According to Max Webber, a key to sociology is verstehen, “researchers imagining themselves in the place of their subject” (46). Basically, sociologists need to put themselves in the subject’s shoes. They need empathy. This idea is closely related to the insider v. outsider debate – can a sociologist really understand a certain culture if they are not a part of it? I think not.
A common example used when debating whether sociologists can better study a culture if they are included in said culture versus observing as an outsider is race. Can a white person ever truly know what it’s like to be African American? Or Asian? Or Latino? No. The observer must rely solely on their observations and the accounts of others. As much as one may try to put him or her self in the shoes of another, a lifetime of experience as an African American person cannot completely be summed up by an interview or a survey. The feelings associated with each small differentiation based on race can’t always be put into words.
But if the sociologists can’t get 100% immersed in whatever culture they are studying, they do have one advantage: immersion in the culture won’t sway their views. As an insider one could end up with much more biased results. Although bias is an issue, I believe that it is much more beneficial to be fully immersed and a part of the culture being studied.
1 comment:
Your post raises an enduring question for anthropologists and sociologists. An anthropologist, Horace Miner, wrote a classic satire about the problems with the "outsider" view of a culture. The essay is called "Body Ritual among the Nacirema." Turn the word Nacirema around and you'll see who he is really talking about. It's a great satire on anthropologists. If your professor hasn't shared it with you, here is a website where you can read it:
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~thompsoc/Body.html
Post a Comment