On the Run读后感1000字

《On the Run》是一本由Alice Goffman著作，University Of Chicago Press出版的Hardcover图书，本书定价：USD 25.00，页数：288，特精心收集的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

《On the Run》读后感(一)：伟大的青涩

早有朋友推荐，译版风评不好一直拖欠。前两天因论文需要不得已读了英文版。原计划囫囵吞枣看个大概，没想到陷在文本里读了三天，洋洋洒洒记了一万多字笔记。这无疑是读过的最了不起的民族志研究，更不用提作者就是在我这个年纪把它完成的。 可以想见它在民族志研究伦理上惹起的争议; 也看到关于缺乏理论框架的吐槽。这些问题确实存在，可我们仍能预见《在逃》在学术和方法论上的价值。正因为作者试图融入与她格格不入的社区，我们才能看到民族志蕴含的可能性，让读者跳出自己的框架，去穿一穿别人的鞋子。正是因为她没有划定固定的理论框架，读者才有机会全面体认司法制度渗透到社区生活中的每一个细节，继而理解在灰暗混沌的环境中生长出的人性灰度。这一点是我在任何表意清晰、理论完整的民族志中所没看见过的。更重要的是，《在逃》刺激学者去自反民族志本身: 学者、学术作品和它周遭的社会环境的关系是什么？学者是客观的观察者还是积极的参与者？学者要如何处理他的课题与自身认同、生活之间的关系？

伟大的作品往往拥有全新的力量和无限的挖掘空间，这些我能从《在逃》和它的影响力中看到。我对这部作品的尊重和喜爱，更是因为作者在她青春最美好的年华，愿意全身心地投入一件她热爱且有价值的事情。这种破釜沉舟、愿意搭上自己的命运的勇气是难得的，或许也是一生中仅限于青年这个阶段才能闪现出的炽热的灵光。这是学术界的财富，是读者的幸运，更是难得一见的奇迹。而在这个每个人只愿意诉说自己的时代，如果有人愿意把目光投向它不熟悉的人和领域，甚至愿意为了开拓认知而主动变成另一个人，这更是打开跨界对话的窗口，破解信息茧房的一次伟大尝试。

《On the Run》读后感(二)：本书是学术丑闻

既然都很喜欢本书，只好科普一下本书和Alice Goffman在美国被圈内黑爆的事情。

当政治学的quantie Lacour的支持同性恋婚姻研究被揭穿完全造假的同时，也就是15年夏天，AG的On the Run也开始被揭穿。

最开始是有人匿名网传给各社会学者一封巨长的信，人称"massive takedown of AG"（黑AG硬货）。其中点出五六十个AG在这本书里的可能的虚假问题。http://pastebin.com/BzN4t0VU

之后Chronicle也刊登了社会学黑AG的材料。不过重点是她的伦理问题（参与枪杀对手），但也提到了她的研究可能根本不存在，主要是怀疑她根本没有在六街呆多久。http://chronicle.com/article/Alice-Goffmans-Implausible-/232491/

主要问题有：参与枪杀；她说警察会查看医院访客记录并进行逮捕，而警察回应这是不可能的，而院方说从来没有警察来过医院看访客记录；她说目睹了法庭审判，但她其实没有法院宣判室；她并不住在六街，前往六街的许多时间有出入；声称调查的人数和房间门派号有出入；有两个人物的时间和行为有出入（Jason， Chuck），可能不存在；Chuck在2007年已经死了，但她在09年又写到他。

AG在峰尖浪口的时候，人们要求看她的田野日记。然后她说已经没了，被烧了。

定性研究如果造假，是很难被证实的。Venkatesh也被怀疑根本没跟黑帮混过，AG也是，但并没法完全拿下他们俩。定量研究造假就没办法掩饰了，LaCour和Stapel妥妥的承认自己傻逼。

《On the Run》读后感(三)：On the Run, Get Caught Up

在这本从本科开始就进行田野调查的著作中，戈夫曼之女爱丽斯戈夫曼（小戈）融合民族志方法与老戈部分理论，观察执法机器对族群社群生活与社会纽带的冲击及后者的反应。司法和执法系统变得越来越精密（各种科技进步甚至向斯塔西学习盘查和监控技巧）、繁琐（各个执法机构各自有自己的保释和通缉系统，精细到违反保释条件或未交法庭堂费都可以发通缉令）、常在（直升机和警车四处巡逻）、使用武力（某费城警长宣称：谁敢乱碰警察就打到他们进医院）、倾向罪化及强力监察和羁押（如未交堂费通缉被捕可入狱，牢中一日抵十元钱），从而将触角渗透到贫困黑人社区生活方方面面。

年轻男性的各种轻微违法，从卖大麻到向人扔石头，均可判羁押，重罪则自不必言。故他们无法利用真实身份、获取固定工作和生活模式，生活模式只在放监和入狱间打转转，唯有学习躲避执法者、逃亡和规避身份，寻找可靠同伴和掩护者，继续从事非法行为获利，在躲避和非法行为中形成社区内的新社会纽带、声誉和地位；有时也会战略性地利用自己的违法记录获益，如主动寻求羁押以躲避帮派争斗，利用保释金延期赎回代替银行存款。但他们基本没有任何通过教育、工作等途径冲出社区的可能性，短期的逃匿和外出打工也不会彻底切割他们与社区的联系。女性则挣扎于协助相关的年轻男性与被执法机关胁迫提供线索和参与追捕中：执法者掌握了从较为软弱的亲人下手的技巧，往往威迫利诱女性告发男性。是选择协助还是告发，往往影响其社会地位声誉。洁身自好者或与执法机关无涉（"in good standing with the authority"）者，要么彻底切断与非法人群联系，要么偶尔提供某些小服务获利。

此种社群生活模式一旦形成，则整个社区堪称“逃犯社区”（Fugitive Community）。年轻男性在违法被抓和规避执法之间来回挣扎，女性、家庭成员及其他局外人均有意无意地卷入（除非刻意隔离）与有违法纪录男性进行文化与社会互动及开展各种经济交易。这种“逃犯社区”仍然存在着一般社区中应有的互动、社会纽带、经济文化交换等，但所有的节点都围绕执法机关展开，场景都改成了年轻男性经历执法机关和逃匿的整个人生经验为中心。比如，一般城市阶层年轻人获得社会地位、声誉、同龄人认可和社交关系的模式，如打游戏、橄榄球、兄弟会、特长俱乐部、舞会等，在这个街区完全不存在，反而司法执法机关各程序节点竟成了社会互动的场所和建立亲密关系的途径：出庭时来旁听的女性伴侣往往相互吃醋，逃匿中相互帮助是亲密朋友的标志，逃匿成功经验多者被奉为英雄，探监和频频送钱可以修补因为供出坐牢者而破裂的男女或朋友关系，等等。尽管后者这样的行为模式似乎也发挥着类似于前者的社交功能，但总体来说是在一种压抑、逃避、隔绝、自我禁锢的氛围下进行的，同主动、积极、外向、自我形塑式的社交互动截然不同。

事实上，题目中的On the Run和另一个短语Get Caught Up，经常被当地年轻男性交换着使用。某种意义上这种生活模式是一体两面的：On the Run，因为他们有犯事在身，整个生活就是围绕着怎么躲开执法机关和继续干地下勾当；Get Caught Up，因为一旦他们进入了这个循环，则看不到打破的希望，没有雇主愿意请他们全职工作，洁身自好及无涉者不理他们，他们只能将社交范围限于同自己一样的年轻男性，及愿意庇护自己的女性和家庭成员。当然，小戈也似乎回避了一些同执法机关的强力渗透关系不大的黑人社群状况，比如父母在家庭教养和约束子女方面的过分松散和不良习惯的代际传输（书中有好几个母亲自己就是嗑药酗酒者），又比如街区里男女关系和性生活上的混乱。有时候一个男性可以同时有三个亲密女性伴侣：其子女的生母，当前的女朋友，他确信可以庇护自己的女性（"rider"），这三者之间在感情和金钱上相互勾心斗角，有时甚至会促使其中一方通过向警察告发的方式报复男性。

值得注意的几点：

1小戈受老戈的影响，不是没有，在附录中自称自己家庭背景、老父声誉和理论鼓励自己跑去大胆做田野，也让普林斯顿的众教授愿意对自己比较放羊，不过总体来说不算是处于老爸阴影下的作品，在知识渊源上更接近于Mitchell Duneier及其他研究黑人社区和黑人族群社会学的学者。

2 初读此书很可能马上想到怀特的街角社会（Street Corner Society），但小戈似乎有意识将其打造成同街角社会不一样的作品。没看错的话，书中各种注释和研究引用，她一次都没有引用街角社会，而且其参与观察方法同怀特的单刀直入和积极参与很不同：怀特直接找了教堂人士，联系上街区社工，介绍当地街头老大，小戈则原本想做校园里白人学生同咖啡馆黑人老太店员的互动与社会关系，结果顺藤摸瓜跑进了街区（所以她一开始其实是从clean而不是dirty群体开始的，结果后者反而成了她的主要观察群体，并产生了全书的课题）；怀特很积极地参与帮派活动，甚至一度干了随人上街勒索保护费和冒名投票的勾当，小戈则很谨慎地充当a fly on the wall，基本上扮演了街区中女性旁观者的角色，学习各种躲避和非法勾当技巧，但自己一次都没做过，而且尽量只听不说，躲在各种黑人男性背后；怀特有时候会利用自己的外来者身份去改变群体的行动或干预某些冲突，小戈的肤色无法让自己隐藏，不过她在行为、言语、打扮和悠闲模式上尽量“黑人化”，隐藏自己的外来者角色。

3 小戈的“黑人化”努力带来的则是在研究生院和黑人社区两者间来回切换时的文化冲击。由于田野是在本科时期开始做且持续了一两年，因此小戈到了普林斯顿上博士就感受到文化冲击问题：不会社交，不会搭讪，不酷，不知道流行娱乐，总在躲开白人高大男性（以为是警察或便衣），害怕气球爆破和开酒瓶等声音（以为是枪击），找教授都特意找非WASP非男性，等等。而回到黑人社区后，当地朋友又笑她行为怪异，不像当地人，说话口音都变了。

4 小戈唯一一次接近越界是她的主要田野和交往对象Chuck被枪杀那晚。Chuck在街区帮派争斗中被爆头。她似乎对Chuck有某种暧昧的情感，知道Chuck脑死亡后情绪失控，到病床前号啕大哭，说她爱他，发誓为他报仇，此后有几晚还真开车带着Chuck的小弟（也是另一个主要田野对象）Mike，拿上枪去寻找凶手。小戈后来写道，这是第一次深入骨髓地在情感上希望一个人死，也让她体会到情感冲击了对错的滋味。

《On the Run》读后感(四)：Could the study have been done in a better way?

Xiaomeng Hu

SOCL 233 – Paper I

After its initial release in May 2014, Alice Goffman’s book, On the Run, drew a great deal of attention to the life of poor black young men in a Philadelphia neighborhood (“6th street) and earned her the reputation as a successful ethnographer in the academia. However, one year later in 2015, an anonymous 50-page document and an article written by Professor Steven Lubet at the Northwestern University criticized her for making mistaken factual claims and committing a serious felony in her study. Both of them triggered a national debate over the credibility of her work and the research ethics in ethnography. After exhausting myself reading major book reviews and comments on this book, I argue that Alice Goffman could clarify her methodology in a more honest and explicit way and add fact checking on her claims before making any firm assertion so that her book can be more accountable to her readers. Meanwhile, this lesson shows potential limitations on ethnographic studies that sociologists shall remain cautious about.

The issue of fact checking was first raised in Professor Lubet’s article, “Ethics on the Run,” in which he pointed out that Alice Goffman’s account of the hospital story was doubtful because running visitors’ names was not a standard practice of police officers nationwide. A similar concern was expressed by the journalist Jesse Singal as Singal thought Goffman was trying to report incidents from her own observation and other people’s accounts which could be biased and subjective. This criticism of her book was indeed valid in a sense that Goffman should check factual claims independently by keeping a close observation on the hidden practice of policing rather than making a firm assertion after a conversation with “one” police officer. Without a systematic process of fact checking, Goffman’s story was over skewed to the account of his black friends and her lack of awareness of this potential bias let people question the credibility of the book. She should have clarified this limitation in the data collection process in advance. Adding to this problem, I have a specific concern about the change of the targeted audience of her book. When On the Run was republished in paperback under the Picador publishing company in April 2015, the goal was to reach a wider audience -- ordinary people who did not receive previous training in sociology and most likely did not have the similar experience in the black neighborhood. Both fact checking and clear methodological explanations become even more important at that point since unlike scholars, ordinary people might not be capable of distinguishing what is fact and what is the personal account in her book. Thus, sociologists shall be responsible for their assertive factual claims when their book are reaching to a different audience.

Another common criticism of the book dealt with her felony of conspiring to murder. At the end of her ethnographic note, Alice Goffman wrote about her feeling of vengeance that she had volunteered to drive Mike around to kill the murder of their friend Chuck. Goffman’s account of this past story is horrifying and undoubtedly emotional because she does not have a good reason for volunteering in a murder which cannot add more details to her study. Even though she wrote in her reply to Professor Lubet’s Critique that she already knew that the night would not end in violence or injury, her statement is more like a belated effort in justifying her action since she can never foresee what would happen if Mike did find the murder at the Chinese restaurant. One can also raise a similar concern about her lack of justification for incidents like leaving the hospital when Chuck was shot. Nevertheless, although her action of conspiring to murder might be ethically wrong, I do not think this emotional account damages the overall credibility of her book and her study can still remain intact if she did not volunteer for driving. Therefore, I will suggest Alice Goffman to be cautious about her narratives of this dramatic moment (even it is at the end of the ethnographic note) and address the ethical dilemma she faces throughout her field work so that ordinary readers can get a better understanding of the situation she gets into and the reasoning behind her emotional choice. Otherwise, she will be struggling for the felony charge in this case.

Besides these two major criticisms, I am also alarmed by the use of numbers in her book which is out of the specific context and often makes no sense to its readers. Throughout the entire book, Alice Goffman enjoyed counting down the number of the times the same incident happened. For instances, in the introduction of the book, Alice Goffman wrote:

“In that same eighteen-month period, I watched the police break down doors …. chase people through houses fifty-two times. Nine times, police helicopters circled overhead and beamed searchlights onto local streets. I noted blocks taped off and traffic redirected …. seventeen times. Fourteen times … I watched the police punch … beat young men with their nightsticks.” (4)

Are fifty-two, seventeen, and fourteen times, high rates of frequency？ Does the number of the times speak about how prevalent violent policing is in the community？ Do these incidents happen to be the same or do they vary from each other in every incident？ Without drawing a metrics to these numbers or giving the percentage of the frequency things occurred, one can hardly understand these “exact” number of times Alice Goffman wrote in her book. Even though Goffman had diligently counted down these numbers over the eighteen-month period in her book and one can easily find another example of similar deｓｃｒｉｐｔions like above, she should give more details about how relevant these numbers of frequency are comparing to these incidents on other occasions and in other neighborhoods, Whereas the numbers seem to draw a sympathetic feeling towards black young men, giving these numbers out of their context is pointless and makes her book look like a memoir rather than a rigorous sociological study. Thus, I will suggest that Alice Goffman should give more explanations to the number of frequency she counted down in her study and tell people why these numbers are relevant and important in these case.

Lastly, the anonymization process of the book was questioned and it led to several inconsistent accounts in her book where her friend Chuck supposed to be killed in 2007 but reappeared in 2009, or the boy Ronny accidentally shot himself and either refused or agreed to go to the hospital in two accounts of one story. This inconsistency indeed leads to some confusion about what was really happening in the timeline of the story. I think Alice Goffman has closely followed the academic standard of the anonymization in order to protect her informants and the primary sources of her study. Incidents of inconsistent accounts do not undermine the credibility of her study. Nevertheless, her effort to the anonymization process shall be acknowledged and explained to ordinary readers in the beginning of the book who are not familiar with this process and its relevant ethical concern in the ethnography.

Reference

Goffman, Alice. 2014. On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Goffman, Alice. 2015. “A Reply to Professor Lubet’s Critique.” Published on the website of the sociology department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved September 21, 2016 (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/docs/goffman/A%20Reply%20to%20Professor%20Lubet.pdf)

Lubet, Steven. 2015. “Ethics On The Run.” New Rambler Review. Retrieved September 21, 2016 (http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/ethics-on-the-run).

Lubet, Steven. 2015. “Alice Goffman's Denial of Murder Conspiracy Raises Even More Questions.” New Republic Daily. Retrieved September 21, 2016 (https://newrepublic.com/article/121958/sociologist-alice-goffman-denies-murder-conspiracy-run).

Singal, Jesse. 2015. “The Internet Accused Alice Goffman of Faking Details in Her Study of a Black Neighborhood. I Went to Philadelphia to Check.” Science of US. Retrieved September 21, 2016 (http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/06/i-fact-checked-alice-goffman-with-her-subjects.html)