On 5/11/07, James Whyte <whyte.james@yahoo.com> wrote:
The greater implication of this thread is about "labeling" and the inherent potential for negative impact.
IMHO, labeling is neither scholarly or useful.
Howard Becker, in the book "Outsiders" clearly spells out the impact that this variety of stereotypeing has particular impact on social research.
Hmmm...we seem to be careening off course. But... I would like to note that you cannot do otherwise when it comes to labeling. It's how we (humans) work. Now, labels in and of themselves do work beyond what we intend, but presuming that somehow you're above it or beyond it is terribly faulty. And actually many would say that labeling is necessary for academics and scholars, and extremely useful. "That behavior" is a label. "Deviant behavior" is also a label. "Abnormal behavior" is also a label. Each does different work. This, not that. What if instead I said: "Playful behavior" (also a label) Suddenly it has a different connotation. I think the discussion is useful. We do need other terms, because sometimes those we've already been using become problematic given surrounding (contextual) sets of meanings. So we revise them. This is where the healthy discussion is. Having read Becker I think he's talking more about those contextual sets of meanings and what it means for those that become labeled. Not that labeling is undesirable. Take my work with video game developers as an example. That's a label. There are insiders and outsiders. I can question and pressure those insides and outsides. But to say that no label is necessary leaves me talking about... ? So now let's talk about the scholarly part. A good friend of mine looks at "technological recesses" a label that has already gotten him cited several times. You even reference Becker's "outsiders" because he's given it a label, and one rooted in literature. Becker is exceedingly good at doing this, leveraging contextual meaning systems. It is scholarly. It is not useful and unscholarly to not interrogate these categories. True. I thought that was what was happening. I like Lane's label of "auditing", but he and I are both labeled RPI/STS, and as such, I'm biased. Cheers. Casey