Abstract
In consonance with the subtitle of his book, The Autobiography of a Sociologist, and in order to show through example that sociologists are capable of self-narrative, Dan A Chekki offers insights into personal and professional experiences. By pursuing the narrative of his life story, he arrives at a problem of sociological enquiry. One old issue that has consistently surfaced: should sociologists remain observers, or should they become active participants in constructing the social world?
According to Chekki, his autobiography tends to be an anthropology of himself. Sounds too narcissistic to justify itself as a sociological reflection? Chekki is consciously aware that he will face the scepticism and even contempt of established sociologists. In the words of Chekki, ‘sociology, as a scientific discipline, adopts the norms of objectivity, value neutrality and detachment … the dominant norms of sociological analysis discourage of autobiographical thinking’. Yes, indeed. It might appear that some sociologists would regard his effort as an illegitimate invasion of alien territory best not entered by someone trained in the sociological method. Understood as self-indulgence, it would be seen clearly as opposed to the demands of scientific discipline. Moreover, it would be perceived as a sin against the founding fathers of sociology. As everybody knows, they stirred the passion of developing sociology as a discipline capable of objective analyses of human societies. To do that, sociology should be far from being a private experience.
The modern sociological thinking stands nonetheless in contrast to this view. An approach that downplays unique experiences of the researcher is seen as shallow, because it does not express a deep commitment to a topic. Chekki claims that his autobiography contains the reflections of a sociologist based on retrospective participant observation. Readers follow a chronological pattern and are introduced to Dan A Chekki’s experiences, attitudes, interests, feelings as well as his world view. Combining the roles of both outsider and insider, Chekki converts his personal and professional life into an object that can be studied by a set of procedures. He shows how his life story, which might seem at first to be a purely individual phenomenon, is in fact patterned in family and community, educational institutions and cultural milieu. As he argues, his autobiography should be perceived by anyone as a case study in the sociology of occupations and organizations.
Allowing values to influence sociological thinking means seeing the world as the sociologist would like it to be, and not necessarily as it is. All would agree that autobiography implies using selective memories to uncover and describe that world, but it also means remaining faithful to that world. It would be silly to deny that no personal commitments dictate and delimit conclusions. That must be taken into account before the results of this case study can be used. Unfortunately, Dan A Chekki offers very modest methodological comments, and basic textbooks in methodology are not helpful here. After all, the primary goal of Chekki’s autobiography is not to document his curiosity and pastime, rather he wants to develop and explore some neglected dimension of autobiographical sociology. He is unable to move beyond a metaphor of sociology as ‘humanistic flesh’, which does not contribute to getting a better understanding of his endeavour anyway. Yet there is a whole tradition of writing in sociology, which did not require specialized training, and there is also no doubt that the great part of the traditions of sociology have humanistic roots. Still, it is somehow disappointing that the problems of autobiographical sociology do not warrant a fuller treatment in the book.
It is no secret that readers will grasp the perspective of both sociologist and storyteller if they are to understand what goes on in this book. Any separation between the two perspectives is unwarranted and counterproductive. Besides, these two perspectives are complementary rather than antagonistic. Based on her/his very own experiences the researcher can use them to make a picture of the social world from the vantage point of her/his memory. Of course, such memory remains not simply in wait to be caught in someone’s net like so many butterflies. Some choices must be made. Thus, autobiographical sociology turns out to be a way of seeing, which is often, more precisely, a way of not seeing. In the preface to his book Respect in a World of Inequality (2003), Richard Sennett writes that although he admires life histories as a perfect type of sociological material, he does not feel comfortable to confess his past. Sociologists know that words are never only what they describe, but they are defined by the context in which they are variously interpreted. Some would allow her/his life experience to define the problem to be investigated. Others even insist on locating a once-in-your-life experience within a more broadly defined sociological problem. Once the problem has been identified, however, research procedures are used. Many readers would hence be inclined to look at autobiographical sociology with a great measure of ambivalence.
Chekki’s book provides readers with his commentaries on life in India and Canada. Thus, some readers would appreciate being given a precious opportunity to learn more about the author’s migratory and transcultural experiences. However, his argument in favour of autobiographical sociology is not convincing enough. Why does professional life not allow itself to be explained through research efforts? Many sociological research efforts suggest insights into personal experiences that are not always formally addressed in the main topic of the research. Moreover, sociologists can at the same time satisfy the demands of sociological enquiry by making the boundaries beyond which their private experience cannot be applied. Writing a memoir will provide a good impression of life for sure. Sociologists, however, tend to be a little more methodological about this than any literary counterparts.