《城中城》是一本由素德·文卡特斯 (Sudhir Venkatesh)著作，上海人民出版社出版的精装图书，本书定价：CNY 45.00，页数：280，文章吧小编精心整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《城中城》读后感(一)：贪污犯学术造假集一身
Venkatesh贪污好百万研究经费，博士论文捏造，还特别牛逼的给自己找了两千个理由，于是在哥伦比亚被孤立。来中国骗骗文青理聪应该比较合适，生错国家了您。
-----------------------------------------------------
as a graduate student, Sudhir Venkatesh did things differently. He came to sociology by way of math, not by the social sciences. He was an Indian-American Deadhead from Southern California who wore a ponytail and tie-dyed shirts. He stuck out.
Today, he is a celebrity in an otherwise low-key academic field — a star on campus, an influential public intellectual, a sought-after speaker. The hardcover of his best-selling book, “Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets,” released in 2008, features a full-length photo of him looking tough in jeans and a leather jacket, its collar turned up.
Through his research on gang life and prostitutes, he has succeeded against long odds in making sociology seem hip. And by writing in magazines, being featured in the book “Freakonomics,” and even appearing on late-night television, he has succeeded in bringing that research out of the academy and into the public realm.
ut fame has brought controversy. Some of his peers say that in search of a broader readership he takes liberties not appropriate for a scholar: sensationalizing his experiences, exaggerating the reliability of his memory and, in one case, physically assaulting someone. Others who might not have attracted mainstream attention say he steps too eagerly into the spotlight.
DOUBT Some peers have criticized Sudhir Venkatesh over the accuracy of the information in his book “Gang Leader for a Day.” Credit Evan Kafka
And at Columbia, where he briefly led the university’s largest social science research center, he was the subject last year of a grueling investigation into a quarter-million dollars of spending that Columbia auditors said was insufficiently documented, misappropriated or outright fabricated.
According to internal documents from that investigation, which were obtained by The New York Times, the auditors said that Professor Venkatesh directed $52,328 to someone without any “documented evidence of work performed.” He listed a dinner for 25 people, relating to research on professional baseball players; auditors found that only 8 people had attended, and that the research project had not been approved.
He charged Columbia for town cars to take him around, to take his fiancée home from work one late night, to take someone — it is not specified whom — from Professor Venkatesh’s address to a building that houses a nail salon and a psychic. All told, auditors questioned expenses amounting to $241,364.83.
The documents do not indicate what judgment Columbia administrators reached about the audit, or what actions, if any, they took as a result. Professor Venkatesh said in a brief phone conversation in October that he had repaid $13,000.
He is no longer affiliated with the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, or Iserp. Still a tenured professor, he is now a member of the university’s Committee on Global Thought. This semester, he has been on parental leave with a new baby, while visiting at the Institute for Public Knowledge at New York University.
During that brief interview, Professor Venkatesh said he was proud of his record at Iserp: “I answered all their questions, I’m doing my research, I have a new appointment at the university that I’m very excited about. I just don’t want to get into these details.”
Columbia also declined to discuss the investigation. “We do not comment on personnel matters, but we can confirm that Professor Venkatesh is a faculty member,” a spokesman for the university said.
That discretion is common among prestigious schools, but Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, an organization that focuses on accountability in higher education, said it was hazardous. “The university should always err on the side of transparency and being open,” she said. “Without knowing all the facts here, if Columbia wants to maintain donor and public trust, it shouldn’t hide the investigation or the findings.”
ORN in India and raised in an upper-middle-class suburb in California, Sudhir Venkatesh earned a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of California at San Diego, then pursued graduate studies at the University of Chicago, where he encountered one of the great pillars in American academia: the Chicago school of sociology.
He signed on for a research project led by William Julius Wilson, a pre-eminent scholar of race and poverty, for which Professor Venkatesh says he approached strangers, questionnaire in hand, and asked, “How does it feel to be black and poor？” (Possible answers: very bad, somewhat bad, neither bad nor good, somewhat good, very good.) But he quickly came to see the folly of this approach, he has said, and ditched the questionnaire in favor of just spending time with his subjects, time that rolled on into years, as he tried to learn about their lives on their terms, not his.
The story, which he has recounted in two books and numerous speaking engagements, is a good one: it allows Professor Venkatesh to laugh at himself, yet also implies that he was more authentically engaged with poor black people than his professors were. But Professor Wilson, for one, was surprised when he read it. “I asked him one day: ‘Where did you get that questionnaire？ I don’t remember ever giving you any questionnaire like that!’ And he said, ‘Well, it wasn’t yours.’ ”
rofessor Wilson, now at Harvard, describes his former student as brilliant, creative and “able to easily establish rapport with different people.”
“He has a very pleasant personality, and he makes people relax.”
ACCLAIM Professor Venkatesh’s “Gang Leader for a Day” chronicled life at the Robert Taylor Homes, a notorious housing project in Chicago, right. Credit Left, Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times; Center, Patricia Wall/The New York Times; Right, Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times
He was also savvy in the realm of academic politics. “The other graduate students were envious that he was able to command a lot of my time,” Professor Wilson said. “I’m a very busy person.”
rofessor Venkatesh later revealed how. “I found out later when he wrote the book ‘Gang Leader for a Day’ that he took up golf as a way to spend more time with me,” Professor Wilson said.
In the Robert Taylor Homes, a notorious housing project in Chicago, Professor Venkatesh was what sociologists refer to as a “participant observer.” He attended community meetings, he went to parties, and most of all, he hung out with the Black Kings, a crack-dealing gang whose power structure was the closest thing that the community — all but abandoned by politicians and the police — had to a functioning local government. The housing project was torn down in the late ’90s.
Those encounters formed the basis of his first book, “American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto,” and they pointed toward his next volume, “Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor,” both of which were published to acclaim. One encounter in particular, with the gang’s bookkeeper, who gave Professor Venkatesh several years’ worth of ledgers, led to a collaboration with the University of Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt on two important articles.
When Professor Levitt later teamed up with the journalist Stephen J. Dubner to write “Freakonomics,” they devoted a chapter to Professor Venkatesh’s experiences.
rofessor Venkatesh’s next book, “Gang Leader for a Day,” signified a very different approach. A vivid, often visceral narrative of complex characters and dangerous encounters, it won glowing reviews, found a spot on The New York Times best-seller list and became, in the words of the Rutgers sociologist Patrick J. Carr, “one of the most widely reviewed sociology books ever.” It established its author as a crossover academic star, someone able to communicate complex ideas to mainstream readers. No longer just a rising professor, he became a true public intellectual.
Many of the colleagues who, along with friends, employees and students, made up the almost three dozen people interviewed for this article, raised concerns about the process by which Professor Venkatesh translated his research into best-seller material. For example, the book includes page after page of dialogue, rendered between quotation marks as though verbatim, despite his acknowledgment that he rarely took notes in real time. (Other sociologists say there is no clear standard for quotations in ethnographic studies.)
The book also shows him stepping off the sidelines to shape events directly, even engaging in legally dubious acts like helping to steer the gang’s activities for a day or kicking a Black King member’s assailant in the stomach.
eyond the content of the book, its basic style raised eyebrows. “Gang Leader” includes the kind of satisfying narrative arcs and dramatic characters (like the street hustler who reveals that he not only went to college, but also studied sociology) that have more in common with Hollywood films than with most dry academic discourse.
“It’s very vivid; he’s a great writer,” said Alisse Waterston, an anthropologist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But to satisfy readers, she added, “there is, of course, the temptation to highlight the lurid.” His previous books resisted that temptation, she said. But then, those books did not find a mainstream audience.
At the 2009 convention of the Eastern Sociological Society, Professor Waterston criticized the book on a panel with Terry Williams, a professor at the New School, and others, including Professor Venkatesh. The tough questions began, Professor Williams said, with the title of the book, which exaggerates the role that Professor Venkatesh was actually allowed to play.
“Ethnography has a fictional element,” Professor Williams said. “We all know that. You have to, for example, change names of people you don’t want to be harmed if the authorities got ahold of your manuｓｃｒｉｐｔ. There were some concerns that he was somewhat disingenuous about a great deal of his research in that regard.” In particular, Professor Williams was dubious about Professor Venkatesh’s tendency to explain his errors of judgment as mere na?veté.
Camille Z. Charles, a sociologist who runs the Department of Africana Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, said she was even more disturbed by the “thrill” he described at being around drug dealers — like his fantasy that one meeting he attended would involve “half-naked women sitting poolside and rubbing the bosses with sunscreen.” In an essay in the journal Sociological Forum, Professor Venkatesh responded to such criticism by saying he “hoped that my readership would understand urban poverty as they followed my own self-discovery of these conditions — specifically, as I discovered my own stereotypes to be faulty. In a memoir, one has to admit one’s own failings.”
rofessor Venkatesh, with two colleagues, Dorian Warren, center, and Shamus Khan, is still on Columbia’s faculty. Professor Khan says criticism of Professor Venkatesh is based, in part, on jealousy. Credit Jennifer S. Altman for The New York Times
ROFESSOR VENKATESH’S position at the helm of Iserp, which he assumed in 2009, greatly expanded his opportunities. He oversaw the Revson Fellowship, a prestigious sabbatical year for city leaders to spend at Columbia. He made documentaries. He met an undergraduate who had played minor league baseball, and together they conceived of a project researching professional players.
All of these projects, and many more, appear in a 24-page document, dated Aug. 4, 2011, that Columbia auditors drew up after their investigation into Professor Venkatesh’s financial activities at Iserp. Some involved minor expenditures, like a $41.26 lunch. But others involved much larger sums, and confusion about the reason for the payment or even the identity of the recipient. Cash payments, of $100 each to research subjects who could not be identified, totaled $33,000. Payments totaling $52,328 to the subject of one of his documentaries were for what auditors called “fabricated business purposes.”
A freelance editor who told auditors he had worked on “Gang Leader for a Day” received $15,000 to teach a writing seminar — $10,000 more than had been budgeted. And $8,911 that Professor Venkatesh was supposed to pay to a colleague for a study they collaborated on somehow failed to make it into that colleague’s account. Professor Venkatesh told auditors the colleague had failed to do the work, a claim that auditors determined to be untrue. (A spokesman for the Carnegie Corporation, which financed the study, said it had not been informed of the dispute.)
All told, the auditors listed $19,405 in “inappropriate transactions” — like $1,514 in town car charges — and $221,960 in expenses with “insufficient documentation” — like payments to unnamed research subjects.
rofessor Venkatesh declined to explain for this article how Columbia resolved these allegations, though in an e-mail he later stipulated that the person who had taught the writing seminar “was retained as a writer and editor.” He added, “I have never been accused of fraud or embezzlement,” and “I reimbursed the university for a sum of approximately $13,000 for funds that were misallocated during my tenure as director of Iserp.”
either he nor Columbia commented on the balance of the disputed expenditures.
THE Columbia financial investigation may be settled, but sociologists continue to debate Professor Venkatesh’s work, and in particular its impact on the people he writes about. Universities have elaborate safeguards in place to oversee research involving human subjects. But Columbia’s auditors said that the baseball study, for example, was “apparently unsuccessfully submitted” for approval “after the research had been completed.”
rofessor Venkatesh more recently served as a Federal Bureau of Investigation consultant, which Harvey Molotch, a sociologist at New York University, said he and others found “troubling,” since it gave research subjects reason to ask if the sociologist who solicits their trust may later turn them in.
Finally, Professor Venkatesh published an information graphic in Wired magazine last year, based on his conversations with sex workers, that announced without much context how often they were beaten or how much more they charged for unprotected sex. Some readers expressed concern that people could read those statistics as a license, or even a menu, for abuse.
rofessor Venkatesh’s friends, however, describe him as charismatic in a quiet, confident way; smart without being overbearing; physically graceful: natural gifts that helped him earn the trust of his subjects and the interest of fellow intellectuals.
Alexandra K. Murphy, who did research for him while she was an undergraduate, said that he carefully encouraged her professional development and showed similar kindness to the people he wrote about. “He has a very close relationship with these people, and they have a lot of respect for him,” she said. “Sudhir has contributed to their life, and the way he talks about what they’ve done for him in terms of friendship is really remarkable. That’s very rare.”
During the phone conversation in October, Professor Venkatesh said: “Look, I’m a scholar. I’m a sociologist. I have a particular way I do my work.” He added: “I’m really proud of it. I’d like to have that be the basis on which I’m known.”
art of the way he does his work is by engaging with the general public, in highly visible arenas. He has written pointedly about public policy debates for Slate, The New Republic and The Times’s Op-Ed page. He went on “The Colbert Report” in 2008, where he came across as relaxed and charming, and the story about the questionnaire got a good laugh.
uccess on the public stage is a complicated proposition for professors. It often opens them up to derision, not all of it motivated by scholarly concerns.
“The criticism can be jealousy,” says Shamus Khan, a friend and a fellow Columbia sociologist who writes about status hierarchies. It can also reflect a feeling among more traditional scholars that for someone like Professor Venkatesh, academia is just “a steppingstone on the pathway to real success. It devalues what they do.” And the greater the success that person achieves, the greater the resentment he may attract.
Justin Humphries, the former baseball player who studied with Professor Venkatesh, recalled a time his professor gave a seminar at George Washington University’s STAR Executive M.B.A. program, which specializes in athletes, artists and musicians. Professor Venkatesh “was sitting on a bench with three or four professional athletes,” he remembered, “and one of the students came up and said, ‘Oh my God, can I get a picture with you？’ And the athletes thought they were talking to them, but it was — no, it was Professor Venkatesh.”
《城中城》读后感(二)：这个社会比那些学者圈子的论文复杂得多！
社会学研究通常有两个阵营：一个是定量和统计技术的研究者；另一个通过直接观察，经常与某一社会群体共同生活的研究者，后者通常被称为“民族志（Ethnography）研究者”。其实就城市规划学科来看，这一界定原则依然是可遵循的。素德?文卡特斯（Sudhir Venkatesh）1980年代末期跟着威廉?朱利叶斯?威尔逊（William Julius Wilson，其代表作为《真正的穷人：内城区、底层阶级和公共政策》，美国当代著名社会学家和公共知识分子）研究“贫困社区的人们如何以各种错综复杂的方式来维持生计”，也就是贫困社区中非正式经济（informal economy或illegal economy）问题，但其研究的“副产品”，也就是著者田野调查时的笔记：《城中城：社会学家的街头发现》（《Gang Leader for a Day》）却喧宾夺主，使其成为研究地下经济活动（城市犯罪组织、毒品交易以及卖淫等）的专家。从这些研究话题来看，民族志的研究方法应是必须的了，对于任何一个尝试研究社会现象的学者来说，“走出家门到街头去观察一下”应是正途，人们总是被假定为理性的，但冷冰冰的统计数据背后应当是一个个的或苦涩或抱怨或倾诉或痛恨或欢喜的生活与生计，这是感性的生活与理性的分析之间永远的张力。
作为一个中产阶层的城市规划师及城市研究者而言，贫困社区以及奢华住区的人们的生活方式是难以理解或体悟的，所以他们的作品中充斥着一种“自我的空间影像”；对于任何一个农村而言，那些生活于城市的公共政策制定者们若无极为深刻的民族志研究，绝无对村子的发展指手画脚的。我们通常是以“基于自身的经验以及对于某一社会群体的臆想（这个臆想若是有来源的话，也多为一些统计数据而已）来谋划其生活的归宿的”，这造成了许许多多的失败（如旧城更新、城中村改造以及廉租房社区整治等等）；很多时候我们会借用“通感”的类比，“假如我是一个失去工作了的贫困社区中讨生活的人，我会怎么办？”但问题是“我不是一个穷人！”也就是说这个通感不成立，这种感觉似乎“一个没有跑过马拉松的人跟我洋洋自得地谈跑步心得”。“数据（data）”难以揭示“人们感知世界的方式与社会学家或城市规划师表述城市生活的方式之间会有多大的差距。
我喜欢《这个杀手不太冷》、《上帝之城》、《教父》系列以及《训练日》（丹泽尔?华盛顿（Denzel Washington）主演，2002年，英文名为《Training Day》）等电影，这些影片展示了纽约等城市黑帮、毒品网络以及内城区、公共住宅区（social housing）的地下经济及其生活状态，我有时会怀疑这些影片的夸大或觉得会掺假，但直到翻读了素德?文卡特斯《Gang Leader for a Day》，文字与上述这些电影的影像比对一下，吻合得天衣无缝；而那些社会学家“生产出来的数据”（各种统计报表或问卷）完全不会展现这种个性鲜明的群体的生活方式，“他穿着宽松牛仔裤，肥大的夹克，以及一顶棒球帽。他的耳环闪闪发光，门牙上的金饰也是一样（自《城中城：社会学家的街头发现》，p14）”。以及著者对于芝加哥的高层公租住宅区罗伯特?特勒的各种生活的描述，秒杀了太多太多的有关社会空间分异、城市贫困以及城市管治等话题的论文，所谓“研究”的界线逐步模糊，“理性的思考—感性的文字—真实的生活”可以更为触动人心地把这个社会（区）的运作机制讲解得更为可信，愿意读的人不至于仅仅为学术圈儿的那些人，还有那些每天都忙碌于生计的、街头上的芸芸众生。
《城中城》读后感(三)：描述现状、记录贫困人口方方面面的纪实作品
很难验证作者的经历是否属实，但是本书至少以相对客观的视角描述了芝加哥贫困人口聚居区的千百种生存方式和状态。
这不是小说，本书没有刻意讲述一个故事或塑造几个主人公，故事并没有刻意围绕个别一个人或几个人展开。本书的目的是让读者得以了解贫困人群的生存状态、进而思考为什么贫困人群作为社会最底层的庞大群体，却始终在较长时间内无法摆脱贫困。我个人认为，从贫困区出生的孩童大多内心对这个社会的黑暗面了解太多并对努力奋斗所能进入的社会阶层和生活状态并不抱希望；这些新生血液大多无法摆脱自身懒惰和无知的困扰，倾向于赚快钱、不相信教育、读书等能改变命运；同时腐败无能的相关政府机构更大程度扮演的是压迫者的角色。
从政府无能的角度，我们没有足够的理由和证据说明哪国比哪国好，只能认真地盼望，未来的社会中，赤贫的因食物而挨饿的孩子少一些、再少一些。
《城中城》读后感(四)：缺乏理论性的田野经历
两天简略看完了《黑帮老大的一天》（另译 城中城），你很难讲这本书有什么实质性的理论贡献，或者说根本没有什么理论贡献。但看完后确实让人难以释怀，J.T. 贝利女士 排骨佬 克莱瑞莎这些角色或人物令人印象深刻，乃及在全书结束时你会不可抑制的好奇，计划区被摧毁后，他们重新开始了怎样的生活。 从89年入读芝加哥到95年phd结束的六年，投机性的黑帮经历使Venkatesh成为了流氓学术明星，但更多的，我相信持续接触J.T.的十年经历重塑了Venkatesh。文中一次一次的揭示学术与田野间的巨大张力，始终也是一代一代学人无法回避的问题。 如果以5分满分，作为社会学圈内著作，我只能给2分，甚至1.5分，顺畅的故事性不足以弥补理论的空洞；但如果作为为大众写作的圈外纪实文学，应该值得4.5分，Venkatesh揭示了黑人计划区的艰难与黑人帮派-社区间的互助。
《城中城》读后感(五)：写的比小说精彩，蓝鹅对于有些人的命运并无卵用
怀特老师，哦不，素德老师。
素老师作为一个少数族裔的中产，竭力去寻找黑社会对街区的暴力掠夺，并试图发现隐匿在街区中的人间大爱，结果呢。一个愿打一个愿挨。
很多政策的制定者，天真的认为我一定要对某些弱势群体倾斜，这些人是需要帮助且值得帮助的，然而事实并非如此，如果贩毒能够获得同样薪资水平，那么我凭啥留在学校？
黑社会和社区不仅相互依存，而且离了黑社会居民也并不会活得更好。
这就是现状。精英总是试图用普世价值去净化这个世界，让自己达到升华的地步，借以感动自己，然而很多时候，精英连根本的理解都没办法做到，他们只愿意相信自己的刻板印象。
素老师坚定不移地认为租户被黑帮戕害了，然而身体还是很诚实地写下了如下内容
1、黑社会和社区相互依存，相互庇护
2、作为社区的合法山大王，租户委员会的敛财能力、权利欲望更胜一筹
3、不论警局、房管局、医疗部门、市政、议会，统统不作为
结论相当明了：
居民的生存状况，被多方面联合强奸了，而在这样的情况下，相当一部分年轻人走上犯罪的道路，是无可厚非的。
更要命的是，素老师原本想要发现社区中的真善美，蓝鹅，部分租户根本不值得同情。
所以避免你一厢情愿的唯一方法，就是尝试理解。
《城中城》读后感(六)：关于研究员的价值观
现实版的老炮儿和古惑仔，社会学家最刺激的研究经历：潜身贫民区和黑社会。2/3篇幅的铺垫后才开始介绍研究发现，只因作者花了数年才融入社区开始接触真相，但这也正是利益冲突和道德困境的开始，满以为可以自如访谈的同时保持置身事外的立场，可一个社团领袖的话如当头棒喝：“当然你是在学习！但你也在谋生计。我们都是出来混的。所以当我们见到同类时，我们会向他们致意。因为我们需要其他谋生计的人活命。”“他们知道你可以为他们做事情！而且他们知道你会的，因为你需要得到信息。你就是个出来混的，为了得到你想要的东西，你会不惜一切代价。只是别害臊！”想想做商业研究的也不过是倾听别人讲自己的故事，然后编织成一个群体或者一段历史的故事，洞察真相和理智客观兼得谈何容易？
《城中城》读后感(七)：素德和J.T.
素德?文卡特斯是哥伦比亚大学社会学教授。《城中城》这本书，是他芝加哥大学读博士期间，在芝加哥黑人及贫困社区的调查记录。
这本社会学调查笔记，像一部小说，大量鲜活的人物，充满故事性，画面感极强，也像一部黑帮电影。素德即是旁观者，也是参与者，一会儿跳进一会儿跳出。
社会学的发展，一直存在着两个方法路径，理性的数字统计与感性的直觉感受。上世界70年代，社会学家怀特调查纽约公共空间，安装摄像头，数人头，但也观察街头里弄人们的肢体与表情。素德这个人具有好奇心过盛而恐惧感不足的性格，当他带着问卷调查表第一次无知者无畏的深入黑人区，便遇到了彻底改变他工作方法的J.T.，也是这本书的主人公，混迹于黑人社区的贩毒头领。
J.T.了解了素德的目的之后，对素德说，“你不应该问问题，你应该和我们混在一起讨生活。”
素德运气好，涉嫌犯罪的帮派团伙平常都充满了猜疑，素德却迅速的获得了J.T.的信任，当然也来自J.T.的另外一种动机。J.T.上过大学，有在团体里自负和清高的一面，认为自己的工作具有社会价值，对社区发展及与居民的生存有着领袖的担当，有着被人关注和认同的需求，J.T.希望素德能够帮自己写传记。
随着调查的深入，素德成为了J.T.团队的一份子，吃住一起，认识J.T.的伙伴与邻居，甚至成为了J.T.家庭的常客，得到J.T.母亲的喜爱，素德对黑人及贫困社区的生存状态与运转机制，有了异于普通学者案头学术工作之外的切肤之感。贫困社区与繁荣的街区一线之隔，界限却黑白清晰，拥有完全不同的文化生态。黑人区甚至有一种一致对外的语言模式，比如，倘若有陌生人来访，寻找某人，他们的回应一般会是：“没有人住在这里。”或者，“没有人叫这个名字。”
素德起初觉得，J.T.的工作不就是这么简单么，开着车在街区晃荡，和这个搭一句话，和那个拍下肩膀，以视察的名义，每天就是走来走去。J.T.有天突然让素德来扮演一天他的角色，兴奋的素德走上街头，才发现完全没有J.T.的说话能力，自然呈现的那种领袖气质：什么事情似乎都骗不过他，三言两语就能诈出整个社区的秘密。阅读过程，渐渐发现，加州阳光富人区长大的素德和芝加哥贫穷黑人区长大的J.T.的友谊，跨过了他们的社会阶层。
素德的工作方法根本没办法回头，素德的老师曾质疑说，素德，你应该拓展调查的界面，不关注群体，只关注个人，能做出好的论文吗？素德对J.T.也充满歉疚，因为他从事的毕竟是社会学学术性研究工作，最终不会有任何的传记，从某个角度，他在辜负J.T.的信任。当素德准备离开芝加哥去哥伦比亚大学执教，J.T.问素德，留在芝加哥教书有什么问题吗？高中怎么样？那些人不是也需要教育吗？故事已经发展成两个男人的感情，以及令人伤感的，即将逝去的交集。
看完书我继续从网络了解素德，《城中城》这本书为他带来了巨大声誉，打开了全新的世界，包括成为哥伦比亚大学社会学教授。不过质疑之声也接踵而至，学术界质疑其作为学术著作的真实性，认为素德有编撰与夸大的言辞，记忆与直觉不能成为可靠的依据。了解到这些无损我阅读后的快感，社会学的问题抛在一边，我就把它当作J.T.的传记吧，也许这也是素德的本意。
《城中城》读后感(八)：《城中城》社会学家的街头发现
这本书是记叙类的，难度不大，适合休闲的时候读！
我们生活在城中城，他们有他们的世界，我们有我们的。如果你能明白，这一点永远不会变，你就会理解这个城市是如何运作的。
——老时光
这两天读了一本社会学类的书籍，名字叫《城中城—社会学家的街头发现》。这本书是在大一的时候，我学习《社会学概论新修》的时候，我们专业课老师推荐我们读的一本书。这两天，我终于有机会一览它的真容。
这本书的作者素德·文卡特斯，出生于印度，成长于美国，在芝加哥大学修社会学。这本书也主要讲他着危险深入穷困黑人街区十年，只为了解他们的生活状况究竟是怎样一回事，以此来影响社会政策制定者如何更有效的促进社会进步，实现人的发展。
素德很幸运，他遇到了很多帮助他研究的人，比如，J.T，贝贝利女士，克莱瑞莎，奥特里等。若非他们，作者也无法了解罗伯特·泰勒附近的真实情况。在深入田野调查的过程中，作者有险些丧命的时候，因为穷困黑人街区有各种帮派，他们各自守护自己的地盘，不允许陌生人进入，尤其是警察，社工。在作者第一次进入社区时，他们拦住他，问：“你代表谁？”王者或是鲨鱼，混左边或者右边，五或者六。有一个黑鬼（他们不称自己为贫困黑人或非裔美国人，而称自己为黑鬼）狂热地想开枪打死他；他们不想回答任何问题，因为他们多次被警察问话，他们讨厌被别人挑战，他们不喜欢回答，他们只喜欢谈论性，权利和金钱。他们从事毒品交易赚钱，却以为了社区（大楼）好，因为把毒品卖给吸毒者，他们用赚来的钱，维护社工稳定。因为他们觉得自己可以救自己，消防车，救护车是不回来他们这些社区的，而一旦他们越过和白人之间隔离区，白人们就会报警。在就业市场上，他们得不到公平性的待遇，就像罗伯特·泰勒的帮派负责人J.T，原来是一名大学生，也曾勤勤恳恳地努力工作，但迟迟得不到升迁，所以他回到了这里，犯罪的聚集地，城市的毒瘤，所以当社会服务中心或政府组织就业宣讲会，劳动技能培训会，倡导黑人合法就业，其实都是毫无作用的。没有公平的劳动者不会在沉默中爆发，就会在沉默中灭亡。毕竟这个城市对他们来说不是那么可爱，活着就是最大的本事。
他们街区邻居之间会互帮互助，不像我们今天这样连对门是谁都不是很清楚；他们习惯于失望，却不会绝望，因为他们信仰宗教，他们必须忍受自己家庭里的太多麻烦；他们大多数人从事性工作者拿的工资还不够日常的生活所需，但他们都坚强的活着。
政府一味地坐在办公室制定政策，一味地打击这些贫困黑人，这两个不平等的天平怎么对话呢？虽然J.T这些帮派想复兴60年代的那种帮派组织，但他们对60年代的帮派精神也曲解了。60年代的帮派不贩卖毒品，不收取擅居者的工作费，不采取暴力行动枪击他人，所以，他们也有错，所以错的是大家，而不是某一个人或某一类人的过错。
在书中，经常会看到“社工”“社区服务中心”这些字眼，这是不讨贫穷黑人街区喜欢的一类人，他们热衷于办活动，热衷于免费发放物资，热衷于服务计划，可服务效果却不怎样。很多人之所以参加篮球联赛活动，只为了获得免费的球鞋和棒球帽，对于活动的目的丝毫不知晓。有时，我也在思考，如果有一天我从事社工，我能为这个社会，为服务对象做什么？专业热情，价值理念，理论知识，无一不在考验我自己，考验我的能力。
十年树木百年树人，作者深入贫困黑人社区十年，所得到的结果也是很丰硕的，他此次研究帮助了他通过硕博论文，成为研究社区贫困的专家，在哥伦比亚大学任教授。总觉得“坚持”不是一个动词，而是是一个静止的事情，它一直存在那，你就永远不可能不成功！
总之，所有成功可信的数据，事例都来自己于实地的经验，制定好政策的关键也是先开展一项好的科学研究。我们可以有社会学过于天真的想象，仍要有敢于实践，克服阻力的行动！行动永远是了解事实真相最直接的匕首！
《城中城》读后感(九)：后记20160324
“我们住在城中城，他们有他们的世界，我们有我们的。如果你能明白，这一点永远不会改变，你就会理解这个城市是如何运作的。”——《城中城》，上海人民出版社：2009，p10
当我翻开这本书的时候，脑袋里一直都在想大二时上的一门课——“社区概论”。其实这是我大学里挺后悔的一件事情，就是当初没有认真地学习。尽管我在那个学期的暑假里跟随老师到外地去实地调查的时候，很快就意识到了这一点。越往高年级升，我越发现，“社区”实在是一个非常重要的概念。费老在《乡土中国》当中，也说道，当你研究一个中国的村庄的时候，如何来划定村庄的界限是一件非常重要的事情。这里所说的“村庄”，其实就是指的“社区”这个词。
《城中城》这本书，实话说，算不上有多大新意的一本书。因为怀特写的《街角社会》作为社会学中社区研究的经典之作，是作者的尝试无法超越的一道坎。无论是素德还是怀特，其所关注的对象，都不是主流社区当中的主流人群，换一个词来说的话，用“边缘人”可能更流畅当然这样子来进行比较多少有些不合理之处，概因前者并非是一本严谨的学术作品，而后者则是扎实的“民族志”。因此，当我读完这本书的时候，是将其作为一位学者的研究笔记来阅读的。
在这本书中，我自然看不到一个结构清晰、架构完整的民族志结构，但是我们可以从中窥探作者在完成其博士论文时，其中的因缘际会。我们可以了解到作者是如何进入这个社区的，在社区当中他又是怎么活动的。在社会学的田野调查当中，这些都是非常重要的问题。此外，我们还可以看到作者自身的存在又是怎么样地影响了这个社区当中的行为。
然而值得注意的又是，作为一个研究进入社区的时候，其实是有诸多伦理与规范需要遵守的。研究者对被研究者负有伦理责任的同时，对自己的同行同样负有伦理责任，这意味着研究中一切有价值的信息——无论是正面的还是负面的——都应该被如实展示出来。这正是怀特最为难得可贵的一点，在整个研究过程中，怀特犯过很多错误，甚至有违法行为，但是对于这些过错，怀特均毫无保留地收录在了附录中，以警示其他学者：“我必须认识到，作为一名实地工作者，不能只想着去迎合这个地区的其他人，还必须保持自尊心。如果一名参与观察者发现自己在从事他以前曾经认为是不道德的行为，那么他就有可能会自问，自己究竟是一个什么样的人”。
我们的作者在研究过程中出现过错误吗？当然有。而这也正是其值得阅读的原因中之一。我们了解他人的研究过程，明白其观念的转变，知道他犯了什么错误。这些东西都能够成为他人用以借鉴的存在。更何况，作者所关注的对象，在我看来，更像是时代的伤痕。
人类社会虽然历史不久，但对于个体生命而言，已经显得十分漫长，但是它却还是存在诸多龌龊的事物。身为一个社会学家，能够找到一个突破口去探寻其中的肌理，无疑是有价值的。在面对社会问题复杂性的时候，放下原有的研究方法惯性，寻找更有效的方法来进行研究，寻找答案，更是值得喝彩的事情。当作者走进社区，将其呈现出来的时候，我们就能从作者的视角去发现这个独特的小社会是怎么运作的。在我们的主流生活之外，那些边缘人，他们是怎么在这个社会里存在下来的。他们跟主流社会之间的联系又是怎么样进行的呢。
本书的原名《gang leader for a day》，意思就是“黑帮老大的一天”。书中的一个黑帮中层，J.T.，是帮助作者进入社区的一把钥匙。有一回，作者觉得当黑帮老大非常简答，每天不过是到处游玩。于是乎，J.T便提出说让作者来尝试一天。书名由来大抵如此。只是我在这里要提到的是J.T，当然不是“剧透”其中的个中关系，而是说J.T一开始是以为作者进入社区研究，是想要为J.T写一本传记。当然，作者的目的并不在于此，然而当作者写完这本书的时候，我还是想说，从某种角度上来看，这本书也差不多算是J.T的一本传记了。如果这是一本小说的话，J.T无疑将成为其中的主角。而作者的“我”，不过是作为叙述者存在罢了。