In Chapter 5 of On the Run, Goffman chronicles the apparent cycling of the 6th Street men through different levels of the penal system. One of the key ways that these young men deal with their criminalization is living life on the run, which includes learning to “run and hide when police are coming” (52), avoiding places where policing is heavy like hospitals and funerals, avoiding formal employment, cultivating unpredictability in their behavior and habits, and “taking legal risks on one another’s behalf” (126).

For the first part of my discussion question, I posed whether or not we could read On the Run through the lens of resistance identities, as described by Rios, and/or survival strategies, as described by Sherman. There was not much consensus in our class discussion on whether or not Rios’ resistance identities was an ideal framework. As Rios describes in “Dummy Smart,” resistance identities are those that are “created by subordinated populations in response to oppression” and can help “provide them with the necessary tools to survive in an environment where they have been left behind and…consistently criminalized” (102). So an important distinction raised during class may be defining what these men are resisting. Would the resistance identity be completing normal, everyday tasks even though they are often criminalized? Or, would the resistance identity be living on the run from the police, even though this seems to be the more prevalent approach among the 6th Street men?

I have yet to come to a definite conclusion, but I am leaning towards the idea that resistance identities can incorporate both: a general identity developed in response to the 6th Street men navigating life under the apparent omnipresence of the police and penal system–a balance between running and living a “normal” life under this surveillance. In Rios’ framework, the 6th Street men are a subordinated population who are using different survival strategies to navigate a world which has sought to criminalize their everyday habits and behavior. Sometimes their strategies are in opposition to what mainstream society may dictate as the “correct” way to deal or cooperate with police surveillance. But whether they run or stay, the unfortunate consequence often seems to be time spent in police custody, jail, or prison–so everything these men do can in some framework be defined as a type of resistance. Additionally, in Chapter 4 of On the Run, Goffman introduces the ways in which the 6th Street community actually use their involvement with legal authorities to their own benefit, whether that be using jail as a safe haven, the bail office as a bank, or the threat of snitching as a form of social control. This component may demonstrate how the 6th Street community can develop a form of agency under the surveillance of the police, showing that they are not just passive and “unwilling pawns of oppressive authorities” (91).

I am also interested in the degree to which we should address Goffman’s status as a white, middle/upper-class, educated woman in her analysis of 6th Street and its residents. To an extent, the Appendix helps to clarify how she came to be involved in the 6th Street community, how she viewed her relationships there, and, in part, how she addressed being an outsider of the community while conducting research. Despite these explanations, I am still left somewhat unsatisfied. As opposed to other ethnographers who embrace their outsider status, Goffman instead, sought to be a “participant observer” who would eventually be able to understand the “everyday worries and small triumphs from the inside” (243). But the main focus of her research became “life on the run,” which remained an elusive concept for a white women on 6th Street without actively putting herself in danger or explicitly attracting the attention of the police–which would likely ruin her rapport with the 6th Street men. So, Goffman claims it herself: she “missed a lot by not moving through the criminal justice system alongside them” (243). Even though she sought not to be an outsider, it seems to me that Goffman retained her outsider status on arguably the most integral part of her study.

Lastly, I am left wondering why we are posing this question for Goffman, even though it has yet to come up for previous ethnographers discussed. Does it have to do with her multi-pronged status as an outsider–as white, as highly educated, as middle/upper-class, and as a woman? I do think Goffman’s status is worth noting and discussing but why now and not before?