Whose Side Are We On?
Author(s): Howard S. Becker
Source: Social Problems, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Winter, 1967), pp. 239-247
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social
Problems
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/799147 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 17:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of California Press and Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WHOSE SIDE ARE WE ON?*
HOWARD S. BECKER
Northwestern
University
To have values or not to have onlyreadtheresults.
Will theresearch,
values:thequestionis alwayswithus. we wonder,be distorted
by thatsymWhen sociologists
to study pathy?Will it be of use in the conundertake
of scientific
theoryor in the
problemsthat have relevanceto the struction
worldwe live in, theyfindthemselves applicationof scientific
knowledgeto
Someurgethem the practicalproblemsof society?Or
caughtin a crossfire.
notto takesides,to be neutraland do willthebias introduced
bytakingsides
researchthatis technically
correct
and spoil it forthoseuses?
valuefree.Otherstellthemtheirwork
We seldom make the feelingexis shallowand uselessif it does not plicit.Instead,it appearsas a lingering
to a value worryfor sociologicalreaders,who
expressa deep commitment
position.
would like to be sure theycan trust
area
This dilemma,
whichseemsso pain- whattheyread,and a troublesome
fulto so many,actuallydoesnotexist, of self-doubtfor those who do the
forone of its hornsis imaginary.
For research,who would like to be sure
it to exist,one wouldhave to assume, thatwhatever
theyfeelare
sympathies
as someapparently
unseemlyand will
do,thatit is indeed not professionally
possibleto do researchthatis uncon- not, in any case, seriouslyflawtheir
taminatedby personal and political work. That the worryaffectsboth
indicatesthat
I proposeto arguethatit readersand researchers
sympathies.
differis notpossibleand,therefore,
thatthe it lies deeperthanthesuperficial
we shouldtake ences that divide sociologicalschools
questionis notwhether
and thatits rootsmustbe
sides, since we inevitablywill, but of thought,
of societythat
ratherwhosesidewe are on.
soughtin characteristics
affect
our methodus
whatever
all,
I willbeginbyconsidering
theprobpersuasion.
lem of takingsidesas it arisesin the ologicalor theoretical
If thefeelingweremadeexplicit,it
studyof deviance.An inspectionof
thiscasewill soonrevealto us features would takethe formof an accusation
of the researcher
thatappearin sociologicalresearchof thatthe sympathies
his
have
his
work
and distorted
biased
all kinds.In thegreatest
of
subvariety
Beforeexploring
itsstructural
jectmatterareasand in workdone by findings.
all the different
methodsat our dis- roots,letus considerwhatthemanifest
posal, we cannotavoid takingsides, meaningof thechargemightbe.
forreasonsfirmly
basedin socialstruc- It mightmeanthatwe haveacquired
ture.
some sympathy
with the group we
to deterus frompubWe maysometimes
feelthatstudies studysufficient
of devianceexhibittoo greata sym- lishing those of our resultswhich
pathywiththepeople studied,a sym- mightprovedamagingto them.One
in the researchcarried can imaginea liberalsociologistwho
pathyreflected
out. This feeling,I suspect,is enter- set out to disprovesome of the comheld abouta minority
tainedoffand on bothby thoseof us monstereotypes
hisinvestigation
who do suchresearch
and by thoseof group.To his dismay,
reveals
that
some
the stereotypes
of
in
our
work
other
us who,
areas,
lying
are unfortunately
true.In theinterests
of justiceand liberalism,
he mightwell
*Presidentialaddress, delivered at the an- be
and mighteven succumb
tempted,
nual meetingof the Societyfor the Study
to suppressthose
of Social Problems,Miami Beach, August, to the temptation,
1966.
findings,publishingwith scientific
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
candor the otherresultswhich con- have stillnot provedit false.Recoghis beliefs.
firmed
nizing the point and promisingto
But thisseemsnot reallyto be the addressit eventually,
I shall turnto
heartof thecharge,becausesociologists the typicalsituationsin which the
of bias arises.
who studydeviancedo not typically accusation
hide things about the people they When do we accuseourselvesand
of bias? I think
study.Theyaremostly
willingto grant ourfellowsociologists
thatthereis something
ingoingon that an inspectionof representative
put the deviantsin the positionthey stanceswould show that the accusaare in, evenif theyare notwillingto tion arises,in one important
class of
grantthatit is whatthe people they cases,whentheresearch
givescredence,
studiedwereoriginally
accusedof.
in anyseriousway,to theperspective
A more likely meaning of the of thesubordinate
groupin somehierIn the case of
charge,I think,is this.In the course archicalrelationship.
of ourworkand forwho knowswhat deviance,the hierarchical
relationship
privatereasons,we fallintodeepsym- is a moral one. The superordinate
are those
pathywiththepeoplewe arestudying, partiesin the relationship
so thatwhile the restof the society who represent
the forcesof approved
viewsthemas unfitin one or another and official
morality;the subordinate
respectfor the deferenceordinarily partiesare thosewho, it is alleged,
accordeda fellowcitizen,we believe have violatedthatmorality.
thattheyareat leastas good as anyone Thoughdevianceis a typicalcase,
else,moresinnedagainstthansinning. it is byno meanstheonlyone. Similar
Becauseof this,we do notgive a bal- situations,
and similarfeelingsthatour
ancedpicture.We focustoo muchon workis biased,occurin the studyof
and prisons,
asylums
questionswhoseanswersshowthatthe schools,hospitals,
in theright in the studyof physicalas well as
supposeddeviantis morally
citizenmorally
in the mentalillness,in the studyof both
and theordinary
wrong.We neglectto ask thoseques- "normal" and delinquentyouth.In
tionswhoseanswerswouldshowthat thesesituations,
thesuperordinate
parthe deviant,afterall, has done some- tiesare usuallytheofficial
and profesin chargeof some
rottenand,indeed,pretty sional authorities
thingpretty
whilethesubormuchdeserveswhathe gets.In conse- important
institution,
of the dinatesare thosewhomakeuse of the
quence,our overallassessment
Thus, the
problembeing studiedis one-sided. servicesof thatinstitution.
What we produceis a whitewashof policeare thesuperordinates,
drugadthe deviantand a condemnation,
if dictsare the subordinates;
professors
of thoserespecta- and administrators,
onlyby implication,
principals and
are the superordinates,
ble citizenswho,we think,havemade teachers,
while
thedeviantwhathe is.
studentsand pupils are the subordiIt is to this versionthatI devote nates; physiciansare the superordithe rest of my remarks.I will look nates,theirpatientsthe subordinates.
All of thesecases represent
one of
first,however,not at the truthor
of thecharge,butratherat the the typicalsituationsin which refalsity
in whichit is typically searchersaccuse themselvesand are
circumstances
of knowl- accusedof bias. It is a situationin
madeand felt.The sociology
and tensionexist
us to distinguish
between which,whileconflict
edgecautions
and an assess- in the hierarchy,
thetruthof a statement
the conflict
has not
underwhich becomeopenlypolitical.The conflictmentof thecircumstances
is made; thoughwe ing segmentsor ranksare not orgathat statement
no one attempts
to its sourcein the nized forconflict;
tracean argument
to
of thepersonwhomadeit,we altertheshapeof thehierarchy.
interests
While
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WhoseSide Are WleOn?
241
thatsubordinates
subordinates
may complainabout the posesof ourresearch,
treatment
theyreceivefromthoseabove have as much rightto be heard as
thattheyare as likely
them,theydo notproposeto moveto superordinates,
a positionof equalitywiththem,or to to be tellingthetruthas theysee it as
that what they say
reverse positions in the hierarchy.superordinates,
has a rightto be
Thus, no one proposesthat addicts aboutthe institution
should make and enforcelaws for investigated
and have its truthor faleven thoughresponpolicemen,that patientsshould pre- sityestablished,
assureus thatit is unscribefor doctors,or thatadolescents sible officials
shouldgive ordersto adults.We can necessary
becausethechargesare false.
call thistheapoliticalcase.
We can use the notionof a hierIn thesecondcase,theaccusation
of archyof credibility
to understand
this
bias is made in a situationthat is phenomenon.
In anysystem
of ranked
franklypolitical.The partiesto the groups,participants
take it as given
hierarchicalrelationshipengage in that membersof the highestgroup
eitherto havetherightto definethewaythings
organizedconflict,
attempting
maintainor changeexistingrelations really are. In any organization,no
of power and authority.
Whereasin matterwhatthe restof the organizathefirstcase subordinates
are typically tionchartshows,thearrowsindicating
and thushave,as we shall theflowof information
unorganized
pointup, thus
see, littleto fear froma researcher,demonstrating
(at leastformally)that
subordinate
partiesin a politicalsitua- thoseat thetop have accessto a more
tion may have much to lose. When completepictureof whatis goingon
thesituation
is political,theresearcherthan anyoneelse. Membersof lower
mayaccusehimselfor be accusedof groupswill have incomplete
informabias by someoneelse when he gives tion,and theirview of realitywill be
of either partialand distortedin consequence.
credenceto the perspective
I leave Therefore,
partyto the politicalconflict.
fromthepointof viewof a
thepoliticalforlaterand turnnow to well socializedparticipant
in the systheproblemof bias in apoliticalsitua- tem,anytale told by thoseat the top
tions.1
deservesto be regarded
intrinsically
We provokethe suspicionthatwe as themostcredibleaccountobtainable
are biasedin favorof thesubordinateof the organizations'
workings.And
partiesin an apoliticalarrangementsince,as Sumnerpointedout,matters
when we tell the storyfrom their of rankand statusarecontained
in the
pointof view.We may,forinstance, mores,2
thisbeliefhas a moralquality.
investigatetheir complaints,even We are,if we are propermembers
of
about thegroup,morally
thoughtheyare subordinates,
boundto acceptthe
the way thingsare runjust as though definitionimposed on realityby a
one oughtto give theircomplaints
as superordinate
to
group in preference
much credenceas the statements
of the definitions
espousedby subordinWe provokethe ates. (By analogy,the same argument
responsibleofficials.
chargewhenwe assume,for the pur- holds forthe social classesof a community.) Thus, credibilityand the
1 No situationis necessarilypolitical or
disapolitical. An apolitical situation can be rightto be heardare differentialIy
transformedinto a political one by the tributedthroughthe ranks of the
open rebellion of subordinateranks,and a system.
political situation can subside into one in
As sociologists,we provoke the
which an accommodationhas been reached
and a new hierarchybeen accepted by the
2 William Graham Sumner, "Status in
participants.The categories,while analytically useful, do not representa fixed divi- the Folkways,"Folkways,New York: New
sion existingin real life.
AmericanLibrary,1960, pp. 72-73.
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
and others, to their accountof how the adult
chargeof bias,in ourselves
to
credence
and defer- worldtreatsthem.But whydo we not
byrefusing give
ence to an established
statusorder,in accuse other sociologistswho study
which knowledgeof truthand the youthof being biased in favor of
rightto be heardare not equallydis- adults?Most researchon youth,after
tributed."Everyoneknows" that re- all, is clearlydesignedto findoutwhy
for adults,
sponsible professionalsknow more youthare so troublesome
aboutthingsthanlaymen,thatpolice ratherthan askingthe equallyinterand theirwords estingsociologicalquestion:"Whydo
are morerespectable
than adults make so much trouble for
oughtto be takenmoreseriously
those of the deviantsand criminals youth
?" Similarly,
we accusethosewho
withwhomtheydeal. By refusingto takethecomplaints
of mentalpatients
of credibility,
we seriouslyof bias; what about those
acceptthehierarchy
forthe entireestab- sociologistswho only take seriously
expressdisrespect
lishedorder.
the complaints
of physicians,
families
?
We compoundour sin and further and othersaboutmentalpatients
in thedirecWhythisdisproportion
provokechargesof bias by not giving
of bias? Why do
attention
and "equal time" tion of accusations
immediate
of we moreoftenaccusethosewho are
to the apologiesand explanations
thanthose
officialauthority.
If, for instance,we on theside of subordinates
?
the way whoareon thesideof superordinates
are concernedwith studying
of life inmatesin a mentalhospital Because,when we make the former
we will natu- accusation,we have, like the well
buildup forthemselves,
withtheconstraintssocialized membersof our society
rallybe concerned
and conditionscreatedby the actions mostof us are,acceptedthehierarchy
of the administrators
and physicians of credibilityand taken over the
madebyresponsible
officials.
who run the hospital.But, unlesswe accusation
and
also make the administrators
The reasonresponsible
officials
make
so frequently
the objectof our study(a theaccusation
is precisely
physicians
I will considerlater), we becausetheyareresponsible.
Theyhave
possibility
withthecareand operawill not inquireinto whythosecon- beenentrusted
of ourimportant
are present. tionof oneor another
ditions and constraints
officials institutions:
law enWe will not give responsible
schools,hospitals,
or whatever.
a chanceto explain themselvesand forcement,
They are the
give theirreasonsfor actingas they ones who, by virtueof theirofficial
that goes
do, a chanceto show whythe com- positionand the authority
withit,are in a positionto "do somearenotjustified.
plaintsof inmates
It is odd that,when we perceive thing"whenthingsare notwhatthey
are the ones
bias,we usuallysee it in thesecircum- shouldbe and, similarly,
stances.It is odd becauseit is easily who will be held to accountif they
ascertainedthat a great manymore failto "do something"
or if whatthey
studiesare biased in the directionof do is, forwhatever
reason,inadequate.
in this
the interestsof responsibleofficials Becausetheyare responsible
thanthe otherway around.We may way,officials
usuallyhaveto lie. That
accusean occasionalstudent
of medical is a grossway of puttingit, but not
sociologyof havinggiven too much inaccurate.Officialsmustlie because
of patients. thingsare seldomas theyoughtto be.
emphasisto thecomplaints
Butit is notobviousthatmostmedical For a greatvarietyof reasons,wellinstitutions
are
sociologistslook at thingsfromthe knownto sociologists,
They do not performas
pointof viewof the doctors?A few refractory.
biased societywould like themto. Hospitals
maybe sufficiently
sociologists
in favorof youthto grantcredibilitydo notcurepeople; prisonsdo notre-
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WhoseSide Are We On?
243
habilitateprisoners;schools do not someonemalignsit. The sociologist
will be spared
educatestudents.Since theyare sup- who favorsofficialdom
of bias.
posed to, officials
developwaysboth the accusation
of denyingthe failureof the institu- And thus we see why we accuse
tion to performas it should and ex- ourselvesof bias only whenwe take
It is bewhichcannotbe the side of the subordinate.
plainingthosefailures
hidden.An accountof an institution'scause,in a situation
thatis notopenly
operationfromthe pointof view of political,withthemajorissuesdefined
therefore
castsdoubton as arguable,we join responsible
subordinates
offithe official
line and maypossiblyex- cials and the man in the streetin an
of thehierarchy
unthinking
acceptance
pose it as a lie.3
We assumewith them
For reasonsthatare a mirror
image of credibility.
in an thatthe man at the top knowsbest.
of thoseof officials,
subordinates
have We do not realizethatthereare sides
hierarchical
relationship
apolitical
no reasonto complainof the bias of to be takenand thatwe are taking
sociologicalresearchorientedtoward one of them.
Subordi- The same reasoningallows us to
theinterests
ofsuperordinates.
has the
whytheresearcher
nates typicallyare not organizedin understand
for same worryabout the effectof his
sucha fashionas to be responsible
on his work as his unintheoveralloperationof an institution.sympathies
What happensin a schoolis credited volved colleague. The hierarchyof
whose
of society
is a feature
and adminis- credibility
or debitedto the faculty
we cannotdeny,even if we
and held existence
trators;
theycan be identified
to believe
to account.Even thoughthefailureof disagreewithits injunction
a schoolmaybe thefaultof thepupils, themanat thetop. When we acquire
to
withsubordinates
sympathy
theyare notso organizedthatanyone sufficient
we
foranyfailure see thingsfromtheirperspective,
of themis responsible
in thefaceof
but his own. If he does well, while knowthatwe are flying
cheat what "everyoneknows."The knowlothersall aroundhim flounder,
and steal,thatis none of his affair, edge givesus pause and causesus to
the doubt of
of honorcodes to share,howeverbriefly,
despitethe attempt
makeit so. As long as thesociological our colleagues.
When a situationhas been defined
reporton his school says that every
the secondtypeof case I
studenttherebut one is a liar and a politically,
are quitedifwillfeelcompla- wantto discuss,matters
cheat,all thestudents
somedegree
have
ferent.
Subordinates
the
one
are
cent,knowingthey
excepand,withthat,spokestion.More likely,theywill neverhear of organization
of thereportat all or,if theydo, will men, theirequivalentof responsible
whiletheycannot
Spokesmen,
reasonthattheywill be gone before officials.
forwhat
be
held
responsible
actually
does it make?
long,so whatdifference
of theirgroupdo,makeasserThe lackoforganization
amongsubor-- members
of an institutionalizedtionson theirbehalfand are held redinatemembers
meansthat,havingno re- sponsibleforthe truthof thoseasserrelationship
for the group's welfare, tions.The groupengagesin political
sponsibility
theylikewisehave no complaintsif activitydesignedto change existing
andthecredihierarchical
relationships
affects
directly
3 I have stated a portion of this argu- bilityof its spokesmen
is not
Credibility
mentmore brieflyin "Problemsof Publica- itspoliticalfortunes.
tion of Field Studies," in ArthurVidich, the onlyinfluence,
but the groupcan
JosephBensman,and Maurice Stein (Eds.),
of realill-afford
havingthedefinition
Reflectionson CommunityStudies, New
its spokesmendisYork: JohnWiley and Sons, 1964, pp. 267- ity proposedby
credited,for the immediateconse284.
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
thatwe mustgrasp
quence will be some loss of political know,forinstance,
the perspectives
of both the resident
power.
Superordinategroups have their of Watts and of the Los Angeles
too,andtheyareconfrontedpolicemanif we are to understand
spokesmen
withthesameproblem:to makestate- whatwenton in thatoutbreak.
mentsaboutrealitythatare politically Second,it is no secretthat most
effectivewithout being easily dis- sociologistsare politicallyliberal to
of the one degreeor another.Our political
credited.The politicalfortunes
dictatetheside we will be
superordinategroup-its ability to preferences
hold the statuschangesdemandedby on and, since those preferences
are
lowergroupsto a minimum-donot sharedbymostof our colleagues,few
forthe are readyto throwthe firststoneor
dependas muchon credibility,
is
grouphas otherkindsof poweravail- are even awarethatstone-throwing
able as well.
a possibility.
We usuallytakethe side
When we do researchin a political of theunderdog;we are forNegroes
situationwe are in double jeopardy, and againstFascists.We do not think
for the spokesmenof both involved anyonebiasedwho does researchdeto theimplica- signedto prove that the formerare
groupswill be sensitive
tionsof our work.Sincetheypropose not as bad as peoplethinkor thatthe
of reality, latterare worse.In fact,in thesecirdefinitions
openlyconflicting
our statement
of our problemis in it- cumstanceswe are quite willing to
self likelyto call into questionand regardthequestionof bias as a matter
makeproblematic,
at leastforthepur- to be dealtwithbytheuse of technical
one or theother safeguards.
posesof ourresearch,
definition.
And our resultswill do the
We are thusapt to takesides with
same.
equal innocenceand lack of thought,
The hierarchy
of credibility
reasons,in both
operates thoughfor different
in a different
way in the political apoliticaland politicalsituations.In
situationthanit does in the apolitical the first,we adopt the commonsense
one. In the politicalsituation,it is view which awards unquestioned
to the responsibleofficial.
preciselyone of the thingsat issue. credibility
Since the politicalstrugglecalls into (This is notto denythata fewof us,
of theexisting becausesomethingin our experience
questionthelegitimacy
rank system,it necessarilycalls into has alertedthemto thepossibility,
may
of
hierarchy
questionat the same timethe legiti- questiontheconventional
in the special area of our
macyof the associatedjudgmentsof credibility
of who has a expertise.)In thesecondcase,we take
Judgments
credibility.
rightto definethe natureof reality ourpoliticsso forgrantedthatit supin dictatingwhose
thataretakenforgrantedin an apoli- plantsconvention
tical situation become mattersof side we will be on. (I do not deny,
either,thatsomefew sociologists
may
argument.
Oddlyenough,we are,I think,less deviatepoliticallyfromtheirliberal
likely to accuse ourselvesand one colleagues,eitherto the rightor the
of biasin a politicalthanin an left,and thusbe moreliable to quesanother
apoliticalsituation,for at least two tionthatconvention.)
In anyevent,evenif our colleagues
of
reasons.First,becausethehierarchy
in
has been openlycalledinto do notaccuseus of bias in research
credibility
question,we are awarethatthereare a political situation,the interested
at leasttwo sidesto the storyand so partieswill. Whethertheyare foreign
to investigatepoliticianswho object to studiesof
do notthinkit unseemly
the situationfromone or anotherof how the stability
of theirgovernment
in the interest
of
the contendingpointsof view. We maybe maintained
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WhoseSide Are We On?
245
the UnitedStates(as in the Camelot or anotherside to a relationship
and
civilrightsleaders willthusbe affected,
at least,byhaving
affair)4or domestic
who object to an analysisof race suggestedto him what the relevant
and issuesare.A student
of
problemsthat centerson the alleged arguments
deficiencies
of the Negro family(as medicalsociologymaydecidethathe
in thereception
theperspective
of the
givento theMoynihan will takeneither
Report),5 interested
partiesare quick patientnor the perspectiveof the
to make accusationsof bias and dis- physician,
but he will necessarily
take
tortion.They base the accusationnot a perspectivethat impingeson the
on failuresof techniqueor method, many questionsthat arise between
buton conceptual
defects.
Theyaccuse physiciansand patients; no matter
thesociologist
notof gettingfalsedata what perspective
he takes,his work
butof notgettingall thedatarelevant eitherwill take into accountthe attior it will not.If
to the problem.They accusehim,in tudeof subordinates,
otherwords,of seeingthingsfromthe he failsto considerthequestionsthey
of only one partyto the raise,he will be workingon the side
perspective
If he does raisethose
conflict.
But theaccusationis likelyto of the officials.
be made by interested
and doesfind,as he
partiesand not questionsseriously
themselves.
by sociologists
may,thatthereis somemeritin them,
WhatI havesaid so faris all sociol- he will then expose himselfto the
and of all those
ogy of knowledge,suggestingby outrageof theofficials
who award themthe top
and forwhat sociologists
whom,in whatsituations
of credibility.
reasonssociologists
will be accusedof spot in the hierarchy
bias and distortion.
I have notyetad- Almostall the topicsthatsociologists
dressedthe questionof the truthof study,at least thosethathave some
the accusations,
of whetherour find- relationto the real worldaroundus,
for are seen by societyas morality
plays
ingsare distorted
byour sympathy
thosewe study.I haveimplieda partial and we shallfindourselves,
willy-nilly,
answer,namely,thatthereis no posi- takingpartin thoseplayson one side
tion fromwhichsociologicalresearch or the other.
can be done thatis not biasedin one
There is anotherpossibility.We
or anotherway.
may,in somecases,takethe pointof
We mustalwayslook at thematter view of somethirdpartynot directly
fromsomeone'spoint of view. The implicatedin the hierarchywe are
Thus, a Marxistmight
scientistwho proposesto understand investigating.
must,as Mead longago pointed feelthatit is notworthdistinguishing
society
out, get into the situationenoughto betweenDemocratsand Republicans,
have a perspective
on it. And it is or betweenbig businessand big labor,
that
his
likely
perspectivewill be in eachcase bothgroupsbeingequally
of theworkers.
greatlyaffected
by whateverpositions inimicalto theinterests
are takenby any or all of the other This would indeed make us neutral
in that varied situation. with respectto the two groups at
participants
Even if his participation
is limitedto hand, but would only mean thatwe
readingin thefield,he willnecessarilyhad enlargedthescopeof thepolitical
readthearguments
of partisans
of one conflictto includea partynot ordinarily broughtin whose view the
was taking.
4 See Irving Louis Horowitz, "The Life sociologist
and Death of Project Camelot," TransacWe can neveravoid takingsides.
tion, 3 (Nov./Dec., 1965), pp. 3-7, 44-47. So we are left with the questionof
5 See Lee Rainwater and William L.
whether
takingsidesmeansthatsome
Yancey, "Black Families and the White
distortion
is introduced
intoour work
3
House," ibid.,
(July/August,1966, pp.
so greatas to makeit useless.Or, less
6-11, 48-53).
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246
SOCIAL PROBLEMS
whethersome distortion
is methodology
are no help here.They
drastically,
introducedthat must be taken into tellus how to guardagainsterror,but
accountbeforetheresultsof ourwork theydo not tell us how to makesure
can be used. I do not referhere to that we will use all the safeguards
feelingthatthe picturegivenby the availableto us. We can, for a start,
researchis not "balanced,"the indig- tryto avoid sentimentality.
We are
nationarousedby havinga conven- sentimental
whenwe refuse,forwhatdefinition
of real- everreason,to investigate
somematter
tionallydiscredited
ity given priorityor equalitywith that should properlybe regardedas
what"everyone
We are sentimental,
esknows,"forit is clear problematic.
thatwe cannotavoidthat.That is the pecially,when our reasonis thatwe
problemof officials,
spokesmenand would prefernot to know what is
interested
parties,not ours.Our prob- going on, if to know would be to
lem is to make sure that,whatever violatesomesympathy
whoseexistence
point of view we take,our research we maynot evenbe awareof. Whatmeetsthe standardsof good scientificeverside we are on, we mustuse our
work,thatourunavoidablesympathiestechniquesimpartially
enoughthat a
do notrenderourresults
invalid.
beliefto whichwe are especiallysymWe mightdistortour findings,
be- patheticcould be proveduntrue.We
causeof oursympathy
withone of the mustalwaysinspectourworkcarefully
parties in the relationshipwe are enough to know whetherour techstudying,
by misusingthe tools and niques and theoriesare open enough
of ourdiscipline.
We might to allow thatpossibility.
techniques
introduceloaded questions into a
Let us consider,
whatmight
finally,
or act in somewayin a seema simplesolutionto theproblems
questionnaire,
fieldsituationsuchthatpeoplewould posed.If thedifficulty
is thatwe gain
be constrained
to tellus onlythekind sympathy
withunderdogsby studying
of thingwe are alreadyin sympathythem,is it notalso truethatthesuperwith. All of our researchtechniques ordinates
in a hierarchical
relationship
are hedged about with precautionaryusuallyhave theirown superordinates
measuresdesignedto guard against withwhomtheymustcontend?Is it
these errors.Similarly,thoughmore not true that we mightstudythose
or subordinates,
abstractly,
everyone of our theories superordinates
precontainsa setof directives sentingtheirpoint of view on their
presumably
whichexhaustively
coversthefieldwe relations
withtheirsuperiors
and thus
are to study,specifying
all the things gaininga deepersympathy
withthem
we areto lookat and takeintoaccount and avoidingthe bias of one-sided
withthosebelow them?
in our research.
By usingour theories identification
and techniquesimpartially,
we ought This is appealing,but deceptively
so.
to be able to studyall thethingsthat For it onlymeansthatwe willgetinto
needto be studiedin sucha wayas to the same troublewith a new set of
get all the facts we require,even officials.
It is true,forinstance,thattheadthoughsomeof thequestionsthatwill
be raisedand some of the factsthat ministrators
of a prisonarenotfreeto
will be producedrun counterto our do as theywish,not freeto be rebiases.
for
sponsiveof thedesiresof inmates,
If onetalksto suchan official,
But the questionmay be precisely instance.
this. Given all our techniquesof he will commonly
tell us, in private,
in the
theoretical
and technicalcontrol,how thatof coursethesubordinates
can we be surethatwe willapplythem relationship
have some righton their
and acrosstheboardas they side, but thattheyfail to understand
impartially
need to be applied?Our textbooks
in thathis desireto do betteris frustrated
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WhoseSide Are We On?
247
by his superiorsor by the regulations conditionsare the same elsewhere.I
Thus,if a prison referto a moresociologicaldisclaimer
theyhaveestablished.
is angeredbecause we in whichwe say,forinstance,
administrator
thatwe
take the complaintsof his inmates have studiedthe prisonthroughthe
we mayfeelthatwe can get eyesof the inmatesand not through
seriously,
aroundthatand get a morebalanced the eyes of the guardsor otherinhim and his volvedparties.We warnpeople,thus,
pictureby interviewing
If we do, we maythenwrite thatourstudytellsus onlyhow things
associates.
a reportwhichhis superiorswill re- look fromthat vantagepoint-what
spond to with criesof "bias." They, kinds of objects guards are in the
in theirturn,will saythatwe havenot prisoners'world-and does not atpresenteda balancedpicture,because temptto explainwhyguardsdo what
we havenotlookedat theirside of it. theydo or to absolvethe guardsof
And we mayworrythatwhattheysay what may seem, fromthe prisoners'
is true.
side, morallyunacceptablebehavior.
The point is obvious.By pursuing This will not protectus fromaccusathis seeminglysimple solution,we tionsof bias,however,fortheguards
arriveat a problemof infinite
bytheunbalanced
regress. willstillbe outraged
For everyonehas someonestanding picture.If we implicitlyaccept the
of credibility,
above him who preventshim from conventional
hierarchy
doing thingsjust as he likes. If we we willfeelthestingin thataccusation.
It is something
of a solutionto say
questionthe superiorsof the prison
a state department
of thatover the yearseach "one-sided"
administrator,
or prisons,theywill com- study will provoke furtherstudies
corrections
plain of thegovernorand thelegisla- thatgradually
enlargeour graspof all
ture.And if we go to the governor the relevantfacetsof an institution's
and thelegislature,
theywill complain operation.
But thatis a long-term
soluof lobbyists,
thepublic tion, and not muchhelp to the inpartymachines,
and the newspapers.
Thereis no end dividualresearcher
whohas to contend
to it and we can neverhave a "bal- withtheangerof officials
who feelhe
anced picture"untilwe have studied has donethemwrong,thecriticism
of
all of societysimultaneously.
I do not thoseof his colleagueswhothinkhe is
a one-sidedview,and his
proposeto hold mybreathuntilthat presenting
own worries.
happyday.
thedemands What do we do in the meantime?
We can,I think,
satisfy
of our scienceby alwaysmakingclear I
theanswersaremoreor less
the limitsof what we have studied, suppose
obvious.We takesidesas ourpersonal
markingtheboundaries
beyondwhich and
dictate,use
politicalcommitments
our findings
cannotbe safelyapplied. our
theoretical
and technicalresources
Not just the conventional
disclaimer,
that might
in whichwe warnthatwe have only to avoid the distortions
intoourwork,limitourconstudieda prisonin New Yorkor Cali- introduce
carefully,
recognizethe hierforniaand the findings
maynot hold dclusions
forwhatis is, and
in the otherforty-nine
states-which archyof credibility
since field as best we can the accusations
is nota usefulprocedure
anyway,
thefindings
mayverywell hold if the and doubtsthatwill surelybe ourfate.
This content downloaded from 188.72.96.102 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:18:10 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions