Members Of The Club Summary

“Members of the Club” written by Lawrence Otis Graham describes the first-hand experience of a black student at Princeton University in the early 1980s. In his article, Graham describes an inability to associate/socialize with both white and African-American students at the university. This case contains important sociological aspects and can be analyzed through the lens of the five perspectives: Societalist, Group, Culture, Network, and Interactionist.
The first perspective, functionalist/societalist, focuses on the macro level of social structure. It aims to understand how each societal phenomenon has an ascribed function that contributes to the stability of society by maintaining social order. Through this perspective, societies are

viewed as an orderly, cohesive, and functioning organism made up of individual parts working together to achieve social stability and equilibrium. In the context of Lawrence Graham as a black student studying at Princeton University, the aspect of race relations can be analyzed as a social phenomenon that contributes to the overall stability of society. Princeton was one of the last northern universities to admit African-Americans, perpetuating a social hierarchy with white students at the top and African-American students defined as the lesser. The idea of an equal black student, in this case, Lawrence Graham, would upset the existing social order. In turn, any actions taken by Graham to bridge the gap between races is considered deviant or behaving in opposition of the social norms. While Graham can relate to white students on the level of organic solidarity, or functional/occupational purpose as a student, he is not accepted based on mechanical solidarity, based in homogeneity and resemblance. To overcome this gap and overcome the view of him as deviant, Graham attempts to conform, stating, “I’d worked hard to advance my non-threatening integrated black-male, middle-class, suburban persona” (207). The functionalist perspective fits Graham’s case through its emphasis on social order and deviance. Although Graham is not behaving in a typically deviant way for a broader societal scope, his surroundings at Princeton University define him as an anomie because racial equality is not seen as the norm.
The group perspective also fixates on the idea of struggle to keep social hierarchy. The group perspective focuses on the distribution of resources, power, and inequality as a medium for maintaining existing social hierarchy. While the societalist perspective maintains social order through conformity, the group perspective claims order is maintained by domination and power struggle. In the case of Lawrence Graham, he describes Princeton as having, “[…] little vision in or courage in the area of race relations.[…] Princeton had allowed de facto segregation to develop” (196). Through the lens of the group perspective, this inability to make progress is intentional in keeping the engrained power hierarchy of white people. Further, the escalating hostility between white and black students and inability to integrate – on both sides- would be attributed to the class conflict and the socially perpetuated inequality of black students.
The de facto segregation of black and white students at Princeton University can also be explained through the cultural perspective. The cultural perspective refers to the symbols, values, ideas, beliefs, and artifacts that influence people’s behavior. For Lawrence Graham, his inability to fit in with both white and black students can be attributed to his background and in turn, his culture. He was raised in a middle-class, suburban family and had been able to relate to white people in his past. Because of his upbringing, he relates to the cultural consumption of many white students at Princeton. However, because of his skin color, he cannot fully join either group because they innately have different values, beliefs, and experiences. The cultural perspective is illustrated in Graham’s encounter with his white friend Craig on his way to the TWC party, Graham states, “Everything about them reminded me of the vast cultural gap that stood between blacks and whites at Princeton. Different music, different clothes, different slang, different heroes, different hometowns” (209). While Graham can relate well to white students in his similar upbringing, he cannot fully integrate due to his shaped culture as an African-American student. On the other side, He cannot relate to African-American students fully because of his values, beliefs, and ideas resulting from his socioeconomic background and upbringing.
Network perspective describes the society as a series of networks and ties, connections between people, that facilitate social cohesion and connectedness.

“Members of the Club” addresses Lawrence Grahams network connections and separates his connections between white and black students. The network perspective describes homophily as the tendency for humans to associate and create ties to those like you. Because Graham is not entirely like the white students because of his skin color or entirely like the African-American students because of socioeconomic status/background he cannot achieve the strength or composition in network ties he desires. His goal of integrating in both societies is unattainable due to his failure in creating strong and weak ties in both racial camps. Graham characterizes his connections between black and white students when he states, “I had always ‘talked white’ in the sense that I played it safe thus making white people feel comfortable […] And I had always ‘slept black’ in that I had always placed my greatest loyalties, respect, and trust in black people in our causes” (215). In terms of the network perspective, Graham describes his connections with black people as deeper, strong ties, possibly a result of homophily, and his connections with white people as surface-level and based on a persona he has constructed to more easily

relate.
The last perspective this case can be analyzed through is the interactionist perspective; defined as the study of interaction between people and the nonverbal/verbal symbols intentionally and unintentionally given off. This perspective is most emphasized in his conversations with the students he encounters. Graham consistently tries to relate to black and white students and adapt his personality to fit the situation he is in. The Goffman Theory defines this performance type of interaction as dramaturgy. Graham attempts to control the definition of the situation, or how he comes off, through specifically designed impressions that will make him appear more apt to relate to the person he is talking to. He states, “Whatever they wanted from me, I felt that I had better discover some way to find it and give it to them” (215). At the end of his career at Princeton University, he could more easily navigate the racially segregated waters by manipulating interactions in a way that he always came out on top.
In conclusion, the interactionist and the cultural perspective are the most compelling in explaining the sociological aspects of this case. The cultural perspective pertains mostly to his original experience at Princeton University when he was unable to join either group of students fully due to his race and socioeconomic upbringing. However, towards the end of his education, Graham explains his ability to manipulate his communication and interaction with members of either race to relate and facilitate relationships. He could present himself in a way and give off the impression of likability in either camps. This focus on interactions as a form of social cohesion lends more to the analytics of the interactionist perspective. While both were useful in understanding the case, I believe his ability to interact differently with different people in either camp was necessary to fully integrate himself in Princeton society. It provided a common theme of self-awareness and attention to the performance of interaction as an information game and proved most sociologically significant.