In Monday’s class we grounded our discussion in a review of the core ideas related to the role of sexuality in the city. Following this we jumped into my question in which I referenced Brown-Saracino’s work. Dialogue focused primarily on the concept of ambient community, which is defined as feelings of belonging or connection that arise from informal, voluntary, and affective ties. We grappled with whether or not Bowdoin can serve as an ambient community or whether students forge community in diverse ways.

The other readings and expert questions for this day inspired conversation about if we can consider cities as safe spaces for women or not. While there were comments in favor of each argument, after hearing various points of view, I believe that certain cities may be equally as dangerous as certain suburbs. The massive quantities of people living and traveling through cities are definitely daunting, and this sense of anonymity can make people feel uneasy about those around them. However, as someone mentioned, this constant flow of individuals potentially provides more active bystanders in problematic situations. Additionally, a classmate reminded us that sexual violence, which is a major safety concern for a lot of women, occurs most frequently from people with whom someone already has close personal ties with rather than from strangers. While we often structure the sexual violence conversation around women, it is important to keep in mind that these issues also affect men.

We touched on the numerous consequences of framing sexual violence as a “woman’s problem.” Of these results, I believe the most toxic to be the culture we have allowed to support and perpetuate it. This brings up another one of the readings that covers the 11,000 untested rape kits in the Detroit Police Department. In class we considered some of the potential reasons why these kits, that potentially contain scientific evidence, were not tested. The author emphasizes a lack of resources as the main underlying factor, but I think it is crucial to reflect on how greater cultural factors might have influenced this decision. Why is it that we often hear about sexual violence cases going unresolved? Would we ever see scientific evidence related to a homicide ignored and discounted in this same way? What is so different about sexual violence that creates this double standard? Is this due to the tricky nature of the “he-said, she-said” aspect that is often present in rape and sexual assault cases? Is physical scientific data not enough to accurately take action in these cases? Would the unimpressive judicial outcomes that we typically see in these types of trials not justify the resources spent to test these kits and analyze all of the information made available? Our class discussion raised important questions about our cultural norms.

If we want to change the way these issues are talked about and dealt with in society, I think we will need to be able to identify the foundation of the problem in order to modify it. To do so we will need to address whether issues of sexual violence are related to a gender, race, or socioeconomic status. Most likely these issues are interwoven between many if not all of these facets of identity, which complicates the prospect of finding a simple resolution.

Alice Goffman’s novel On The Run: Fugitive Life in an American City recounts a six-year ethnographic study that she conducted for Princeton University in an urban community in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In this book, she attempts to make sense of her observations by making claims about the functions of and the reasons behind certain trends, actions, and experiences that she witnessed.

A seemingly obvious limitation of this study, as is the case with many ethnographic studies, is the disconnect between external observers and their subjects. While Goffman spent a lot of time talking to and observing the community that she based the book on, we still must consider how her perceptions and/or expectations as an outsider working in that setting could have impacted her conclusions. Not only is she unfamiliar with the cultural norms of navigating the neighborhood, the readers should be wary of how accurate of a picture she is able to paint as a wealthy white woman representing an elite institution who is studying primarily lower-income black men.

Additionally, I think it is important to reflect on how the actions and/or words of the members of this community might have been impacted by Goffman’s presence. In the Preface, Goffman adds, “the families described here agreed to allow me to take notes for the purpose of one day publishing the material (Goffman, xvi).” While these families most likely did agree to these conditions, having the knowledge that they are subjects of an examination might have consciously or subconsciously influenced these people in ways we cannot quite pin point. The simple reality of Goffman’s presence might have altered the ways in which the community typically functions.

On page 32 Goffman touches on the relationship between the neighborhood and the public resources that surround them, “I did not observe any person with a warrant call the police or voluntarily make use of the courts during the six years of the study. Indeed, these young men seemed to view the authorities only as a threat to their safety.” Reading sections of the book with quotations like this made me question how we can alter the preexisting system to provide these people with access to the institutions that in theory are intended to benefit them. I find it extremely problematic that many of the members of this neighborhood perceive the hospital, prisons, and any interaction with the police as dangerous territories that should be avoided at all costs. We saw a similar trend in the Golden Valley reading, where residents who needed assistance were unwilling to pursue it due to fear of cultural backlash. While the members of Golden Valley feared the negative social outcomes and the people studied by Goffman feared legal trouble, incarceration, and even death, both communities have social and cultural barriers standing between them and valuable sources of aid. If we want to provide all American people with equal access to social mobility and prosperity, we have to start by ensuring that everyone feels comfortable taking advantage of public spaces and resources, which is undoubtedly a difficult feat.

In addition, Goffman claims that this distrust and apprehension that exists with public resources also carries over into the personal lives of the community members studied in On The Run. On Page 37 Goffman comments on young men’s relationships, “He comes to regard those closest to him as potential informants. Like going to the hospital or calling the police, spending time with friends, family, or romantic partners places men at risk.” How might this feeling of uncertainty about the intentions of one’s primary and secondary ties alter the ways in which social relationships are built? How might members of society interact differently because of this? Could this cultural norm lead to different or more solitary lifestyles?