class: center, top, title-slide # The Code of the Street ## SOC371 ### Chuck Lanfear ### Mar 3, 2021<br>Updated: Mar 2, 2021 --- # Overview * Differential Social Organization * Criticisms of Differential Association * The Code of the Street * Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Study --- # Differential Social (Group) Organization * Explains how normative conflict causes group or societal rates of crime *The crime rate of a society (group) is determined by differential social (group) organization* -- * Differential social organization: *The extent to which a society (group) is organized in favor of crime versus organized against crime.* -- * Social organization influences the group's distribution of definitions favorable and unfavorable to crime. --- # Differential Organization .image-100[  ] ??? Theory is relatively straightforward in the abstract. Structural conditions impact group organization. Individuals are members of multiple overlapping groups. Individual criminality is result of proximal causes--opportunity, ratio of definitions, skills and techniques--which one is differentially exposed to based on group membership and relationship to the group. --- ## Crime Rates by Social Organization .image-75[  ] ??? Under differential social organization, crime rates are predicted by the joint distribution of organization for and against crime. The classic high collective efficacy / organized neighborhood is the bottom left. Classic disorganized is top right. But this theory permits existence of two diagonals: Places with no organization of either type, or with strong organizations of both form. Mary Patillo's Groveland might be example of bottom right. Stable middle-class black neighborhood but gang organization interwoven. --- ## Distribution of Crime Definitions #### Linking Differential Assocition to Social Organization .image-100[  ] ??? Imagine the networks represent groups where the red dots are individuals espousing definitions in favor of crime and black dots are those espousing definitions against crime. Everyone on the left side, regardless of their own definitions, is surrounded mainly by people promoting anti-crime definitions. On the right, regardless of their own definitions, everyone is mostly surrounded by people espousing definitions favoring crime. Pro-crime defs not likely to spread or flourish on left; very likely to spread and flourish on right. Some individuals on right may still not get involved in crime--such as person on bottom of right network who has more exposure to anti-crime definitions than pro-crime. --- ## Normative Conflict and Law * Criminal laws are an expression of normative conflict ??? Differential social organization also ties nicely into origins and definitions of criminal law we looked at back in week 2. -- * Suppose: 1. A powerful group organizes against behavior that violates their values or interests. 2. Two groups are now in normative conflict: The group that engages in the behavior versus the powerful group. 3. The powerful group succeeds in outlawing the behavior. -- * Implications: * Definitions favorable to behavior now pro-criminal definitions. * Definitions unfavorable to behavior now anti-criminal definitions. * The weaker group will have a higher rate of criminal behavior. * This is *without any behavior patterns changing at all*. ??? This reveals that definitions are neutral with respect to the law. They are about acceptability / applicability of a particular behavior. The criminality of the behavior is determined through political contest with roots in collective action. -- *Normative conflict describes political contests over behavior and subsequent criminalization of disenfranchised groups.* --- ## Origins of Crime & Definitions Favorable to Crime Some possibilities: * They were present (as neutral definitions) before the behavior was outlawed. ??? Question in differential association is what is the origin of criminal behavior and definitions about it. First possibility is that criminalization occurs after a behavior exists--it was originally noncriminal. -- * They were imported from a different culture. ??? Through learning, individuals can acquire new behaviors and definitions related to them. -- * They were invented by modifying existing neutral (or criminal) definitions. ??? Definitions specific to legal activity might be generalized to apply to an illegal activity. If there's no obvious reason for a distinction between the behaviors, this is trivial. --- ## Criticisms of Differential Association * Assumes a deterministic model, which is unlikely to hold for social science * But we can translate the theory's propositions to a probabilistic model ??? It is straightforward to convert DA into a probabilistic model and is generally the way it is operationalized. -- * The social psychology hypothesis (ratio) is probably an oversimplification ??? The actual process is likely more complicated. There may be factors influencing salience of definitions at different times and places, for instance. -- * Need to incorporate a situational decision-making model (e.g. rational choice) ??? If the model is not deterministic, we admit the role of agency in the process. If there is agency, one needs a decision-making model. Rational choice, for instance, is a decision-making model, which might explain differences in behavior at the margin. Some recent work in this area--like what you'll read next--uses a pragmatist model of decisionmaking. -- * Differential social organization is underdeveloped: What is the theory of structure? ??? Sutherland did not explain differential social organization in any detail. Did not develop a theory that explains how differences in social structure contribute to organization for and against crime. This challenge has been taken up by more recent work. -- * Learning process needs to be specified more clearly (e.g. social learning theory) ??? Sutherland did not detail the learning process clearly. Akers picked this up applying concepts from social psychology like Skinner and later Bandura. Others like Matsueda have taken their own approach to learning. --- class: inverse # The Code of the Street --- # Anderson's Code of the Street * Build's on Wilson's underclass thesis and subcultural theories ??? Anderson's work is rooted in WJ Wilson's work. Consequences of concentrated, prolonged disadvantage, social and political isolation and disenfrenchisement. -- * Add a cultural component to Wilson * How do young black men adapt to concentrated disadvantage? * They innovate a distinct status system based on violence ??? It is about cultural and practical adaptations to underclass conditions. New status system, new regulation of behavior. Worth noting that it mirrors the status systems described in earlier work in poor white, European minority, and Latin communities, such as Short & Strodtbeck and earlier to Thrasher and Shaw & McKay. The content of the Code of the Street is not uniquely African American nor exclusive to recent times--though the present form may be more consequential due to the extreme concentration, isolation, and durability of the the conditions producing it. -- * Example of Differential Social Organization * Decent families: Organization against crime * Street youth (code of the street): Organization in favor of crime ??? The Code of the Street, as described in Matsueda et al., can be cast in the differential social organization concept as organization in favor of crime, where "decent families" and conventional institutions represent organization against crime. The most "street" youth, as Anderson describes, are those cut off from decent families and other sources of definitions unfavorable to crime. --- # Structural Causes of the Code * Structural disadvantage in labor market * W.J. Wilson's urban underclass * Self-respect and status not derived conventionally * Result: Alienation ??? Fundamental cause is in labor markets, as WJ Wilson posits. Deprivation of opportunity annihilated conventional paths for status gains and success. Self-respect and status for many become rooted in toughness and competition; there is alienation from the conventional society whose goals and forms of status are irrelevant. -- * Distrust of social institutions (police) ??? There is estrangement from police due to perception they are simultaneous out to oppress poor black population and unlikely to respond productively to calls. -- * Develop own system of justice and control * Organized system for resolving disputes and allocating respect & status * Based on violence: hypermasculinity ??? Alternative status system combined with alienation from police--a conventional institution for enforcing security--results in an alternative system of justice and social control. This system regulates disputes among members and provides rules for allocation of respect and status. Status and respect based on violence and projection / maintenance of masculinity. --- # Code of the Street: Content * Status based on "rep" for violence and toughness * Quick to resort to violence * Skill as a fighter * "Go for bad," fearless, ready to use a gun ??? The content of the Code of the Street is somewhat fluid but has some fundamental components. Status is first based on reputation for violent capability. Respect is conferred to those prepared to fight when any challenge is presented and willing to respond with maximum force--such as with a gun. -- * Never back down from a fight * Always come to aid of one's crew or intimates * Respond in kind to insults or threats ??? The code does not permit backing down, from challenges to self, crew, or family. To back down invites both immediate and future aggression. It thus demands reciprocity--if challenged, one must respond in kind. Relatively minor transgressions like making eye contact or stepping on a shoe represent challenges and may provoke violent responses. -- * Exact revenge * If a peer or family is insulted or preyed upon * If a girlfriend is insulted or violated ??? When you, your crew, family, or partner are attacked, the code demands retaliation--lest it be perceived they can be victimized with impunity. Challenges to any in your group are thus a challenge to everyone in the group. -- * Gain "juice" or rep by preying on the weak * Take their material possessions (jewelry, shoes) * Assault, humiliate others ??? Victimizing weak or easy prey is a means of building status. Displays capability and willingness to use violence or the threat of violence, and ability to use it and resist retaliation of others. Material possessions carry both value as object and also as status--sign you can take what you want. --- # Social Organization of the Code of the Street * Norms govern behavior on the street * Allocate respect and status * Provides a way of resolving disputes ??? System makes norms of behavior clear. It is understood how social hierarchy is produced, how disputes arise, and how they can be resolved. -- * Knowledge of the code allows one to avoid violence * Don't stare or otherwise threaten * Project a violent image, as tough, crazy, or not to be messed with ??? Knowing the code serves vital protective role. If you know norms and expectations, you can use these to avoid victimization. Do not challenge others but at same time project that you can take care of yourself. -- * Ideal types: Decent and street * Decent people have to know the code or they'll be "punked". ??? The ideal types of individuals in the code are decent and street. Street folks espouse the code and enforce it most vigorously. Decent people follow the code only in public places but must do so for their protection. -- * Implication: Code is a system property of neighborhoods and not individuals ??? As Matsueda et al. describe, the Code is an attribute not of individuals but of the social system of a place. It exists outside individuals and they must accomodate it for their safety, if not for their status and self-respect. --- class: inverse # The Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Study (SNCS) ### Race, Disadvantage, Police Efficacy, and Codes of Violence --- # SNCS Survey * Seattle * Less residentially segregated than other US metros * No extreme concentrated disadvantage ??? Seattle is a unique setting for a study of the Code of the Street. We don't have the extreme conditions seen places like Chicago, Philadelphia, or Baltimore. Less segregated, smaller black population, no extreme concentration of disadvantage. If it takes root here, it is a pretty strong endorsement for generality of the theory. -- * Sample: * 4,904 households in 123 tracts * Oversample of census blocks with high minority concentration * Interviewed one adult in household (SBRI) * Response rate around 50% ??? This is same survey I mentioned in prior lectures. Stratified random sample. Well designed, good coverage, many respondents per tract enables exploration of neighborhood differences. -- * Neighborhood concepts captured * Collective Efficacy * Police Inefficacy * **Codes of Violence** --- ## Race, Disadvantage, Police Efficacy, and Codes of Violence .image-100[  ] --- # Codes of Violence Scale constructed from perceptual measures of neighborhood codes of violence * "In this neighborhood..." [From strongly agree to strongly disagree] * "Parents teach their kids to fight back if they are insulted or threatened." * "For young people to gain respect among their peers, they sometimes have to be willing to fight." * "If a loved one is disrespected, people retaliate even if it means resorting to violence." * "Young men who own guns are often looked up to and respected." * "Young men often project a taught or violent image to avoid being threatened with violence." ??? Idea here is that the five questions tap into different elements of Anderson's Code of the Street. You can see reciprocity, status, the role of guns, and protective displays of strength. In theory, if these all hang together--that is they're highly correlated--within neighborhoods, it indicates the Code of the Street is a measurable and generalizable concept. -- * Highly reliable (a=.87) ??? Reliability ranges from 0 (basically unrelated) to 1 (perfectly related). The very high reliability here indicates the items hang together very closely and thus it is more likely they tap into a single underlying construct--the Code of the Street. --- # Police Inefficacy Gauge (PIG) Scale constructed from perceptual measures of neighborhood police effectiveness * Indicators [From strongly agree to strongly disagree]:¹ * "In this neighborhood police just hassle residents, rather than being helpful." * "Racial profiling is a problem in this neighborhood." * "The police are doing a good job in dealing with problems that really concern people in this neighborhood." .footnote[[1] There is also a battery of questions on forms of police bias (i.e. by race, class).] ??? The idea with the PIG is that one of the predictors of the Code of the Street is lack of trust in police across a number of areas. That is, they mostly just cause trouble, they're racially biased, and they don't effectively solve problems. If you put these all together, you would expect people not to rely on the police--and thus may be more likely to develop alternate means of solving disputes. -- * Moderate reliability (a = .64) ??? This is less reliable than the Code of the Street, but still sufficiently reliable for use. Lower reliability just means one or more indicators tend to vary differently than the others. --- ## Spatial Distributions (2002-2003) .image-90[  ] --- # Diagram Again .image-100[  ] ??? The empirical results generally support this model in the Seattle context. They also provide evidence codes may diffuse more effectively on racial lines, though ideally longitudinal data would be brought to bear on this. --- class: inverse # Questions --- # For Next Time * Matsueda (2006) “Differential Social Organization, Collective Action, and Crime.” *Crime, Law, and Social Change* 46(1-2):3-33 Things to pay attention to: * Collective action frames and their relationship to organization toward crime * The function of social capital in organization for and against crime ??? Only one reading and it isn't that long. BUT, this is a tough theoretical article that connects to a diverse array of material--engages with nearly everything we've touched on in this course and is part of framework in Darfur book. It is okay if some things zip over your head, but try to grapple with it and then think back to it later in our next lectures.