Sexual Psychology – Critical Reflection – Due FRI 11/12

Tearoom Trade: Means & Ends in Social Research

Author(s): Donald P. Warwick

Source: The Hastings Center Studies , 1973, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1973), pp. 27-38

Published by: The Hastings Center

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3527471

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Hastings Center is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hastings Center Studies

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

RESEARCH ON HUMAN SUBJECTS-I

Tearoom Trade: means & ends

in social research DONALD P. WARWICK

We're so preoccupied with defending our privacy against insurance investigators, dope sleuths, counterespionage men, divorce de- tectives and credit checkers, that we overlook the social scientists behind the hunting blinds who're also peeping into what we thought were our most private and secret lives. But there they are, studying us, taking notes, get- ting to know us, as indifferent as everybody else to the feeling that to be a complete human being involves having an aspect of ourselves that's unknown.

Nicholas Von Hoffman, The Washington Post.

Any man who remains in a public rest- room for more than five minutes is apt to be either a member of the vice squad or some- one on the make. As yet, he is not suspected of being a social scientist.

Laud Humphreys, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places, p. 26.

n the mid-1960s

Laud Humphreys undertook an intensive so- ciological study of male homosexual activities in public restrooms. The results were pub- lished two years ago in Tearoom Trade' (A "tearoom" is a location in which homosexual

encounters are reputed to take place.) Hum-

phreys' methods were varied and painstaking, ranging from direct observation of homo- sexual acts in restrooms to a follow-up survey with men who were observed in these acts.

That they were also controversial is made evident by the statement of Nicholas Von Hoffman attacking the scope and methods of Humphreys' study and the growing intrusive- ness of social research.

Humphreys' research provides a case study in the impact of social research on human freedom. I have chosen Tearoom

Trade as an example partly because it is recent and controversial, partly because of its varied methodology, and partly because the author and his defenders comment ex-

plicitly on its research ethics. It is admittedly an extreme example in many respects, and it is far from typical of social scientific re- search. Most social scientists and social re-

search institutes go to great lengths to avoid deception, misrepresentation, possible harm to respondents, and other problems arising in Humphreys' study of homosexuals. Be- cause their continuing success depends pre- cisely on maintaining the confidence and good will of the participating public, large survey research institutes are particularly scrupulous in this regard. Nevertheless, though Tearoom Trade is not typical, it is

1Laud Humphreys, Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1970).

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

28 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIES

instructive in pointing up issues of ethics which arise in lesser degree in many other studies.2

The Sociologist as Watchqueen

To grasp the implications of Humphreys' research one must have a clear picture of his strategy and tactics. Once he chose to train his sights on the problem of impersonal sex, he had to gain entry to the society of male homosexuals. Social deviants inside rest-

rooms and elsewhere develop careful de- fenses against outsiders, including special gestures and extreme caution with strangers. After spending some time exploring various public restrooms, Humphreys discovered a relatively simple and convenient entree to observation: the role of "watchqueen."

Fortunately, the very fear and suspicion of tearoom participants produces a mechanism that makes such observation possible: a third man (generally one who obtains voy- euristic pleasures from his duties) serves as a lookout. Such a "watchqueen," as he is labeled in the homosexual argot, coughs when a police car stops nearby or when a stranger approaches. He nods affirmatively when he recognizes a man entering as being a "regular." Having been taught the watch- queen role by a cooperating respondent, I played that part faithfully while observing hundreds of acts of fellatio.3

To record the full details of his observa-

tions Humphreys made use of a "Systematic Observation Sheet." Space was provided for the time and place; the weather; the age, dress, general appearance, and automobile of the participants; their specific role in the activities; and a floor plan of the restroom. To be sure that the information was fresh, Humphreys took field notes in situ with the

aid of a portable tape recorder hidden under a carton in the front seat of his car.

Through patient time-and-place sampling of selected sites he came up with a list of 134 active participants in fellatio. He also identified each participant (except two walk- ers) with an automobile and duly recorded its state and license number. He then sought to learn more about these men by finding their names, addresses, and the year and make of their cars in state license registers. "Fortunately, friendly policemen gave me access to the license registers, without asking to see the numbers or becoming too inquisi- tive about the type of 'market research' in which I was engaged."4 With various kinds of attrition the final sample of identifiable tearoom participants dwindled to 100.

From the beginning Humphreys felt it important to do more than observe the minutiae of male homosexuality in tearooms. He also wanted to explore the social origins and present circumstances of the partici- pants. The sample of 100 names and ad- dresses provided an excellent opportunity to collect this information-if he could gain access to the individuals involved. Before

moving to a full-scale household survey he spent a Christmas vacation recording a de- scription of each individual's residence and neighborhood. But some questions could be answered only by personal interviews.

The author admits that this last stage of his data-collection efforts raised serious ethi-

cal problems. "I already knew that many of my respondents were married and that all were in a highly discreditable position and fearful of discovery. How could I approach these covert deviants for interviews?"5

The solution was again ingenious. While conducting his own research Humphreys also held another position in which he was re- sponsible for developing an interview sched- ule to be used in a "social health survey" of a random sample of males in the community. "With permission from the survey's direc- tors, I could add my sample to the larger group (thus enhancing their anonymity) and interview them as part of the social health survey."6 The resulting "random sample" consisted of addresses of 50 homosexual and

50 control respondents.

2 This paper has profited from the suggestions and criticisms of numerous colleagues and friends, in- cluding Robert Michels of Columbia University; Michael Horowitz, New York City; Herbert Kel- man, Ann Orlov, Bruce Smith, and Mary Thomas, Harvard University; Paul Rosencrantz, College of the Holy Cross; C. Michael Lanphier of York Uni- versity, Toronto; Leon Kass and Daniel Callahan. Lee Rainwater of Harvard University was especially helpful in commenting on the factual accuracy of my interpretations of the research in question. The manuscript was also sent to Laud Humphreys of the State University of New York for his comments.

3Laud Humphreys, "The Sociologist as Voyeur," Trans-action 7:15, May, 1970.

4Humphreys, Tearoom Trade, p. 38. 5Humphreys, "The Sociologist as Voyeur," p. 15. 6lbid.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

TEAROOM TRADE 29

For various reasons Humphreys was anx- ious to interview the homosexual group himself, but he was also concerned that he might be recognized. To minimize this pos- sibility he waited at least one year from the date of the original contacts, and changed his hair style, dress, and car. He claims that none of the respondents recognized him or

n an

editorial entitled "Sociological Snoopers and Journalistic Moralizers,"

Von Hoffman is portrayed as a

journalistic poacher who had invaded

the sacred preserves of sociology.... He is thus linked to "clergymen,

politicians, and intellectuals generally"

who are envious of sociology's rising power because it is a threat to their own.

seemed unduly suspicious about the "health survey," despite the fact that it contained questions about marital sexuality. It is pos- sible, however, that a few respondents were better at disguising their emotions than the investigator was in detecting them.

The findings of the study were reported in two forms: statistical tables with the usual controls for occupation, marital status, age, etc.; and vignettes serving as case studies. The author claims that he went to unusual lengths to protect the confidentiality of the results without distorting them in the process. "The question I have always asked myself in this connection is: Could the respondent still recognize himself without having any others recognize him? I may have failed in a few cases to meet the first part of this standard,

but I am confident that I have not failed to meet the second."7

How, then, should we evaluate the overall ethics of Humphreys' study or, for that mat- ter, any piece of social scientific research? The task would be easier if we could dismiss

the study as worthless sociology or incom- petent research, but it is neither. The prob- lem is that there are no well-developed and generally acceptable ethical standards for judging serious research. It is not just that social scientists disagree among themselves on ethics but that the conceptualization of ethical problems in research remains at a very low level, with some notable excep- tions.8 As a step toward improving the state of the art I suggest the concept of human freedom as one yardstick for assessing re- search. How would it apply to the Hum- phreys' study?

Human Freedom

The notion of human freedom offers a useful vantage point for judging the impact of social research on both individuals and the larger society. It suggests a broader range of ethical criteria than the commonly-used yardsticks of "privacy" and "dignity," while it seems more manageable from a conceptual standpoint than the idea of "rights."

Human freedom may be defined for pres- ent purposes as the capacity, opportunity and incentive to make reflective choices and to act on these choices. This definition in- cludes two elements on which there is sub- stantial agreement among writers on freedom: (1) the individual's ability to choose among alternatives and to originate action; and (2) circumstances in the environment which are favorable to the suggestion of alternatives and the execution of action. To be free a man must have certain qualities within him- self which permit him to choose and act, and also live in an environment which aids choice and does not impede his actions. Hence we may distinguish between personal freedom and environmental freedom.9

Personal freedom, which might also be

7 Humphreys, Tearoom Trade, p. 172. 8Cf. Herbert C. Kelman, A Time to Speak: On

Human Values and Social Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968).

9Cf. Donald P. Warwick, "Human Freedom and National Development," Cross Currents 18:495- 517, 1968.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

30 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIES

termed psychological or dispositional free- dom, is built on personality tendencies which help the individual to make reflective choices and to act on these choices. Viewed posi- tively, it consists of the ability and will to choose and act within the matrix of the

opportunities provided by the society within which one lives. Viewed negatively, it is the absence of fear, anxiety, defense mechanisms and other psychic qualities which impair rationality or impede action. Environmental freedom, in turn, comes close to the concept of liberty in Anglo-American philosophy and law. It includes both the absence of external

impediments to individual action and the presence of conditions, such as information, aiding reflection and choice.

To be fair to social research it is important to conceptualize freedom in a manner that permits improvement as well as impairment. Too often discussions of ethics and the social

sciences view research as a process which can only limit human freedom through such means as deception or invasions of privacy. What we need now is a kind of benefit/cost matrix permitting estimates of the net gains or losses for freedom involved in a given study.

Freedom for Whom.?

Whose freedom should be considered, and with what weight, in judging the ethics of social research? In the case of research in-

volving human subjects at least four parties are involved: the individual participant (subject, respondent), the researcher, the larger society, and the researcher's profession. Many of the ethical problems in research spring from conflicts between the freedoms of these four parties. The researcher will usually place strong emphasis on the free- dom of scientific inquiry. Social scientists typically justify incursions into the private life of participants on the grounds that free men have the right to know, that scientific knowledge is the basis of social progress, or that the specific knowledge generated by their research will contribute to the allevia- tion of some pressing social problem. But these claims may conflict with the individual citizen's desire for a sense of dignity and a private sphere of existence. Similarly, the investigator's research procedures may en- hance his freedom of inquiry at the expense

of other members of his own and perhaps related professions. If Humphreys' study contributes to public suspicion about the trustworthiness of social scientists, as I think it does, then my freedom and that of my pro- fessional colleagues to do our kinds of re- search will suffer accordingly. Hence one of the most difficult problems facing the social sciences is how to assign priorities when the freedoms of various parties are incompatible. As T. R. Vaughan writes:

There is no natural law to which the scient- ist can appeal. Like others, he bases his decisions on personal predilections and particular values. But one person's pre- dilections-be he scientist or saint-are not perforce more natural than another's. The proclivity among scientists to minimize, if not ignore, competing social ethics, and to define science in some independent sense, is quite widespread. In short, the scientist typically subscribes to the notion that the end of knowledge justifies the scientific means.10

The debate stirred up by Tearoom Trade aptly illustrates the conflict between the free- dom of the researcher and that of other par- ties. Especially instructive in this regard was the exchange between Nicholas Von Hoff- man of the Washington Post and the editors of Trans-action, Irving Louis Horowitz and Lee Rainwater. Von Hoffman's argument is well-stated in his final sentence: "No infor-

mation is valuable enough to obtain by nipping away at personal liberty, and that is true no matter who is doing the gnawing, John Mitchell and the conservatives over at the Justice Department or Laud Humphreys and the liberals over at the Sociology Depart- ment.""1 Horowitz and Rainwater (who were listed by Humphreys as advisors to his re- search) responded in an editorial entitled "Sociological Snoopers and Journalistic Mor- alizers."'2 Von Hoffman is portrayed there as a journalistic poacher who had invaded the sacred preserves of sociology. His main in- tent is not to question the ethics of social

10Ted R. Vaughan, "Governmental Intervention in Social Research: Political and Ethical Dimensions in the Wichita Jury Recordings," Ethics, Politics and Social Research, ed. Gideon Sjoberg (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1967), p. 71.

11 Nicholas Von Hoffman, Washington Post col- umn, reprinted in Trans-action 7:4,6, May, 1970.

12Irving Louis Horowitz and Lee Rainwater, Trans-action 7:5-8, May, 1970.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

TEAROOM TRADE 31

research, but to give sociology a few knocks to keep it in place. He is thus linked to "clergymen, politicians, and intellectuals gen- erally" who are envious of sociology's rising power because it is a threat to their own.

Social Research and the

Individual Participant

Some of the most critical questions of ethics in social research deal with its impact on the individual participant, such as the respondents in Humphreys' study. Following the approach to freedom suggested earlier, we can point to positive as well as negative effects of the research process on such in- dividuals.

Benefits

What are some of the way in which social research might enhance the personal freedom of the participant? Let us take survey re- search as an example. Critics of this method commonly emphasize the inconvenience and intrusions associated with surveys, but they overlook a number of satisfactions which it

can provide. First, individuals who know something

about surveys may find in them an oppor- tunity for self-expression. People often de- rive satisfaction from providing information or expressing an opinion on subjects in which they are interested. Often this satis- faction is enhanced when the resulting infor- mation may have some effect on the policies of a nation, community or employer. An- other positive effect may stem from inter- personal response-the satisfaction found in sharing important events in one's life with a sympathetic listener. In Humphreys' study twelve of the men observed in public rest- rooms agreed to be interviewed in some detail about their background and experi- ences. The author's account suggests that these men, who were told the purposes of the study, may have found it helpful to dis- cuss their lives and problems with an out- sider. A third positive quality is the sheer intellectual challenge of some studies. Re- spondents will often agree to be interviewed to satisfy their curiosity about what goes on in surveys and polls or to reduce loneliness and boredom. Fourth, the interview may lead to insights which are helpful and rewarding. There is some evidence, for example, that interviews following upon personal or social

disasters, such as suicides among family members or deaths caused by tornadoes, help the respondent to make sense of highly confusing experiences. These four conditions can be considered positive contributors to individual freedom to the extent that they provide the individual with opportunities for self-expression or contribute to a reduction of fear and anxiety.

Costs

Every method of social research using live human subjects entails certain potential risks or hazards to the freedom of the individuals involved. Foremost among these are decep- tion, invasions of privacy, and harmful uses of the research findings.

Deception. Humphreys' research provides a unique case study of deception. The con- catenation of misrepresentations and dis- guises in this effort must surely hold the world record for field research. Consider the following:

1. In the initial stages the author spent several months passing as a deviant ("an- other gay guy") in private gatherings, gay bars, an annual ball, a local bathhouse, movie theaters, and tearooms. "On one occa- sion, for instance, tickets to an after-hours party were sold to the man next to me at a bar. When I asked to buy one, I was told that they were 'full up.' Following the tip of another customer, I showed up anyway and walked right in."13 All of this was to tool up for passing in closer quarters.

2. Humphreys misrepresented his identity while serving as "watchqueen" in the public restrooms. While carrying out his duties in this role he gave no indication to the lead actors about his real reasons for being there. He defends his actions on the following grounds:

Since one's identity within the interaction membrane of the tearoom is represented only in terms of the participant role he assumes, there was no misrepresentation on my part as an observer: I was indeed a "voyeur," though in the sociological and not the sexual sense. My role was primarily that of watchqueen, and that role I played well and faithfully. In that setting, then, I misrepresented my identity no more than anyone else.14

Humphreys gives himself away with his com- ments on being a "voyeur." It is clear that he

13Humphreys, Tearoom Trade, p. 25. 141bid., pp. 170-171.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

32 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIES

represented himself to the participants as a voyeur in the sexual sense, and made himself credible in that role by acting as the good and faithful watchqueen. Also, it is plain that he did misrepresent his identity more than others, save visiting policemen or black- mailers. The men who came to the tearooms

saw each other accurately-as individuals seeking a certain type of satisfaction with anonymity and little commitment. Hum- phreys came there primarily as a sociologist carrying out research on deviance.

3. Humphreys disguised the fact that he was making an oral record of his observa- tions by hiding a tape recorder in the front seat of his car. The point of this procedure was to avoid the possibility that those fre- quenting nearby tearooms would discover his true identity.

4. He deceived the police about the nature of his study ("market research") in order to gain access to automobile license registers.

5. In carrying out the household survey he allowed a year to lapse from the time of the original contacts and changed his appear- ance, attire, and automobile to avoid being recognized as the watchqueen. Is this decep- tion? The author denies any false representa- tion in this procedure, resorting again to the "two hats" argument. "I wore only one of two possible hats, rather than going in dis- guise."15 The only problem is that while changing hats he also changed the hair styles, looks, and clothes beneath them and switched cars.

6. Presumably when he introduced the study he told the respondents that they were part of a random cross-section sample chosen to represent the whole metropolitan area, that this was a "social health survey of men in the community," and that they were anonymous. If so, the first point is a grave misrepresentation of the actual sam- pling procedures, the second is at best mis- leading and incomplete, while the third is simply untrue (he knew their names). There would be fewer problems, on the other hand, if the respondents were told that the infor- mation was confidential, rather than anony- mous. Though Humphreys does not go into detail about his procedures, he implies that the participants were promised anonymity.

7. In a larger sense, both Humphreys and the project director of the "social health sur-

vey" may have distorted that study by allow- ing a sub-sample of 50 homosexuals to be blended into the total cross-section. Random

(probability) sampling is generally under- stood to include only those processes of selection in which the units of the sample are chosen by "chance" methods. Though Humphreys tried to adhere to this canon in choosing his own sample, it is hard to see how these individuals could be treated in one

moment as persecuted social deviants and in the next as representative males in the metropolitan area.

Humphreys justifies his research tactics on the grounds of "situation ethics."

As I learned during the time I administered examinations in Christian Ethics to candi-

dates for the priesthood, questions that arise in regard to means are always rela- tive. There are no "good" or "bad" methods -only "better" or "worse" ones. Neither interview schedules nor laboratory experi- ments nor participant observation can be neatly classified as involving either "open" or "disguised" approaches. I have never known an interviewer to be completely hon- est with his respondents; were this so, the whole concern with constructing an "ef- fective" questionnaire could be dropped. Neither does any researcher ever have ade- quate insight for a perfect representation of his identity; it is always a matter of greater or lesser misrepresentation.16 This statement invites several comments.

First, it is grossly misleading to imply that Christian ethics as a whole has embraced the absolute relativism of extreme situation

ethics. Even a casual reading of recent work on the ethics of research should lay this notion to rest.17 Second, and more serious, by the author's logic there is no intrinsic evil in any research procedure, including the medical experimentation carried out in Nazi Germany, the use of torture to determine the character of human behavior under ex-

treme stress, or the injection of live cancer cells into healthy subjects without their knowledge or consent. None of these methods is bad--only worse in comparison with others. Admittedly the situation and circum- stances are important considerations in eval- uating the ethics of research, but Humphreys seems to rule out any notion of inviolable

151bid., p. 171.

161bid., pp. 169-170. 17James Gustafson, "Basic Ethical Issues in the

Bio-Medical Fields," Soundings 53:151-180, 1970.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

TEAROOM TRADE 33

rights for the individual. This position seems curious in view of his absolute moral outrage at the situation of homosexuals in contem-

porary society. Third, the author is guilty of ethical sleight-of-hand in equating the seri- ousness of outright deception with situations in which researchers are not "completely honest" with their subjects or try to con- struct an "effective" questionnaire. Here we are very much in the realm of the relative, but important distinctions can still be drawn. For example, I know of no ethical theory holding that the individual should be com- pletely honest with others in human inter- action. Even if such honesty were possible, one could argue that it is destructive, and therefore unethical, to reveal all of our mis- givings, hostilities, and affections toward others when first meeting them. It is possible, on the other hand, to provide survey re- spondents with a basically accurate statement on the scope and purposes of the research. They may not know much about survey

uring the

process of data-collection and

analysis, the master list of names was

stored in a safe-deposit box, and then

was later destroyed.... A critical problem with these and other social

science data is that they enjoy no legal

protection or privilege....

research or the intricacies of data processing, but they can be given a fair idea of what they are getting into. This situation of rough- ly accurate but less than complete under- standing is rather different than one in which the investigator deliberately misrepresents a study by leaving out important information about how and why the respondent was chosen, as in Humphreys' research.

Privacy. Privacy is related to personal freedom in the sense that certain aspects of

the self are seen as inviolable or subject to discussion only under the most restricted conditions. A crucial part of freedom con- sists of the capacity and opportunity not to reveal or even discuss certain beliefs, atti- tudes and behaviors. The question raised by Tearoom Trade and other social research is how far the social scientist can intrude into

the inner reaches of the self without jeopard- izing freedom. This problem is highlighted in the quotation by Nicholas Von Hoffman at the beginning of this article.

The response to Von Hoffman's criticism by the editors of Trans-action is instructive. At first they are unwilling to take his charges seriously, and attempt to undercut them by an ad hominem counterattack.

Von Hoffman seems to mean this to be a

statement about the right to privacy in a legal sense, but it really represents a denial of the ability of people to understand them- selves and each other in an existential sense. This denial masks a fear, not that intimate details of our lives will be revealed to others, but rather that we may get to know ourselves better and have to confront what up to now we did not know about our- selves.18

In other words, Von Hoffman's concern about the privacy of others covers up a deep fear of his own unconscious aroused by Humphreys' data.

Later, however, they admit that the study does involve a conflict between two goods: the right to know and the right to privacy. They then offer several lines of defense for Humphreys' methods. First, Humphreys had as much right as anyone else to be in the restrooms since they were public. This is true enough, except that the point of Tearoom Trade is to show that tightly private inter- action networks develop in public places. Second, those who frequent tearooms run the risk "that they have among them people who have ulterior purposes . . . The fact that in this instance there was a scientific rather than a criminal or sexual 'ulterior motive' does not necessarily make it more hideous or more subject to criticism, but perhaps less so.""'9 This is certainly damning by faint de- fense. Third, it is Humphreys' obligation as a sociologist to pursue the truth, to create countervailing knowledge about homosexual-

18Horowitz and Rainwater, "Sociological Snoop- ers and Journalistic Moralizers," p. 5.

19Ibid., p. 7.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

34 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIES

ity (against the police), and to demystify "the shadowy areas of human experience." Presumably these ends justify the means chosen, though the authors do not say pre- cisely why or how far they would extend such legitimizing power. Fourth, the law it- self is vague on the definition of privacy and incidents constituting invasions of privacy. Until such definitions are clarified, Hum- phreys' research should not be criticized for invading privacy. One might counter by pointing out that changes and clarifications in the law are usually brought about in re- sponse to debate and criticism. In short, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, whatever the current state of legal definitions of pri- vacy, Humphreys intruded much too far into the lives of the men he observed and studied.

From now on tearoom participants must be on the alert not only for blackmailers and policemen, but for sociologists in voyeur's clothing.

Misuse of Information. One of the great- est fears plaguing any conscientious social scientist is that information collected with

good intentions or given him in good faith by others will be used against them or bring them harm. The data collected by Hum- phreys could have been used either for pur- poses of blackmail or criminal prosecution. During the process of data-collection and analysis the master list of names was stored in a safe-deposit box, and then was later destroyed. (One would conclude from read- ing Tearoom Trade that the master list was still in the safe deposit box. I learned about its destruction only through personal cor- respondence.) A critical problem with these and other social science data is that they enjoy no legal protection or privilege. This situation arises, of course, with hundreds of sociologists, social workers, newspaper re- porters, and others who possess potentially damaging information. However, Humphreys was running unusual risks by collecting the kind of data he did. This is one of the few social scientific studies which would have lent itself directly to a grand jury investiga- tion. Homosexuality, especially in public restrooms, is clearly a more sensitive and explosive subject than many of the topics on which social scientists collect potentially damaging data. Also, its sensitivity and po- tential harm to respondents were heightened

by the fact that it dealt primarily with one city.

A second and equally grave problem is the anxiety produced among the individuals studied by the fact that someone knows. Probably some of the men are aware that they were studied as a result of the publica- tion of Tearoom Trade. Moreover, unless they have read the book, they may not know of the precautions taken with the data and, even if they did, they would not know that the master file containing their names had been destroyed. Thus some may rightly won- der whether Humphreys or someone else will somehow reveal their indiscretions and there- by damage or destroy their reputation. It might be objected that the social scientist should not be responsible for the irrational fears of those he studies. My reply is that any conscientious professional person must be concerned about the anxiety he creates in people as a result of his work. This concern should be especially great when a researcher imposes himself on others for his own ends, without their knowledge. The men in the tearoom did not, after all, ask to be studied or helped.

Social Research and the Society

The intrusions of social research are com- monly justified by the benefits it brings to the larger society. The census and sample surveys, for example, play a vital role in supplying governments with data needed for economic and social planning or action pro- grams. However, social research must also be set in the context of a rising tendency to collect more data on individuals and groups, and increasing sophistication in the storage, retrieval, and analysis of these data. The growing prevalence of such research has raised doubts about the conventional liberal assumptions concerning the inherent value of information. These assumptions are clearly reflected in the Trans-action editorial defend-

ing the research by Laud Humphreys. Sociologists have tended to assume that well- intentioned people fully accept the desir- ability of demystification of human life and culture. In the age of Aquarius, however, perhaps such a view will be recognized as naive.20

The only indictment seems to be among

2olbid., p. 5.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

TEAROOM TRADE 35

those who are less concerned with the right to know than they are with the sublime desire to remain in ignorance. In other words, the issue is not liberalism or con- servatism or privacy vs. publicity, but much more simply and to the point, the right of scientists to conduct their work as against the right of journalists to defend social mystery and private agony.21 The logic here is amazingly facile: the more information we have about society, the hap- pier we will be. Those who collect it are contributing to the alleviation of social mis- ery; those who oppose it force the oppressed to live on in agony. While some degree of demystification may contribute to human freedom, it seems absurd to assume that ex- treme demystification produces social bliss. Men in every age-including the social scien- tists of the present-need illusions to be free, if only the illusion of destroying the illusions of others.

Another possible reactive effect of social research is to reinforce the tendency of in- dividuals to be wary and to live "for the record." Arthur Miller states one side of the

problem as follows: As the populace becomes increasingly aware that a substantial number of facts are being preserved "on the record," people may start to doubt whether they have any meaning apart from the profile in the computer's files. As a result, they may begin to base their personal decisions, at least in part, on whether it will enhance their record image in the eyes of third parties who have control over important parts of their lives.22 Complaints along these lines have already

been lodged against the secret files main- tained by federal agencies on political dis- senters. The kind of research carried out by Humphreys raises a similar problem: an increased fear among ordinary citizens that someone, be he a social scientist or a credit checker, is watching. An important part of human freedom is the ability to withdraw into our home or other private domain and feel that we will not be observed. To the

extent that social scientists engage in covert observation, however noble the cause, this freedom will be reduced. It is only in a totalitarian society that one must constantly

look over his shoulder or check under his bed to be sure that he is not being observed and heard. The social scientist will say, of course, that covert observation is still rare, and that it is often justified by the higher cause it serves, such as helping homosexuals. However, this argument can be applied with equal force by the FBI, salesmen posing as survey researchers, and credit checkers en- tering suburban homes under various guises. Everyone feels that his cause is of paramount importance, and that the abuses wrought by his intrusion are minimal. At this stage we must be concerned not only about the impact of the single intrusion, but also with the cumulative effects of thousands of acts of pry- ing on the quality of human life.

The Researcher and the Research Professions

Humphreys' study further raises the ques- tion of the balance between the freedom of the individual researcher and that of his col-

leagues in allied professions. We might draw an analogy between social research and the growth of industry. Both make use of scarce resources, and both may create environmen- tal pollution preventing further expansion. The resources consumed in social research

include money, personnel, public tolerance, and the good will of the participants-all of which are finite. Just as the emission of in-

dustrial wastes can pollute rivers, lakes, and the atmosphere, so can the abuse of social research contaminate the environment for other users. The most common and harmful

abuses are the sheer overexposure of the public to all types of research, and illegal activities, deception, misrepresentation, or other offensive behaviors on the part of re- searchers.

Viewed in this context the net effect of

Humphreys' study on the research environ- ment is likely to be negative. Undoubtedly public reaction to Tearoom Trade will be strongly affected by the subject matter and the way in which the findings are presented. Many readers, finding the whole topic revolt- ing, will channel their distaste against the author and sociology in general. Indeed, Humphreys invites this reaction by lacing the text with graphic detail that does not seem to be called for by his scientific goals. Even so, I would strongly defend Humphreys'

21Ibid., p. 8. 22 Arthur R. Miller, "Personal Privacy in the Com-

puter Age: the Challenge of a New Technology in an Information Oriented Society," Michigan Law Review 67:1150, 1969.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

36 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIES

right to study this topic, however controver- sial it might be. My objections are not to the topic but to the tactics. Humphreys, how- ever, sets himself above considerations of appearances and public opinion.

Concern about "professional integrity," it seems to me, is symptomatic of a dying dis- cipline. Let the clergy worry about keeping their cassocks clean; the scientist has too great a responsibility for such compulsion.23

Recent experience with field interviewing suggests that this "public be damned" atti- tude is producing a growing backlash against social research. Field directors of large sur- vey organizations in the United States report that it has become increasingly difficult to obtain a high response rate in central city areas. The reasons for this situation are com-

plicated, but fears of deception and misrep- resentation, or sheer fatigue with surveys, are certainly part of the problem. A study in the United States shows that as of 1964, 250 communities in 34 states had passed legisla- tion restricting the activities of survey inter- viewers.24 The degree of control varies from complete prohibition to the requirement that interviewers register with local law enforce- ment officials. It is reasonable to expect that the greater the nuisance value of social re- search, and the more social scientists are perceived as untrustworthy, the more diffi- cult it will be to carry out any kind of field study. Indeed, a lack of concern for profes- sional integrity may spell the death of field research.

There is always a danger that remarks such as these will be interpreted as a plea for safe, bland, non-controversial research. A sharp distinction can be drawn, however, between research which is controversial or offensive to the public because of its subject matter, and studies which create ill-will, sus- picion, and resentment because of Machia- vellian methodology. C. Wright Mills car- ried out a great deal of research which was offensive to political conservatives because of its subject matter and conclusions, but to my knowledge he never engaged in deception or misrepresentation. Social scientists have not only a right but an obligation to study

controversial and politically-sensitive sub- jects, including homosexuality, even if this brings down the wrath of the public and governmental officials. But this obligation does not carry with it the right to deceive, exploit, or manipulate people. My concern with backlash centers primarily on the aliena- tion of ordinary individuals by research methods which leave them feeling that they have been cheated, deceived, or used. If social scientists set themselves and their methods above society, they must be pre-

hereal issue at

stake is not whether male homo-

sexuality or any other subject should be studied, but whether the methods

used are ethically justified. In other

words, does the end justify the means in social research?

pared to take the consequences. The brief history of the social sciences suggests that it is abuses of ordinary people, such as re- search subjects, rather than political contro- versy per se which generate pressures for legal restrictions on research.

Conclusions

We come, then, to the most basic question of all about Humphreys' study: should he have done it? The author himself asks:

Are there, perhaps, some areas of human behavior that are not fit for social scientific study at all? Should sex, religion, suicide, or other socially sensitive concerns be omitted from the catalogue of possible fields of so- cial research.25

Most of us in the social sciences would an- swer no, but these are the wrong questions. The real issue at stake is not whether male homosexuality or any other subject should be studied, but whether the methods used are

23 Humphreys, Tearoom Trade, p. 168. 24Rome G. Arnold, "The Interview in Jeopardy:

a Problem in Public Relations," Public Opinion Quarterly, 38:120, 1964. 25Humphreys, Tearoom Trade, p. 167.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

TEAROOM TRADE 37

ethically justified. In other words, does the end justify the means in social research? Humphreys clearly feels that his ends jus- tify the means he used. These ends, aside from the usual aim of increasing scientific knowledge, center about improving the lot of homosexuals in American society. One way to do so, he argues, is to gather data which can be used as a countervailing force against police repression of this group. He does not make explicit, however, how this knowledge will benefit the individuals in question, nor does he consider the hypothe- sis that it could be used by the police to improve their means of control. But perhaps his most basic argument is that increased knowledge about homosexuality will stir a concern in the larger society and perhaps lead to changes in present repressive laws and practices. He writes: We are not, however, protecting a harrassed population by refusing to look at them. At this very moment my writing has been in- terrupted by a long distance call, telling me of a man whose career has been destroyed because he was "caught" in a public rest- room . . . The greatest harm a social scient- ist could do this man would be to ignore him. Our concern about possible research consequences for our fellow "professionals" should take a secondary place to concern for those who may benefit from our re- search.26

The author's concern for the suffering in- dividual is admirable, but his logic and ethics are not. Several assumptions in this passage are particularly dubious. First, the notion that social scientists do positive harm to suf- fering individuals by not studying them sug- gests a rather inflated sense of professional self-importance. I also wonder if the tearoom participants would agree that they would have been harmed by being left alone. Sec- ond, what is the factual basis for assuming that Tearoom Trade will ultimately alleviate the risks and suffering of male homosexuals in public restrooms? While this book has apparently been well-received in homosexual circles, my impression is that a widespread reading by the larger public might well pro- duce negative rather than positive results. But even if we grant that this research will ultimately help homosexuals, we come back to the very basic question of means and ends. Should every social scientist who feels

that he has a laudable cause have the right to deceive respondents about the nature of surveys, engage in covert observation, and resort to other kinds of trickery? Should the same rights be extended to credit-checkers and the FBI, or do social scientists have spe- cial rights in the society? If a right-wing social scientist felt that the type of sociology prac- ticed by Humphreys and advocated by his defenders constituted a threat to individual

rights, and that these social scientists them- selves needed help, would he be justified in sending covert observers to spy on their pri- vate lives? Whose causes are the right causes in social research? Neither Humphreys nor the editors of Trans-action address them-

selves to these questions. They take the righteousness of their causes for granted, and assume that all men of good will should do likewise.

In sum, there are three ethical objections to the research tactics reported in Tearoom Trade. First, the researcher took advantage of a relatively powerless group of men to pursue his study. Had Humphreys passed as a voyeuristic gardener or chauffeur for a prominent family he would have been sub- ject to legal and other kinds of retaliation. The men in the tearooms could not fight back. A critic might argue that Humphreys' subsequent acceptance by homophile organ- izations, including his election to a position on the National Committee for Sexual Civil Liberties, testifies to the fact that he did not exploit the people he studied. However, the men he studied are probably not represented in these organizations because of the covert nature of their activities. Even if they were, one could still object to the manipulation and deception of research subjects for what- ever end. Second, through his research tac- tics Humphreys reinforces an image already prevalent in some circles that social scien- tists are sly tricksters who are not to be trusted. The wore widespread this image be- comes, the more difficult it will be for any social scientist to carry out studies involving active participants.

The third and strongest objection is that the use of deception, misrepresentation, and manipulation in social research encourages the same tendencies in other parts of society. A democratic nation is ultimately built upon respect for constitutional processes and re- straint in the use of means. If one group 26 Ibid., p. 169.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

38 HASTINGS CENTER STUDIES

arrogates to itself the right to use non-con- stitutional means for advancing its ends others will do likewise. The same lesson ap- plies to the social sciences. If we claim that our causes justify the use of deception and manipulation, those advocating contrary causes will apply the same logic to their choice of means. When the issue of wire-

tapping first came before the Supreme Court some forty years ago, Justice Brandeis warned against the damage that would be wrought by letting the government violate

the law in the name of the law. He also

warned that the doctrine of the end justify- ing the means would bring terrible retribu- tion to the country. About the same time Aldous Huxley wrote, "The end cannot justify the means for the simple and obvious reason that the means employed determine the na- ture of the ends produced." Social research involving deception and manipulation ulti- mately helps produce a society of cynics, liars and manipulators, and undermines the trust which is essential to a just social order.

This content downloaded from �������������54.84.104.155 on Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:23:40 UTC�������������

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms