Whose Side Are We On?

Author(s): Howard S. Becker

Source: Social Problems, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Winter, 1967), pp. 239-247
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social
Problems
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/799147
Accessed: 18-09-2018 14:34 UTC

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press, Society for the Study of Social Problems are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHOSE SIDE ARE WE ON?*

HOWARD S. BECKER
Northwestern University

To have values or not to have only read the results. Will the research,
we wonder,
values: the question is always with us. be distorted by that sym-
When sociologists undertake to pathy?
study Will it be of use in the con-
problems that have relevance to theof scientific theory or in the
struction
application of scientific knowledge to
world we live in, they find themselves
caught in a crossfire. Some urgethe them
practical problems of society? Or
not to take sides, to be neutral and
will thedo
bias introduced by taking sides
spoil it
research that is technically correct for those uses?
and
value free. Others tell them their We work
seldom make the feeling ex-
is shallow and useless if it does not
plicit. Instead, it appears as a lingering
express a deep commitment to a value worry for sociological readers, who
position. would like to be sure they can trust
This dilemma, which seems so pain- what they read, and a troublesome area
ful to so many, actually does not exist, of self-doubt for those who do the
for one of its horns is imaginary. For research, who would like to be sure
it to exist, one would have to assume, that whatever sympathies they feel are
as some apparently do, that it is indeed not professionally unseemly and will
possible to do research that is uncon- not, in any case, seriously flaw their
taminated by personal and political work. That the worry affects both
readers and researchers indicates that
sympathies. I propose to argue that it
is not possible and, therefore, that the it lies deeper than the superficial differ-
question is not whether we should take ences that divide sociological schools
sides, since we inevitably will, but of thought, and that its roots must be
rather whose side we are on. sought in characteristics of society that
affect us all, whatever our method-
I will begin by considering the prob-
lem of taking sides as it arises in the ological or theoretical persuasion.
study of deviance. An inspection of If the feeling were made explicit, it
this case will soon reveal to us features would take the form of an accusation
that appear in sociological research of that the sympathies of the researcher
have biased his work and distorted his
all kinds. In the greatest variety of sub-
ject matter areas and in work done by findings. Before exploring its structural
all the different methods at our dis- roots, let us consider what the manifest
posal, we cannot avoid taking sides,meaning of the charge might be.
for reasons firmly based in social struc- It might mean that we have acquired
ture.
some sympathy with the group we
We may sometimes feel that studiesstudy sufficient to deter us from pub-
lishing those of our results which
of deviance exhibit too great a sym-
pathy with the people studied, a sym- might prove damaging to them. One
pathy reflected in the research carried can imagine a liberal sociologist who
out. This feeling, I suspect, is enter- set out to disprove some of the com-
tained off and on both by those of us mon stereotypes held about a minority
who do such research and by those ofgroup. To his dismay, his investigation
us who, our work lying in other areas, reveals that some of the stereotypes
are unfortunately true. In the interests
of justice and liberalism, he might well
*Presidential address, delivered at the an-
nual meeting of the Society for the Study be tempted, and might even succumb
of Social Problems, Miami Beach, August, to the temptation, to suppress those
1966. findings, publishing with scientific

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 240 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

candor the other results which con- have still not proved it false. Recog-
firmed his beliefs. nizing the point and promising to
But this seems not really to be the address it eventually, I shall turn to
heart of the charge, because sociologists the typical situations in which the
who study deviance do not typically accusation of bias arises.
hide things about the people they When do we accuse ourselves and
study. They are mostly willing to grant our fellow sociologists of bias ? I think
that there is something going on that an inspection of representative in-
put the deviants in the position they stances would show that the accusa-
are in, even if they are not willing to tion arises, in one important class of
grant that it is what the people they cases, when the research gives credence,
studied were originally accused of. in any serious way, to the perspective
A more likely meaning of the of the subordinate group in some hier-
charge, I think, is this. In the course archical relationship. In the case of
of our work and for who knows what deviance, the hierarchical relationship
private reasons, we fall into deep sym-is a moral one. The superordinate
pathy with the people we are studying,parties in the relationship are those
so that while the rest of the societywho represent the forces of approved
views them as unfit in one or another and official morality; the subordinate
respect for the deference ordinarily parties are those who, it is alleged,
accorded a fellow citizen, we believe have violated that morality.
that they are at least as good as anyone Though deviance is a typical case,
else, more sinned against than sinning.it is by no means the only one. Similar
Because of this, we do not give a bal-situations, and similar feelings that our
anced picture. We focus too much on work is biased, occur in the study of
questions whose answers show that theschools, hospitals, asylums and prisons,
supposed deviant is morally in the rightin the study of physical as well as
and the ordinary citizen morally in the mental illness, in the study of both
wrong. We neglect to ask those ques- "normal" and delinquent youth. In
tions whose answers would show that these situations, the superordinate par-
the deviant, after all, has done some- ties are usually the official and profes-
thing pretty rotten and, indeed, prettysional authorities in charge of some
much deserves what he gets. In conse- important institution, while the subor-
quence, our overall assessment of thedinates are those who make use of the
problem being studied is one-sided. services of that institution. Thus, the
What we produce is a whitewash of police are the superordinates, drug ad-
the deviant and a condemnation, if dicts are the subordinates; professors
only by implication, of those respecta-and administrators, principals and
ble citizens who, we think, have madeteachers, are the superordinates, while
the deviant what he is. students and pupils are the subordi-
It is to this version that I devote
nates; physicians are the superordi-
the rest of my remarks. I will look nates, their patients the subordinates.
first, however, not at the truth or All of these cases represent one of
falsity of the charge, but rather atthe
thetypical situations in which re-
circumstances in which it is typicallysearchers accuse themselves and are
made and felt. The sociology of knowl-accused of bias. It is a situation in
which, while conflict and tension exist
edge cautions us to distinguish between
the truth of a statement and an assess-
in the hierarchy, the conflict has not
ment of the circumstances under which become openly political. The conflict-
that statement is made; though we ing segments or ranks are not orga-
trace an argument to its source in the nized for conflict; no one attempts to
interests of the person who made it, we alter the shape of the hierarchy. While

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Whose Side Are Wle On? 241

subordinates may complain about

poses the
of our research, that subordinates
haveabove
treatment they receive from those as much right to be heard as
them, they do not propose tosuperordinates,
move to that they are as likely
to beor
a position of equality with them, telling
to the truth as they see it as
reverse positions in the hierarchy.
superordinates, that what they say
Thus, no one proposes thatabout
addicts
the institution has a right to be
should make and enforce laws for investigated and have its truth or fal-
policemen, that patients shouldsity
pre-established, even though respon-
sible officials assure us that it is un-
scribe for doctors, or that adolescents
should give orders to adults. We can
necessary because the charges are false.
call this the apolitical case. We can use the notion of a hier-
In the second case, the accusation of of credibility to understand this
archy
bias is made in a situation that is
phenomenon. In any system of ranked
frankly political. The parties groups,
to the participants take it as given
hierarchical relationship engage
thatin
members of the highest group
organized conflict, attempting either to right to define the way things
have the
maintain or change existing relations
really are. In any organization, no
of power and authority. Whereas matterin what the rest of the organiza-
the first case subordinates are typically
tion chart shows, the arrows indicating
unorganized and thus have, as wethe shall
flow of information point up, thus
see, little to fear from a researcher,
demonstrating (at least formally) that
subordinate parties in a political those
situa-at the top have access to a more
tion may have much to lose. completeWhen picture of what is going on
the situation is political, the researcher
than anyone else. Members of lower
may accuse himself or be accused groupsof will have incomplete informa-
bias by someone else when he tion, gives and their view of reality will be
credence to the perspective of either
partial and distorted in consequence.
party to the political conflict. I Therefore,
leave from the point of view of a
the political for later and turn nowwell to
socialized participant in the sys-
the problem of bias in apoliticaltem, situa-
any tale told by those at the top
tions.1 intrinsically deserves to be regarded
We provoke the suspicion that we as the most credible account obtainable
are biased in favor of the subordinate
of the organizations' workings. And
parties in an apolitical arrangement since, as Sumner pointed out, matters
when we tell the story from their of rank and status are contained in the
point of view. We may, for instance, mores,2 this belief has a moral quality.
investigate their complaints, even We are, if we are proper members of
though they are subordinates, about the group, morally bound to accept the
the way things are run just as though definition imposed on reality by a
one ought to give their complaints as superordinate group in preference to
much credence as the statements of
the definitions espoused by subordin-
responsible officials. We provoke the
ates. (By analogy, the same argument
charge when we assume, for the pur- holds for the social classes of a com-
1 No situation is necessarily political or
munity.) Thus, credibility and the
apolitical. An apolitical situation can be right to be heard are differentialIy dis-
transformed into a political one by the tributed through the ranks of the
open rebellion of subordinate ranks, and a system.
political situation can subside into one in
which an accommodation has been reached As sociologists, we provoke the
and a new hierarchy been accepted by the
participants. The categories, while analyti- 2 William Graham Sumner, "Status in
cally useful, do not represent a fixed divi-
the Folkways," Folkways, New York: New
sion existing in real life. American Library, 1960, pp. 72-73.

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
242 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

to their
charge of bias, in account of how and
ourselves the adultothers
world credence
by refusing to give treats them. But why
and do we not
defer
ence to an established
accuse other status
sociologistsorder,
who study in
which knowledge
youth of truth
of being biased in and
favor ofth
right to be heard are
adults? Mostnot equally
research dis-
on youth, after
tributed. "Everyone knows"
all, is clearly that
designed to find out whyre
sponsible professionals know
youth are so troublesome mor
for adults,
about things than
ratherlaymen,
than asking the that polic
equally inter-
are more respectable and their
esting sociological words
question: "Why do
adults
ought to be taken make so much
more trouble for
seriously than
those of the deviants and criminals youth ?" Similarly, we accuse those who
with whom they deal. By refusing to take the complaints of mental patients
seriously of bias; what about those
accept the hierarchy of credibility, we
sociologists who only take seriously
express disrespect for the entire estab-
lished order. the complaints of physicians, families
We compound our sin and furtherand others about mental patients ?
provoke charges of bias by not givingWhy this disproportion in the direc-
immediate attention and "equal time" tion of accusations of bias? Why do
to the apologies and explanations we
of more often accuse those who are
on the side of subordinates than those
official authority. If, for instance, we
are concerned with studying the way who are on the side of superordinates ?
Because, when we make the former
of life inmates in a mental hospital
accusation, we have, like the well
build up for themselves, we will natu-
socialized members of our society
rally be concerned with the constraints
and conditions created by the actionsmost of us are, accepted the hierarchy
of the administrators and physicians of credibility and taken over the
who run the hospital. But, unless weaccusation made by responsible officials.
also make the administrators and The reason responsible officials make
physicians the object of our study the(aaccusation so frequently is precisely
possibility I will consider later), we they are responsible. They have
because
will not inquire into why those con- been entrusted with the care and opera-
ditions and constraints are present. tion of one or another of our important
We will not give responsible officials
institutions: schools, hospitals, law en-
a chance to explain themselvesforcement,
and or whatever. They are the
give their reasons for acting as theyones who, by virtue of their official
do, a chance to show why the com-
position and the authority that goes
plaints of inmates are not justified.with it, are in a position to "do some-
It is odd that, when we perceive thing" when things are not what they
should be and, similarly, are the ones
bias, we usually see it in these circum-
stances. It is odd because it is easily
who will be held to account if they
ascertained that a great many morefail to "do something" or if what they
studies are biased in the direction of do is, for whatever reason, inadequate.
the interests of responsible officials Because they are responsible in this
than the other way around. We may way, officials usually have to lie. That
accuse an occasional student of medical is a gross way of putting it, but not
sociology of having given too much inaccurate. Officials must lie because
emphasis to the complaints of patients. things are seldom as they ought to be.
But it is not obvious that most medical For a great variety of reasons, well-
sociologists look at things from the known to sociologists, institutions are
point of view of the doctors? A few refractory. They do not perform as
sociologists may be sufficiently biased society would like them to. Hospitals
in favor of youth to grant credibility do not cure people; prisons do not re-

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Whose Side Are We On? 243

habilitate prisoners; schools do not

someone maligns it. The sociologist
who favors
educate students. Since they are officialdom
sup- will be spared
the accusation
posed to, officials develop ways of bias.
both
of denying the failure ofAnd thethus we see why we accuse
institu-
ourselves ofand
tion to perform as it should bias only
ex-when we take
plaining those failures which the side of the subordinate.
cannot be It is be-
hidden. An account of an institution's cause, in a situation that is not openly
operation from the point of view of political, with the major issues defined
subordinates therefore casts doubt on as arguable, we join responsible offi-
the official line and may possibly ex- cials and the man in the street in an
pose it as a lie.3 unthinking acceptance of the hierarchy
For reasons that are a mirror image of credibility. We assume with them
of those of officials, subordinates in an that the man at the top knows best.
We do not realize that there are sides
apolitical hierarchical relationship have
no reason to complain of the bias ofto be taken and that we are taking
one of them.
sociological research oriented toward
the interests of superordinates. Subordi- The same reasoning allows us to
nates typically are not organized inunderstand why the researcher has the
such a fashion as to be responsible for same worry about the effect of his
the overall operation of an institution. sympathies on his work as his unin-
What happens in a school is creditedvolved colleague. The hierarchy of
or debited to the faculty and adminis- credibility is a feature of society whose
trators; they can be identified and heldexistence we cannot deny, even if we
to account. Even though the failure of disagree with its injunction to believe
a school may be the fault of the pupils,the man at the top. When we acquire
they are not so organized that any one sufficient sympathy with subordinates to
of them is responsible for any failuresee things from their perspective, we
but his own. If he does well, while know that we are flying in the face of
others all around him flounder, cheat what "everyone knows." The knowl-
and steal, that is none of his affair,edge gives us pause and causes us to
despite the attempt of honor codes to share, however briefly, the doubt of
make it so. As long as the sociological our colleagues.
When a situation has been defined
report on his school says that every
student there but one is a liar and a politically, the second type of case I
cheat, all the students will feel compla-want to discuss, matters are quite dif-
cent, knowing they are the one excep- ferent. Subordinates have some degree
tion. More likely, they will never hear of organization and, with that, spokes-
of the report at all or, if they do, willmen, their equivalent of responsible
reason that they will be gone before officials. Spokesmen, while they cannot
long, so what difference does it make? actually be held responsible for what
The lack of organization among subor-- members of their group do, make asser-
dinate members of an institutionalized tions on their behalf and are held re-
relationship means that, having no re- sponsible for the truth of those asser-
sponsibility for the group's welfare, tions. The group engages in political
they likewise have no complaints ifactivity designed to change existing
hierarchical relationships and the credi-
3 I have stated a portion of this argu- bility of its spokesmen directly affects
ment more briefly in "Problems of Publica-its political fortunes. Credibility is not
tion of Field Studies," in Arthur Vidich,the only influence, but the group can
Joseph Bensman, and Maurice Stein (Eds.),ill-afford having the definition of real-
Reflections on Community Studies, New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964, pp. 267-
ity proposed by its spokesmen dis-
284. credited, for the immediate conse-

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 244 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

quence will be some loss

know, for instance, of
that politica
we must grasp
power. the perspectives of both the resident
Superordinate groups have their of Watts and of the Los Angeles
spokesmen too, and they are confronted policeman if we are to understand
with the same problem: to make state- what went on in that outbreak.
ments about reality that are politically Second, it is no secret that most
effective without being easily dis- sociologists are politically liberal to
credited. The political fortunes of the one degree or another. Our political
superordinate group-its ability to preferences dictate the side we will be
hold the status changes demanded by on and, since those preferences are
lower groups to a minimum-do not shared by most of our colleagues, few
depend as much on credibility, for the are ready to throw the first stone or
group has other kinds of power avail- are even aware that stone-throwing is
able as well. a possibility. We usually take the side
When we do research in a political of the underdog; we are for Negroes
situation we are in double jeopardy, and against Fascists. We do not think
anyone biased who does research de-
for the spokesmen of both involved
groups will be sensitive to the implica- signed to prove that the former are
tions of our work. Since they propose not as bad as people think or that the
latter are worse. In fact, in these cir-
openly conflicting definitions of reality,
our statement of our problem is in it- cumstances we are quite willing to
self likely to call into question andregard the question of bias as a matter
make problematic, at least for the pur- to be dealt with by the use of technical
poses of our research, one or the other safeguards.
definition. And our results will do the We are thus apt to take sides with
same.
equal innocence and lack of thought,
The hierarchy of credibility though for different reasons, in both
operates
in a different way in theapolitical
politicaland political situations. In
situation than it does in thetheapolitical
first, we adopt the commonsense
view which
one. In the political situation, it is awards unquestioned
precisely one of the things at issue.
credibility to the responsible official.
Since the political struggle(This
calls
is notinto
to deny that a few of us,
because
question the legitimacy of the something in our experience
existing
rank system, it necessarily has
calls into
alerted them to the possibility, may
question at the same time question the conventional hierarchy of
the legiti-
macy of the associated judgments credibility inofthe special area of our
credibility. Judgments ofexpertise.)
who has In thea second case, we take
right to define the nature of reality
our politics so for granted that it sup-
that are taken for granted in plants
anconvention
apoli- in dictating whose
tical situation become matters of side we will be on. (I do not deny,
argument. either, that some few sociologists may
Oddly enough, we are, I think, less deviate politically from their liberal
likely to accuse ourselves and one colleagues, either to the right or the
another of bias in a political than in an left, and thus be more liable to ques-
apolitical situation, for at least two tion that convention.)
reasons. First, because the hierarchy of In any event, even if our colleagues
credibility has been openly called into do not accuse us of bias in research in
question, we are aware that there are a political situation, the interested
at least two sides to the story and so parties will. Whether they are foreign
do not think it unseemly to investigate politicians who object to studies of
the situation from one or another of
how the stability of their government
the contending points of view. We
may be maintained in the interest of

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Whose Side Are We On? 245

the United States (as in the

or another Camelot
side to a relationship and
affair)4 or domestic civil
will thusrights
be affected,leaders
at least, by having
who object to an analysis
suggested to him ofwhat race
the relevant
problems that centers on and
arguments the issuesalleged
are. A student of
deficiencies of the Negro family
medical sociology may decide(asthat he
in the reception given willto
takethe
neither
Moynihan
the perspective of the
Report),5 interested patient parties nor the
are perspective
quick of the
to make accusations of bias and dis- physician, but he will necessarily take
tortion. They base the accusation nota perspective that impinges on the
many questions that arise between
on failures of technique or method,
but on conceptual defects. They accuse physicians and patients; no matter
the sociologist not of getting false datawhat perspective he takes, his work
but of not getting all the data relevant either will take into account the atti-
to the problem. They accuse him, in tude of subordinates, or it will not. If
other words, of seeing things from the he fails to consider the questions they
perspective of only one party to theraise, he will be working on the side
conflict. But the accusation is likely toof the officials. If he does raise those
be made by interested parties and not questions seriously and does find, as he
by sociologists themselves. may, that there is some merit in them,
What I have said so far is all sociol- he will then expose himself to the
ogy of knowledge, suggesting by outrage of the officials and of all those
whom, in what situations and for what sociologists who award them the top
reasons sociologists will be accused ofspot in the hierarchy of credibility.
bias and distortion. I have not yet ad- Almost all the topics that sociologists
study, at least those that have some
dressed the question of the truth of
the accusations, of whether our find- relation to the real world around us,
ings are distorted by our sympathy forare seen by society as morality plays
and we shall find ourselves, willy-nilly,
those we study. I have implied a partial
answer, namely, that there is no posi-taking part in those plays on one side
tion from which sociological research or the other.
can be done that is not biased in one There is another possibility. We
or another way. may, in some cases, take the point of
We must always look at the matterview of some third party not directly
from someone's point of view. Theimplicated in the hierarchy we are
scientist who proposes to understand investigating. Thus, a Marxist might
society must, as Mead long ago pointedfeel that it is not worth distinguishing
out, get into the situation enough to between Democrats and Republicans,
have a perspective on it. And it is or between big business and big labor,
likely that his perspective will be in each case both groups being equally
greatly affected by whatever positionsinimical to the interests of the workers.
are taken by any or all of the other This would indeed make us neutral
participants in that varied situation.with respect to the two groups at
Even if his participation is limited tohand, but would only mean that we
reading in the field, he will necessarilyhad enlarged the scope of the political
read the arguments of partisans of oneconflict to include a party not ordi-
narily brought in whose view the
4 See Irving Louis Horowitz, "The Life sociologist was taking.
and Death of Project Camelot," Transac- We can never avoid taking sides.
tion, 3 (Nov./Dec., 1965), pp. 3-7, 44-47. So we are left with the question of
5 See Lee Rainwater and William L.
Yancey, "Black Families and the White whether taking sides means that some
House," ibid., 3 (July/August, 1966, pp. distortion is introduced into our work
6-11, 48-53). so great as to make it useless. Or, less

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 246 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

drastically, whether some are

methodology distortion is
no help here. They
introduced that must be taken into tell us how to guard against error, but
account before the results of our workthey do not tell us how to make sure
can be used. I do not refer here to that we will use all the safeguards
available to us. We can, for a start,
feeling that the picture given by the
try to avoid sentimentality. We are
research is not "balanced," the indig-
nation aroused by having a conven- sentimental when we refuse, for what-
tionally discredited definition of real-
ever reason, to investigate some matter
ity given priority or equality with
that should properly be regarded as
what "everyone knows," for it is clear
problematic. We are sentimental, es-
that we cannot avoid that. That is the
pecially, when our reason is that we
problem of officials, spokesmen would
and prefer not to know what is
going on, if to know would be to
interested parties, not ours. Our prob-
lem is to make sure that, whatever violate some sympathy whose existence
point of view we take, our research we may not even be aware of. What-
ever side we are on, we must use our
meets the standards of good scientific
work, that our unavoidable sympathies
techniques impartially enough that a
do not render our results invalid.belief to which we are especially sym-
We might distort our findings, pathetic
be- could be proved untrue. We
cause of our sympathy with one of must
the always inspect our work carefully
parties in the relationship we enough
are to know whether our tech-
studying, by misusing the tools niques
and and theories are open enough
to allow that possibility.
techniques of our discipline. We might
introduce loaded questions into Let a us consider, finally, what might
questionnaire, or act in some way in a a simple solution to the problems
seem
field situation such that people would
posed. If the difficulty is that we gain
be constrained to tell us only the kind
sympathy with underdogs by studying
of thing we are already in sympathy them, is it not also true that the super-
with. All of our research techniquesordinates in a hierarchical relationship
are hedged about with precautionary usually have their own superordinates
measures designed to guard against with whom they must contend? Is it
these errors. Similarly, though morenot true that we might study those
abstractly, every one of our theories
superordinates or subordinates, pre-
senting their point of view on their
presumably contains a set of directives
which exhaustively covers the fieldrelations
we with their superiors and thus
gaining a deeper sympathy with them
are to study, specifying all the things
we are to look at and take into account and avoiding the bias of one-sided
in our research. By using our theoriesidentification with those below them?
and techniques impartially, we ought This is appealing, but deceptively so.
to be able to study all the things thatFor it only means that we will get into
need to be studied in such a way as tothe same trouble with a new set of
get all the facts we require, evenofficials.
though some of the questions that will It is true, for instance, that the ad-
be raised and some of the facts that ministrators of a prison are not free to
do as they wish, not free to be re-
will be produced run counter to our
biases. sponsive of the desires of inmates, for
But the question may be precisely
instance. If one talks to such an official,
this. Given all our techniques he of will commonly tell us, in private,
theoretical and technical control, howthat of course the subordinates in the
can we be sure that we will apply themrelationship have some right on their
side, but that they fail to understand
impartially and across the board as they
need to be applied? Our textbooksthat
in his desire to do better is frustrated

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Whose Side Are We On? 247

by his superiors or by conditions are the same elsewhere. I

the regulations
they have established. refer
Thus, to a if
morea sociological
prison disclaimer
administrator is angered
in which because we
we say, for instance, that we
take the complaintshave
ofstudied
his inmates
the prison through the
seriously, we may feel that
eyes we
of the can and
inmates getnot through
around that and get the eyes of the
a more guards or other in-
balanced
picture by interviewingvolvedhim and
parties. his people, thus,
We warn
associates. If we do, we may
that then
our study tellswrite
us only how things
look from that
a report which his superiors will vantage
re- point-what
spond to with cries kinds of objectsThey,
of "bias." guards are in the
in their turn, will say prisoners' that weworld-and
have not does not at-
presented a balanced picture, tempt to explain why guards do what
because
we have not looked at their side of it. they do or to absolve the guards of
And we may worry that what they say what may seem, from the prisoners'
is true. side, morally unacceptable behavior.
The point is obvious. By pursuing This will not protect us from accusa-
this seemingly simple solution, we tions of bias, however, for the guards
arrive at a problem of infinite regress. will still be outraged by the unbalanced
For everyone has someone standing picture. If we implicitly accept the
above him who prevents him from conventional hierarchy of credibility,
doing things just as he likes. If we we will feel the sting in that accusation.
question the superiors of the prison It is something of a solution to say
administrator, a state department of that over the years each "one-sided"
corrections or prisons, they will com- study will provoke further studies
plain of the governor and the legisla- that gradually enlarge our grasp of all
ture. And if we go to the governor the relevant facets of an institution's
and the legislature, they will complain operation. But that is a long-term solu-
of lobbyists, party machines, the publiction, and not much help to the in-
and the newspapers. There is no enddividual researcher who has to contend
to it and we can never have a "bal- with the anger of officials who feel he
anced picture" until we have studied
has done them wrong, the criticism of
all of society simultaneously. I do not
those of his colleagues who think he is
propose to hold my breath until thatpresenting a one-sided view, and his
happy day. own worries.
We can, I think, satisfy the demandsWhat do we do in the meantime?
of our science by always making clear
I suppose the answers are more or less
the limits of what we have studied,
obvious. We take sides as our personal
marking the boundaries beyond which
and political commitments dictate, use
our findings cannot be safely applied.
our theoretical and technical resources
Not just the conventional disclaimer,
in which we warn that we have only to avoid the distortions that might
introduce into our work, limit our con-
studied a prison in New York or Cali-
fornia and the findings may not holddclusions carefully, recognize the hier-
in the other forty-nine states-whicharchy of credibility for what is is, and
field as best we can the accusations
is not a useful procedure anyway, since
and doubts that will surely be our fate.
the findings may very well hold if the

This content downloaded from 149.132.31.125 on Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:34:17 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms