Ramblings/musings on chapters 4 and 7

Ethnography and Ways with Words

As we work our way through more of Ways With Words, I am starting to understand more about ways to implement ethnographic methods as well as possible strategies for translating observations and other data collected into an ethnographic narrative. I was drawn, though, to one sentence on p. 143, attributed to Betty in Roadville: “But you look around now, and you see most of us have settled down, except the real black sheep, and most of them moved away.” I can’t help but find myself drawn to this black sheep character and wonder where its (really his/her) place might be in ethnographic research. It seems that ethnography’s purpose is to document ways that are specific to communities, be they a few homes worth (as in Roadville and Trackton) or larger (as in Philips and others). Of course I see value in discovering qualities of the group and its dynamics, but I am also interested in learning more about the people who very clearly do NOT fit the patterns described in the larger ethnography.

This brings me to reflections on Chapter 7, which I characterized in class as sounding like it could have been written as part of the voice-over that describes Wisteria Lane in Desperate Housewives. I fully understand that the purpose of this chapter is to describe the “mainstream”, but having grown up in this general area of the country, I feel somewhat slighted to find that my family and I would have fit into neither Roadville, Trackton, nor “the town”. This does not mean that a description of the majority of the people in the area is not illustrative; however, I just don’t see this chapter in particular as able to paint a truly representative picture of the diversity present in the Piedmont, even in the ‘70s. A method of research that cannot accommodate these differences seems to be lacking something important, despite the rich detail it can provide in illuminating “mainstream” practices. I am also highly suspect of the descriptions provided of race relations on p. 239 (“There are very few who express resentment of black representation on the city council or the school board; they simply weigh the relative merits of the ideas and manner of presentation of black as well as white members”) and on pp. 241-242 (“Leadership in student government and extracurricular clubs is said to be determined not by race, clique membership, or social status, but by the abilities and personality of individual students, black or white.”) That may be what these people indicated to Shirley, but this paints an extremely skewed picture of race relations in this area, especially at that time. These statements lead readers to believe that race was not ever a factor in any type of discriminatory way, but this area during the '70s was still not as integrated as this chapter seems to let on. This picture is one that does not depict negative qualities of (white) townspeople, but the picture would not be so rosy or so welcoming if, say, there were an interracial couple who decided to move to town. These overly flowery pictures of what life is like are - obviously - extremely problematic for me. I don’t trust this depiction of the town if it is missing some of the honest information that would characterize its people. Although I am less skeptical of the characterizations of literacy, which in themselves are not cause for controversy, I am disappointed in this chapter. But then again, I did not grow up on Wisteria Lane.