Summary: In 1992, Duneier delved into an ethnographic study of the streets of Greenwich Village, centering on the men and women who live, and work there. Duneier yearned to develop insight on “how their world works and how they see it” (p. 10) and how “these persons live in a moral order” (p. 9). Thus, over seven years he dedicated his time and efforts to directly participating alongside the men and women, all the while meticulously observing, questioning and excavating information and narratives. He extends his focus outwards as well, to larger social structures, tensions and constraints at play, giving a truly all-encompassing view of Sixth Avenue. In his immersion with the vendors, and the sidewalk life, Duneier was able to better understand
…show more content…
While Duneier exemplified a vast appreciation and level of respect for the vendors, I do not believe his studied was enacted without application of a critical eye. Thus, Duneier refrained from romanticizing the sidewalk, or painting the vendors in an overly sympathetic light. Personally this made me view Duneier, and his study with higher regard, because of the unedited nature of the data he included. Duneier indicated a “desire to look carefully at-counter evidence in regard to [his] theme” (p. 342), that sidewalk life is made viable by the informal system of social control the vendors provide. Duneier put his money where his mouth is, by devoting an entire four chapters to highlight the limits of informal social control. He examines some of the most contradictory evidence of deviant, unattractive behaviors, which stand to refute his claims, and instead support Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) “broken windows” theory his study was attempting to debunk. He very well could have omitted these negative instances of contradictory evidence, or censor the deviant unflattering behavior to strengthen his arguments. Instead, he commendably pursued to cover instances such as urination in public in greater detail. Furthermore he actively sought out various stakeholders to interview such as individuals from the Business Improvement Districts, the Property Owner’s Association, government officials, as well as owners of small businesses and pedestrians on the streets. These parties expressed views of the vending community that were not only contradictory to Duneier’s own, and the vision he was attempting to portray, but many in fact voiced fierce contempt, and discomfort of the vendor’s presence. Duneier’s choice to include these conversations, even though they stand to
While Duneier exemplified a vast appreciation and level of respect for the vendors, I do not believe his studied was enacted without application of a critical eye. Thus, Duneier refrained from romanticizing the sidewalk, or painting the vendors in an overly sympathetic light. Personally this made me view Duneier, and his study with higher regard, because of the unedited nature of the data he included. Duneier indicated a “desire to look carefully at-counter evidence in regard to [his] theme” (p. 342), that sidewalk life is made viable by the informal system of social control the vendors provide. Duneier put his money where his mouth is, by devoting an entire four chapters to highlight the limits of informal social control. He examines some of the most contradictory evidence of deviant, unattractive behaviors, which stand to refute his claims, and instead support Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) “broken windows” theory his study was attempting to debunk. He very well could have omitted these negative instances of contradictory evidence, or censor the deviant unflattering behavior to strengthen his arguments. Instead, he commendably pursued to cover instances such as urination in public in greater detail. Furthermore he actively sought out various stakeholders to interview such as individuals from the Business Improvement Districts, the Property Owner’s Association, government officials, as well as owners of small businesses and pedestrians on the streets. These parties expressed views of the vending community that were not only contradictory to Duneier’s own, and the vision he was attempting to portray, but many in fact voiced fierce contempt, and discomfort of the vendor’s presence. Duneier’s choice to include these conversations, even though they stand to