Editor's Column: Autobiography Among Sociologists JONATHAN B. IMBER

There is a vast disorder in sociology. Edward Shils F o r t y y e a r s ago, Lionel Trilling c o n c e d e d m o r e t h a n w a s p e r h a p s n e c e s s a r y w h e n h e w r o t e t h a t " t h e n o v e l i s t m u s t c o m p e t e as an u n l i c e n s e d a m a t e u r w i t h s o c i o l o g i s t s a n d p s y c h o l o g i s t s , m e n w h o are i n t e n s i v e l y t r a i n e d to tell us w h a t is g o i n g o n inside o u r social s y s t e m s a n d o u r o w n b r e a s t s , w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e n o v e l i s t has lost his o n c e c o n s i d e r a b l e status as an e x p l o r e r a n d d i s c o v e r e r " ( 1 9 5 6 : 1 2 5 ) . Q u i t e t h e o p p o s i t e a p p e a r s to b e t h e c a s e t o d a y , as t h e p u r s u i t o f " n a r r a t i v e " - - w i t h c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s l - - b e c o m e s an e n d in itself, t u r n i n g t h e social c o n s t r u c t i o n o f reality into a s e e m i n g l y e n d l e s s a r r a y o f selves telling t h e i r o w n v e r s i o n s o f t h e i r o w n s t o r i e s in t h e i r o w n v o i c e s . T h e n o v e l is r e d u n d a n t in a w o r l d s u p e r s e d e d b y n a r r a t i v e a c c o u n t s , w h i c h h a v e b e c o m e a n o t h e r strate g y to e s c a p e t h e m a g i c o f n u m b e r s t h a t d e m a n d n o e m o t i o n , e v e n if s u c h a s t r a t e g y c a n n o t e s c a p e t h e s e e m i n g t r u t h o f a "self" d e e m e d to b e n o t h i n g if it is n o t h e a r d b y e n l i g h t e n e d a u d i e n c e s . O n l y in a w o r l d t h a t is i n d i f f e r e n t to t h e p o w e r o f q u a n t i f i c a t i o n c a n "qualitative" c o m e to m e a n e n d l e s s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f w h a t is m e a n t , as if e v e r y o n e has s o m e t h i n g to say t h a t is w o r t h e v e r y o n e e l s e ' s a t t e n t i o n . This k i n d o f W a r h o l i z a t i o n o f t h e w o r l d is n e v e r e n d i n g - - a real u t o p i a . Paul F. Lazarsfeld, in a m e m o i r o f his o w n , c o n c l u d e d t h a t Autobiographies deserve to be written under any one of three conditions: if the author is a man of great achievement (Einstein, Churchill); if, due to his position, he has been in contact with many important people or important events (a foreign correspondent); or if by external circumstances he can be considered a "case" representing a situation or development of interest. (Lazarsfeld, 1968:270) At first sight, s o m e t h i n g p r e d i c t a b l e m u s t b e at w o r k , at o n c e g e n e r a t i o n a l a n d c o n v e n t i o n a l , to e x p l a i n w h y s o c i o l o g i s t s in e v e r g r e a t e r n u m b e r s are exp l o r i n g t h e f i r s t - p e r s o n narrative. As a m a t t e r o f s o c i o l o g i c a l i n t e r e s t , a u t o b i o g r a p h y a t t e m p t s to d e f y t h e q u i t e n o n - s u b j e c t i v e fact t h a t w e n e v e r h a v e t h e last w o r d a b o u t o u r s e l v e s . A r e c e n t s p e c i a l issue o f Sociology: The J o u r n a l o f the British Sociological A s s o c i a t i o n (Vol. 27, No. 1, F e b r u a r y 1993), is d e v o t e d to Imber

3

"Biography and Autobiography in Sociology." It w o u l d be useful to c o m p a r e the ambition of many of the writers in that issue with Irving Louis H orow i t z's observation that "ruling elites, culturally no less than politically, in totalitarian systems so identify the course of historical events w i t h their personal lives, that t h e r e is no longer a n e e d for autobiography" (1977:178). The p r e s e n t intellectual intensity c o n v e y e d by such terms as "referentiality" and "intertextuality" is sometimes attributed to the p o s t m o d e r n turn. But w h a t are w e to make of a w o r l d in w h i c h only the autobiographical exists, or seemingly so? And w h y should so m u c h e n e r g y n o w be devot ed to narratives, discourse, and o t h e r devices of literary invention? H ow did w e move so seamlessly from the fact/value d i c h o t o m y to the fact/fiction one? Sociology, w h e t h e r as discipline, profession, or the history of both, has b e e n losing strength in the academy, in the public square, and in revisionist attempts to re-center, t h o u g h certainly not erase, its European origins. In his 1948 assessment of The Present State o f American Sociology, Edward Shils r e c ogn i zed the fragility of the "new" discipline: "the very condition of its birth and the process of selection w h i c h accompanied it meant that sociologists w oul d lack the sense of the past, the traditional standards of judgment and the traditional intellectual discipline w h i c h distinguished the academic man of the late n i n e t e e n t h century" (Shils 1948:2). A half c e n t u r y later, self-reflection has culminated in the politicized, and persistently t h e r a p e u t i c "voices at the table." What ever was o n c e c o n s t r u e d to be the measure of the academic man is n o w summed up in the single w o r d "career." Th e c a r e e r diplomat and career man have faded as types, repl aced by a ruthless unwillingness on the part of the careerist to take anything seriously that does n o t pertain to himself in some m ore or less direct fashion. In such a world, the p o w e r of other-direction is ubiquitous. What Edward Shils descri bed fifty years ago was the p o w e r of institutions, the university in particular, to e n c o u r a g e the c o n f o r m i t y of inner-direction, something the n e w discipline of sociology named, e x a m i n e d and challenged. As the institution of higher education has w e a k e n e d , as it has g r o w n tiresomely bureaucratic, careerism does offer its ow n styles of resistance to collective forms of indifference. The lawsuit is like a lightening bolt, upsetting the civility o f dyadic e n c o u n t e r s and the dynamics of administrative response. No institution can or should patiently endur e the egoisms of the disaffected, dissatisfied, and disgruntled. Imagine the titles of autobiographies of careerists, publicists, and all those w h o conspire to destroy the last great institutional p r e s e r v e o f inner direction in Western societies: "How I Gained Self-Respect, But Not At My Expense," or "Your Money or Your Life: What Difference Does It Make?" The history of aut obi ogr a phy in sociology has yet to be written. As a preliminary a c c o u n t of w h a t such a history might entail, it w o u l d be interesting to k n o w h o w many sociologists have w r i t t en autobiographically. Something naturally militates against taking o n e s e l f - - t h a t is, one's sel fm so seriously after conducting a life of inquiry about society. Autobiography should offer occasions for giving advice. A d e c e n t e x p e c t a t i o n might be to limit the impulse to write this w ay to sixty years of age or to the a c h i e v e m e n t of g r a n d p a r e n t h o o d , w h i c h e v e r c o m e s first.

4

The American Sociologist/Winter 1995

A collection of brief autobiographical accounts, some by m u c h y o u n g e r sociologists, is c o n t a i n e d in Bennett Berger's Authors of Their Own Lives (1990). (An earlier and similar effort was organized by Matilda W h i t e Riley [1988].) The title o f Berger's collection seems disingenuous insofar as the social c o n s t r u c t i o n of reality, and in particular, personal reality, has b e c o m e a piety. Yet the title's defiance of the typical habits of sociological generalization confirms one thing a b o u t the pursuit of autobiography, namely, the insistence of an I b e h i n d the social m e . Many of the accounts given read like annotated curriculum vitae. The w o m e n writers invariably speak about their relations to m en (and some about their relations to their parents); the m en writers are conspi cuousl y silent about their relations to bot h w o m e n and parents. The perspect i ves taken about themselves (in relation to others and to the world at large) vary considerably. Consider the following a c c o u n t of the Depression (it does not matter for this purp o se w h o s e a c c o u n t it is): But that world did not last. In 1930 it collapsed around us. My best friend's father committed suicide, my uncle was laid off, and my father could hardly make his payroll. The men scowled and withdrew into silence and drink. The women frowned and cried. The grim decade of the Depression had begun. We moved away to where no canaries sang, no aunts or grandfather brightened my days, and my childhood ended-at eight. (Berger 1990:305) Th e a u t o b i o g r a p h y of the Depression insists on an affective non-neutrality, a p e r s p e c t i v e different than the sociology of the Depression. Although this may s e em intuitively obvious, it raises the question of w hat the relation b e t w e e n the t w o is, if, indeed, any relation of intellectual significance exists. One argum ent might be that out of those formative c hil dhood e x p e r i e n c e s em erge certain intellectual p r e o c c u p a t i o n s ; but w h o is to say, unless w e study the matter sociologically? A n o t h e r a r gum e nt might be that a r e c o u n t i n g of such e x p e r i e n c e s is instructive to others; but h o w it is instructive remains to be demonstrated. Much of Berger's v o lum e is filled with conventional, that is, u n e x a m i n e d first-person narratives that are given an illuminating quality by virtue o f the c o n v e n t i o n s to w h i c h t h e y conform. A critical, sociological eye on such autobiographical reflection w o u l d challenge such convent i ons and conformities and thus seek after s o m eth in g m o r e about the p e r s o n w h o writes and the w orl d w ri t t en about. The reviews of Berger's b o o k are helpful for understanding w h y sociology, despite its position as the least conforming, and also most fragmented, among the social sciences, is nonet hel es s not as critical as its practitioners might imagine. This is the c onc l us i on drawn in Sociological Forum by Charles Tilly, w h o remarks that "Unmasking [which Tilly regards as the primary task of sociology] and a u t o b i o g r a p h y sleep badly together" (Tilly 1993:497). Tilly's criticisms of Berger's b o o k are hardly unmasking (i.e., critical) either: Berger got 5 white females and 15 white males, including himself, to. write sketches of their lives. (Tilly 1993:498)

Imber

5

Yet the essays say little about searches for truth, joys of discovery, rigors of scholarly competition, obsessions with compelling questions, or even pleasures and agonies of writing . . . . The careers they describe might almost equally have taken place in architecture or Italian literature. (TiUy 1993:499) A formal network analysis would surely reveal the great centrality of Robert Merton and David Riesman to the connections among these sociologists . . . . We are dealing with two narrowing effects: one of sociology as a whole, the other of Bennett Berger's personal network within sociology. (Tilly 1993:500) Tilly c o n c l u d e s t h a t s o c i o l o g i s t s h a v e " b l a n d e d in." Yet his c r i t i c i s m s are also bland, a n d t h e y give o n l y t h e slightest i n d i c a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s to w r i t i n g a u t o b i o g r a p h y . He praises o t h e r a u t o b i o g r a p h i e s for t h e i r "witty e l e g a n c e " ( J o h n K e n n e t h G a l b r a i t h ) or t h e i r "genial a r r o g a n c e " ( G e o r g e C a s p e r H o m a n s ) o r t h e i r " a n g r y t h r a s h i n g " ( I r v i n g Louis H o r o w i t z ) , b u t h e offers little in t h e w a y o f w h a t t h e s e s e l f - d i s c o v e r i e s m e a n o t h e r t h a n t h a t in t h e c a s e o f B e r g e r ' s coll e c t i o n o f essays, t h e y do n o t m e a n e n o u g h . Tilly's c r i t i c i s m s are a p a r o d y o f criticism, f o r h e risks little in p o i n t i n g his f i n g e r a n d telling t h e s e a u t h o r s t h a t t h e y s h o u l d b e a s h a m e d o f t h e m s e l v e s . A n d h e a d m i t s his i n c l i n a t i o n to risk n o t h i n g w h i l e p o s i n g as critic w h e n h e w r i t e s : And if Bennett Berger had asked me to contribute a chapter? I too would have written prudent pieties, subtly crafted to make readers think me a diffident genius. I would have complained, boasted, or both, about my marginality. I would have offered selfserving tributes to three sociologists (Pitirim Sorokin, George Homans, and Barrington Moore) plus one political scientist (Samuel Beer). My undistinguished service in the United States Navy imprinted in me a maxim much honored in that organization, one the Authors of Their Own Lives have learned mostly without benefit of military experience: Don't stick out your neck; cover your ass. (p. 504) G a r y T. Marx, w h o c o n t r i b u t e d o n e o f the m o r e self-revealing c h a p t e r s in B e r g e r ' s b o o k , also h a p p e n e d to b e b o o k r e v i e w e d i t o r o f Sociological Forum. In his p r e f a c e to t h e r e v i e w essays, M a r x is q u i c k to d e f e n d himself, if n o t his f e l l o w c o n t r i b u t o r s , b y a r g u i n g t h a t Tilly's is a " r a t h e r safe r e v i e w . " H e g o e s o n to a c c u s e Tilly o f p r e c i s e l y w h a t Tilly s p e c i f i c a l l y a c c u s e s him, t h a t is, o f a t t a c k i n g " o n l y in g e n e r a l a n d m u t e d t e r m s " (Marx 1993:493). It is r a r e ( a n d t h u s all t h e m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g ) to o b s e r v e t h e o f f e n s e t a k e n b y an e d i t o r a b o u t a c o n t r i b u t o r ' s a s s e s s m e n t . M a r x is c l e a r l y i r r i t a t e d e n o u g h to write: What then do we make of this? Are we so powerfully effected [sic] by American culture that we are indistinguishable from those in banking and t h i e v i n g ? . . . Are academic careers ultimately about the pursuit of success not truth, about the advancement of self and not knowledge? Is a university job not a calling, but simply another vehicle for making it in America? The absence of passion about ideas and the pursuit of truth or social change in most of these essays is consistent with this. (Marx 1993:493)

6

The American Sociologist/Winter 1995

In mild defense of his colleagues, Marx concludes that the "norms of objectification, disinterestedness, humility, and civility [also] have positive consequences, if sometimes at a cost of tepid personal narratives, assaults on language, dehumanization, and disingenuous personal relations" (Marx 1993:494). What are our fellow sociologists arguing about? What does autobiography reveal about the definition of the situation, and w h o gets to define it? Marx asks directly, "Is a university job not a calling, but simply another vehicle for making it in America?" Is this not the same type of formative question asked by Max Weber as he addressed the culture of capitalism in its relation to the c o n t e n t of character? Neither Marx nor Tilly have examined the convenience of their o w n successes. In his own contribution to Berger's book, Marx (1990) writes extensively, and as he prefers to think, constructively about his failure to gain tenure at Harvard. In his m o m e n t of truth, Marx discovered that he was an exile from Eden, forever uncertain about w h a t his expulsion from the garden is supposed to mean. 2 He is not alone. The sense of the past and the traditions of judgment and discipline are difficult to reconcile with the hot pursuits for attention and reward that p r e o c c u p y even those w h o should k n o w better. Sociologists engage in a dangerous trade. Their autobiographies are object lessons for those of us w h o w o u l d try to be other than contemporaneous in all of our personal ambitions and w h o would aspire to become more conscientious about improving our u n d e r d e v e l o p e d traditions of judgment and discipline in sociology. Notes 1. Those exceptions would include the conventional desire among our elders to leave us with a record of themselves individually in the world (Bendix 1993; Fox 1990; Goetting and Fenstermaker 1994; Homans 1984; Horowitz 1990; Lowenthal 1987; Merton 1994; Nisbet 1992; Page 1982; Quinney 1991; Shils 1988; van den Berghe 1989; Whyte 1994; and Wolff 1989 ), as well as works in the tradition of the sociology of knowledge, such as Donald N. Levine's Visions o f the Sociological Tradition, in which he seeks to formulate "a new kind of narrative appropriate to the current state of sociology" (1995:3). Levine's approach to narrative is neither autobiographical nor solipsistic, the latter being the price paid by a discipline that has forgotten, however willfully, the visions, however competing, of itself. 2. Mark R. Schwehn (1993) offers a compelling narrative of self-discovery that may be usefully read in conjunction with and in contrast to Marx's contribution to Berger's book.

References Bendix, Reinhard. 1993. Unsettled Affinities, ed. John Bendix. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Berger, Bennett M., ed. 1990. Authors o f Their Own Lives: Intellectual Autobiographies by Twenty American Sociologists. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fox, Alan. 1990. A Very Late Development: An Autobiography. Coventry: Industrial Relations Research Unit, University of Warwick. Goetting, Ann, and Sarah Fenstermaker, eds. 1994. Individual Voices, Collective Visions: Fifty Years o f W o m e n in Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Homans, George Casper. 1984. Coming to My Senses: The Autobiography o f a Sociologist. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1977. "Autobiography as the Presentation of Self for Social Immortality," pp. 173-179. In N e w Literary History, 9:1. - - - - - - . 1990. Daydreams a n d Nightmares: Reflections o f a Harlem Childhood. Jackson, Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. Levine, Donald N. 1995. Visions o f the Sociological Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Imber

7

Lowenthal, Leo. 1987. An Unmastered Past: The Autobiographical Reflections of Leo Lowenthal, ed. and intro. by Martin Jay. Berkeley: University of California Press. Marx, Gary T. 1990. ~Reflections on Academic Success and Failure: Making It, Forsaking It, Reshaping It," pp. 260-284. In Authors o f their Own Lives. .... . 1993. ~Preface, ~ pp. 493-495. In Sociological Forum, 8:3. Merton, Robert K. 1994. A Life of Learning. Charles Hosmcr Haskins Lecture, American Council of Learned Societies. Occasional Paper, No. 25. Nisbet, Robert A. 1992. Teachers and Scholars: A Memoir of Berkeley in Depression and War. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Page, Charles H. 1982. Fifty Years in the Sociological Enterprise: A Lucky Journey. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Quinney, Richard. 1991.Journey To a Far Place." Autobiographical Reflections. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Riley, Matilda White, ed. 1988. Sociological Lives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Schwehn, Mark R. 1993. Exiles from Eden: Religion and the Academic Vocation in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Shils, Edward. 1948. The Present State of American Sociology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. - - - - - - . 1988. "Totalitarians and Antinomians." In Political Passages: Journeys o f Change Through Two Decades, 1968-1988, ed. John H. Bunzel. New York: Free Press. Tilly, Charles. 1993. "Blanding In," pp. 497-505. In Sociological Forum, 8:3. Trilling, Lionel. 1956. "The Novel Alive or Dead," pp. 125-32. In A Gathering of Fugitives. Boston: Beacon Press. van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1989. Stranger in Their Midst. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. Whyte, William Foote. 1994. Participant Observer." An Autobiography. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Wolff, Kurt H. 1989. O Lomaf Constituting a Self (1977-1984). Northampton, MA: Hermes House Press.

8

T h e A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i s t / W i n t e r 1995