Every once in a while, a synopsis of an actual piece of academic research comes flying over the transom here at Blotter HQ. We promise this post is as "bookish" as we'll get for a while, but Yale professor Elijah Anderson has written a thought-provoking study called The Code of the Street and African-American Adolescent Violence. A few paragraphs below, a summary of his findings appears in italics; it's a longish excerpt, but worth the effort.
For those of you familiar with the "code shifting" many African-Americans are compelled to practice when they move between black- and white-dominated social spheres, it is interesting to note that Anderson argues black teens have to do the same thing when transitioning from the "decent" terrain of their homes to the "street" system of a minority of their peers (Anderson's terms).
Anderson's argument that "street" culture fills a relative vacuum of authority in the affected neighborhoods reminds this blogger of the emergence of feudalism after the fall of Rome. Sure these kids are moral agents who can choose right from wrong, but if they are indeed living--as Anderson posits--in a culture with an almost medieval lack of social order, then it should come as no surprise when they create a system of fiefdoms and tribal alliances.
Synopsis of the Street Code
by Elijah Anderson
Of all the problems besetting the poor, inner-city black community, none is more pressing than that of interpersonal violence and aggression. It wreaks havoc daily with the lives of community residents and increasingly spills over into downtown and residential middle-class areas. Muggings, burglaries, carjackings and drug-related shootings, all of which may leave their victims or innocent bystanders dead, are now common enough to concern all urban and many suburban residents.
The inclination to violence springs from the circumstances of life among the ghetto poor — the lack of jobs that pay a living wage, the stigma of race, the fallout from rampant drug use and drug trafficking, and the resulting alienation and lack of hope for the future.
Simply living in such an environment places young people at special risk of falling victim to aggressive behavior. Although there are often forces in the community that can counteract the negative influences — by far the most powerful being a strong, loving, “decent” (as inner-city residents put it) family committed to middle-class values — the despair is pervasive enough to have spawned an oppositional culture, that of “the streets,” whose norms are often consciously opposed to those of mainstream society. These two orientations — decent and street — socially organize the community, and their coexistence has important consequences for residents, particularly children growing up in the inner city. Above all, this environment means that even youngsters whose home lives reflect mainstream values — and the majority of homes in the community do — must be able to handle themselves in a street-oriented environment.
This is because the street culture has evolved what may be called a code of the street, which amounts to a set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior, including violence. The rules prescribe
both a proper comportment and the proper way to respond if challenged. They regulate the use of violence and so supply a rationale that allows those who are inclined to aggression to precipitate violent encounters in an approved way. The rules have been established and are enforced mainly by the street oriented, but on the streets the distinction between street and decent is often irrelevant; everybody knows that if the rules are violated, there are penalties. Knowledge of the code is thus largely defensive; it is literally necessary for operating in public. Therefore, even though families with a decency orientation are usually opposed to the values of the code, they often reluctantly encourage their children’s familiarity with it to enable them to negotiate the inner-city environment.
At the heart of the code is the issue of respect — loosely defined as being treated “right” or granted the deference, or “props,” one deserves. However, in the troublesome public environment of the inner city, as people increasingly feel buffeted by forces beyond their control, what one deserves in the way of respect becomes more and more problematic and uncertain. This in turn further opens the issue of respect, or “street credibility,” to sometimes intense interpersonal negotiation. In the street culture, especially among young people, “street cred” is viewed as almost an external entity that is hard-won but easily lost, and so must constantly be guarded; it is high maintenance, and is never secured once and for all but depends on a series of performances that effectively answer challenges and transgressions by others.
It is in this way that one’s street credibility is established, and when possessed and successfully claimed, it works to deter advances; with the right amount, a person can avoid “being bothered” in public. In fact, the rules of the code provide a framework for negotiating street credibility. The person whose very appearance — including his clothing, demeanor and way of moving — deters transgressions can feel that he possesses, and may be considered by others to possess, a measure of respect; he is reminded of this by the way he is treated and regarded. Hence, if he is bothered and advances against his person are made, not only may he be in physical danger, but he has been disgraced or “dissed” (disrespected) and often feels vulnerable to further, and possibly more serious, advances.
Though many of the forms that dissing can take might seem petty to middle-class people (maintaining eye contact for too long, for example), on the streets, being dissed is always consequential. Particularly to those invested in the street code, such actions become serious indications of the other person’s intentions; left unanswered, they can seriously erode one’s street credibility. Consequently, young people become very sensitive to advances and slights, which could well serve as a warning of imminent physical confrontation or danger.
This hard reality can be traced to the profound sense of alienation from mainstream society and its institutions felt by many poor, inner-city black people, particularly the young. The code of the streets is actually a cultural adaptation to a profound lack of faith in the police and the judicial system. The police are most often seen as representing the dominant white society and not caring to protect inner-city residents. When called, they may not respond, which is one reason many residents feel they must be prepared to take extraordinary measures to defend themselves and their loved ones against those who are inclined to aggression. Lack of police accountability has in fact been incorporated into the local status system: the person who is believed capable of “taking care of himself” is accorded a certain deference, which translates into a sense of physical and psychological control. Thus the street code emerges where the influence of the police and the justice system ends and personal responsibility for one’s safety is felt to begin. When respect for the civil law erodes, “street justice” fills the void, thus underscoring the need for street credibility to operate on the streets of the local community. Exacerbated by the proliferation of drugs and easy access to guns, this volatile situation promises those with unassailable street credibility, often the street-oriented minority, the opportunity to dominate the public spaces.
Of course, Cheverly is not subject to the sort of abdication of police responsibility that Anderson describes. On the contrary, CPD officers are out in the community, interacting with residents, keeping the pressure on troublemakers, and limiting violent crime. And for that we should be thankful indeed.
]]>
Don't get me wrong. Lots of police equipment is dandy: souped-up Mopar products, short-barreled rifles, helicopters like the one in Airwolf...
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
