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 thatsym-
When sociologists undertake to study pathy?Will it be of use in the con-
problemsthat have relevanceto the struction of scientific theoryor in the
worldwe live in, theyfindthemselves applicationof scientific knowledgeto
caughtin a crossfire. Someurgethem the practicalproblemsof society?Or
notto takesides,to be neutraland do willthebias introduced bytakingsides
researchthatis technically correct and spoil it forthoseuses?
valuefree.Otherstellthemtheirwork We seldom make the feelingex-
is shallowand uselessif it does not plicit.Instead,it appearsas a lingering
expressa deep commitment to a value worryfor sociologicalreaders,who
position. would like to be sure theycan trust
This dilemma, whichseemsso pain- whattheyread,and a troublesome area
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 sympathies theyfeelare
as someapparently do,thatit is indeed not professionally unseemlyand will
possibleto do researchthatis uncon- not, in any case, seriouslyflawtheir
taminatedby personal and political work. That the worryaffectsboth
sympathies. I proposeto arguethatit readersand researchers indicatesthat
is notpossibleand,therefore, thatthe it lies deeperthanthesuperficial differ-
questionis notwhether we shouldtake ences that divide sociologicalschools
sides, since we inevitablywill, but of thought, and thatits rootsmustbe
ratherwhosesidewe are on. soughtin characteristics of societythat
I willbeginbyconsidering theprob- affect us all, whatever our method-
lem of takingsidesas it arisesin the ologicalor theoretical persuasion.
studyof deviance.An inspectionof If thefeelingweremadeexplicit,it
thiscasewill soonrevealto us features would takethe formof an accusation
thatappearin sociologicalresearchof thatthe sympathies of the researcher
all kinds.In thegreatest variety of sub- have biased his work and distorted his
jectmatterareasand in workdone by findings. Beforeexploring itsstructural
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
We maysometimes feelthatstudies studysufficient to deterus frompub-
of devianceexhibittoo greata sym- lishing those of our resultswhich
pathywiththepeople studied,a sym- mightprovedamagingto them.One
pathyreflected in the researchcarried can imaginea liberalsociologistwho
out. This feeling,I suspect,is enter- set out to disprovesome of the com-
tainedoffand on bothby thoseof us monstereotypes held abouta minority
who do suchresearch and by thoseof group.To his dismay, hisinvestigation
us who, our work lying in other areas, reveals that some of the stereotypes
are unfortunately true.In theinterests
of justiceand liberalism, he mightwell
*Presidentialaddress, delivered at the an- be and mighteven succumb
nual meetingof the Societyfor the Study tempted,
of Social Problems,Miami Beach, August, to the temptation, to suppressthose
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.Recog-

firmed his beliefs. nizing the point and promisingto
But thisseemsnot reallyto be the addressit eventually, I shall turnto
heartof thecharge,becausesociologists the typicalsituationsin which the
who studydeviancedo not typically accusation of bias arises.
hide things about the people they When do we accuseourselvesand
study.Theyaremostly willingto grant ourfellowsociologists of bias? I think
thatthereis something goingon that an inspectionof representative in-
put the deviantsin the positionthey stanceswould show that the accusa-
are 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 somehier-
charge,I think,is this.In the course archicalrelationship. In the case of
of ourworkand forwho knowswhat deviance,the hierarchical relationship
privatereasons,we fallintodeepsym- is a moral one. The superordinate
pathywiththepeoplewe arestudying, partiesin the relationship are those
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
questionswhoseanswersshowthatthe schools,hospitals, asylums and prisons,
supposeddeviantis morally in theright in the studyof physicalas well as
and theordinary citizenmorally in the mentalillness,in the studyof both
wrong.We neglectto ask thoseques- "normal" and delinquentyouth.In
tionswhoseanswerswouldshowthat thesesituations, thesuperordinate par-
the deviant,afterall, has done some- tiesare usuallytheofficial and profes-
thingpretty rottenand,indeed,pretty sional authorities in chargeof some
muchdeserveswhathe gets.In conse- important institution,whilethesubor-
quence,our overallassessment of the dinatesare thosewhomakeuse of the
problembeing studiedis one-sided. servicesof thatinstitution. Thus, the
What we produceis a whitewashof policeare thesuperordinates, drugad-
the deviantand a condemnation, if dictsare the subordinates; professors
onlyby implication, of thoserespecta- and administrators, principals and
ble citizenswho,we think,havemade teachers, are the superordinates, while
thedeviantwhathe is. studentsand pupils are the subordi-
It is to this versionthatI devote nates; physiciansare the superordi-
the rest of my remarks.I will look nates,theirpatientsthe subordinates.
first,however,not at the truthor All of thesecases represent one of
falsityof thecharge,butratherat the the typicalsituationsin which re-
circumstances in whichit is typically searchersaccuse themselvesand are
madeand felt.The sociology of knowl- accusedof bias. It is a situationin
edgecautions us to distinguish between which,whileconflict and tensionexist
thetruthof a statement and an assess- in the hierarchy, the conflict has not
mentof thecircumstances underwhich becomeopenlypolitical.The conflict-
that statement is made; thoughwe ing segmentsor ranksare not orga-
tracean argument to its sourcein the nized forconflict; no one attempts to
interestsof thepersonwhomadeit,we altertheshapeof thehierarchy. 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

subordinates may complainabout the posesof ourresearch, thatsubordinates

treatment theyreceivefromthoseabove have as much rightto be heard as
them,theydo notproposeto moveto superordinates, thattheyare as likely
a positionof equalitywiththem,or to to be tellingthetruthas theysee it as
reverse positions in the hierarchy.superordinates, that what they say
Thus, no one proposesthat addicts aboutthe institution has a rightto be
should make and enforcelaws for investigated and have its truthor fal-
policemen,that patientsshould pre- sityestablished, even thoughrespon-
scribefor doctors,or thatadolescents sible officials assureus thatit is un-
shouldgive ordersto adults.We can necessary becausethechargesare false.
call thistheapoliticalcase. We can use the notionof a hier-
In 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
organizedconflict, attempting eitherto havetherightto definethewaythings
maintainor changeexistingrelations really are. In any organization,no
of power and authority. Whereasin matterwhatthe restof the organiza-
thefirstcase subordinates are typically tionchartshows,thearrowsindicating
unorganized and thushave,as we shall theflowof information 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 informa-
bias by someoneelse when he gives tion,and theirview of realitywill be
credenceto the perspective of either partialand distortedin consequence.
partyto the politicalconflict. I leave Therefore, fromthepointof viewof a
thepoliticalforlaterand turnnow to well socializedparticipant in the sys-
theproblemof 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
thoughtheyare subordinates, about thegroup,morally boundto acceptthe
the way thingsare runjust as though definitionimposed on realityby a
one oughtto give theircomplaints as superordinate group in preference to
much credenceas the statements of the definitions
espousedby subordin-
responsibleofficials. We provokethe ates. (By analogy,the same argument
chargewhenwe assume,for the pur- holds forthe social classesof a com-
1 No situationis necessarilypolitical or
munity.) Thus, credibilityand the
apolitical. An apolitical situation can be rightto be heardare differentialIy dis-
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
participants.The categories,while analyti- 2 William Graham Sumner, "Status in
cally 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

chargeof bias,in ourselves and others, to their accountof how the adult
to
byrefusing give credence and defer- worldtreatsthem.But whydo we not
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
sponsible professionalsknow more youthare so troublesome for adults,
aboutthingsthanlaymen,thatpolice ratherthan askingthe equallyinter-
are morerespectable and theirwords estingsociologicalquestion:"Whydo
oughtto be takenmoreseriously than adults make so much trouble for
those of the deviantsand criminals youth ?" Similarly,
we accusethosewho
withwhomtheydeal. By refusingto takethecomplaints of mentalpatients
acceptthehierarchy of credibility,we seriouslyof bias; what about those
expressdisrespect forthe entireestab- sociologistswho only take seriously
lishedorder. the complaints of physicians, families
We compoundour sin and further and othersaboutmentalpatients ?
provokechargesof bias by not giving Whythisdisproportion in thedirec-
immediate attentionand "equal time" tion of accusations of bias? Why do
to the apologiesand explanations of we moreoftenaccusethosewho are
If, for instance,we on theside of subordinates
officialauthority. thanthose
are concernedwith studying the way whoareon thesideof superordinates ?
of life inmatesin a mentalhospital Because,when we make the former
buildup forthemselves, we will natu- accusation,we have, like the well
rallybe concerned withtheconstraintssocialized membersof our society
and conditionscreatedby the actions mostof us are,acceptedthehierarchy
of the administrators and physicians of credibilityand taken over the
who run the hospital.But, unlesswe accusation madebyresponsible officials.
also make the administrators and The reasonresponsible officialsmake
physicians the objectof our study(a theaccusation so frequentlyis precisely
possibilityI will considerlater), we becausetheyareresponsible. Theyhave
will not inquireinto whythosecon- beenentrusted withthecareand opera-
ditions and constraints are present. tionof oneor another of ourimportant
We will not give responsible officials institutions:
schools,hospitals,law en-
a chanceto explain themselvesand forcement, or whatever. They are the
give theirreasonsfor actingas they ones who, by virtueof theirofficial
do, a chanceto show whythe com- positionand the authority that goes
plaintsof inmatesarenotjustified. withit,are in a positionto "do some-
It is odd that,when we perceive thing"whenthingsare notwhatthey
bias,we usuallysee it in thesecircum- shouldbe and, similarly, are the ones
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.
the interestsof responsibleofficials Becausetheyare responsible in this
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
emphasisto thecomplaints of patients. thingsare seldomas theyoughtto be.
Butit is notobviousthatmostmedical For a greatvarietyof reasons,well-
sociologistslook at thingsfromthe knownto sociologists, institutions are
pointof viewof the doctors?A few refractory. They do not performas
sociologistsmaybe sufficiently biased societywould like themto. Hospitals
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

educatestudents.Since theyare sup- who favorsofficialdom will be spared
posed to, officials developwaysboth the accusation of bias.
of denyingthe failureof the institu- And thus we see why we accuse
tion to performas it should and ex- ourselvesof bias only whenwe take
plainingthosefailures whichcannotbe the side of the subordinate. It is be-
hidden.An accountof an institution'scause,in a situation thatis notopenly
operationfromthe pointof view of political,withthemajorissuesdefined
subordinates therefore castsdoubton as arguable,we join responsible offi-
the official line and maypossiblyex- cials and the man in the streetin an
pose it as a lie.3 unthinking acceptance of thehierarchy
For reasonsthatare a mirror image of credibility. We assumewith them
of thoseof officials, subordinates in an thatthe man at the top knowsbest.
apolitical hierarchical relationship have We do not realizethatthereare sides
no reasonto complainof the bias of to be takenand thatwe are taking
sociologicalresearchorientedtoward one of them.
theinterests ofsuperordinates. Subordi- The same reasoningallows us to
nates typicallyare not organizedin understand whytheresearcher has the
sucha fashionas to be responsible for same worryabout the effectof his
theoveralloperationof an institution.sympathies on his work as his unin-
What happensin a schoolis credited volved colleague. The hierarchyof
or debitedto the faculty and adminis- credibility is a featureof society whose
trators; theycan be identified and held existence we cannotdeny,even if we
to account.Even thoughthefailureof disagreewithits injunction to believe
a schoolmaybe thefaultof thepupils, themanat thetop. When we acquire
theyare notso organizedthatanyone sufficient sympathy withsubordinates to
of themis responsible foranyfailure see thingsfromtheirperspective, we
but his own. If he does well, while knowthatwe are flying in thefaceof
othersall aroundhim flounder, cheat what "everyoneknows."The knowl-
and steal,thatis none of his affair, edge givesus pause and causesus to
despitethe attempt of honorcodes to share,howeverbriefly, the doubt of
makeit so. As long as thesociological our colleagues.
When a situationhas been defined
reporton his school says that every
studenttherebut one is a liar and a politically, the secondtypeof case I
cheat,all thestudents willfeelcompla- wantto discuss,matters are quitedif-
cent,knowingthey are the one excep- ferent.Subordinates have somedegree
tion.More likely,theywill neverhear of organization and,withthat,spokes-
of thereportat all or,if theydo, will men, theirequivalentof responsible
reasonthattheywill be gone before officials. Spokesmen, whiletheycannot
long,so whatdifference does it make? actuallybe held responsible forwhat
The lackoforganization amongsubor-- members of theirgroupdo,makeasser-
dinatemembers of an institutionalizedtionson theirbehalfand are held re-
relationship meansthat,havingno re- sponsibleforthe truthof thoseasser-
sponsibility for the group's welfare, tions.The groupengagesin political
theylikewisehave no complaintsif activitydesignedto change existing
hierarchicalrelationships andthecredi-
3 I have stated a portion of this argu- bilityof its spokesmen directlyaffects
mentmore brieflyin "Problemsof Publica- itspoliticalfortunes. Credibility is not
tion of Field Studies," in ArthurVidich, the onlyinfluence, but the groupcan
JosephBensman,and Maurice Stein (Eds.), havingthedefinition
ill-afford of real-
Reflectionson CommunityStudies, New its spokesmendis-
York: JohnWiley and Sons, 1964, pp. 267- ity proposedby
284. credited,for the immediateconse-

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

quence will be some loss of political know,forinstance, thatwe mustgrasp

power. the perspectives of both the resident
Superordinategroups have their of Watts and of the Los Angeles
spokesmen too,andtheyareconfrontedpolicemanif we are to understand
withthesameproblem:to makestate- whatwenton in thatoutbreak.
mentsaboutrealitythatare politically Second,it is no secretthat most
effectivewithout being easily dis- sociologistsare politicallyliberal to
credited.The politicalfortunes of the one degreeor another.Our political
superordinategroup-its ability to preferences dictatetheside we will be
hold the statuschangesdemandedby on and, since those preferences are
lowergroupsto a minimum-donot sharedbymostof our colleagues,few
dependas muchon credibility, forthe are readyto throwthe firststoneor
grouphas otherkindsof poweravail- are even awarethatstone-throwing is
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 researchde-
groupswill be sensitive to theimplica- signedto prove that the formerare
tionsof our work.Sincetheypropose not as bad as peoplethinkor thatthe
openlyconflicting definitions of reality, latterare worse.In fact,in thesecir-
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
posesof ourresearch, one or theother safeguards.
And our resultswill do the
definition. We are thusapt to takesides with
same. equal innocenceand lack of thought,
The hierarchyof credibility operates thoughfor different reasons,in both
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
preciselyone of the thingsat issue. credibility to the responsibleofficial.
Since the politicalstrugglecalls into (This is notto denythata fewof us,
questionthelegitimacy of theexisting becausesomethingin our experience
rank system,it necessarilycalls into has alertedthemto thepossibility, may
questionat the same timethe legiti- questiontheconventional hierarchyof
macyof the associatedjudgmentsof credibility in the special area of our
credibility.Judgments of who has a expertise.)In thesecondcase,we take
rightto definethe natureof reality ourpoliticsso forgrantedthatit sup-
thataretakenforgrantedin an apoli- plantsconvention in dictatingwhose
tical situation become mattersof side we will be on. (I do not deny,
argument. either,thatsomefew sociologists may
Oddlyenough,we are,I think,less deviatepoliticallyfromtheirliberal
likely to accuse ourselvesand one colleagues,eitherto the rightor the
another of biasin a politicalthanin an left,and thusbe moreliable to ques-
apoliticalsituation,for at least two tionthatconvention.)
reasons.First,becausethehierarchy of In anyevent,evenif our colleagues
credibilityhas been openlycalledinto do notaccuseus of bias in research in
question,we are awarethatthereare a political situation,the interested
at leasttwo sidesto the storyand so partieswill. Whethertheyare foreign
do notthinkit unseemly to investigatepoliticianswho object to studiesof
the situationfromone or anotherof how the stability of theirgovernment
the contendingpointsof view. We maybe maintained in the interest
of

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

affair)4or domestic civilrightsleaders willthusbe affected, at least,byhaving
who object to an analysisof race suggestedto him what the relevant
problemsthat centerson the alleged arguments and issuesare.A student of
deficiencies of the Negro family(as medicalsociologymaydecidethathe
in thereception givento theMoynihan will takeneither theperspective of the
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 atti-
to the problem.They accusehim,in tudeof subordinates, or it will not.If
otherwords,of seeingthingsfromthe he failsto considerthequestionsthey
perspective of only one partyto the raise,he will be workingon the side
conflict.But theaccusationis likelyto of the officials. If he does raisethose
be made by interested partiesand not questionsseriously and doesfind,as he
by sociologists themselves. may,thatthereis somemeritin them,
WhatI havesaid so faris all sociol- he will then expose himselfto the
ogy of knowledge,suggestingby outrageof theofficials and of all those
whom,in whatsituations and forwhat sociologists who award themthe top
reasonssociologists will be accusedof spot in the hierarchy of credibility.
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,
ingsare distorted byour sympathy for are seen by societyas morality plays
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
scientistwho proposesto understand investigating. Thus, a Marxistmight
society must,as Mead longago pointed feelthatit is notworthdistinguishing
out, get into the situationenoughto betweenDemocratsand Republicans,
have a perspective on it. And it is or betweenbig businessand big labor,
likely that his perspectivewill be in eachcase bothgroupsbeingequally
greatlyaffected by whateverpositions inimicalto theinterests of theworkers.
are takenby any or all of the other This would indeed make us neutral
participants in that varied situation. with respectto the two groups at
Even if his participation is limitedto hand, but would only mean thatwe
readingin thefield,he willnecessarilyhad enlargedthescopeof thepolitical
readthearguments of partisansof one conflictto includea partynot ordi-
narily broughtin whose view the
4 See Irving Louis Horowitz, "The Life sociologist was taking.
and Death of Project Camelot," Transac- We 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.
Yancey, "Black Families and the White
whether takingsidesmeansthatsome
House," ibid., 3 (July/August,1966, pp.
distortionis introduced intoour work
6-11, 48-53). so greatas to makeit useless.Or, less

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
drastically, is methodology are no help here.They
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,forwhat-
tionallydiscredited definition of real- everreason,to investigate somematter
ity given priorityor equalitywith that should properlybe regardedas
what"everyone knows,"forit is clear problematic. We are sentimental, es-
thatwe cannotavoidthat.That is the pecially,when our reasonis thatwe
problemof officials, spokesmenand would prefernot to know what is
interestedparties,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. What-
meetsthe standardsof good scientificeverside we are on, we mustuse our
work,thatourunavoidablesympathiestechniquesimpartially enoughthat a
do notrenderourresults invalid. beliefto whichwe are especiallysym-
We mightdistortour findings, be- patheticcould be proveduntrue.We
causeof oursympathy withone of the mustalwaysinspectourworkcarefully
parties in the relationshipwe are enough to know whetherour tech-
studying, by misusingthe tools and niques and theoriesare open enough
techniques of ourdiscipline. We might to allow thatpossibility.
introduceloaded questions into a Let us consider, finally,whatmight
questionnaire, or act in somewayin a seema simplesolutionto theproblems
fieldsituationsuchthatpeoplewould posed.If thedifficulty is thatwe gain
be constrained to tellus onlythekind sympathy withunderdogsby studying
of thingwe are alreadyin sympathythem,is it notalso truethatthesuper-
with. 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
abstractly,everyone of our theories superordinates or subordinates, pre-
presumably containsa setof directives sentingtheirpoint of view on their
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
in our research.By usingour theories identification withthosebelow them?
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.
thoughsomeof thequestionsthatwill It is true,forinstance,thatthead-
be raisedand some of the factsthat ministrators of a prisonarenotfreeto
will be producedrun counterto our do as theywish,not freeto be re-
biases. sponsiveof thedesiresof inmates, for
But the questionmay be precisely instance. If onetalksto suchan official,
this. Given all our techniquesof he will commonly tell us, in private,
theoreticaland technicalcontrol,how thatof coursethesubordinates in the
can we be surethatwe willapplythem relationship have some righton their
impartiallyand acrosstheboardas they side, but thattheyfail to understand
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

theyhaveestablished. Thus,if a prison referto a moresociologicaldisclaimer
administrator is angeredbecause we in whichwe say,forinstance, thatwe
take the complaintsof his inmates have studiedthe prisonthroughthe
seriously,we mayfeelthatwe can get eyesof the inmatesand not through
aroundthatand get a morebalanced the eyes of the guardsor otherin-
pictureby interviewing him and his volvedparties.We warnpeople,thus,
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 at-
presenteda 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 fromaccusa-
this seeminglysimple solution,we tionsof bias,however,fortheguards
arriveat a problemof infinite regress. willstillbe outraged bytheunbalanced
For everyonehas someonestanding picture.If we implicitlyaccept the
above him who preventshim from conventional hierarchy of credibility,
doing thingsjust as he likes. If we we willfeelthestingin thataccusation.
questionthe superiorsof the prison It is something of a solutionto say
administrator, a state department of thatover the yearseach "one-sided"
corrections or prisons,theywill com- study will provoke furtherstudies
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-termsolu-
of lobbyists,partymachines, thepublic tion, and not muchhelp to the in-
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
proposeto hold mybreathuntilthat presenting a one-sidedview,and his
happyday. own worries.
We can,I think, satisfythedemands What do we do in the meantime?
of our scienceby alwaysmakingclear I theanswersaremoreor less
the limitsof what we have studied, suppose
obvious.We takesidesas ourpersonal
markingtheboundaries beyondwhich and
our findings cannotbe safelyapplied. our politicalcommitments dictate,use
theoretical and technicalresources
Not just the conventional disclaimer,
in whichwe warnthatwe have only to avoid the distortions that might
studieda prisonin New Yorkor Cali- introduce intoourwork,limitourcon-
forniaand the findings maynot hold dclusions carefully,recognizethe hier-
in the otherforty-nine states-which archyof credibility forwhatis is, and
is nota usefulprocedure anyway, since field as best we can the accusations
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