Assignment On Alice Goffman's “On The Run” And Ethnography

Assignment Based on Alice Goffman's “On the Run” and Ethnographic Analysis

This assignment is based upon your reading of Alice Goffman’s “On the Run.” Please draft a 3-page essay to answer these two questions. Use 1-inch margins all around and nothing larger than a 12-point font.

1) The analysis of persons living the “clean” life and those living the “dirty” life is evident throughout the book. Identify one “dirty” person and one “clean” person and discuss how they represent these two, generalized groups that Goffman discusses in the book. Be clear in your description. Use and cite the book to make your point.

2) Creswell (p. 90) sees ethnography “as a qualitative design in which the researcher describes and interprets the shared and learned patterns of values, behaviors, beliefs, and language of a culture-sharing group.” First, using this definition, define and describe a key term of language/slang/usage for the 6th Street Boys. Second, identify and discuss a learned value of the 6th Street Boys. Third, identify and discuss a key behavior of the 6th Street Boys. Fourth, identify and discuss a central belief of the 6th Street Boys.

Paper For Above instruction

The book “On the Run” by Alice Goffman provides an in-depth ethnographic account of the lives of young Black men navigating urban environments fraught with police surveillance, systemic poverty, and community solidarity. Central to her analysis are the distinctions between "clean" and "dirty" lives, which symbolize the moral and social positioning of individuals within marginalized communities. Goffman exemplifies these categories through characters who embody the contrasting lifestyles, behaviors, and perceptions that define their social worlds. In this essay, I will identify a "dirty" person and a "clean" person from Goffman's narrative, analyze how they represent these broader groups, and then interpret ethnographic language, values, behaviors, and beliefs of the 6th Street Boys, a group central to her study.

First, regarding the dichotomy of "clean" versus "dirty" lives, Goffman portrays these as socio-moral categories that influence individuals’ perceptions and interactions in their community. The "dirty" person often refers to individuals involved in or associated with criminal activities, perceived as morally compromised or dangerous by wider society. Conversely, the "clean" person is someone who tries to maintain order, avoid trouble, and project an image of respectability, often aligning with societal expectations of morality and legality. An illustrative example of a "dirty" person in Goffman’s work is a young man who is actively involved in drug dealing and police evasion, exemplifying the vulnerabilities and stigmas attached to criminal involvement. For instance, Goffman describes a character, “D” (p. 78), who is constantly on the run from the police, arrested multiple times, and perceived as dangerous by community members.

In contrast, a "clean" person might be someone like Mike, a young man who endeavors to avoid police attention, stay out of criminal activities, and uphold a sense of respectability, even if he lives in the same community. Mike actively works to distance himself from the "dirty" lifestyle by holding jobs, maintaining relationships, and trying to avoid trouble with law enforcement. Goffman illustrates how these social identities are fluid and often performative; individuals like Mike may aspire to the "clean" lifestyle but still face the systemic barriers that complicate their aspirations (Goffman, 2014). The contrast between D and Mike demonstrates how perceptions of morality, legality, and community standing shape individuals' lived experiences and social identities within marginalized urban settings.

Transitioning to ethnography and Creswell’s definition, the study of the 6th Street Boys involves understanding the shared patterns of language and behavior that shape their cultural identity. A key term of slang used by the 6th Street Boys is “throwin’ up” or “throwing signs,” which signifies affiliating with their gang or community group through hand gestures and symbols. This slang reflects both their cultural language and a sense of belonging, serving as a rite of passage and an identification marker among peers. The term encapsulates the group's shared identity and loyalty, functioning within their social space to communicate membership and solidarity.

One learned value of the 6th Street Boys is loyalty to the group. This value is cultivated through socialization processes where members learn that loyalty ensures mutual protection and respect within their community. Loyalty is also reinforced through shared experiences of hardship and external threats, such as police harassment or rival gangs. A strong value like loyalty guides behaviors and decisions within the group, establishing a collective identity that prioritizes the group's well-being over individual interests.

Concerning key behaviors, the 6th Street Boys frequently engage in acts of territoriality, such as marking their neighborhood through graffiti or patrols, and defending their turf against rival groups. These behaviors serve to reinforce group bonds and deter outsiders, thus maintaining their social boundaries. Additionally, their vigilance and readiness to respond to perceived threats exemplify their collective behavioral patterns centered on protection and group cohesion.

Finally, a central belief of the 6th Street Boys is that loyalty and brotherhood are paramount for survival in their environment. They believe that collective strength, loyalty to peers, and adherence to group norms are essential for navigating the dangers of their urban landscape. This belief system sustains their behaviors and fosters a sense of purpose and identity amidst adversity. Such core values and conduct underscore their cultural worldview, shaping their interactions within the community and with outsiders.

References

• Goffman, A. (2014). On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. University of Chicago Press.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publications.
• Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Becker, H. S. (2002). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free Press.
• Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. University of Chicago Press.
• Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2016). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
• Stromberg, P. (1993). Ethnography for the Next Millennium. Human Organization, 52(2), 97-104.
• Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant Observation. Waveland Press.
• Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. Routledge.
• Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California Press.