Kelley Walker wrote:
> At 08:56 PM 4/15/01 -0400, Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema wrote:
> >Since writing the last post I located the Wolfe book, and had a glance,
> >obviously not in depth, of course. One of the several things that bothered
> >me about the book when I read it a while ago was that his analysis of his
> >subjects' outlook, though mildly critical in places, clearly
> >accepted their self-congratulatory view of work and their benighted view
> >of people on public assistance. Is "celebrate" too strong a term? Maybe,
> >but not by much. The total absence of any assessment of the subjects'
> >grasp on social reality, for example, is really glaring.
>
> that isn't what one does in ethnography per se. it depends on what kind of
> ethnographer one is. but eli anderson doesn't say a thing through out the
> entire presentation of his book, _StreetWise: Race, Class and Change in and
> Urban Community_. he tries so hard to be aneutral conduit for their words
> that the undiscriminating reader imagines that Anderson holds those views.
> he does not. e.g., i've seen people think he's 'racist' when he reports
> blacks views of korean shop owners, even tho he has clearly spelled out the
> reasons for urban decline, racial tensions, real estate shams, etc. one
> would think that this sort of an analysis would prevent a reader from
> mixing up anderson's position and that of those he quotes, but many get
> confused because he's careful not to make any judgements.
>
> asking wolfe to examine their words, particularly as he is explicating what
> they say, is completely uncalled for. and a note: wolfe had never done
> ethnography before. it was all new to him, so he was trying his hand at it.
>
> i personally practice critical ethnography and i do things like challenge
> my respondents, push them, argue with them, etc. and when i do, i make my
> reader clear about what i do, etc. i also tend to examine my own
> relationship to the material at hand. i have also expanded on a method i
> was introduced to thru marj devault: looking for the places where people do
> not have the words to say what they want to say, where they stutter, grasp,
> are frustrated.
>
> wolfe did more of a conventional ethnography which has been very much
> criticized but is still practiced widely. at any rate, i would think that
> anyone who isn't an ethnographer probably _ought_ to learn how to "report"
> as objectively as possible what people say the first time around. doing
> more critical ethnographies/employing different methods and, indeed,
> drawing on an entirely different _methodology_ probably requires an
> experienced hand. wolfe wasn't.
>
> sociologists, plain and simple, are not supposed to judge people. a
> sociologist isn't a judge. a sociologist is supposed to understand and
> explain the world around him or her. castigating them for their views and
> criticizing them is not explanation.
>
> it is in his conclusion where one must nail him. there is where a
> sociologist on the model reveal his or her biases, where he or she judges
> what the respondents say, but even then it is not to castigate them as
> people, but to examine the social institutions and practices that shape
> their world view and ask why and how they do so.
>
> if you want an essayist and commentator on the american scene an
> ethnography isn't where you should look, tho it can give one fodder for
> doing so.
>
> having chosen to do things like study men to learn more about gender and
> study the professional managerial strata to understand the operations of
> our political economy i am often to treated to these kinds of crits -- as
> if i am supposed to bitch about my respondents for their sexist responses.
> i'm not. i'm supposed understand why they engage in such discourses. i'm
> supposed to help my reader understand so they can learn that it is the
> social institutions and attendant social practices we need to change, not
> give sexist men or self satisfied whities a jolt of the volt to shape them
> up or something.
>
> kelley
>
> >Clearly most of them buy the notion that PA recipients are a long-term,
> >stuck-in-the-mud crowd of chronic dependents. Not
> >true, of course. Also, though he does mention their self-pity, he fails
> >completely to recognize it as a failure of reality-testing, not only about the
> >lives of PA recipients, but also as a failure to recognize that the right-wing
> >hit at the floor under income that welfare provided ultimately threatens all
> >working people. There are still other defects in his work, which I half
> >remember.
> >
> >Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
> >
> >Kelley Walker wrote:
> >
> > > At 06:35 PM 4/15/01 -0400, Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema wrote:
> > > >Can't seem to find my copy of Wolfe's ONE NATION AFTER ALL, but I
> > > >remember it fairly well. In it he celebrated the essentially privatistic
> > > >outlook of the accidental sample of people he surveyed, and portrayed
> > > >them as strongly supportive of personal responsibility, the work ethic,
> > > >and a paternalistic attitude towards the poor.
> > >
> > > finding something is not the same thing as approving of it. eli anderson
> > > finds that blacks accuse other blacks of some horrendous things. does that
> > > mean eli anderson agrees? please! it isn't that he celebrates them. there
> > > is a place where he celebrates the enlightenment liberalism that undergirds
> > > their tendency to, for example, believe strongly that abortion is wrong,
> > > that it is murder but concede that this is _their_ belief. even the most
> > > activist among them, save a few, refrain from agreeing that they should
> > > foist their beliefs on everyone else.
> > >
> > > bellah et al. critique their respondents strongly for the above. wolfe
> > > doesn't. to call it celebrating goes a bit overboard.
> > >
> > > >This is pretty much what
> > > >I find when I look at the chapter on the family in the chief
> > > >communitarian, Amitai Etzioni's THE SPIRIT OF COMMUNITY: RIGHTS,
> > > >RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE COMMUNITARIAN AGENDA.
> > >
> > > first, it wasn't an accidental sample. what he set out to do was criticize
> > > Habits of the Heart for their criticisms of intense individualism among the
> > > profesional managerial strata (happy carrol?) therefore, he went to the
> > > same four cities and plucked a sample of, iirc, 50 ppl. he then interviewed
> > > them. it's called a case study and there is nothing per se wrong with
> > > doing a case study. methods are tools and they work best if you choose
> > > those tools that work in conjunction with your theoretical framework AND
> > > your methodological framework.
> > >
> > > both authors had a theoretical reason for analyzing the white middle
> > > STRATA. it is similar to what ehrenreich did in _The Hearts of Men_: to
> > > examine US ideology where it is likely to be most trenchant, where is
> > > flourishes, where is broadcast and takes root most firmly. i.e, it's not
> > > accidental, but purposeful
> > >
> > > case studies, as michael burawoy has argued, can be used to make
> > > generalizations, however.
> > >
> > > of cours, as socialists, we need to do better. but they are not.
> > > furthermore, as a sociologist it's not really my job to run about writing
> > > books that conform to my ideological desires. it is rather, to look and
> > > see and be open to the possibility that i might have it wrong!
> > >
> > > sorry if i jumped on you chris. i spend a lot of time bitching at people
> > > on conlib lists for spouting off about how, for example recently, keynes is
> > > a fabian socialist. this they heard somewhere. it is then argued that
> > > keynes was like a democratic socialist who was after slow
> > > change. whatever. but the point is to discredit whatever i say as commie
> > > pinko red, to make anyone who even slightly seems that way out to be one as
> > > well. when i see people here do that by saying, well alan wolfe hangs out
> > > with the communitarians or he says things that seem communitarian therefore
> > > he's antifeminst and homophobic????
> > >
> > > when i see "us" do the same thing, i get more pissed than i do elsewhere.
> > > the views there are excusable. the tactics are possibly
> > > understandable. but they are neither in our case.
> > >
> > > lots to critique in wolfe, etzioni, bellah et al., but what i saw early on
> > > wasn't exactly critique.
> > >
> > > >Of course, neither of these writers is Dr. Dobson, or a real religious
> > > >right type. Etzioni makes a few perfunctory feints in a liberal
> > > >direction, but his is essentially an apology for a neoliberal family
> > > >policy. Several of the more admiring quotes are from people overtly to
> > > >the right of the position he lets you think he takes. People like
> > > >Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Mary Anne Glenton, Judith Wallerstein. He
> > > >denies that he wants to abolish divorce, but then says he thinks it
> > > >needs to be more difficult, that social policy should place obstacles in
> > > >its way.
> > > >
> > > >In effect Etzioni describes many of the negative effects of the
> > > >instability of the family and its generally counterdevelopmental effect
> > > >on many of the children who grow up in the complex and frequently
> > > >reconstituted families that are now more or less the norm. But does he
> > > >propose a strong program of universal social welfare measures that would
> > > >extend support to all children? Even more important, does he recognize
> > > >that marriage is an institution whose instability is inevitable given
> > > >fundamental political-economic changes that are integral to contemporary
> > > >capitalism?
> > > >
> > > >Of course not. He does say fleetingly that it would be nice for
> > > >corporations to provide paid child-care leave, and that family
> > > >allowances would be a good thing. These are his feints to the left.
> > > >However, he goes on for pages on the moral duty of individuals, as
> > > >individuals, to be personally responsible, exercise care in family life,
> > > >etc. (Rhetorical hint of the Clinton welfare reform here.). He takes an
> > > >effectively pro-corporate stance without owning up to it, because the
> > > >only way not to do this would be to propose real social welfare
> > > >alternatives.
> > > >
> > > >Wolfe, in a different way, takes a similarly tired liberal privatistic
> > > >approach to what are really social issues. He, and Etzioni in a more
> > > >upbeat, pseudo-inspirational way, really seem to be the Tony Blairs of
> > > >American social policy.
> > > >
> > > >As socialists, we need to do better. For example, both Etzioni and Wolfe
> > > >strongly oppose day-care, saying that existing day-care is of dubious
> > > >quality. Often enough they are right, of course, but they go on to
> > > >insist that children always belong at home. This is a gross example of
> > > >political defects they share. And their stance has consequences that
> > > >contradict their supposedly tender concern for children. For example,
> > > >their kind of thinking gives aid and comfort to the anti-poor right,
> > > >who, under forced-work programs, must leave their children in really
> > > >questionable day care.
> > > >
> > > >Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >LeoCasey at aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> > > > > Encoding: quoted-printable