Download IDH 2004 Inhabiting Other Lives - Florida International University

1
IDH 2004 Inhabiting Other Lives
Spring Semester 2006
Placide Lecture January 18
“Who has the vantage point: actor or observer? insider or outsider?”
Assigned Reading: Selections from Persian Letters, Montesquieu
Introduction:
Let’s begin by looking at the title of today’s lecture: “Who has the vantage
point: actor or observer? Insider or outsider?” What does the question
mean? What do you think?
I asked my husband the question and he responded: “Who has the better
position to observe…?” Whose position of observation has the advantage?
Who is in a better position to observe and therefore solve a problem?”
Hmmm…interesting answer…not too far from what I think might be the
truth. Of course, Seymour (my husband) did not have a context for the
question. That is, he was not thinking as I was, about approaching the study
of social action or culture.
Because we are talking about the study of social action let’s also make sure
that we all understand what we mean by “actor” and “observer”. The actor
is, of course, a member of the society/culture that is being studied. The
observer is the individual conducting the study or attempting to learn about
said culture. He may be a lay observer (ie one who is not a trained scientist;)
or he may be a trained social scientist who employs a specific method based
on his training.
You were asked to read selections from Persian Letters. Who wrote the
book?
What do you know about the author?
He was widely known as a political theorist of the Enlightenment period. His
name was originally Charles-Louis de Secondat and he was born to a noble
family near Bordeaux, France in 1689. He received a law degree in 1708 and
upon the death of his uncle in 1716 he inherited the title “Baron de La Brede
et de Montesquieu” and the office of President a Mortier in the Parliament of
Bordeaux (a chiefly judicial and administrative body.) Persian Letters was
2
published anonymously in 1721 –just under 70 years before the French
Revolution in 1789. Montesquieu strongly opposed all forms of despotism
and favored democratic forms of government. For Montesquieu, the ideal
was a form of government in which the legislative, judicial and executive
powers are separate (checks and balances.)
What is the book Persian Letters about? Who was writing the letters? To
whom were they written and what were they about?
In his preface, Montesquieu claims that the letters were written by Persian
travelers who lived with him for some time in Paris and who shared the
letters with him. In the letters a Persian – (Usbek) accompanied by a friend
(Rica) leaves Persia travels throughout Europe for 9 years. During that time
both write letters to wives and their Eunuchs and friends reporting their
experiences and what they are observing about European (in particular,
Parisian) life and culture.
Interspersed throughout the letters, are comments comparing life in the
seraglio with that observed in France. These comparisons range from gender
relationships and sexual freedom to religion. In Letter 26 for example,
Usbek writes to Roxanna ( the wife whom he most trusted and who we later
discover betrayed that trust) criticizing the relative freedom experienced by
women in Paris who are allowed to wear cosmetics and jewels and whose
faces may be uncovered in the presence of men. Usbek tells Roxanna how
lucky she is to be able instead to enjoy the “protection” in the seraglio the
“care” of eunuchs there. Letter 75 comments on the apparent “ebb and flow
of belief” observed in Christians who seem to Usbek to lack the zeal and
commitment exhibited by Muslims. He thanks Almighty God at the end of
the letter that he belongs to a religion that has priority over all human
interests – implying that the same does not exist in Christianity.
In Letter 24 Usbek arrives in Paris and notes a number of differences:
1) the way people seem to always be moving at a rapid pace.[He writes: “No
people in the world make their bodies work harder for them than
Frenchmen: they run; they fly.”(72)] The tendency to move at a rapid pace is
in sharp contrast the much slower pace of travel in Persia.
2) the way people seem to ‘bump’ into each other unapologetically
3
But is the observer in Persian Letters really Usbek – the Persian? From
whose vantage point is the ‘story’ being told? Who is the actor? Who is the
observer?
I am going to give you 4 options. In Persian Letters what do we have?:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Persians writing about Parisians?
Persians writing about Persians?
Parisians writing about Persians?
Parisians writing about Parisians?
We will return to Persian Letters later and we will answer the question as
well. Before we do I want us to think about the question posed by the title
and to talk about the vantage point held by the actor versus that held by the
observer. I think that in the title of this lecture we are really asking the
following question:
If you were going to study a particular culture, whose perspective would be
more useful? That of the actor or that of the observer?
I am going to approach the question taking from the social sciences that
study human social behavior and culture (sociology and anthropology)
different ideas held by practitioners about how such study ought to be
approached. In both sociology and anthropology there has long existed a
debate regarding this issue. On one side of the debate are the social scientists
who favor the observer. For these individuals the only valid method of study
is that which is done by the (objective) outsider. They therefore advocate
complete objectivity in the study of social phenomena. On the other side are
those who favor the actor. For these individuals a methodology that relies on
accounts and explanations provided by the (subjective) insider is more
useful. They therefore advocate subjectivity in the study of social
phenomena.
Those who advocate objectivity:
1.
believe that social laws exist and that these laws must be
discovered by observation, experimentation and comparison
Those who advocate subjectivity:
4
2.
focus on understanding. They believe we can understand social
facts because we are subjects of society and as such we constitute
society.
A. Observer/Outsider (Objectivity)
Let’s begin with the ideas of those who favor the observer in the study of
social phenomena.
Arguments in favor of the observer are largely based on the belief that for
sociology to be a discipline of any true value, its methodology must bear
characteristics that resemble those of natural science research and deal with
observable, empirical facts. Now why might that be important? Is it that
sociologists/anthropologists were merely suffering from an inferior
complex? What is it that sociologists want to do? [Answer: study human
society/culture to learn, understand and predict social action.] So they need
to be able to trust their results.
One important individual in the history of sociology is French sociologist,
Emile Durkheim. Durkheim was interested in establishing sociology as a
discipline that was separate from philosophy and psychology. He argued that
society existed, that there were such things as “social facts” and that these
social facts were to be seen as “things”. In so doing Durkheim was laying
the foundation for a sociological method ( ie a method of studying social
phenomena) that is entirely “scientific”.
In his discussion on this proposed method, Durkheim insisted that one of the
main features had to be ‘objectivity’. For Durkheim there was such a thing
as ‘the absolute conception of knowledge’ or ‘the conception of reality as it
is independently of our thought”. His focus was therefore on the “observable
and the measurable.” (Smelser: 1976)
Empiricism was therefore of paramount importance in the sociological
method.
Definition of empiricism: Empiricism is generally understood in
sociological research to “emphasize the collection of facts and observations,
5
at the expense of conceptual reflection and theoretical inquiry.” (Oxford
Dictionary of Sociology)
For Durkheim it was also important to avoid, as far as possible, any hint of
human subjectivity.
To do that, said Durkheim, the researcher had to abandon all “prenotions” or
pre-conceived ideas, and engage in “the rigorous pursuit of a sociological
method” that aims to attain “an absolute explanation of a determinate and
realistically conceived world of ‘social facts’.” (1982: 11-12)
So the social scientist must:
1. Must remain detached from the object of study
2. Abandon all preconceived notions (no bias allowed)
3. Observe the object of study (society/culture)
4. Collect facts (ie information about what he is observing)
5. Compare and analyze
6. Make conclusions about what he has seen (without necessarily
including the insider’s explanation/interpretation)
How does that sound? Is it reasonable?
For Durkheim and others who deny that it is necessary to consider human
subjectivity in sociological research, who has the vantage point? The
obvious answer is: the observer.
The observer is believed to have the vantage point because:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As outsider she/he is more likely to be objective
She/he may notice ‘facts’ about which the insider may not be
aware
She/he relies entirely on “the observation of facts”, not
interpretation provided by insiders
The trained observer will employ a method of study that is
“scientific” – ie that emphasizes empiricism
Even lay individuals tend to assume that the vantage point of the
observer is more trustworthy.
Actor/Insider (Subjectivity)
6
Let’s turn now to the other side: those who favor the vantage point of the
actor and subjectivity.
I will use as an example German sociologist Max Weber. Weber is a strong
advocate of the vantage point of the actor. His reliance on the account
provided by the actor is evident in his very definition of sociology which
reads thus: “. . . a science concerning itself with the interpretive
understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its
course and consequences.”
Because Weber’s ultimate goal is to attempt the “interpretive understanding
of social action,” he relies heavily on the subjective interpretation of
actor/insider. Weber believes that “objectively valid meanings” are a matter
of faith alone [in other words, we can only hope to find these but our hopes
are not likely to be realized] (Bendix 1984). He believes that scholars deal
instead with “subjectively experienced meanings.”
So Weber is preoccupied with subjective meaning and causal relations. He
wants to know not just what people do by why they do what they do. And
for Weber the only way to find that meaning is to take into account the
interpretive understanding that is provided by the actor.
Let’s take your Honors education as an example. An observer who is
curious about the reason why bright students choose to become members of
an Honors College might assume that everyone of you in this room is here,
because you are interested in receiving a broader education. Since Honors is
not required for any major in the university, and since you come here every
Wednesday and go to your small group room every Monday the observer
might assume that you are all here because you possess a passion for
learning –for the sake of learning. But it may really be the case that some of
you are here because of your parents. Some, because of the doors you
anticipate your Honors education may open for you later. Some to have the
courses on your transcript and perhaps enhance your chances for graduate
school…. And some, because of priority registration!
For Weber, the individual plays a big role in the interpretation of his own
behavior. Since man contributes to the making of his world, it is imperative
that his (man’s) interpretation is sought in the study of social action. Since
you are the Honors student, you are the only one who is likely to be able to
lead the researcher to the real reason why you are in the College.
7
A similar perspective by modern sociologists. Here are a couple of
examples:
 Reinhard Bendix(1984) writes that when scholars study men in
society, they are interpreting people who are themselves able to
interpret what they are doing.
 Anthony Giddens – “Social life. . .is produced by its component
actors …” (1993: 85-86) Giddens believes that social theory has
treated agents (actors) as much less knowledgeable than they really
are. He asserts that “lay actors are social theorists, whose theories
help to constitute the activities and institutions that are the object of
study of specialized social observers or social scientists. 1984: 32-33)
For the above individuals, the role of the actor is of paramount importance
because the object of our study is also a subject who is able to fully
participate in our research.
So now how does this sound? Is this position not also reasonable?
Weaknesses/Problems in both approaches:
Observer (Objectivity)
1. In sociology what is the object of study? Who conducts the research?
Unlike natural phenomena, social science research is complicated by the fact
that the object of study is a participant in the creation of his reality.
Sociologist, Stephen Lukes writes that Durkheim’s goal to achieve complete
objectivity is unrealistic. (Some might say: IMPOSSIBLE.) Lukes’s
objections are based primarily on his view that the social scientist’s data are
not the “hard data” or “brute facts” that would be required for “the absolute
conception of knowledge”.
2. Complete objectivity is unlikely. Anthropologist Clifford Geertz agrees.
He strongly advocates reliance of the actor’s account. Additionally, he
rejects the idea that the scientific observer can be completely objective and
that he must remain detached from the object of study. He maintains that in
8
his interaction with the object of study, the researcher becomes part of the
picture.
What do you think? Do you think it is possible to achieve complete
objectivity in the study of social phenomena? Why?
3. It is difficult for the observer to get to true meaning. Do you believe that
one might study another culture without considering the actors and their
understanding of their own culture, and arrive at any real understanding of
the object of study?
Usbek experiences this problem and describes this in Letter 48.
(Use the ‘wink’ as in Geertz’s thick description.) – What did I just do? How
do you know? It may have been an involuntary twitch; Layers of possible
meaning.
And
Nacirema example
Actor (Subjectivity)
1. Social actors often perform an action without necessarily being conscious
of its meaning. And the social scientist must take that fact into consideration.
Max Weber himself says that emphasizing subjective meaning, will lead to
problems that must be considered by the social scientist. Though every
attempt at interpretation is aimed at clarity and certainty, no matter how
clear the interpretation appears to be from the point of view of meaning – it
cannot be taken to be a causally valid interpretation but rather only a
plausible hypothesis. (1978: 8) He gives a number of reasons.
 The actor is not always aware of the motives which drive the real
force of his action. Therefore we cannot be certain that we really know
the motives behind human action. Weber does not even pretend that it is
possible to get at actually existing meaning.
9
Do you agree that we are not constantly analyzing our actions? How many
times, for example, have you greeted someone with a handshake and asked
yourself why the greeting is performed in that manner? On the other hand if
you were asked to provide an explanation, you might say: “It’s the polite
thing to do.” Or “It’s the way I was raised.” Or “It’s just done.” (as my
mother used to tell me.) We sort of take some things for granted, don’t we?
How about fashion? Why can’t (or shouldn’t one wear white after labor
day?) How many of you actually abide by that rule? Have you ever
questioned why it exists?
2. Even when actors are aware of the motives behind their actions, they do
not always tell the truth.
Let’s try to find a practical example. You are a bright student, a rising senior
in high school and you are considering universities to which you might
apply. As far as you know, FIU is a young institution, that has not yet made
a name for itself, yet you have heard that a number of smart students from
your high school chose FIU. Also, a couple of admissions recruiters have
mailed you information, called your house and you have been offered a
scholarship. So you decide to do your own research. You might construct an
interview with questions designed to glean information including
demographic (age, ethnic/national background, gender), socio-economic
status (family income, location [residence], parents’ educational level) and
questions that specifically relate to the research topic “Why do bright
students choose to attend FIU?” : how many schools did you consider? How
many of these offered you admission? Why did you choose FIU? Etc.
Whom would you interview?
Honors College students
Other smart students with gpa over say 3.5?
Any one else? I am hoping that you would also want to hear from:
High school guidance counselors/cap advisors
FIU admissions recruiters
Bright students who were offered admission to FIU but chose to go
elsewhere (if you can find them)
FIU faculty
And – Honors College staff involved in the recruitment process
What problems might you encounter as you conduct your research?
10
How do you know, for example that the answers you receive are really the
truth as the respondents see it? Say there are respondents who chose FIU for
the simple reason that FIU offered them the most money in scholarships, but
for some reason 60% of these respondents are disinclined to answer
truthfully and instead give you the answer they think you expect…or the
answer that sounds more reasonable: say - because FIU has an excellent
international relations or business program?
And...say you chose to ask me as an Honors College staff member who has
been involved in the recruitment of smart student to FIU, why do smart
students attend this institution. Well, I might say that I tell them about the
wonderful Honors College, that I speak about FIU’s ranking according to the
Carnegie Foundation’s new criteria as Research Intensive 1, that FIU is one
of the fastest growing young institutions in the nation, that FIU has
outstanding faculty who are engaged in groundbreaking research….but I
may just be telling you what I have been told to tell you. Since I work here,
there may be many things I know about the university that might deter a
smart (or any) student from attending. But my answers (especially since I
have no idea what will be done with the results of your research) could cost
me my job.
So which perspective do you think is correct? If you were going to study a
particular culture whose perspective would be more useful? If you choose
the observer how likely is it that you will really achieve understanding of
human action that you seek? If choose the actor how will you deal with
questions of validity?
What’s the solution? Which do you choose?
I propose that a balance between the actor and observer seems to be
reasonable. Generally in sociological research the actor as insider does
provide information to the observing scientist…so that the latter must find
ways of balancing subjectivity with objectivity.
Weber states that all sociological research must take into consideration
processes and phenomena that are devoid of subjective meaning (ie that are
objective), since the motives of which the actor is conscious may well
conceal other motives or repressions which really drive his action. In such
cases even honest self-analysis on the part of the actor has only relative
11
value. Therefore it is the responsibility of the sociologist to become aware of
the motivational situation, describe and analyze it.
In fact, that is exactly the argument posited by sociologists Peter Berger and
Thomas Luckmann. They write that society exists as both objective and
subjective reality. They speak of a process of socialization that “never
ends” and that is “perennially threatened by ‘subjective reality’ forcing
society to develop ways of safeguarding a degree of symmetry between
objective and subjective reality.” - that is, society is forced to find ways of
balancing the two. Another sociologist Reinhard Bendix writes about a
circularity that exists as a result of the necessary interplay between
objectivity and subjectivity.
Persian Letters
Now what does all of this have to do with Persian Letters?
How does Persian Letters relate to the question about the actor’s vs. the
observer’s perspective?
In the book Usbek and Rica are lay observers who are interested in
understanding the culture they are observing. At times they appear to
misinterpret what they see. Eg – In Letter 24 – the Pope is a perceived as a
“magician” who controls the mind of the prince and others…
Certainly Usbek possesses one vantage point…that of the lay observer who
is an outsider. The questions that Usbek asks of Parisians illustrate one of
the advantages of being the observer/outsider. She/he is likely to ask
questions about social action that is taken for granted by the actor. While
the insider might be able to inform the outsider about the meaning of a
process of action, as Weber pointed out, he (the actor) is not always
conscious of such meaning. The actor may ‘take for granted’ as it were an
action and not even question its meaning unless asked to do so. So the
observer may actually point the actor in the direction of interpretive
understanding of his own culture. Indeed Bendix’s discussion about the
circularity of social research is referring exactly to this phenomenon in
which the object of study changes because the people who are being studied
are capable of considering scholarly analyses of their actions. He writes as
an example of primitive tribes in which informants become specialists on
their own culture.
12
All of this has implications for our course. The title of our course is
“Inhabiting Other Lives ” but the big question on which the course is based
is “Who are We?”. In bringing the two together we are suggesting that by
learning about others we not only broaden our horizons, but we are also
learning about ourselves. How many of you have traveled away from home
(for study abroad or just for vacation?) Have you found that you noticed
things about yourself and your own culture that you never before questioned
or even noticed?
I have found this to be true of my own life. As an immigrant to this country
who married outside of my own culture and whose current friends are from
varied ethnic backgrounds, I have found myself asking questions about
Jamaican culture that I had never asked before. I had never wondered about
the way we greet each other until I was confronted with the required kiss in
Haitian culture, which I learned about the hard way when I met my future
mother-in-law and greeted her from afar by smiling very slightly and
mumbling ‘hello’. (There is a very long explanation for my behavior which I
would be happy to share with interested students – just not in this lecture.)
But in my British West Indian background we tended to greet by saying
“hello” perhaps with the right hand slightly raised as if for a brief wave. In
closer relationships (close friends/family) we often greeted with a hug…but
only if we had not seen each other for a while. As far as I can recall, greeting
with a kiss was just not the norm. In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing that
kind of greeting as I grew up.
In my recent visit to Jamaica I observed on more than one occasion, people
greeting friends with a kiss. Is it possible that I had in fact seen this before,
but never really noticed? I still insist that kissing as a greeting is not a
widely performed action in Jamaica. But isn’t it interesting that I should
notice that now after having been exposed to cultures in which that type of
greeting is the norm?
Along the lines of learning about oneself, I did make another observation in
my last visit to Jamaica. It seems that every time I visit, the place which is in
a sense home, no longer really feels like home. The familiar (or what I recall
was once familiar) is no longer familiar. I found myself observing behavior,
and understanding to a degree what it means without being able to fully
identify with it or sense the connection I once took for granted. In the two
13
weeks that I was there I felt more like an outsider than an insider…Or
perhaps I was both???
There is one additional angle that I would like you to consider as you think
about the vantage of the actor vs. observer. In the letters, we read the
perspective of Persians traveling in Europe – outsiders studying European
culture. But is this really the case? To return to the possibilities I posed
earlier: Who is actually writing these letters?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Persians writing about Parisians?
Persians writing about Persians?
Parisians writing about Persians?
Parisians writing about Parisians?
The 4th is correct.
Montesquieu is really posing as an outsider and writing what he imagines
might be the perspective of an outsider on his own culture. The book is
really social satire, written intentionally to criticize aspects of French
society. In so doing, he is able to include his own commentary on life in
France. The example I used earlier of the comment in L. 24 about the
magician who controls the mind of the prince is really Montesquieu
criticizing the established religion and the control religion wields over
government. In letter 75 the critique of religion continues:
“Religion does not so much provide an opportunity for regeneration as for
controversy, in which everyone takes part.” (151)
The comparisons we identified earlier regarding marriage, the family, gender
relationships and so on – are part of his critique of French society.
Why does he pose as outsider? Might the reason be that he believes the
report will be considered more valid because it is written by an “outsider”?
But I also think that even his description of life in the seraglios is used as
part of his critique of France. We know that Montesquieu opposed all forms
of despotism. Yet Usbek is essentially a despot, whose wives, slaves and
eunuchs are at his mercy and have no choice but to obey him even when he
is far away. When Montesquieu writes of Usbek’s deep fear of the
possibility that one of his wives might be unfaithful, when he writes about
14
the rebellion at the end of the book of Usbek’s wives and the Eunuch who
was placed in charge after the chief eunuch has died, and when he writes of
Roxana’s affair and ultimate suicide – are we not being given a picture of a
despot who has lost control? Recall the sociopolitical situation in France at
the time the letters were published and think of what we know about
Montesquieu’s views on despotism.
So in Persian Letters we have an insider who poses as outsider so that he can
criticize his own society and have his critique accepted. Was he successful?
How many of you did not know until this lecture that the letters were really
written by Montesquieu? Before you knew, did the comments about Paris
seem valid? Now that you know, do you find yourself questioning the
comments or seeing them differently? Do you deep down think that perhaps
the comments were affected by Montesquieu’s biases and perhaps therefore
not quite valid?
In closing let’s return to the issue of the title of our course “Inhabiting other
Lives”. This term for your final project you have been asked to endeavor to
inhabit the life of another. In his second lecture last semester, Prof. Hauptli
discussed consciousness and subjective experiences. He asked us to think
about whether it was possible to fully appreciate the subjective experience of
another. Do you remember his conclusion?
Now if you agree with his conclusion (that it is not possible to fully
appreciate the subjective experience of another), if you agree that neither the
actor nor the observer can arrive at a complete understanding of the
culture/social action being studied, you might have real problems with the
idea that it is possible to inhabit another life – correct? Based on all of this –
can we do it? Can we fully inhabit another life? Should we therefore not try?
Why have we asked you to do so? (To learn about others and thus learn
about ourselves.) Why does Usbek travel to Europe? To learn about Western
culture. But does he also learn about his own culture. In the letters there is
constant reflection. He finds his opinion changes: Read L34. Page 86. He
asks questions about his religion: Why is pork taboo?
Dr. Hauptli believes it is important to try to inhabit other lives. I submit that
he is correct, not only because of what we learn about others, but also
because of what we learn about ourselves.
15
I end by quoting T. S. Elliot:
The end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time
16
References
Bendix, Reinhard. 1984. Force, Fate and Freedom: On Historical
Sociology. California
University Press
Berger, Peter L and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of
Reality. New
York: Doubleday
Durkheim, Emile [1895] 1982 Rules of the Sociological Method. New York:
The Free
Press
Giddens, Anthony. 1993. New Rules of the Sociological Method. California:
Stanford University Press
--1984. The Constitution of Society. California: University of
California Press
Ritzer, George. 1996. Modern Sociological Theory. New York: Mcgraw
Hill Companies
Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. California: University of
California Press
http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20
Etics.htm