Tribute to Vincent Jeffries - Edward Ransford

​A tribute to Vince Jeffries’ scholarship and as a best friend
I first met Vince at UCLA. We were beginning graduate students in the Ph.D program in Sociology in the early 60s. We hit it off right away taking the same classes, and laughing and talking together in the hallways and informal gatherings of students and faculty. I felt Vince was a good guy , a friend and someone I could trust. After completing the basic course work, we faced qualifying exams that allowed graduate students to proceed on for the Ph. D. degree. Quals in sociology were really tough in the early 60s with exams in about 8 specialty areas.

Our friendship anchored our commitment to each other as we became study partners for a tough exam. Vince and I divided the labor each being responsible for certain readings and meeting frequently to pool our information. We both made it !! what a relief. Thank God.

From this collaborative experience, I experienced Vince as determined, with a strong work ethic, committed to holding on to key concepts and perspectives that he believed and in interpersonal relations with others, kind and sweet.
This was the time of civil rights demonstrations across the country and the Watts riot of 1965. Social justice issues were everywhere present. We were both motivated to conduct solid empirical research on race and class inequality to better understand the mood of the 60s. Vince established himself as a solid researcher at this time in the social inequality field. Our collegial connection deepened leading to scholarly projects of importance to each of us.

Vine and I co-authored two journal articles and wrote a book on social inequality. One article dealt with White reactions to the Watts riot and specifically the importance of past social contact with Blacks as a key explanatory variable as to how Whites interpreted the Watts disorder. We found that Whites who lacked friendly egalitarian contacts with Blacks prior to the riot were more fearful of Blacks, evidenced more feelings of increased social distance toward Blacks, cited more outside agitator explanations for the riot and voiced more punitive responses toward the participants than those who had had prior interracial contact.

In the book we co-wrote (1980s) we developed a paradigm of four hierarchies –social class, race, gender, and age—each affecting the distribution of power, social status, and wealth. The interactions across these four hierarchies (as in multiple advantage vs. multiple disadvantage in getting good health care) became a fascinating project. We felt this was a major contribution to the inequality field expanding the stratification literature from the usual single focus on social class to four stratification hierarchies in dynamic interaction. Unlike many co-authored books we each wrote single authored chapters on inequality topics in which we were especially interested.

Vince wrote a terrific chapter on the ideologies or belief systems that surround and maintain stratification hierarchies. For example, the belief, held by many, is that the system is open and opportunity abounds and the poor have only themselves to blame for their lower socioeconomic position or their poverty.

The book got good reviews and was adopted in upper division stratification classes.
In writing our projects together we frequently met at Vince’s house, the two of us plus his large German shepherd dog. It was a great work environment. When we disagreed on some point we usually argued for our position passionately while Rex the dog would growl. Hitting an impasse we would retreat to Vince’s back small house and bat around his large punching bag. (Vince used to be a Second or Cornerman in boxing matches) We always reconciled or compromised on our positions after returning to the house.

Following these collaborations, Vince and I went in different directions. Vince moved increasingly toward writings on the concepts of love, altruism, and that which brings people together in solidarity, ( sociology of good). He was fascinated with the writings of big classical theorists ( like Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle in their writings on the virtues, and more contemporary sociology theorists like Emile Durkheim, Randall Collins, and Pitirim Sorokin and their writings on morality and social solidarity.) For example, Sorokin notes the importance of altruistic love, the giving of the self for the welfare of the other, as manifested in various forms such as volunteering, benefitting oppressed groups, gratitude , apology and forgiveness.

Aristotle’s virtues were key origins in much of Vince’s. later research (the four noteworthy virtues of Aristotle are prudence, justice, temperance and courage). According to Aristotle, the possession of these virtues makes a person good, happy and flourishing. Vince wrote several articles on family cohesion based on the virtues.
Given all these interests, Vince was increasingly driven to found a new recognized area in the sociology of good, an officially recognized area of sociology with altruism, morality and solidarity in the title. Getting a new area launched with the ASA is no easy task . The American Sociological Association(ASA) demands a list of 200 or so supporters who support a new area, will contribute to it in scholarship and are willing to pay a membership fee for this new section. Vince’s dogged determination as a key founder of the new area was exceptional. He was absolutely determined to get the area off the ground and accepted, and he did. An important note: I was struck by his love for his wife Ceja and how it deepened and expanded his sense of kindness, gratitude, and care for others.
​
He was a friend and scholar, a social justice advocate and a wonderful human being. I will miss him dearly.