« Ferguson consent decree | Main | Thursday Podcast Blog »

Thursday, January 28, 2016

Takedowns: The Alice Goffman Edition

For months now, I've been fixated on the hubub surrounding Alice Goffman's book, On the Run. Perhaps fixated isn't the right word. It seems safe to say that many others, inside and outside the academy, have spent a lot more time thinking and writing about her and her work. But I've been lurking pretty hard. You know you've got a problem when you stay up late at night reading deep on sociology listservs.

I have a hard time getting worked up about the book (which I read and enjoyed). I guess I just can't get excited about a scholarly takedown. Maybe I'm soft. Maybe I don't have the stomach for the rigors of academic life. And, frankly, I'm fine with that. I feel the same way when faculty audiences team up against a weak colloquium presentation. There's a bit of the bully in academic culture. Why do we relish scholarly takedowns so much?

I got sued for defamation because of an article I wrote. The case lasted for about a year and a half, and I had a queasy feeling in my stomach the entire time. The very, very limited attention I received in that case pales in comparison to what's going on in Alice Goffman's situation. I don't know Alice Goffman, but I hope she has thicker skin than me.

Whenever I read about One the Run, be it favorable or unfavorable, I can't help but feeling crappy about it. I feel crappy about the negative stuff because much of it feels like an attack on Goffman the person rather than the work itself. And I feel crappy when I read the more positive pieces because I know that lots of people are sharpening their teeth, preparing to pounce.

Is Goffman's book really this bad, or is there something else at work here? I fear it's the latter. Perhaps it's her last name, or her first. Perhaps it's because the book was a hit. Whatever it is, there's a lot of ugly on the internet about Alice Goffman.

Posted by Zachary Kramer on January 28, 2016 at 08:15 AM | Permalink

Comments

Hey, Kramer

If you feel crappy when you read negative pieces about Goffman, and you also feel crappy when you read positive pieces about Goffman...um...and this is just off the top of my head...stop reading about Goffman.

Problem solved. Problem staying solved.

Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Jan 31, 2016 3:30:50 AM

I disagree with the claim that public criticism is bullying. Professors presenting papers at workshops should not expect but are entitled to vigorous criticism. What's the point of presenting if not to find the weak points that need further work?

Posted by: Douglas Levene | Jan 30, 2016 7:41:41 PM

In fairness to Prof. Lubet: 1) Anon may have heard him the first time, many others (The New York Times, the University of Wisconsin) have not, or at least they have not listened; 2) No one has ever rebutted the substance of his critiques, coming back mostly with non-sequiturs or non-responses. Given both of these, I'm not sure it's unreasonable or excessive to keep pointing that out, especially when something new (such as the absurd NYT piece) continues to miss the point.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jan 30, 2016 10:26:14 AM

In fairness to Prof. Lubet: 1) Anon may have heard him the first time, many others (The New York Times, the University of Wisconsin) have not, or at least they have not listened; 2) No one has ever rebutted the substance of his critiques, coming back mostly with non-sequiturs or non-responses. Given both of these, I'm not sure it's unreasonable or excessive to keep pointing that out, especially when something new (such as the absurd NYT piece) continues to miss the point.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Jan 30, 2016 10:26:13 AM

I agree that the overall content of Lubet's takedown of Goffman is appropriate for blogs, newspapers, and anywhere else. But I also share the general feeling that the takedown has been excessive -- in length, in tone, in repetition. I heard Lubet the first time, I didn't need the next six installments and new publications. My esteem for him has fallen. So that I have also left with a feeling that Goffman is being picked on for reasons that aren't simply about her work, but also about some kind of personal stake from the critics. I have stopped reading them, even though, as I said, I am interested and believe they're important. I may be wrong about motivations. But I took the point of the original post to be about whether the critics make readers feel "crappy" -- and they certainly do for me.

Posted by: anon | Jan 29, 2016 1:51:09 PM

IMO Lubet's critique of Goffman is pretty devastating. In addition he's a former defense attorney, so he certainly seems to have the right credentials for critiquing Goffman's work --certainly in comparison to the journalists who have defended her.

There's no reference to law schools in this thread, so MLS's anxieties about scambloggers around every corner seem as weird as his/her content-free attaboy for Kramer's innuendos.

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | Jan 29, 2016 12:42:34 PM

Thought I would just add that I agree with much of the post. There is something disturbing about the nature of the "takedown" especially that by Professor Lubet, who now seems like an expert on just about everything and has even attempted to extend his takedown efforts to the NYT. I also wanted to add that the proliferation of the scambloggers to every thread is equally disspiriting, as is the fact that they don't know who Erving Goffman is.

Posted by: MLS | Jan 29, 2016 10:59:38 AM

Zachary Kramer suggests that criticisms of Alice Goffman are motivated by sexism, professional jealousy, and anti-Semitism, without bothering to produce any evidence whatsoever for that claim, or engaging with any of those criticisms in any way.

No wonder he likes Goffman's work.

Posted by: Yet Another Anon | Jan 29, 2016 10:36:25 AM

A lot of professors are committed to the enlightenment ideal of academia as a search for truth. As a result, professor suspected of outright fraud -- that is, one who may have simply fabricated his work -- is always going to be a big target. It's the same reason why some relish the "takedown," I think. If someone brings forward a weak idea, some would say, it is considered a service to the truth to point out the weakness of the idea. The more definitive is the pointing out, the greater the service. But only some share that view. Many others, at least in legal academia, think that it's more important to be nice to the person.

Posted by: Another Anon | Jan 28, 2016 9:59:40 PM

I can't speak to the first name comment, but (and apologies if I'm just failing to recognize sarcasm or trolling) as for the surname: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erving_Goffman

Posted by: So&So | Jan 28, 2016 5:43:07 PM

It's a Jewish last name, so I assume he's suggesting antisemitic bias. The first name comment I take as a suggestion of sexism. I can't say I got either vibe from Steven Lubet's review.

Posted by: Anon | Jan 28, 2016 5:30:15 PM

I'm not sure I get the reference to "perhaps it's her last name."

Posted by: gdanning | Jan 28, 2016 4:13:40 PM

And even assuming her work is completely 100% true (which all indications are that it includes significant fabrications and embellishments) you can still decry her for participating in deplorable, illegal behavior, such as helping hunt down another individual in the hopes of murdering him. That can't merely be excused as an academic endeavor; you don't get a free pass for amoral behavior simply as because you were trying to understand a culture.

Posted by: A Non-E Mous | Jan 28, 2016 2:52:10 PM

I'm sorry, it's all very well to decry people for bullying Alice Goffman (for whatever reason) *if her work is generally accurate*. But, if it's not--if it's embellished, massaged to fit ideological goals, or made up out of whole cloth--then she most assuredly *should* be called to account. Unless and until we know which of those premises is correct, the suggestion that Goffman's critics should stop "bullying" her is premature and presumptuous.

She produced an ostensible work of *scholarship*, not fiction, not even popular reporting. If the scholarly endeavor has any value, it lies in the collective search for truth. To ignore factual errors--let alone potential fabrications--out of concern for an author's feelings is an affront to scholarship.

Posted by: Also Anon | Jan 28, 2016 11:34:44 AM

No defense? Play offense! Works every time

Posted by: Anon | Jan 28, 2016 11:09:48 AM

It turns out that when literally nobody can corroborate any of your key stories (and, more pointedly, everyone in the know actively denies your unsubstantiated claims), you conveniently "destroyed" your own notes and staunchly refuse to provide any evidence in support of your claims, and you respond to every probe for truth by saying things like "Well you're just, like, part of the system, man" and deriding your critics as sexists/racists/jealous Judies, people tend to think you're full of crap.

But I'm sure you're right, academics are just upset that a female wrote a successful ethnography.

Posted by: anon2 | Jan 28, 2016 11:06:30 AM

Following the commentary over at Faculty Lounge makes it seem like she may have also fabricated large pieces of her book. If true, that seems like a third mistake...

Posted by: anon | Jan 28, 2016 10:39:03 AM

She made 2 big mistakes. She won acclaim within academia while being female. And she critiqued the police.

Posted by: 2bigmistakes | Jan 28, 2016 10:15:39 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.