GANG SUBCULTURE ESSAY

Megan Neveling Multimedia Journalism - Year 3Deviance, Gangs and Subculture

Deviance, Gangs and Subculture EssayYouth Cultures

By:Megan Neveling


Essay question:

Contextualising contemporary gang culture: An assessment of delinquency in gangs

Introduction:

This essay will evaluate specific interpretations of youth gang subculture. The focus will be on the ways that

gangs influence young people in society. Both government and media have identified juvenile delinquency as a

social problem described as generating anti-social behaviour.

This essay will look at evidence for the exigency of gang subculture and similarly, explanations concerning gang

behaviour. It will seek to understand how juvenile gang members incorporate delinquency as a means to gain

‘status’ within the group. Analysis will be presented through relevant studies, in aim to shed light on issues

surrounding gang violence and criminal behaviour.


Evidence:

It is understood that young people are represented as perpetrators of ‘predator crime’ by the media. “Predator crime is

defined as interpersonal, stranger-to-stranger, injury-causing crime in which usually innocent, helpless victims are

randomly chosen.” (Omaji,2003,34). Omaji explains that media representation of youth delinquency summons up

images of youth as ‘demonic’. (Taylor, 1999, 8) vividly illustrates the contemporary context, in which these images

are conveyed: “In most western societies at the end of the 20th century, the mass of audience for newspapers, television

and cinema bombarded by the day an essentially theological, medieval criminology, with a gallery of insane or evil

individuals, devils and witches and a range of theories of individual possession, through which they are asked to make

sense of a fast-breaking story about ‘crime’.” Without ignoring the fact that young people, from time to time, feature in

the media as ‘noble and wonderful’, it could be argued that the attention they receive from the media presents them

preponderantly as ‘deviant and dangerous’.

Thrasher (1927) is considered to be the superintendent of urban gang studies, as he embarked on an extensive

examination, involving 1,313 street gang members in Chicago. ‘The Gang’ by Thrasher is one of the first academic

studies of gang subculture. It focuses specifically on the ways in which urban geography shaped gangs, and theorized

the thesis that neighborhoods in poverty were more likely to produce gangs. Many people regard this study as a crucial

part in understanding gang subcultures. “This classical study by Thrasher remains highly relevant in the criminology

discipline as a framework for understanding gang life.” (Ojo,2008,8).

Following the completion of his study, Thrasher divided gang subculture into four groups: “The diffuse gang, which

had loose leadership and little solidarity; the solidified gang, which had a high degree of loyalty; the conventionalized

gang, which was similar to an athletics club; and the criminal gang, whose members were most likely to become career

offenders.” (Jones,2009,135). These four categories are debatably ancestors of the gangs in today’s society and are, in

some form, apparent in gang cultures across the world. “An important institution for the development of youth gangs is

the organization of crime opportunities in particular communities. Variable cultural and population settlement patterns

influence gang connections to organized crime.” (Spergel,1995,129).

Correspondently, Social Theorist, Durkheim (1893) argues that all societies have both, organic and mechanical

solidarity. His theory on anomie led him to believe that gangs are part of a social identity, creating cohesion. He also,

believed that deviance is necessary in all gang subcultures. Anderson explains: “Durkheim is a theorist that argued,

societies actually need deviance to know what presumably normal behavior is. Durkheim considered deviance

“functional” for society”. (Anderson, 2014,147). In opposition to Durkheim’s theory, Professor Shane Blackman

believes that anomie does not cause deviance, it is deviance, which is the solution of anomie: “What was ‘normal’ for

Durkheim and ‘ordinary’ for the Chicago school were the ways in which individuals and groups construct and negotiate

social and cultural meaning. It is extremely doubtful whether Durkheim would have described subcultures as anomic.”

(Blackman,2004,106).

Durkheim (1893): “Deviance produces solidarity. Instead of breaking society up, deviance produces a pulling together,

or social solidarity.” In correlation to Durkheim’s philosophy, the new criminology: For a social theory of deviance


explains how, an act of deviancy can encourage the juvenile to feel a form of recognition: “A deviant act itself may be

precipitated by the reactions of others (e.g. as a result of an adolescent’s attempt to win acceptance as ‘cool’ or ‘tough’

in a subculture of delinquency) so the subsequent definition of the act is the produce of close personal relationships”.

(Young, 1973, 289).

As evidence shows, both Thrasher and Durkheim understand that deviance and delinquency is apparent in gang

subculture, providing a form of solidarity. It may be that solidarity and acceptance within the group, provides a level of

safety for delinquency to take place. Klein (1989): “The bond of gang membership does not become stronger in

response to internal mechanisms (meetings, codes, signs, activities) but rather as a response to external pressures.”

Klein found that a few gang goals existed outside of those generated by external pressures. In particular, the threat of

violence from another gang increases solidarity within the group. Therefore it could be argued that delinquency is

necessary in gang subculture.


Explanation and implication:

Statistics from the Metropolitan Police database demonstrate that there are approximately two hundred and fifty active

gangs in London, sixty-two of which are considered to be ‘highly dangerous’ and responsible for two thirds of all

gang-related crime in the capital. The ages of these gang members were revealed to range from; 13 to 21. In the

governments annual report: Ending Gang and Youth Violence, Home Secretary, Teresa May explained: “Gangs are the

scourge on our society. They ruin the lives of people – especially young people, who get caught up in them.” These

statistics and reports demonstrate that juvenile delinquency in gang subculture remains a contemporary matter, which

creates conceivable sigma towards younger society.

There proves to be an undiminished understanding as to why juveniles are so prominent to perform delinquency in

gangs. Thrasher (1927) suggests that younger people coincide through their interests and mutual excitation:

““Demoralizing influence on its members arises through the dissemination of criminal technique, and the propagation

through mutual excitation, of interests and attitudes which make crime easier (less inhibited) and more attractive.”

Naivety in juveniles appears more apparent when they go through adolescence, it could be argued that gravitating

towards delinquency provides them with ‘status’ and solidarity. Welsh (2011) elaborates: “As youths move through

adolescence, they gravitate toward cliques that provide them with support, assurance, protection, and direction. In

some instances the peer group provides the social and emotional basis for antisocial activity. When this happens the

clique is transformed into a gang.” (Welsh, 2011, 320).

Peer preference is a fundamental aspect of gang affiliation: “Gang members tend to be young. This is partly because

gangs intentionally recruit teenagers, but it’s also because young people are very susceptible to peer pressure.”

(Jaramillo, 2012,34). Past theoretical approaches on youth gang subculture have acknowledged that psychological

constructs such as attitudes and beliefs bind young people together. Esbensen explains: “The social learning theory

argues that young people learn antisocial attitudes and the associated behaviors from their peers” (Esbensen, 2011,

155).

Furthermore, The Social Learning Theory (1977) by Bandura explains that humans are active information processors.

Findings led him to understand that people learn through the observation of others’ behaviour, attitudes, and outcomes

of those behaviours. “Most human behaviour is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one

forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide

for action.” (Bandura, 1977).

The Social Learning Theory may well be apparent in deprived areas, where gang association can appear to provide the

youth with protection and solidarity. It is understood that youths are more likely to duplicate the behavior of older

siblings, peers at school and neighborhood friends. Depending on the area, Banduras’ theory could prove ominous

when gang affiliation is apparent. Correspondingly, The Gang Facilitation Effect and Neighborhood Risk theory by

Thornberry and Hall explains: “Gang membership has a strong impact on delinquent behavior, even when individual


characteristics and tendencies are held constant. Area characteristics, especially levels of disadvantage, have been

linked to both presence of gangs and levels of crime.” (Hughes, 2006, 47-48).

Conclusion:

Gangs are both demonized by portrayal in the media and glorified in popular culture. The presence of gangs suggests

one or more social institutions in neighborhoods, which imply deprivation and poverty. In this environment, gang

membership can provide a form of solidarity and belonging, which may seem appealing to juveniles who come from a

background of unrest. In order to reduce the level of delinquency within youth communities, government organisations

and charities have launched a series of ‘gang helplines’. These helplines can be used if anyone is worried about a

young person involved in, or at risk from, gangs. They were launched after statistics revealed that one in six young

people aged between, 13 and 15 admitted they knew someone in a gang. Helplines in the UK have proved efficient, as

they are available 24 hours a day with experts to communicate with, confidentially.

Gangs believe they serve a purpose; they are in certain ways, functional. Members are understood to develop

physiological benefits of recognition and respect from fellow members. Gang affiliation appears to provide the youth

with an appearance of high self-esteem and social status. Therefore, juvenile delinquency can prove prevalent due to

the process of ‘fitting in’, whilst gaining ‘status’ in the group. Delinquency can be used to secure a place within the

gang, earning the respect and recognition of other members. Thrashers theory can be used to argue that delinquency

would find its place in all four different gang subcultures; diffuse, solidified, conventionalized and criminal.

In conclusion, juvenile delinquency will continue to be a contemporary concern within younger societies, depending

on the environment and influences of the juvenile. “The proposed reasons for gang delinquency closely parallel the

reasons for gang membership. Membership itself is one variable that may be used to explain prevalence, frequency and

types of illegal behavior.” (Franzese, 2006, 216). However, gang affiliation will most likely remain a temporary

arrangement depending on the individual. As maturity develops, the youth will ‘grow out’ of the delinquent behavior.

Comparatively, continued delinquency can lead to serious illegal behavior, leaving the juvenile in permanent

penitentiary.

Word Count: 1680 words


Appendices:

A. Metropolitan Police reveal statistics on gang involvement in London.B. Home Secretary, Teresa May explains her thoughts on gangs in the 2013, annual report: Ending Gang and

Youth Violence.C. Bandura’s Social Learning Theory.D. NSPCC Helpline, which is available 24 hours for anyone who feels at risk of gangs.

A:


B:

C:

D:


Bibliography:

Evidence:

1. Paul Omaji (2003). Responding to Youth Crime: Towards Radical Criminal Justice. UK: Hawkins Press. 34.2. Frederic Thrasher (1927). The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 600.3. Professor David Ojo (2007). A phenomenological investigation into the lived experiences of adolescent male

gang members in Los Angeles. Ohio: ProQuest LLC. 8.4. Stephen Jones (2009). Criminology. New York: Oxford. 135.5. Irving A. Spergel (1995). The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach . New York: Oxford University

Press. 129.6. Emile Durkheim (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press. 416.7. Tammy L. Anderson (2014). Understanding Deviance: Connecting Classical and Contemporary

Perspectives. New York: Routledge. 147.8. Ian Taylor and Paul Walton (1973). The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance (International

Library of Sociology). London: Routledge. 289.9. Shane Blackman (2004). Chilling Out: The Cultural Politics of Substance Consumption, Youth and Drug

Policy. London: Open University Press . 106.10. Scott H. Decker and Barrik Van Winkle (1996). Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. 10.

Explanation and Conclusion:

1. Frederic Thrasher (1927). The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 600.


2. Larry Siegel and Brandon Welsh (2011). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Stamford, USA: Cengage Learning. 320.

3. Manuel Jaramillo (2012). Our Mother's Tears: A Book about Gangs. USA: Trafford Publishing. 34.4. Finn-Aage Esbensen and Cheryl L. Maxson (2011). Youth Gangs in International Perspective: Results from

the Eurogang Program of Research. USA: Springer. 155.5. Albert Bandura (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: Prentice Hall. 247.6. James F. Short and Lorine A. Hughes (2006). Studying Youth Gangs. London: A Division of Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers. 47-48.7. Robert J. Franzese Ph.D. ; Herbert C. Covey Ph.D. ; Scott Menard Ph.D. (2006). Young Gangs. Springfield,

IL: Charles C Thomas Publishers. 216.

GANG SUBCULTURE ESSAY

Documents

Transcript of GANG SUBCULTURE ESSAY