The Gang Phenomenon
The Cultural Dimensions of Crime
Created by Donald Taft (see
"Note" below)
The study of criminality has been going on for a very long time, and there are differing opinions as to why some people violate the law. William Taft offered an explanation for criminal behavior which is, as evident in the title he gave his notion, based on the cultural dimensions of a society rather than on the biological or psychological aspects of human behavior.
Taft believed there were at least six (6) cultural dimensions of American society that could generate or cause criminality among its people.
Among criminologists and others, there are two primary explanations for why people behave the way they do. The free will or choice theorists believe people behave the way they do because they choose to. On the other hand, the determinists believe people behave the way they do as a result of forces acting upon them over which they have little or not control.
The forces to which the determinists are referring are one's biological or psychological make up and the influence of one's society or culture. Clearly, Taft is a determinist. As the title of his work notes, it is the "cultural dimensions" of a society that may generate criminality.
I should note that Taft was using his notion to explain crime not gangs. Extrapolating his ideas and applying them to gangs is something I am trying to do in an effort to gain a better understanding of gangs and to be able to more clearly communicate what I've learned in my research.
Finally, there is the matter of solutions. I am concerned about why people join gangs. I want to find solutions to the gang phenomenon so that fewer people join them. Towards that end, I will identify examples of solutions which suggest themselves according to each of Taft's six cultural dimensions.
Taft's Cultural Dimensions of Crime
1. American society is dynamic.
By this, Taft means that American society is in a constant state of change. The Europeans that settled in this new land created, for the most part, a rural society. Few cities were large and most people (nearly 80%) lived on farms.
Over time, things have changed and, in response to the Industrial Revolution of the mid-1800s, we have become an urban society with nearly 80% of our people living in cities. We have also become mechanized. More about these technological changes in a moment.
These changes, accompanied by mass immigration during the latter part of the 1800s and the early 1900s, resulted in producing an environment in which opportunities for conflict between different peoples increased.
Not only did they share divergent values, beliefs, and opinions, even today it seems that these things are in a constant state of change. That which was wrong yesterday is right today. How is one supposed to act? Which behaviors are legal and which ones are not? One day a given behavior is immoral and unethical and the next it is not, and visa versa. In a society experiencing so much change, where are its roots? What impact may this condition have on the society's youth? Which set of values are they to embrace?
I use this concern of Taft's to explain much of what I have been learning about gangs and their members. Gangs form, sometimes, in response to the changes of which Taft speaks. Gangs are an island of stability in a sea of change. They are in control of their own destiny (or at least they believe that). As people move in and out of neighborhoods, gangs offer a "home," a "family" for children and adolescents in the neighborhood who see nothing but life passing them by.
Technology: Think about all the changes taking place in our society (as in most). Technological changes (i.e., computers and the communications revolution) can have a significant impact on our youth. If our youth are not prepared to participate in an increasingly technological society/work place, what are they to do? How will they get bread on the table? Earn respect? Have power? Gangs can offer all those things and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to join one!
We shouldn't be surprised that technological change impacts our youth - and everyone else. Back in the mid-1800s it was the onset of the Industrial Revolution that brought about radical changes in our society....and the role children have to play in it.
You may recall that, in the early stages of the Industrial Period, children were worked very hard. They were not required to go to school but were, instead, pressed into labor - and under the most terrible of conditions (poor pay, poor ventilation, long working hours, dangerous work settings, no protection, etc.).
As a result, the "Child Saving Movement" was started and two of the most significant outcomes of that movement were the new Child Labor Laws it spawned and the creation of the first juvenile justice system in the western world (back in 1899 in Cooke County, Illinois [Chicago]).
But that meant that children were removed from the world of work and had to go to school until they were at least 16 years of age. The resulting extension in the period of adolescence is, by some, blamed for the irresponsibility of youth and some of their deviance (including delinquency and gang behavior).
And don't forget about automation - sometimes referred to as robotization and its impact on manufacturing. Where the manufacture of a car (washer, dryer, refrigerator, television, radio, etc.) once took many people, it now takes very few - most of them operating the computers that direct the robots in their work of wiring, welding, moving materials, etc.
Solution: The problem is that too many people are being left behind in the technology race. We need computers in all of our schools and we need to incorporate their creative use in all curricula and regardless of the age of the student. This means that, among other things, we need access to computers, continued upgrading of software and hardware, teachers who are technologically competent (meaning they had to come from universities where they were encouraged in this regard). I doubt that the solution is to slow change down. It's not realistic.
Globalization: The impact of globalization has also been significant and places individuals with scarce resources in an even more precarious position. With globalization comes the need to lower prices in order to better compete overseas. Lowering prices often means mechanizing production lines, once the shelter for unskilled labor and one of the lower rungs on the ladder up to success. The underprivileged and outcast now find it even harder to make the leap from gang activity to being a normal working Joe.
As the minimum level of skill needed to enter the work force rises we find a concomitant reduction in the number of youths completing high school. The gap between the two results in more and more youth being left behind. What do they do in their desperation?
Solution: Why don't our children speak two or three languages by the time they are 10 years old? Teaching a foreign language, starting in the first grade, is an idea whose time has come (and some schools are doing this - but not enough of them). Learning a foreign language should also accompany efforts to teach children about the home culture of that language and the ways of its people.
Integration of peoples from many different cultures, in our residential communities (therefore in our schools, faith institutions, businesses, public spaces, etc.) would increase the likelihood of reducing the shock usually associated with globalization.
Stimulating global trade, dropping trade barriers, and other measures are also needed to assure that there are jobs for everyone who wants one. This, and many of the solutions which are borne of Taft's dimensions, may seem remote from the subject of "gangs," but we need to remember that we're talking about the larger picture. What is it about the culture itself which generates conditions conducive to the formation of gangs? In this case, joblessness is a contributor and a failure to be "globalized" (if you'll excuse the use of that still-to-be-coined term) eventually leads to the possibility of gang joining and gang behavior.
Related theorists/theories:
Shaw and McKay and the Ecological Theory of Crime:
The composition of neighborhoods are changing as the center city expands to accommodate a growing business sector. The old residential areas adjacent to the center city are overrun by commercial growth.
That area, that "zone," if referred to by Shaw and McKay as the interstitial zone (the "zone in transition" from residential to commercial use). It is a zone that exhibits the greatest amount of transience and a breakdown of the social institutions which used to provide informal social control. They refer to it as a zone which exhibits a great deal of social disorganization (its social institutions are weak).
The interstitial zones show the highest degree of social disorganization exhibiting a rise in crime and delinquency as well as infant mortality and other measures of social pathology.
You can see that, in the context of the concept of social disorganization, and realizing that most human beings want to be in a social organized environment, gangs provide the social organization that is missing in a social disorganized neighborhood (like in the interstitial zone - sometimes called the "inner city").
Solution: Urban planning is often suggested as a solution to the conditions (transience, breakdown of neighborhoods, etc.) produced by the growth and expansion of the inner city. Sounds like a good solution to me!
Of course, we could also talk about family planning - having no children or fewer of them. After all, the growth is closely associated with increases in the population size of a city. Immigration also impacts in this arena. There was a community in California which, in the 1980s, passed a city ordinance which limited the size of the city population to 25,000.
At that number, the city could provide adequate park space, parking, schools, hospitals, and all the other things needed for a desirable quality of life. Guess what. Someone forced the ordinance into a courtroom and it was declared unconstitutional. So much for that.
Other, perhaps more do-able solutions, include the integration of housing with commercial use. If you've visited Chesterfield (the little community being developed on South Kansas Expressway near the James River highway) then you know what I'm talking about.
The community includes apartments, homes, offices, retail outlets, entertainment facilities, restaurants, park space, and more. That kind of development is referred to as a "satellite" community. Rather than separate zones for commercial and residential use, it is integrated. Residents can get from their home to the store or restaurant without having to drive.
Think about that. They will use the sidewalks, encounter one another as they move about their community, populate the sidewalks .... many of the conditions which nourish a sense of "community" and discourage crime.
Bloch and Niederhoffer - Reaching "Adulthood:"
Although Bloch and Niederhoffer did not call their notion of delinquency causation "Reaching Adulthood," the title does fit with their concerns.
Bloch and Niederhoffer, unlike most criminologists, based their notion of delinquency causation on a comparative study of the United States with several other countries. Their most significant finding was that delinquency was lowest in those countries where youths had a clear idea of what it takes to become an adult.
Where the rites de passage (rites of passage - the ceremonies and procedures used to pass from one stage to another) were clear, delinquency was low. In those nations where the rites of passage were unclear, delinquency rates tended to be higher.
Think about life for an adolescent in the United States. What are the rites of passage from childhood to adulthood? Among the things that we may think of are
Graduation from school (what level?) Obtaining a full time job Driving a car Getting married Having children Buying a house Is that all it takes to become an adult? Is that enough? At what age does an adolescent become an adult? Is that a relevant criteria?
The more we learn and know about other cultures, the more we find that, in some of them, the rites of passage from childhood to adolescence and from adolescence to adulthood are clear and eagerly anticipated by those who intend to pass through them. As significant is the fact that the society in which this occurs recognizes those who pass successfully to be adults and honor/burden them with the responsibilities and expectations that come with the status of "adult."
Ah, were that this was true in the United States. We are such a diverse population that some subcultures have clearer rites of passage than others and few subcultures understand those of others. And, perhaps, for far too many in our society there are no rites of passage clearly outlined.
Instead, in their struggle to be perceived of and dealt with as adults, our adolescents do some things that are defined in our society as delinquent or criminal. Take, for instance:
smoking drinking alcohol participating in sexual intercourse leaving home to live independently All three are, by law, defined as criminal behaviors when participated in by minors. Yet, at the same time, all three are symbolic of "adult behavior" among the vast majority of the population. What a mess!
Finding few, if any, clear steps to take to receive recognition as an adult, some youth turn to symbolic adult behavior and, if caught, are detain, arrested, and, in many cases, are labeled as delinquent, criminal, or as trouble-makers.
As Bloch and Niederhoffer would suggest, then, in a society where the rites of passage from adolescence to adulthood are not clear, delinquency rates tend to be higher. Is it because the youths in those societies are more criminal? Clearly not. It's because their behavior has been criminalized for minors (while adults are expected to and accepted for behaving in the very same manner).
Gang behavior is greatest and most noticeable on the streets of the interstitial zones. What do you think causes this?
Solution: Clearly, to me anyway, we need to think of ceremonial passages through which our children may pass so that they get a sense of what is expected of them at each level of development and, eventually, earn their adulthood. It might not be a bad idea to decriminalize drinking, smoking, truancy, and running away from home.
Those problems are serious enough as is and treatment of some sort should be provided for those who need it. But to add to the problem behavior the notion of "criminal" is to further compound the problem. It's gotten so out of hand that we've lost control.
2. American society is complex.
We aren't just male and female, young and old. We are Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Jewish, African-American, Asian, First People (Indians), Caucasians, etc. And there are many conflicting values in our society (those in favor of abortion and those against it, those who favor the death penalty and those who don't, etc.) Taft believed this diversity may lead to conflict ... and that conflict may lead to criminality.
Turning our attention to gangs, one may suggest that if we were to talk about "gang war" we may understand that it may be the result of two gangs conflicting with one another - one gang Asian the other Hispanic, or one Afro-American, the other Hispanic, or one Caucasian and the other Afro-American and the list goes on and on.
My experiences in the field support the notion that much that is called gang activity is, in effect, one group attacking another group due to the differences between them (differences ethnicity, race, religious belief, etc.).
Not all conflicts between gangs are about drugs, sexual relations, and personal vendettas. Some are genuine expressions of the racial, ethnic, and other differences they exhibit and their desire to defeat those who are different.
Solution: You know that one of the most used buzzwords today is "diversity." That's what we're talking about in this dimension (American society is complex), so any solution that helps increase understanding between peoples of different religions, races, etc., would be a help. It may also be a help to allow segregation, as long as it was self imposed and allowed those who wish to be in integrated settings to do so. But it's not politically correct today to speak of such a solution.
So, we're left with increasing understanding. Let's get an appreciation of diversity in to the school curriculum as early as possible, and let's talk about what we share in common as we meet in our faith institutions, as we read our newspapers, and in all other arenas of our life. We may never over the issues that divide us, but we'll never know until we consciously attempt to overcome them.
Related theorists/theories:
Albert Cohen:
Albert Cohen and the clash, in our schools, of middle- and working- class populations and their respective values. In a nutshell, Cohen believed that schools are run primarily by people from the middle-class. He was referring to the administrators, teachers, and counselors.
Some of the children who attend those schools, he says, are not from the middle-class and do not exhibit the kinds of behaviors which the middle-class expects to see and approves. This is done by use of a "middle-class measuring rod" whereby all children are measured to determine their social class standing.
Children who do not measure up to the middle-class standards may, Cohen posits, develop "status frustration" and, as a result, may begin acting out. He believed that the acting out takes the form of reversing the very middle-class values against which the working-class children were measured.
For example, if middle-class children are to be polite, working-class children, acting out due to their status frustration, will be impolite (i.e., be loud, rude). If middle-class children are supposed to respect the property of others, the working-class children who are acting out will show no respect (i.e., vandalize, steal, and destroy others' property).
Were we to apply Cohen's notion to gangs we might suggest that, due to being rejected by the school, working-class children may devalue school, become truant and/or vandalize the school (among other things) and, as a consequence may be attracted to gangs. Gangs through which they will find acceptance, share their frustration/anger, and find support for their acting out.
Quoting Yablonsky in Gangsters (p. 171): "In the gang the norms of the larger (middle-class) society are reversed so that nonutilitarian deviant behavior...becomes a legitimized activity. The gang thus provides a legitimate 'opportunity structure' for working-class boys to strike back at a larger society that produces their status-frustration problems."
Solution: Employ more teachers who come from a lower-class background, start school a year early for children who need more attention so that they are prepared for first grade or kindergarten.
Hire more teachers and keep class size small so that children get more individual attention. The emphasis of schooling should be upon creating successful children, not on sorting out those who will succeed from those we believe will not.
Offer more training for teachers and administrators, training that will lessen their likelihood of using the measuring rod and punishing the lower-class children. Invest the same amount of dollars per student for schools in the suburban areas and in the urban areas (thus equalizing the resources each has to offer the students that attend them). Certainly there must be more we could do.
Walter Miller:
Walter Miller and the clash of middle- and lower-class values as a natural outcome of life in the inner city. For Miller, being lower-class simply means that one's values will be different than those of a middle-class person. He posits that the values of the lower-class are functional and make life in lower-class neighborhoods possible.
He talks about such lower class values in terms of being "focal concerns." Among them are being tough, having street smarts, accepting fate, and seeking excitement, to name a few. The middle-class, on the other hand, has its own set of focal concerns, most of which are diametrically opposed to those of the lower-class. Street smarts are looked upon as crude and below a middle-class person. Instead, book smarts are admired.
Being tough is looked down upon by the middle-class where "brains over brawn" is admired. And so it goes. Of course, if the middle-class has the greater likelihood of creating law, they will criminalize toughness (assault, battery, etc.), street smarts (con men, etc.) and, as a result, will criminalize being lower-class. That's how the theory goes.
So, why, according to Miller, do gangs form? Quoting Yablonsky, in Gangsters, (p. 174),
"...lower-class youths who are confronted with the largest gap between aspirations and possibilities for achievements are most delinquency-prone. Such youths, according to Miller, are apt to utilize heavily the normal range of lower-class delinquent patters of 'toughness, shrewdness, cunning, and other devices in an effort to achieve prestige and status...toughness, physical prowess, skill, fearlessness, bravery, ability to con people, gaining money by wits, shrewdness...seeking and finding thrills, risk, danger, freedom from external constraint, and freedom from ... authority.'" [quoted from Miller, see p. 226 of the text, note #10].
Yablonsky believes that a youth's efforts to achieve status in a gang is a consequence of the dynamics Miller identifies. What do you think?
Karl Marx:
Karl Marx is well known for having suggested that, in his time, the inhabitants of capitalist societies were divided into two groups: those who own the means of production and those who work for them. In contrast to this bifurcated (two part) notion of society, pluralists believe that there are many conflicting groups in society.
Thorsten Sellin:
Thorsten Sellin suggested that there are two kinds of conflict found amongst the population of a society: primary and secondary. He labels the kind of conflict which arises from an individual or group of people moving from one country to another country as primary conflict. The value systems of the two countries may be so divergent, so significant, that conflict between the two value systems is likely to occur.
Secondary conflict is the name he gave to the conflict which often arises when an individual or group of people move from one part of a county to another part of the same country. It would be akin to a southerner in the USA moving to the north, or a Midwesterner moving to the west coast.
While the values between the two may not be significantly different, there may be a conflict in the use of the language, dress style, personal mannerisms, etc. The move from a rural community to an urban community may also result in secondary conflicts when the rural person encounters the urban residents, or when an inner-city family moves to the suburbs.
Solution: To be honest, I don't know how to overcome some of the differences that exist in our society. How do we improve race relations? How do we learn to appreciate the differences in the culture of one people from another? I think that, until those questions are answered, there is little hope for resolving related concerns as they pertain to gangs (gangs of youth who battle each other over racial and ethnic differences).
On the other hand, perhaps in working with gangs we can focus on finding ways to overcome these misunderstandings and hatred. But when it comes to addressing Sellin's concerns, I think there are some solid solutions available.
Wouldn't we benefit from making sure there are programs for new immigrants that accelerate their ability to speak English? Aren't there programs we can offer the residents of a community that help them better understand and appreciate the "strange" people who are immigrating into their neighborhoods? We can do this and we are doing it in many communities throughout the USA. We just need to do more of it and keep up the effort.
Gangs may form, according to conflict theory (and strain theory), as a result of the exclusion of the lower class from participation in the "American Dream." In response to being excluded, alternative means of reaching the goal of financial success may result in criminal behavior.
Gangs may also form as a result of the middle-class labeling behaviors of lower-class youth as delinquent (smoking cigarettes, having sexual intercourse, being truant from school, running away from home, etc.). Once labeled as delinquent, a youth may seek out others who have been similarly labeled. Gangs may form.
Solution: Among the most commonly identified solutions, if we look at the situation from Miller's perspective, is to infuse lower class neighborhoods with more resources. Better schools, more parks, more structured activity, better city services (like garbage pick up, street/sidewalk/lighting maintenance, etc.). And emphasize the need for problem oriented policing.
Of course that's a pretty class-biased answer, isn't it? I mean, all we need to do is change the way those people live so that they are more like us, then everything will be peachy keen. Right? You see what I mean? Why not solve the problem by accepting people the way they are?
There are probably lots of problems trying to do that. Do you have some other suggestions as to how to solve the problem from Miller's perspective?
3. American society is materialistic.
That which is most valued in American society is that which is material - personal possessions, objects. Taft, and others, believed) that this breeds consumption and greed ... there is concern more for one's "self" than for "others."
Those who would be the primary beneficiaries in such a society would also have the greatest stake in maintaining the status quo. They may criminalize some groups (i.e., poor, homeless, vagrant) to eliminate them. From another perspective, if having things is what is valued, and if a person can not gain access to those things legitimately, is it not possible that this person would attempt to obtain those valued things illegitimately?
Solution:
1. Reduce the emphasis in our culture on materialism.
2. Keep materialism but share the wealth equally among all people.
3. Keep materialism, allow class differences, but provide everyone with equal access to the legitimate means for reaching the legitimate success goal of our society.Related theorists/theories:
Robert Merton and Strain Theory:
When a significant portion of the population is denied access to the culturally legitimated means for reaching the culturally legitimated goal, one may expect some of the excluded to utilize innovative (sometimes criminal) means for achieving the goal.
The culturally legitimated means are getting an education then working hard in a job. Through these means one achieves the culturally legitimated goal of financial success (and all the trappings like a home, cars, fine clothes, jewelry, having a family and sending one's children to college, etc.).
Merton would say that everyone in the culture has the goal thrust in their face several times every day of their conscious lives (in TV, radio, magazine, newspaper ads, etc.). The problem is that not everyone has equal access to the culturally legitimate means. And those who, out of sheer will power, try to work their way up in a job, often hit a glass ceiling (they can see that there are positions above them - better paying ones, but they can not reach them).
Merton tells us that the barrier to a good education and a good job is discrimination. All kinds of discrimination including racial, ethnic, religious, gender and age.
Solution: The three solutions identified above and
4. Keep materialism but reduce the barrier of discrimination so that there is a level playing field for everyone. (Sort of like solution #3 above.)
Cloward and Ohlin and the Illegitimate Opportunity Structure:
There exists a structured opportunity of illegitimate means for the disenfranchised to use in order to reach the culturally legitimated goal. Organized crime, theft rings, trafficking in drugs and other forms of structured illegitimate opportunities/means are, perhaps, more accessible to the lower class while legitimate opportunities/means are more readily available to people in the middle class.
Solution: See the solutions for Merton. The only other solution I can think of right now would be to destroy the illegitimate opportunity structure. I doubt that that is possible.
A concern more for material things than for values such as fairness, humanity, generosity, caring, may result in an undue emphasis on "making it," and making it any way necessary. If the legitimate path to success is denied or made too difficult, perhaps a youth will choose an illegitimate path to the same goal. In so doing, he or she may join up with others in order to increase the likelihood of their success. Gangs may form.
4. American society is becoming increasingly depersonalized.
Taft believed that many individuals in American society are not known to the larger group and are, therefore, not persons - they've become numbers, titles, statistics. They are not socially "connected." Because humans are inherently social animals, it is believed that the resulting depersonalization and isolation may lead to depression, anger, anxiety, and attacks upon one's self (i.e., suicide, substance abuse) and/or others or property.
In studying gangs, it's conceivable to believe that this condition of being stripped of or not having a unique identity may result in looking for someplace to be recognized as the individual that one is. A gang may be able to do this. In a gang the individual may be given recognition and may achieve status, prestige, power and all the other trappings provided people who are known.
Solution: Find ways to rebuild communities and neighborhoods so that the individual becomes a more significant factor in them. Smaller class sizes may result in teachers knowing more of their students' names. Building homes with porches in front so that there's more interaction in the neighborhood.
How to we make the individual more significant in our culture? That's the question that Taft raises here, if we're looking for solutions.
Related theorists/theories:
Social Control Theory:
Some theorists posit that crime is the result of a loss of social control normally imposed through social institutions such as the family, faith, education, and the community or one's neighborhood. If such informal social control is weakened, formal means of social control may be imposed - the juvenile- and criminal justice systems.
Solution: Strengthen the social institutions of informal social control. Do you have any other ideas as to how this may be accomplished?
Walter Reckless and Containment Theory:
Reckless believed that people are kept from violating the law in several ways. If properly socialized by their parents and peers, the individual will control him- or herself. That is, the individual provides their own containment (containing their natural impulses which may lead to law violations).
If individuals fail to contain themselves, their families and or peers may try to contain them (talk with them, try to counsel them, etc.). If that fails, the other social institutions of informal social control may provide containment - schools, the faith institutions, and the community or neighborhood residents.
If all of those fail, the criminal justice system, as a social institution of formal social control, may attempt to contain the individual (through arrest, confinement, etc.).
Reckless also suggests that everyone is exposed to various "pushes" and "pulls," forces that push or pull an individual into law violation. We can see such pushes when children are threatened by other children to join a gang. An example of a pull may be when a child sees that, in order to get money to buy things, he or she can join a gang and reach their objective. They are pulled into the gang by its attraction as a way of earning status and making money.
Solution: Strengthen the individual's self-esteem so that offending is not an option. Make sure the individual has positive role models among family members and peers so that what they internalize at an early age are the socially appropriate values, morals, beliefs, and norms.
Beyond the inner circle of family and peers, strengthen the other social institutions of informal social control so that they are effect containments (faith institutions, government agencies, community services, media, schools, etc.).
Travis Hirschi and Control Theory:
People refrain from violating the law because they have a stake in conformity. They believe that, if they follow the society's rules, they will be rewarded with success.
According to Hirschi, when a member of society's bond to that society is weak or broken they may become criminal. Attachment, involvement, commitment, and belief in the values and goals of the society are what keep people from offending.
But what of children born into situations in which the bond to the larger society is already weak? Perhaps the parents are law violators. Maybe, if we look at things the way Miller and Cohen do (see above), being born into the working- or lower-class presents some real challenges in terms of bonding with the larger society. A lower-class person can suffer rejection and discrimination (see Merton, above).
What is the response of those children? Is it possible that some of them might join a gang because, lacking a bond to the larger society, they believe they will find a bond to the gang? Will they develop attachment, involvement, commitment, and belief in the gang culture? I think it's interesting to turn Hirschi's notion inward as a way of explaining a gang member's relationship to his or her gang (having a bond to the gang).
In summary, without informal social controls - from families who care about their children, schools that educate and prepare local youth for success in making a legitimate living, faith institutions that teach acceptance and learning to live with diversity, business communities that offer meaningful work and opportunities for advancement in pay and responsibility - who controls our youth? No one? Gangs? The criminal justice system?
If, in fact, our youth respond by simply satisfying their self interests (have fun, sex, gain power, etc.), they may resort to gang life where such attributes of "making it" are more readily available and acceptable.
Solution: Provide each child with a reason for having a stake in conformity. Reward them for socially appropriate behavior - strengthen their bond to society. On the flip side, make it too painful to bond to a negative force in society (organized crime, gangs, etc.).
5. Depersonalization leads to limited group loyalties.
Taft believed that depersonalization leads to an erosion of ties to the larger society and fosters restricted group loyalties. That is, feeling unattached from society, some people may seek out a group or groups within society to be loyal to rather than be loyal to the larger society/community.
Application of this concept to gangs may help us understand why it is that some gang members can violate the laws of the society with no remorse. After all, wasn't the behavior in accordance with what the gang expected of the gang members? Isn't that more important to them than what the rest of society thinks of their behavior? The gang members are loyal to the gang, not to society. Their depersonalization from the larger society has resulted, according to Taft, in their loyalty to the gang.
Solution: The solutions here have lots in common with other solutions mentioned above - especially those that help integrate people into society and provide them with a sense of belonging, of having a bond. How can we help people to feel as though they belong?
Related theorists/theories:
Gresham Sykes and David Matza and the Techniques of Neutralization:
One becomes free to commit crime by using one or more techniques of neutralization (denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, appeal to higher loyalties). That is, if the individual feels any guilt over breaking the law (feeling guilty about stealing something from someone, etc.), the offender can neutralize their guilt by using any one or more of the techniques identified above.
I highlighted "appeal to higher loyalties" because this is the link I make between Sykes and Matza's notion and gangs. Some individuals will find it easy to violate the law because doing so is approved of by their fellow gang members. In fact, violating the law takes precedence over law violating behavior. Some offenders remove feelings of guilt (which normally would limit their deviance) by appealing to what the gang expects of them.
Matza also wrote about the subterranean value system. It is not uncommon, he believed, for parents and other such authority figures to tell children that behaving one way or another is "wrong." They tell children they shouldn't do "that" (i.e., smoking, drinking, using recreational drugs, assaulting other people).
He also believes that it is not uncommon for those same authority figures to be involved in behaving in the very same ways they've told their children (or other youth) not to behave.
Matza, therefore, suggest that there is a subterranean value system in our culture ... a value system that exists just below the level of the "right" value system. Adults tell the youth that something is wrong but then the adults behave in those wrongful ways (smoking, drinking, using recreational drugs, assaulting other people, etc.).
What is a child to believe? Which value system is relevant to their lives? Should they refrain from doing what they are told is wrong or should they behave the way they see the adults behaving? Matza believes that the existence of the subterranean value system confuses youth and often results in the mimicking of the inappropriate adult behavior. Understandable, isn't it? Monkey see, monkey do.
Matza also wrote about drift. For Matza, drift is the tendency of some youth to drift in and out of delinquency. This characterizes many of today's gang members who only participate in gang activity occasionally and, when not doing so, behave in "normal" or non-criminal ways.
Solution:
A. Concerning the Techniques of Neutralization: In order to find a solution using Sykes and Matza we have to realize that the individual has chosen to violate the law. Sykes and Matza suggest that they feel free to do that because they find a way to absolve themselves of any guilt. They must feel guilt or else they wouldn't have had to find a technique of neutralizing it.
If they struggle to find a technique of neutralization then they must have known that what they did was wrong. So the solution doesn't have anything to do with trying to make gang members or other offenders understand that what they did was wrong.
Perhaps the solution lies in finding out WHY they violated the law, and Sykes and Matza don't help us in that regard.
B. Concerning the Subterranean Value System:
Either parents and other authorities figures will have to cease and desist behaving in socially inappropriate ways or we need to legalize heretofore criminal behaviors.C. Concerning Drift:
I don't know if we can stop all drift. Perhaps we should realize that most children do drift and, as such, much of their behavior is socially appropriate. In order to modify the person's behavior, should we focus more on rewarding and providing incentives for socially acceptable behavior? Maybe we shouldn't get overly concerned about the inappropriate behavior - especially if it is minor in significance?Edwin Sutherland and Differential Association:
We learn to become criminal from other people and from the media. Sutherland suggests that our relationships with other people have at least four qualities:
Priority: Relationships we experience early in life
are those which have the greatest impact upon us. So, values taught by people we experience as children are likely to be the values we adopt throughout life.
Frequency: People we interact with frequently will
have a greater impact on us than people we interact with less frequently.
Duration: People with whom we interact over a long period of time are likely to be more influential in our development than are people with whom we interact only occasionally.
Intensity: And people for whom we have a great deal of respect are more likely to be influential in what we believe and value than are people for whom we have little respect. So, think about that. During the first 10 years of life, who does a child come into contact with earliest, most frequently, and maintain a relationship with over the longest period of time? And who do they typically hold in the highest regard? You're probably thinking about their parents .... and you would likely be right.
But what about the at-risk youth we think about when we think of gangs? What about their parents? Do they live with them? Is there both a father and mother? Is there substance abuse and child abuse in the home? What values do their parents have? Would Sutherland's notion suggest that what some of these children learn is that gang-banging is O.K.?
Who might these children learn this from? Parents who are involved in gangs? Peers who are involved? And so the notion goes.
Solution: Be sure expose children to positive and influential role models (intensity) early in life (priority) and make sure the children interact with them frequently and over a long period of time (duration). Reducing negativism/criminality/hate/anger in the media would also be indicated.
Labeling Theory:
If a person commits a crime (primary deviance), he or she may be labeled as a delinquent or criminal. The person being labeled may accept that label (secondary deviance) and begin to consistently behave in ways that confirm the appropriateness of the label. In effect, the labeling process may condemn an individual who may have otherwise remained non-committal to a life of crime, to that life of crime.
I have included Labeling Theory under this category in Taft's model because, one rejected by society at-large, the individual may join a group/gang and, once recognized as a member of that group/gang, will be labeled as a member. The individual may even do certain things to assure that s/he is recognized as a member (wear appropriate clothing, colors, throw signs, wear identifying tattoos, etc.).
Edwin Lemert developed the concept of primary deviance and secondary deviance. The primary deviance refers to the act of delinquency or criminality committed by the individual. If caught, the individual may face the labeling process and, at the end of that process, may accept the label of "delinquent" or "criminal" as a part of their personality.
Lemert called the adoption of a label as secondary deviance. The delinquent or criminal now perceives of him/herself as a delinquent or criminal and begins behaving in that manner on a more consistent basis.
My field research alerted me to the fact that police sometimes label the friends of gang members as gang members whether they are or not. If they are associating with a know/documented gang member, then the police are likely to label them as gang members.
At the very least, they will document the "friend" as an "associate," and the label often sticks. If it's used often enough by police, Lemert would suggest that we run the risk of changing the friend/associate into a real and active gang member through the labeling process. See how it works?
In summary, human beings are, above all else, social animals. They appear to be healthiest when they have opportunities for social interaction with other human beings. If depersonalized by society, they seek out attachments in other ways, perhaps to a smaller group. And, once attached to that group, they are more likely to support the values and norms of that group than of the larger society.
If that group is a gang, it is easy to understand how a gang member can prey upon the larger society and do so without remorse. Who cares about the larger society?! It's my gang members to matter - they care about me!
Solution:
1. Be careful not to pre-judge children and label them incorrectly.
2. When labeled as delinquent, be sure to distinguish between a child who behave badly and a bad child.6. The survival of the frontier ethic.
According to Taft, the frontier ethic of American society is that people may take the law into their own hands to right a wrong committed against them by other people. The relationship between this dimension of American society and gangs is clear. When a gang member offends another gang member (either in the same gang or in a different gang) it is not uncommon for the offended member to settle the matter personally through an attack of some sort.
No appeal is made to the legitimate authorities (police). The matter is taken into one's own hands. In fact, the police are not viewed as legitimate authorities. Fellow gang members are the legitimate. If you couple that thought with Taft's notion of restricted group loyalties (#5 above) then you are beginning to see how the six dimensions are interrelated. The offended gang member views his/her gang as the group to be loyal to, not the larger society.I'm not sure what theory or theorists apply here. But I do know, from personal experiences gained in the field and from secondary research, that gangs are a good example of a society run amok where the members of the gang feel compelled to take matters into their own hands if things go astray. To rely upon "the authorities" is a sign of weakness.
Could it be that one of the reasons for the formation of gangs is that they are a response to neighborhood incidents of assault, theft, rape, and other crimes against the neighborhood residents? Gangs may form as a way to get revenge on the alleged perpetrators.
Are gangs a way in which youth, who feel they are being victimized, can get back at their attackers? Could it be that some poor, inner-city, minority youth, feeling oppressed by the middle-class, gather together in gangs to defend themselves from such victimization? What do you think is going on?
Solution: A more just system of justice, one that instills trust because it acts quickly and fairly to criminal and delinquent behavior. If everyone felt that the system actually worked, there would be less of a tendency to resort to taking matters into one's own hands.
Remove guns from the civilian population. Or increase the penalties for the commission of crimes with the use of deadly force. Or both?
___________________
* NOTE: While Taft created the original work that identified and described the six cultural dimensions of crime, I am responsible for the association of other criminological theories in the six dimensions and for the material you see written on this page. It's all my fault!
CRM 480 | Courses I Teach
AdviseNet | CRM | Missouri State
| E-mail Dr Carlie
