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?