|
|
|
Reviews / Comptes Rendus
| Sherry B. Ortner, New Jersey Dreaming: Capital, Culture, and the Class of '58 (Durham: Duke University Press 2003)
|
| SHERRY ORTNER is a respected anthropologist who has turned her attention away from Sherpas in Nepal to the Class of '58 Weequahic high school in Newark, New Jersey, the high school from which she herself graduated that year. This change of focus may not appear self-evident but the impressive quality and sophistication of this study only serves to confirm that high academic achievement has as much to do with familiarity with the subject as with innovative research skills, a capacity to apply rigorous analytical frameworks, and to draw thought-provoking conclusions that can address wider questions. Ortner has clearly demonstrated she has all of these abilities. In New Jersey Dreaming she makes the case for the centrality of class as it combines with race, ethnic background, gender, and with the influence of "social movements that seek the advancement of particular groups" to account for social mobility. However commonsensical this overarching premise might strike historians, her findings and analysis provide an invaluable wealth of material and thought-provoking analysis for anyone interested in following the concrete impact of these variables on people's chances of upward mobility. This she does by following the life trajectory of 304 high school graduates of the late 1950s and interviewing about 100 of them over a 40 year period. While Ortner's findings are for the most part not fundamentally surprising, they are at times unexpected and all made plausible by her perceptive insights and persuasive interpretations. |
1
|
|
At the root of her inquiry is an attempt to account for the fact that the majority of the class of '58 which was of working and middle-class origins ended up moving into an upper-middle or professional/managerial class. This, in turn, allows her to confront head on and contradict what she considers the "invisibility of class" — the fact that class is "under-recognized as a factor in American social and cultural life" by many scholars and indeed by individuals themselves such as the graduates being interviewed. In this study, she brings out the dominant impact of class in determining the fate of the graduates of '58 while confirming that they were more likely to ascribe their circumstances to psychological factors. In addition, the fact that 83 per cent of the graduates of '58 were Jewish gives Ortner the opportunity to address many stereotypes and assumptions associated with this particular ethnic group. |
2
|
|
It must be said that at times some of her conclusions are drawn from relatively small samples. This is particularly true when it comes to drawing conclusions on the experience of non-Jewish ethnic groups or working-class graduates. While she is systematically diligent in reminding the reader when the size of the sampling warrants caution, one could argue that she might have forgone drawing conclusions in these cases altogether. In the same vein, although this occurs on very rare occasions, she can go beyond what her evidence will support. This is true, for instance, when she deals with the "hoods and sluts" at the school. She did not interview members of these groups as she defined them. Yet this does not stop her from commenting on their secret wishes. |
3
|
|
At the end of every chapter, the author included a "field journal" in which she aimed to recount some of the difficulties she encountered as a "native ethnographer." These often proved revealing, but for reasons that remain unclear, the author placed particular emphasis on the frustrations she had driving to the residences of the graduates. While not unsympathetic to the stresses of finding one's way in new surroundings by car, the reader may be excused for wondering how this information furthers our understanding of the "reactions of a working ethnographer." One can easily imagine that other challenges came her way that might have been more worthwhile recounting to enlighten colleagues and the novice ethnographer. |
4
|
|
More importantly, Ortner does not always avoid the pitfalls awaiting those who set their study in a relatively short time period and identify it as distinctive if not exceptional. In this case, she labels the 1950s with the familiar epithet of conformist. The risk, of course, in doing so, as historians know all too well, is to overstate the case by underestimating the continuities with the past. In New Jersey Dreaming, historians of women's higher education and professional life, for instance, will be particularly sensitive to this. A more extended knowledge of trends and developments in these areas before the 1950s would have certainly made the author less likely to present the barriers her female graduates experienced as women as evidence of the distinctive conformity of the 1950s. Here, then, is where historians will find Ortner's conclusions less convincing. |
5
|
|
Nonetheless, all of the above are essentially minor shortcomings in what is overall a fascinating study. And as a reviewer it is worth pointing out that Ortner has made it easy for readers to critically assess and appreciate her work since she is exceptionally explicit about her objectives, approach, assumptions, and concerns as a researcher. Furthermore she systematically keeps the reader informed of her on-going thoughts as she conducted her interviews and the analytical reactions they inspired. She also has the intellectual honesty to alert the reader when her findings pushed her to revisit her initial assumptions. She thus succeeds in involving the reader in her journey of discovery. Finally, by giving pride of place to the voice of her interviewees she does indeed successfully "bring class back in" to the Class of '58. |
6
|
| | |
Nicole Neatby
Saint Mary's University |
|
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|