David Morrison.
Soc. 222, 10/17/97.
Realism & Reflexivity in Ethnographic Research.
This paper will explore the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of an ethnography by
Bourgois et al entitled, “Social misery and the sanctions of substance abuse: confronting HIV risk among
homeless heroin addicts in San Francisco” (Social Problems, 1978). I will be exploring three analytic
dimensions along which to gauge the ethnography: the naturalistic developments of the Symbolic
Interactionist (SI) tradition; countervailing sociological perspectives critical of SI, both from the realist
position of survey methods and from the more reflexive and idealist position of post modernism and
ethnomethodology; lastly, I will explore the interrelationship between theoretical commitments and the
subsequent identification of relevant data. The purpose of this analysis is to situate the Bourgois article
within its sociologic context as a way of evaluating both the article and its intellectual context.
A danger faced by such a pursuit at the outset, which is in fact mirrored in the risks of doing
ethnography, is the temptation to essentialize the competing intellectual trends to be considered. Such
categories as realist or relativist can be built up as vehicles for analysis, for the sake of clarity in writing - at
the risk of overstating that clarity and understating the ambiguity of the boundaries.
The Bourgois piece strives to represent the diversity and complexity of the setting. In so doing it
follows the theoretical program of naturalism discussed by Matza1. The article presents itself as
ethnographic, in so doing it follows in a long tradition of articles like Geertz’s ‘Balinese Cockfight’ 2 that
presuppose a social world possessed of an ‘obdurate’ (Blumer, 1969) reality. Within this frame of
reference, Bourgois-as-ethnographer enters into a social world that exists independently of his observations
of it, and attempts to interpret the structure of that world (a realist position). There are certainly elements of
this pursuit in the article, and if we look for them we can find them, classifying it as an essential realist
piece: the detailed discussions of members practices of injecting heroin, bingeing, the differing social
organizations of ‘shooting galleries’ in San Francisco versus New York. Presumably such features exist
independently of the ethnographer’s observations.
But there are also elements in the article, which illustrate a reflexive or ethnomethodological concern
2
for the process by which social order is created, recreated and sustained in situ through and interactional
process from which the ethnographer is not exempt; in fact, the ethnographer’s very status as ethnographer
situates them within an wider macro-organizational context of power relationships that are highly relevant
to the social world under study. This reflexivity mainly occurs around discussions, interspersed in Bourgois’
article, about the contacting of heroin addicts by ‘community-based health outreach workers’ and public
health researchers. The interests, social status and motivations of ethnographers entering this social context
for study situate their interactions with heroin users along similar lines and recreate some of the same
interactional dynamics. Bourgois et al. illustrate sensitivity to this issue in the following passage:
[T]he medical establishment morally rebukes street addicts by promoting unrealistic slogans laden with
symbolic violence that relegate street addicts to the category of self-destructive other - hence, the utility of
Foucault’s concept of bio-power. In our tape recorded conversations on several occasions, we were forced
into an awareness of ourselves as agents of this not longer nebulous bio-power, as we offended network
members with the mildest outreach messages...[p.161]
The passage that follows, in which they transcribe one such interaction, illustrate the power dynamics
underlying the negotiated identities of the participants. When Philippe (Bourgois) asks Butch and Hogan if
they have engaged in unsafe needle-sharing practices, Butch initially becomes angry, saying, “Don’t ask me
that question. You know damn well it has, man! Happens to everybody a million times. Okay?” After
Philippe relents by saying, “Okay, okay I’m sorry man....We were just trying to get our AIDS prevention
rap out.” When Butch accepts his apology his account changes to “We know you’re in the health AIDS
business and all. It’s okay. I mean most of us try to be careful most of the time.” In this exchange Philippe
and Butch’s respective identities as social researcher (hence, mainstream member of society) and heroin
addict (hence socially marginalized individual) are reinforced. The exchange also reinforces their
substantive claim that survey research methods are systematically in error given the responsiveness of the
addicts to situational pressures leading them to provide misleading answers. We see Butch change the
nature of his responses as a result of the conversation.
The power dynamic appears somewhat more complex and subtle than the authors state here. Butch’s
angry statement, “You know damn well” to Philippe gives a sensitive reader some insight into their
previously established repoire. In fact Bourgois does know ‘damn well’ that the members in this group
1
Becoming Deviant, 1969.
Interpretation of Cultures, 1973.
2
3
engage in unsafe behavior, and has recounted observing them do so.3 Philippe’s response disaffiliates with
the correctional response, and tries to re-establish the appreciative response of the naturalistic ethnographer.
Given the very real access concerns and the necessity of publishing to remain in an academic environment,
Philippe’s power relation to Butch is complex, having subservient as well as dominant elements.
Bourgois et al.’s reflexivity about their status within a web of power relations affecting practical
concerns (such as acquiring clean needles) and identity issues of the addicts is especially relevant
considering the high degree of interaction between the heroin addicts of their study and social service
organizations. The entrance of sociology, including constructivist sociology into this social world has been
documented by Kathryn Fox in an article entitled, “The margins of underdog sociology: implications for the
‘West Coast AIDS Project’”, in which Fox describes the organizational structure of this project. The
project, which appears to be a pseudonym for the San Francisco AIDS Project, is lead by sociologically
educated administrators familiar with the work of Becker and other labeling theorists.
In considering the extent to which Bourgois et al. adopted a realist naturalism versus an reflexive
ethnomethodological or post modern approach it is important to substitute polarity for duality. The extent of
their reflexivity should be considered along a continuum. A highly reflexive instance of their analysis is also
a point at which they attempt to maintain a naturalistic appreciation for their subjects. Their article has
elements of realism and post-modernism avoiding the ontological critique of Dickens and Fontana4of social
researchers who, “exaggerate both the epistemological nature of postmodern studies (in an idealist
direction) and the epistemological nature of their own type of work (in a realist direction) [p.189].” As
suggested by Gubrium and Holsteins’ approach, the distinction between such orientations is largely
expressed in terms of the data collected and the selection of legitimate researchable questions. By using
ethnography they are able to convincingly argue for the systematic error of survey research on this topic and
incorporate both realist and reflexive elements.
3
Although the sequence of this exchange is somewhat unclear, and could have occurred as they first entered the field,
Butch’s comments imply that from his perspective Philippe was feigning ignorance as a result of his role as a researcher.
4
“On nostalgic reconstruction in interactionist thought - or, realism as the last refuge of a scoundrel”, Studies in Symbolic
Interaction, 1996: 181-192.