Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
MakingClaims,MakingProblems,MakingMorality:
SpectorandKitsuse’sProvocation*
JosephSchneiderDrakeUniversityAugust1,2018
WhenMalcolmSpectorandJohnKitsuse(2000,p.1)wrote,asthefirstsentenceoftheir
1977book,ConstructingSocialProblems,“Thereisnoadequatedefinitionofsocialproblems
withinsociology,andthereisnotandneverhasbeenasociologyofsocialproblems,”itwasnot
hyperbolicbravado.Well,atleast,surely,nothyperbolic.Thegreatachievementofthatbook—
stilltodayinprint—inthefourdecadessincethenisthattheirproposedremedy,“a
theoreticallydefensible,methodologicallyspecifiable,andempiricallyresearchabledefinitionof
socialproblems”andabodyofrelatedresearchhaveemergedandestablishedthestudyof
socialproblemsasascholarlyrespectablesubfield(SpectorandKitsuse2000,p.27).
Conferencepapers,journalarticles,andbookshavedefinedthistrajectory;parsing,critiquing,
andconsideringtheirproposal(seeHolsteinandMiller1993;HolsteinandGubrium2008).
SomeofthesepapersinTheAmericanSociologistbeganatasessionatthe2017annual
meetingsofTheSocietyfortheStudyofSocialProblemsinMontreal,whichdrewtogether
bothlong-timeandnewadherentsandinterestedotherswhocontinuethatline(Michael
Adorjan,JoelBest,JimHolstein,PeterIbarra,DonileenLoseke,MalcolmSpector,andIwereon
thepanel;withStephenPfohlandDorothyPawluchintheaudience).Acollectionofpaperson
SpectorandKitsuse’sbookwaspublishedrecentlyintheItalianjournal,SocietàMutamento
*PublishedinTheAmericanSociologist,onlineversion090618,DOI:10.1007/s12108-018-9390-4.
2
Politica.IuseasignificantportionofthebookintheundergraduatesocialproblemsclassI
teach.Itsdirectionsonhowtothinkaboutandstudysocialproblemscomeasrevelatoryto
mostofthestudents.Significantandvoluminousacademicpublishinginsociologyorganized
undertheterm“socialproblems”continues(e.g.,Trevino2018).JohnKitsusewouldbe
pleased,ifnotalsoslightlysurprised,couldheknowthishistory.
Suchsuccessmightseemtobegthequestionofwhatmoreneedstobewrittenabout
theconceptionofsocialproblemsSpectorandKitsuseoffered.Beyondthenewresearchbeing
donefromtheirideas,myaimhereistoreiteratesomeofthemostimportantandstill
provocativeelementsofthisparticularconstructionistargument—which,asagenre,perhaps
hasbeenalltoosuccessful(see,e.g.,Latour2003)—thatdrawtheattentionnotonlyofmy
undergraduatesbutgraduatestudents,professionalsociologists,andotherscholarsaswell.
Moreover,beyondthatprovocation,thereisplentyofworkfortheircritiqueofsocialproblems
sociologystilltodo(Schneider2018).InwhatfollowsIreviewsomeofwhatSpectorand
Kitsusethemselvescalled“radical”intheirargumentandthatcontinuestoofferintellectual
tractionandchallengeinthestudyofsocialproblemssociology.Iclosebysuggestingthattheir
versionofsocialconstruction,rathermodestinscopeandlesspolemicalanddebunkinginaim
thanmuchsuchwork,invitesamoreself-reflexiveplaceforthescholar,gesturingbeyonditself
and,perhaps,muchconventionalsociologyasaguideforamoreconfidentaswellashumble
argumentandanalysis(cf.Latour2005).
“SocialProblemsAreWhatPeopleThinkTheyAre”
SpectorcommentsinaninterviewfortheItalianjournalnamedabovethattheideathat
“socialproblemsarewhatpeoplethinktheyare”wasatthecenterofhisandKitsuse’searly
3
studythatledtotheirbook.Inparticular,theirpuzzlewaswhythissimpleclaim,whichthey
notewasnotoriginalwiththem,seemedinpastworkalwaystohavebeencompromisedand
pushedtotheside,notonlybythen-popularfunctionalistorMarxistaccounts,whichoftentake
“whatpeoplethink”asderivative,butalsobytheso-calledvalueconflictwriters,whowere
mostlysympathetictotheclaim.Evengiventhissympathy,“whatpeoplethink”wasnotseen
tooffersufficientsociologicalgroundsforthestudyofsocialproblems.“Objective(and
undesirable)conditions,”thevalueconflictwritersinsisted,arealsoneeded.Acrossthework
SpectorandKitsusereview,fromtheearly“socialpathologists,”totheincreasinglymore
scientificsocialdisorganizationandfunctionalisttheorists;throughthesevalueconflictwriters
andevenincludingelementsofHowardBecker’s(1973)Outsiders,“whatpeoplethink”hadnot
itselfbeentakenassufficienttoestablishasociologyofsocialproblems.Kitsuse(1962)earlier
hadchallengedthatview,asSpectorremindsus,inapaperondeviance,buthiswasaquite
lonevoice.Later,theytogetherbegantodevelopwhatthelattercallsa“labelingtheoryof
socialproblems”thatwoulddojustthat.Nosociologistswritingonsocialproblemshaddone
thatbefore.Thatclaimremainstheguiding,sociologicallyprovocative,andstillvaluableinsight
oftheirwork.Butsimplybecausetheyassertedthatclaimandelaborateditinadetailed
argumentdoesn’tmeanithasbeenfullyembraced.Ithasremained“difficult,”evenforsome
whohavebeendrawntoit.
Thedefinitiontheyofferedastheoreticallydefensible,methodologicallyspecifiable,and
empiricallyresearchableisthatsocialproblemsare“theactivitiesofindividualsorgroups
makingassertionsofgrievancesandclaimswithrespecttosomeputativeconditions”(Spector
andKitsuse2000,75).Ashorterversionmightbe“claims-makingandrespondingactivities”or,
4
asKitsusesometimeswouldsay,editingfurther,“definitionalactivities.”Thissimplestversion
strikesmeassomewhatresonantwithwhatMichelFoucault(1978,1979)calleddiscursive
practices.Thatisn’ttosayKitsuseandSpectordrewonFoucault’sworkorthattheirargument
needssuchareferencetodeserveourattention.1Rather,Iamstruckbyhowbothsetsofterms
drawtogetherlanguage,itsuse,andrelatedactionorbehaviorinaninescapableandpromising
analyticcombinationthatgrounds“socialconstruction”inlanguage-and-action,similar,I
believe,toBrunoLatour’s(2005)actor-networktheory,whichheinsists,afterall,isnot
sociologyinitsmostfamiliarform.
SpectorandKitsusetaketheratherhomelytheme,above,and,preservingthebasic
insight,addtwoorthreemorespecificrequirements.First,“whatpeoplethink”isofcoursenot
thepointandcannotprovideadequateempiricaldirectionforfindingasocialprobleminthe
world.Asidefromwhatpeoplemayormaynotthink,itiswhattheydo—and,especially,what
theysayandwhattheywrite—thatsociologistsofsocialproblemscanobserveanddescribe.
Theirsthenisalanguage-anddiscourse-centeredapproach.Butlanguageuseisnotitssole
focus.Inshort,claims-makingandrelatedactivitiesconstitutesocialproblemsasmoralaction,
justas“labeling”bringsintoviewthemoralmarkingthattheconceptdevianceannounces.
Theseareclaimsthatregistercomplaint,criticism,outrage,demandsthat“somethingbe
done.”2Inthisview,theevaluativemeaningsattributedby“people”or,asthe
ethnomethodologistsputit,“members,”aretheessenceofthematter;constitutiveofthe
phenomenaindexedbytheconceptssocialproblemsanddeviance.Thesephenomena,so
named,are“caused”byorexistintheworldinandbytheirveryobservablecollectiveenaction.
That“doing”constitutestheobjectofstudy.Thetheoreticalandphilosophicalgroundsforsuch
5
thoughtcomeinpartfromthesymbolicinteractionisttraditionstheseauthorsshared,withan
unmistakableandquiteimportantethnomethodologicalflavor,contributedbyKitsuse,perhaps
fromhisearlierworkwithAaronCicourel(CicourelandKitsuse1963).Fromthesejoined
insightscamethenon-negotiableclaim:noclaims-making,nosocialproblems.Fullstop.Such
definitionalactivity,theyinsist,isallweneedinordertonamethephenomenona“social
problem.”3
WhatabouttheSociologist?Conditions?Context?SocialFactors?
Thesetheoreticalclaimsleadimmediatelytothequestion,“Whatabout‘whatthe
sociologistthinks’socialproblemsare?”Andofcourseitisnotthatwhatthesociologist
“thinks”isirrelevanttodecidingwhatwillbetakenasasocialproblem.Buttherequirementsin
thiscaseareasfollows:(1)such“thinking”mustbeguidedbyaconceptualizationortheory;(2)
thattheorycannotcontainjudgments—scientificorpopular—aboutconditions;and(3)the
sociologistcannotusetheirownpersonalmoralityorideologytoidentifyconditionsas
problems.ThefirstfourchaptersofSpectorandKitsuse’sbookdetailtheserequirementsinthe
critiqueofpastwork.Ireferreaderstothatdiscussion,whichremainsrelevanttosocial
problemsworkpublishedtoday.Althoughthedetailstheredistinguishthevariousarguments
considered,ourauthorsgroupvirtuallyallpriorsocialproblemswork,includingthatofthe
functionalistswiththeirmorecomplexsetofconceptsthatexaminesocietyasasystemwith
varioussubsystems,intowhattheycall“normative”theories.Thesetheyrejectaslargely
responsibleforthemuddlethatthendefinedsocialproblemstheory.Thatconclusionisthe
pointofdeparturefortheirownargument.
6
Certainly,however,ourauthors’argumentitselfishardlymadewithoutattentionto
norms.Thatisapparentintheexplicitshouldsandshouldnotsthattheirtheoryboldlyspecifies
andthattheycallradical.Theirtheoryis—asarealltheories—anormativephenomenon.They
wouldnotdisputethat,giventheiraims.Surely,theycouldhavemadethatpointwithout
underminingthoseaims;buttheydidnot.Iwillhavemoretosayaboutthatlater.Theiruseof
“normative”todescribepasttheoryreflectsacentralrequirementoftheirown:whatsocial
problemsare,forthesociologist,cannotbeamatterofthemmakingevaluativejudgments
aboutmaterialconditionsinsociety.Itismostcentrally,then,notaquestionof“whatthe
sociologistthinks”aboutsuchconditionsasconditions.Anytheorythatanswersthisquestion
byrequiringajudgmentfromthesociologistaboutconditionsorcircumstancesas
undesirable—and,thus,a“problem”—fallsintotheirnormativecategoryandissetaside.That
isconsistentwithanyargumentthatinsists,astheirsdoes,thatsocialproblemsaretobe
definedassuchby“people”ratherthanby“experts”suchasthemselves.
Giventhehistoryofsocialproblemssociologyandthedisciplinarypoliticsof
sociologists—mostlyliberal,left,progressive,radical—thispositioncandiscourageinterestin
anduseofSpectorandKitsuse’sargument.Thatisn’ttosaytheirargumentis“conservative”
politically,butitdoesinsistonthepriorityofadisciplinarypoliticsofscienceinthestudyof
moralphenomena,which,arguably,isthelargerormoreinclusiveconceptualobjectof
interest.Whetherwenameit“objectivity,”“distance,”“neutrality,”oreven-handedness,
fairness,accuracy,andprecisionintermsoftheoreticallanguageandthecreationand
manipulationofevidenceordata(e.g.,Becker1967),thistooisnormative,butinasense
differentfromthatusedbyourauthors.Clearly,toavoidconfusionweneedtoask,“normative
7
withregardtowhat,andinwhatandwhoseterms?”Ourauthorsusethesedisciplinarynorms
todistinguishtheirsociologicalstancefromthestanceorpositionofmembersorparticipants.4
Theuseofnormativelanguagetodefineundesirableconditionsintermsofvaluessuchas
equality,socialjustice,fairness,humanrights,andthelonglistofothertermsthatcharacterize
aliberal-leftpolitics,signifiesamember’slocation,notasociologist’s.Suchadefinitional
practice,whilelaudatoryinmyview,whentakenupasthesociologicalbasisfordefiningsocial
problemsis,inthatmove,indistinguishablefromothermembers’claims.Sociologistswho
makethismovethenbecomethemselvesparticipantsorclaims-makerstobestudied.
Theinsistencethatclaimsaresufficienttoprovidethesubjectmatterforatheoryof
socialproblemsledsomecolleaguesotherwisesympathetictothetheorytorejectwhatthey
calledSpectorandKitsuse’s(too)“strict”constructionistview.Surely,theyargued,social
contextcannotbeignored.Theyofferedanalternative,“contextual”constructionisminamove
tosavethecontribution(e.g.,Best1989,pp.245-46).Butwhattheradicalviewrejectedis
preciselysuchanotionas“context,”alongwith“objectiveconditions,”andanyotherversionof
“socialfactors,”asexplanationoressenceofsocialproblems(cf.Latour2005).Theparallel
threatforthelabelingargumentwasthenotionof“rulebreaking”andtheideathatdeviance
is,simply,afterall,transgressioncausedbytheseandothersocialandpsychological“factors.”
Butinourauthors’argument,suchconventionalexplanatoryresourcescannolongerbeatthe
sociologist’sdisposal.Instead,reflectingtheethnomethodologicalmove,theseandsimilar
termsbecomemembers’orpeople’sresourcesand,thus,thesociologist’stopicforstudy.
SpectorandKitsusedonotclaimthatsociologistsshouldgiveupcontextualand
structuralaccountsof,say,poverty,violence,rulebreaking,undesirableandofcoursedesirable
8
conditionsofanysort.Andtheydonotsuggestthatsociologistsasexpertsonawidevarietyof
socialandculturalphenomenashouldavoidcreatingandsharingtheirknowledgeandresearch
resultsinsociety.ThisiswhatImeanbycallingtheirproposal“modest”initsscope,evenif
radicalinitscontent.But,comparedtoBecker’sproposalondeviance—whichheofferedasa
supplementtoexistingwork—ourauthors’openingsentence,quotedhereattheoutset,can
seemliketheproverbial“lineinthesand”forthestudyofsocialproblemsinsociology,whichI
thinktheyintended.Theyillustratethisfocusinthefirstpagesoftheirbook,distinguishinga
sociologicalstudyoforganizedcrime,ononehand,andastudyoforganizedcrimeasasocial
problem,ontheother(SpectorandKitsuse2000,pp.2-5).Theirobjectofstudyisnotorganized
crimeorcrime;orpoverty;orsexualassault;orenvironmentalpollution,andsoon.Theywrite
insteadatheoryofaparticularmoralphenomenon—claims-makingactivity—andhowtostudy
itsemergenceandmovement.
Whilecolleagueswhoseworkfocusesontheoriginsandmaintenanceoftheseand
otherfamiliarsociologicalphenomenamightfindsuchaconstructioniststudyinsightful,the
accountandthedatafromthoseprojectswouldbedifferent,alongwiththeaimsofthe
research,fromwhatSpectorandKitsusepropose.Butifyouarea“sociologistofsocial
problems,”theyare,quitepointedly,addressingyou.Thosewhowouldwanttoadd
explanatory“context”toclaims-makingalwayshaveseemedtometoofferanupdatedversion
ofthe“reasonablecompromise”positiontakenbythevalueconflictforebears;towit,the
insistencethatsocialproblemshavean“objective,”i.e.,condition-based,and“subjective”or
meaning-based,component.Ifpastisprologue,suchashiftlikelywouldtakeusbacktowhere
SpectorandKitsusebegan,withclaimsanddefinitions—“whatpeoplethink”—sacrificedtoa
9
professionalideologynotallthatdifferentfromthosetheydismantled.Tocompromisehereis
toerasetheessentialandstillproductivecontributionthattheymade.
PutativeConditions,ViableClaims,andValuesasDiscourse
Havingseenwhathappenstosocialproblemstheorywhenoneis“reasonable”about
theplaceofsocialconditionsandcontextaseithercausalorconstitutive,Kitsusedrewonhis
ownpastargumentswithEdwinLemert’s(1951)societalreactiontheoryofdeviancetoaddthe
word“putative”totheirdefinitionofsocialproblems.Inpuzzlingoverwhatsuch“reactions,”
societalornot,mightbereactionstoinanargumentthatseemedalsotosaydevianceisa
matterofattribution,Kitsuse(1962)wroteof“imputations”ofdeviancetoclarifythepoint.
Perhapsanticipatingtheobfuscatinglinkbetweenconditionsanddefinitionsthatheand
Spectorwouldcritique,aswellasattemptingtoinoculatehimselfagainstthesortofmisstep
Becker(1973,p.21)wouldmakearoundthe“secretdeviant,”Kitsuserefusedto“be
reasonable”andsoaffirmedhisconvictionthatdevianceisamatterofimputation(regarding
Becker,seePollner1974).Arguably,itwasastrokeofgeniusaswellasanaffront(perhaps
calculated)toconventionalsociology(aswasethnomethodology;asisthelateLatour[e.g.,
2005]).
TheOxfordEnglishDictionarygivesus“putative”as“That[which]iscommonlybelieved
tobesuch;reputed,supposed;imagined;postulated,hypothetical.”5PrudenceRains(1975,3),
commentingonKitsuse’suseofimputation,callsit,andbyextension,putative,a“careful”way
totalkaboutsomethingtheexistenceofwhichoneisnotquitepreparedtoaffirmor,asshe
putit,“withoutcommitmenttoitsactuality.”Itisadestabilizingwordtoputintothe
mouths/handsofonewhocallsthemselvesascientist,evena“scientistlite.”Yet,theycould
10
nothavefoundamorefittingtermwithwhichtobuildtheirnewandradicaldefinition:Claims-
makingandrespondingactivitieswithregardtosomeputativeconditions(SpectorandKitsuse
2000,75).Touseputativetomodify“conditions”—thefavoredsociologicalcandidatetosecure
thisprizedobject,socialproblems—ourauthorsannouncethattheywillremainagnosticnot
onlyastotherelevanceofthesephenomenatosocialproblems,buttotheirveryexistenceas
well(SpectorandKitsuse2000,p.76).
Forsomecolleagues,thiswasasteptoofar;readperhapsasaprincipledrefusalofthe
responsibilitiesoftheirprofessiontodescribecriticallyandknowdeeplythedetailsofthe
materialworldtheirdisciplinetakesasitsobjectofstudy.GivenboththeOED’suseoftheword
“imagined”andRains’useof“actuality,”itmayhaveappearedthatSpectorandKitsusewere
herequestioningtheveryexistenceofreality.And,fromLatour’s(1999)experienceinthe
sciencewars,someskepticscriticalofand/or(perhapsintentionally)misunderstandingthe
proffered(andmobile)meaningof“construction,”couldread“putative”hereasadenialofthe
veryfoundationsofscience,knowledge,aswellascommonsense,withwhichsociologyalways
mustmakesomeworkableconnection.
Butsuchareadingwouldbedifficulttosustain,giventheauthors’reiteratedandclear
statementoftheirproject’saims.Fromthebeginning,SpectorandKitsusestandon
commitmentstoconceptualclarity,methodologicalconsistency,andempiricalspecificityinthe
studyofsocialproblems;hardlyadenialofreality.Rather,thegeniusofputativeintheir
definitionisthatitallowsthemaveryparticularontologicalindifferencewithrespectnotto
whatexistsbutrathertowhattheirtheorywarrantsasrelevantdata;whichistosay,
definitionalactivities.AsPeterIbarraandKitsuse(1993)pointoutinalatepaper,reiterating
11
thesourcetext,thoseconditionscanappearintheiranalysisonlyaselementsofmembers’
claims.Moreover,asRainsnotes,withputativetheyunderlinethispointostentatiously,to
ensurethatitcannotbemissed.
Consistentwiththeircommitmenttomembers’claims,SpectorandKitsuse’stheory
alsodirectstheconstructionisttoassessnotthevalidityofthoseclaimsbutrathertheir
“viability,”thatis,theirvitality,theirliveliness;theextenttowhichtheyaresustained,
repeated,carriedacrossthespacetimeunderstudy,inandbytheclaims-makingactivitiesof
participants.Astheyaskaboutclaims-makers,toillustrate,“canthey‘getawaywithit’?”Can
theclaimsbe“sustainedpolitically”(SpectorandKitsuse2000,p.71),or,even
ethnomethodologically?Thisisimportantbecauseitishardlytypicalofsocialconstructionist
argument.AsLatour(1999,2003,2005)hasrepeatedlynoted,theunfortunatelymorecommon
movehasbeentheironizinganddebunkingthatendsupsaying,paradoxically,“thisis(merely)
constructed;thatisreal!”Thesepoliticstypicallyseektocritiqueunjustsocialculturalpractices
as“constructed,”bydominanceandpower,juxtaposedtoahalcyonrealitydefinedbyequality
andfreedom.
Thequestionaboveharkenstoanepistemologicaloneaskedinsciencestudies,namely,
“Whatpracticesareusedtosecure‘certainknowledge’?”Thekindofanswersoughtisnotto
makereferencetoa“method,”but,rather,byaclosestudyofthesustainedinsitumaterial-
semioticexchangesbythosewhoseclaimsandrelatedactivitieskeepthosedefinitionsalive
(Haraway1997;cf.Latour1999,pp.24-79).Whilesocialproblemsclaims-makerscould,surely,
drawonthepresumptionsandresourcesofscientificargumentanddatainhopesofgreater
viability,SpectorandKitsusetreatthatasanempiricalmatter.Claimsframedand“grounded”
12
inthesetermsmaywellbemoreviablethanthosenotsoframed,butthatistobedetermined
throughobservationandnotassumedbythesociologistinadvance.Thisleavesopenthe
possibilitythatcompletefabrications,evenlies,mightbeheldhigherandcarriedfartherthan,
tobesimplehere,“truths.”Ourauthorscouldnothaveknownhowtimelythatinsightwould
becomeinUSpoliticssomefortyyearslater.
Moreover,thisrequirementtofocusattentionontheviabilityofclaimsratherthantheir
validityreiteratestherepositioningofthesociologist/analystannouncedbythewordputative.
Itmakesamovetypicalofsociologicalexpertise—theadjudicationofthetruthvalueofclaims
madeaboutsocialcultrualconditions—besidethepoint.Theagnosticismrequiredofthe
sociologistrelativetoconditionshereextendstohowtheyaddressthecorematerialoftheir
analysis,theclaimsactuallymadebyparticipantsintheprocessbeingstudied—our“what
people‘think.’”Theexpertanalystnolongeraddressesafamiliarepistemologicalquestionthat
mayhavegroundedtheirownpriorprofessionalidentity—istheclaim“true”?—but,rather,is
askedinsteadtoaddressanotherthatmaystrikethemaslesssignificant:thedetailedrecording
anddescriptionthroughspacetimeofwords,phrases,andothersymbolsgivenmeaningby
participantsandtheactionstaken,arguably,intheirname.Surelystillempiricalandrealist,this
assignmentasksthesociologisttoprovideevidenceofhow,indetail,claimsemerge,are
maintained—ifinfacttheyare—change,and,perhaps,disappear,allcarriedbytheclaiming
andrespondingactivitiesofthoseinvolved.
Theirconstructionistargumentrequiresathirdshiftforthesociologistonanother
resourcecentraltomuchconventionalsocialproblemssociology:theuseofvaluestoexplain
behavior.Herethetypicalbehaviorinquestionisclaims-makingitself.SpectorandKitsuse
13
refusetheargumentthatvaluescauseclaims-making.Althoughsocialscienceexplanationof
behaviorbyreferencetovalueshasalonghistory,ithasbeenadifficultonetosustainusing
empiricaldatasoastoavoidacircularargument.Thatis,itisoftensaid,forexample,that
peoplebehaveastheydobecausetheyholdcertainvalues;butthen,whenweturntosecure
howitisthatweknowthattheyholdsaidvalues,referencestotheirbehaviorasindicative
typicallyareofferedup.Asourauthorspointout,conventionalnotionssuchassocializationare
usedtotellastoryofhowwelearnvaluesthatthenpropelourconduct.Thechallengeof
courseishowitisthatthesociologistcangetatthosevaluesontheperson’s“inside”
independentofthebehaviorthattheyaresaidtocauseonthe“outside.”
Giventheirviewofsocialproblemsascollectiveachievementsofpeopleactingtogether
inrealtimeandplace,ourauthorsdrawonC.WrightMills’(1940)commentsonhow
sociologistsusethenotionofmotives.ReiteratingMills’critiqueofsociologists’attributionof
motivestothepeopletheystudy,andusingMills’terms,“vocabulariesofmotives”and“motive
mongering,”theyaskonwhatbasissimilarattributionsofvaluesmightbemadebysociologists
ofsocialproblems(andbeyond)tothepeoplestudied.Notsurprisingly,theyfindnoempirically
adequateanswer.Similartohowethnomethodologiststreatthesociologicalconceptofnorms
orrules,SpectorandKitsuse,likeMills—whocertainlywasnoethnomethodologist—propose
valuesasalinguisticresourcethatmembersspecificallyandexplicitlyuseintheirwritingand
speakingtocharacterizethemselves,others,situations,andobjects.
Ratherthancontinuingtousethistermasaproblematictechnicalandexplanatory
resource,whichbringsitsownproblems,SpectorandKitsuse(2000,pp.91-95)treat“values”
aswordsorphrasesusedbyclaims-makers,wittinglyandnot,to“ground”ordefendtheir
14
claims,e.g.,“DonaldTrumpshouldbeimpeachedbecausehelies!”Theconsistencyhereis
apparent,bothintermsofstayingfocusedonwhatthosestudiedsayanddoasthedatafor
analysisandalsoinarefusaltocommentevaluativelyonthevaluelanguagemembersuse,
insteadmakingthatlanguageanditsusetopicforsocialproblemsanalysis.Andofcourse,there
isnomoremysteryinhowvaluesbecomepartofsociologicalanalysis,evenastheyareno
longerusedempiricallyasexplanationforwhatpeopledo.
SociologistasClaims-MakingMember
IftherequirementsI’venotedabovefortheconstructionistsociologistofsocial
problemsthatSpectorandKitsusesetforthwerenotprovocativeenough,theirbook,inaway
unusualforsociologyofthetime,and,arguablystilltoday,bringsthesocialscientistunder
analyticalscrutiny.Whilethesociologyofsciencewasalreadyanestablishedfield,itthencame
fromamostlyfunctionalistandstructuralperspective.Newworkinsciencestudieswas
beginningtoemergethatexaminednotthesocialstructures,“schools,”andrewardsystems
of—orfraud/deviancein—science,whichwerequestionstypicaloftheearlierapproach,but,
rather,howscientistscreate,challenge,change,andsustainscientificknowledgeintheir
mundanework(seeLynch2005).LatourandWoolgar’s(1986)pathbreakingethnographicstudy
ofscientistsatthebench—LaboratoryLife:TheSocialConstructionofScientificFacts—was
publishedin1979,twoyearsafterConstructingSocialProblems.
Therewasinthisinterdisciplinaryworkadistinctflavorofwhatissummarizedbythe
word“reflexivity,”atermcentraltoHaroldGarfinkel’s(1967)ethnomethodology.Whatthis
wordinvitesustoconsideralsowasbeingaddressedinaslightlydifferentwaybyfeminist,
postcolonial,andanti-racismcritiquesofhowknowledgenotonlyisalwayslocatedin
15
history/culture/society—thefamiliarsociologyofknowledgeargument,butinsistedonamore
particularandfine-grainedexaminationofthe“How?”and“Who?”and“Forwhom?”thatare
alwayspartofmakingknowledge(e.g.,Clough1994,2000).The“post”workincultural
anthropologytowhich,forinstance,GeorgeStocking’s(1983)ObserversObserved:Essayson
EthnographicFieldwork,JamesCliffordandGeorgeMarcus’(1986)WritingCulture:ThePoetics
andPoliticsofEthnography,andMarcusandMichaelM.J.Fischer’s(1986)Anthropologyas
CulturalCritique:AnExperimentalMomentintheHumanSciencescontributedimportantly,
examinestheplaceandwritingpracticesoftheanthropologist“inthefield”and“inthetexts”
thatconstitutethepublishedknowledgeofculturalanthropology.Inthiswork,thenotionof
socialconstructionisrevisedandbecomesinclusiveand,arguably,closertoJacquesDerrida’s
(1976)deconstructioninitseffectinthatwebegintoseeclearlytheimportofthelatterfor
whatwedoasscienceand,byextension,allknowledgemaking.
WhileWoolgarandDorothyPawluch’s(1985)importantandappreciativecritique
chargedSpectorandKitsuseandmanyofuswhowrotefromtheirtheorywithontological
gerrymanderingandaselectiverelativism,thesignificanceofthefullcritiquetheyofferedgoes
farbeyondthatparticularcharge,whichdoesnotapplyonlytothesocialconstructionist
sociologyofsocialproblems.Buttheirmoreproximatecriticism,thatevenas“we”insistedon
theconstitutiveforceofclaims-makingandignored“objectiveconditions”andanexpert
knowledgeoftheworld“asitreallyis,”wenonethelessdrew,usuallyinpassing,onthelatter
tosecurethedefinitionalargumentwemade.ThismoveinSpectorandKitsuse—seeablein
theirreferencetotheconstancyofmarijuanaandtheconditionofchildren’stonsilsto
underlinethepowerofdefinition;andinmanysimilarexamplesinrelatedworkbyothers,
16
includingBecker—performssomethingnotunliketheirowncritiqueofthevalueconflict
authors,whorequiredboth“subjective”and“objective”componentsofsocialproblems
(Becker1973,pp.20-21;Pollner1974;SpectorandKitsuse2000,pp.43-44,p.128;Woolgar
andPawluch1985,pp.216-217).WoolgarandPawluchofcoursedetailthisrecurring
contradictionfoundacrosstherathersubstantialbodyofworktheycite.Althoughseveralofus
respondedinvariationsofdefense,Isuspectwealsosawtheacuityoftheirinsight(Hazelrigg
1985,Pfohl1985;Schneider1985).
AndifIhadn’tseenitclearlybefore,theirpapermadecrystalclearwhatSpectorand
Kitsusethemselveshadinvited,eveniftheyhadnottakenthatstepthemselves:toturnonto
theirownargumentandpracticestheirexaminationofhowpriorsociologyofsocialproblems
argumentandpracticealsowerepursuedintheinterestsofviability.JustasSpectorand
Kitsusecriticallyexaminedhowtheirpredecessorsdefinedsocialproblemsanddeveloped
theoriesofthephenomenainquestion,WoolgarandPawluchinviteustomakethatverymove
forthesocialconstructionistargument,insocialproblemsandbeyond.Theycallitontological
gerrymandering,andIacceptthatcritique.ButIwouldpreferseeingit—contradictions
removed—asanontologicalandselectiveagnosticismwithregardtotheconditionsthatappear
inparticipants’claims.Itseemstomethiskindofagnosticismisaltogetherfamiliarinthe
historyofUSsociologyandwhatwasandperhapsstilliscalledits“mainstream”preferencefor
quantitativeandstructural/aggregateanalysis.Whilesurelylegitimateandprofessionally
respectablework,sustainedandfocusedattentiontothenatureofhumanexperience
expressedthroughnarrative,interviewdata,andobservationalrecordlargelyhavebeen
deemphasizedorignoredasamatterofresearchdesignand,ifImayputitthisway,“taste”in
17
muchsociology.ThisistoextendSpectorandKitsuse’sownreferencetoasociologyof
organizedcrimedistinctfromastudyofitasasocialproblemintheirterms.Thatthereisthen
aselectivityintheontologicalattentiontotheworldstudiedbyvariouskindsofsociology
strikesmeas,touseafamiliarterm,thenorm.Thequestionofanuntheorizedwritingofa
contradictionisofadifferent,lesserorderofsignificanceinthatitcanindeedberemedied.
ReadingWoolgarandPawluchAgain
Attheendoftheir1985paper,WoolgarandPawluchofferthreepossiblereadingsof
theircritique.Oneisthat,ineffect,ifyouwanttowriteaconstructionistargumentofsocial
problemsasithadbeendone,whichistosayflawedandcontradictory,thenwehaveshown
youhowtodoitbyshowingyouhowSpectorandKitsuseandanumberofotherauthorshave
engagedinaselectiverelativism.Ofcourse,theywouldnothaveexpectedthatreadingtobe
takenseriously.Second,theytellusthatwhiletheyhavepointedoutthesecontradictionsand
inconsistencies,“morecaution[can]beexercisedinattemptingempiricalstudiesinthe
definitionalperspective”(WoolgarandPawluch1985,p.224).ThatreadingiswhatIhavebeen
urginghereasbothpossibleandworthwhile,quitesurethatitwillsatisfyasmallersegmentof
thesociologicalcommunitytodaythantheinitialandcontradictoryformulations.Thatmaybe
duetotheboundaryitinsistsondrawingbetweenthesociologist’spersonalpolitical
commitmentsandtheirprofessionalidentityassociologists.Asnotedabove,thisboundary
prohibitsfactualclaimsabouttheso-called“conditions”longconsideredcentraltothecause
andconstitutionofsocialproblems,bothbythesociologist-as-member-of-society-with-their-
own-politicsorbythewarrantsdemandedbythetheoryitself.Iwouldguessthatalarge
segmentofprofessionalsociologistswritingaboutsocialproblemswouldnotbehappywiththe
18
requirementsofthesedisciplinarypolitics(seeSchneider2018).Beyondthatobjection,some
mayfeelthattheinsistencetofocusonlyonclaims-makingandrespondingactivities,as
detailedabove,andafine-grainedempiricaldescriptionofthedefinitionalprocesses,witha
narrativeabouttheseprocesses,offersnotenough“payoff,”intellectually,towarrantthework
required.Bothoftheselatterobjectionsarehardlyunusualintheworldsofprofessional
scholarship.Therearemanychoicesavailable,andmade,astowhatonemayignoreandtake
upinone’swork.Thiskindof“gerrymandering”israrelymentionedyeteverywheretobeseen.
WoolgarandPawluchofferathirdreadingthatIthinkhasnotbeentakenuportaken
seriouslybythoseofuswhohavewritteninthistraditionofsocialproblemstheory.Itreflects
moreexplicitlyWoolgar’saffection—atleastatthetime—foraradicallyrelativistargumenthe
wasmakinginthesciencestudiesworkthatheco-authoredwithLatourinLaboratoryLifebut
thenmoreclearlysoinhissole-authoredwork(see,e.g.,Woolgar1988).Unlikehiscolleague
Latour,WoolgardidnotdenigratethedeconstructiveargumentsfromDerrida’swritingin
literarystudies,whicharguablyresonateprovocativelywithhisownethnomethodological
insightsandinterests.Inbothtraditions,puttoosimply,thereisacommitmenttothenotion
thatthewholeofthesocialculturalworldisputtogether,maintained,andchangedinsituand
in“work”doneby,toresurrectoneofBecker’s(1986)homelybutinsightfulphrases,people
“doingthingstogether.”Clearly,thatnotionhasaconstructionistflavor.Mostofthesocial
problemstheoryreferencedhereandinWoolgarandPawluch’scritiquereflectsversionsof
symbolicinteractionistsociology,inwhichanassumptionofsharedmeaningextantinlanguage
useprovidesaterrainonwhichsociologicalargumentsaremadeabouthowrealityis
constructed.Clearly,suchaclaimhasalonghistoryinUSsociology.
19
Ethnomethodology,atleastinitsGarfinkel-influencedversion,opensattentiontohow
the“donetogether”inBecker’sphraseisapproximatedormade“goodenough”toenablea
“goingon”intheinterpersonalexchangesunderreview,whichalwaysaresubject,momentby
momenttobreakor“breach.”Thepoliticsofdeconstructionaimtouncoverhowthisalways
fragileorderofanytext—thoughtinclusively—isproducedbydeflectingattentionfromits
inevitablesupportingand“othered”background,whichismoreorlessskillfullykeptinthe
shadows.AproposSpectorandKitsuse’sargument,WoolgarandPawluch,ineffect,turnonthe
“backstagelights”toshowusthereferencestoconditionsthattheysaysecuretheselective
socialconstructionistclaimsinthiswork.
Allthatsaid,themoreinterestingpointtheymake,thethirdsuggestedreadingoftheir
critique,isaversionofWoolgar’sfullyreflexivecritiqueofhownotonlyscientificargumentis
madeandsustainedbuthowallarguments—including“ethno-theories”orwhatMelvinPollner
(1987)called“mundanereason”—arealwaysjerry-riggedaffairs.Heinsiststhat,ifcritically
examinedinenoughdetail,argumentsthataimtoexplainsomethingcannotbesustainedin
theirownterms;orthattheyrelyforthatsustenancenotonsomecompellingforceinternalto
theargumentsthemselves(e.g.,“method”)or“nature”speakingtothescientistinalanguage
onlytheyunderstand,butratherareduetothemostlyunspokenandtacitcollective
“agreement”ofthoseusingandmakingthemto“looktheotherway”ortosuspenddisbeliefin
theirimpossibility.Arguably,themostinterestingthinghereisthatthemattersWoolgarpoints
toinhisradicalcritiquearenot,asheandPawluchnote,“problemstobesolved.”Theyare,he
writes,“unavoidable.Theyarenotmeretechnicaldifficultiesinsocialproblemsarguments,but
pervasivefeaturesofallattemptstoexplainsocialphenomena”(WoolgarandPawluch1985,p.
20
224,emphasissupplied).Woolgar(1988)elsewheremakesitclearthatthelynchpinofthis
practiceofexplanationenactsanideologyofrepresentationitself.Inscience,including
sociology,responsetothisclaimoftentakestheformofagrumblinghesitance,claimsthat“it
doesn’tmatter”;impatientcallsto“getonwiththework,”andcriticismsof“losingtheobject”
and“thepoint”oftheresearchitself.
WhileIhavesympathyfortheseexpressionsandhaveofferedthemmyselfearlierinmy
work,itseemstomethatbynowinthediscipline,enrichedasithasbeenbyrelevantinsights
fromotherfields—andwith(evengrudging)respectforthewisdomofvarious“post”
critiques—weshouldbepreparedtothinkmoreseriouslyaboutthisthirdreadingratherthan
ignoringit.Ittakesusbeyondthemovesthattitletheircritiqueandurgesustogivemore
carefulattentionnotonlytotheveryconstitutionoftheobjectortopicofourstudy,butthe
waysthatwemaketheargumentsandexplanationsthatwedo;inordertobringtolight—orto
lighttoagreaterdegree—justhowwemakewhatwewouldhopeare“compelling”arguments.
Thisreflexiveconsiderationcouldmakethosearguments,thoseclaims,moreopenorporousto
examination;tohelpusnoticewhatwesilenceandbackground;andwhatweforegroundas
professionalclaims-makersdoingthesciencethatwedo(ifthatiswhatwecallwhatwedo).
Thisisnotto“weaken”science—evenasweknowthatscienceandtrutharenowunder
attackintheUnitedStatesandelsewhere,andthatsuchquestioningmightseemtodothat.
Rather,followingLatour’s(1999,2003)familiarclaimnotedabove,“themoreconstructed,the
morereal,”thepointistoacknowledgetheput-togetherandrelativenatureofallclaimssuch
thattheverypracticesofthatmakingarethemselvesavailableforscrutiny.Allarguments,in
otherwords,arealwaysalreadyvariously“weak.”Toclaimotherwiseistoengageinapolitical
21
fantasy,extremeversionsofwhichare,sadly,alltooapparentintoday’sAmericaaroundwhat
iscalled,derisively,“fake”onthequestionofwhatareliespresentedastruth;andwhatare
not.Indeed,itisbeingabletoappreciatethe“notfake”as,nonetheless,alwaysconstructed,
withthedetailsofthatconstructingofferedforalltosee,thatoffersagroundonwhichtostep
inordertomoveelsewhere.Themomentwouldseemtocallnotforanembattled,defensive
stanceintheproductionofknowledgeandtreatmentofthenotionoftruthbut,rather,one
morefiercelyopentocritiqueandstudyofhowclaimsaremadeandsupportedbythosewho
makethemandbythosewhochallenge.Deconstructionandreflexivityarethemselvesnot
inherentlydestructive,butattheveryleast,suchchoicesinviteastrongdose,paradoxically,of
bothhumilityforallclaimsandclaimants,andgreaterconfidenceforussociologistsandother
scholarsinmakingtheclaimsthatwedo.Surely,theextraordinarysuccessofscienceinitslong
historymightbethoughtsufficienttoallowus,withoursistersandbrothersinthehumanities,
toacknowledgethattherearethenoguaranteesonhowone’swork—one’sclaims—willbe
received,inwhatevervenueatwhatevertimeitisoffered,whichofcourseispreciselywhatall
claims-makersface;witting,professional,andnot(cf.Haraway1997,pp.23-48).
References
Becker,H.S.(1967).Whosesideareweon?SocialProblems,14,239-247.
Becker,H.S.(1973)[1963].Outsiders:Studiesinthesociologyofdeviance.NewYork:Free
Press.
Becker,H.S.(1986).Doingthingstogether:Selectedpapers.Evanston:NorthwesternUniversity
Press.
22
Best,J.(1989).“Afterword.Extendingtheconstructionistperspective:Aconclusionandan
introduction.”InJ.Best(Ed.),Imagesofissues:Typifyingcontemporarysocialproblems
pp.243-250).NewYork:Aldine.
Cicourel,A.,&J.I.Kitsuse.(1963).Educationaldecision-makers.Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.
Clifford,J.,&G.E.Marcus(Eds.).(1986).Writingculture:Thepoeticsandpoliticsof
ethnography.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Clough,P.T.(1994).Feministthought.NewYork:Blackwell.
Clough,P.T.(2000).Autoaffection:Unconsciousthoughtintheageofteletechnology.
Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Derrida,J.(1976).Ofgrammatology,trans.GayatriSpivak.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversity
Press.
Foucault,M.(1978).Thehistoryofsexuality,vol.1.NewYork:RandomHouse.
Foucault,M.(1979).Disciplineandpunish:Thebirthoftheprison.NewYork:Vintage.
Garfinkel,H.(1967).Studiesinethnomethodology.EnglewoodCliffs:Prentice-Hall.
Haraway,D.J.(1997).“Modest_witness@second_millennium.”In
Modest_witness@second_millennium.FemalemanÓ_meets_OncoMouseÔ.Feminism
andtechnoscience(pp.23-48).NewYork:Routledge.
Hazelrigg,L.E.(1985).Wereitnotforwords.SocialProblems,32,234-237.
Hewitt,J.P.,&P.M.Hall.(1973).Socialproblems,problematicsituations,andquasi-theories.
AmericanSociologicalReview,38,367-375.
Holstein,J.A.,&G.Miller(Eds.).(1993).Reconsideringconstructionism:Debatesinsocial
problemstheory.Hawthorne:Aldine.
23
Holstein,J.A.,&J.F.Gubrium(Eds.).(2008).Handbookofconstructionistresearch.NewYork:
Guilford.
Ibarra,P.R.,&J.I.Kitsuse.(1993).“Vernacularconstituentsofmoraldiscourse:An
interactionistproposalforthestudyofsocialproblems.”InJ.A.Holstein&G.Miller
(Eds.),Reconsideringconstructionism:Debatesinsocialproblemstheory(pp.25-58).
Hawthorne:Aldine.
Kitsuse,J.I.(1962).Societalreactiontodeviantbehavior.SocialProblems,9,247-256.
Latour,B.(1999).Pandora’shope:Essaysontherealityofsciencestudies.Cambridge:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Latour,B.(2003).“Thepromisesofconstructivism.”InD.Ihde&ESelinger(Eds.),Chasing
technoscience(pp.27-46).Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.
Latour,B.(2005).Reassemblingthesocial:Anintroductiontoactor-networktheory.NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Latour,B.,&S.Woolgar.(1986)[1979].Laboratorylife:Theconstructionofscientificfacts.
Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Lemert,E.M.(1951).Socialpathology:Asystematicapproachtothetheoryofsociopathic
behavior.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Lynch,M.(2005).“Socialstudiesofscience.”InGRitzer(Ed.),Encyclopediaofsocialtheory,vol.
2(pp.760-764).ThousandOaks:Sage.
Marcus,G.E.,&M.M.J.Fischer(Eds.).(1986).Anthropologyasculturalcritique:An
experimentalmomentinthehumansciences.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Matza,D.(1969).Becomingdeviant.NewYork:Prentice-Hall.
24
Mills,C.W.(1940).Situatedactionsandvocabulariesofmotive.AmericanSociologicalReview,
6,904-913.
Pfohl,S.(1985).Towardasociologicaldeconstructionofsocialproblems.SocialProblems,32,
228-232.
Pollner,M.(1974).“Sociologicalandcommonsensemodelsofthelabelingprocess.”InR.
Turner(Ed.).Ethnomethodology(pp.27-40).Hammondsworth:Penguin.
Pollner,M.(1987).Mundanereason:Realityineverydayandsociologicaldiscourse.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Rains,P.(1975).Imputationsofdeviance:Aretrospectiveessayonthelabelingperspective.
SocialProblems,23,1-11.
Schneider,J.(1985).Definingthedefinitionalperspectiveonsocialproblems.SocialProblems,
32,232-234.
Schneider,J.(2018).“Thechallengesofconceptualizingsocialproblems.”InA.J.Treviño(Ed.),
Thecambridgehandbookofsocialproblems,vol.1(pp.3-22).NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Spector,M.,&J.I.Kitsuse.(2000)[1977].Constructingsocialproblems.NewYork:Routledge.
Stocking,GW.(Ed.).(1983).Observersobserved:Essaysonethnographicfieldwork.Madison:
UniversityofWisconsinPress.
Treviño,A.J.(Ed.).(2018).Thecambridgehandbookofsocialproblems,volumes1&2.New
York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Woolgar,S.(1988).Science:Theveryidea.London:Tavistock.
25
Woolgar,S.,&D.Pawluch.(1985).Ontologicalgerrymandering:Theanatomyofsocialproblems
explanations.SocialProblems,32,214-227.
Endnotes
1DavidMatza(1969,p.103,p.116,p.176)inhisBecomingDeviant,whichsharesmany
theoreticalpointswiththeseauthors,doesciteFoucaultinthreefootnotes.
2Iunderstandthenotionof“relatedactivities,”relativetoclaimsanddefinitions,tobethose
thatarguablyanddemonstrablyareshapedwithandfromthemeaningsthattheclaimsand
definitions—thewords,mostsimply—usedbyparticipantsconvey.
3Whilethe“andrespondingactivities”iscentraltotheirconceptionofsocialproblems,the
initialclaims,whichmustberespondedtoandcarried,ornot,aresufficienttogarnerthe
attentionoftheresearcherusingthisargument.
4Suchapositionorlocationinthesociologicalstudyofwhathasbeencalledsocialproblems
seemsalwaystohavebeenapointofcontentioninUSsociology.Itiseasilyseenastoo
distance,toocool,tooremoved,toosafe,tooprofessional,andsoon;evenperhaps“too
conservative.”Thisisstillthecase.
5OxfordEnglishDictionary,online,consultedJune22,2018at:oed.com.cowles-
proxy.drake.edu/view/Entry/155203?redirectedFrom=Putative#eid.