, 1955: 219) is sometimes a
demanding task. In any case, the walls and doors of toilet stalls provide public actors with both
physical and normative shields behind which they can perform potentially discrediting acts.
Toilet stalls in public bathrooms are, therefore, publicly accessible yet private backstage
regions. Although same-sexed clients of a public establishment may lay claim to any unoccupied
stall in the bathroom designated for use by persons of their sex, once such a claim is laid, once
the door to the stall is closed, it is transformed into the occupying individual‘s private, albeit
temporary, retreat from the demands of public life. While occupying the stall, that individual can
engage in a variety of potentially discrediting acts with impunity.
When not concealed behind the protective cover of a toilet stall, however, occupants of
public bathrooms may be observed by others. For the most part, as previously noted, same-sexed
clients of a public establishment can enter and exit at will the bathroom designated for their use,
and it may be simultaneously occupied by as many individuals as its physical dimensions allow.
By implication, therefore, occupants of public bathrooms must either perform or be ready to
perform for an audience. As a result, the behavior that routinely occurs in the ―open region‖ of a
public bathroom, that area that is not enclosed by toilet stalls, resembles, in many important
respects, the behavior that routinely occurs in other public settings. . . .
The Rituals of Public Bathrooms
As Goffinan (1971) convincingly argued, much of this behavior can best be described as
―interpersonal rituals.‖ Emile Durkheim (1965), in his famous analysis of religion, defined a
ritual as a perfunctory, conventionalized act which expresses respect and regard for some object
of ―ultimate value.‖ In a different context, moreover, he observed that in modern, Western
societies, the human personality is a sacred thing; one dare not violate it nor infringe its bounds,
while at the same time the greatest good is in communion with others. . . . [Durkheim, 1974: 37]
According to Durkheim, negative rituals express respect and regard for objects of
ultimate value by protecting them nom profanation. By implication, according to Goffinan
(1971: 62), negative interpersonal rituals involve the behavioral honoring of the sacred
individual‘s right to private ―preserves‖ and ―to be let alone:‘ For example, individuals typically
refrain from physically, conversationally; or visually intruding on an occupied toilet stall. In
doing so, they implicitly honor the occupying individual‘s right to be let alone and in this respect
perform a negative interpersonal ritual.
Similarly, the queues that typically form in public bathrooms when the demand for sinks,
urinals, and toilet stalls exceeds the available supply are also products of individuals‘ mutual
performance of negative interpersonal rituals. Individuals typically honor one another‘s right to
the turn claimed by taking up a position in such a queue, even when ―creature releases‖
(Goffman, 1963: 69) threaten to break through their self-control. Young children provide an
occasional exception, sometimes ignoring the turn-order of such queues. Yet even then the
child‘s caretaker typically requests, on the child‘s behalf, the permission of those waiting in the
queue. Between performances at a music festival, for example, a preschool-age girl and her
mother were observed rapidly walking toward the entrance to a women‘s bathroom out of which
a queue extended for several yards down a nearby sidewalk. As they walked past those waiting
in the queue, the mother repeatedly asked: ―Do you mind? She really has to go.‖
40
The interpersonal rituals that routinely occur in the open region of public bathrooms are
not limited, however, to negative ones. If individuals possess a small patrimony of sacredness,
then, as Durkheim (1974: 37) noted, ―the greatest good is in communion‖ with such sacred
objects. When previously acquainted individuals come into contact with one another, therefore,
they typically perform conventionalized acts, positive interpersonal rituals, that express respect
and regard for their previous communion with one another. In a sense, moreover, negative and
positive interpersonal rituals are two sides of the same expressive coin. Whereas negative
interpersonal rituals symbolically protect individuals from profanation by others, positive
interpersonal rituals symbolically cleanse communion between individuals of its potentially
defiling implications. Although a positive interpersonal ritual may consist of no more than a brief
exchange of greetings, failure to at least acknowledge one‘s previous communion with another
is, in effect, to express disregard for the relationship and, by implication, the other individual‘s
small patrimony of sacredness (Goffinan, 1971: 62-94).
Even when previously acquainted individuals come into contact with one another in a
public bathroom, therefore, they typically acknowledge their prior relationship. In fact, the
performance of such positive interpersonal rituals sometimes interfered with the conduct of our
research. On one occasion, for example, a member of the research team was in the open region of
an otherwise unoccupied men‘s bathroom. While he was writing some notes about an incident
that had just occurred, an acquaintance entered.
A: Hey-! (walks to a urinal and unzips his pants) Nothing like
pissin.
0: Yup.
A: Wh‘da hell ya doin? (walks over to a sink and washes hands)
0: Writing.
A: Heh, heh, yea. About people pissin . . . That‘s for you.
0: Yup.
A: Take care.
0: Mmm Huh.
As this incident illustrates, individuals must be prepared to perform positive
interpersonal rituals when in the open region of public bathrooms, especially
those in public establishments with a relatively stable clientele. Whereas some of
these may consist of no more than a brief exchange of smiles, others may involve
lengthy conversations that reaffirm the participants‘ shared biography.
In contrast, when unacquainted individuals come into contact with one another in the
open regions of public bathrooms, they typically perform a brief, negative interpersonal ritual
that Goffiman (1963: 84) termed ―civil inattention‖:
...one gives to another enough visual notice to demonstrate that one
appreciates that the other is present . . . while at the next moment
withdrawing one‘s attention from him so as to express that he does
not constitute a target of special curiosity or design.
Through this brief pattern of visual interaction, individuals both acknowledge one another‘s
presence and, immediately thereafter, one another‘s right to be let alone.
A variation on civil inattention is also commonly performed in the open region of public
bathrooms, most often by men using adjacent urinals. Although masculine clothing permits
males to urinate without noticeably disturbing their clothed appearance, they must still partially
expose their external genitalia in order to do so. Clearly, the standards of modesty that govern
41
public behavior prohibit even such limited exposure of the external genitalia. Although the sides
of some urinals and the urinating individual‘s back provide partial barriers to perception, they do
not provide protection against the glances of someone occupying an adjacent urinal. In our
society, however, ―when bodies are naked, glances are clothed‖ (Goffman, 1971: 46). What men
typically give one another when using adjacent urinals is not, therefore, civil inattention but
―nonperson treatment‖ (Goffman, 1963: 83-84); that is, they treat one another as if they were
part of the setting‘s physical equipment, as ―objects not worthy of a glance.‖ When
circumstances allow, of course, unacquainted males typically avoid occupying adjacent urinals
and thereby, this ritually delicate situation.
It is not uncommon, however, for previously acquainted males to engage in conversation
while using adjacent urinals. For example, the following interaction was observed in the
bathroom of a restaurant.
A middle-aged man is standing at one of two urinals. Another
middle-aged man enters the bathroom and, as he approaches, the
available urinal, greets the first man by name. The first man
quickly casts a side-long glace at the second and returns the
greeting. He then asks the second man about his ―new
granddaughter,‖ and they continue to talk about grandchildren until
one of them zips up his pants and walks over to the sink.
Throughout the conversation, neither man turned his head so as to
look at the other.
As this example illustrates, urinal conversations are often characterized by a lack of
visual interaction between the participants. Instead of looking at one another while listening, it is
typical among white, middle-class Americans (see LaFrance and Mayo, 1976), participants in
such conversations typically fix their gaze on the wall immediately in front of them, an intriguing
combination of constituent elements of positive and negative interpersonal rituals. Although
ritually celebrating their prior communion with one another, they also visually honor one
another‘s right to privacy.
Due to the particular profanations and threats of profanations that characterize public
bathrooms, moreover, a number of variations on these general patterns also commonly occur. In
our society, as Goffman (1971:41) observed, bodily excreta are considered ―agencies of
defilement.‖ Although supported by the germ theory, this view involves somewhat more than a
concern for hygiene. Once such substances as urine, fecal matter, menstrual discharge, and flatus
leave individual‘s bodies, they acquire the power to profane even though they may not have the
power to infect. In any case, many of the activities in which individuals engage when in
bathrooms are considered both self-profaning and potentially profaning to others. As a result, a
variety of ritually delicate situations often arise in public bathrooms.
After using urinals and toilets, for example, individuals‘ hands are considered
contaminated and, consequently, a course of contamination to others. In order to demonstrate
both self-respect and respect for those with whom they might come into contact, individuals are
expected to and often do wash their hands after using urinals and toilets. Sinks for this purpose
are located in the open region of the public bathrooms, allowing others to witness the
performance of this restorative ritual. Sometimes, however, public bathrooms are not adequately
equipped for this purpose. Most commonly, towel dispensers are empty or broken. Although
individuals sometimes do not discover this situation until after they have already washed their
hands, they often glance at towel dispensers as they walk from urinals and toilet stalls to sinks. If
42
they discover that the towel dispensers are empty or broken, there is typically a moment of
indecision. Although they sometimes proceed to wash their hands and then dry them on their
clothes, many times they hesitate, facially display disgust, and audibly sigh. By performing these
gestures-in-the-round, they express a desire to wash their hands; their hands may remain
contaminated, but their regard for their own and others‘ sacredness is established.
Because the profaning power of odor operates over a distance and in all directions,
moreover, individuals who defecate in public bathrooms not only temporarily profane
themselves but also risk profaning the entire setting. If an individual is clearly responsible for the
odor of feces or flatus that fills a bathroom, therefore, he or she must rely on others to identify
sympathetically with his or her plight and, consequently, exercise tactful blindness. However,
this is seldom left to chance. When other occupants of the bathroom are acquaintances, the
offending individual may offer subtle, self-derogatory display as a defensive, face-saving
measure (Goffman, 1955). Upon emerging from toilet stalls, for example, such persons
sometimes look at acquaintances and facially display disgust. Self-effacing humor is also
occasionally used in this way. On one occasion, for example, an acquaintance of a member of the
research team emerged from a toilet stall after having filled the bathroom with a strong fecal
odor. He walked over to a sink, smiled at the observer, and remarked: ―Something died in there.‖
Through such subtle self-derogation, offending individuals metaphorically split themselves into
two parts: a sacred self that assigns blame and a blameworthy animal self. Because the offending
individual assigns blame, moreover, there is no need for others to do so (Goffinan, 1971: 113).
If other occupants of the bathroom are unfamiliar to the offending individual, however, a
somewhat different defensive strategy is commonly employed. Upon emerging from a toilet stall,
individuals who are clearly responsible for an offensive odor seldom engage in visual interaction
with unacquainted others. In so doing, they avoid visually acknowledging not only the presence
of others but others‘ acknowledgement of their own presence as well. In a sense, therefore, the
offending individual temporarily suspends his or her claim to the status of sacred object, an
object worthy of such visual regard. The assumption seems to be that by suspending one‘s claim
to this status, others need not challenge it and are, consequently, more likely to exercise tactful
blindness in regard to the offense.
Despite Miner‘s humorous misidentification and interpretation of bathroom rituals,
therefore, there is something to recommend the view that many of the rituals that behaviorally
express and sustain the central values of our culture occur in bathrooms. Although these‖ central
values do but itch a little,‖ as Goffman (1971: 185) noted,‖ everyone scratches.‖ And, it must be
added, they often scratch in public bathrooms. However, routine bathroom behavior consists of
more than the interpersonal rituals that are found in other public settings or variations on their
general theme.
Managing Personal Fronts
When in a public setting, as Goffinan (1963: 24) pointed out, individuals are expected to have
their ―faculties in readiness for any face-to-face interaction that might come‖ their way. One of
the most evident means by which individuals express such readiness is ―through the disciplined
management of personal appearance or ‗personal front,‘ that is, the complex of clothing, makeup, hairdo, and other surface decorations‖ that they carry about on their person (Goffinan, 1963:
25). Of course, keeping one‘s personal front in a state of good repair requires care and effort
(Gross and Stone, 1964: 10). However, individuals who are inspecting or repairing their personal
fronts in public encounter difficulties in maintaining the degree of interactional readiness often
expected of them; their attention tends to be diverted from the social situations that surround
43
them (Goffinan, 1963: 66). For the most part, therefore, close scrutinization and major
adjustments of personal fronts are confined to backstage regions such as public bathrooms.
Most public bathrooms are equipped for this purpose. Many offer coin operated
dispensers of a variety of ―personal care products‖ (e.g., combs and sanitary napkins), and almost
all have at least one mirror. The most obvious reason for the presence of mirrors in public
bathrooms is that the act of defecation and, for females, urination, requires individuals to literally
―drop‖ their personal fronts. In order to ensure that they have adequately reconstructed their
personal front after engaging in such an act, individuals must and typically do perform what
Lofland (1972) has termed a ―readiness check.‖ For example, the following was observed in the
men‘s bathroom of a neighborhood bar:
A young man emerges from a toilet stall and, as he passes the
mirror, hesitates. He glances side-long at his reflection, gives a nod
of approval then walks out the door.
When such a readiness check reveals flaws in the individual‘s personal front, he or she typically
makes the appropriate repairs: shirts are often retucked into pants and skirts, skirts are rotated
around the waist, and pants are tugged up and down.
Because bodily movement and exposure to the elements can also disturb a disciplined
personal front, the post-defecation or urination readiness check sometimes reveals flaws in
individuals‘ personal fronts that are the result of normal wear and tear. Upon emerging from
toilet stalls and leaving urinals, therefore, individuals sometimes repair aspects of their personal
fronts that are not normally disturbed in the course of defecating or urinating. For example, the
following was observed in the women‘s bathroom of a student center on a college campus.
A young woman emerges from a toilet stall, approaches a mirror, and inspects her
reflection. She then removes a barrette from her hair, places the barrette in her mouth, takes a
comb out of her coat pocket, and combs her hair while smoothing it down with her other hand.
With the barrette still in her mouth, she stops combing her hair, gazes intently at the mirror and
emits an audible ―ick.‖ She then places the barrette back in her hair, pinches her cheeks, takes a
last look at her reflection and exits.
Interestingly, as both this example and the immediately preceding one illustrate,
individuals sometimes offer visible or audible evaluations of their reflections when inspecting
and repairing their personal front, a finding that should delight proponents of Meadian
sociological psychology. Public bathrooms may protect individuals from the critical reviews of
external audiences, but they do not protect them from those of their internal audience.
In any case, public bathrooms are as much ―self-service‖ repair shops for personal fronts
as they are socially approved shelters for physiological acts that are inconsistent with the
cleanliness and purity standards that govern our public performances. In fact, individuals often
enter public bathrooms with no apparent purpose other than the management of their personal
onto For example, it is not uncommon for males to enter public bathrooms, walk directly to the
nearest available mirror, comb their hair, rearrange their clothing, and then immediately exit. In
our society, of course, females are often expected to present publicly a more extensively
managed personal front than are males. Consequently, females often undertake extensive repairs
in public bathrooms. For example, the following was observed in the women‘s bathroom of a
student center on a college campus:
Two young women enter, one goes to a toilet stall and the other
immediately approaches a mirror. The second woman takes a brush
out of her bookbag, throws her hair forward, brushes it, throws her
44
hair back, and brushes it into place. She returns the brush to her
bookbag, smoothes down her eyebrows, and wipes underneath her
eyes with her fingers. She then removes a tube of lipstick from her
bookbag, applies it to her lips, and uses her finger to remove the
lipstick that extends beyond the natural outline of her lips. As her
friend emerges from the toilet stall, she puts the lipstick tube back
into her bookbag, straightens her collar so that it stands up under
her sweater and then exits with her friend.
Even though individuals routinely inspect and repair their personal fronts in the open
regions of public bathrooms, they often do so furtively. When others enter the bathroom,
individuals sometimes suspend inspecting or repairing their personal fronts until the new arrivals
enter toilet stalls or approach urinals. In other cases, they hurriedly complete these activities
before they can be witnessed. For example, the following was observed from inside a toilet stall
in a women‘s bathroom:
A young woman walks to the end of the sinks where there is a fulllength mirror. She turns sideways, inspects her reflection and
reaches up to adjust her clothing. The outer door of the bathroom
begins to open, and the young woman quickly walks over to the
sink on which her purse is laying, picks it up and heads for the
door.
Despite the furtiveness that sometimes characterizes individuals‘ inspection and repair of
their personal fonts, however, the open region of a public bathroom is often the only available
setting in which they can engage in these activities without clearly undermining their frontstage
performances. As Lofland (1972: 101) observed in a somewhat different context, ―it is
apparently preferable to be witnessed by a few. . . In a brief episode of backstage behavior than
to be caught. . . with one‘s presentation down‖ on the frontstage. . . .
In short, the systematic study of routine bathroom behavior reveals just how loyal
members of this society are to the central values and behavioral standards that hold our collective
lives together. Whatever else they may do, users of public bathrooms continue to bear the ―cross
of personal character‖ (Goffinan, 1971: 185), and, as long as they continue to carry this burden,
remain self-regulating participants in the ―interaction order‖ (Goffman, 1983).
45
“Getting” and “Making” a Tip
Greta Foff Paules
In this 1991 article, Greta Foff Paules, who received a PhD. in cultural
anthropology from Princeton University, takes us into the world of the waitress. If
you‘ve never waited on tables, you might naturally assume that waitresses (and
waiters, for that matter) are there to serve the customers. But as Paules discovered
through participant observation, there is a lot more to the customer—waitress
relationship than meets the eye. You decide who has what kind of power in this
relationship.
Questions
1. You‘ve just been out to dinner at a nice restaurant. Your waitress presented you with a tab for
$72.50. Assuming the service was fine, how much did you tip her? How much do you think she
might have expected? Where did you learn the appropriate amount to tip?
2. Have you ever tried to send a ―message‖ to a waitperson by leaving no tip or a very small one?
What was that message? Whether you‘ve ever sent such a message, based on what you‘ve read
in Paules‘s article, do you think the message was received?
3. How do diners and fine eating establishments differ in tipping expectations?
4. Do some people think that service personnel are less than human?
The waitress can‘t help feeling a sense of personal failure and public censure when she is ―stiffed.‖
—William F. Whyte, ―When Workers and Customers Meet‖
They‘re rude, they‘re ignorant, they‘re obnoxious, they‘re inconsiderate.... Half of these people don‘t deserve to
come out and eat, let alone try and tip a waitress.
—Route waitress
Making a Tip at Route
A common feature of past research is that the worker‘s control over the tipping system is
evaluated in terms of her efforts to con, coerce, compel, or otherwise manipulate a customer into
relinquishing a bigger tip. Because these efforts have for the most part proven futile, the worker
has been seen as having little defense against the financial vicissitudes of the tipping system.
What these studies have overlooked is that an employee can increase her tip income by
controlling the number as well as the size of tips she receives. This oversight has arisen from the
tendency of researchers to concentrate narrowly on the relationship between server and served,
while failing to take into account the broader organizational context in which this relationship
takes place.
Like service workers observed in earlier studies, waitresses at Route strive to boost the
amount of individual gratuities by rendering special services and being especially friendly. As
one waitress put it, ―I‘ll sell you the world if you‘re in my station.‖ In general though, waitresses
at Route Restaurant seek to boost their tip income, not by increasing the amount of individual
gratuities, but by increasing the number of customers they serve. They accomplish this (a) by
securing the largest or busiest stations and working the most lucrative shifts; (b) by ―turning‖
their tables quickly; and (c) by controlling the flow of customers within the restaurant.
46
Technically, stations at Route are assigned on a rotating basis so that all waitresses,
including rookies, work fast and slow stations equally. Station assignments are listed on the work
schedule that is posted in the office window where it can be examined by all workers on all
shifts, precluding the possibility of blatant favoritism or discrimination. Yet a number of
methods exist whereby experienced waitresses are able to circumvent the formal rotation system
and secure the more lucrative stations for themselves. A waitress can trade assignments with a
rookie who is uncertain of her ability to handle a fast station; she can volunteer to take over a
large station when a call-out* necessitates reorganization of station assignments; or she can
establish herself as the only waitress capable of handling a particularly large or chaotic station.
Changes in station assignments tend not to be formally recorded, so inconsistencies in
the rotation system often do not show up on the schedule. Waitresses on the same shift may
notice of course that a co-worker has managed to avoid an especially slow station for many
days, or has somehow ended up in the busiest station two weekends in a row, but the waitresses‘
code of noninterference ... inhibits them from openly objecting to such irregularities. (*A call-out
(which more logically might be termed a ―call-in‖) occurs when an employee calls in sick or with some other reason
why he or she can‘t make it to work that day.)
A waitress can also increase her tip income by working the more lucrative shifts. Because
day is the busiest and therefore most profitable shift at Route, it attracts experienced,
professional waitresses who are most concerned and best able to maximize their tip earnings.
There are exceptions: some -competent, senior-ranking waitresses are unable to work during the
day due to time constraints of family or second jobs. Others choose not to work during the day
despite the potential monetary rewards, because they are unwilling to endure the intensely
competitive atmosphere for which day shift is infamous.
The acutely competitive environment that characterizes day shift arises from the
aggregate striving of each waitress to maximize her tip income by serving the greatest possible
number of customers. Two strategies are enlisted to this end. First, each waitress attempts to turn
her tables as quickly as possible. Briefly stated, this means she takes the order, delivers the food,
clears and resets a table, and begins serving the next party as rapidly as customer lingering and
the speed of the kitchen allow. A seven-year veteran of Route describes the strategy and its
rewards:
What I do is I prebus my tables. When the people get up and go all
I got is glasses and cups, pull off, wipe, set, and I do the table
turnover. But see that‘s from day shift. See the girls on graveyard
... don‘t understand the more times you turn that table the more
money you make. You could have three tables and still make a
hundred dollars. If you turn them tables.
As the waitress indicates, a large part of turning tables involves getting the table cleared and set
for the next customer. During a rush, swing and grave waitresses tend to leave dirty tables
standing, partly because they are less experienced and therefore less efficient, partly to avoid
being given parties, or sat, when they are already behind. In contrast, day waitresses assign high
priority to keeping their tables cleared and ready for customers. The difference in method reflects
increased skill and growing awareness of and concern with money-making strategies.
A waitress can further increase her customer count by controlling the flow of customers within
the restaurant. Ideally the hostess or manager running the front house rotates customers among
stations, just as stations are rotated among waitresses. Each waitress is given, or sat, one party at
a time in turn so that all waitresses have comparable customer counts at the close of a shift.
47
When no hostess is on duty, or both she and the manager are detained and customers are waiting
to be seated, waitresses will typically seat incoming parties.
Whether or not a formal hostess is on duty, day waitresses are notorious for by-passing the
rotation system by-racing to the door and directing incoming customers to their own tables. A
sense of the urgency with which this strategy is pursued is conveyed in the comment of one fiveyear veteran, ―They‘ll run you down to get that person at the door, to seat them in their station.‖
The competition for customers is so intense during the day that some waitresses claim they
cannot afford to leave the floor (even to use the restroom) lest they return to find a coworker‘s
station filled at their expense. ―In the daytime, honey,‖ remarks an eight-year Route waitress, ―in
the daytime it‘s like pulling teeth. You got to stay on the floor to survive. To survive.‖ It is in
part because they do not want to lose customers and tips to their co-workers that waitresses do
not take formal breaks. Instead, they rest and eat between waiting tables or during lulls in
business, returning to the floor intermittently to check on parties in progress and seat customers
in their stations.
The fast pace and chaotic nature of restaurant work provide a cover for the waitress‘s
aggressive pursuit of customers, since it is difficult for other servers to monitor closely the
allocation of parties in the bustle and confusion of a rush. Still, it is not uncommon for waitresses
to grumble to management and coworkers if they notice an obvious imbalance in customer
distribution. Here again, the waitress refrains from directly criticizing her fellow servers, voicing
her displeasure by commenting on the paucity of customers in her own station rather than the
overabundance of customers in the stations of certain co-waitresses. In response to these
grumblings, other waitresses may moderate somewhat their efforts to appropriate new parties
and management may make a special effort to seat the disgruntled server favorably.
A waitress can also exert pressure on the manager or hostess to keep her station filled.
She may, for instance, threaten to leave if she is not seated enough customers.
I said, ―Innes [a manager], I‘m in [station] one and two. If one and
two is not filled at all times from now until three, I‘m getting my
coat, my pocketbook, and I‘m leaving.‖ And one and two was
filled, and I made ninety-five dollars.
Alternatively, she can make it more convenient for the manager or hostess to seat her rather her
co-workers, either by keeping her tables open (as described), or by taking extra tables. If
customers are waiting to be seated, a waitress may offer to pick up parties in a station that is
dosed or, occasionally, to pick up parties in another waitress‘s station. In attempting either
strategy, but especially the latter, the waitress must be adept not only at waiting tables, but in
interpersonal restaurant politics. Autonomy and possession are of central concern to waitresses,
and a waitress who offers to pick up tables outside her station must select her words carefully if
she is to avoid being accused of invading her co-workers‘ territory. Accordingly, she may choose
to present her bid for extra parties as an offer to help—the manager, another waitress, the
restaurant, customers--rather than as a request.
The waitress who seeks to increase her tip income by maximizing the number of
customers she serves may endeavor to cut her losses by refusing to serve parties that have stiffed
her in the past. If she is a low-ranking waitress, her refusal is likely to be overturned by the
manager. If she is an experienced and valuable waitress, the manager may ask someone else to
take the party, assure the waitress he will take care of her (that is, pad the bill and give her the
difference), or even pick up the party himself. Though the practice is far from common, a
48
waitress may go so far as to demand a tip from a customer who has been known to stiff in the
past.
This party of two guys come in and they order thirty to forty
dollars worth of food and they stiff us every time. So Kaddie told
them, ―If you don‘t tip us, we‘re not going to wait on you.‖ They
said, ―We‘ll tip you.‖ So Kaddie waited on them, and they tipped
her. The next night they came in, I waited on them and they didn‘t
tip me. The third time they came in [the manager] put them in my
station and I told [the manager] straight up, ―I‘, not waiting on
them…‖ So he made Hailey pick them up. And they stiffed
Hailey. So when they came in the next night…[they] said, ―Are
you going to give us a table?‖ I said, ―You going to tip me? I‘m
not going to wait on you. You got all that money, you sell all that
crack on the streets and you can‘t even leave me a couple of
bucks?‖…So they left me a dollar. So when they come in Tuesday
night, I‘m telling them a dollar ain‘t enough.
The tactics employed by waitresses, and particularly day-shift waitresses, to increase their
customer count and thereby boost their tip earnings have earned them a resounding notoriety
among their less competitive co-workers. Day (and some swing) waitresses are described as
―money hungry,‖ ―sneaky little bitches,‖ ―self-centered,‖ ―aggressive,‖ ―backstabbing bitches,‖
and ―cutthroats over tables.‖ The following remarks of two Route waitresses, however, indicate
that those who employ these tactics see them as defensive, not aggressive measures. A sense of
the waitress‘s preoccupation with autonomy and with protecting what is hers also emerges from
these comments.
You have to be like that. Because if you don‘t be like that, people
step on you. You know, like as far as getting customers. I mean,
you know, I‘m sorry everybody says I‘m greedy. I guess that‘s
why I‘ve survived this long at Route. Cause I am greedy.... I want
what‘s mine, and if it comes down to me cleaning your table or my
table, I‘m going to clean my table. Because see I went through all
that stage where I would do your table. To be fair. And you would
walk home with seventy dollars, and I‘d have twenty-five, cause I
was being fair all night.
If the customer comes in the door and r m there getting that door,
don‘t expect me to cover your backside while you in the back
smoking a cigarette and I‘m here working for myself. You‘re not
out there working for me .... When I go to the door and get the
customers, when I keep my tables clean and your tables are dirty,
and you wonder why you only got one person ... then that‘s just
tough shit. ... You‘re damn right my station is filled. I‘m not here
for you.
49
Whether the waitress who keeps her station filled with customers is acting aggressively or
defensively, her tactics are effective. It is commonly accepted that determined day waitresses
make better money than less competitive co-workers even when working swing or grave.
Moreover Nera, the waitress most infamous for her relentless use of ―money-hungry tactics,‖ is
at the same time most famous for her consistently high daily takes. While other waitresses jingle
change in their aprons, Nera is forced to store wads of bills in her shoes and in paper bags to
prevent tips from overflowing her pockets. She claims to make a minimum of five hundred
dollars a week in tip earnings; her record for one day‘s work exceeds two hundred dollars and is
undoubtedly the record for the restaurant.
Inverting the Symbolism of Tipping
It may already be apparent that the waitress views the customer - not as a master to pamper and
appease--but as a substance to be processed as quickly and in as large a quantity as possible. The
difference in perspective is expressed in the objectifying terminology of waitresses: a customer
or party is referred to as a table, or by table number, as table five or simply five; serving
successive parties at a table is referred to as turning the table; taking an order is also known as
picking up a table; and to serve water, coffee, or other beverages is to water, coffee, or beverage
a table, number or customer. Even personal acquaintances assume the status of inanimate matter,
or tip-bearing plants, in the language of the server:
I got my fifth-grade teacher [as a customer] one time .... I kept her
coffeed. I kept her boyfriend coked all night. Sodaed .... And I kept
them filled up.
If the customer is perceived as material that is processed, the goal of this processing is the
production or extraction of a finished product the tip. This image too is conveyed in the language
of the floor. A waitress may comment that she‖ got a good tip‖ or ―gets good tips,‖ but she is
more likely to say that she‖ made‖ or ―makes good tips.‖ She may also say that she‖ got five
bucks out of‖ a customer, or complain that some customers‖ don‘t want to give up on‖ their
money. She may accuse a waitress who stays over into her shift of ―tapping on‖ her money, or
warn an aspiring waitress against family restaurants on the grounds that ―there‘s no money in
there. In all these comments (and all are actual), the waitress might as easily be talking about
mining for coal or drilling for oil as serving customers.
Predictably, the waitress‘s view of the customer as substance to be processed influences her
perception of the meaning of tips, and especially substandard tips. At Route, low tips and stiffs
are not interpreted as a negative reflection on the waitress‘s personal qualities or social status.
Rather, they are felt to reveal the refractory nature or poor quality of the raw material from which
the tip is extracted, produced, or fashioned. In less metaphorical terms, a low tip or stiff is
thought to reflect the negative qualities and low status of the customer who is too cheap, too
poor, too ignorant, or too coarse to leave an appropriate gratuity. In this context, it is interesting
to note that stiff, the term used in restaurants to refer to incidents of nontipping or to someone
who does not tip, has also been used to refer to a wastrel or penniless man, a hobo, tramp,
vagabond, deadbeat, and a moocher (Wentworth and Flexner 1975).
Evidence that waitresses assign blame for poor tips to the tipper is found in their reaction
to being undertipped or stiffed. Rather than breaking down in tears and lamenting her ―personal
failure,‖ the Route waitress responds to a stiff by announcing the event to her coworkers and
managers in a tone of angry disbelief. Co-workers and managers echo the waitress‘s indignation
50
and typically ask her to identify the party (by table number and physical description), or if she
has already done so, to be more specific. This identification is crucial for it allows sympathizers
to join the waitress in analyzing the cause of the stiff, which is assumed a priori to arise from
some shortcoming of the party, not the waitress. The waitress and her co-workers may conclude
that the customers in question were rude, troublemakers, or bums, or they may explain their
behavior by identifying them as members of a particular category of customers. It might be
revealed, for instance, that the offending party was a church group: church groups are invariably
tightfisted. It might be resolved that the offenders were senior citizens, Southerners, or
businesspeople: all well-known cheapskates. If the customers
were European, the stiff will be attributed to ignorance of the American tipping system; if they
were young, to immaturity; if they had children, to lack of funds.
These classifications and their attendant explanations are neither fixed nor trustworthy.
New categories are invented to explain otherwise puzzling incidents, and all categories are
subject to exception. Though undependable as predictive devices, customer typologies serve a
crucial function: they divert blame for stiffs and low tips from the waitress to the characteristics
of the customer. It is for this reason that it is ―important‖ for workers to distinguish between
different categories of customers, despite the fact that such distinctions are based on ―unreliable
verbal and appearance clues.‖ In fact, it is precisely the unreliability, or more appropriately the
flexibility, of customer typologies that makes them valuable to waitresses. When categories can
be constructed and dissolved on demand, there is no danger that an incident will fall outside the
existing system of classification and hence be inexplicable.
While waitresses view the customer as something to be processed and the tip as the
product of this processing, they are aware that the public does not share their understanding of
the waitress—diner—tip relationship. Waitresses at Route recognize that many customers
perceive them as needy creatures willing to commit great feats of service and absorb high doses
of abuse in their anxiety to secure a favorable gratuity or protect their jobs. They are also aware
that some customers leave small tips with the intent to insult the server and that others undertip
on the assumption that for a Route waitress even fifty cents will be appreciated. One waitress
indicated that prior to being employed in a restaurant, she herself subscribed to the stereotype of
the down-and-out waitress ―because you see stuff on television, you see these wives or single
ladies who waitress and they live in shimmy apartments or slummy houses and they dress in
rags.‖ It is these images of neediness and desperation, which run so strongly against the
waitress‘s perception of herself and her position, that she attacks when strained relations erupt
into open conflict.
Five rowdy black guys walked in the door and they went to seat
themselves at table seven. I said, ―Excuse me. You all got to wait
to be seated.‖ ―We ain‘t got to do shit. We here to eat....‖ So they
went and sat down. And I turned around and just looked at them.
And they said, ―Well, I hope you ain‘t our waitress,
cause you blew your tip. Cause you ain‘t getting nothing from us.‖
And I turned around and I said, ―You need it more than I do,
baby.‖
This waitress‘s desire to confront the customer‘s assumption of her destitution is widely
shared among service workers whose status as tipped employees marks them as needy in the
eyes of their customers. Davis (1959, 162-163) reports that among cabdrivers ―a forever repeated
51
story is of the annoyed driver, who, after a grueling trip with a Lady Shopper, hands the coin
back, telling her, ‗Lady, keep your lousy dime. You need it more than I do.‘‖ Mars and Nicod
(1984, 75) report a hotel waitress‘s claim that ―if she had served a large family with children for
one or two weeks, and then was given a 10p piece, she would give the money back, saying, ‗It‘s
all right, thank you, I‘ve got enough change for my bus fare home.‖ In an incident I observed
(not at Route), a waitress followed two male customers out of a restaurant calling, ―Excuse me!
You forgot this!‖ and holding up the coins they had left as a tip. The customers appeared
embarrassed, motioned for her to keep the money, and continued down the sidewalk. The
waitress, now standing in the outdoor seating area of the restaurant and observed by curious
diners, threw the money after the retreating men and returned to her work. Episodes such as these
allow the worker to repudiate openly the evaluation of her financial status that is implied in an
offensively small gratuity, and permit her to articulate her own understanding of what a small tip
says and about whom. If customers can only afford to leave a dime, or feel a 10p piece is
adequate compensation for two weeks‘ service, they must be very hard up or very ignorant
indeed.
In the following incident the waitress interjects a denial of her neediness into an
altercation that is not related to tipping, demonstrating that the customer‘s perception of her
financial status is a prominent and persistent concern for her.
She [a customer] wanted a California Burger with mayonnaise.
And when I got the mayonnaise, the mayonnaise had a little brown
on it... So this girl said to me, she said, ―What the fuck is this you
giving me?‖ And I turned around, I thought, ―Maybe she‘s talking
to somebody else in the booth with her.‖ And I turned around and I
said, ―Excuse me?‖ She said, ―You hear what I said. I said, ‗What
the fuck are you giving me?‖ And I turned around, I said, ―I don‘t
know if you‘re referring your information to me,‖ I said, ―but if
you‘re referring your information to me,‖ I said, ―I don‘t need your
bullshit.‖ I said, ―I‘m not going to even take it.... Furthermore, I
could care less if you eat or don‘t eat...: And you see this?‘ And I
took her check and I ripped it apart .. . And I took the California
Burger and I says, ―You don‘t have a problem anymore now,
right?‖ She went up to the manager. And she says, ―That black
waitress‖ —J says, ―Oh. By the way, what is my name? I don‘t
have a name, [using the words] ‗that black waitress‘.... My name
happens to be Nera.... That‘s N-E-R A... . And I don‘t need your
bullshit, sweetheart... People like you I can walk on, because you
don‘t know how to talk to human beings.‖ And I said, ―I don‘t
need you. I don‘t need your quarters. I don‘t need your nickels. I
don‘t need your dimes. So if you want service, be my guest Don‘t
you ever sit in my station, cause I won‘t wait on you‖ The manager
said, ―Nera, please. Would you wait in the back?‖ I said, ―No. I
don‘t take back seats no more for nobody.‖
In each of these cases, the waitress challenges the customer‘s definition of the
relationship in which tipping occurs. By speaking out, by confronting the customer, she
demonstrates that she is not subservient or in fear of losing her job; that she is not compelled by
52
financial need or a sense of social hierarchy to accept abuse from customers; that she does not, in
Nera‘s words, ―take back seats no more for nobody.‖ At the same tame, she reverses the
symbolic force of the low tip, converting a statement on her social status or work skills into a
statement on the tipper‘s cheapness or lack of savoir faire.
53
Handling the Stigma of Handling the Dead: Morticians and Funeral Directors
William E. Thompson
As William Thompson observes in this article on the funeral profession, an
individual‘s occupational status—and the role attached to that status—is central to
his or her identity How, then, do people who do work that others find repugnant
manage things such that they themselves do not feel repugnant?
Questions
1. Thompson makes use of Goffman‘s concept of the back stage to explain how things work in
the funeral home. Can you think of other settings that are divided between front and back stage?
2. Recall Goffman‘s notion of the ―definition of the situation.‖ What sort of definition of the
situation do funeral workers want to create for their clients and potential clients--the live ones,
that is?
3. What techniques do funeral workers utilize as they attempt to manage the stigma of their jobs?
How successful are these techniques?
4. Thompson‘s review of the literature on death suggested that there is some dispute about
whether Americans are in ―denial‖ about death. How might this issue be studied empirically?
5: In your town‘s ―yellow pages,‖ what sorts of ads do funeral homes publish? How do these
compare with the ones cited by Thompson?
In a complex, industrialized society a person‘s occupation or profession is central to his or her
personal and social identity. As Pavalko (19$8) pointed out, two strangers are quite ―... likely to
‗break the ice‘ by indicating the kind of work they do ― As a result, individuals often make a
number of initial judgments about others based on preconceived notions about particular
occupations.
This study examines how morticians and funeral directors handle the stigma associated
with their work. Historically, stigma has been attached to those responsible for caring for the
dead and the job typically was assigned to the lower classes; and in some cases, those who
handled the dead were forbidden from touching the living (Bendann 1930; Kear1 1989; Murray
1969). Today, the stigma has grown to new and potentially more threatening proportions for
those engaged in the profession, for during the twentieth century Americans have become
preoccupied with the denial of death (Becker 1973; Charmaz 1980; Fulton 1961; Jackson 1980;
Kearl 1989; Momeyer 1988; Sudnow 1967). As Stephenson (1985, 223) noted, ―In a society
which seeks to deny the reality of death, the funeral director is a living symbol of this dreaded
subject.‖
Two major problems faced by members of the funeral industry are that they make their
living by doing work considered taboo by most Americans and that they are viewed as profiting
from death and grief—a fact from which they must continually attempt to divert public attention.
The ―7 billion dollar-a-year American funeral industry‖ has received much criticism over the
past 2 decades and widespread complaints have led to ―congressional hearings, new trade
practices rules from the Federal Trade Commission, and undercover sting operations by various
consumer groups‖ (Kearl 1989, 271). Those in the funeral business were further stigmatized
when it was revealed that 58% of the funeral homes studied by the FTC had committed at least
54
one billing abuse against their bereaved clients, and public testimony revealed ―horror stories‖ of
inflated charges for funeral services neither required nor requested (Kearl 1989, 278).
Morticians and funeral directors are fully aware of the stigma associated with their work,
so they continually strive to enhance their public image and promote their social credibility.
They must work to shift the emphasis of their work from the dead to the living and away from
sales and toward service, As Aries (1976, 99) noted:
In order to sell death, it had to be made friendly.., since 1885 ...
[funeral directors have] presented themselves not as simple sellers
of services, but as ―doctors of grief‖ who have a mission... [which]
consists in aiding the mourning survivors to return to normalcy.
Couched within the general theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism, there are a
variety of symbolic and dramaturgical methods whereby morticians and funeral directors attempt
to redefine their occupations and minimize and/or neutralize negative attitudes toward them and
what they do.
Method
This study reflects over 2 years of qualitative fieldwork as outlined by Schatzman and Strauss
(1973), Spradley (1979) and Berg (1989). Extensive ethnographic interviews were conducted
during 1987-1989 with 19 morticians and funeral directors in. four states: Kansas, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Texas. The funeral homes included both privately owned businesses and
branches of large franchise operations. They were located in communities ranging from less than
1,000 population to cities of over 1 million people.
First contacts were made by telephone, and appointments were made to tour the funeral
homes and meet with the directors and morticians. Initial taped interviews ranged from one to a
little over four hours in duration. In all but two cases, follow-up interviews were used to obtain
additional information about the individuals and their work.
Rather than limiting questions to a standardized interview schedule, the researcher soon
discovered that, as with most ethnographic fieldwork (Berg, 1989; Spradley 1979), interviewees
were much more comfortable and provided more information during casual conversation.
Consequently, the structured portion of the interview focused primarily on demographic data,
educational credentials, how they decided to enter the profession, how they felt about their jobs,
and how they handled the stigma associated with their work. The questions were open-ended,
and answers to one question invariably led to a variety of spontaneous follow-up questions.
Respondents
Interviewees included people from different age groups, both sexes, and both white and
nonwhites. There were 16 males and 3 females interviewed for this study, ranging in age from
26 to 64 years. Most of the respondents were between their late 30s and early 50s. Fourteen of
the males were both morticians (licensed embalmers) and licensed funeral directors. The other
two males were licensed embalmers who were employed in funeral homes, but were not licensed
funeral directors. None of the females had been trained or licensed to embalm. Two of the
females were licensed funeral directors, and the other woman was neither licensed as an
embalmer nor funeral director. She was married to a man who was licensed to do both; and she
simply helped out around the funeral home—usually answering the phone and helping with
bookkeeping. All the women admitted, however, that they often helped out in the embalming
room and in making funeral arrangements.
55
Seventeen of the people interviewed were white. The other two were African-American
brothers who jointly owned and operated a funeral home located in a city of approximately 150
thousand people. Only one was a licensed funeral director and licensed embalmer. They candidly
admitted, however, that they both worked in the embalming room and arranged funeral services.
With only one exception, all of the morticians and funeral directors interviewed were
more than willing to talk about their occupations. They were aware that the author was
conducting research, and several of them commented that the funeral industry was much
maligned and stigmatized, and they were anxious to get an opportunity to ―set the record straight;
or ―tell their side of the story‖ about their jobs. As the interviews progressed, however, the
author was struck by the candor with which most of the interviewees responded to questions and
provided additional information. Only one of the funeral directors, a single 50-year-old white
male, was reluctant to talk about his work, refused to be taped, and was extremely guarded
throughout the interview. He attempted to answer as many questions as possible with short,
cryptic responses, and on several occasions became quite defensive and asked: ―Why did you ask
that?‖ and ―What are you going to do with this information?‖ Despite his defensiveness, his
answers indicated that his experiences as a mortician and funeral director were very similar to
the others interviewed. In fact, his reticence about answering some of the questions served to
underscore the fact that he believed there was a great deal of stigma attached to his work and he
wanted to be careful not to add to it (a point he made verbally during the interview).
Occupational Stigma
Erving Goffman (1963) defined stigma as any attribute that sets people apart and discredits them
or disqualifies them from full social acceptance. This paper explores what happens when people
are discredited (stigmatized) because of the work they perform, and how they attempt to reduce
or eliminate the stigma.
People are most likely to be stigmatized because of their work if it is viewed as deviant
by other members of society. George Ritzer (1977) cited three criteria, any one of which can
cause an occupation to be considered deviant: (a) if it is illegal, (b) if it is considered immoral,
and (c) if it is considered improper.
The first category of occupations, those that are illegal, has been widely studied by
sociologists. Even a cursory list of studies on organized crime, prostitution, shoplifting,
counterfeiting, confidence swindling, professional thievery, and other illegal occupations would
be voluminous. The second category of deviant occupations is less straightforward than the first.
Although many occupations that are considered immoral also have been made illegal (e.g.,
prostitution), there is much less agreement on the morality of occupations than on their legality.
The final category is a fascinating one, and perhaps the most ripe for sociological
investigation. It includes those jobs that may not be considered ―a proper or fitting occupation by
society‖ (Polsky 1969, 32). In any society there are certain jobs that most people prefer not to do.
These jobs often require little or no training, pay very little, rank low in occupational prestige,
and involve ―dirty work‖ (Garson 1975; Hughes 1971). As Hughes (1971, 344) pointed out:
…the delegation of dirty work to someone else is common among
humans. Many cleanliness taboos ... depend for their practice upon
success in delegating the tabooed activity to someone else.
Although the occupations of mortician and funeral director do not fit neatly into any of
Ritzer‘s three categories, preparing the dead for funerals, burial, and/or cremation can be
characterized as ―dirty work.‖ The stigma associated with these occupations is not so much that
56
they are literally unclean, although embalming can be rather messy. It is, however no more so
than surgery—a highly prestigious profession. Rather, they are figuratively unclean because they
violate social taboos against handling the dead.
The stigma of handling the dead
Ritualistic disposal of dead human bodies is a cultural universal (Bendann 1930; Habenstein and
Lamers 1960; Huntington and Metcalf 1979). These ceremonies ―... manifest the collective
image of death—what the larger society thinks and feels about death‖ (Stephenson 1985). In
American society, death is surrounded by mystery and taboos. David Sudnow (1967) pointed out
that Americans shun the idea that death is a natural process begun at birth, instead, they view
death as a very brief process or an act.
Until the turn of the century, in this country, people died at home and friends and family
members prepared the bodies for burial (Lesy 1987). As medical knowledge and technology
progressed and became more specialized, more and more deaths occurred outside the home—
usually in hospitals. Death became something to be handled by a select group of highly trained
professionals—doctors, nurses, and hospital staff. As fewer people witnessed death firsthand, it
became surrounded with more mystery, and physically handling the dead became the domain of
only a few.
Members or friends of the family relinquished their role in preparing bodies for disposal
to an undertaker, ―... a special person who would ‗undertake‘ responsibility for the care and
burial of the dead‖ (Amos 1983, 2). From the beginning, stigma was associated with funerary
occupations because they were ―linked to the American death orientation whereby the industry is
the cultural scapegoat for failed immortality‖ (Kearl 1989, 278).
To counter this stigma, undertakers (later to be called morticians) initially emphasized the
scientific aspects of their work. Embalming and preparation for burial were presented as highly
technical skills that required scientific knowledge and sophisticated training. Most states began
licensing embalmers around the end of the nineteenth century (Amos 1983). These licensed
embalmers did not enjoy the prestige accorded to the medical profession, however, the and
almost immediately were surrounded by mystery and viewed as unusual, if not downright weird.
They were not family members or friends of the deceased faced with the unsavory but necessary
responsibility for disposing of a loved one‘s body, but strangers who chose to work with dead
bodies--for compensation Although most welcomed the opportunity to relinquish this chore, they
also viewed those who willingly assumed it with some skepticism and even disdain. Having
failed to gain the desired prestige associated with the scientific aspects of embalming, and
realizing that emphasizing embalming only served to increase what was perhaps the most
stigmatizing aspect of their work (handling the dead), morticians shifted the focus away from
their work on the dead body to their work with the living by emphasizing their roles as funeral
directors and bereavement counselors.
In contemporary American society, those who routinely handle the dead have entered
what Michael Lesy calls the ―forbidden zone;‖ Lesy (1987, 5) points out:
In some cultures, the dead are ritually unclean and those who touch
them, must be ritually cleansed. In America, those who deal with
the dead have social identities that shift back and forth like
stationary objects that seem to move from left to right and back
again as one eye is opened and the other is dosed. Sometimes they
look like pariahs and deviants, sometimes like charlatans. Other
57
times they look like heroes or even adepts, initiates, and priests.
Those who deal with death work at an intersection of opposites,
tainted by the suffering and decay of the body, transfigured by the
plight of the self and the destiny of the soul. The world never
considers anyone who routinely deals with death to be ―pure.‖...
Sudnow (1967, 51-64) underscored the negative attitudes toward people who work with
the dead in describing how those who work in a morgue, for example, are ―death tainted‖ and
work very hard to rid themselves of the social stigma associated with their jobs. Morticians and
funeral directors cannot escape from this ―taint of death‖ and they must constantly work to
―counteract the stigma‖ directed at them and their occupations (Charmaz 1980, 182). Warner
(1959, 315) described the funeral director as ―a private enterpriser who will do the ritually
unclean and physically distasteful work of disposing of the dead in a manner satisfying to the
living, at a price which they can pay.‖ Fulton (1961) echoed this definition when he wrote, ―In a
word, the funeral director, by virtue of his dose association with death, and by the ‗relative‘
attitude he takes toward all funerals is, in a religious sense, ‗unclean‖ (322).
Are morticians and funeral directors really that stigmatized? After all, they generally are
well-known and respected members of their communities. In small communities and even many
large cities, local funeral homes have been owned and operated by the same family-for several
generations. These people usually are members of civic organizations, have substantial incomes,
and live in nice homes and drive nice automobiles. Most often they are viewed as successful
business people. On the other hand, their work is surrounded by mystery, taboos, and stigma, and
they often are viewed as cold, detached, and downright morbid for doing it. All the respondents
in this study openly acknowledged that stigma was associated with their work. Some indicated
that they thought the stigma primarily came from the ―misconception‖ that they were ―getting
rich‖ off other people‘s grief; others believed it simply came from working with the dead.
Clearly these two aspects of their work —handling the dead and profiting from death and grief—
emerged as the two most stigmatizing features of the funeral industry according to respondents.
Pine (1975) noted that funeral directors cannot escape the ―contamination by death and
contended:
... people view individuals in such work as different ... because
they feel that they themselves could never do it and that there must
be something ―strange‖ about those who voluntarily choose to do
it. (38)
Kathy Charmaz (1980, 174-206) discussed the stigma experienced by morticians, funeral
directors, and others involved in ―death work,‖ and the negative impact that working with the
dead can have on self-image. It is important from their perspective, she notes, that ―who they are
should not be defined by what they do‖ (174). This idea was confirmed by all the respondents in
this study in one way or another. As one funeral director/embalmer noted, ―I don‘t want to be
thought of as somebody who likes working with the dead—that‘s morbid--I enjoy what I do
because I like working with the living.‖
Managing Stigma
Erving Coffman wrote the most systematic analysis of how individuals manage a ―spoiled‖
social identity in his classic work, Stigma (1963). He described several techniques, such as
―passing,‖ ―dividing the social world,‖ ―mutual aid,‖ ―physical distance,‖ ―disclosure,‖ and
―covering,‖ employed by the discredited and discreditable to manage information and conceal
58
their stigmatizing attributes (41-104). Although these techniques work well for the physically
scarred, blind, stammerers, bald, drug addicted, ex-convicts, and many other stigmatized
categories of people, they are less likely to be used by morticians and funeral directors.
Except perhaps when on vacation, it is important for funeral directors to be known and
recognized in their communities and to be associated with their work. Consequently, most of the
morticians and funeral directors studied relied on other strategies for reducing the stigma
associated with their work. Paramount among these strategies were symbolic redefinition of their
work, role distance, professionalism, emphasizing service, and enjoying socioeconomic status
over occupational prestige. This was much less true for licensed embalmers who worked for
funeral directors, especially in chain-owned funeral homes in large cities. In those cases the
author found that many embalmers concealed their occupation from their neighbors and others
with whom they were not intimately acquainted, by using the techniques of information control
discussed by Goffman (1963).
Symbolic redefinition
A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but death work by almost any other name does not
sound quite as harsh. One of the ways in which morticians and funeral directors handle the
stigma of their occupations is through symbolically negating as much of it as possible. Language
is the most important symbol used by human beings, and Woods and Delisle (1978, 98) revealed
how sympathy cards avoid the use of the terms ―dead‖ and ―death‖ by substituting less harsh
words such as ―loss,‖ ―time of sorrow,‖ and ―hour of sadness.‖ This technique is also used by
morticians and funeral directors to reduce the stigma associated with their work.
Words that are most closely associated with death are rarely used, and the most harsh
terms are replaced with less ominous ones. The term death is almost never used by funeral
directors; rather, they talk of ―passing on,‖ ―meeting an untimely end,‖ or ―eternal slumber.‖
There are no corpses or dead bodies; they are referred to as ―remains,‖ ―the deceased,‖ ―loved
one,‖ or more frequently, by name (e.g., ―Mr. Jones‖). Use of the term body is almost uniformly
avoided around the family. Viewing rooms (where the embalmed body is displayed in the casket)
usually are given serene names such as ―the sunset room,‖ ―the eternal slumber room,‖ or, in one
case, ―the guest room.‖ Thus, when friends or family arrive to view the body, they are likely to
be told that ―Mr. Jones is lying in repose in the eternal slumber room.‖ This language contrasts
sharply with that used by morticians and funeral directors in ―backstage‖ areas (Goffman 1959,
112) such as the embalming room where drowning victims often are called ―floaters,‖ burn
victims are called ―crispy critters,‖ and others are simply referred to as ―bodies‖ (Turner and
Edgley 1976).
All the respondents indicated that there was less stigma attached to the term funeral
director than mortician or embalmer, underscoring the notion that much of the stigma they
experienced was attached to physically handling the-dead. Consequently, when asked what they
do for a living; those who acknowledge that they are in the funeral business (several indicated
that they often do not) referred to themselves as ―funeral directors‖ even if all they did was the
embalming. Embalming is referred to as ―preservation‖ or ―restoration,‖ and in order to be
licensed, one must have studied ―mortuary arts‖ or ―mortuary science.‖ Embalming no longer
takes place in an embalming room, but in a ―preparation room,‖ or in some cases the ―operating
room.‖
Coffins are now ―caskets,‖ which are transported in ―funeral coaches‖ (not hearses) to
their ―final resting place‖ rather than to the cemetery or worse yet, graveyard, for their
59
―interment‖ rather than burial. Thus, linguistically, the symbolic redefinition is complete, with
death verbally redefined during every phase, and the stigma associated with it markedly reduced.
All the morticians and funeral directors in this study emphasized the importance of using
the ―appropriate‖ terms in referring to their work. Knowledge of the stigma attached to certain
words was readily acknowledged, and all indicated that the earlier terminology was
stigma-laden, especially the term ―undertaker,‖ which they believed conjured up negative images
in the mind of the public. For example, a 29-year-old male funeral director indicated that his
father still insisted on calling himself an ―undertaken‖ ―He just hasn‘t caught up with the
twentieth century‖ the son remarked. Interestingly, when asked why he did not refer to himself
as an undertaker, he replied, ―It just sounds so old-fashioned [pause] plus, it sounds so morbid.‖
As Pine (1975) noted, the special argot of the funeral industry performs an important function in
reducing the stigma associated with the work and allows funeral directors to achieve role
distance.
In addition to using language to symbolically redefine their occupations, funeral directors
carefully attempt to shift the focus of their work away from the care of the dead (especially
handling the body), and redefine it primarily in terms of caring for the living. The dead are deemphasized as most of the funeral ritual is orchestrated for the benefit of the friends and family
of the deceased (Turner and Edgley 1976). By redefining themselves as ―grief therapists‖ or
―bereavement counselors,‖ their primary duties are associated with making funeral arrangements,
directing the services, and consoling the family in their time of need.
Role distance
Because a person‘s sense of self is so strongly linked to occupation, it is common practice for
People in undesirable or stigmatized occupations to practice role distance (e.g., Garson 1975;
Pavalko 1988; Ritzer 1977; Terkel 1974; Thompson 1983). Although the specific role-distancing
techniques vary across different occupations and among different individuals within an
occupation, they share the common function of allowing individuals to violate some of the role
expectations associated with the occupation, and to express their individuality within the
confines of the occupational role. Although the funeral directors and morticians in this study
used a variety of role-distancing techniques, three common patterns emerged: emotional
detachment, humor, and countering the stereotype
Emotional Detachment. One of the ways that morticians and funeral directors overcome their
socialization regarding death taboos and the stigma associated with handling the dead is to
detach themselves from the body work Charmaz (1980) pointed out that a common technique
used by coroners and funeral directors to minimize the stigma associated with death work is to
routinize the work as much as possible. When embalming, morticians focus on the technical
aspects of the job rather than thinking about the person they are working on. One mortician
explained:
When I‘m in the preparation room I never think about who I‘m
working on, I only think about what has to be done next. When I
picked up the body, it was a person. When I get done, dean and
dress the body, and place it in the casket, it becomes a person
again. But in here it‘s just something to be worked on. I treat it like
a mechanic treats an automobile engine—with respect, but there‘s
no emotion involved. It‘s just a job that has to be done.
60
Another mortician described his emotional detachment in the embalming room:
You can‘t think too much about this process [embalming], or it‘ll
really get to you. For example, one time we brought in this little
girl. She was about four years old—the same age as my youngest
daughter at the time. She had been killed in a wreck; had gone
through the windshield; was‘ really a mess. At first, I wasn‘t sure I
could do that one—all I could think of was my little girl. But when
I got her in the prep room, my whole attitude changed. I know this
probably sounds cold, and hard I guess, but suddenly I began to
think of the challenge involved. This was gonna be an open-casket
service, and while the body was in pretty good shape, the head and
face were practically gone. This was gonna take a lot of
reconstruction. Also, the veins are so small on children that you
have to be a lot more careful. Anyway, I got so caught up in the
job that I totally forgot about working on a little girl I was in the
room with her about six hours when [his wife] came in and
reminded me that we had dinner plans that night. I washed up and
went out to dinner and had a great time. Later that night, I went
right back to work on her without even thinking about it. It wasn‘t
until the next day when my wife was dressing the body, and I came
irk, and she was crying, that it hit me. I looked at the little girl, and
I began crying. We both just stood there crying and hugging. My
wife kept saying ―I know this was tough for you,‖ and ―yesterday
must have been tough.‖ I felt sorta guilty, because I knew what she
meant, and it should‘ve been tough for me, real tough, emotionally,
but it wasn‘t. The only ―tough‖ part had been the actual work
especially the reconstruction--I had totally cut off the emotional
part. It sometimes makes you wonder. Am I really just good at this,
or am I losing something. I don‘t know. All I know is, if I‘d
thought about the little girl the way I did that next day, I never
could have done hex It‘s just part of this job—you gotta just do
what has to be done. If you think about it much, you‘ll never make
it in this business.
Humor. Many funeral directors and morticians use humor to detach themselves emotionally from
their work. The humor, of course, must be carefully hidden from friends and relatives of the
deceased, and takes place in backstage areas such as the embalming room, or in professional
group settings such as at funeral directors‘ conventions.
The humor varies from impromptu comments while working on the body to standard
jokes told over and over again. Not unexpectedly, all the respondents indicated a strong distaste
for necrophilia jokes. One respondent commented, ―I can think of nothing less funny —the jokes
are sick, and have done a lot of damage to the image of our profession.‖
Humor is an effective technique of diffusing the stigma associated with handling a dead
body, however, and when more than one person is .present in the embalming room, it is common
for a certain amount of banter to take place; and jokes or comments are often made about the
61
amount of body fat or the over-endowment, or lack thereof, of certain body parts. For example,
one mortician indicated that a common remark made about males with small genitalia is, ―Well,
at least he won‘t be missed.‖
As with any occupation, levels of humor varied among the respondents. During an
interview one of the funeral directors spoke of some of the difficulties in advertising the
business, indicating that because of attitudes toward death and the funeral business, he had to be
sure that his newspaper advertisements did not offend anyone. He reached into his desk drawer
and pulled out a pad with several ―fake ads‖ written on it. They included:
―Shake and Bake Special—Cremation with No Embalming‖
―Business is Slow, Somebody‘s Gotta Go‖
―Try Our Layaway Plan—Best in the Business‖
―Count on Us, We‘ll Be the Last to Let You Down‖
―People Are Dying to Use Our Services:
―Pay Now, Die Later‖
―The Buck Really Does Stop Here‖
He indicated that he and one of his friends had started making up these fake ads and slogans
when they were doing their mortuary intern- ships. Over the years, they occasionally
corresponded by mail and saw each other at conventions, and they would always try to be one up
on the other with the best ad He said, ―Hey, in this business, you have to look for your laughs
where you can find them.‖ Gar-son (1975, 210) refers to a line from a song from Mary Poppins,
―In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun.‖
Countering the Stereotype. Morticians and .funeral directors are painfully aware of the common
negative stereotype of people in their occupations. The women in this study were much less
concerned about the stereotype, perhaps because simply being female shattered the stereotype
anyway. The men, however, not only acknowledged that they were well aware of the public‘s
stereotypical image of them, but also indicated that they made every effort not to conform to it.
One funeral director, for instance, said:
People think we‘re cold, unfriendly, and unfeeling. I always make
it a point to be just the opposite. Naturally, when I‘m dealing with
a family I must be reserved and show the proper decorum, but
when I am out socially, I always try to be very upbeat—very alive.
No matter how tired I am, I try not to show it.
Another indicated that he absolutely never wore gray or black suits: Instead, he wore navy blue
and usually with a small pinstripe. ―I might be mistaken for the minister or a lawyer‖ he said,
―but rarely for an undertaker‖
The word ―cold,‖ which often is associated with death, came up in a number of
interviews. One funeral director was so concerned about the stereotype of being ―cold,‖ that he
kept a handwarmer in the drawer of his desk. He said, ―My bands tend to be cold and clammy.
It‘s just a physical trait of mine, but there‘s no way that I‘m going to shake someone‘s hand and
let them walk away thinking how cold it was.‖ Even on the warmest of days, he indicated that
during services, he carried the handwarmer in his right-hand coat pocket so that he could warm
his hand before shaking hands with or touching someone.
Although everyone interviewed indicated that he or she violated the public stereotype,
each one expressed a feeling of being atypical. In other words, although they believed that they
did not conform to the stereotype, they felt that many of their colleagues did. One funeral
62
director was wearing jeans, a short-sleeved sweatshirt and a pair of running shoes during the
interview He had just finished mowing the lawn at the funeral home. ―Look at me,‖ he said, ―Do
I look like a funeral director? Hell, [the funeral director across the street] wears a suit and tie to
mow his grass!--or, at least he would if he didn‘t hire it done.‖
Others insisted that very few funeral directors conform to the public stereotype when out
of public view, but feel compelled to conform to it when handling funeral arrangements, because
it is an occupational role requirement. ―I always try to be warm and upbeat,‖ one remarked, ―But,
let‘s face it, when I‘m working with a family, they‘re experiencing a lot of grief--I have to
respect that, and act accordingly.‖ Another indicated that he always lowered his voice when
talking with family and friends of the deceased, and that it had become such a habit, that he
found himself speaking softly almost all the time. ―One of the occupational hazards, I guess,‖ he
remarked.
The importance of countering the negative stereotype was evident, when time after time,
persons being interviewed would pause and ask ―I‘m not what you expected, am I?‖ or
something similar. It seemed very important for them to be reassured that they did not fit the
stereotype of funeral director or mortician.
Professionalism
Another method used by morticians and funeral directors to reduce occupational stigma is to
emphasize professionalism. Amos (1983, 3) described embalming as:
... an example of a vocation in transition from an occupation to a
profession. Until mid-nineteenth century, embalming was not
considered a profession and this is still an issue debated in some
circles today.
Most morticians readily admit that embalming is a very simple process and can be
learned very easily. In all but two of the funeral homes studied, the interviewees admit- ted that
people who were not licensed embalmers often helped with the embalming process. In one case,
in which the funeral home was owned and operated by two brothers, one of the brothers was a
licensed funeral director and licensed embalmer. The other brother had dropped out of high
school and helped their father with the funeral business while his brother went to school to meet
the educational requirements for licensure. The licensed brother said:
By the time I got out of school and finished my apprenticeship, ,
[his brother] had been helping Dad embalm for over three years-and he was damned good at it. So when I joined the business, Dad
thought it was best if I concentrated on handling the funeral
arrangements and pre-service needs. After Dad died, I was the only
licensed embalmer, so ―officially‖ I do it all—all the embalming
and the funeral arrangements. But to tell you the truth, I only
embalm every now and then when we have several to
do, ‗cause he usually handles most of it. He‘s one of the best—I‘d
match him against any in the business.
Despite the relative simplicity of the embalming process and the open admission by
morticians and funeral directors that ―almost anyone could do it with a little practice,‖ most
states require licensure and certification for embalming. The four states represented in this study
(Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Texas) have similar requirements for becoming a licensed
certified embalmer. They include t minimum of 60 college hours with a core of general college
63
courses (English, mathematics; social studies, etc.) plus 1 year of courses in the ―mortuary
sciences,‖ or ―mortuary arts.‖ These consist of several, courses in physiology and biology, and a
1-year apprenticeship under a licensed embalmer. To become a licensed funeral director requires
the passing of a state board examination, which primarily requires a knowledge of state laws
related to burial, cremation, disposal of the body, and insurance.
All the respondents in this study who were licensed and certified embalmers and funeral
directors exceeded the minimum educational requirements. In fact, all but one of them had a
college degree, and three had advanced degrees. The most common degree held was a Bachelor
of Science in mortuary sciences. Two of the males had degrees in business (one held the-MBA
degree), one male had a Bachelor‘s degree with a major in biology and had attended one year of
medical school, one male had a degree in geology, and one had a degree in music. One of the
women had a Bachelor‘s degree in English, another held a degree in business; and one woman
had .a degree in nursing. Although the general consensus among them was that an individual did
not need a college education to become a good embalmer, they all stressed the importance of a
college education for being a successful funeral director. Most thought that some basic courses in
business, psychology, death and dying, and ―bereavement counseling‖ were valuable preparation
for the field. Also, most of the funeral directors were licensed insurance agents, which allowed
them to sell burial policies.
Other evidence of the professionalization of the funeral industry includes state, regional,
and national professional organizations that hold annual conventions and sponsor other
professional activities; professional journals; state, regional, and national governing and
regulating boards; and a professional code of ethics. Although the funeral industry is highly
competitive, like most other professions, its members demonstrate a strong sense of cohesiveness
and in-group identification.
Reduction of stigma is not the sole purpose for professionalization among funeral
directors and morticians, as other benefits are reaped from the process. Nevertheless, as Charmaz
(1980, 182) noted, membership in the professional organizations of coroners and funeral
directors is one of the most effective ways to ―counteract the stigma conferred upon them.‖ One
of the married couples in this study indicated that it was reassuring to attend national
conventions where they met and interacted with other people in the funeral industry because it
helps to ―reassure us that we‘re not weird.‖ The wife went onto say:
A lot of people ask us how we can stand to be in this business—
especially--because he does all of the embalming. They act like we
must be strange or something. When we go to the conventions and
meet with all of the other people there who are just like us—people
who like helping other people—I feel normal again.
All these elements of professionalization--educational requirements, exams, boards,
organizations, codes of ethics, and the rest—lend an air of credibility and dignity to the funeral
business while diminishing the stigma associated with it. Although the requirements for licensure
and certification are not highly exclusive, they still represent forms of boundary maintenance,
and demand a certain level of commitment from those who enter the field. Thus,
professionalization helped in the transition of the funeral business from a vocation that can be
pursued by virtually anyone to a profession that can be entered only by those with the
appropriate qualifications. As Pine (1975, 28) indicated:
Because professionalization is highly respected in American
society, the word ―profession‖ tends to be used as a symbol by
64
occupations seeking to improve or enhance the lay public‘s
conception of that occupation, and funeral directing is no
exception. To some extent, this appears to be because the funeral
director hopes to overcome the stigma of ―doing death work.‖
―By claiming professional status, funeral directors claim prestige and simultaneously seek to
minimize the stigma they experience for being death workers involved in ‗dirty work‘‖
(Charmaz 1980,192).
The shroud of service
One of the most obvious ways in which morticians and funeral directors neutralize the stigma
associated with their work is to wrap themselves in a ―shroud of service.‖ All the respondents
emphasized their service role over all other aspects of their jobs. Although their services were
not legally required in any of the four states included in this study, all the respondents insisted
that people desperately needed them. As one funeral director summarized, ―Service, that‘s what
we‘re all about—we‘re there when people need us the most.‖
Unlike the humorous fantasy ads mentioned earlier, actual advertisements in the funeral
industry focus on service. Typical ads for the companies in this study read:
―Our Family Serving Yours for Over 60 Years‖
―Serving the Community for Four Generations‖
―Thoughtful Service in Your Tune of Need‖
The emphasis on service, especially on ―grief counseling‖ and ―bereavement therapy,‖
shifts the focus away from the two most stigmatizing elements of funeral work: the handling and
preparation of the body, which already has been discussed at length; and retail sales, which are
widely interpreted as profiting from other people‘s grief. Many of the funeral directors indicated
that they believed the major reason for negative public feelings toward their occupation was not
only that they handled dead bodies, but the fact that they made their living off the dead, or at
least, off the grief of the living.
All admitted that much of their profit came from the sale of ‗caskets and vaults, where
markup is usually a minimum of 100%, and often 400-500%, but all played down this aspect of
their work The Federal Trade Commission requires that funeral directors provide their customers
with itemized -lists - of all charges. The author was provided with price lists for all merchandise
and services by all the funeral directors in this study. When asked to estimate the ―average price‖
of one of their funerals, respondents‘ answers ranged from $3,000 to $4,000. Typically, the
casket accounted for approximately half of the total expense. Respondents indicated that less
than 5% of their business involved cremations, but that even then they often encouraged the
purchase of a casket. One said, ―A lot of people ask about cremation, because they think it‘s
cheaper, but I usually sell them caskets even for cremation; then, if you add the cost of cremation
and urn, cremation becomes more profitable than burial.‖
Despite this denial of the retail aspects of the job, trade journals provide numerous
helpful hints on the best techniques for displaying and selling caskets, and great care is given to
this process. In all the funeral homes visited, one person was charged with the primary
responsibility for helping with ―casket se- lection.‖ In smaller family-operated funeral homes,
this person usually was the funeral director‘s wife. In the large chain-owned companies, it was
one of the ―associate funeral directors.‖ In either case, the person was a skilled salesperson.
Nevertheless, the sales pitch is wrapped in the shroud of service. During each interview,
the author asked to be shown the ―selection room,‖ and to be treated as if he were there to select
65
a casket for a loved one. All the funeral directors willingly complied, and most treated the author
as if he actually were there to select a casket. Interestingly, most perceived this as an actual sales
opportunity, and mentioned their ―pre-need selection service‖ and said that if the author had not
already made such arrangements, they would gladly assist him with the process. The words
―sell,‖ ―sales,‖ ―buy,‖ and ―purchase,‖ were carefully avoided. Also, although by law the price
for each casket must be displayed separately,
funeral homes also displayed a ―package
price‖ that included the casket and ―full services.‖ If purchased separately, the casket was always
more expensive than if it was included in the package of services. This gave the impression that a
much more expensive casket could be purchased for less money if bought as part of a service
package. It also implied that the services provided by the firm were more valuable than the
merchandise.
The funeral directors rationalized the high costs of merchandise and funerals by
emphasizing that they were a small price to pay for the services performed. One insisted, ―We
don‘t sell merchandise, we sell service!‖ Another asked, ―What is peace of mind worth?‖ and
another, ―How do you put a price on relieving grief?‖
Another rationalization for the high prices was the amount of work involved in arranging
and conducting funeral services. When asked about the negative aspects of their jobs, most
emphasized the hard work and long hours involved. In fact, all but two of the interviewees said
that they did not want their children to follow in their footsteps, because the work was largely
misunderstood (stigmatized), too hard, the hours too long, and ―the income not nearly as high as
most people think.‖
In addition to emphasizing the service aspect of their work, funeral directors also tend to
join a number of local philanthropic and service organizations (Pine 1975, 40). Although many
businessmen find that joining such organizations is advantageous for making contacts,
Stephenson (1985, 223) contended that the small-town funeral director ―may be able to counter
the stigma of his or her occupation by being active in the community, thereby counteracting
some of the negative images associated with the job of funeral directing.‖
Socioeconomic status versus occupational prestige
Ritzer (1977, 9) pointed out that some jobs suffer from ―occupational status insecurity‖
This clearly is the case with morticians and funeral directors. They are members of an occupation
wrought with ―social stigma ... an occupational group which is extremely sensitive to public
criticism, and which works hard to enhance its position in society‖ (Stephenson. 1985, 225).
It seems that what funeral directors lack in occupational prestige, they make up for in
socioeconomic status. Although interviewees were very candid about the number of funerals
they performed every year and the average costs per funeral, most were reluctant to disclose their
annual incomes. One exception was a 37-year-old funeral home owner, funeral director, and
licensed embalmer in a community of approximately 25,000 who indicated that in the previous
year he had handled 211 funerals and had a gross income of just under $750,000. After deducting
overhead (three licensed embalmers on staff, a receptionist, a gardener, a student employee,
insurance costs, etc.), he estimated his net income to have been ―dose to $250,000.‖ He quickly
added, however, that he worked long hours, had his 5-day vacation cut to two (because of a
―funeral call that he had to handle personally‖) and despite his relatively high income (probably
one of the two or three highest incomes in the community), he felt morally, socially, and
professionally obligated to hide his wealth in the community. ―I have to walk a fine line,‖ he
66
said, ―I can live in a nice home, drive a nice car, and wear nice suits, because people know that I
am a successful businessman—but I have to be careful not to flaunt it.‖
One of the ways he reconciled this dilemma was by enjoying ―the finer things in life‖
outside the community. He owned a condominium in Vail where he took ski trips and kept his
sports car. He also said that none of his friends or neighbors there knew that he was in the funeral
business. In fact, when they inquired about his occupation, he told them he was in insurance
(which technically was true because he also was a licensed insurance agent who sold burial
policies). When asked why he did not disclose his true occupational identity, he responded:
When I tell people what I really do, they initially seem ―put off,‖
even repulsed. I have literally had people jerk their hands back
during a handshake when somebody introduces me and then tells
them what I do for a living. Later, many of them become very
curious and ask a lot of questions. If you tell people you sell
insurance, they usually let the subject drop.
Although almost all the funeral directors in this study lived what they characterized as
fairly ―conservative lifestyles,‖ most also indicated that they enjoyed many of the material things
that their jobs afforded them. One couple rationalized their recent purchase of a very expensive
sailboat (which both contended they ―really couldn‘t afford‖), by saying, ―Hey, if anybody
knows that you can‘t take it with you, it‘s us—we figured we might as well enjoy it while we
can.‖ Another commented, ―Most of the people in this community would never want to do what I
do, but most of them would like to have my income.‖
Summary and Conclusion
A person‘s occupation is an integral component of his or her personal and social identity. This
study describes and analyzes how people in the funeral industry attempt to reduce and neutralize
the stigma associated with their occupations. Morticians and funeral directors are particularly
stigmatized, not only because they perform work that few others would be willing to do
(preparing dead bodies for burial), but also because they profit from death. Consequently,
members of the funeral industry consciously work at stigma reduction.
Paramount among their strategies is symbolically redefining their work. This especially
involves avoiding all language that reminds their customer of death, the body, and retail sales;
morticians and funeral directors emphasize the need for their professional services of relieving
family grief and bereavement counseling. They also practice role distance, emphasize their
professionalism, wrap themselves in a ―shroud of service,‖ and enjoy their relatively high
socioeconomic status rather than lament their lower occupational prestige.
Stephenson (1985, 231) pointed out an interesting paradox:
In spite of our current preoccupation with death, we have given it a
taboo status that implies a great deal of underlying fear and
anxiety. Anything that will ease our fears is used to pro-tact us
from death. We give millions of dollars to fight disease, we occupy
our spare time with staying physically fit, and we blunt death‘s
awful impact with the use of the skills of the funeral director.
While critics may consider such activities as barbaric or in bad
taste, they are certainly in harmony with the basic values of
American society.
67
Morticians and funeral directors are in a precarious social situation. They perform work
that the majority of society believes is needed (Kastenbaum and Aisenberg 1973), and although
their services are not legally required they are socially demanded. Yet, their occupations place
them in a paradoxical position of performing duties deemed by larger society as ―necessary‖ but
―undesirable.‖ Try as they may, they cannot fully escape the stigma associated with their work
All but two of the people in this study indicated that if they had it all to do over again, they
would choose the same occupation. Yet only one indicated that he hoped his children pursued the
funeral business. And even he commented, ―... but, they need to understand that it‘s hard work,
and largely unappreciated. All agreed that one of their major tasks was handling the stigma of
handling the dead.
Handling the dead will not become any more glamorous in the future, and that aspect of
the mortician‘s work probably will continue to be stigmatized. However, if Americans become
more comfortable with death and their own mortality, it also is likely that emphasizing
morticians‘ roles as bereavement counselors will no longer be sufficient to redefine their work If
that is indeed the case, how will morticians and funeral directors symbolically redefine their
work in the future to neutralize the stigma associated with handling the dead and profiting from
grief? This research suggests that there is a growing tendency for funeral directors to emphasize
their roles as ―pre-need counselors.‖ Since death is inevitable, and an aged population is more
likely to recognize that, funeral directors may even more prominently tout themselves as akin to
financial planners who can help in the advance planning and preparation of funeral
arrangements. This could be important in neutralizing the two most stigmatizing attributes of
their work. First, like previous strategies, it de-emphasizes the body work; secondly, and perhaps
more importantly, it may alleviate some of the stigma associated with profiting from death and
grief because they would be viewed as helping people to prepare for funeral needs in advance so
that they might create a ―hedge‖ against inflation and make important financial decisions at a
time when they are not grief-stricken. Future research on the funeral industry should focus on
this emerging role.
68
The Rules of Sympathy
Candace Clark
It is tempting to think that some things are so personal and private that they must
be beyond the reach of social influence. Yet the careful social observer will
discover that even private emotions are not exempted from social rules. In some
cultures, for example, people respond to grief with tears; in other cultures, people
respond to profound, by ripping up their clothing and tearing out their hair. In this
1997 article, Professor Clark discusses the rules that govern the give-and-take of
sympathy in American society and suggests that following these rules ―provides
glue for social bonds.‖
Questions
1. How does the giving and taking of sympathy act as a ―social glue‖?
2. One of the rules of sympathy is that we must not claim too much; a corollary rule that one
must not claim sympathy for too long. Think about the following rations. Who deserves
sympathy for the longest period of time? Who deserves sympathy for the next longest
period of time, and so forth? In other words, order the following, from longest to shortest,
in terms of how long the ―sympathizee‖ would deserve your sympathy.
a. Breaking a leg and having to remain In a cast and on crutches for three months
b. Having to take a really hard math class from a professor who—according to rumor—
is really mean
c. Having a parent die when you are only 20 years old
d. Having a parent die when you are 55 years old
e. Being dumped by your boy- or girlfriend after dating him or her for three years
f. Flunking out of college
g. Being expelled from college after being caught cheating
3. What factors did you take into account as you were ordering your list?
4. Focus on the three situations that are at the top of your list. What is your estimate of how
long the sympathizee should continue to receive sympathy?
5. Are sympathy rules the same for women as they are for men? What are the differences in
terms of who is supposed to give more sympathy? Who is supposed to receive more
sympathy?
6. Does age make a difference in getting and receiving sympathy? How so?
Try to imagine a society without sympathy. Suppose unsympathetic fathers and mothers look
impassively at their children‘s scraped knees and bruised feelings. Friends yawn with boredom
when they hear of each other‘s misfortunes and upsets. No one says ―I‘m so sorry‖ or ―That‘s too
bad.‖ Community members offer no condolences to the bereaved. Without mercy or
consideration of extenuating circumstances, judges, bosses, and teachers hold people accountable
for every action they take or fail to take. Imagine yourself a member of this group, never giving
sympathy or getting any.
69
The closest we can come to such a society outside the realm of speculation is that of the
Ik, or ―Mountain People,‖ of central Africa, described by anthropologist Colin Tomball (1972).
After World War II, central African governments turned the former Ik hunting areas into a
protected wildlife park. They relocated the Ik from their low-lying homelands to unfamiliar hilly
territory. Drought and hunting restrictions brought famine. Turnbull maintained that the Ik were
once a gentle and hind-hearted people; as they edged toward starvation and extinction, however,
their friendship and caring for one another faded. They developed an approach to life that
promoted self-concern and forbade sympathy for others. Their motto seemed to be ―Who knows
what the other is feeling? In each you only know your own feeling‖ (253). Disregarding others‘
feelings meant not having to care. Some cooperative activities did continue among the Ilk, or we
would not even call them a society. Yet inn-personal exchange principles guided cooperation:
people aided others to obligate them.
Consider a few specifics of Ilk life. The Ik thought one-sided giving of food, water,
assistance, or even sentient ‗.to ` anyone, family member or foe, was a waste. The feeble and the
frail were objects not of pity and care but of scorn, sniggering, and humor. ―Anyone falling down
was good for a laugh, ... particularly if he was old or weak or blind‖ (113). Ik parents banished
their children from their round stick-and-thatch houses at about age three; the children survived
only if they found begrudging acceptance, by no means a given, among bands of their age-mates.
Note the case of Adupa:
The best game of all was teasing poor little Adupa [who] was a
little mad [because she] did not go and jump on other people‘s play
houses, and she lavished enormous care on hers.... That of course
made it all the more jump-on able.... [W]hen Adupa pulled herself
from the ruins of her house, crying, [the other children] beat her
over the head and danced around her. (113-14)
Ilk children were not the only ones to treat Adupa heartlessly. She eventually starved to death
when her parents purposely trapped her inside a hut.
Other people‘s misery provided about the only source of Ik humor that Turnbull could
find. In his words, ―[m]isfortune of others was their greatest joy‖ (260). For instance, around the
evening fire,
Men would watch a child with eager anticipation as it crawled
toward the fire, then burst into gay and happy laughter as it
plunged a skinny hand into the coals. Such times were the few
times when parental affection showed itself; a mother would glow
with pleasure to hear such joy occasioned by her offspring, and
pull it tenderly out of the fire. (112)
Turnbull begged his readers not to consider the Ik primitive, savage, and inhuman. He
regarded the Iles blanket policy of withholding sympathy as testimony to the force of culture.
Their worldview eventually gripped Turnbull himself, as he explained when he described a
mountain trek with his chief informant, Atum, and Lojieri:
The unpleasantness of [the trek] was somewhat alleviated by
Atom‘s suffering on the way up the stony trail. Several times he
slipped, which made Lojieri and me laugh ... [I]t was a pleasure to
move rapidly ahead and leave Atum gasping behind so that we
could be sitting up on the [village‘s sitting place] when he finally
70
appeared and laugh at his discomfort.... [Later, in my compound]
when I heard Atum wheezing [a greeting], I kept silent and
wondered what I would eat for dinner. (216)
When Turnbull found himself adopting the Ik‘s worldview and mental habits, it worried him. It
also impressed upon him the phenomenal power of a group‘s culture to shape the very kinds ‗of
feelings and behavior many Westerners are wont to see as most ―natural‖ and ―human.‖ It was
not just that an Ik would think ―I feel sympathy, but I shouldn‘t so I‘ll suppress it.‖ The
emotional habit extinguished, the automatic response to others‘ misery was laughter.
Images of the unsympathetic bring contemporary Americans‘ sympathy values and
practices into sharper focus. The contrasts force us to realize that sympathy has a social life of its
own. Feeling rules (Hochschild. 1979) and social logics (Davis, Gardner, and Gardner 1941)
provide scripts that guide people as they conduct their social life—and that, as we will see,
includes feeling, showing, and getting sympathy. Interacting group members create the rules and
logics —the ingredients of common sense‖ —and hand them down from generation to
generation. Rules and logics help shape and circumscribe even the most private and interior of
our mental processes. These interior processes seem natural to us, but really they are socially
channeled.
Contrasting American society with the Ik also helps us see that the connection between
emotion is, important and that this connection is not just a one-way street; Feeling rules and
logics help shape emotions. In their turn, emotions help shape the social structure—ties that bind
and barriers that separate. Sympathy is a crucial emotion that provides glue for social bonds, the
building blocks of society. Among Americans, in contradistinction to the Ik, sympathy reinforces
or creates social bonds....
Rule 1: Do Not Make False Claims to Sympathy
The foremost rule of sympathy etiquette is not to claim others‘ sympathy falsely. Two
and a half millennia ago Aesop‘s fable provided an illustrative case, the still familiar tale of the
boy who cried wolf. Neighbors heeded the boy‘s first few cries. However, because they could
find no concrete evidence of the wolf‘s visit, they dosed his sympathy accounts. When the wolf
actually threatened, the boy found himself alone.
Many interviewees were quite concerned about violations of this rule. They reported
feeling ―taken advantage of,‖ ―betrayed,‖ ―driven crazy,‖ and ―conned‖ when other people
played on their sympathies for their own gain. A person who only pretends to need sympathy
erodes bases for trust. For example, I observed a twenty year-old white college student
describing former classmates in her high school:
Two kids in my school were killed in a car wreck, and the school
was very concerned about how it would affect their friends. The
principal announced over the loudspeaker that we could get off of
school for the funeral, and four kids who didn‘t even know the
ones who got killed went to their teachers and pulled long faces
and claimed to be destroyed. They got off the day of the funeral
and they took some extra days off too. They just ran around town
while the teachers were feeling so sorry for them. Some of the kids
laughed, but, really, I thought it was shocking. You could never
believe them again (Field notes).
71
When someone is caught in a lie, subsequent claims may not ring true. In what could be a
sympathy-worthy situation, others may not empathize, feel sympathy sentiments, or feel obliged
to display sympathy. A young Polish American working-class man also illustrated this logic.
Explaining his reactions to a coworker‘s false claims, he said, ―I can‘t take the time to sort out
which things she claims are real. Now everything she says is suspect to me‖ (field notes).
Usually, however, a ―false claim‖ is not an out-and-out lie: In one kind of false claim, an
actor calculatedly uses hardships to manipulate others‘ sympathies. For instance, a thirty-seven
year-old divorced white woman, a real estate agent, spoke heatedly of a man who had gotten his
friend‘s parents to feel sorry for him because his wife divorced him. The friend‘s parents were
quite sympathetic. They rented him a house cheaply and then sold it to him for half its market
value. ―He just used the [former landlords], and I could never help him out again knowing what
he‘s like‖ (field notes).
False claims may also consist of exaggerations containing a grain of truth. The young
white teacher quoted before, interviewed in his kindergarten classroom, spoke of his mother‘s
tendency to ask for sympathy when she could ―be stronger‖ and ―get through her problems:‘
―She has been the martyr for so many years that it‘s like crying wolf so many times that
sometimes when she deserves sympathy she doesn‘t get it from some of her children‖ Also, a
government worker, a white middle-aged single woman I interviewed, described an acquaintance
who for years had demanded sympathy: ―I know a woman who‘s always been sick, and she
could never stay alone, and so forth. Then her husband died, and she had to make the choice
whether she would go to a [nursing] home or not Now all of a sudden she can live alone and can
do many things she never could do before..:. I just tell her point blank, ‗Grow up.‖ Yet another
respondent, the elderly homemaker I call Goldie Blum, explained her lack of sympathy for her
mother-in-law‘s claims:
My mother-in-law, she‘s, dead now, always complained. I‘m sure
the complaints were valid in her mind. You know, the older you
get, the more you complain. She always complained about being
lonely. This is a woman who had six or seven husbands, and she
would always say she was alone. She lived in Florida, she was
alone, she was lonely, she missed everybody, but when you called
her she was always out playing cards.... Being sympathetic to some
people is, like, next to impossible.
Finally, courting disaster to play on others‘ sympathy is another type of false claim. A
married Hispanic psychologist in her fifties, describing her sister, illustrated this kind of claim:
Amy‘s a disaster area But ... she makes her own problems. She
calls collect from Hawaii to tell me that her husband is selling the
house out from under them. She wants me to say, ―Poor Amy!‖ I
have to say to her, ―He can‘t do that unless you sign the papers
too.‖ But she won‘t think or do anything for herself.... She makes
things bad for herself to get sympathy.... I used to feel sorry for
her, but now I try to avoid her (Field notes).
What is at issue with false claims is a breach of trust, a loss of faith that others will ―play
by the rules.‖ Even if we know to expect cynical and manipulative performances in our everyday
lives, it comes as a shock when we encounter them. The fictions that make interaction easier are
dashed when we cannot overlook or explain away a false claim. We call people ―untrustworthy‖
72
and ―con artists‖ when they mishandle others‘ tangible property or their emotions. A person with
such a tag will have low value in the socioemotional economy and small sympathy margins
Rule 2: Do Not Claim too Much Sympathy
Even when legitimate grounds exist, do not claim ―too much‖ sympathy ―too often‖ or
for ―too long.‖ The person who overdraws accounts in this way risks receiving less sentiment
than would otherwise be forthcoming; or sympathy displays without sentiment, or, worse, no
sympathy displays at all.
Although the point of Aesop‘s story was that pretenses to sympathy are interpersonally
dangerous, I contend that even if many wolves had actually threatened, the boy could not have
hoped to receive unlimited sympathy. In my terminology, the boy had cashed in his sympathy
credits. After his first few claims were honored, he had already received his sympathy allotment
and depleted his sympathy accounts. Whatever one‘s misfortune, claiming and accepting too
much sympathy can seriously diminish others‘ willingness and capacity to sympathize.
A person can ask for too much sympathy in several ways. First, one can ask too much for
a particular problem. One‘s own plight may seem dire, but others may perceive it as minor. I
found much evidence of negative reactions to people who violated this rule:
Every time I see her, I think, ―Here we go again!‖ She‘s like a
broken record. ―Mel did this to me; Mel didn‘t do that for me.‖ I‘m
sorry, but a lot of us have been through divorces and survived.
She‘s gone completely overboard. (Field notes; married white man,
teacher, in his thirties)
She looks like she‘s about thirty. I mean, what does she want?
Why should I feel sorry for her just because she‘s having her
fortieth birthday? (Field notes; married forty-five-year-old white
professional woman)
My neighbor complains that she can‘t make the time to do the
things she needs to do. She wants me to be sympathetic to her. I‘ve
found myself coming home and she‘ll be in my house and say, ―I
had such a bad day.‖ I tell her, ―Barbara, I don‘t care, I don‘t care.
I mean, I‘m more worried about your kids and husband than I am
that you didn‘t have enough time to go shopping with your mother
today.‖ So my wife‘s hating me because she thinks I‘m being
callous about this, but I‘ve told the person to her face, ―I don‘t
believe this story anymore, and don‘t indulge in claptrap as far as
I‘m concerned‖ (Interview; middle-aged ―semi-Orthodox‖ Jewish
man, money manager).
He‘s thirty-eight years old and still doesn‘t maintain a full-time
job. He always blames things on the fact that his mother died when
he was fifteen.... And at this point to use that as an excuse to try
and get sympathy is to the point of being ridiculous (Interview;
married Italian American woman in her thirties, second-grade
teacher).
73
My next door neighbor is a nice person, but a person who I think
demands sympathy from other people to give her own life some
sort of focus. She wants other people to understand her and her
plight and doesn‘t seem able to analyze her life enough so that she
understands that other people have the same problems she has, it‘s
really not a big deal. And I think that she often tries to evoke
sympathy from you because her life isn‘t a big deal. So that‘s a
way of creating it for herself.
She whines and calls you up and kinda says ―Woe is me.‖ I
respond, ―Oh, it isn‘t so bad,‖ and go into your ritualistic method
of dealing with her.... Just today, I got off the phone with her after
the perpetual pep talks to her. I felt that it was rather pathetic to be
her age and still demanding sympathy from people. And I felt sad
for her because she was being a pathetic individual and she has a
lot more capacity to make her life better. And I was a little angry
with her for not getting off her butt and doing it herself, that she
constantly demands things from me to a point that it really does no
good for-her. I shout tell her but it‘s kind of frustrating. You expect
people to see that themselves (Interview; WASP thirty-three-yearold married woman, secretary for an insurance claims department).
A second way to ask for too much sympathy is to ignore the sympathizer‘s present
problems. Those who have their own troubles are, to some extent, exempt from the obligation to
feel or display sympathy to others—especially to others with less serious plights. The comments
of a survey respondent, a Hispanic custodian in her fifties, show that she applied this ―rule for
breaking rules‖ to herself: ―Why should I feel sorry for those people in that story [about a
hurricane damaging their house]? I‘ve got no job, and my husband died.‖ A white forty-sevenyear-old widow, principal of an elementary school, said of her mother, ―She always topped our
problems with her own‖ (interview). Also, Robin Adams, the young bookkeeper quoted
previously, sympathized with her sister Rose who was hospitalized for mental problems, but at
times she became exasperated:
She will never be happy because everybody has done everything to
her and she‘s not responsible for anything! Anything! The bitch
makes twice as much money as I do. She lives with my parents,
she pays nothing for anything, and she still thinks the whole world
owes her everything.
Corollary 2a: Do not accept sympathy too readily
Besides not needing too much sympathy, one should not appear to want it too much One should
not demand sympathy or take it for granted. One certainly should not wallow in sympathy.
Instead, one should underplay problems and count blessings.
Giving expressions of strength, independence, and bravery helps one avoid being
perceived as self-pitying or as enjoying x others‘ displays of sympathy. The oft repeated
question, ―How are you bearing up?‖ implies that one should be trying to bear up. The
appropriate response is, ―I‘m OK‖ ―Pretty well,‖ or ―Can‘t complain.‖ One‘s tone of voice,
energy level, and other nonverbal cues may suggest otherwise—for instance, a person may
74
exhibit what one of Henry James‘s characters called ―the droop of the misunderstood‖
(1881/1963, 192). Yet etiquette calls for verbal expressions of bravery. One of my interviewees
undergoing many problems, a young white single typist, pointed out that she often catalogued
her misfortunes and problems for others but expressly declined sympathy. ―I guess I‘m
conveying that I could ask for their sympathy, but I‘m not, I‘m being brave‖ (field notes).
Underplaying problems is quite common, as Sudnow also found in his research on dying
and the bereaved: ―Persons are engaged, so it seems, in the continual de-emphasis of their
feelings of loss, out of respect for the difficulties of interaction facing those less intimately
involved in the death than themselves‖ (1967, 140). For instance, sympathy phone calls that
Sudnow managed to overhear included remarks initiated by the bereaved about the concerns of
the sympathizer: ―How are your children these days?‖ (137). Underplaying problems represents,
first, significant emotion work undertaken to align feelings with the norms of various
interactional settings. Second, underplaying is a meaningful gesture to the nonbereaved. My
respondent Ethel Carrington underplayed a series of life-threatening illnesses:
When they told me I had cancer and that I had to have a modified
radical mastectomy, I couldn‘t believe it. Then I had the bad flare
up from lupus, and I had a stroke. To be 34 years old and to have a
stroke out of the clear blue sky from a disease that you didn‘t even
know could give you a stroke! And I had arthritis I wasn‘t able to
drive for almost a year. I felt very dependent. I‘m a very
independent person, and unfortunately in my town there‘s no
transportation, none. You have to depend on other people that at
was very frustrating. But I‘m better than I was. I‘m the type of
person, I‘m so busy helping other people that I don‘t have time to
dwell upon myself.... My aunt and uncle died—one died one week,
one died the next. I‘ve got a cousin right now that‘s in a tizzy. I‘m
giving him advice.... I believe even if you‘re sick, you should try to
do as much as you can.
Goldie Blum gave another example:
I was in the middle of having a gall bladder attack, and we were
going to somebody‘s house, and I didn‘t want to be the one to say I
can‘t come to dinner. I went to the hospital early that morning. I‘ve
never liked to be the one to disrupt plans, especially when I know
someone is preparing and doing things. I had the attack the night
before, and I was really dragging around, and I really didn‘t want
to go there for dinner. But I said to Morris, who is my husband, I
said, ―How can we call now and tell them I don‘t feel well?‖ At
that point there was nothing I could even eat. They‘re neighbors,
not even real friends. Can you imagine what I‘d do for a friend?
The victim of circumstances is. also commonly expected to focus on ―good luck‖ or ―blessings‖
that compensate for the present bad luck Hurricane victims interviewed by network newscasters
in the late summer of 1994 lived up to this expectation. None of those whose interviews were
aired failed to strike a positive note. For example, ―It could have been worse‖ (middle-aged
woman), ―At least we‘re still alive‖ (middle-aged man), and ―We‘ll just start rebuilding and try
75
to forget all this‖ (elderly man). My survey respondents reacting to the vignette about hurricane
victims echoed this theme:
I feel sorry, but at least they‘ve got each other and no one was
killed (White homemaker in her fifties).
Sometimes a disaster like this draws people together. They‘re
fortunate, because they‘ll probably be closer now (Young single
African American woman, secretary).
To summarize this corollary, people who eagerly and openly accept sympathy can be an
embarrassment. They are not meeting the role obligations of the sympathizee. Each of us has a
right to some sympathy, but interactional strategies that explicitly call for these rights to be
honored will rapidly diminish sympathy margins. The result is usually less sincere sentiment and
empty display, if any.
Rule 3: Claim Some Sympathy
Prescriptions of bravery aside, to keep sympathy margins alive, one should claim and
accept some sympathy from others in appropriate circumstances. This sympathy rule is perhaps
less obvious than the others. Taken with rule 2, it suggests that there is some optimal amount of
sympathy to claim. The entirely self-reliant--who remain aloof, ―pay cash,‖ and do not develop
―credit ratings‖ by borrowing and repaying—may not have sympathy accounts in time of need.
Paradoxically, those who have histories of never crying wolf may find no one heeding their
legitimate cries. This rule is most clearly applicable in relationships involving intimates or
equals. Yet the case of normally healthy Mr. P. (Locker 1981) shows that it operates to some
extent with your intimates, subordinates, and superiors as well. Another example came from an
interviewee, a forty-year-old married mart, a WASP who works as a coordinator of a program
for gifted and talented students. He said, ―A woman at work, her husband just died. Nobody
knew he was sick; she was just acting a little strange. But she couldn‘t get any empathy‖
Just as the act of claiming sympathy has a variety of meanings so too not claiming
sympathy or refusing it is freighted with meaning. Usually, one who never claims or accepts
sympathy in a stable relationship may no longer be defined as an active member of the
interaction network; this definition results especially, but not only, when one gives little
sympathy to others as well. Actors who do not give or accept sympathy are of the group but not
in it. When such a role solidifies and becomes habitual, an out-of-character claim for sympathy
may not ―compute.‖ The following case shows that highly competent people who rarely claim
sympathy can easily face being defined as not needing sympathy—not having the problems,
worries, or stage fright common among the less able.
I was so surprised--shocked---at the reaction of my colleagues last
week. I had to give a big presentation that lasted two days. I‘ve
done shorter ones before, but this was frightening. I found myself
getting nervous and tried to talk to my friends about it They just
said, ―Oh, you‘ll do OK. You always do.‖ Not an ounce of
sympathy! And these were ―near‖ friends, too, not just people I
know (Field notes: WASP single woman in her thirties, editor in a
publishing business)
76
Although this young editor gave sympathy to others, she rarely found the need to claim it. The
event she described led her to recognize that she had no sympathy accounts with her co-workers.
She reported that she intended to change their perceptions of her by letting them know more
about her insecurities--namely, by claiming some sympathy.
As my respondents indicated, a person who does not, from time to time, claim and accept
some sympathy sends signals. Others may consider them too self-possessed or too fortunate.
People may see the self-possessed as too expert at coping compared with the average person and
therefore not in need. They may believe the fortunate have already received adequate
compensation to offset reverses. In other words, a social actor who never claims sympathy is a
type of rate-buster.
77
Masculinity as Homophobia
Michael S. Kimmel
Michael Kimmel argues that American men are socialized into a very rigid and
limiting definition of masculinity. He states that men fear being ridiculed as too
feminine by other risen and this fear perpetuates homophobic and exclusionary
masculinity. He calls for politics of inclusion or the broadening definition of
manhood to end gender struggle.
Questions
1. Kimmel discusses men‘s fear of being called a ―sissy.‖ Can you think of other examples where
men criticize each other‘s manhood? What are some other terms used to denote femininity as a
negative attribute in men?
2. How is manhood defined in other cultures? Is the U.S. ideal of manhood more or less rigid
than other examples you identify?
3. Does age make a difference in how men view other men?
4. How can women change the perception of manhood?
The great secret of American manhood is: We are afraid of other men. Homophobia is a central
organizing principle of our cultural definition of manhood. Homophobia is more than the
irrational fear of gay men, more than the fear that we might be perceived as gay. ―The word
‗faggot‘ has nothing to do with homosexual experience or even with fears of homosexuals;‘
writes David Leverenz (1986). ―It comes out of the depths of manhood: a label of ultimate
contempt for anyone who seems sissy, untough, uncool‖ (p. 455). Homophobia is the fear that
other men will unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to us and the world that we do not measure up,
that we are not real men. We are afraid to let other men see that fear. Fear makes us ashamed,
because the recognition of fear in ourselves is proof to ourselves that we are not as manly as we
pretend, that we are, like the young man in a poem by Yeats, ―one that ruffles in a manly pose
for all his timid heart.‖ Our fear is the fear of humiliation. We are ashamed to be afraid.
The fear of being seen as a sissy dominates the cultural definitions of manhood. It starts
so early. Boys among boys are ashamed to be unmanly,‖ wrote one educator in 1871 (cited in
Rotundo, 1993, p. 264). I have a standing bet with a friend that I can walk onto any playground
in America where 6-year-old boys are happily playing and by asking one question, I can provoke
a fight. That question is simple: ―Who‘s a sissy around here?‖ Once posed, the challenge is
made. One of two things is likely to happen. One boy will accuse another of being a sissy, to
which that boy will respond that he is not a sissy, that the first boy is. They may have to fight it
out to see who‘s lying. Or a whole group of boys will surround one boy and all shout ―He is! He
is!‖That boy will either burst into tears and run home crying, disgraced, or he will have to take
on several boys at once, to prove that he‘s not a sissy. (And what will his father or older brothers
tell him if he chooses to run home crying?) It will be some time before he regains any sense of
self-respect.
Violence is often the single most evident marker of manhood. Rather it is the willingness
to fight, the desire to fight. The origin of our expression that one has a chip on one‘s shoulder
lies in the practice of an adolescent boy in the country or small town at the turn, of the century,
78
who would literally walk around with a chip of wood balanced on his shoulder—a signal of his
readiness to fight with anyone who would take the initiative of knocking the chip off (see Gorer,
1964, p. 38; Mead, 1965).
As adolescents, we learn that our peers are a kind of gender police, constantly threatening
to unmask us as feminine, as sissies. One of the favorite tricks when I was an adolescent was to
ask a boy to look at his fingernails. If he held his palm toward his face and curled his fingers
back to see them, he passed the test. He‘d looked at his nails ―like a man.‖ But if he held the
back of his hand away from his face, and looked at his fingernails with arm outstretched, he was
immediately ridiculed as a sissy.
As young men we are constantly riding those gender boundaries, checking the fences we
have constructed on the perimeter, making sure that nothing even remotely feminine might show
through. The possibilities of being unmasked are everywhere. . . . Even the most seemingly
insignificant thing can pose a threat or activate that haunting terror. On the day the students in
my course ―Sociology of Men and Masculinities‖ were scheduled to discuss homophobia and
male-male friendships, one student provided a touching illustration. Noting that it was a beautiful
day, the first day of spring after the brutal northeast winter, he decided to wear shorts to class. ―I
had this really nice pair of new Madras shorts:‘ he commented. ―But then I thought to myself,
these shorts have lavender and pink in them. Today‘s class topic is homophobia. Maybe today is
not the best day to wear these shorts.‖
Our efforts to maintain a manly front cover everything we do. What we wear. How we
talk. How we walk. What we eat. Every mannerism, every movement contains a coded gender
language. Think, for example, of how you would answer the question: How do you ―know‖ if a
man is homosexual? When I ask this question in classes or workshops, respondents invariably,
provide a pretty standard list of stereotypically effeminate behaviors. He walks a certain way,
talks a certain way, acts a certain way. He‘s very emotional; he shows his feelings. One woman
commented that she ―knows‖ a man is gay if he really cares about her; another said she knows
he‘s gay if he shows no interest in her, if he leaves her alone.
Now alter the question and imagine what heterosexual men do to make sure no one could
possibly get the ―wrong idea‖ about them. Responses typically refer to the original stereotypes,
this time as a set of negative rules about behavior. Never dress that way. Never talk or walk that
way. Never show your feelings or get emotional. Always be prepared to demonstrate sexual
interest in women that you meet, so it is impossible for any woman to get the wrong idea about
you. In this sense, homophobia, the fear of being perceived as gay, as not a real man, keeps men
exaggerating all the traditional rules of masculinity, including sexual predation with women.
Homophobia and sexism go hand in hand.
Power and Powerlessness in the Lives of Men
Manhood is equated with power—over women, over other men. Everywhere we look, we see the
institutional expression of that power—in state and national legislatures, on the boards of
directors of every major U.S. corporation or law firm, and in every school and hospital
administration. Women have long understood this, and feminist women have spent the past three
decades challenging both the public and the private expressions of men‘s power and
acknowledging their fear of men. Feminism as a set of theories both explains women‘s fear of
men and empowers women to confront it both publicly and privately. Feminist women have
theorized that masculinity is about the drive for domination, the drive for power, for conquest.
79
This feminist definition of masculinity as the drive for power is theorized from women‘s point of
view. It is how women experience masculinity. But it assumes a symmetry between the public
and the private that does not conform to men‘s experiences. Feminists observe that women, as a
group, do not hold power in our society. They also observe that individually, they, as women, do
not feel powerful. They feel afraid, vulnerable. Their observation of the social reality and their
individual experiences are therefore symmetrical. Feminism also observes that men, as a group,
are in power. Thus, with the same symmetry, feminism has tended to assume that individually
men must feel powerful.
This is why the feminist critique of masculinity often falls on deaf ears with men. When
confronted with the analysis that men have all the power, many men react incredulously.‖What
do you mean, men have all the power?‖ they ask.‖What are you talking about? My wife bosses
me around. My kids boss me around. My boss bosses me around. I have no power at all! I‘m
completely powerless.
Men‘s feelings are not the feelings of the powerful, but of those who see themselves as
powerless. These are the feelings that come inevitably from the discontinuity between the social
and the psychological, between the aggregate analysis that reveals how men are in power as a
group and the psychological fact that they do not feel powerful as individuals. They are the
feelings of men who were raised to believe themselves entitled to feel that power, but do not feel
it. No wonder many men are frustrated and angry.
Often the purveyors of the mythopoetic men‘s movement, that broad umbrella that
encompasses all the groups helping men to retrieve this mythic deep manhood, use the image of
the chauffeur to describe modern man‘s position. The chauffeur appears to have the power—he‘s
wearing the uniform, he‘s in the driver‘s seat, and he knows where he‘s going. So, to the
observer, the chauffeur looks as though he is in command. But to the chauffeur himself, they
note, he is merely taking orders. He is not at all in charge.
Despite the reality that everyone knows chauffeurs do not have the power, this image
remains appealing to the men who hear it at these weekend workshops. But there is a missing
piece to the image, a piece concealed by the framing of the image in terms of the individual
man‘s experience. That missing piece is that the person who is giving the orders is also a man.
Now we have a relationship between men—between men giving orders and other men taking
those orders. The man who identifies with the chauffeur is entitled to be the man giving the
orders, but he is not. (―They‖ it turns out, are other men.)
The dimension of power is now reinserted into men‘s experience not only as the product
of individual experience but also as the product of relations with other men. In this sense, men‘s
experience of powerlessness is real—the men actually feel it and certainly act on it but it is not
true, that is, it does not accurately describe their condition. In contrast to women‘s lives, men‘s
lives are structured around relationships of power and men‘s differential access to power, as well
as the differential access to that power of men as a group. Our imperfect analysis of our own
situation leads us to believe that we men need more power, rather than leading us to support
feminists‘ efforts to rearrange power relationships along more equitable lines.
Why, then, do American men feel so powerless? Part of the answer is because we‘ve
constructed the rules of manhood so that only the tiniest fraction of men come to believe that
they are the biggest of wheels, the sturdiest of oaks, the most virulent repudiators of femininity,
the most daring and aggressive. We‘ve managed to disempower the overwhelming majority of
American men by other means—such as discriminating on the basis of race, class, ethnicity, age,
or sexual preference.
80
Masculinist retreats to retrieve deep, wounded masculinity are but one of the ways in
which American men currently struggle with their fears and their shame. Unfortunately, at the
very moment that they work to break down the isolation that governs men‘s lives, as they enable
men to express those fears and that shame, they ignore the social power that men continue to
exert over women and the privileges from which they (as the middle-aged, middle-class white
men who largely make up these retreats) continue to benefit—regardless of their experiences as
wounded victims of oppressive male socialization.
Others still rehearse the politics of exclusion, as if by Bearing away the playing field of
secure gender identity of any that we deem less than manly—women, gay men, nonnative-born
men, men of color—middle-class, straight, white men can reground their sense of themselves
without those haunting fears and that deep shame that they are unmanly and will be exposed by
other men. This is the manhood of racism, of sexism, of homophobia. It is the manhood that is so
chronically insecure that it trembles at the idea of lifting the ban on gays in the military, that is so
threatened by women in the workplace that women become the targets of sexual harassment, that
is so deeply frightened of equality that it must ensure that the playing field of male competition
remains stacked against all newcomers to the game.
Exclusion and escape have been the dominant methods American men have used to keep
their fears of humiliation at bay. The fear of emasculation by other men, of being humiliated, of
being seen as a sissy, is the leitmotif in my reading of the history of American manhood.
Masculinity has become a relentless test by which we prove to other men, to women, and
ultimately to ourselves, that we have successfully mastered the part. The restlessness that men
feel today is nothing anew in American history; we have been anxious and restless for almost
two centuries. Neither exclusion nor escape has ever brought us the relief we‘ve sought, and
there is no reason to think that either will solve our problems now. Peace of mind, relief from
gender struggle, will come only from a politics of inclusion, not exclusion, from standing up for
equality and justice, and not by running away.
81
In class fallacy exercise 1
Ad Hominem, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Fear, Appeal to Novelty,
Bandwagon, Base Rate
1.
The testimony of the defendant accused of manslaughter in this indictment should be
disallowed because she has been arrested for shoplifting on many occasions.
2.
I‘d better eat my Wheaties. Michael Jordan says that it‘s the breakfast of
champions.
3.
The Swine Flu has been found in 50% of those who visited Mexico last month.
4.
Be the first on earth to drink Tang—it‘s the new beverage created for space travel.
5.
Mr. Lee‘s views on Japanese culture are not to be trusted, because his parents were both
killed by the Japanese army during World War II and that made him anti-Japanese all his life.
6.
You should help that pregnant woman to her car with her groceries.
7.
The Volkswagon Beetle is the coolest car around. It‘s selling like hot cakes.
8.
I almost lost it when I heard the Maharishi condemn western materialism and
consumerism. What a crock! Did you see the Rolls Royce he drove up in?
9.
You‘re home alone. You‘ve just heard on the radio that a homicidal maniac has
escaped from the state pen. Suddenly, you hear the sound of breaking glass. What do you
do? What do you do? Don‘t let this happen to you! Give your family the peace of mind they
deserve. Call Allied Security today!
10.
His family was in a car accident, put yourself in his shoes and cut him some slack.
11.
My doctor told me I need to eat right and lose weight. What a laugh! You know
where that tub of lard was when he gave me this great advice? He was a contestant in the
banana-split-eating contest at the county fair.
12.
Ford is coming out with the new Jupiter car for the new model year. It has 8 seats, a
bike rack, 12 cup holders, 3 sun roofs, 2 built in ice chests, and it even comes with two
bikes. There has never been a vehicle like this before. It‘s for the family on the move.
13.
The federal budget deficits are destroying this country. Just ask the
working stiff; he‘ll tell you.
14.
Girls with absent dads are twice as likely to get pregnant as other girls.
82
15.
Of course there is a God. Almost every civilization in history has believed
in a deity of some kind.
16.
That candidate supports nuclear power and you know that nuclear power is
dangerous; remember the disaster at Chernobyl?
17.
Buy the new and improved Ovaltine.
18.
Convicted murderer Johnny Palko has argued that he did not receive a fair trial.
But Palko is a vicious thug who‘s spent most of his adult life behind bars. Why should we
even listen to such a parasite?
19.
Podunk State University is a better university than Harvard University. I‘ve been
assured of this by Dr. Bigelow Hype, dean of admissions at Podunk State.
20.
Ninety percent of Sociology 108 students who get As are girls.
21.
The former mayor was convicted of drug possession, and he spent time in jail. So
you can safely ignore anything he has to say about legalizing drugs.
22.
Professor, I deserve a better grade than a D on my paper. Look, my parents just got
a divorce. If they see that I got a D, they will just blame each other, and the fighting will
start all over again. Give me a break.
23.
Take Sociology 292, a brand new class on the sociology of new and exciting things.
No other school has a class like this.
24.
Half of the students in my sociology 402 class passed last semester.
25.
If you don‘t take Sociology 101 you won‘t be able to graduate.
26.
If you don‘t take my class, it will get cancelled due to low enrollment and I won‘t
have a job and won‘t be able to pay my bills.
27.
Why would you want to hear him speak? He‘s a flaming liberal who doesn‘t care about
anything except saving trees in the rain forest.
28.
Dr. Leonard Vesey, chief of Pediatrics at Boston Children‘s Hospital, has argued
that abortion is always immoral. Given Dr. Vesey‘s impressive professional credentials,
we must conclude that abortion is always immoral.
29.
The prime minister is lying about his intelligence briefings since almost everyone
surveyed in national polls thinks he‘s lying.
83
30.
Buy life insurance. What if you die today and your family lost the house because
you didn‘t have life insurance?
31.
Mr. Watkins has clearly and concisely detailed his arguments concerning the relative
safety of tobacco products for Third World countries. But, let me remind you that we could
hardly expect him to say anything else because he has worked in the tobacco industry for the last
twenty years.
32.
Does acupuncture work? Can it cure disease? Of course. It has been used in China by
folk practitioners for at least three thousand years.
84
In class fallacy exercise 2
Begging the Question, Biased Sample, Burden of Proof, Cherry Picking, Composition,
Confusing Cause and Effect, Division
1.
Every part of this chair is light. Therefore, this chair is light.
2.
Hitler was a vegetarian. He was an accomplished whistler and could whistle on pitch.
Hitler loved chocolate. He loved his German Shepherd dog, Blondi. Hitler was just like you and
me, what a regular guy.
3.
God does not exist because every argument for the existence of God has been shown to
be unsound.
4.
Wellington‘s is a classier bar than Jake‘s. It‘s a classier bar because it has a more
upscale clientele. It has a more upscale clientele because it has a nicer decor. It has a nicer
decor because it‘s a classier bar.
5.
There is no information in Private Baker‘s service record that indicates that he is
not a homosexual. Consequently, I can only assume that he is.
6.
The volcano erupted shortly after the king abandoned worship of the ancient
tribal spirits. The tribal spirits must be angry.
7.
Which sport is more popular: sailing or snow skiing? To find out we asked more
than five hundred people on the streets of Miami, Florida. The result? Americans prefer
sailing by a margin of more than 3 to 1.
8.
I have no proof that my refrigerator light goes off when I close the refrigerator door.
Therefore, it‘s reasonable to believe that it doesn‘t.
9.
Nate was throwing handfuls of crumbs around his house. ―What are you doing?‖
someone asked him. ―Keeping the tigers away.‖ ―But there are no tigers in these parts.‖
―That‘s right. Effective, isn‘t it.‖
10.
The resurrection is a myth because the Bible is myth, and the Bible is a myth
because it contains obviously mythical stories like the resurrection.
11.
After nine years at Pacific Bell I learned just about everything there was to know about
looking busy without actually being busy. During that time the stock price of Pacific Bell
climbed steadily, so I think I can conclude that my avoidance of work was in the best
interest of the company and something to be proud of (Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle,
1996)
12.
―Seeing that the eye and hand and foot of everyone of our members has some obvious
function, must we not believe that in like manner a human being has a function over and
above these particular functions?‖ [Aristotle]
85
13.
Jeff told me the bible says homosexuality is wrong so that‘s why he doesn‘t hire
gays and lesbians, it‘s unchristian. The other day I saw Jeff spit on a homeless man
who approached him for some spare change.
14.
My sweater is blue. Therefore, the atoms that make up the sweater are blue.
15.
Watch the Business Report at 7:00 on channel 6. It‘s the best report on current dealings
on Wall Street because no comparative study of business reports has ever proved to our
satisfaction that there is any better.
16.
The study found that 80 percent of women who took the drug daily had no
recurrence of breast cancer. But that doesn‘t mean anything. The study was funded in part
by the company that makes the drug.
17.
Gremlins exist, that‘s for sure. No scientist has ever proved that they don‘t exist.
18.
I asked everyone who walked into the cafeteria if they liked the food.
19.
Frances: This is the best class ever. Paul: How do you know? Frances: The professor
said so.
20.
Professor on the first day of class: This class is fun, therefore all the assignments will
be fun.
21.
I believe that baby-carrying storks are real creatures. No one has ever proved that
they don‘t exist.
22.
Every player on the team is the best in the league. So the team itself is the best in
the league.
23.
Three thieves are dividing up the $7000 they just stole from the First National Bank.
Robber number one gives $2000 to robber number two, $2000 to robber number three, and
$3000 to himself. Robber number two says, ―How come you get $3000‖ Robber number
one says, ―Because I am the leader.‖ ―How come you‘re the leader?‖ ―Because I have more
money.‖
24.
Most immigrants who enter this country wind up in jail or on welfare. I know this
because I read it on a White Power Web site.
25.
If angels don‘t exist, how do you explain the days when you haven‘t studied for a
test, and there is a snow day the next day? Or when you‘re mean to someone, and the very
next day you see someone getting teased and you realize how bad it must feel? (Jack
McKenna, age 12, quoted in Parade magazine, March 18, 2001.)
86
26.
The Smithson Foundation is investigating whether or not police officers are using
excessive force in traffic arrests of minorities. Hence, it is quite reasonable to conclude that
some police officers, at least, use excessive force in that kind of arrest.
27.
Paper is combustible because it burns.
28.
87
In class fallacy exercise 3
Equivocation, False Dilemma, Gambler’s Fallacy, Guilt by Association, Hasty
Generalization, Loaded Question, Logical Inconsistency
1.
If you love your family, you‘ll buy this new stealth security system.
2.
Most women from California believe in astrology. I know because I‘ve dated three
women from California, and they all believed in astrology.
3.
She‘s an honors student and you‘re her pal so you must be an honors student also.
4.
Sigrid is an illegal alien. An alien is a creature from outer space. Therefore, Sigrid
is a creature from outer space.
5.
Why should merely cracking down on terrorism help to stop it when that method
hasn't worked in any other country? Why are we so hated in the Muslim world? What did
our government do there to bring this horror home? And why don't we learn anything,
from our free press, about the gross ineptitude of our state agencies? And what about the
links between the Bush and the bin Laden families?
6.
Either you support preferential treatment for disadvantaged minorities in university
admissions, or you‘re a racist. But surely you‘re not a racist. Therefore, you support
preferential treatment for disadvantaged minorities in university admissions.
7.
You‘re Fred‘s sister. He was a good student. I‘ll expect good things of you.
8.
Old Mr. Ferguson (who resides at the Burnside Home for the Blind) claims he
could read the car‘s license plate from more than 150 feet away. I‘ve never known Mr.
Ferguson to be deliberately dishonest. Therefore, we should conclude that Mr. Ferguson
really did read the car‘s license plate from more than 150 feet away.
9.
Everything that exists is animal, vegetable, or mineral. The number 7 obviously isn‘t an
animal or a vegetable. Therefore, the number 7 is a mineral.
10. Dudley said that whenever anything would go wrong at his last job, his boss
would always say he was responsible. I guess Dudley must be a very responsible
person. I‘d better hire him.
11.
If it‘s got to be clean, it‘s got to be Tide.
12.
He cheated, I saw him cheat. You are his best friend, so you cheated too.
13.
Only man has morals. No woman is a man. Therefore, no woman has morals.
14.
Smoking causes cancer because my father was a smoker and he died of lung cancer.
88
15. Your critical thinking instructor: Aren't you ashamed about how little effort you've made
in this class?
16. Jeff and Maribeth slept together on prom night. Sleep is a state of unconscious or semiconscious rest or repose. It follows that Jeff and Maribeth must have spent a very restful night
together.
17. I wish I could take my four basset hounds with me when I move, but I just can‘t. I
know you have only a small apartment, but won‘t you consider adopting them? I hate to
think of them starving in the street or winding up in the dog pound.
18. I‘ll bet on horse #5 because he usually wins ¾ of his races and he‘s lost half already
this season. He is due for a win.
19.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was pure evil. Vegetarians have evil ideals.
20. Police detective: Did you get a good look at the bank robber?
Witness: Yes, I saw his face clearly. It was Willie, the night watchman.
Detective: And were you also able to recognize his voice?
Witness: No, I couldn‘t really hear what he said very well. His voice was mummed by
the full ski mask he wore.
21. The last three times I have had a cold I took large doses of vitamin C. On each occasion,
the cold cleared up within a few days. So vitamin C helped me recover from colds.
22. I‘m prejudiced only if I hold irrational biases. But I don‘t hold any irrational biases.
I just think this country‘s being overrun by Catholics and Jews.
23. Rich Kowalski is a young, successful CEO of an Internet start-up company, and his
parents come from Poland. Kelly Yablonski is a young, successful CEO of an Internet
start-up company, and her parents come from Poland. Matt Golembeski is a young,
successful CEO of an Internet start-up company, and his parents come from Poland.
Miguel Gonzalez is also a young, successful CEO of an Internet start-up company. So,
his parents probably come from Poland, too.
24. Penicillin is a miracle of modern medicine. A miracle is a divinely produced
violation of a law of nature. Therefore, penicillin is a divinely produced violation of a law
of nature.
25. I can only afford to live near the airport so I‘ll buy this house that was hit by a plane.
The chance of being hit again must be very small.
26.
Stephen, if you don‘t stop smoking, you are going to die!
27. All terrorists hang out in caves. My anthropology professor lived in a cave for six
months. He must be a terrorist.
89
28.
Some people are fools and some people are married to fools.
29. Children become able to solve complex problems and think of physical objects
objectively at the same time that they learn language. Therefore, these abilities are caused by
learning a language.
30.
I don‘t believe in superstitions. They‘re bad luck.
31. I won a scholarship and got an award so I‘ll buy a lottery ticket, after all I‘m on a
streak and good things come in threes.
32.
Ford cars are lemons. I‘ve owned two, and they gave me nothing but trouble.
33. Either God exists or he does not exist. If he exists, and you believe, you will gain
heaven; if he exists and you don‘t believe, you will lose everything. If he does not exist,
and you believe, you won‘t lose much. If he does not exist, and you don‘t believe, you still
won‘t lose much. The best gamble then is to believe.
34. Mr. Martin claims that boys tend to be better at math than girls. What a ridiculous
overgeneralization! My friend Alice is the best math student in her class. So, it‘s clear that
girls are better at math than boys.
35. When flying on a plane I always bring a bomb with me. The chances of someone
having a bomb on a plane is very slim and the chances of two people having bombs
must be zero.
90
In class fallacy exercise 4
Missing the Point, Naturalistic, Non Sequitur, Questionable Analogy, Red Herring,
Relativist, Slippery Slope
1.
Don‘t fire that cannon in these snow-packed hills. The cannon could cause an
avalanche, and the avalanche could destroy the ski lodge and possibly the village below.
Hundreds of people might die.
2.
Bill Baxter deserves to be promoted to vice president. He has three small children, and
just last week his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer.
3.
You'll never find any additives in our tobacco. What you see is what you get. Simply
100% whole-leaf natural tobacco.
4.
If a proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania state constitution to grant residents
of Pennsylvania the right to hunt is passed, the floodgate will be opened for other
groups to follow. What‘s next? An amendment allowing the right to play golf or go
shopping?
5.
Beth: I have hot flashes and night sweats, I must be peri-menopausal. John: So
does that mean we can‘t have sex?
6.
Dear Mr. Ferguson, I‘m sure you‘ll agree that after three years working as head of
company security I‘m long overdue for a raise. By the way, may I respectfully suggest that
you make sure the surveillance cameras are turned off next time you and your secretary
need to ―catch up on some paperwork‖?
7.
A Saint Bernard is large, cuddly, furry, and makes a great house pet. A baby
grizzly bear is also large, cuddly, and furry. Therefore, a baby grizzly bear would make a
great house pet, too.
8.
Students have asked that we extend residence hall visitation hours by one hour on
Friday and Saturday nights. This request will have to be denied. If we give students an
extra visitation hour on weekends, next they‘ll be asking us to allow their boyfriends and
girlfriends to stay over all night. Eventually, we‘ll have students shacking up in every
room.
9.
Since the 1960s promiscuity, divorce, abortion, teen suicide, and out-of-wedlock
births have all risen sharply. Clearly, we need to restore prayer in public schools.
10. There‘s nothing wrong with segregating restrooms on the basis of race. After all, we‘ve
always had separate restrooms for men and women, and no one seems to complain about
that.
11.
Eat these mushrooms, they have to be good, I found them growing in the forest.
91
12. A lot of people think that football jocks are stupid and boorish. That‘s a crock.
Anyone who had seen the fantastic game that our team played on Saturday with three
touchdowns before halftime would not believe such rubbish.
13. One of your readers suggested we should ban smoking in public places like
California does. I‘m from New York and New York State tried to do something similar,
but think about this. You might be concerned with the filthy smoke that streams over to
the nonsmoking section, but when your state starts to control your actions that‘s just the
beginning, and soon everything else will be controlled. You might want to think about
that. If you don‘t like places that allow smoking, try going somewhere that does not
allow it.
14. Is the Bible divinely inspired? There can be no doubt that it is, for it has been a best
seller for thousands of years.
15. Karen has argued that the secretaries at Acme Steel will get more respect if they change
their titles from ―secretary‖ to ―office assistant.‖ But everyone knows that Acme Steel has
a bottom-line mentality. They‘ll let you call yourself anything you want, but they won‘t
raise your salary a nickel.
16. There has been an increase in burglary in the area. It must be because there are
more people moving into the area.
17. Could we please have a move to abolish parole in this state, in fact in the country?
If you get sentenced for a crime, you should serve the entire time, not just a portion of it.
Just like when you take out a mortgage or a car loan, they don‘t say you paid it nice for
the first couple of years and we‘ll eliminate the next twenty-some years.
18. If we don‘t dramatically increase defense spending, the Chinese will soon surpass
us as a military power. If the Chinese surpass us as a military power, it‘s only a matter of
time before we‘ll all be speaking Chinese and eating chop suey.
19. You are hot and I am cold. You are wearing a brown coat. So let's go for a
drink.
20. Mary: This dress is so pretty, but it‘s very expensive. Consuela: But it flatters your
figure.
21. Methadone, what a crock. Just because you can‘t get high off of it doesn‘t mean it‘s not a
narcotic. What all these addicts are doing is trading one narcotic for another. It‘s like having an
alcoholic drink beer instead of whisky.
22. Ned: Lots of red meat is so bad for a person‘s health. Ted: Not for me, it helps me
from becoming anemic.
92
23. Dr. Christina Sparks has argued that the morning-after pill is an effective
contraceptive. But the morning-after pill simply encourages sexual promiscuity. Sexual
promiscuity is the reason why we have such high rates of abortion and out-of-wedlock
births in this country. Obviously, Dr. Sparks‘ argument is flawed.
24. Strong measures must be taken to halt the flood of Mexican immigrants into the
United States. If we allow this immigration to continue, soon Spanish will become the
official language of California and Texas. Eventually, the entire United States will be
just a cultural offshoot of Mexico.
25.
How many monks does it take to screw in a light bulb? This light fixture is broken.
26. Frank: If you work hard, you will get a good job. Paul: So if I do not work hard I
will not get a good job
27.
It‘s ok for Officer Kerry to run red lights in his personal car.
28. Amid cries that there is too much violence on TV, members of Congress are
moving to censor network programming. Congress should mind its own dang
business…Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., wants to require new TV sets to include a
computer chip that will allow parents to block violent programs. That‘s not as harmless
as it seems. What‘s next? A computer chip to block anti-government programs?
(editorial, ―On TV Censorship,‖ Charleston (West Virginia) Daily Mail, August 13, 1993)
29. If today you can make teaching evolution in public schools a crime, then tomorrow
you can make it a crime to teach it in private schools. Then you can ban books and other
educational materials that mention evolution. And then you can ban the very word from all
discourse. And then the anti-science bigots will have won.
30.
My homework is so much fun for my critical thinking class. Is this chicken?
31.
Some Catholics obtain abortions.
32. This is about the person who is concerned about McDonald Corporation‘s
treatment of pigs and chickens. What about the poor potatoes? They gouge out their
eyes, they rip off their skin, and they throw them in boiling oil.
93
In class fallacy exercise 5
Social Conformance, Spotlight, Straw Man, Tokenism, Two Wrongs Make a Right, You
Too, Wishful Thinking
1.
I can‘t believe that these convicted murderers have the gall to claim that their
rights have been violated by prison officials. They didn‘t respect the rights of their
victims. Why should we respect theirs?
2.
Hi, Mrs. Bowman, this is Debbie at Little Tykes Day Care. Sorry to bother you at
work. I know you asked us not to give Little Petey any more candy or desserts at day care,
but there‘s a birthday party today and all the kids are having chocolate cupcakes. Petey
feels so left out. He‘s the only one without a cupcake, and he‘s just bawling his little eyes
out. Wouldn‘t it be OK if I gave him a dessert just this once?
3.
Feminism is wrong because it claims that all women are saints and all men are rapists.
4.
Why shouldn‘t I make fun of my boss? Look at all the abuse I take from her!
5.
School superintendent Kate Duncan has argued that children in public schools should be
allowed to participate in a voluntary moment of silence at the beginning of each school day. But
it‘s wrong to allow teachers to indoctrinate children with their own religious views. Duncan‘s
argument must be firmly rejected.
6.
Bill: "Jane, you say you are a feminist, but you can't be."
Jane: "What! What do you mean? Is this one of your stupid jokes or something?"
Bill: "No, I'm serious. Over the summer I saw feminists appear on several talk shows and news
shows and I read about them in the papers. The women were really bitter and said that women
were victims of men and needed to be given special compensation. You are always talking about
equal rights and forging your own place in the world. So, you can't be a feminist."
Jane: "Bill, there are many types of feminism, not just the brands that get media attention."
Bill: "Oh. Sorry."
7.
We hired him because he‘s Asian and it looks good to have an Asian working here
since it‘s a predominantly Asian neighborhood.
8.
The new StratoCar is the best automobile on the road. Picture the admiring glances
you‘ll get from your family, friends, and coworkers when you take a cruise through town in
your StratoCar.
9.
On the first day of class the Professor says ―Don‘t come to class late.‖ The next day
the professor arrived at his doctor‘s appointment late.
10.
Al: I can‘t believe it! My bank made a mistake on my account balance. There‘s an extra
$3,000 in my checking account. Joe: Are you going to report the mistake? Al: Why should I?
They‘ve been ripping me off for years with their high ATM fees.
94
11.
Mr. Smith, maybe there is some truth in what you say about me being rude to sales
people, but I have certainly heard many sales people complain about your manners, so you are
certainly not the person to point this out to me.
12.
Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000." Prof. Smith:
"What are we going to do?" Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching
assistant positions. That would take care of it." Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our
scheduled raises instead." Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry
like that, Jones."
13.
I am the only woman working in this position for this company.
14.
My driving instructor, Mr. Peterson, told me that it‘s dangerous to drive without a seat
belt. But why should I listen to him? Last week I saw him driving without a seat belt.
15.
"My home in Florida is six inches above sea level. Therefore I am certain that global
warming will not make the oceans rise by one foot."
16.
Rachel Peters has argued that assault weapons should be outlawed. Apparently, Rachel
believes that no one has the right to own firearms for purposes of self-protection. But such a
view is completely indefensible. It would leave law-abiding citizens defenseless against
predatory criminals.
17.
―Jane Roe‖ the pseudonym for the woman who was at the heart of the landmark
abortion case is now pro life. What am I to believe about abortion if even she changed her
opinion?
18.
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree
entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
19.
Black history month is the shortest month of the year.
20.
I want to be the boss so I‘ll act like the boss and they will just make me the boss.
21.
Oops, no paper this morning. Somebody in our apartment building probably stole my
newspaper. So, that makes it OK for me to steal one from my neighbor‘s doormat while nobody
else is out here in the hallway.
22.
Child to playmate: Admit it! Admit that Scooby-Doo is a better cartoon show than
Pokemon!
23.
How can you call our organization racist? After all, our receptionist is African American.
24.
There‘s got to be an error here in the history book. It says Thomas Jefferson had slaves.
He was our best president, and a good president would never do such a thing. That would be
awful.
95
25.
Ann: "I'm not letting little Jimmy use his online account anymore!"
Sasha: "Why not? Did he hack into the Pentagon and try to start world war three?"
Ann: "No. Haven't you been watching the news and reading the papers? There are perverts
online just waiting to molest kids! You should take away your daughter's account. Why,
there must be thousands of sickos out there!"
Sasha: "Really? I thought that there were only a very few cases."
Ann: "I'm not sure of the exact number, but if the media is covering it so much, then most
people who are online must be indecent."
26.
I see nothing unethical in paying bribes to foreign officials to obtain business
favors. That‘s the way business is done in many parts of the world. Like they say, ―When
in Rome, do as the Romans do.‖
96
Statements NOT Needing Defense
statements grounded in our own individual personal experience
statements about common experience
statements about matters of common knowledge
statements accepted by both author and audience within the context of a presentation
claims that seem intuitively obvious to us
Statements Needing Defense
statements about experiences only a few persons have had or of a very unusual sort
statements that make universal or near universal claims
statements that report data or make claims that many people actually do, or may, dispute
statements that reflect disputable inference from data
normative statements
How to Make Good Arguments Stronger
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Give additional support to weak or questionable premises, by strengthening them or
adding more premises.
Substitute less controversial premises if they will work.
Soften, if necessary, any absolute claims made in the premises in a way that might make
them more acceptable (omit always and never).
Take out irrelevant matters that tend to clutter up the argument.
Recast the argument in a more orderly form, so that the direction of the argument is clear.
Restate premises in their clearest and most economical form.
Declare which are the weakest points in the argument, not only to demonstrate your
objectivity, but also to blunt the force of your opponent‘s counter-fire.
Clear up any vague or confusing language used.
Spell out any implicit premises important to the argument, so that there will be no
question about their role.
Be as exhaustive in your rebuttal as the context calls for.
97
APA Guidelines
Journal Articles
Author’s last name, first initial, middle initial. (Year of publication). Title of article.
Periodical title, volume number, page numbers.
Example, Journal with two names
Marenco, A. L., & Beauford, B. D. (2006). The study of happy families of the 20st century.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 18, 215-223.
Daily, Weekly, Monthly, or Serial Periodical Articles
Author’s last name, first initial, middle initial. (Year of publication, date/season/month of
publication). Title of article. Periodical title, volume number, page numbers.
Example, Quarterly Serial, three names
Marenco, A. L., Matthews, E., & Hackeysack, E. S. (2006, Winter). The most happy family
of all. Journal of Unhappy Families, 27, 15-19.
Example, Monthly
Marenco, A. L., Matthews, E., & Hackeysack, E. S. (2006, September). The study of happy
families of Santa Clarita. Happy Family Journal, 8, 62-75.
Example, Weekly
Marenco, A. L., Matthews, E., & Hackeysack, E. S. (2006, December 14). Happy families of
the 21st century. Journal of the Future, 87, 42-60.
Example, Daily
Marenco, A. L., Matthews, E., & Hackeysack, E. S. (2006, May 23). The divorce study.
Journal of Divorce in America, 66, 794-823.
Books
Author’s last name, first initial, middle initial. (Year of publication). Title of book. City and
state of publication: Name of publisher.
Example with one name
Marenco, A. L. (2005). The happy family. New York, NY: Family Publishers.
Chapter in a Book
Author’s last name, first initial, middle initial. (Year of publication). Title of chapter. In
first initial, middle initial, last initial (Ed. or Eds.), Title of book (pp.51-84). City and
state of publication: Name of publisher.
Example one chapter in a book
Marenco, A. L. (2005). Those darn happy families. In E. Matthews (Ed.), The big book of
research on the happiest families. New York, NY: Family Publishers.
Interviews
Interviewee’s last name, interviewee’s first initial. (personal communication Date of
interview).
Example
Marenco, A. (personal communication June 9, 2007).
Websites
Give full address of site. Do not include http://.
Example
www.canyons.edu/users/marencoa.
98
APA Practice
Create an APA reference list from the following information for these ten references
Books
1. Kornblum, William 2003--Sociology in a changing world Wadsworth publisher New York
2. Lee, Geoffrey 1982 Family Structure and Interaction: A Comparative Analysis
2nd edition
Minneapolis, MN
University of Minnesota Press
Chapter in an edited book
3. Chapter authors: Lydia Molm & Karianne Sue Cook
Year: 1995
chapter titled: Social exchange and exchange networks
pages: 209-235
Book title: Sociological perspectives on social psychology
Edited by: Karianne Sue Cook and Gregory Allen Fine and Jerry Samuel House
Publisher is Allyn and Bacon listed in Boston
Journal Articles
4. South, Sammie, & Spitze, Gertrude. (1986). Determinants of divorce over the marital life course.
American Sociological Review, 51, 583-590.
5. South, Sammie, Spitze, Gertrude, & Abercrombie, Helen 1985
Women's Employment, Time Expenditure, and Divorce
Journal of Family Issues vol 6 iss 1 pg 307-329
Article from an online source--If the article appears as a printed version as well (you have a volume
number and pages), the URL is not required. Use "Electronic version" in brackets after the article's title.
(This one is from a website)
6. Franco, Arlene Ann, & Jonathan Bartholemew THE DOWNSIDE OF DIVROCE From the
website: Divorce Rights for Dads.
http://www.divorceddads.com/divorcerightsfordadsjournal/2010/downside/
(This one is From the library Proquest database of journal articles)
7. Schoen, Ron, Natalie Marial Astone, Karen Rothert, Nancy Standish, and Kim Young Women‘s
Employment, Marital Happiness, and Divorce 2002. Social Forces volume 81 issue# 2 pages 643-662
Magazine Article
8. Hatchett, B. (2010, March 9). The New Marriage. Time volume 135 pages 28 through 31
Newspaper Article
9. Frozone, John Lance. December 28, 2009. Divorce in a small town. The Daily Gazette, pages 1A &
2A
Webpage
10. Benjamin Powell Marriage and Divorce last updated 2009 http://www.marriage.com
99
Correct reference list
References
Franco, A. A., & Bartholemew, J. B. (n.d.). The downside of divorce. Divorce Rights for Dads.
Retrieved from www.divorceddads.com/divorcerightsfordadsjournal/2010/downside/
Frozone, J. L. (2009, December 28). Divorce in a small town. The Daily Gazette, pp. 1A, 2A.
Hatchett, B. (2010, March 9). The new marriage. Time, 135, 28-31.
Kornblum, W. (2003). Sociology in a changing world. New York: Wadsworth.
Lee, G. (1982). Family structure and interaction: A comparative analysis. (2nd ed.).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Molm, L. D., & Cook, K. S. (1995). Social exchange and exchange networks. In K. S. Cook, G.
A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 209235). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Powell, B. (2009). Marriage and divorce. Retrieved from http://www.marriage.com.
Schoen, R., Astone, N. M., Rothert, K., Standish, N. J., & Kim, Y. J. (2002). Women‘s
employment, marital happiness, and divorce [Electronic version]. Social Forces, 81(2),
643-662.
South, S. J., & Spitze, G. (1986). Determinants of divorce over the marital life course. American
Sociological Review, 51, 583-590.
South, S. J., Spitze, G., & Abercrombie, H. (1985). Women's employment, time expenditure, and
divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 6(1) 307-329.
100
Annotated References Example
Stinnett, N., & DeFrain, J. (1979). In search of strong families. In N. Stinnett, B. Chesser, & J.
DeFrain (Eds.), Building family strengths: Blueprints for action (pp. 23-30). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Discusses the 12 strengths found in strong families. Commitment is the willingness to put aside
time and make an effort in the relationship. Honesty, trust, and fidelity are accepting each other's
word, depending on each other, believing in each other, and being faithful to each other.
Responsibility is doing your part to take responsibility for the well-being of the relationship.
Adaptability, flexibility, and tolerance are recognizing that people differ and that your own
preferences are not the only ones. Also realizing that life is not static, it is constantly changing
and accepting the changes. Unselfishness is a reciprocal, giving relationship characterized by
compromise and negotiation; the goal is not for you to win, but for the relationship to win.
Communication means effective skills in speaking and listening. Empathy and sensitivity are
being able to identify with the feelings, thoughts, and attitudes of the other person. Admiration
and respect are having an unconditional positive regard for the mate. Affection is telling your
mate how you feel on a regular basis and realizing that the need for affection fluctuates over
time. Companionship is enjoying each other's company and participating in shared interests.
Ability to deal with crises and stress positively is remembering that you aren't lost, you just need
directions. Spirituality and values is sharing of similar beliefs, not necessarily religion.
Woolsey, A. (1980). On the effects of wives' employment on marital adjustment and
companionship. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(2), 331-346.
Wives are happier overall when they work outside the home if they and their spouses agree that
they should work. When women are forced to work outside the home for whatever reason, the
marriage on average is not as happy. Etc., etc., etc.
Zimmerman, J. & Applen, B.D. (1993). American family decline, 1960-1990: A review and
appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(3), 527-555.
Discusses the downfall of families and especially children when husbands/fathers are not
present. Negative outcomes including poor school performance, drug use, poverty, and
adolescent delinquency are elaborated on. Etc., etc., etc.
101
Bibliography
This workbook was compiled from the following sources
Bassham, G., Irwin, W., Nardone, H. & Wallace, J. M. ( 2008). Critical thinking: A student’s
introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Blackstone, L. R. ―The Spider Is Alive‖: Reassessing Becker‘s Theory of Artistic Conventions
through Southern Italian Music. Obtained from Proquest, COC library
Boss J. A. (2010). Think: Critical thinking and logic skills for everyday life. New York:
McGraw-Hill
Cavender, N. M & Kahane, H. (2010). Logic and contemporary rhetoric: The use of reason in
everyday life (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
College of the Canyons Curriculum Committee handbook.
Diestler, S. (2009). Becoming a critical thinker: A user friendly manual (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River: NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Geoghegan, A. (1996). Critical thinking across the curriculum project Longview Community
College, Lee's Summit, Missouri - U.S.A. One of the Metropolitan Community Colleges
An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.
info-pollution.com/evidence.htm
Rudinow, J & Barry, V. E. (2008). Invitation to critical thinking (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Teays, W. (2010). Second thoughts: Critical thinking for a diverse society (4th ed.). Boston:
McGraw Hill Higher Education.
www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
www.fallacyfiles.org/
www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
www.unc.edu/~kbm/
www.wikipedia.com
102
Name________________
Sociology 108 Fallacy Evaluation Rubric
Fallacy_________________________
A-4.5-5.0
B-4.0-4.4
C-3.5-3.9
It is evident you
Not absolutely
understand it, but clear in
not perfectly clear. presentation, but
I think you get it.
D-3.0-3.4
Defined clearly
Defined it clearly.
No confusion or
ambiguity.
Varied
examples
Gave many varied Gave a variety of
examples.
examples.
Gave a few
examples.
We needed
Are you serious?
more examples
to really get it
Clarity
You clearly
understood the
fallacy and
presented it in a
clear manner.
Not absolutely
clear in
presentation. I
think you may
have confused
yourself a bit
there.
I am very
confused.
Oh please.
The presentation
was unforgettable
fallacy or the
but the fallacy got
presentation. I will lost in it OR the
ace this on the
presentation was
exam.
not that
unforgettable.
It was creative
and showed
effort.
A bit shaky.
Some practice
would have
benefitted your
presentation.
Yes, you were
supposed to
prepare this
before last night.
Reading
Did NOT read to
the class.
Did NOT read to
the class.
Did NOT read to
the class.
Snuck in some No, you weren’t
reading.
supposed to read
anything.
Time
At least 5 minutes
for the
presentation. No
more than 10 for
the entire thing.
A little short (less
than 5 for
presentation) or a
little long (over 10
for the entire
thing).
More than a little
short or long.
Really short or Yes, you should
really long.
have timed
yourself.
I understood the
fallacy and it was a
fairly clear
presentation.
Forgetableness I will never forget
this one. The
factor
Total Points
A=27-30
B=24-26
C=21-23
D=18-20
Notes/comments
103
I am a bit
confused.
F-Really?
Huh!
Your name________________
Sociology 108 Debate Evaluation Rubric
Group topic__________________________________ PRO or CON
B-4.0-4.4
C3.5-3.9
D-3.0-3.4
F
The team clearly
understood the topic indepth and presented
their information
forcefully and
convincingly in a clear,
accurate and thorough
manner.
The team clearly
understood the
topic in-depth and
presented their
information with
ease.
The team seemed
to understand the
main points of the
topic and some of
the minor points
and presented
them with ease.
Most information
was clear and
accurate, but was
not always
thorough.
The team
understood the
main points only.
Information had
several
inaccuracies OR
was usually not
clear.
The team did not
show an adequate
understanding of
the topic.
Every major point was
well supported with
several relevant facts,
statistics and or
examples.
Every major point
was adequately
supported with
relevant facts,
statistics and or
examples.
Every major point Many points were
was supported
not supported.
with facts,
statistics and or
examples, but the
relevance of some
was questionable.
None of the points
were supported.
The argument was
clearly tied together and
organized in a tight,
logical fashion.
Most of the
argument was
clearly tied
together and
organized in a
tight, logical
fashion.
The argument was
partially tied
together but the
organization was
sometimes not
clear or logical.
The argument was
not clearly tied
together and or
was not organized
and logical.
The argument was
not tied together
and it was not
organized and it
was not logical.
All counter-arguments
were accurate, relevant
and strong.
Most counterarguments were
accurate, relevant,
and strong.
Most counterarguments were
accurate and
relevant, but were
weak.
Counterarguments were
not present, not
accurate, and or
not relevant
No counterarguments were
presented.
Not much of the
criteria in the left
column is met.
None of the
criteria in the left
column is met.
Uncluttered, vivid,
Most of the criteria Much of the
concrete, clear, focused, in the left column criteria in the left
accurate, thorough, not
is met.
column is met.
read, had an attention
getter, not too many stats
spewed.
Total
Points
Presentation
Style
Rebuttal
Organization
Use of Facts
or Statistics
Understanding of Topic
please circle
A-4.5-5.0
A=22.5-25
B=20-22.4
C=17.5-19.9
D=15-17.4
Notes/comments
104
105
UnSpun Reading Log #1 (chapters 1-4)
Mark important passages in your book. Be prepared to talk about each item below for 3
minutes. What does that passage bring to mind? How does it relate to other passages in
the book? How does it fit in with your past knowledge and experiences? What questions
do you have about it?
Which attack is your favorite?
Page#:
Which is your favorite ―warning sign‖?
Why?
Page#
Which is your favorite ―trick‖?
Why?
Page#
Which is your favorite ―trap‖?
Why?
Page#
What else do you find interesting?
Why?
Page#
106
107
UnSpun Reading Log #2 (chapters 5-8)
Mark important passages in your book. Be prepared to talk about each item below for 3
minutes. What does that passage bring to mind? How does it relate to other passages in
the book? How does it fit in with your past knowledge and experiences? What questions
do you have about it?
What fallacies have you identified anywhere in the book? What is interesting about how it is
used?
Fallacy
Page#
Which is your favorite ―lesson‖?
Why?
Page#
Which is your favorite ―rule‖?
Why?
Page#
Choose three parts of these chapters (not a lesson or a rule) that you want to share with the class.
1. Why?
Page#
2. Why?
Page#
3. Why?
Page#
108