Abstract
At the end of their classic article ‘The micro-politics of trouble’ Emerson and Messinger (1977) suggested the idea of a ‘sociology of trouble’, which would capture trajectories that do not end up with someone being defined as ‘deviant’. Thus, 40 years later, Emerson’s volume on the ‘natural history’ of everyday troubles and interpersonal conflicts is most welcome.
According to Emerson, relationally grounded, interpersonal troubles develop over time in sequenced and patterned ways. Such troubles differ in character depending on, inter alia, whether the parties are strangers or known to each other, how close they are in terms of space and how much time they have to spend together. If simply ending the relationship, and avoiding the other is not an option, the ‘troubled party’ will try to learn to tolerate, accept, manage or prevent the disturbing behaviour, or attempt to correct, remind and perhaps even punish the other person and possibly involve a third party. Alternatively, the parties may reach a compromise.
Everyday Troubles is a neatly structured volume with each chapter capturing a stage or transformative moment in the ‘trouble process’. Throughout the volume, findings and concepts are related to classical theories on interaction (Erving Goffman) and deviance (Howard Becker, Harold Garfinkel), and to later research (e.g. Donald Black on conflicts, Jean-Claude Kaufmann on quarrels). Emerson’s own theories are integrated in the analysis, which is based on a large number of ‘trouble accounts’ including narratives about roommate troubles, neighbour disputes and care-giving within families. Other data sources are ‘irritation diaries’ (a wonderful concept!), police ‘ride alongs’, probation officers’ reports and Emerson’s own notes on ‘irritations’ and field notes from his study of psychiatric emergency teams. Most of these accounts describe the troubles in retrospect and are ‘partisan’—a point which is explicitly declared and reflected upon by Emerson. However, the fact that most narratives are told by the ‘troubled party’, means that we learn less about feelings, reflections and reactions from the perspective of those alleged to be the source of the trouble and who may feel unjustly accused.
By way of introduction, Emerson recounts two different stories—one by a college student on his increased irritation towards his roommate, and one by a woman who is concerned about her niece’s truancy and staying out at night. According to both accounts, the trouble started with the other person acting in an unexpected, unwanted way, and it developed despite the troubled party’s responses and attempts to remedy the situation. Both stories involved conceptions of conflict as well as deviance, and the ‘troubling other’ was described in increasingly derogatory terms.
Instead of suggesting that our concerns about trouble derive from a ‘real underlying problem’, Emerson investigates the process through which some negative experiences of other people’s behaviour are shaped or perceived as such, while others are not. In his analysis of ‘trouble prehistories’ and beginnings, he underlines the initial openness and ambiguity of a situation of discontent and the troubled party’s reflections on the consequences of possible responses. Accordingly, the first ‘unilateral responses’ include ‘self-targeted changes’, ‘managerial responses’ and ‘preventative actions’ undertaken without informing the other about one’s irritation or worry. If these responses fail, the troubled party may make a ‘remedial complaint’ to the other, often still without expressing anger, in order to present him- or herself as tolerant on the one hand, and to save the other’s face (and by implication the relationship) on the other. The troubling party, in turn, may contribute to the remedy through requests, accounts or apologies—or reject the complaint in part or completely.
Next, the troubled party may turn to an ‘informal other’ among friends or family (but not people who are close to the other, nor those expected to respond with ‘what did I say?’) in order to evoke sympathy and/or to get an outsider’s view on the trouble. The informal other is expected to listen and give support (but advice only when it is solicited) and may contribute to solving the problem – or transforming it to a triadic structure.
Emerson explains that an important turning point is when the troubled party decides to explicitly accuse the other of deliberate wrong-doing, rule-breaking and for having character flaws. Following such ‘extreme responses’, a number of transformations can unfold which are driven by both parties’ interdependent interpretations and responses. The troubled party is now cast as the victim of the other’s morally condemnable and deviant behaviour, and the negative view of the other is reinforced by the reinterpretation of previous events and behaviour. At this point, both parties’ faces are threatened, as is their relationship. Emerson introduces the concept of ‘response cycles’ for sequences of trouble, responses and reactions, which may result in escalation, or resolution of the trouble. The final stage in this process of serious trouble development may be the involvement of an authority, such as the police or psychiatric care. For the complainant, this may be a last resort in order to have the other person officially labelled as deviant. However, authority officials act according to their specific commitments, routines and caseloads, and their assessment of the case depends rather on what category they define the event as being a ‘normal case’ of. In addition, they serve as gate-keepers for their institutional systems and will often only do what it takes to make the situation tenable or orderly.
In the concluding chapter, Emerson suggests other areas for research on trouble, including ‘institutional troubles’. If this includes trouble processes between professionals—doctors, supervisors, therapists, lawyers or social workers—and their patients, students and clients, it would, according to this reader, be fruitful to combine theories on institutional identities with the conceptual framework of everyday troubles. This might include trouble accounts ‘from below’ in unequal relationships, something that is largely missing in Everyday Troubles.
The foreword written by Jack Katz places Emerson’s intellectual and theoretical work in the historical context of US sociology, and we learn here that Erving Goffman was once Emerson’s mentor. Everyday Troubles frequently evokes explicit and implicit associations with Goffman’s writing, through the similarity in which the text is structured, and the hierarchical ordering of a rich and coherent conceptual framework. Emerson, in similarity to Goffman, presents his theory with a degree of certainty, even if the analytical process through which he arrives at his conclusions is not always made clear. This does not, however, reduce the credibility or authority of this book, as all claims, concepts and observations refer to situations and patterns of interaction that are familiar to most people. Hence, the main feeling when reading this book is one of recognition. Emerson illuminates everyday issues and common experiences and, once equipped with his conceptual tools, it is easy to identify his ‘trouble types’ and the various stages and patterns of troubled interactions in our own life histories. Thus Everyday Troubles is warmly recommended reading for social science scholars and students, but also for neighbours, roommates and relatives.