Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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
WHOSE SIDE ARE WE ON?*
HOWARD S. BECKER
Northwestern University
To have values or not to have only read the results.Will the research,
values: the question is alwayswith us. we wonder, be distorted by that sym-
When sociologists undertaketo study pathy? Will it be of use in the con-
problems that have relevance to the structionof scientifictheory or in the
world we live in, they find themselves application of scientific knowledge to
caught in a crossfire.Some urge them the practicalproblems of society? Or
not to take sides, to be neutraland do will the bias introducedby taking sides
researchthat is technicallycorrectand spoil it for those uses?
value free. Others tell them their work We seldom make the feeling ex-
is shallow and useless if it does not plicit. Instead,it appearsas a lingering
express a deep commitmentto 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 troublesomearea
ful to so many, actuallydoes 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 whateversympathiesthey feel are
as some apparentlydo, that it is indeed not professionally unseemly and will
possible to do researchthat is uncon- not, in any case, seriously flaw their
taminated by personal and political work. That the worry affects both
sympathies.I propose to argue that it readers and researchersindicates that
is not possible and, therefore,that the it lies deeperthan the superficialdiffer-
questionis not whetherwe should take ences that divide sociological schools
sides, since we inevitably will, but of thought, and that its roots must be
ratherwhose side we are on. sought in characteristicsof society that
I will begin by consideringthe prob- affect us all, whatever our method-
lem of taking sides as it arises in the ological or theoreticalpersuasion.
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 researchof that the sympathiesof the researcher
all kinds. In the greatestvarietyof sub- have biasedhis work and distortedhis
ject matterareasand in work done by findings.Before exploringits structural
all the different methods at our dis- roots, let us considerwhat the manifest
posal, we cannot avoid taking sides, meaningof the chargemight be.
for reasonsfirmlybasedin social struc- It might mean that we have acquired
ture. some sympathy with the group we
We may sometimesfeel that studies study sufficientto deter us from pub-
of deviance exhibit too great a sym- lishing those of our results which
pathy with the people studied, a sym- might prove damaging to them. One
can imagine a liberal sociologist who
pathy reflectedin the researchcarried set out to disprove some of the com-
out. This feeling, I suspect, is enter-
tained off and on both by those of us mon stereotypesheld about a minority
who do such researchand by those of group. To his dismay,his investigation
us who, our work lying in other areas, reveals that some of the stereotypes
are unfortunatelytrue. In the interests
of justiceand liberalism,he might well
*Presidential address, delivered at the an- be tempted, and might even succumb
nual meeting of the Society for the Study
of Social Problems, Miami Beach, August, to the temptation, to suppress those
1966. findings, publishing with scientific
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
heartof the charge,becausesociologists the typical situations in which the
who study deviance do not typically accusationof bias arises.
hide things about the people they When do we accuse ourselves and
study. They are mostly willing to grant our fellow sociologistsof 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 importantclass of
grant that it is what the people they cases,when the researchgives credence,
studied were originally accusedof. in any serious way, to the perspective
A more likely meaning of the of the subordinategroup 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 hierarchicalrelationship
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 society who representthe 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 againstthan sinning. it is by no means the only one. Similar
Because of this, we do not give a bal- situations,and similarfeelings that our
anced picture. We focus too much on work is biased, occur in the study of
questionswhose answersshow that the schools, hospitals,asylumsand prisons,
supposeddeviantis morallyin the right in the study of physical as well as
and the ordinarycitizen morallyin 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 superordinatepar-
the deviant, after all, has done some- ties are usually the officialand profes-
thing pretty rotten and, indeed, pretty sional authorities in charge of some
much deserveswhat he gets. In conse- importantinstitution,while the subor-
quence, our overall assessmentof the dinates 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 made teachers,are the superordinates,while
the deviantwhat 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 representone of
falsity of the charge, but ratherat the the typical situations in which re-
circumstancesin which it is typically searchers accuse themselves and are
made and felt. The sociologyof knowl- accused of bias. It is a situation in
edge cautionsus to distinguishbetween which, while conflictand tension exist
the truth of a statementand an assess- in the hierarchy,the conflict has not
ment of the circumstancesunderwhich become openly political. The conflict-
that statement is made; though we ing segments or ranks are not orga-
trace an argumentto its source in the nized for conflict;no one attemptsto
interestsof the personwho made it, we alter the shape of the hierarchy.While
Whose Side Are We On? 241
quence will be some loss of political know, for instance,that we must grasp
power. the perspectivesof both the resident
Superordinate groups have their of Watts and of the Los Angeles
spokesmentoo, 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 preferencesdictate the side we will be
hold the status changes demanded by on and, since those preferences are
lower groups to a minimum-do not sharedby 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-throwingis
able as well. a possibility.We usually take the side
When we do researchin a political of the underdog; we are for Negroes
situation we are in double jeopardy, and against Fascists.We do not think
for the spokesmen of both involved anyone biased who does researchde-
groups will be sensitiveto 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
openly conflictingdefinitionsof reality, latter are worse. In fact, in these cir-
our statementof our problem is in it- cumstances we are quite willing to
self likely to call into question and regardthe questionof 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 resultswill do the We are thus apt to take sides with
same. equal innocence and lack of thought,
The hierarchyof credibilityoperates though for different reasons, in both
in a different way in the political apolitical and political situations. In
situation than it does in the apolitical the first, we adopt the commonsense
one. In the political situation, it is view which awards unquestioned
precisely one of the things at issue. credibility to the responsible official.
Since the political struggle calls into (This is not to deny that a few of us,
question the legitimacyof the existing because something in our experience
rank system, it necessarily calls into has alertedthem to the possibility,may
question at the same time the legiti- question the conventionalhierarchyof
macy of the associatedjudgments of credibility in the special area of our
credibility. Judgments of who has a expertise.) In the second case, we take
right to define the nature of reality our politics so for grantedthat it sup-
that are taken for granted in an apoli- plants convention 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
anotherof bias in a politicalthan in an left, and thus be more liable to ques-
apolitical situation, for at least two tion that convention.)
reasons.First, becausethe hierarchyof In any event, even if our colleagues
credibilityhas been openly called into do not accuseus of bias in researchin
question, we are aware that there are a political situation, the interested
at least two sides to the story and so partieswill. Whether they are foreign
do not think it unseemlyto 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 maintainedin the interest of
Whose Side Are We On? 245