Research

Major Works

Institutional Ethnography: Sociology for People. Oxford: AltaMira Press, 2005.

Writing the Social: Critique, Theory, and Investigations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990

Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling. London, England: Routledge, 1990.

The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1987.

Feminism and Marxism: A Place to Begin, A Way to Go. Vancouver, BC: New Star Books, 1977.

Power and the Front Line: Social Controls in a State Mental Hospital. Berkeley, CA: Dissertation University of California, Berkeley, 1963.

Dorothy Smith is a sociologist who critiques sociology while maintaining her commitment to the discipline. Dr. Smith is motivated by the gap that she sees between the local actuality of people’s experiences and sociology. Smith’s ideal sociology is one that tells the truth about the way things actually are. Consequently, her goal is to form just that. Note the use of the term “actual,” Smith means it in the sense that what is actual is what is outside of the text. Smith also uses actual as synonymous with local. Texts to Smith are essentially material objects that manifest rules and order that are read by many people. What lies outside of the text (the actual) and text meditated discourse are peoples’ experiences, knowledge, day to day activities, etc. Texts bridge power and organization with discourse, Smith calls this the relations of the ruling. Smith proposes a method of inquiry that investigates and accounts for the actual; which is something that remains outside of sociology as it stands. Dr. Smith characterizes a method of inquiry as something that is always ongoing and discovering. The specific site that her method of inquiry is created from is the standpoint of women. Standpoint in the singular sense is used to because movement as of the women’s movement is singular as well. Smith writes that our experiences as women are unique because they always return to ourselves and others as embodied subjects. This embodiment is common ground among women. It appears as if this method of inquiry could be used for anyone’s experiences, though Smith chose the standpoint of women as a result of her own experiences. A symposium in the Spring of 1992 was organized by Barbara Laslett, University of Minnesota and Barrie Thorne, University of Southern California; Dorothy Smith’s sociology for women being the topic of discussion. In this symposium, Charles Lemert, Patricia Hill Collins, and Bob Connell commented on Smith’s work. The following are summaries of their comments:

Charles Lemert begins by characterizing the standpoint of women as standpoint epistemology, using her discussion of the “line of fault”. The line of fault is Smith’s term for that difference between what women know/experience and what is known/written. Next, Lemert suggests that the foundation of Smith’s theory is the subjective of her own experiences, and in fact she is using other’s experiences to project her own. It is my opinion that this may be true, but doesn’t that just further show that these experiences that women are having are common and part of the standpoint of women? Lemert’s argument is that she revises her sociology at various times in different years, and that this revision means that her sociology is changing to reflect what she is currently experiencing. Lemert does a good job of outlining the ultimate question for Smith: “Objecting structures and subjective experiences- what is their relation, in sociology and in life?” However, Smith is more focused upon what their relation should be. Lemert’s discussion of Smith and postructuralism can be related to one of the texts for this class: Sex, Gender and the Body by Toril Moi. Moi articulates the body and mind of a woman as a situation that is always changing, and Smith characterizes subjective women’s experiences as embodied. Both seem to draw upon women as they cannot be divorced from either experiences with society or their bodies. Lemert explains that Smith disagrees with postmodern theories because they look to textualities while Smith’s project tries to move beyond them. Lastly, Lemert questions what makes the standpoint of women distinctive, and also is it possible for any woman’s experiences to be divorced from any other characteristics that she might possess?

Patricia Hill Collins discusses Dr. Smith’s work in terms of a circle. Men are inside the circle and women are outside it. Collins points out that despite challenges to society by other marginalized groups, the inner circle had remained. It is my opinion that this is true to some extent, but that the challenges that have been made by marginalized groups have been useful in progressing those groups. For example, challenging slavery has let to the abolishment of that system. Collins summarizes Smith’s work with two themes. First, “Smith has investigated the social organization of objectified knowledge in order to demonstrate how such knowledge constitutes an essential part of the relations of ruling for contemporary capitalism. Sociology represents one example of this type of objectified knowledge.” It’s true that Smith regards this system of power and control as linked to capitalism. The second major theme that Collins identifies is quite obvious: “Smith has sought to explore the social from the site of women’s experiences.” Collins’ first objection to Smith’s work is that she fails to embrace one particular theoretical perspective. Collins believes that this is because Smith does not want to be locked into any of the critiques of any of the perspectives. Before moving further with objections to Smith’s research, Collins spends some time writing about Smith’s challenges; there are five. First, Smith is not restricted to Karl Marx, but is able to use his theories, she also works to bridge the gap between macro and micro sociology, demonstrates the value of looking beyond sociology to improve it, strives to better our knowledge of how power operates through organization of knowledge, and Smith tries to heal the empirical and theoretical pieces of sociology. Collins believes that in order for Smith to be successful in her endeavor, she must work to penetrate the inner circle and critique it from within. There are two ways in which Dr. Smith’s critique of sociology is limited in its success. First, Smith focuses of texts, but yet suggests no alternative as to how local knowledge would be shared otherwise. Collins thinks that this is especially true given that Smith overlooks other groups that are oppressed; similar to the argument mentioned earlier by Lemert. Secondly, Collins explains that by using the discourse and worldview of the inner circle Smith perpetuates it. Smith does this by assuming the language of the inner circle.

Along the lines of the critiques written by Lemert and Collins, Bob Connell begins his comment on Smith’s work by noting that Smith’s view is not worldly, and that she primarily uses American sociology. However, Connell does not explain why this is especially necessary. I ask, does his critique demand that all sociologies of the world be considered in every instance, and is that something that is generally feasible? Connell’s next objection to Dorothy Smith is that she is in fact only telling her own story, and writing of her experiences as a mother, sociologist, etc. He explains that this is a problem for her because she flips between the world of particularities and the world of abstraction. Further, he writes that due to the fact that the standpoint of women is outside of the ruling apparatus is the precise reason why there is no feminist sociology. It seems as if this indicates that in order to solve the problem that Smith is driving; one must fully penetrate the ruling apparatus. This is an interesting point, is it necessary that our political, economic, and social systems all be deconstructed in order to arrive at the end that Smith begins with? Connell’s critique of Smith’s research can be summarized in three points. First, he has issues with a standpoint of women as a concept. He points out that the standpoint of women is not exempt from all of the problems of other abstractions. Essentially he asks, what makes the standpoint of women unique and immune to these comments? I think he has a powerful second point, Connell inquires about how in modern times, there are women that exist within the apparatus ruling. What about Condoleezza Rice? Connell points out that these Women may have a standpoint that is in fact not like women that exist outside of the apparatus of organization. Connell’s third objection is that standpoint is singular, and like the objections above, this limits out perspectives of race, class, etc. that may influence a woman’s experiences. Also, Connell points out that Smith’s arguments are inconsistent with Marx, because Marx kept systems of state, class, etc. as distinct entities whereas Smith lumps them all into the ruling apparatus. Ultimately, Connell contends that Smith’s results in anarchist feminism. This is because anarchists desire the entire dismantling of the ruling apparatus, and that is what Connell thinks that Smith would also have to desire to achieve her goal.

Fortunately, Smith writes a response to the critiques of Collins, Connell, and Lemert. Dr. Smith begins her response by clarifying the notion of standpoint. In response to Connell’s claim that the standpoint of women is an extralocal abstraction Smith defines what her project is and the purpose of it. Her project “attempts to create a method of inquiry beginning from the site of being that we discovered as we learned to center ourselves as speaking, knowing subjects in our experience as women.” Dr. Smith explains that the word standpoint is singular, and that this singularity parallels with the women’s movement, as it is a singular move.

Next, Smith seeks to explain why the standpoint of women is something that is necessary and important. She indicates that without utilizing the standpoint of women in sociology there is a lack of knowledge about the experiences of women. Also, “the theorizing of ‘standpoint’ within feminist discourse displaces the practical politics that the notion of ‘standpoint’ originally captured.” She explains that the concept of standpoint is then reduced to a purely discursive function. Specifically, Smith believes it is important to study how women’s experiences are like subjects in bodies. This is something that Dr. Smith sees as common ground among all women, our sexed bodies. Essentially, women cannot be divorced from the bodily site of being.

Connell argues that Smith does not take into account other forms of oppression such as race and class. Smith responds with her believe that the standpoint of women is especially distinct. This is because “the standpoint of women situates inquiry in the actualities of people’s living, beginning with their experience of living, and understands that inquiry and its product are in and of the same actuality.” Researching the standpoint of women is also notably different than sociology based in texts because the standpoint of women incorporates actual women’s actual experiences. Connell and Collins also claim that Smith is interested in discrediting and deconstructing. Smith’s response is that she is not, and instead she is “concerned with examining and explicating how ‘abstractions’ are put together, with concepts, knowledge, facticity, as socially organized practices.”

All three critiques articulate that Smith privileges the standpoint of women over others, this is because one of the reasons she began to write about this in the first place is because of her own experiences. Smith’s response to this objection is that the method of inquiry that she has developed could be used for anyone and she just chose women because of her personal experiences. Basically, Smith believes that using the method of experiential understanding of people and sociology could be applied to any group or category.

In her use the standpoint of women is simply a site to begin the method of inquiry, which is what she chooses to describe more specifically in the next section of her response. Smith explains that established sociology, and its inquiry and methods, treats people as objects of their study. Through this treatment the relations of ruling are incorporate through the texts they are written. Dr. Smith explains her method of inquiry and why it is paramount. The term actual is important to her theory, because it demonstrates that there will be no discrepancy between people’s experiences and the sociology that attempts to describe them. For her, the standpoint of women is the actual. Texts are important because they bridge the actual experiences with discourse, and texts replicate relations of the ruling through the language, organization, thoughts, and culture that is used within them.

Dr. Smith responds to Lemert by articulating that the issue for her is not “discomfort or tolerance for ambiguity or appreciation of irony. Rather it is an issue of the reliability and accuracy of the products of inquiry, beginning from the standpoint of women.” Here again we see Smith attempting to make sociology reflect the actual. One especially interesting point that Smith makes is regarding language. Smith believes that the language of the dominant discourses should always be rewritten in accordance with experiences and its changes. It is my opinion that this is a useful point, considering the definitions of words change over time, why not just have a new word for the new meaning? Smith also goes further to write that “dialogue with the world constrains you.”

In the next part of her response Smith answers some of the objections to her theory on point. Smith begins by explaining that Lemert’s application of the Flax paradox is not applicable to her work. She answers this with a map analogy: “We have maps, we use maps, we rely on maps in a perfectly ordinary and mundane way. I’m not aiming for the one truth. I’m aiming rather to produce sociological accounts on this kind of credence...The map extends my capacity to move effectly in the city. It does not tell me everything about the subway system, but it does tell me the sequence of stations and gives me some idea of the distance between them. I’d like to develop a sociology that would tie people’s sites of experience and action into accounts of social organization and relations which have that ordinarily reliable kind of faithfulness to ‘how it works’.”

Collins and Connell give a metaphor of insider and outsider. Smith argues that this implies an outside society. Smith explains that Collins and Connell seek to understand oppressed and marginalized people as they are outside. Contrastingly Smith argues that these people are not in fact outside, instead they are inside and she works to capture their actual positions. Thus, when Dr. Smith claims that she is writing an insiders sociology, she means that there is actually no outsider and all experiences are inside, and therefore should be interpreted as such.

The next section of Dorothy Smith’s response is titles “The Politics and the Product.” Connell suggests that Dr. Smith’s sociology doesn’t reach out to other communities like Australia, Europe, etc. Her response is: “it is indeed true that my feminism is generally oppositional, but I’d have got nowhere if I’d stuck with the radical tradition of European sociology, as Connell suggests, which for the most part is embedded as deeply in the male-dominated standpoints of ruling as is American sociology.” She goes on to explain her Marxist influences and that oppositional modes of thinking have been popular in North America and also Europe.

Lastly, Smith articulates the differences between her and Collins concerns. Smith explains that Collins is more concerned with transforming the consciousnesses of those that are oppressed. Contrastingly, Smith explains her theory as being concerned with transforming and confronting the relations that oppress people. Smith wants her way of micro analyzing to become widespread and open up sociologists to being the subject of sociology rather than just observing. Smith envisions a world that intellectuals are active in. Ultimately, Smith’s research concern is “to build an ordinary good knowledge of the text-mediated organization of power from the standpoint of women in contemporary capitalism.” It is my opinion that this is a very noble cause. Capitalism, as it proliferates around the world, gives way to the sustainability of systems that exploit one for benefit of the other.

A chapter from a book, Feminism Edited by Sandra Harding, that Dorothy Smith has written summarizes Smith’s views of women, sociology, feminism, and her theory. I have summarized it here:

In “The Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology” Dorothy Smith outlines her theory in nine points. One argument that I found especially interesting appeared in her first point. Smith argues that when studying women’s sociology, “it is not enough to supplement an established sociology by addressing ourselves to what has been left out.” In essence, women’s sociology should not just be what is left out of the men’s world. If we concede that women’s studies is simply just what is left out of the men’s world , then women would be agreeing with the notion that women are secondary. Smith articulates that women in fact have their own world that can be studied independent of the men’s world, and that there are differences between the two that lie deeper than just a biological explanation. The problem that she sees with sociology is that women and their experiences do not fit in with it, and something needs to be done to change this institutional subjugation of women. Put differently, this point is exemplified in some of her other works: women should be a part of sociology, thus the standpoint of women via women’s experiences is the best place to begin.

In her second point Dr. Smith begins to develop an explanation of the organizations and institutions that are the center of women’s oppression in society. She explains that these institutions are ruling and governing women in a way that is unfavorable to women. They are especially prevalent in the fields of government, sociology, and economics. Sociology that doesn’t include women sociologists formulates the model within which society functions. The male sociology fails to recognize that the formal organization of men above women is absolutely horrific. Established sociology does not recognize that women have a different position within the institutions; Smith’s theory recognizes it. Her audience in this paper consists of graduate women learning to be sociologists, and she wishes them to change the sociological perspective so that it includes the perspective of women.

Her third and fourth points seek to digest how male sociologists fit into sociology, and then comparatively where women sociologists fit in. This part of the article is very complex; she is saying that men and women observe society from completely different perspectives (standpoints). Outside of the obvious that they are simply different genders, what gender the sociologist is determines if they are observing society from an insider or outsider standpoint. Male sociologists are observing from an insider point of view, they are inside the world that rules over, dominates, and exploits women. On the other hand, women sociologists are in a world that is outside the structure that male sociology observes. This explains why women feel/are alienated. Dorothy Smith seeks to develop an “insider’s sociology,” where all standpoints are inside, and the insider outsider distinction is eliminated.

Logically, after describing how established doesn’t include the standpoint of women, it makes sense to explain what should be done about it. Smith’s fifth point outlines what the goal of women sociologists should be. “Women sociologists stand at the center of contradiction in the relation of our discipline to our experience of the world. Transcending that contradiction means setting up a different kind of relation than that which we discover in the routine practice of our worlds.” Basically, sociologist’s relation to the world, and women’s relation to the world through their experiences are contradictory. So, Smith believes that that contradiction should be transcended. This is done by creating a new place where people that are both women and sociologists can flourish. Ideally, in this place, the gap between people’s experiences and what is written in sociology no longer exists.

The sixth point outlines what exactly their alternative approach should be. Smith opposes a radical revolutionary type of change in the field, and instead recommends a more gradual approach of changing the relation of women’s experience and their study of sociology. Without actualizing this recommendation, she fears that women who are studying sociology will be constrained and the knowledge they have of the socially constructed world will remain outside of the world of their experiences. Women sociologists’ experiences should be brought to the field, rather than them constraining their experiences to fit in a field that is male dominated.

The seventh and eighth points further explain her argument that the observer (sociologist) should not be separated from the world that they are observing. I think what she is saying is that sociology, as a field, is better served if the sociologists have an insider relationship to the field. Thus, the current problem sociology faces is that women sociologists are separated from sociology. This is because at the time this was written sociology was a field dominated by men, and women could not access that world (see Dorothy Smith’s experiences with this in her biography).The knowledge that women have in sociology should be consistent with the knowledge that they are gaining from their experiences. Unfortunately, women are limited because the knowledge sociology has of them and their experiences contradict. Dr. Smith wants those that read her article to create a new sociology in which that contradiction no longer exists.

The ninth point concludes that, in the future, women’s activities, studies, and initiatives need to be focused on a new sociology. The new sociology that Dorothy Smith envisions is one that allows women to focus on something that is more productive for them, because sociology will include their standpoint.

References

Connell, R.W. “A Sober Anarchism,” Sociology Theory, Vol. 10, No. 1. (Spring, 1992): 81-87.

Collins Hill, Patricia. “Transforming the Inner Circle: Dorothy Smith’s Challenge to Sociological Theory,” Sociology Theory, Vol. 10, No. 1. (Spring, 1992): 73-80.

Lemert, Charles. “Subjectivity’s Limit: The Unsolved Riddle of the Standpoint,” Sociology Theory, Vol. 10, No. 1. (Spring, 1992): 63-72.

Smith, Dorothy. “Sociology from Women’s Experience: A Reaffirmation,” Sociology Theory, Vol. 10, No. 1. (Spring, 1992): 88-98.

Smith, Dorothy. “Women’s Perspective As A Radical Critique of Sociology.” In Feminism, edited by Sandra Harding. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1987.