While I am glad we did have some time to discuss the methodology of On the Run, I also find myself wishing we had had more of a debate on the merits of Alice Goffman’s ethnography. As someone who is considering becoming an ethnographer, my bias leads me to defend Goffman against claims of reductionism and inaccuracy. Some in class criticized her use of only one or two examples to make broad claims, but I see this as a valuable contribution to sociological knowledge. By pointing out micro-level trends and by studying the nuances of real lived processes, ethnography can bring new phenomena to light within academia, raising questions that can guide future research and presenting evidence that goes against conventional knowledge (Goffman mentions this last point in the Slate article). While perhaps it may seem like stretching to apply a few instances to an entire population – and while I do agree with this claim on some level – I counter the claim that ethnography is reductive and less valuable than other forms of sociological research.

The part of Goffman’s ethnography that really struck me, however, and which went largely unaddressed in the Slate article, was Goffman’s position in the social world she studied. We discussed in class the ways that her (often very visible) privileges may have affected her study, which I think warrants deeper and more generalized inquiry into the role of the ethnographer and how identities and privileges interact with qualitative sociological studies. Something about Goffman’s role on 6th Street that I found particularly interesting was somewhat detached from her social identities, however. What struck me was how embedded she was in the social world she studied. She was not a detached observer, but rather a close friend and an emotionally invested and involved member of the 6th Street community. She admits in her methodology section that she did not socialize with almost any people outside of 6th Street, and her deep attachment to Chuck and his family and friends is illustrated in the controversial section in which she describes the period after his murder. How did this deep attachment color her work? I think it has some merits – it gave her insight into the lives of Mike and Chuck that she may not otherwise have gained – but also raises some questions about the quality of her research. I also think that all ethnographers, to some degree, form relationships with and become involved in the community in which they work, but Goffman’s social isolation within 6th Street seemed extreme to me. Did her desire to fit in and be accepted (illustrated by her agreement to go on a date so as to change people’s views of her presence in the 6th Street community)  in what became her only social world color her actions or the behavior of others? Did it color how she portrayed certain individuals or events? Do changes in her behavior from its state before the study began – i.e. her claimed fear of white men that resembled policemen or her controversial hunt for Chuck’s murder – have any significance on their own? In other words, do those changes highlight anything or deepen her claims about the police state she describes? These are all questions that I have been thinking about and trying to develop and hope we can discuss (perhaps in other contexts) later in the semester, as I would love to hear others’ views.