Still, I think that choosing a more interpretive approach is not a licence for complete impressionism, and this goes for quality journalism and contemporary history, too. The nice thing about Kirsten Luker is not that she has progressive instincts or inclinations, but that she marshals her data with an attempt to offer a plausible theoretical analysis of the patterns she detects. She listens to right wing pro life women, and to pro choice women, and she doesn't, for example, make fun of the former or demonize them; neither does she idealize the latter. Instead, she sets forth an account if how the life situations of each group make its ideology compelling. The conclusions she comes up with are not likely to sway the views of either side towards the other, but she makes it possible for each to understand the other.
I don't think Wolfe does this in One Nation. Basically he points out that in his sample there are a number of trends towards increasing tolerance on a lot of attitudes, which is no doubt true; and not on others, mainly connected homosexuality. That's probably true too. He doesn't really try to explain why this is so. What he does do is to celebrate this trend, which is OK as far as it goes; I mean, increasing tolerance is a good thing from a liberal point of view. But one would like to know, for example, why it has happened. Moreover, and this is what a lot of us have found disturbing in the book, he has a marked tendency towards drawing a Ben Wattenbergish conclusion that we Americans really have an ideological agreement on essentials,a nd we are getting better and better in every way. It's a sort of Louis Hartzian conclusion without Hartz's critical edge, and without the recognition of the tensions between the views that were noted, for examplem in Free and Cantrill's The Political Beliefs of Americans, the classic argument that we have a conservative ideology and liberal substantive beliefs. It's a pretty inferior product, having neither the virtues of quantitative analysis nor of interpretive insight.
--jks
>
>Problem is, I don't know what he asked, or what his approach was to
>interviewing.
>I'm not a researcher, but I interview people all the time at work, and I
>know
>that's important. However, touching on that issue was mostly in response to
>your
>earlier question. What I find questionable about Wolfe is that he seems to
>use his
>subjects as a sort of cheering section for his own punitive views about
>public
>morality and attitudes towards poor people. This is antithetical to what
>you
>describe as the essence of ethnographic research. I've read Luker's books,
>and she
>seems to make a clearer distinction. So too Mary Waters on ethnicity, who I
>read
>some years ago when one of my interns had to read it for a course. Maybe
>you know
>her.
>Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema
>
>Kelley Walker wrote:
>
> > At 05:32 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Christopher Rhoades Dÿkema wrote:
> > >You are more of a researcher than I am so probably have a better of
>what a
> > >"typical methods chapter" ought to include than I do. Wolfe's first
>chapter,
> > >after a discussion of general issues, does present data as to the
> > >locations where
> > >his interviews took place, and the broad demographic characteristics of
>the
> > >subjects. However, as Doug's review points out, he is vague about his
> > >interview
> > >protocol, what he asked how he formulated his and his assistants'
> > >approach. ONe
> > >of them, one Maria Poarch, seems to have lived for periods of time in
>the
> > >communities.
> >
> > arlie hochschild's work is cited here frequently as good work. she
> > interviewed far less than wolfe. she interviewed about 3 black couples
>out
> > about 60 couples. and yet, she makes the same sort of claims,
>generalizing
> > her findings to all married couples. funny, but we buy her arguments.
>she
> > used the same methods, somewhat different methodology and, obviously, a
> > different theoretical orientation.
> >
> > kristen luker's study on abortion attitudes among conservative women...
>no
> > different. it has been mentioned here frequently. Jay MacLeod's Ain't
>No
> > Makin It has become a classic in sociology intro and social problems
> > courses. all of these books interview even smaller groups of people.
> >
> > none of these books provide a "protocol" that y'all seem to want.
>that's
> > because it isn't typical to do that. it's typical to do pretty much what
> > Wolfe does. occ. some do, and they're mainly dissertations turned into
>books.
> >
> > kelley
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com