Conquering Stereotypes in Research on Race and Gender Bethany P. Bryson 1 and Alexander K. Davis 2 In responding to Epstein’s essay ‘‘On Boundaries,’’ we argue that the stereotypes that Epstein identifies as an ongoing component of racism served as the foundation of sociological scholarship a mere century ago. Today, we argue, it is the continued use of the term stereotype that serves as our ‘‘car window’’ and can hold us back from truly understanding race and gender. The use of the term stereotype is not (nor has it ever been) a useful analytic tool because the term invokes a individualis- tic and psychological argument where a sociological mechanism might be more fruitfully employed. KEY WORDS: gender; physical boundaries; race; social differentiation; stereotypes; symbolic boundaries. INTRODUCTION Is sociology racist? W. E. B. Du Bois, Cynthia Epstein’s inspiration for her Sociological Forum essay (Epstein, 2010), would have answered a resounding, ‘‘Yes!’’ In The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois accused sociologists of reinforcing preconceived notions of black lives rather than challenging them. He explained: ‘‘It is so much easier to assume that we know it all. Or perhaps, having already reached conclusions in our own minds, we are loath to have them disturbed by facts’’ (2005:185). Specifically, he indicts sociologists and ‘‘cold statistician[s]’’ for spending so little time on their studies of black America that their research directly reproduces the stereotypes they attempt to dispel. To the car-window sociologist, to the man who seeks to understand and know the South by devoting the few leisure hours of a holiday trip to unraveling the snarl of cen- turies,—to such men very often the whole trouble with the black field-hand may be summed up by Aunt Ophelia’s word, ‘‘Shiftless!’’ (2005:198) 3 1 Department of Sociology, James Madison University, Sheldon Hall, MSC 7501, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807; e-mail: brysonbp@jmu.edu. 2 Department of Sociology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544. 3 Although we still do too little of it as a discipline, what we have done well with respect to Du Bois’s accusations is to increase knowledge through what he calls ‘‘intimate contact’’ (2005:185; cf. Anderson, 1990; Duneier, 1992; Liebow, 1967; Lamont, 2000; Newman, 1999; Pattillo-McCoy, 1999). Sociological Forum, Vol. 25, No. 1, March 2010 DOI: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01163.x 161 Ó 2010 Eastern Sociological Society