A Quest for Theory and Method �

Crime and Social Justice�7(�982)Reprint �

Delinquency in School and Society: The Quest for a Theory and Method

Paul Takagi

Introduction

About four yeArs Ago, A yeAr or so After the school of criminology wAsabolishedandIwasreassigned to theDepartmentofEducationon theBerkeleycampus,Idesignedatwo-quartercoursetointroducestudents

totheclassicworksindelinquencybasedonnonquantitativemethods.Iamstilltinkeringwiththecourseformat,deletingandaddingreadingseachyearIteachthecourse.Itisnotatheoryormethodscourseassuch,buttouchesonboth.Ifany-thing,ithastodowithepistemologicalissuesindelinquencytheoryandresearch,orwherewehavebeenandwherewearenow.

Acoupleofthingsoccurredthatledmetoputthecoursetogether.One,theex-periencesoftwostudentsfromtheCriminologySchoolwhoenrolledinEducationto study under me, and two, some books I had finished reading, especially Steve Butters’“TheLogicofEnquiryofParticipantObservation”inResistance Through Rituals (CulturalStudies,�975),apublicationofwhathascometobecalledtheBirmingham School. With respect to the first point, the program in Education, un-liketheprogramintheCriminologySchool,isquitetraditional.Thestudentsarerequiredtotakeacombinationofstatisticsandmethodscoursestotalingamini-mumof20quarterunits.Oneofthestudentsoptedtotakeatwo-quartersurveyresearchcoursetaughtbyCharlesGlockintheDepartmentofSociology,andtheotherstudentelectedtotakeathree-quartersequenceinGroundedTheoryontheSanFranciscocampus,taughtbyAnselmStrauss.Althoughbothstudentsdidwellintheircoursework,bothweretroubledbythelackofintegrationoftheoryandresearch,especiallythestudentwhotookthesurveyresearchcourse.Hecameawayfromthecoursetotallybewildered.Hehadlearnedcomputerprogramming,datareduction,crosstabs,multivariateanalysis,etc.,butwhatallthishadtodowiththeoryorscienceremainedamystery,Thesecondstudentlearnedtodoethnog-raphy,notetaking,memowriting,andcoding(analyticinduction?),andtomakecommon-senseinterpretationsoftheoftenmundaneandtrivialitemsofbehavior.Theahistoricismandtheneglectofmacrosociologicalfactorstroubledher.There

Paul Takagi,at the timeof thiswriting,wasco-editorofCrime and Social Justice andProfessorintheSchoolofEducation,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley.Originalcitation,Crime and Social Justice�7(Spring-Summer�982):37–49.Seewww.socialjusticejournal.org.

2 tAkAgi

wasalsotheproblemofwhetheratheorycanbegeneratedfromempiricaldata,assomeoftheearlierwritingsonGroundedTheoryclaimed,andwhichAnselmStraussnowadmitswasanoverstatement.Thus,oneofthepurposesofmycoursewastoaddress,asBlalock(�96�:5)observedsometimeago,theappearanceof“aninherentgapbetweenthelanguagesoftheoryandresearch.”

WhilethewritingsofthepeopleattheUniversityofBirmingham(England)provided the underlying logic for the course, some books I had finished reading impressedmewiththeimportanceofteachingthephilosophicalfoundationsoftheoryandmethod,andtotracehistoricallytheappearanceanddisappearanceofsystemsofcriminologicalinquiry(Habermas,�97�;Willer,DavidandJudith,�973;MackseyandDonato,�972;Kuhn,�975).Thelattertaskwasespeciallyimportant,asthedemiseofliberalcriminology(Galliher,�978;PlattandTakagi,�977)providedthetransitiontointroducetheMarxist-informedethnographicstudies.

Since the course was put together during the �977–�978 academic year, ithasbeenconsiderablyenrichedbyseveralpublicationsbyEnglishandAmericanauthors.TheseworksincludePaulWillis,Learning to Labor (�977),StuartHalletal.,Policing the Crisis (�978),PaulRock,The Making of Symbolic Interactionism (�979),andseveralbooksjustreleased:DickHebdige,Subculture: The Meaning of Style (�980),MikeBrake,The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures (�980),JackDouglas,Introduction to the Sociologies of Everyday Life (�980),andJamesBennett,Oral History and Delinquency (�98�).AlsorelevantisacritiqueoftheBirminghamSchoolintheintroductionofStanleyCohen’sre-releaseofFolk Devils and Moral Panics (�980).AlthoughnotgenerallyavailableintheUnitedStates,theoccasionalmimeographedpapersoftheBirminghamSchoolcontainthepreliminaryideasformanyoftheworkslistedabove.

Course Description

The syllabus for the first quarter describes the course as follows:

Thisisatwo-quartercoursedesignedtointroducestudentstotheclassicworks in criminology based on fieldwork methods. While the techniques of data collection in fieldwork have included such procedures as interview-ing,observing,andparticipating(oracombinationoftheseprocedures),datareductionandanalysesvarydependingupontheperspectivesoftheresearcher.Thusitishelpful,thoughsomewhatarbitrary,tocategorizetheliteratureinto“schoolsofthought.”

Thisquarterwewilllookatsomeofthefollowingschools:AppreciativeUn-derstanding,AnalyticInduction,andthevariousstrandsoflabeling.Inthesecondquarter,attentionwillbeturnedtotheConstantComparisonandtheRegressive-Progressivemethods.

The students are asked to purchase two books—Jack Douglas, Sociologies

A Quest for Theory and Method 3

of Everyday Life (�980), and Bernard Meltzer et al., Symbolic Interactionism (�975)—thatcontainbriefbutunderstandabledescriptionsof thephilosophicalassumptionsunderlyingtheChicagoschool(pp.20–37and�–52respectively).Inmy lectures, I focus on the several defining characteristics of these writers (John Dewey,GeorgeHerbertMead,WilliamJames):theconcernwiththeroleofgroupfactorsasimportantelementsforunderstandingbehavior(seeMeltzeretal.,�975:42–52);behaviorashavingitsconditionsinthesocialenvironment;thecriticalsignificance of the self or the idea of emergence; and the adoption of the method ofsympatheticintrospectionorthecasehistoryandnaturalhistorymethods.PaulRock(�979:24–�0�)tracestheepistemologytoablendingofHegel,Darwin,andthephilosophyofscienceintoadistinctivecompoundthatemphasizesecologyandformalism;butinmylecture,IdescribethelinkagestotheProgressivereformmovementsofthe�890s.JohnDewey,forexample,wasamemberoftheadvisoryboardtoJaneAddams’HullHouse.InthePracticeTheoryofthesettlementhousemovement,thevisitingteachermovement,andinLightnerWitmer’spsychologicalclinic,thereisclearlyanemphasisongroupfactors—theadjustmentofthesocialenvironment,oradvocacyinsomeinstances,tobringabouttheadjustmentoftheindividual,andaviewoftheselfasbothorganizedandorganizing(LevineandLevine,�970).

Appreciative Understanding

Following this introduction to the Chicago School, we examine the first set of empiricalstudiescalled“AppreciativeUnderstanding.”

In the Chicago School and their followers, fieldwork data are organized intoethnographicdescriptionswhichattempttomapthemeaningsofcus-tom,role,andsocialstructurewithinapresumedclosedculturalsystem,closed,assuggestedbythetitlesoftheirworks,inthatthephenomenonunderinvestigationisauniqueculturalfeature.EachstudentwillselectoneofthefollowingworksrepresentativeoftheChicagoSchooltoreporttoclass.Thestudentshouldfocusattentiononthemethodemployed,dataanalyses,problemshighlightedbytheresearch,andassessitscontributiontotheory(Butters,�975).

NelsAnderson,The HoboHarveyZorbaugh,The Gold Coast and the SlumCliffordShaw,The JackrollerFredericThrasher,The GangPaulCressey,The Taxi-Dance HallCliffordShaw,The Natural History of a Delinquent CareerEdwinSutherland,The Professional Thief

From the students’ presentations and discussions, it becomes immediately

4 tAkAgi

apparentthatthemethodsemployedintheresearchvaryconsiderably.Shawcallshismethodalifehistoryornaturalhistory,buthisworkreliesheavilyonagencyrecords;ZorbaughmappedthenearnorthsideofChicagofromnewspaperitemsand official records; Anderson’s work is informed by his own experiences as a hobo; and Cressey used field workers and agency records for his study.

The Professional Thief is theonlywork that canbedescribedasusing thenaturalhistorymethod,butitisalsoinformedbySutherland’spreliminaryideasondifferentialassociation.Ingeneral,theanalyticprocedureinalloftheseworksdoesnotleadtotheproductionofatheoreticalanalysis,giventheirinabilitytolinkculturalfeaturestostructuralfactors,andtheomissionofhistoricalandmacroso-ciologicalfactorstoexplainthepoverty,urbanization,andhumanexploitationinwhichtheculturalfeaturesappeared.

Culture and Personality

We turnnext toa setof readingscalled“CultureandPersonalityStudies.”SomegraduatesfromtheChicagoSchool,probablystudentsofParkandBurgess,mappedoutthecitiesofHonoluluandSeattle,bothofwhichhavelargepopula-tions of Chinese and Japanese. Areas of social disorganization were identified by examiningindicesofdelinquency,crime,suicide,prostitution,etc.TheresearchersfoundverylowdelinquencyratesamongtheChineseandJapaneseinthemost“disorganized”areaofthecities.

Andrew W. Lind, “Some Ecological Patterns of CommunityDisorganizationinHonolulu”

AndrewW.Lind,“TheGhettoandtheSlum”NormanHayner,“DelinquencyAreasinthePugetSoundRegion”NormanHayner,“SocialFactorsinOrientalCrime”S.FrankMiyamoto,Social Solidarity Among the Japanese in Seattle

Unable to explain “an interesting exception to Shaw’s findings in other cities,” Haynerinvokedaposthocexplanation.Haynerwrites:“Oneofthemajorfactorsthataccountsforthelowrateofcriminality[is]theintegratedfamiliesthatarecharacteristic not only of Japan but also of China and the Philippines” (�938:9��).TheexplanationofthelowdelinquencyratewasthereforetobefoundintheculturesofChinaandJapan,which the immigrantsbroughtwith themandtransmittedtothechildren.Thus,thestrategyistoscanthecultureoverseasandtoidentifykeyfactorsthatshapedandcontrolledthebehaviorofyoungstersand,forwhateverthechildrenachievedorfailedtoachieve,thelogicistoblameorcredittheimmigrant’shomeculture.

The culture and personality strategy and, more generally, theAppreciativeUnderstandingschoolareactuallyavariantoffunctionalanalysis.Therearetwointerrelatedconsiderationsthatsupportthisconclusion.Thekeyideaissocialdis-organization.Adisorganizedsocietyisassumedtobesynonymouswitharapidly

A Quest for Theory and Method 5

changingsocietycharacterizedbyinstability,discontinuityofexperiencesingroups,anddisagreementsamongmembersonthecommonconcernsofeverydaylife.Thedisappearanceofintimacyinsocialrelationshipsisassumedtoleadtoindividual-ism, which in turn leaves its participants frustrated and thwarted in fulfilling their personalneedsanddesires(Lemert,�95�:8).

Theanalyticmodelisclearer,forexample,inW.I.Thomas,The Unadjusted Girl (�923).Thomas’workisbasedonananaloguemodel,thatis,likeningtheproper-ties,processes,orstructuresofsocietytothoseofanorganism.Throughoutthebook,Thomasemploysmetaphorsandanaloguesfromtheanimalworldtoclarifycomplexhumanrelationships.Inthisview,societyisseenasevolvinginaunilinearandirreversibleprocesssimilartoorganismsinevolution.Hence,overaperiodoftimecertainstagesappearinurbancommunitiesthatarecharacterizedbystructuralchanges,namely,socialdisorganization.Althoughthisversionoffunctionalismdiffersfrommodernfunctionalism,asinMerton(�957),Miller(�958),andAlbertCohen(�958),theanalyticformisthesame.Theyborrowamechanismfroman-otherapplication,thatis,somesetofpropertiesfromtheborrowedmechanismisrepresentedinthephenomenatobestudied(seeWiller,�967:29–37).

Thesecondconsiderationhastodowithculturalrelationships.Itwasbelievedthen, and is still believed today, thatCooley’s conceptsof personal and socialdisorganizationareessentiallyinteractionalphasesofthesameproblem(Lemert,1951: 9–10). The difficulty is that none of the approaches to the study of social disorganizationhavecometogripswiththerelationshipbetweenindividualandsocial disorganization. W.I. Thomas believed that he solved the difficulty by mak-ingadistinctionbetween“attitude”and“value.”InThomas’writings,“byattitude[hemeant]aprocessofindividualconsciousnesswhichdetermines...activity,”and“byasocialvalue[hemeant]anydatumhavinganempiricalcontentaccessibletomembers,andameaning...asanobjectofactivity”(Barnes,�948: 798).ThefourwishesThomaspositsinThe Unadjusted Girl(�923)arethefourprincipalattitudes in individuals, and his well-known concept, the definition of the situation, is the mechanism that delimits, modifies, or controls the wishes (Ibid.,798–804).Thelogicalstructureof the theoryissimilar toMerton’s“SocialStructureandAnomie”(�957).

InThomas’writings,themeaningofcultureandculturalrelationshipsisnotalwaysclear.Sometimesbyculturehemeansvalue(s);elsewhere,byculturehemeansthewholeensembleof“values,institutions,customs,attitudes,andbehaviorreactions”(Barnes,�948:80�).Inthelattermeaning,apersonalityisessentiallyamicrocosm of cultural relationships, a product of reciprocal influences that is both organizedandorganizing.

Followingthis lineofanalysis,wecannowunderstandtheanalytic taskofcultureinHayner’swork.AsHermanSchwendingersuggestedtomeinpersonalcorrespondence, the oversimplification of cultural relationships in functional analysis isdesignedtomaketheiressentiallypsychologicaltheoriescredible.Thecategory

6 tAkAgi

ofcultureperformsthesameanalytictaskthatcategorieslikeinstinctordeep-seatedimpulsesdidinearliertheories.RobertE.Park,forexample,viewedraceprejudiceasstemmingfrom“deeprooted,vital,andinstinctiveimpulses”(�950:223–29).

Analytic Induction

We turnnexttoanalyticinduction,oneofthemoreinterestingdevelopmentsinAmerican criminology.As I indicate below, it was a short-lived enterprise,althoughitsrootsgobacktotheChicagoSchool.Thecoursesyllabusdescribesthereadingsasfollows:

Analyticinduction,astrandoftheChicagoSchool,althoughshort-lived,representsanimportantbridgetotheconstantcomparisonmethodtobeexaminednextquarter.Analyticinductionisanefforttoformabstracthypotheses(orpropositions)ofcertainculturalforms.Itlooksformainpatternsofbehavior,andbytrialanderror,itattemptstocreatepartialmodelsofthephenomenonunderinvestigation.Thepartialmodelsarethenreconciledbaseduponconstanttesting(lookingfornegativecases)and,intheend,itweldstogethertheremainingpartialmodelstoformanexplanatoryaccount(Butters,�975).

FlorianZnaniecki,The Method of SociologyAlfredLindesmith,Opiate AddictionEdwinSutherland,“DifferentialAssociation,”inhisPrinciples of Crimi-

nologyRobertC.Angell,The Family Encounters the DepressionDonaldCressey,Other People’s Money

ThisformoftheoryconstructioncametoanabruptendfollowingthecriticismsmadeinitiallybyRobinson(�95�:8�2–8�8)andthenbyTurner(�953:604–6��).The analytic procedure, however, is interesting because we see for the first time the influence of Charles Peirce’s philosophy of science and, also, the effort to constructiconicmodelsofthephenomenaunderinvestigation.

Sutherlandwrites that hehadworked for several yearswith aprofessionalthiefandwasimpressedthatapersoncannotbecomeaprofessionalthiefmerelybywantingtobeone;hemustbetrainedinpersonalassociationwiththosewhoarealreadyprofessionalthieves(Cohenetal.,�956:�7).Hebelievedthiswastheprocessinallcrime,butwasreluctanttomakethehypothesisexplicitbecause,“Iknewthateverycriminologicaltheorywhichhadlifteditsheadhadbeencrackeddownbyeveryoneexceptitsauthor.”Inspiteofthedanger,hedecidedtomakethehypothesisexplicitinhis�939editionofPrinciples of Criminology. Thedeci-siontodosowaspartlypolitical,asaresponsetotheMichaelandAdlerReport(Ibid.: 16, 229–246), but it was primarily due to two influences. He had learned themethodologyofanalyticinductionfromAlfredLindesmith(Ibid.:�7–�8),and

A Quest for Theory and Method 7

following the publication of Louis Wirth’s “Culture Conflict and Misconduct” (�964:229–243),therewasarenewedbeliefthattherelationshipbetweenpersonalmeaningsandculturalpatternscontainedthegenesisofcriminalbehavior(Cohenet al., 1956: 16, 29). Sutherland was undoubtedly influenced by the following pas-sagesinWirth’spaper(�964:24�):

Thesociologicalstudyofdelinquency,however,doesnotendwithagen-eraldescriptionnorevenacarefulanalysisoftheculturalmilieuoftheindividual.Onthecontrary,thestudyofthecultureontheobjectivesidemust be complemented through a study of the personal meanings which the cultural values have for the individual. Theconceptofcultureandtheconceptofpersonalitydonotstandinoppositiontooneanother.Aculturehas no psychological significance until it is referred to personality, and viceversa...(emphasisadded).

Themethodologicalproblemwashowtostudythepersonalmeaningsoftheculturalmilieu.Sutherlandfailedinthistask,andin�944heconcludedthatdif-ferentialassociationasanexplanationofcriminalbehaviorisinvalid(Cohenetal.,�956:37).AlthoughSutherlanddoesnotcreditCharlesPeirce’sphilosophyofscience, theanalyticprocedureemployedbySutherlandsuggeststhat itwasthe source. Peirce separates induction into two stages: abduction, or the stageofobtainingahypothesis,andinduction,orthestageofprovingthehypothesis.Peircewrites:

Abductionmakesitsstartfromthefacts,without,attheonset,havinganyparticulartheoryinview,thoughitismotivatedbythefeelingthatatheoryisneededtoexplainthesurprisingfacts....Abductionseeksatheory....Inabductiontheconsiderationofthefactssuggeststhehypothesis(citedinWiller,�967:28;Habermas,�97�:9�–��2).

WhileLindesmith,Cressey,andAngelldescribetheirpreliminaryhypothesesand test themby looking fornegativecases,Sutherlandapparentlyengaged in“mentalexperiments”tomanipulateconceptsandtoabduceadditionalhypotheses.Sutherland,ofcourse,wasabletodothatbecauseofhisextensiveknowledgeofthecriminologicalliterature.Butinanefforttounderstandpersonality,hehadtorely on abstracted findings as reported in the literature, typically studies of personal traits,whichresultedinapsychologisticmodel.

Aniconicmodel isoneofdirectsimilarity to thesubjectof representation.Lindesmith’smodelofopiateaddictionclearlyresemblesthephenomenaunderinvestigation.Sutherland’smodeldoesnotresemblemuchofanything;itdoesnotsatisfy the rule of isomorphism; nor are the terms nominally defined. The hypotheses appear to be first-order abductions or merely definitions, rather than statements of regularitiesorofconceptualrelations.

8 tAkAgi

Despitetheseandothercriticismsofanalyticinduction,thecasehistoryasamethodwaslinkedwiththeoryconstructionand,inmyjudgment,representsoneofthebrighterperiodsinAmericancriminology.

Labeling School

Thesyllabusdescribesthenextsetofreadingsasfollows:

RecentfollowersoftheChicagoSchoolhaveshiftedtowardphenomenol-ogytostudytheessenceofmeaninginethnographicdescriptions,thatis,theresearcherwantstoknowifpeopleunderstudythinkofthemeaning,andiftheydo,howthemeaningisconsideredaccordingtothestandardsintheculturalmilieu.ThisintellectualapproachtowardphenomenologyKrisberg(�972)calls“hipsociology.”Thehipsociologistappreciatesthesubjectunderstudy,buttheresearcher,whilesympathetictotheirprob-lems,isnotcompassionatewiththem,resultingintheneglectofimportantdimensionsofthephenomenawhichheisdescribing.Thisappreciativeunderstanding-phenomenologyschool,calledlabeling,emergedduringthe�960sandattractedhundredsoffollowers.

ThestudentsinitiallyreadDouglas(�980:62–�54)andMeltzeretal.(�975:67–82).Theythenreadoneormoreofthefollowingworks:

EdwinLemert,Social PathologyEdwinLemert,“SocialStructure,SocialControl,andDeviation”ErvingGoffman,StigmaHowardBecker,The OutsiderAaronCicourel,The Social Organization of Juvenile JusticeInadditiontoreadingthecriticismsinMeltzeretal.(�975:83–��7),students

arealsoaskedtoreadAlvinGouldner,“TheSociologistasPartisan:SociologyandtheWelfareState”(�968:�03–��6).

First,acommentonthereadings.Oftheseveraldozenworksrepresentativeofthelabelingschool,IhavefocusedonLemert,Goffman,Becker,andCicourelforseveralinterrelatedreasons.Sincethepurposeofthecourseistounderstandtherelationshipoftheoryandmethod,itisimportanttoreadthewritersandtheworksthataremostfrequentlycited.Second,thereadingsshouldfocusonthoseideasthathaveinformedthestudyofcriminologicalissues;andthird,aswillbecomeclearer inourdiscussionof the labeling school,weneed to focusonLemert’swritingstountanglewhathasbecomeacontroversial(Gove,�980)andconfusingbodyofliterature.

Fromreadingthedescriptiveanalysesandcriticismsofthelabelingschool,onegetstheimpressionthattherelationshipoftheoryandmethodisneverclear(Meltzeretal.,�975:�04).PaulRockwrites:“Muchoftheirworkis...characterizedbyacertainamorphousness,ambiguityandapparentaimlessness”(�979:8),and

A Quest for Theory and Method 9

“‘readers’abound,buttherearealmostnocomprehensiveandprogrammaticexposi-tions”(Ibid.:9).Onewritertellsthereaderhowtheoryislinkedtomethods:“Thetheoreticalbasisforanalyzingmanmustbeassessedforadequacybothsubjectivelyandobjectively.Tobeobjectiveaboutman,paradoxicalasitwouldseem,wemustunderstandthesubjectiveworldofmeaning”(Bruyn,�966:�63).Tounderstandthesubjectiveworldofmeaning,allofthewritingsinonewayoranothermakereferencetothemethodexpressedsolongagobyFlorianZnaniecki:

When I wish to ascertain at first hand what a certain activity is, just as when I wish to obtain first-hand information about a certain object, I try toexperienceit.Thereisonlyonewayofexperiencinganobject:itistoobserveitpersonally.Thereisonlyonewayofexperiencinganactivity:itistoperformitpersonally(citedinBruyn,�966:90).

Butthepracticalproblemsofperforminganactivityinthenameofsciencearenoteasilyovercome,andthewritingsoutofEuropeonphenomenologyseemedto provide the operational link to “sympathetic understanding.” As SeverynBruynwrites:“Theinterestsofthephenomenologistandtheparticipantobserverareremarkablysimilar”(�966:9�);inPaulRock:“Afewhaveemphasizedthephenomenologicalstrands...bysynthesizingtheirworkwiththethoughtofAlfredSchutzandhissuccessors”(�979:85);andinDouglas:“Wedistinguishedthetwostrainsofphenomenologicalsociology.OnestraindescribessharedbutcontingentpatternsofsubjectiveexperienceinthelanguageworkedoutbyHusserlandSchutz.Thesecondstrainofresearchismorecloselyrelatedtothefoundingconcernsofphenomenologicalphilosophy(�980:�48).

Thismysticaldiscussionofmethodbecomesevenmoreconfusingwithrespectto theory construction. A theory somehow flows out of the ethnographic data. AsPaulRockwrites:“Itdoesnotrestonanexplicitlyintellectualvocabularyofexplanation and justification. Understanding and knowledge are held to flow from praxis,notfromcontemplationandabstractexposition”(�979:3).Rockexplainsinanothercontextthat:“Thepragmatistshadinjectedintointeractionismareasonedincapacity toworkwith systematic thought, a priori schemes, or propositionallogic.Itwasarguedthatunderstandingwouldbecorruptedifitwereframedbyapreciselystructuredexplanation”(Ibid.:85–86).Thus,insteadoflayingouthy-potheses and definitions at the beginning of a description, the strategy is to coax “theory”outoftheunwindingdiscussion.Ifastanceexistsatall,Rockwrites,itrelies “on the loosest of ideal types, which are progressively modified and refined astheybecomeappliedinsubstantivework”(Ibid.:87).

After reading Douglas (�980) and Meltzer et al. (�975), the students thenreadBecker(�963),Cicourel(�968),andGoffman(�963).Ofthethreeworks,Becker’sThe Outsiders has been the most influential in the development of the labeling school. Cicourel’s work is a study of labeling in two probation offices, but itismuchmorethanthat.Itisanefforttoestablishgroupedrelationshipsbetween

�0 tAkAgi

measures,ortheformationofanoperationalsystem(seeWiller,�967:83–96).Cicourel(�968:�–2�)isinterestedinbuildingatheoreticalapparatusformakingsense of ethnographic data, specifically the “tacit knowledge” of how subjects under studyunderstandandcommunicatetheirknowledgeandexperiences.AndofallofGoffman’swork,Stigma(�963)perhapshasbeentheleastwellreceived.Theworkdevelopstheconceptofabiographythatissuperiortotheconceptofself.Abiographybeginslongbeforeanindividual’sbirthandcontinuesafterhisdeath.Iwillhavemoretosayaboutthislateron.

Twoconclusionsemergefromreadingthesethreeworks.First,withtheexcep-tion of Cicourel, labeling theories do not necessarily engage in fieldwork. Goffman andBeckerrelyonavarietyofdatasources—anthropologicalstudies,documents,casehistories,and,inBecker’scase,hispersonalexperiencesasajazzpianist.Second,contrarytotheimpressionthathypothesesarecoaxedoutofethnographicdata or that the loosest of ideal types are modified and refined in substantive work, allthreeworksbeginwithahypothesis.Thewell-knownpropositioninBecker’swork(�963:9)that“socialgroupscreatedeviancebymakingtheruleswhosein-fractionconstitutesdeviance”appearsearlyoninthebookandisclearlycreditedtoFrankTannenbaumandEdwinLemert.AllthreeworkscredittheorganizinghypothesisfortheirstudiestoEdwinLemert,andforthatreasonalone,weneedtoreadLemert’swritings.

Lemert’sSocial Pathology(�95�)alsodoesnotcomportwiththeimpressionthattheperspectiveischaracterizedbyamorphousness,ambiguity,andaimless-ness.Instead,theworkishighlyinformedofprioreffortstostudydeviancy,andinthisworkLemertgeneratessevenpostulatesforatheoryofdeviance.Lemertdoesnottellthereadershowhederivedthepostulates,otherthantostate:“Thesepostulatesaresimplestatementsoffactforwhichthewriterfeelsnoobligationtosupplyproof....Theyarethebuildingblocksforthetheoryofthistreatiseandipsofactotheymustbeacceptedaspointsofdeparturefortheanalysiswhichfollows”(1951: 22). In the remainder of the work, Lemert defines the terms in the theory, specifies and loosens conditions to set the scope of the theory, marshals empirical evidencetosupportthepostulates,andgeneratespropositions,suchashiswell-knownprimaryandsecondarydeviation.Hewarnshisreadersthat“thequestionastowhetherthesepostulatesaretherelevantonesorwhethertheyaretoofewmustawaitansweruntilthetheoryhasbeentested”(Ibid.:22).

Thebookendswithsevenpostulatesandalargenumberofhypotheses.Thepostulatesandhypothesesremaindisconnectedandrequiredanorganizingprin-cipleforaninternallyconsistentmodel.Lemertapparentlybelievedthen,basedupontheorganizationofthechapters,thatthekeytoatheoryofdeviancewastounderstandtheconceptsofindividualdeviationandsocietalreaction.Withrespecttotheformer,hevieweddeviationinastatisticalsenseandsuggestedthatnorms,inasociologicalsense,neededtobestudiedinspaceandtimeandwithreferencetostatusindicatorssuchasage,sex,andeconomicclass.Theconceptofsocietal

A Quest for Theory and Method ��

reactionwassimilarlytroublesome.Heviewedsocietalreactionasafunctionof“TheToleranceQuotient,”whichvarieddependinguponcommunitycharacteristics.Lemertemployedthetolerancequotientasaschematicdevicetosuggestsocialprocessesthatneededtobeexplored.

The concepts of individual deviation and societal reaction were to remainunsolvable, but meanwhile Becker (1963), Gusfield (1966), and others representingthelabelingperspectiveweretogainconsiderablefame.Lemert,inasharplystatedcriticism,repudiatedtheirworksforhavingvulgarizedtheconceptofsocietalreaction(�974:457–468)anddisassociatedhimselffromthelabelingschool.

InLemert’sownwritings,itwasnotuntilthepublicationof“SocialStructure,SocialControl,andDeviation”in�964,reproducedinhisbook,Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control (�967),thathetookuptheproblemagain.Inthiswork,therationaleappearstobesomeversionofmodernfunctionalismasheattemptstorescueMerton’s“means-ends”schema(�957:5–6).ItresemblesHomans’exchangemodel,withsomeimportantdifferences(�96�:5�–82).Lemertpresents the individualasa rationaleconomicmanwhoweighsvaluesagainstcosts,leadingtoconformityordeviation.Lemertviewstheindividualaspursu-ing a hierarchy of values, sacrificing something of lesser value for something of greatervalue.Thegroupbecomesfortheindividualameanstohisends(Ibid.:6).Deviation,Lemertconcludes,isrisktaking.“Thisconceptofrisktakingreferstosituations in which the persons who are caught in a network of conflicting values choosenotdeviantalternativesbutratherbehavioralsolutionswhichcarryrisksofdeviation”(Ibid.:��).

TheideaofvaluesandcostswastoincreasinglyoccupyLemert’sthoughts.Inhis�974article,heinvokestheschemaasanexplanationofsocietalreaction.He writes: “An important principle is that changes in the definition and control of deviancemaybeduenottoanyalterationinvaluesystemsbuttochangesintheircostsofsatisfaction.Anincreaseincosts...maychangethedispositionofcasesby police or probation officers even though their preferences are to follow an old pattern”(�974:465).

TheformulationbyLemertisnotatheoreticalmodel.Asnotedearlier,hehadborrowedthe“means-ends”schemafromMerton.BothMertonandHomanshadalsoborrowedthemodelfromanotherapplication.ButinMerton’sandHomans’works,themechanismandtherationaleareweddedtotheconceptofequilibrium,thatis,achangeinanypartofthesystemwillresultinatendencytochangeitbacktoitsoriginalform.ThemechanismoftotalbalanceisextinguishedinLemert’sformulation.This,ofcourse,isoneoftheproblemsinanaloguemodeling.Anymodification of the borrowed model will violate the postulates of the model and weakenoreliminatethemechanism(Nagel,�96�;Willer,�967).

According to Galliher (1978), by 1975 the major journals in the field contained virtuallynoarticlesbaseduponalabelingperspective.Itisprobablytruethatthe

�2 tAkAgi

socialandpoliticalcriticismsofthelabelingschool,initiatedbyGouldner(�968),hadcontributedtoitsdemise;butitisalsothecasethattheinabilitytoelevatethedisconnectedhypothesesintoacoherentmodelraisedquestionsthatneededtobeaddressed,oneofwhichiswhethertheoriginalpostulateswereindeedstatementsoffact,asLemertasserted.PerhapsLemertarrivedatthesameconclusion,albeitondifferentgrounds.Hewrites:“Allofthistellsmethatdeviancesociologistscandobetterwithworkingtoolconceptsthanwithambitioustheory”(�974:467).

The Constant Comparative Method

The constantcomparativemethodisanotherstrandoftheChicagoSchoolandisassociatedwithAnselmStrauss,BarneyGlaser,LeonardSchatzman,andsomeothersattheUniversityofCaliforniaMedicalSchoolinSanFrancisco.Similartothemethodofanalyticinduction,thestrategyseekstogeneratewidelyapplicablemodelsbycodingandscanningdatainordertobuildaclusterofpartialmodelsorclustersofhypotheses.Thestrategydiffersfromanalyticinductioninthatthesystematiccomparisonsareintegratedwiththestrategyforcollectingandcodingobservations during the course of the fieldwork. The method, called Grounded Theory,explicitlylinkstheoryandmethod.Thesyllabusdescribesthemethodasfollows:

Thestrategyofconstantcomparisonlookstowardtheestablishmentoflaw-likegeneralizationsaboutthephenomenonwithinnarrowlylimitedsocial and historical locations.These generalizations are not obtainedimmediately,butonlyaftertherevisionandhierarchicalorganizationofaseriesofprovisionalhypotheses,thatis,theanalysisemergesconcur-rently with fieldwork observations (note taking and reflection). There is a spiralprocessof“theoreticalsampling”oflocalesandevents,recordingandcodingobservations,writingtrialhypothesesintoanalyticnotes,andprovidingformoredetailedandfocusedcomparisonsofdatawithdata,datawith hypotheses, and finally, a more sociologically informed sampling.

The constant comparison is similar to the logic in multivariate analysis ofsurveydata,thatis,onefocusesonthedifferencesmadebytheintroductionofanew(athird)variabletotherelationsbetweensubgroupsofincidents,persons,orsocialforms.Themodeofanalyticinferenceistostartwithasurprisingresultorananomalousincident.Theresearchersearchesforarule,ahypothesis,ormodel,whichwillexplainthecase(theincidentplusthealreadyknownorunderstoodcontext)(Butters,�975).

Although there isagrowingbodyof literaturebasedon themethod, Iwasnotabletoidentifyaworkoncriminologyperse.Twobookswereselectedforreadings, since they represent the first statement and a more recent one on the method.

A Quest for Theory and Method �3

BarneyGlaserandAnselmStrauss,The Discovery of Grounded TheoryBarneyGlaser,Theoretical Sensitivity

Asnotedearlier,AnselmStraussadmitted(ina�980guestlecturetotheclass)tosomeoverstatementsintheearlierwritings.Itisthereforeinstructivetocomparethetwoworks.InTheoretical Sensitivity (Glaser,�978),criticalterms,suchasthedefinition of a theory, are more precise. Thus, grounded theory means a substan-tive theory of an empirical area of investigation that fits the real world, works in predictionsandexplanations,isrelevanttothepeopleconcerned,andisreadilymodifiable (Ibid.:�42–�44).Glaser’sclaimofatheoryis:“Countlessstudiesmakeusquitesureofthiseffort”(Ibid.:�42).Iremainunpersuaded,becauseareadingoftheirempiricalstudiessuggeststhesubstantivetheorytobenomorethanempiricalgeneralizations,althoughstatementsof relationsarecouchedconceptually.Butthen survey research findings are also couched in concepts like “political sensitiv-ity,”“interactionpotential,”“racetolerance,”andsoon,andremainatthelevelofempiricalgeneralization.Empiricalgeneralizationsalsopredictand“explain”atone level, but they are not scientific explanations (Nagel, 1961). This is not to say thatsubstantivetheorycannotbeelevatedtoaformaltheory.Glaserrecognizesthe difficulties, since he writes: “We are more humble when it comes to generating formaltheory.Weremainconvincedthatitshouldbegrounded,butarenotsureyet...of the resolutions to many specific problems... (Ibid.:�42).

The Progressive-Regressive Method

The nextsetofreadingscouldbecalledMarxist-informedethnographies,butthatwouldnotbetotallycorrect,asthestudiesemployadditionaldatacollectiontechniques. However, all of the authors have engaged in fieldwork at one time or anothertoproducethewritings,soIwouldnotbetoofarofftocallitthat.

ThediscerningreaderhasperhapspickedupontheMarxisthyphenatedethnog-raphiesandiswonderingwhetherIamreferringtosomestrandofcontemporaryMarxism.Onthecontrary,itisnothingmorethanadevicetointroduceaproblemthat needs to be addressed—the tendency of commentators to find it necessary to categorizearapidlydevelopingMarxistcriminologyintosomekindofMarxismoranother.IhaveinmindStanleyCohen’srecentcriticismoftheBirminghamSchool:“TheconceptualtoolsofMarxism,structuralism,andsemiotics,aLeft-BankpantheonofGenet,Levi-Strauss,Barthes,andAlthusserhaveallbeenwheeledintoaidthishuntforthehiddencode”(�980:ix).AlthoughIbelievethepeopleattheUniversityofBirminghamdonotrequiremyassistanceforaresponse,ifindeedoneisneeded,thiscriticismdoesraiseamoregeneralproblem.Byparadingnamesandschoolsofthought,itproducesfeelingsofuneasinessandperhapsuncertaintyaboutaMarxistcriminology.Topursuethepoint,theProgressive-RegressiveMethodcomesfromthewritingsofJean-PaulSartre(�968)andinformstheworkoftheBirminghamSchool.IsSartreastructuralist?Itisnotclear.Basedonacritique

�4 tAkAgi

byLevi-StraussofoneofSartre’sworks,heisnot;toreadanotheraccount,heis(Dyson-Hudson,�972:237).Butifthematterissimplyacritiqueoftheoriesthatassignaprivilegedstatustohistory(Piaget,�970:�2�;Thompson,�978:�–�20),thentheworksoftheBirminghamSchool,shapedinpartbySartreanideasthatgiveprominencetohistory,cannot,itseemstome,beconstruedasamotleymixtureofMarxism,Structuralism,andExistentialism.

The sciences ultimately turn to philosophy for answers to difficult questions. Butwhichphilosophy?Toanswerthequestion,Ireproducebelowlongpassagesfrom Sartre’s writings that help us to understand the significance and the historical necessityforthedevelopmentofaMarxistcriminology.

Betweentheseventeenthcenturyandthetwentieth,Iseethree...periods,whichIwoulddesignatebythenamesofthemenwhodominatedthem:thereisthe“moment”ofDescartesandLocke,thatofKantandHegel,finally that of Marx. These three philosophies become, each in its turn, the humusofeveryparticularthoughtandthehorizonofallculture;thereisnogoingbeyondthemsolongasmanhasnotgonebeyondthehistoricalmomentwhichtheyexpress....An“anti-Marxist”argumentisonlytheapparentrejuvenationofapre-Marxistidea.Aso-called“goingbeyond”Marxismwillbeatworstonlyareturntopre-Marxism;atbest,onlytherediscoveryofathoughtalreadycontainedinthephilosophywhichonebelieveshehasgonebeyond.Asfor“revisionism,”thisiseitheratruismoranabsurdity.Thereisnoneedtoreadaptalivingphilosophytothecourseofthenewworld;itadaptsitselfbymeansofthousandsofnewefforts,thousandsofparticularpursuits,forthephilosophyisonewiththemovementofsociety....If[a]movementonthepartofphilosophynolongerexists,oneoftwothingsistrue:eitherthephilosophyisdeadoritis going through a “crisis.” In the first case there is no question of revis-ing,butofrazingarottenbuilding;inthesecondcasethe“philosophicalcrisis”istheparticularexpressionofasocialcrisis,anditsimmobilityisconditionedbythecontradictionswhichsplitthesociety.Aso-called“revision,”performedby“experts,”wouldbe,therefore,onlyanidealistmystification without real significance. It is the very movement of His-tory,thestruggleofmenonallplanesandonalllevelsofhumanactivity,whichwillsetfreecaptivethoughtandpermitittoattainitsfulldevelop-ment”(�968:8–9)....Marxismisstillveryyoung,almostinitsinfancy;ithasscarcelybeguntodevelop.Itremains,therefore,thephilosophyofourtime.Wecannotgobeyonditbecausewehavenotgonebeyondthecircumstanceswhichengenderedit.Ourthoughts,whatevertheymaybe,canbeformedonlyuponthishumus;theymustbecontainedwithintheframeworkwhichitfurnishesforthemorbelostinthevoidofretrogress”(Ibid.:30).

A Quest for Theory and Method �5

ThereadingsincludethreeworksfromtheBirminghamSchoolplusanarticlebytheSchwendingers.

Jean-PaulSartre,Search for a Method (85–�66)ChasCritcher,“Structures,CulturesandBiographies”PaulWillis,Learning to Labor (1–116)StuartHalletal.,Policing the Crisis (327–397)HermanandJuliaSchwendinger,“CollectiveVarietiesofYouth”

(Inteachingthecoursetoundergraduatestudents,Ihavelimitedthereadingstothepagesindicated.)

Thereadingmaterialrequiresarevolutioninthinkingtounderstandthatthelanguagesoftheoryandmethodarethesame.Thetheoryandmethodfocusatten-tiononclass,classrelations,history,etc.,andstudentsinitiallyexperiencesomedifficulty in apprehending a unity of theory and method. This is understandable because,contrarytobourgeoissocialscience,thereistypicallynoappendixonthemethod,noristhereastatementofahypothesisortheory,samplingprocedure,techniqueofdatacollection,andproposedanalysis.

I have students focus initially on a few defining characteristics. These are: (1) anindividualisalwaysviewedasamemberofaclass(orraceandclassasintheworkbyStuartHalletal.);(2)attentionisalwaysfocusedontherelationsofthatclasstoanother(asinWillis’study,the“lads”andthe“ear’oles”);and(3)history.History,however,hasaveryspecialmeaninginMarxistanalysis.

Weknowonlyasinglescience,thescienceofhistory.Onecanlookathistoryfromtwosidesanddivide it into thehistoryofnatureand thehistoryofmen.Thetwosidesare,however,inseparable;thehistoryofnatureandthehistoryofmenaredependentoneachothersolongasmenexist...(MarxandEngels,�968:28).

ThereisaprobleminthepassageandIwillcomebacktoitinamoment.Butbyproceeding in this fashion, thestudents learn that theconceptsofclassandclassrelationsrefertotherelationsofproduction.Italsopresentstheopportunitytoteachthemethodofdialectics;thatis,antagonisticclassesboundtogetherincapitalistsocietyorthe“lads”andthe“ear’oles”inastateofguerrillawarfareandyetinseparableunits,andsoon.

Withrespecttohistory,aproblemis:Whatismeantbythehistoryofnature?Severaltreatiseshavebeenwrittenonthetopic,andIhaveadoptedtheinterpre-tation of man transforming nature to satisfy his basic wants and needs—food,shelter,clothing,atthemostbasiclevel—andtheideathatthesatisfactionoftheseneedsleadstootherneeds.Throughtransformingnature,whichinvolveswork,manrealizesself-actualization;butinthelaborprocessundercapitalism,man’slabor becomes alienated. I need to detour at this point to comment briefly on the conceptofalienation,asubjectthathasalsoreceivedagreatdealofattention.It

�6 tAkAgi

has become one of the more difficult ideas in Marxism because, in my judgment, of theseveralinterpretativeworks.Dependingonthewriter,alienationissometimesviewedasatheory(Meszaros,�970;Ollman,�976;MandelandNovack,�970).Alsodependingonthewriter,therearetypesofalienation,forexample,politicalalienation,religiousalienation,economicalienation,andintellectualalienation.Theinterpretativeworksalsospeakoffourbroadrelationsundereconomicalienation,thatis,manbeingseparatedfromhisproductiveactivity,theproductofhislabor,othermen,andspeciesbeing.Insomeworks,alienationconveystheimpressionthatithassomethingtodowithman’ssubjectivestate(Ollman,�976),whilebourgeoissociologyhasvulgarizedtheconcepttomeanapsychologicalcondition.Myintenthereisnottoexplicatetheconceptofalienation,butrathertodescribethecontextinwhichMarxintroducedtheconcept.

MarxinitiatedhiseconomicinvestigationsintheEconomic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. In the first manuscript, which suddenly breaks off, we see the basicoutlineofCapital, as he analyzes the nature of wages, the profit of capital, andthesystemofrent.Itisinthediscussionoftheseeconomicmattersthatheposestheproblemthatneedstobeexplained.Hewrites:

Politicaleconomystartswiththefactofprivateproperty;itdoesnotexplainittous.Itexpressesingeneral,abstractformulasthematerial processthroughwhichprivatepropertyactuallypasses,andtheseformulasitthentakesforlaws. Itdoesnotcomprehend theselaws,i.e.,itdoesnotdem-onstratehowtheyarisefromtheverynatureofprivateproperty.Politicaleconomythrowsnolightonthecauseofthedivisionoflaborandcapital,andcapitalandland....Wehavetograsptheintrinsicconnectionbetweenprivateproperty,greed,theseparationoflabor,capitalandlandedproperty;theconnectionofexchangeandcompetition,ofvalueandthedevaluationofmen,ofmonopolyandcompetition,etc.—theconnectionbetweenthiswholearrangementandthemoney system(Marx,�974:62–63).

Inthemodernlanguageoftheoryconstruction,Marxintroducestheconceptof alienation in the famous and often-cited passage on alienated labor as themechanismthataccountsforthemovementofprivateproperty.AsequilibriumisthemechanisminfunctionalanalysisandlegitimacyisthemechanisminMaxWeber’s typesof authority structure, alienationperforms the analytical taskoflinkingthevariousprocessesincapitalaccumulation.Therefore,justasatheoryofequilibriumoratheoryoflegitimacymakesnosense,atheoryofalienationissimilarlymeaningless.WhileitistruethatMarxspeaksofcausesasinthefollow-ingpassage,itrefersinsteadtothefundamentalpostulatethatwealthstemsfromthelaborpowerofman.

Privatepropertythusresultsbyanalysisfromtheconceptofalienatedlabor,i.e.alienatedman,ofestrangedlabor,ofestrangedlife,ofestranged

A Quest for Theory and Method �7

man.True,itisasaresultofthemovementofprivatepropertythatwehaveobtainedtheconceptofalienatedlabor(ofalienatedlife)inpoliticaleconomy.Butonanalysisofthisconceptitbecomesclearthatthoughprivatepropertyappearstobethereason,thecauseofalienatedlabor,itisrathertheconsequence...(Ibid.:72).

In the remainder of the first manuscript and in the subsequent ones, Marx ana-lyzesingreatdetailthebroadrelationshipsof“economic”alienation,creatingtheimpressionthatheisconstructingatheoryofalienation.Butthatisnotthecaseatall.Rather,heexaminesthenatureofalienation,asortofmentalexperiment,todeveloptheoriesofsociety,i.e.,humannatureunderbourgeoissocietyascomparedtolifeundersocialism.

Though,asMarxwrites,“privatepropertyhasmadeussostupidandone-sidedthatanobjectisonlyourswhenwehaveit—whenitexistsforusascapital,orwhenitisdirectlypossessed,eaten,drunk,worn,inhabited,etc.—inshort,whenitisusedbyus,”herecognizesthesubjectivesensesofmanastranscendingprivatepropertytobecome,subjectivelyandobjectively,human(Ibid.:94).Itisinthissense,despitethealienatedworkwhereby“theworkerlosesrealizationtothepointofstarvingtodeath”(Ibid.:63),thatmanstrugglestobecomehuman.

Ofrelevancetocriminologyisthatwecouldthinkofman’sdesiretorealizehispotentialitiesthatisdialecticallyrelatedtobeingfree,inapoliticalsense,inabourgeois democracy. Since many of the issues in criminology are objectifications ofman’snature,weneedtolookatthetwosidesofhistory.TheMarxisttheoryofhistory,whenstatedsomewhatdifferentlybutconveyingthesameidea,willaidusinthetask.“Menthemselvesmaketheirhistorybutinagivenenvironmentwhichconditionsthem”(citedinSartre,�968:85).Sartreseekstoclarifythethesiswhenappliedtoindividuals.Althoughhegivesseveralillustrations,hisfavoriteexampleisthebiographyofFlaubert,aprojectthatengagedhisinterestformostofhiscareer.TheProgressive-RegressiveMethodisnotatheory,butaheuristicdevice,aguidelineforresearch.

To illustrate,we take thecaseofMrs.EuliaLove,whodied fromgunshotwounds inflicted by two policemen (Los Angeles Board of Police Commission-ers,�980:�–9).Webeginouranalysisoftheprogressivemoment,thesequenceofeventsthatledtoherkilling.Wenoteshehadearlierpreventedtheutilitymanfromturningoffservicesfornonpaymentofbills.Wenotefurtherthatwhenthetwopolicemen arrived, she shoutedobscenities.Moments later, �2 shotsweredischarged by the police officers.

Tounderstandthesebarefacts,weneedtounderstandthelargersocietyinwhichtheeventoccurred.Thisistheregressivemoment.Theanalysisbeginswiththematerialproductionoftheimmediatelifeandendswiththecivilsociety,thestate,andtheideology(thestructures inCritcher’sformulation,�975:�67–�73).Insidethesestructures,byananalysisofclassandclassrelations,webegintoobtaina

�8 tAkAgi

partialacquaintanceofMrs.Loveasablackwoman,themotherofthreechildren,recentlywidowedbythedeathofherhusbandfromsicklecellanemia,thesuddendependencyoccasionedbyhisdeath,thehistoryofherpeople,andespeciallythehistoryofbrutalization.Thisisthebiography inCritcher’sarticle(Ibid.).Atthislevelofanalysis,weareelaboratingandreworkingtheempiricalconnectionsatthelevelsoftheindividualandthestructures.

TheconceptofabiographyissimilartoGoffman’s.ThedifferenceisthatwhileGoffmanisinterestedintheindividual’smanagementofa“tarnished”identity,Sartre(�968:�35)seekstoilluminatethoseprocessesandinstitutions(structures)thatmediatetheemergenceofanindividualwithinthegeneralmatrixofaclasssociety conditioned by the forces and relations of production and class conflict. For any given historical period, there is what Sartre calls a “field of possibles” or “the field of instruments.”

The material conditions of [man’s] existence circumscribe the field of his possibilities. The field of possibles is the goal toward which [man] surpasses his objective situation. And this field in turn depends strictly on the social, historical reality.... [T]he field of possibles, however reduced it may be, alwaysexists,andwemustnotthinkofitasazoneofindetermination,butratherasastronglystructuredregionwhichdependsuponallofHis-toryandwhichincludesitsowncontradictions.Itisbytranscendingthegiven toward the field of possibles and by realizing one’s possibility from among all the others that the individual objectifies himself and contributes tomakingHistory(Ibid.:93).

Critcher (1975) calls the field of possibles “cultural options.” Put differently, theMarxisttheoryofhistoryfocusesonpeople’sproductiveactivitiesandhowtheyarerelatedtothesocialandpoliticalprocessesofproduction.Itrecognizesa wholeness of the process that leads to a specific form of distribution of power and influence on the one hand, and how the specific inequalities affect people’s capacity to define and shape their lives on the other. It is not culture or ideology thatrelatesthewholenessofthesocialprocess,buthegemony.“Whathegemonypointstoishowrelationsofdominationsaturatelifetothepointthatitis‘inthestrongest senseaculture,’but a culturewhichhasalso tobe seenas the liveddominanceandsubordinationofparticularclasses”(Williams,citedinWessman,�98�:70–7�).Hegemonyisaprocessinthatitiscontinuallyrenewed,re-created,defended, and modified and it is continually challenged, resisted, limited, or altered (Ibid.: 72). The field of possibles, then, is the “forms and kinds” of resistance to hegemonicdomination,butcircumscribedbyhistory.Thusconceived,theCivilRightsMovementasoneofthepossibles,ratherthancrime(Solomonetal.,�980),and the alteration of hegemonic domination that lead to specific styles of youth (Hebdige,�980;Brake,�980)areillustrative.

Man’spraxis,thestruggletoattainhishumanity,turnsourattentionbacktothe

A Quest for Theory and Method �9

progressivemoment.Ofthehundredsofwaysinwhichanindividualhasresisteddominanceand subordination,hebecomesawareofhis classbymeansof thefuture that is possible for him. This is not a simple matter. The findings reported bySolomonetal.(�980)suggestthatman’spraxisispartandparcelofcollectivestruggles, and the stage of the collective struggle may demand individual actsof revolt. In thestudybyStuartHalletal. (�978,Ch.�0), the interviewswithblackyoungstersrevealtheirsubjectiveimpoverishmentand“nonhumanity”asaresultoftheracisminBritishsociety.Theyoungstersrepudiatetheirpoliticalstatus in England and speak of an uncertain future withAfrica.The praxis oftheyoungsterscontainswithinitthefateoftheirraceandtheracism,andtheirrefusal to accept thepresent, anegationof the refused reality; their individualactsneedtobeunderstoodwithinthecontextoftheirrejectionaswelloftheirimmigrant parents’ accommodation to the racism, in a period when strugglesofblackpeoplearetakingplaceallovertheworld.Theanalysisbytheauthorsfocusesontheyoungsters’hostilitytowardwhites,theirresistancetoauthority,andtheirrejectionoftheworkethic,whichbecometheveryelementsforfurthersocial control. These individual acts reflect a profound contradiction—the cultural optionsavailabletowhitesascontrastedtothoseavailabletoblacks.

Culture,therefore,isnotsimplyaninertworking-classcultureoradelinquentsubcultureasafunctionalequivalent(Cohen,�958;Miller,�958).Willis’ethnog-raphyillustrateshowthesubversionoftheeducationalprocessbythe“lads”isworkedoutanewbyeachgenerationofyouth.Thisisincontrasttotheviewthatthereisadelinquenttradition,ortheviewthatonejoinsanexistingdelinquentgroup.Cultureisviewedasawhole thatrequiresananalysisofthecrucialinter-relationsofhegemonicelements,includingtradition,transmittedbytheschoolsandotherinstitutions,andanemergentculturethatisoppositionaltothedominantelements.

Theracism,forexample,amongtheworking-classyouthdescribedbyWilliscannotbeattributedtothelow-gradebehavioroftheworkingclass.Theschoolsinvariouswayspromotetheracismbyemphasizingafuturepossiblethatisgoodanddesirable,andbyrewardingcompliantbehavior,thesymbolofafuturepos-siblemeanssomethingotherthanthesocialrealityoftheworkandactivitiesofthe“Pakis”andblacksstructuredinBritishsociety.Forthe“ear’oles,”itmeansahoped-formobility;forthe“lads,”anacceptanceofaproletarianfuture,ratio-nalizedindifferentways,andatthesametime,beatinguponPakisandblacks,unwittinglypromotedbyschooling.

Some Concluding Notes

IhavenotreturnedtoadiscussionofMrs.LovesinceIdonothavedatatoexaminetheprogressivemoment.Buttheworksreviewedhereindicatewherewearetoday.TheBirminghamSchoolhasnotproducedatheoryofdelinquency,anditremainstobeseenwhethertheProgressive-RegressiveMethodcanbeauseful

20 tAkAgi

strategytowardthatend.IhavealsonotmadereferencetotheSchwendingers’articleincludedinthereadings.Thereasonisthattheirworkhasproceededonquitedifferentgrounds.Althoughwemustawaitthepublicationoftheirbook,thepublishedchaptersprovidecluesonhowtheyhaveproceeded.

Intheintroductiontotheirarticle,theydescribethedatacollectiononyouthformationsthroughparticipantobservation.Theywritethattheseyouthformationsare “relatively autonomous, highly variable, stratified formations....” Their initial analysis(frompersonalcommunication)wastoconstructanabstractmodel(amodelthatresemblesapropertyorsetofpropertiesoftheempiricalphenomena),intheircase,asociogram,toapprehendfromamongtheinterrelationsoftheyouthforma-tionsabasicstructure.Welearnfromthearticlethatthreetypesofadolescents—theSocialite,Vato,andIntellectual—anchorthebasicstructuralrelations.FromheretheanalysesbecomeexceedinglycomplexastheSchwendingerswritebothhori-zontallyandverticallyatdifferentlevelsofanalyses.Forexample,thewildroguesaresimilarto,andyetprofoundlydifferentfrom,thegreasersdiscussedinalaterchapter. They are similar at the most superficial level in that they are both “lower class” youthful lawbreakers; they are different in that the causes and definitions of youthfulbehaviordiffer.Thewildroguesaretheproductsofthemajorchangesthatweretakingplacefromfeudalismtocapitalism,andrepresenttheconsequencesnotonlyofthenewmeansofproduction,butalsoofthenewbourgeoisstateandlawsto harness labor for profit and to protect and justify the new mode of production. Toward the end of the first chapter, the Schwendingers introduce the concept of marginalization.Theconceptappearstohavedifferentmeanings,butitreferstoafundamentalprocessinherentintheforcesandrelationsofproductionthatentaildifferentprocessesatdifferentstagesinthedevelopmentofcapitalism.

Thecausalconditionsthatproducedthewildroguesfocusonthedissolutionof petty property relations and the remnants of the precapitalist relations.Theproductionofredundantyouth,inthesecondchapter,focusesontheproductionandoverproductionofthemeansofproductioninthe�9thcentury,marginalizingindustrial proletarians, through the use of machines and the long-term declinein therateofaccumulation.TheSchwendingers thendescribe theprocessesofmarginalizationinthisperiod—theexclusionofyouthfromthelabormarket,theprolongationofyouth,laborsegmentation,andsoon,andsetthestageforhowthecausalconditionsofmarginalizationinthe20thcenturyarelocatedinthefamilyandschool.

Intheiranalysisofthefamilyandschool,theSchwendingersillustratehowthelong-termunevendevelopmentoflaborpowerthatcorrespondstotherelationsofproductionreproduceswhattheycalltheprototypicmarginals,thegreasersandintellectuals.Theseareproductsofadvancedcapitalism.TheSchwendingersindicatethattheintellectualsaretheleastdelinquentinasocietyofyouth,andthegreasersthemostdelinquent.Butyouthfullawbreakingbehaviorcutsacrosssocialclass,andinthelastchapter,theSchwendingersdiscusstheprototypicbourgeoisie,or

A Quest for Theory and Method 2�

socialite,who,althoughlesslikelytobeinvolvedinseriousviolentandeconomicformsofdelinquency,neverthelessengagesinotherformsofdelinquency.

The mechanism in the Birmingham School model is resistance, and in theSchwendingers’work,marginalization. Theprocessesofmarginalization,aswehaveseen,arelocatedintherelationsofproduction,whileresistanceislocatedintheliveddominanceandsubordinationofaclass,oritsculture.Thus,theBirming-hamSchoolfocusesattentionontheactivitiesandstruggleswithintheconstraintsofavailableforms.

TheBirminghamSchoolhasessentiallyconstructedasingle“idealtype”thatdistortsreality,butthepurposewasnottoconstructatheoryofdelinquency.InWillis’work, themodelwasconstructedtounderstandwhyworking-classkidsendedupinworking-classjobs;inStuartHalletal.,itwasanefforttorelatethesuddenharshnessinpenalsentencingofWestIndianyouthtopolicingthecrisisinthepoliticaleconomy.

One final note. The Schwendingers make references to the state andinonepassage,toaworldwide“unevendevelopment.”Inpersonalcommunications,theyhaveadvisedthatthesetopicsaredevelopedintheunpublishedchapters.

REFERENCES

Anderson,Nels�923 The Hobo: The Sociology of the Homeless Man.Chicago:UniversityofChicago

Press.Angell,RobertC.

�936 The Family Encounters the Depression.NewYork:Scribner’sSons.Barnes,HarryElmer(ed.)

�948 An Introduction to the History of Sociology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Becker,HowardS.�963 The Outsiders.NewYork:TheFreePressofGlencoe.

Bennett,James�98� Oral History and Delinquency.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Blalock,Hubert,Jr.�96� Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research.ChapelHill:Universityof

NorthCarolinaPress.Brake,Mike

�980 The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.

Bruyn,Severyn�966 The Human Perspective in Sociology.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.

Butters,Steve�975 “TheLogicofEnquiryofParticipantObservation.”Cultural Studies(Summer).

Cicourel,AaronV.�968 The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.

Cohen,AlbertK.�958 Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang.NewYork:TheFreePressofGlen-

coe.Cohen,AlbertK.,AlfredLindesmith,andKarlSchuessler

�956 The Sutherland Papers.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

22 tAkAgi

Cohen,Stanley�980 Folk Devils and Moral Panics.NewYork:St.Martin’sPress.

Cressey,DonaldR.�950 Other People’s Money.NewYork:TheFreePressofGlencoe.

Cressey,PaulC.�969 The Taxi-Dance Hall.Montclair,N.J.:PattersonSmith.

Critcher,Chas�975 “Structures,CulturesandBiographies.”Cultural Studies(Summer).

Douglas,JackD.�980 Introduction to the Sociologies of Everyday Life.Boston:AllynandBacon.

Dyson-Hudson,Neville�972 “StructureandInfrastructureinPrimitiveSociety:Levi-StraussandRadcliffe-

Brown.”RichardMackseyandEugenioDonato(eds.),The Structuralist Contro-versy.Baltimore:JohnHopkinsUniversityPress.

Galliher,JohnF.�978 “TheLifeandDeathofLiberalCriminology.”Contemporary Crises(July).

Glaser,Barney�978 Theoretical Sensitivity.MillValley,Ca.:TheSociologyPress.

Glaser,BarneyandAnselmStrauss�967 The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.Chi-

cago:Aldine.Goffman,Erving

�963 Stigma.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.Gouldner,Alvin

�968 “TheSociologistasPartisan:SociologyandtheWelfareState.”American Soci-ologist(May).

Gove,WalterR.�980 The Labeling of Deviance(2nded.).BeverlyHills:SagePublications.

Gusfield, Joseph�966 Symbolic Crusade.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

Habermas,Jürgen�97� Knowledge and Human Interest.Boston:BeaconPress.

Hall,Stuart,ChasCritcher,TonyJefferson,JohnClarke,andBrianRoberts�978 Policing the Crisis.London:Macmillan.

Hayner,NormanS.�938 “SocialFactorsinOrientalCrime.”American Journal of Sociology43.�933 “DelinquencyAreasinthePugetSoundRegion.”American Journal of Sociol-

ogy(November).Hebdige,Dick

�980 Subculture: The Meaning of Style.NewYork:Methuen.Homans,GeorgeCaspar

�96� Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace&World.Krisberg,Barry

�972 “Humphrey’sTearoomTrade.”Issues in Criminology(Winter).Kuhn,Thomas

�975 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Lemert,EdwinM.

�974 “BeyondMead:TheSocietalReactiontoDeviance.”Social Problems(April).�967 Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.�95� Social Pathology.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Levine,MurrayandAdelineLevine�970 A Social History of Helping Services.NewYork:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Lind,AndrewW.�930a “SomeEcologicalPatternsofCommunityDisorganizationinHonolulu.”Ameri-

can Journal of Sociology(September).

A Quest for Theory and Method 23

�930b “TheGhettoandtheSlum.”Social Forces8.Lindesmith,AlfredR.

n.d. Opiate Addiction.Evanston:PrincipiaPress.LosAngelesBoardofPoliceCommissioners

�980 “ConcerningtheShootingofEuliaLove.”Crime and Social Justice�4(Fall-Winter).

Macksey,RichardandEugenioDonato(eds.)�972 The Structuralist Controversy.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Mandel,ErnestandG.Novack�970 The Marxist Theory of Alienation.NewYork:PathFinderPress.

Marx,Karl�974 Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844.Moscow:ProgressivePub-

lishers.Marx,KarlandFrederickEngels

�968 The German Ideology.Moscow:ProgressivePublishers.Meltzer,BernardN.,JohnW.Petras,andLarryT.Reynolds

�975 Symbolic Interactionism: Genesis, Varieties and Criticisms.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.

Merton,RobertK.�957 Social Theory and Social Structure.NewYork:TheFreePressofGlencoe.

Meszaros,Istvan�970 Marx’s Theory of Alienation.London:MerlinPress.

Miller,WalterB.�958 “LowerClassCultureasaGeneratingMilieuofGangDelinquency.”Journal of

Social Issues�4,3.Miyamoto,S.Frank

�939 Social Solidarity Among the Japanese in Seattle.Seattle:UniversityofWashing-tonPress.

Nagel,Ernest�96� The Structure of Science.NewYork:Harcourt,Brace&World.

Ollman,Bertell�976 Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in Capitalist Society.London:Cambridge

UniversityPress.Park,RobertE.

�950 Race and Culture.NewYork:TheFreePressofGlencoe.Piaget,Jean

�970 Structuralism.NewYork:HarperandRow.Platt,TonyandPaulTakagi

�977 “IntellectualsforLawandOrder:ACritiqueoftheNew‘Realists’.”Crime and Social Justice8(Fall-Winter).

Robinson,W.S.�95� “TheLogicalStructureofAnalyticInduction.”American Sociological Review

(December).Rock,Paul

�979 The Making of Symbolic Interactionism. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield.Sartre,Jean-Paul

�968 Search for a Method.NewYork:VintageBooks.Schwendinger,HermanandJuliaSchwendinger

�976 “DelinquencyandtheCollectiveVarietiesofYouth.”Crime and Social Justice5(Spring-Summer).

Shaw,CliffordR.�93� The Natural History of a Delinquent Career.Chicago:UniversityofChicago

Press.�930 The Jack-Roller.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

24 tAkAgi

Solomon,Frederic,WalterL.Walker,GarrettJ.O’Connor,andJacobR.Fishman�980 “CivilRightsActivityandReductioninCrimeAmongNegroes.”Crime and

Social Justice�4(Fall-Winter).Sutherland,EdwinH.

�939 Principles of Criminology.NewYork:J.B.Lippincott.�937 The Professional Thief.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Thomas,W.I.�967 The Unadjusted Girl.NewYork:HarperandRow.Original�923.

Thompson,E.P.�978 The Poverty of Theory and Essays.NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress.

Thrasher,Fredric�963 The Gang.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Turner,R.�953 “TheQuestforUniversalsinSociologicalResearch.”American Sociological

Review�8:604-6��.Wessman,JamesW.

�98� Anthropology and Marxism.Cambridge,MA:Schenkman.Willer,David

�967 Scientific Sociology: Theory and Method.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.Willer,DavidandJudithWiller

�973 Systematic Empiricism: Critique of a Pseudoscience.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall.

Willis,Paul�977 Learning to Labor.Westmead,Farnborough,Hampshire,England:Gower.

Wirth,Louis1964 “Culture Conflict and Misconduct.” L. Wirth (ed.), On Cities and Social Life.

Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Znaniecki,Florian

�934 The Method of Sociology.NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston.Zorbaugh,HarveyWarren

�929 The Gold Coast and the Slum.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.