106 I CODE OF THE STREET
home, at work, in church, or in the presence of significant adults about whose opinions they care-display a commitment to decency, but they cannot always do so here. They are encouraged by the dominant youths here to switch codes and play by the rules of the street, or face sanctions at the hands of peers about whose opinions they also care.
And, as has been indicated, there is a practical reason for such a tack. To avoid being bothered, decent and street youths alike must say through behavior, words, and gestures, "If you mess with me, there will be a severe physical penalty-coming from me. And I'm man enough to make you pay." This message must be delivered loudly and clearly if a youth is to be left alone, and simply exhibiting a decent orientation does not do so forcefully enough. During the altercations between Tyree and his newfound friends, much of this was being worked out, and as a result Tyree got cool with the others, and they got cool with him. This outcome is essential for Tyree's well-being-and perhaps even for his physical survival.
T H R E E
Drugs, Viofence, and Street Crime
N 1899 w. E. B. Du Bois published The Phzladelphia Negro, which made a major contribution to Our understanding of the social situation of African Americans in cities, although this was not appreciated at the time.
Like so much significant ethnography, this description has become part of the wider historical record, describing social life in the period under study.
In today's ghetto there appears to be much more crime and higher levels of violence and homicide than in the earlier period. In addition, an ideology of alienation supporting an oppositional culture has developed; this can be seen with particular clarity in the rap music that encourages its young listeners to kill cops, to rape, and the like. Nowhere is this situation better highlighted than in the connection between drugs and violence, as young men involved in the drug trade often apply the ideology glorified in rap music to the problem of making a living and SUrvival in what has become an oppositional if not an outlaw culture.
I think that rap music encourages its listeners to make poor decisions, and the constant attention to lyrics about disrespecting women, cops and authority figures is a bad influence. Some of rap music is good insightful music that encourages though provoking emotions and feelings, but the majority of it encourages crime, adn makes it seem like committing these crimes is not only acceptable, but commonplace. As much of a fuss as is made about rap music today, I don’t understand why there isn’t more criticism of music from the 60s 70s and 80s. A lot of rock n roll talks about drugs and avid drug use. Many of the most famous rock stars died because of drug overdoses (Jimi Hendrix).
I completely agree with the issues that arise from listening to rap music and the messages they send, but I don’t think this is a brand new issue, as it was a very similar issue in the music decades preceding today’s rap.
I agree that a large amount of commercial rap music promotes drugs, gun violence, and sex. I do not agree that the music directly causes listeners to do what the music says. I believe that many social factors such as the way a person is raised, their environment, and experiences have a greater weight on a person’s reaction to rap music. People tend to take a technological determinist type of view when analyzing the impact of rap music on individuals. In order to truly understand the impact of music on individuals, one should analyze the social factors.
I think this reasoning is along the same lines of video game violence. Just like rap music doesn’t directly cause listeners to do what the music is saying, video games, like Grand Theft Auto, don’t make someone decide to speed through the streets of a given city, killing others and picking up prostitutes. Although I think media and technology are obviously very influential to our generation, I do not think this influence is the root cause.
Du Bois was concerned with the reasons why black Americans were poorly integrated into the mainstream system in the wake of their great migration from the rural South to the urban North after the abolition of slavery. The situation he discovered was one of race
108 / CODE OF THE STREET
prejudice, ethnic competition, and a consequent black exclusion and inability to participate in mainstream society, all in the social context of white supremacy. This pattern of exclusion resulted in deep and debilitating social pathologies in the black community, the legacy of which persists to this day.
In making sense of the social organization of the black community, Du Bois developed a typology made up of four classes. The first were the well-to-do; the second, the hardworking, decent laborers who were getting by fairly well; the third, the "worthy poor," those who were working or trying to work but barely making ends meet; and the fourth, the "submerged tenth," those who were in effect beneath the surface of economic viability. Du Bois portrayed the submerged tenth as largely characterized by irresponsibility, drinking, violence, robbery, thievery, and alienation. But the situation of the submerged tenth was not a prominent theme in his study as a whole. Today the counterpart of this class, the so-called ghetto underclass, appears much more entrenched and its pathologies more prevalent, but the outlines Du Bois provided in The Philadelphia Neg;ro can be clearly traced in the contemporary picture.
The growth and transformation of this underclass is in large part a result of the profound economic changes the counny-especially urban areas like Philadelphia-has undergone in the past twenty to thirty years. Deindustrialization and the growth of the global economy have led to a steady loss of the unskilled and semiskilled manufacturing jobs that, with mixed results, had sustained the urban working class since the start of the industrial revolution. I At the same time "welfare reform" has led to a much weakened social safety net.' For the most desperate people, many of whom are not effectively adjusting to these changes-elements of today's submerged tenth-the underground economy of drugs and crime often emerges to pick up the slack.' To be sure, the active participants in this economy are at serious risk of violence, death, and incarceration. Equally important, those living near drug dealers and other hustlers are often victimized. Decent and law-abiding people at times become victims of random violence or are otherwise ensnared in the schemes of the underground economy's participants. Sometimes even those from decent families, particularly the young, become seduced by the ways of the street.
This article really makes me wonder whether the “code of the street” is too far entrenched in urban environments. There is no way to completely get rid of criminal activity like drug dealing of course but is there a way to scale it back? History tells us that allocating money to police efforts are not enough. The government even attempted declaring war on the illegal activity but still has nothing to show for it. The criminal rings continue to run and with more power than ever. To contrast these criminal organizations with that of the America Mafia is helpful in realizing how hard it will be to squash drug dealing. The Mafia was once thought to be untouchable but eventually fell because the power was very centralized. Law enforcement just had to sit back and wait for a break to reach the top of the mafia. In urban drug dealing organizations the power is less centralized and there are many more individual organizations. It seems that the police are playing an elaborate game of “whack-a-mole” in the sense that once they take down one ring, there are always more to replace it. Therefore, I find myself asking if there will ever be a method to curb this category of criminality.
I agree with the whack-a-mole analogy in many urban environments, especially in cities like Baltimore, but even in cities like Chicago, where the drug trade was far more centralized police were unable to strike at the top and reduce crime; instead there strikes destabilized the entrenched players and caused a spike in the murder rate. I wonder if something similar happened with the end of the mafia?
I would that the solution does not start from the top down with a policing strategy, but rather from a bottom up approach, with reforms to the education system that reach at-risk kids before the “code of the street” comes to govern behavior. If children are taught that there is a (dare I say) better life outside of the street code and are given the opportunity to take advantage of that life, urban crime can be broken. Youth is the lifeblood of urban crime and it cannot survive in its current state without that youth buying into the code of the street; give them an alternative and weaken urban crime.
I agree with Zach—while it seems that ending the drug trade is an impossible task, a bottom up approach would be the most realistic approach to reform. Children are socialized at a very early stage in their life, and the widespread acceptance of the “code of the street” is working against the odds that these children will pursue “decent” lives. These kids are constantly shown the trends, traditions and expectations of the drug game, so it becomes unlikely that they will seek a legal lifestyle outside of the drug trade. The children shown in The Wire are incredibly young, but it is very evident that they have been ingrained with the expectations of the street. Finding a way to reach these types of children at a young age would be the ideal way to begin reforming traditional urban corner expectations. Fixing institutions like the education system could provide some relief to the situation, though a huge (albeit impossible) overhaul of many of the institutions that affect inner-city residents may be the only way to reduce crime.
The real question is how to start from the bottom up with our currently available resources. More money to the school system and to policing would certainly help break the cycle, but that’s not a feasible option, so how do we allocate our currently (sparse) resources? Keep in mind that these resources are often even more sparse in the communities that require the most assistance.
How do you attract the right people—the motivated, intelligent people—to selflessly serve school communities and in the police department. Even police like McNulty and teachers like Prez, despite being over-qualified and very motivated, are unable to succeed in making even a dent in urban poverty (though, admittedly, The Wire does follow a short time-frame). Is the problem with the people, the institutions, or is it an indeterminable mix of each that ultimately fails our inner-city populations, especially among the children and adolescents? As of right now I agree with Liam in thinking that this problem is unsolvable; especially with the current institutional structures in place. Without system-wide reforms that empower motivational individuals to make a disproportionate impact on affected inner-city populations, we are powerless to make any kind of real change or impact.
I agree with what Zach and Liam have said about how this problem seems unsolvable. I think Zach brought up a lot of really good points that must be considered because of the type of undertaking attempting to change the system from the bottom up would be. Not only do we need these motivated and intelligent people as suggested, but it cannot just be sending these people and money into areas to change them. Rather, there needs to be the desire and working together with the people in these areas to making the change permanent and widespread.
Most forms of young age education, such as pre-school, pre-kindergarten, or even day care are very important institutions that point kids in the right direction at an early age. Unlike elementary school, however, enrollment in one of these schools is not required by law. In fact it is often very expensive, which can be a huge problem for people of low socioeconomic status.
Zach mentioned the idea of available resources. Perhaps we could take money from the “War on Drugs” effort and instead allocate it to early age education.
I agree that the best approach to the problem is re-allocation of the resources available. I think one of the biggest reasons for the perpetual cycle of the violence and the issues of gang related activities is that no one is willing to sacrifice. What I mean by sacrifice is related exactly what Professor Williams mentioned in class about how we are all a part of ‘the game’. The middle class tax payers are not going to be happy to hear that their tax dollars are going to an inner city school improvement project or a drug addiction rehabilitation center somewhere in Camden. In order for these failing urban environment to change is for more people to actually care enough to re-allocate funding to be serious about rebuilding the infrastructures of the bureaucracies that we talk about in class (whether it be schools or prisons). So I think the solution to this problem should be more personal and abstract than just a policy issue.
Throughout my viewing experience with The Wire, I felt like I was beat over the head repeatedly with this very problem, that no matter the amount of effort, drug dealing and inner city crime will always prevail. To be honest, it’s a bit depressing because this just seems like a forever lost cause, even though we might like to believe that a portion of our tax dollars would/could/should clean up life on the streets.
I think that one part of this issue, though, could be that the cops are a bit limited in what they can do. Without fully realizing that another course would really help me in watching The Wire, I signed up for a basic criminology course this semester, too. A few weeks back, the professor mentioned the idea proposed by two sociologists named Wilson and Kelling of “aggressive patrol,” meaning that the law enforcement can do just about anything when it comes to maintaining order. One Chicago cop said that in his job, he “kicks ass” at his department, but I doubt that all cops feel they have that much power and strength to effect change in a given community. If The Wire is true to reality, we see this there, when the Baltimore PD has to jump through so many hoops just to get basic wire taps set up to catch dealers. I think that the bureaucracy that surrounds that unit, and probably many others in urban America, could be one valid reason that all cops can’t do more and feel like they’re “kicking ass.”
I really enjoyed reading your comment. I am having a hard time thinking of ways to try and diminish drug dealing around the US however this seems like a difficult task that even the US government is having trouble tackling. I agree that drug dealing organizations are less centralized than the mafia which makes them more difficult to go after. I also think that their is too make corruption in our justice system. In the wire we see the Barkesdale’s lawyer getting murderers and drug dealers off with minor offenses or shortened jail sentences. Maybe if their was a harsher jail sentence without the possibility of parole drug dealers might not condone drug dealing. But, for the moment as we have seen in the Wire, it is hard to keep drug dealers from dealing drugs because they seem to get a slap on wrist and go about their business.
I think it is interesting how Anderson discusses fashion being a part of the code of the street as well as it affecting those in middle class neighborhoods. Clothing plays a huge part in shaping our exterior identities to others. When reading Anderson’s thoughts, it makes sense that someone in an inner city environment would wear clothes that make them appear to have money, be violent, etc. However, are these attributes only looked highly upon in inner city areas or can we see these images glorified/copied elsewhere? Anderson discusses white-middle class youth and when thinking of this group, I wonder how much of an influence ‘urban’ culture plays within their music, vocabulary, etc.
I think people are often naturally drawn towards things that are considered rebellious or dangerous. This is a trend that has been seen throughout generations, especially in the United States (i.e. hippie culture, rock music, etc.)
I think urban culture is a continuation of this phenomenon. This phenomenon allows trends that are typically associated with dangerous, fringe activities such as drug dealing to spread into white-middle class culture. In this sense, street clothing, music, and vocabulary are considered cool and desirable in middle class people.
Allen definitely raises an interesting point in noting how Anderson discusses clothing and its impact in urban neighborhoods, as well as in middle class neighborhoods. Raymond’s point about middle class culture also adopting many “street” characteristics is very true. White middle class youth definitely have adopted certain urban trends (like clothing style), and as Raymond notes, this cultural influence can lead to certain activities becoming more prevalent in middle class society.
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 109
In The Philadelphia Negro, Du Bois pointed to the problem that kept young African American men from finding jobs: the lack of education, connections, social skills, and white skin color, as well as the adoption of a certain outlook, an unwillingness to work, and a lack of hope for the future. Today it is clear what that persistent state of affairs has led to.
The severe problem of racial discrimination Du Bois uncovered certainly persists in Philadelphia and other cities, but, as will be discussed below, it has been transformed and at times taken on a more practical form. More conventional people often seek to place much social distance between themselves and anonymous black people they encounter in public. And many young blacks sometimes in direct response find it difficult to take white people or even conventional black people seriously, and they actively live their lives in opposition to them and everything they are taken to represent. Lacking trust in mainstream institutions, many tq,rn to "hustling" in the underground economy. This has implications for middle-class blacks, many of whom have remained in Philadelphia and often work hard to defend themselves and their loved ones not only from those espousing oppositional values but also from the criminal element.
In many working-class and impoverished black communities today, particularly as faith in the criminal justice system erodes, social behavior in public is organized around the code of the streets. Feeling they cannot depend on the police and other civil authorities to protect them from danger, residents often take personal responsibility for their security. They may yield, but often they are prepared to let others know in no uncertain terms that there will be dire consequences if they are violated. And they tend to teach their children to stand up for themselves physically or to meet violence with violence. Growing up in such environments, young people are sometimes lured into the way of the street or become its prey. For too many of these youths, the drug trade seems to offer a ready niche, a viable way to "get by" or to enhance their wealth even if they are not full-time participants.
After reading over this sentence many times, I came to the conclusion that I agree with it. The working class has seen countless amounts of friends and family go off the jail but not come back reformed. If the system can’t change people they have to lean on somebody or some other system to do it. The code of the streets will teach those coming up in it much about respect and how to gain it. It will punish those who need to be punished and teach those caught up in it how to fend for themselves which I believe is very important. While the ethics might not be ideal, as drugs and violence are prevalent, as we have seen in the show, they learn a lot from these streets and peoples social behaviors.
I believe that is the point of the wire. To how an illegitimate institution has been created based on the short comings and structural problems with the legitimate system. The code of the streets offers a promise to all those in the game. If you are willing to play there will be a place for you when the legit system fails you. This promise is only reinforced when the idea of jail is introduced. Ex convicts are locked out of society and are left with options so its only natural that they will go back to that promise the streets left them
Because the drug trade is organized around a code of conduct approximating the code of the streets and employing violence as the basis for social control, the drug culture contributes significantly to
110 / CODE OF THE STREET
the violence of inner-city neighborhoods. Furthermore, many innercity boys admire drug dealers and emulate their style, making it difficult for outsiders to distinguish a dealer from a law-abiding teenager. Part of this style is to project a violent image, and boys who are only "playing tough" may find themselves challenged and honor bound to fight. In addition, the trappings of drug dealers (the Timberland boots, the gold chains) are expensive, encouraging those without drug profits or other financial resources simply to steal.
I\i;
; ,
, ,
••
THE CULTURAL ECONOMIC CONNECTION
As I indicated above, anyone who wants to understand the widespread social dislocation in the inner-city poor community must approach these problems-along with other urban ills-from a structural as well as a cultural standpoint.4 Liberals and conservatives alike today tend to stress values like individual responsibility when considering such issues as drugs, violence, teen pregnancy, family formation, and the work ethic. Some commentators readily blame "welfare" for poverty and find it hard to see how anyone, even the poor, would deliberately deviate from the norms of the mainstream culture. But the profound changes our society is currently undergoing in the way it organizes work have enormous cultural implications for the ability of the populations most severely affected by these developments to
I definitely think that the part about this perception of individual responsibility being able to alleviate poverty and social standing is very true and prolific in our society. I also think that Anderson’s point about political figures perpetuating this cycle is very true, just look at Newt Gingrich’s opinion on child labor laws (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57335118-503544/newt-gingrich-poor-kids-dont-work-unless-its-illegal/).
The fact that this discussion even exists, however, I think is due in part to the media giving only shallow coverage on these issues or focusing on individual struggles rather than the struggles of the whole, perhaps to ensure better ratings. Do you think that the media has a role in perpetuating the value of individual responsibility when at many times the individual is disproportionately impacted by failing institutions, like deindustrialization in Philadelphia?
The responsibility of the media asides let’s look at what you mentioned about individual stories versus looking at the problem as a whole. The fact that different institutions effect individuals different is the main reason why its impossible for the media to address the over arching issue. Along with the need for ratings is the idea that they can point to a specific issue and cause the audience to care, and ideally take action. The problem is that when the issue is a large problem like powerful institution we live in then the media may shy away from dealing with that issue and instead focus on the one individual who is most affected by the problem. The focus is taken off the problem and redirected at helping that individual or at the very least identifying with them. We see this over and over in The Wire with Senator Davis and the media doesn’t seem to be doing too much to help the issue.
function in accordance with mainstream norms.
The United States has for some time been moving from manufac-
turing to a service and high-tech economy in which the well-being of workers, particularly those with low skills and little education, is subordinated to the bottom line. In cities like Philadelphia certain neighborhoods have been devastated by the effects of deindustrialization. Many jobs have become automated, been transferred to developing countries, or moved to nearby cities like King of prussia. For those who cannot afford a car, travel requires two hours on public n'ansportation from the old city neighborhoods where concentrations of black people, Hispanics, and working-class whites live.'
With widespread joblessness, many inner-city people become
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 111
stressed and their commurunes become distressed. Poor people adapt to these circumstances in the ways they know, meeting the exigencies of their situation as best they can. The kinds of problems that trigger moral outrage begin to emerge: teen pregnancy, welfare dependency, and the underground economy. Its cottage industries of drugs, prostitution, welfare scams, and other rackets are there to pick up the economic slack. Quasi-legal hustling is part of it; people do odd jobs under the table and teach young people to follow their lead. Some people have a regular second or third job entirely off the books.
The drug trade is certainly illegal, but it is the most lucrative and most accessible element of the underground economy and has become a way of life in numerous inner-city communities. Many youngsters dream of leading the drug dealer's life, or at least their highly glamorized conceptions of this life. Of course, drugs have been around for a long time, but they have become deeply rooted in the inner-city black community, a situation largely tolerated by civic authorities and the police. As law-abiding residents witness this situation, they become ever more cynical and alienated.
Here it is important to underscore the connections between jobs, drugs, and alienation. Many of the young blacks who have difficulty obtaining a job feel victimized by prejudice and discrimination. Such feelings of victimization may lead to a greater understanding, if not tolerance, of those who resort to dealing drugs to "survive." In these circumstances the drug trade, so dangerous and problematic for local communities and for society, becomes normal happenstance. In destitute inner-city communities, it is in fact becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish poverty from drug involvement. For example, many welfare mothers have become intimately connected with the drug trade, either as users or as what might be called support personnel, by allowing drug-dealing boyfriends or male relatives to use their homes as crack houses or drug depots in exchange for money or favors.
In addition, the young man who sells drugs is often encouraged and motivated to create new markets, sometimes recruiting his own family members into the drug culture, thus at times leading to their drug dependency. Why? Because he has come to covet the material
112 I CODE OF THE STREET
things he sees dangled before him, things that become important not simply as practical items but as status symbols among his peers. A particular brand of eyeglasses or shoes or pants can indicate a person's social standing, bestowing on him a certain amount of self-esteem. Timberland boots, for example, which support a roughneck or macho image, are now being worn by many drug dealers and have come to be considered hip. The owner of such items, through his exhibitions and displays, is thus able to gain deference from and status among his peers. Media images-television, movies, the consumer mentality-fuel these desires as well. And when the regular economy cannot provide the means for satisfying them, some of the most desperate people tum to the underground economy.
But the despair, the alienation, and the distress are still there, and this condition encourages the development and spread of me oppositional culture. For those living according to the rules of that culture, it becomes important to be tough, to act as though one is beyond the reach of lawful authority-to go for bad. In this scenario, anything associated with conventional white society is seen as square; me hip things are at odds with it. The untied sneakers, the pants worn well below the waist, the hat turned backward-all have become a style. These unconventional symbols have been taken over by people who have made them into status symbols, but they are status symbols to the extent that they go against what is conventional.
Exacerbating the antagonism toward the conventional is the way residents of the ghetto become personally victimized by all this. Not only does their community get a bad reputation, but the people themselves, particularly black males, become demonized. They are stereotyped; everyone from that community who dresses and who looks that way is a priori seen as being at odds with conventional society. The anonymous law-abiding black male is often taken as a threat to it. Yet many ghetto males are caught in a bind because they are espousing their particular ways of dressing and acting simply to be self-respecting among their neighborhood peers. A boy may be completely decent, but to the extent that he takes on the presentation of "badness" to enhance his local public image, even as a form of selfdefense, he further alienates himself in the eyes of the wider society,
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 113 which has denounced people like him as inclined to violate its norms, values, rules, and conventions_to threaten it.
Such cultural displays in turn make young people even less employable. Beset with negative stereotypes, employers sometimes discriminate against whole census tracts or zip codes where impoverished people live. The decent people are strongly associated with the indecent people, and the employers -often do not worry about making distinctions. They just want to avoid the whole troublesome situation, selecting whites over blacks. Joleen Kirschenman and Kathryn
Neckerman conducted a study in Chicago to discover the extent to which employers discrin1inated against young black people." They found that discrimination was rife: many of the employers much preferred white women and in1migrants to young black people.
Similarly, in Philadelphia, a great many black boys and girls, especially the boys, are feared by employers. Even when they do get work, there is often a racial division of labor in the workplace. Inner-city black boys and girls tend to get stuck in entry-level jobs and are rarely promoted. One very clear example of this in present-day Philadelphia is the restaurant business, in which an obvious division ofIabor exists. In upscale and moderately priced restaurants, blacks are conspicuously absent from the wait staff but overrepresented among the kitchen help. In addition, if a problem with stealing or some other trouble on the job arises, they are prime suspects and are sometimes summarily dismissed.7 Such experiences, and the reports of them, contribute to their working conception of the world. Their resulting bitterness and alienation then nurture the oppositional culture. To be self-respecting, many young men and women must exhibit a certain contempt for a system they are sure has contempt for them. When such factors are added to the consequences of deindustrialization, the result is an incendiary situation, as Du Bois appreciated. 8
The attraction of the violence-prone drug trade thus results from a combination of inadequate opportunity in the regular economy, on the one hand, and the imperatives of street life, on the other. The interplay between these two factors is powerfully at work in the social organization of the underground economy in inner-city neighborhoods.
114 / CODE OF THE STREET
CLOCKING: THE DRUG TRADE AS A LIVING
The transition from the regular economy to the underground economy, particularly to the drug trade, is not simple. Some young people are able to dabble in it for a while and then return to the regular economy, or they operate simultaneously in both. But the drug trade and the wages it pays sometimes become overwhelming and downright addictive. People may manage to quit when a better opportunity appears or when they confront death or jail (for themselves or for loved ones or friends) and begin to have second thoughts. More likely, however, working in the drug trade becomes a regular occupation for the most desperate, who are then said to be "clocking."
Anderson makes reference to the fact that the high-reward lifestyle of a drug dealer is appealing to many youth. I certainly think their concept of such a lifestyle is appealing. Many young black males idolize drug dealers and have a vision of the occupation as cool and even heroic. Most of the children in inner-city schools (as well as those who do not attend school at all) are easily drawn into the drug trade by the promise of high pay and respect from their peers. But I feel like this vision is unrealistic.
An earlier article we read suggested that those who operate on the lower levels of a street operation actually make fairly little money. Lookouts and runners—those occupations where young men start—do not make enough to live a luxurious lifestyle. When one considers the higher risk of incarceration in these jobs, the constant threat of violence on the street, and the likely cost of supporting a developing addiction, working on the corner probably pays a very small salary. Money is moved up the chain of command; it is the kingpins who make the most on any given drug transaction. And these are the individuals with the least amount of risk and the most money to start with. In many ways, the lower-level workers in a drug operation resemble the lowest rungs in the hierarchy of a working-class job. But these individuals do not have the benefit of government protection or unionization. They thus bear the brunt of the organization for very little reward.
This can provide a new way to view some developments of the fourth season. Namond Brice is uninterested in the drug trade because he has come from a background of relative financial privilege. The system offers him few enticing profits. Michael and Duqie, on the other hand, are enticed by any pay at all. The drug system is an appealing line of work because they have no other options.
Although I agree with the point you’re making, I don’t think it really matters that the hoppers and young runners aren’t making good money. In their eyes, I don’t think it matters that they can’t necessarily sustain themselves at that moment in time as kids who should be in school, but rather the vision of moving up in the chain of command and eventually becoming a bigger part of it is what they are in it for. I would argue that they are easily drawn to it not because of what it is at that moment but because of its potential. As for the risks involved for a small level of pay they are receiving at the start, I still think they kids look at these risks and consider them worth taking because of the potential the game provides. Also, because they are surrounded by it and wouldn’t know what else to do. Although their reward has not materialized yet, the potential for it to materialize is what keeps them in.
I definitely agree that the youth involved in the drug trade are in it for the future potential to move up the hierarchy. However, I would go one to argue that its not only the opportunity to move up and become a financial success, but its the effort and time components which are most attractive to the youth. Based on pure potential – any of the youth could work hard in school and climb the social hierarchy by working up the ranks of a legitimate job. I believe the game provides the youth with the chance to become successful without putting in the time and effort needed to climb a legitimate business structure. In the game you don’t need a degree/diploma that entails completing certain requirements. The game plays by its own set of rules where youths can make a reputation.
I definitely agree with your point Anthony on the hierarchical structure of the drug trade. While those high in the drug trade industry bask in the wealth and enjoy the comfort of a large salary, those who do the brunt of the work in the lower tiers are left with very little to show for it. However is social mobility within the ranks of the drug trade industry represented in the Wire? Do we see those who work hard and abide by the ‘rules of the game’ make it to the top?
This description of the drug trade as addictive struck me, because it looks at it from a different standpoint than any we have discussed from thus far. We’ve looked at a number of structural and situational factors that drive someone to find this sort of work – lack of access to other jobs, insufficient education, need for large sums of money quickly, etc. We’ve also talked about social conceptions on the local level about what it means to be “decent” on the street and how that leads many parents to direct their kids into lifestyles that often facilitate entrance into the drug trade. We haven’t really touched on this on an individual level yet, though – what personality or other traits make someone not only more likely to succeed in the drug trade, but more likely to actually want to be involved in it? It seems like in this context, having a somewhat addictive personality is a positive trait, because it’s the people who get caught questioning their involvement that are discarded as pawns the quickest. Looking at drug selling activity in this way also makes it easier to understand why certain individuals don’t do things that might get them out of the game when it seems easy to do so from an outsider point of view. For those who are the most addicted to the trade, would it matter if there were other options available to them?
I also found this description to be striking. The drug trade seems to draw individuals into a cycle, keeping them stuck within the overall system of the game. The lifestyle associated with the game is very different than what individuals would get at a legal entry level job, and the addictive qualities of this type of lifestyle keep individuals tied to the game. However, I think that Katie brings up an interesting point—do an individual’s personality traits predispose them to this type of work? I think that there are definitely qualities that an individual must have in order to enter the game. As evidenced by Wallace and Namond, some people do not have what it takes to live and work within the drug game lifestyle. In Wallace’s case, even though he is not cut out for the game, he still remains stuck within the system due to his predisposition to the drug world, and the childhood and lifestyle that shaped his perceptions of the world. Namond represents a different type of character. He grew up within the game, but is still able to escape the addictive nature of the drug world. What qualities or traits does Namond hold that make him different from Wallace? Why is he able to avoid the addictive cycle of the drug game?
I think you bring up a valid point that we don’t often consider explicitly: even while examining the Wire through the lens of failing institutions it can be valuable. I wonder where D’Angelo fits into the framework you’ve presented. I haven’t watched Season 4, so I’m not completely familiar with Namond, but D definitely seems to have been more in the position of Wallace, as he—quite literally—had no escape from the drug trade. Ultimately, I think he could have been proficient in the drug trade, but he was disheartened with the entire process and had a desire to know life beyond the drug trade, two traits detrimental to being successful in the drug trade.
We’ve established that some people stuck in the drug trade are not cut out for that type of work. On the flip-side, do you think there or many (or any) people in the drug trade who choose to join because they feel their personal traits could allow them to be more successful in the Game than in another occupation?
Katie, you raise a good point about the personal qualities of individuals involved in the drug trade. I definitely believe that having an addictive nature allows people to stay in the industry longer than others and portray more irrational behavior in terms of handling drug transactions. However this addictive behavior is not just within the drug trade but as well in many other occupations, such as the stock trading industry, gambling, and other high pressure and high payoff jobs. A favorite show of mine is American Greed on CNBC which portrays scams and get rich quick double dealing documentaries. Many of the characters portrayed in this series have a very addictive personality and continue to launder money, print fake money etc because they don’t want to get out the game, the’ve become hooked. So ultimately I believe that those within these industries must have an addictive personality in order to survive and want to continue working within this high stakes profession.
The introduction of crack has exacerbated the problem. Because it is cheap and readily available, it can support many dealers. Boys can acquire the needed skills-"street knowledge" and the ability to act on it-just by growing up in the impoverished inner-city neighborhood. Whatever a boy's home life is like, growing up in the 'hood means learning to some degree the code of the streets, the prescriptions and proscriptions of public behavior. He must be able to handle himself in public, and his parents, no matter how decent they are, may strongly encourage him to learn the rules. And because of various barriers he can often parlay that experience into a place in the drug trade much more easily than into a reasonable job. The relative ease of that transition speaks volumes about the life circumstances of
inner-city adolescents.
For many impoverished young black men of the inner city, the
opportunity for dealing drugs is literally just outside the door. By selling drugs, they have a chance to put more money into their pockets than they could get by legal means, and they can present themselves to peers as hip, in sharp contrast to the square image of those who work in places like McDonald's and wear silly uniforms. In fact, the oppositional culture has dubbed opting to sell drugs "getting legal." Martin, the decent, law-abiding young man referred to earlier, was often accosted by his drug-dealing peers as he stepped outside his door and headed for his regular job with the remark "Hey, Martin. When you gon' get legal?" He would simply reply, "Later for that. Later for that." 9 When one needs money, which is always, this way
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 115
of making it can seem like a godsend, and other boys encourage him to sell.
A common way of getting into the drug trade is to be part of a neighborhood peer group that begins to sell. A boy's social group can be easily transformed from a play group or a group that hangs around the corner listening to rap music or playing basketball-relatively innocuous activities-to a drug gang. The change requires a drug organizer to approach the group and consult the leader or "main man." The leader then begins to distribute opportunities to deal drugs-which is a kind of power-to various of his friends, his "boys." In time the small neighborhood group becomes a force to be reckoned with in the community, while taking an ever sharper interest in issues of turf and territory. The group then works to confuse concerns having to do with money and with protecting turf. The leader can paint an enticing picture for these boys, and he has an incentive to do so because the deed enhances his power. With "top dogs," "middle dogs," and "low dogs," the system resembles a pyramid scheme."
I thought this paragraph really highlighted the harsh realities of living in poor cities which many middle or upper class citizens do not understand when talking about the War on Drugs. As we see in Season 4 of The Wire these children grow up with drugs around them everywhere and see drug dealing as normal part of life for the people around them. It is easy to see how kids can move from playing games to selling drugs and not see it as a big deal. I thought this relates to how kids who have been in gangs make better soldiers than people who have not been around violence. When kids grow up in poverty and see drugs all around them it is easy to see how they do not view it as a big jump to begin selling drugs themselves. To pass judgement on the decision to sell drugs seems to show a lack of understanding of the reality which these kids live in.
I agree with what Bert is saying. We are unable, as people outside of these neighborhoods/situations/environments, to pass judgement on the decisions of the kids who live within these areas. It is easy, as outsiders, to make sweeping statements that extracurriculars, attention in class/at school, and just trying will better the situations surrounding them. However, these observations are tinged with the biased lens we have because of being afforded these and many other opportunities and chances that are luxuries not afforded to all. By not living within the same environment these kids live in, we can’t say that dealing drugs is a dumb/silly/however you want to define it choice because those on the outside don’t, as Bert says, have an understanding of the reality that these kids live in.
I wonder, then, if what we say in this thread is true – that the circumstances and environment around children in poor inner cities have a significant impact on their decision to get involved in drugs, whether dealing or using – what implications does this have for public policy? We’ve seen proposals in a handful of states which attempt to exclude welfare recipients from receiving benefits if they test positive for drugs. Does this seem like an effective or even fair policy? What are some alternatives?
I think policies alone can only do so much to help change the problems that plague poor inner-city areas. I think real change will come from changing attitudes from both sides — not just enacting certain policies from the top-down. The general public should attempt to change their attitudes about those in inner-cities (instead of writing them off as lazy or inherently violent, etc and ignoring them, they should try to understand the circumstances). And those involved in violent or drug-related practices in inner-cities should attempt to see the mainstream system in such a way that is not so black and white (the us-against-them mentality that results in rebellion and alienation). Obviously this all sounds idealistic, but historically, adjustments in attitude towards groups not included in the mainstream have led to huge and monumental changes in society. Policies alone will not be enforced entirely or work properly if those against and for those policies don’t have supporting attitudes.
Youths who have strong family grounding-very decent folks, churchgoing families with a nuclear or quasi-nuclear structure and with love and concern for the younger people-are often the most resistant. But those who are drawn by the group, who get caught up with the responsibilities of breadwinning, with little opportunity to do so in the regular economy, sometimes resolve the tension by joining the drug trade. In tum, as they become serious dealers, these boys will often sell drugs to anybody who will buy them, including their own relatives; money and group loyalty become paramount issues. In this connection they may develop not only an excuse but a whole rap, a way of cajoling people to try crack just to get them hooked, because they know how quickly one can become addicted. For instance, they may approach someone as a friend and invite him or her to share some of their own supply, saying things like "It's not going to hurt you, it's not bad, you can handle it."
Strikingly, they may even become customers themselves-it is easy enough to become hooked by trying it once. Through the posturing required to prevail in the street life, many young people come to feel invincible, or they develop a profound need to show others they feel
116 / CODE OF THE STREET
this way. And the power that accrues to dealers compounds the sense that they can control anything, even a crack cocaine high. In these circumstances they become "the man." Sometimes such a dealer does manage on crack off and on for a couple of years. Getting high now and then, he feels he is handling it, but, as the wiser dealers say, there is a fine line between handling it and having it handle you. At some inopportune moment he may be suddenly overcome with an insatiable need for the drug. Such a person is said to be "jonesing" for it; he is filled with such an intense desire for a high that he loses control of his actions. The predator becomes the prey-a common occur-
I can see this being what happened with Wallace in season 1. He slowly but surely stops showing up to work and his friends notice it more and more. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think we are shown exactly how Wallace developed his habit. He starts off as a pretty high functioning old brother: getting his siblings a lunch together and sending them off to school as well as maintaining a job to provide for them. This productivity stopped once he starting using because he used the money on drugs and just slept all the time.
Obviously Wallace’s ability to take care of his family was hampered by his drug abuse. He lost the ability to care for others, as well as himself. However, Michael Lee was in a similar situation is Season 4 taking care of his little brother. He then entered into the drug dealing business because of the power and money associated with it. But Michael begins to get involved in shady activities with violence, girls, etc. Is this behavior better for his family than wallace’s drug abuse. I would argue that Michael may be endangering his family by both subjecting them to his activities including violence as well as distracting him from being a good caretaker.
rence.
Like any marketing enterprise, the drug trade requires production
and distribution networks. I 1 Another requirement is social control. Among drug dealers that requirement is satisfied by the use and threat of violence. Violence is not always intended, but it occurs easily as a result of both the intense competition for customers and the general disorganization that marks the lives of so many young dealers. Misunderstandings easily arise, such as "messing up" somebody's money-not paying for drugs that one has been advanced, thus squandering the dealer's investment. The older and established dealers are obligated to "do in" the people who have messed up their money, because otherwise they would lose credibility and statuS on the streets. Attemped takeovers of the business of rival dealers are also common. Though there is room in the system for more people now than there was before crack, competition remains fierce, especially as the belief that anyone can get rich dealing drugs becomes increasingly prevalent. The push to get in on the drug trade can in this sense be likened to the gold rush.
The requirement of “social control” can be seen consistently throughout The Wire among different drug gangs and within individual drug groups. In particular, this requirement can shed light on the violence that occurs between the Barksdale organization and Marlo’s crew. Throughout Season 3 and on, we see a constant struggle of control over the drug trade between these two groups. Competition for customers is a large part of the drug trade displayed in The Wire. Both Stringer and Marlo are fighting for the best corners, and this fight becomes more than just the need for clients but a need to show control over the area and over the opposing group. Amends and negotiations are often not a viable option due to the pride that each of the older and established dealers have. Stringer tells Bodie to talk with Marlo (when he begins to take important corners), yet Bodie is ultimately dismissed and violence quickly becomes the only option to uphold the Barksdale reputation and stay ahead in the game. The constant violence that ensues will show the more powerful man, and neither one of these men will let the fight die. Within the groups, when a member has messed with the money or has lost a package, he is often killed in order to teach his other members a lesson. The head of the organization must make this decision to kill members he thinks are not loyal in order to show his control and assertiveness over the group.
Hannah, I think that you touch on an excellent point that raises some questions in my mind. I am curious about the connection between social control and a cooperative of drug dealers (rather than individual dealers) as portrayed by David Simon. Do such co-op associations actually occur amongst urban drug kingpins, or is this only dramatized by Simon? I am also particularly intrigued by the obligation that older and established dealers have in murdering those who have messed up their business. Anderson asserts that “otherwise they would lose credibility and status on the streets.” Marlo seems to do uphold his status within the community by methods in addition to murder. The audience finds Marlo gaining the trust of the youth of the community as he buys them books and ice cream cones. Furthermore, everyone seems to be well aware of how Chris and Snoop “did in” Lex at the playground. Executing such events, and then ensuring that word spreads about them – to some degree – only further increases Marlo’s street credibility. Consider Randy Wagstaff’s reputation as a snitch. This stems from Marlo’s crew putting that out on the street because Marlo was worried that Randy was talking to the police about a murder. Such events by Marlo do not always entail murders, but are all aimed at maintaining his credibility and status in the event that someone has messed up.
This is an interesting twist on the typical American rags-to-riches trope. Just as Anderson said earlier in the article that the street culture has taken clothing styles that were once considered “white” and translated them into its own symbol, this is a permutation of sorts of the traditional ideal pushed by many white Americans that anyone who works hard enough will rise to the top. The Wire shows that just like the Horatio Alger tales, people who are truly long-term successful in the drug trade are few and far between, even though many people may be working hard. Regardless of this ratio, though, the availability of this ideal drives up the level of competition in the drug trade, making it even more lucrative for those who do manage to be successful. Does a thriving economy, in the context of the drug trade or anywhere else, require an adherence to lofty ideals even when reality proves to be different?
Kathryn, you bring up a great question. I think that competition is crucial to drug dealers becoming more successful in the trade, because they are motivated to sell more and work harder. Anderson’s analogy about the gold rush makes the trade seem almost like a first come, first serve negotiation, where the best clients for drugs must be fought for by dealers in different rings. The rags to riches ideal is based on who can sell the most drugs for the most money, and I think that a thriving economy helps bolster that possibility to get ahead in the game.
This was one of the really interesting parallels that I found between Anderson and Bourgois. It has been really difficult for me to see drug dealing as analogous to a real job: hours, duties, room for career advancement. But, it seems like many drug operations do operate like legitimate businesses. “Employees” are looked down upon when they partake in drugs that inhibit their ability to do good work. They are expected to do the math correctly for each day’s haul. They have a specific set of skills. However as we’ve read, even though the drug trade does not ensure long-term, steady income (Kathryn, you mentioned this too) these jobs are still highly coveted. I think there could be several contributing factors to this, that include deindustrialization mentioned in this article(making a dealer a convenient employer) and addiction itself.
It is understood on the streets that the drug trade itself is unfor-
giving. To make a misstep is to risk getting roughed up, shot, or killed. When a seemingly senseless killing occurs, people in the community immediately assume it is drug-related. Those who get into the trade realize they are playing with fire but, given the presumed financial stakes, may feel they have no choice or are up to the challenge. Often the people who get hurt "deserved it," in terms of the code of the drug trade: they "crossed somebody big," or they "thought they were slick." People in the community understand this
-
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME / 117
rationale, and it seems that the police acknowledge it too. Once a crime is drug-related, there often seems to be little interest and accountability in bringing the people who perpetrated it to justice.
“Once a crime is drug-related, there often seems to be little interest and accountability in bringing the people who perpetrated it to justice.”
The sentence from this longer paragraph really makes me wonder: what is law enforcement supposed to do when it comes to handling crimes involving drugs and dealers? Could it be a good thing in that no outside forces are interfering with a system (ie drug culture) that they don’t understand well? And yet, the law applies – or is meant to apply – to the people who use and distribute drugs, so shouldn’t police officers and the like come up with a means of handling these people and the problems they create appropriately? What is it specifically about drug-related crime that makes it unappealing to address in the eyes of law enforcement?
Susan I think you bring up a great point. I thought that same sentence about police negligence was disturbing to say the least. Just because the homicides were between drug gangs doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be investigated as thoroughly. If police don’t pursue these crimes, then the drug gangs may feel free to go to all out war with each other. If the police properly investigated these homicides not only will one drug dealer be eliminated (the one who got killed) but a second one (the shooter) can be put to jail and taken off the street. I’d rather have two drug dealers eliminated rather than one. Secondly, just because the shootings are among rival drug gangs doesn’t mean the confrontation doesn’t have an impact on the greater community. Police should be incentivized to investigate drug homicides.
To answer your question, I think drug-related crimes are unappealing to tackle from a law enforcement perspective because police officers DO understand that the problem is not just about drugs. At face value, a drug-related crime (like a retaliation murder for stolen drugs) may seem like just a violent form retaliation – period. But officers understand that the retaliation is part of the game, a vicious circle. Any crime that has to do with drugs in the inner-city is a part of the game. And because the game is so deeply rooted into the culture of these neighborhoods, behaviors rooted to it seem almost impossible to alter. Therefore, crimes related to drugs just seem like inevitable occurrences, rather than actions that can be stopped or prevented. The origins of this pessimism stemming from law enforcement personnel seems understandable to me, but it does not mean police negligence is acceptable. There just needs to be better ways to prevent drug-related crimes. How exactly? That’s the million dollar question that deserves to be investigated – not ignored – by people like those in law enforcement.
Arguments over "business" are frequently settled on the spot, typically on the basis of arbitrary considerations, unfounded assumptions, or outright lies. There is also an ongoing fight for turf because of the large number of dealers, some connected with an organization, others freelancing. When a gang is set up in a particular area, its members know the streets and control the turf. As the trade becomes profitable, however, would-be dealers from outside the gang may want to do business in the same area or even take it over. A person who tries to muscle in, however, is threatening not just the current dealer's economic well-being but that part of the community as well. The connections of many of these boys go deep in the community through extended families, who may rely on the money. If a dealer is pushed out, he and a portion of the community can face financial disaster. As a result, some dealers are ready to fight to keep their turf, and people often get wounded or killed in the process.
There are major and minor turf wars. A major turf war often spawns smaller ones. In a major fight-whether the weapons are words, fists, or guns, but especially if they are guns-the dispute gets settled, at least for the time being. But everyone has an interpretation of what happened. The interpretations are exchanged in the various neighborhood institutions, including barbershops, taverns, and street corners, where people gather and talk, and an understanding of the original fight is negotiated. Since at least some of the people involved know the principal participants personally, they may take sides, becoming emotionally invested in having their version of the event prevail, and the discussions themselves can become heated and lead to violence.
Some boys simply crave the status associated with being a dealer.
They want to wear a beeper, to be seen to be "clocking," to be associated with something hip and lucrative, even though it is an underground enterprise. Drug dealers are living the fast life; they are living on the edge. Older people will give young dealers advice, telling them that they are "living too fast." But everyone knows that once a person gets into that world, it is very hard to get out. The dealer can get
118 / CODE OF THE STREET
hooked on the money and the material things it can buy, just as someone can get hooked on the drug; the adventure, the thrill of danger, and the respect people give him are also addictive. Furthermore, his associates in the trade may not let him out, because he knows too much and might pass information on to the wrong people, or they may want to make him an example. Much of his ability to maneuver depends on his identity and connections (his cousins, brothers, uncles, his other associates in the trade, his gang members, his boys) and on his status. Often the higher his status, the more leeway and independence he has-the more "juice" he has. The truly independent people, those who have achieved a high level of respect, may be able to get out in ways other people cannot, because they have established that they can be trusted. But often the only sure way
of getting out is to get out of town.
VIOLENT FALLOUT
Drug users also engage in violence. Many users start out as victimswhen family members or boyfriends who deal drugs actively get them hooked in order to expand their markets-but they then become victimizers, robbing others to support their habits. Although some of the violence is focused and some is not, the result is a constant sense of uncertainty, a belief that anything can happen at any time. The successful dealer must be ever vigilant, but of course this makes him jittery and prone to react violently at the slightest perceived provocation. Furthermore, under the influence of drugs people's behavior may become unpredictable or truly dangerous. In these situations innocent bystanders, sometimes small children, can be shot or killed. Since drug trafficking permeates so much of the inner-city community, all its residents, whether involved with drugs or not, are at risk of finding themselves the unintended target of a stray bullet. The awareness of this constant danger fosters anxiety and skittislmess even among the decent people, who therefore become more likely themselves to overreact in an uncertain encounter; these people may
move, if they can.
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 119
Also fueling the violence that attends the drug trade is the proliferation of guns, which have become for many people easily accessible. Guns were in me community in the past, but mostly in the hands of adults. Today kids fourteen and younger have guns, or they know how and where to get them. In the inner-city community, one can often hear gunshots in the distance but no sirens afterward. The likelihood is that the shots are being fired by young boys playing with guns, at times just shooting them off for the fun of it, usually in the middle of the night. Guns can have personality and status attached to them; they even have records. The price of a used gun indicates its history. A gun mat "has a body on it" (was used to kill someone) is cheap because the person who is ultimately caught with it might be held responsible for murder. Moreover, in a society where so much economic inequality exists, for the severely alienated and desperate a gun can become like a bank card-an equalizer. Such a boyor, increasingly, girl-who desperately needs money may use a gun to stick somebody up without a second thought. In a peculiar way, however, the prevalence of and ready access to guns may keep certain strangers honest and more careful in how they approach others. In these circumstances a kind of Wild West mentality obtains in some of the more dangerous neighborhoods, in which the fear of getting shot can constrain people from violating others.
As a result of the general atmosphere of danger, even people with a nonviolent orientation buy guns for protection. In Philadelphia not long ago, a black minister and resident of an inner-city community shot and killed an intruder. The incident sparked a good deal of discussion, but me general reaction of his blacks neighbors was, "Well, he did what he had to do." In fact, such incidents do not occur just in the inner city. In the gentrified neighborhood adjacent to the minister's, a white doctor going to bed one night heard a rumbling downstairs. He came down with his gun and in the darkness announced, "I have a gun." The rumbling continued, so he fired, killing an intruder in his kitchen with a bullet to the back of the head. He and his wife went to the police station, returned home at two in the morning, and cleaned up the blood. It turned out that the intruder was apparently trying to steal the small kitchen television set to sell on the street, which could have brought a few dollars for crack. But
This is a very interesting anecdote used by Anderson. It suggests that the game is capable of reaching both nonviolent, innocent blacks of the inner city as well as white professionals in the nearby gentrified neighborhood. Neither of these individuals, regardless of profession, location, or socio-economic status is entirely immune from “the game.” I immediately think about Miss Anna, Randy Wagstaff’s guardian. Miss Anna’s innocent association with Randy ultimately led to her house being firebombed. However, I struggle to recall scenes – if any exist – that fit the second example of the white doctor described by Anderson. Does The Wire portray a similar message as illustrated by this anecdote?
“…It suggests that the game is capable of reaching both nonviolent, innocent blacks of the inner city as well as white professionals in the nearby gentrified neighborhood”
This is in fact what The Wire shows the viewer. The game is not limited to legal institutions but rather effects the entire city population, white or black, rich or poor, of the city the game is located in. The most basic reasoning behind this is that money fuels the game and as Lester so eloquently put it: “You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don’t know where the fuck it’s gonna take you.”
Brian, this reminds me of an article that I was reading about real efforts to clean up East Baltimore by their neighbors at Johns Hopkins. There is a cultural divide between people in the projects of East Baltimore and academia. A dean moved his family to an abandoned rowhouse in the area to better understand the community they were living in. The article explains that they got a knock on the door late at night, and immediately dead bolted the door because they thought it would be an intruder. After looking through the peephole, he realized it was just a neighbor returning his keys. While not to the extent of a defensive death, I think there is a certain amount of preconditioned fear that exists in any neighborhood. These fears on The Wire are heightened in poor neighborhoods, but this goes to show as Remy points out that no demographic is immune to “the game” or the stigma surrounding it. Chances are that even doorbells ringing late at night in an affluent neighborhood will make a homeowner uncomfortable.
I thought this anecdote was interesting in the sense that Anderson seems to imply the white doctor moved out of the community to avoid future violence, not necessarily due to guilt for having killed a man. While we cannot be sure that is entirely the case, we can see death becomes an integral element of The Game. What stuck me as well about this story was the lengths to which the intruder was willing to go to get a few dollars, presumably to buy drugs. It’s very reminiscent of Bubbles and Johnny in the Wire, especially in the scene where they threaten a man on a lader for the benefit of a few dollars. While they may be on the periphery of the game, it begs the question: how close can you get to harming a “citizen” and have it still be considered acceptable by the Game’s standards?
--,"'-'
120/ CODE OF THE STREET
this white doctor was so disturbed at having killed a young black man in those circumstances that he immediately moved out of his house and left the community. Thus the casualties of violence include people who simply get caught up in it-not just those who get shot but sometimes those who perpetrate the violence as well.
THE CRACK CULTURE: RATIONALE AND CONSEQUENCES
It must be continually underscored that much of this violence and drug activity is a reflection of the dislocations brought about by economic transformations, shifts that are occurring in the context of the new global economy. As was indicated above, where the wider economy is not receptive to these dislocated people, the underground economy is. That does not mean that anyone without a job is suddenly going to become a drug dealer; the process is not that simple. But the facts of race relations, unemployment, dislocation, and destitution create alienation, and alienation allows for a certain receptivity to overtures made by people seeking youthful new recruits for
the drug trade.
Numerous inner-city black people continue to be locked out of
many working-class occupations. Lack of education and training are often at issue, but, as Du Bois noted long ago, so is the problem of employers' racial preferences and social connections with prospective co-workers. For example, the building trades-plumbing, carpentry, roofing, and so forth-are often organized around family connections: fathers and uncles bring in their sons and nephews. To get a certificate to work in these trades, a young man requires a mentor, who not only teaches him skills but legitimizes him as a member of the trade. So the system perpetuates the dominance of ethnic groups that have been organized a long time. Now, the inner-city drug trade is composed of uncles and nephews too. From this perspective working-class Italians and Irish and others have their niche, and many severely alienated and desperate young blacks, at least those who are enterprising, can be said to have their niche too-in the drug trade.
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME / 121
As Du Bois would have appreciated, such behavior, while not to be condoned, is understandable as a manifestation of racism and persistent poverty.
In the inner-city community, drug dealing thus becomes recognized as work, though it is an occupation that overwhelming numbers of residents surely despise. Yet there are Robin Hood types among the drug dealers, who distribute some of their profits in the community, buying things for people, financially helping out their friends and relatives, as well as complete strangers. One drug dealer told me how bad he felt when he found out that a woman who had bought crack from one of his underlings had kids and had used all her welfare money for the drugs. He sought the woman out and gave her half her money back. His rationale was that business is business but that the kids shouldn't go hungry.
Crack's addictive quality has led to the rapid establishment of a crack culture and makes it easy to maintain a clientele.' ! The belief in the coriununity is that crack addiction is immediate and permanent. Once you try crack, it is said, you're always "chasing the ghost" -the high that you get the first time is so intense that you can never achieve it again, but the desire to do so is strong enough that you keep pursuing it. One drug dealer told me that he has never seen anybody walk away from crack permanently; even if a user gets off it for two years, he said, the right drug dealer can easily hook him again by talking to him in the right way. I said to this dealer, "Knowing this, why do you sell crack? Isn't this like killing people, annihilating your own people?" He replied nonchalantly, "Well, ifI wasn't doing it, somebody else would." To many inner-city residents, crack has become a seemingly permanent fixture of life, and dealing is a way to earn a living-even, for a few, to become rich.
This article really makes me wonder whether the “code of the street” is too far entrenched in urban environments. There is no way to completely get rid of criminal activity like drug dealing of course but is there a way to scale it back? History tells us that allocating money to police efforts are not enough. The government even attempted declaring war on the illegal activity but still has nothing to show for it. The criminal rings continue to run and with more power than ever. To contrast these criminal organizations with that of the America Mafia is helpful in realizing how hard it will be to squash drug dealing. The Mafia was once thought to be untouchable but eventually fell because the power was very centralized. Law enforcement just had to sit back and wait for a break to reach the top of the mafia. In urban drug dealing organizations the power is less centralized and there are many more individual organizations. It seems that the police are playing an elaborate game of “whack-a-mole” in the sense that once they take down one ring, there are always more to replace it. Therefore, I find myself asking if there will ever be a method to curb this category of criminality.
I really enjoyed reading your comment. I am having a hard time thinking of ways to try and diminish drug dealing around the US however this seems like a difficult task that even the US government is having trouble tackling. I agree that drug dealing organizations are less centralized than the mafia which makes them more difficult to go after. I also think that their is too make corruption in our justice system. In the wire we see the Barkesdale’s lawyer getting murderers and drug dealers off with minor offenses or shortened jail sentences. Maybe if their was a harsher jail sentence without the possibility of parole drug dealers might not condone drug dealing. But, for the moment as we have seen in the Wire, it is hard to keep drug dealers from dealing drugs because they seem to get a slap on wrist and go about their business.
I can’t help but think of Bubbles when I read this sentence. Of all the characters on the show, his arc is the one that ends in some hopefulness about the future. He gets clean but does not seem to be clean for more than a few months by the end of the series. Could the right drug dealer get Bubbles hooked again?
This also makes me think about the effectiveness of rehabilitation centers and the incarceration system. In the prison system, drugs are still frequently distributed (at least according to The Wire), so prisoners may never end their addiction. Even if some rehab programs are successful, the success may only be temporary. Even with all the physical and many of the mental aspects of addiction gone, individuals might still be at risk of a reversion to drugs.
Relating to this, I think the following sentence about selling crack because even though a dealer knows that it is essentially killing his own people, if he isn’t doing it somebody else would, is interesting. This shows a deeper mentality and hopelessness about the future of the streets. Although almost everyone can recognize the detrimental impacts of crack on the community and society, there is not even sliver of belief that the problem can be eliminated or at least mitigated. Selling drugs has historically been a revenue generating business for those confined to illegal labor, and passing up an opportunity to take part in it has an opportunity cost that many aren’t willing to incur. The mentality that it is going to occur no matter what and therefore it is okay to be part of the game reveals dim hope for the future.
Jacqueline, I had the same feeling when I read the sentence that if he isn’t doing it someone else would. It does represent a sense of hopelessness for any positive future these streets may have and seems to be permanently imposed on those who have grown up in these urban ghettos and who are making a living on the streets. The street culture becomes the norm to these inner-city residents and is basically the lifestyle that defines them so, if “some body else would do it anyways,” why give up your only possible way to make a living given the circumstances?
Anthony, you raise an excellent question concerning Bubbles and a possible reversion in his lifestyle. While I am unsure a drug dealer exists that could ultimately revert Bubbles back to his previous behavior, the question merits discussion. However, I also believe the situation involves many more variables than initially considered, thus making an evaluation of question much more difficult. In addition to his obvious issues of addiction (and a relationship with Whalen), Bubbles also copes with enormous amounts of grief as well as an internal desire to feel included. When Bubbles realizes that he has mistakenly murdered his companion Sherrod, his initial reaction is to immediately turn himself in and attempt suicide. These laced drugs were intentioned for the thief who commonly robbed and beat Bubbles. It is only after intensive rehabilitation that Bubbles is able to return home – to what is now his sister’s basement. It is difficult for me to believe that when faced with the opportunity to resume drug use such an event would not weigh heavily on one’s mind. Furthermore, I believe that one must consider Bubbles’ intrinsic desire to be included and feel wanted. On numerous occasions Bubbles looks for family, for community. After initially casting Sherrod out, Bubbles experiences a loneliness that compels him to begin searching the streets for Sherrod. Ultimately Bubbles desires Sherrod to return. Also Bubbles is seen to repeatedly try to come upstairs at his sister’s home. On one occasion he brought some crabs for the family to eat. Such actions express a desire for community and inclusion that, I argue, could not be satisfied for Bubbles as a drug addict.
Brian I agree with you that there are multiple dimensions in solving the issue of drug addiction than just one’s mind to quit. In addition to the family that you have mentioned, I think we are constantly forgetting about the good people in the community, whether they are the church deacon shown in season 4 of The Wire or Cutty, who is rehabilitated and wants to have a positive impact in his society.
Personally, I have experience speaking with drug/alcohol abusers at a poor inner city as a volunteered in Patterson, New Jersey. The ones who do come out of the addiction are due to the influences of the family members that they love or the good people in the city that they have met. There are plenty of non-profit and non-government organizations at urban settings (like religious organizations like Good Shepherd) that bring people out of the drug addiction. So I don’t think an end to a drug addiction is solely dependent on an individual’s decision to quit. There needs to be a motivating factor for them to quit, and we should not disregard the good people who reach out to the marginalized.
I think it’s interesting to really think about this sentence and just as we apply themes in the Wire to larger institutions, I think it’s important to apply this one as well. I really like agree with what Jackie says. I mean I guess we must really idea with the notion that no matter how much we wish for the drug trade to stop and for us to think how so many elements within our society will never change. The drug issue is so much bigger than the corner dealers and even corporations like the Barksdale Crew. I think it’s important to think about how the government, international connects play into the drug trade. I think that’s one of the most unique elements of the Wire, because it truly makes us focus on how institutions come into play. It’s so much bigger than neighborhood gangs. It also plays a large part on the type of society we live.
ALVIN AND JOYCE
When the young man obtains money, life can be very sweet. First, when it gets to be known in the neighborhood that he is clocking or "rolling," it is said that everyone wants to be his friend. Why?
122 / CODE OF THE STREET
Because he has money, but also because he is a "pusher-man," a man wiili the drugs. In the impoverished and distressed community, rhese
two items are very powerful. They often signify the fast life, "what's happenin' "-the latest and hippest thing. And if he has charisma, the style, and the material things to go with this new statuS, such as
a new Jeep Cherokee or Bronco, or the right clothes, then many people want to be associated with him· As Don Moses said, "The kids are making the money off of the drugs-they're the only ones who have money. Everybody wants to be associated wiili somebody who has money, and they're the only ones who have the money to really show the girls a good time. A lot of the nice girls that are looking for something, you'll find a lot of times that they end up with the drug addicts, and the drug addicts are about turning rhern on to
that stuff. Then they move on to the next one. And it's sad, really
sad. All part of the streets. The street is like a vacuum."
The drug dealer style impresses many young women. It signifies
the fast life, but also the cafe life. These women may expect to be wined and dined, clothed, and showered with various material things. For many young women to have such a boyfriend is the next best thing to hitting the lottery; he competes very effectively with other young men who may possess much more decency but little cash.
Joyce was seventeen when she and Alvin began going together.
Alvin, twenty-six and handsome, was a "big-time drug dealer." Joyce lived with her mother and two sisters in one of the poorest communities in the city. joyce's mother, a hardworking woman whose husband had been killed in an automobile accident a few years earlier, was not on welfare. She worked as a cleaning woman in a downtown
office building.
When Joyce began seeing Alvin, her mother worried, for she knew
Alvin lived the fast life. He worked at a downtown hotel but seemed always to be around the neighborhood. There were rumors that he was "in the life," and he had the props and money to prove it. He
never denied it; he would just smile and walk away.
After rhey had been going out for about six weeks, Alvin announced
to joyce's mother, Johnnie, "You ain't got to worry about her. I'll take care of her. You ain't got to worry about her, hear." It was almost
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME / 123
as though Alvin had bought himself a wife, although they had not married-but were "going to." Johnnie felt she could do nothing. Alvin was good to her daughter, and she did not want to jeopardize the relationship. He continued to shower Joyce with love and affection and gave her almost anything she wanted. He moved her from her mother's house into their own apartment, although he was there only sporadically, because he divided. his time between this place and a place he needed for "space."
Alvin bought Joyce a brand-new white Nissan automobile for her birthday, and this made her very happy. It indicated his commitment to her, and she liked that. She needed to be reassured, for it was known that Alvin had "other ladies" he liked to see. But even though there were rumors, it was clear to many thar] oyce was Alvin's heartthe love of his life. She was a very attractive woman who knew how to dress and had style and a certain class that Alvin appreciated. He continued to dress her in expensive clothes and take her out to fancy downtown restaurants. The relationship was about two years old, the couple was much admired and the talk of the community, and everyone knew about Alvin's involvement in drugs.
One day Alvin brought home a large diamond engagement ring that blew Joyce's mind. She was beside herself with joy, she said. And they set an actual date to be married. But about a month afterward, Alvin was gUIU1ed down in a dispute over drugs. His death left Joyce embittered and sad, but with a car, some furs, and a diamond ring. To support herself, she sold or pawned everything and made out as best she could. Now she is reluctant to revisit their old haunts and places, not because she fears for herself but because the people there remind her of things she would rather put behind her.
In the impoverished neighborhood, many of the young women aspire to have such a man, at times thinking and hoping things will work out: it is to approach easy street, particularly if the woman can feel she has the love and the respect of the man. A streetwise young woman is likely to require that the man in her life "have something" before he "spends her time." He must be prepared to show his love by buying her material things, by paying for her to have her hair tracked (corn rows) or her nails done, and generally by being ready
124 / CODE OF THE STREET
to give something up for her. Hence many young men become strongly motivated to obtain "crazy" money, and legal means of doing
so may be toO slow or nonexistent.
Under these conditions law-abiding and decent youths will imitate
aspects of the fast life. In waging their campaigns for status and identity, they pretend to have money, pretend to have freedom and independence, and pretend to be violent: they go for bad. Unfortunately, as has been noted often, prospective employers and decent lawabiding people, including white people and black middle-class people who live in adjacent communities, are easily confused about who is a drug dealer and who is not. Out of a perceived need for protection, they are reluctant to employ these youths, and they may try to avoid anyone who resembles them. Such responses in tum further alienate
inner-city young people.
It is worth noting that imitating the fast life is not peculiar to black
inner-city teenagers. White middle-class teenagers also emulate this style. Images of hip ness grounded in the inner-city subculture, which is so driven by the drug trade, move by cultural diffusion through the system into the 'middle class, white and black. But the middleclass versions are usually not so deadly. Middle-class youths have other forms of capital-more money and many more ways of effectively expressing themselves. When it comes to violence, such youth generally are much more willing to back down than to engage in a fight to the death. In situations involving the wrong mix of people and a large amount of posturing, there exists a slippery slope that can
This image is fresh in my mind because I just saw part of the Fab Five 30 for 30 again, but this concept is literally as simple as socks. Think of all the white kids at UVA that wear shin-high black Nike socks. Whether they know it or not, this trend started all because a group of young black men wanted to make the college basketball world uncomfortable by expressing resistance to the white norms in the game. Now, every white kid from the burbs owns a 6-pack…of black Nike socks.
Obviously it goes way beyond this, especially with the whole rap-record-sales-being-higher-among-white-teenagers phenomenon, but it’s funny that it trickles all the way down to what we want to wear under our sneakers. Not to mention, that white middle class kids can afford to have the swoosh mark on their black socks without having to sell drugs. I should definitely admit that I am guilty of both- that is buying rap records and wearing black Nike socks- despite being a white, middle class male. And in terms of relating it to the show around which our class is based, the dealers Herc buys from are a perfect of example of adopting the fashion. However, these guys from season 2 might not agree as quickly as I do with Anderson’s statement that the white versions of the trend are “usually not so deadly.”
quickly tum make-believe into the real rhing.
THE STICKUP
The stickup is a variation on the code of the street, and often at issue are two elements that give the code its meaning and resonance: respect and alienation. The common street mugging involves a profound degree of alienation, but also requires a certain commitment to criminality, nerve, cunning, and even what young men of the street call heart. As a victim, a person with "street knowledge" may have a
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 125
.,,~:
certain edge on one who lacks it. The edge here is simply the potential ability to behave or act ad lib in accordance with the demands and emergent expectations of the stickup man. In effect, such knowledge may provide the victim with the background knowledge of "how to get robbed"; it may even allow him or her the presence of mind to assist the assailant in his task, thus defusing a dangerous situation.
Stickups are particularly feared by law-abiding people in the ghetto, decent or street. They may occur in one manner in areas of concentrated poverty but in another in middle-class or "changing" neighborhoods. Perhaps the crucial difference is whether the victim is willing and able to defer or is bound by his or her own socialization to respond in kind. It may be that a stickup between peers requires a model different from the one for a stickup between culturally different parties. But wherever they occur, stickups have two major elements in common. The first is a radical redefinition of the situationof who has the power-for everyone concerned, especially if a gun is involved. A drawn gun is a blunt display of power. The victim immediately realizes that he must give something up or, as the corner boys say, "pay some dues," because otherwise the perpetrator will hurt him. The second is social exchange-"your money or your life."
The code holds that might makes right and that if qualified, a person who needs anything may be moved simply to take it by force or stealth. Only the strongest, the wiliest, the most streetwise will survive, and so when people see an opportunity, they go for it. A generalized belief in the inner-city ghetto is that perpetrators choose their victims according to certain known factors and that it is therefore up to the individual to avoid placing him or herself in a vulnerable position. There is some truth to this notion, although in reality many people often find themselves at the wrong end of a stickup no matter what precautions they take. But if inner-city residents accepted the notion that assaults are utterly random, they would feel they had little control and would likely become too overwhelmed by fear to go out at all. So the belief that they can avoid stickups is an important defensive mechanism for people who are besieged by violence on a daily basis; this belief allows them to salvage a sense of freedom in a seemingly inexorable environment.
;~': .
;',)
126 / CODE OF THE STREET
This section attempts to delineate the social processes involved in the stickup-how the deed is done." These processes encompass
both choice of victim and the etiquette of the event itself. One view
is that if a streetwise person is foolish enough to allow himself to be robbed, he will understand that the assailant has power over him and
so will defer to that power. When both parties thoroughly understand
the situation, the stickup can resemble a ballet, in which each side smoothly performs a choreographed part. In such cases the victim's
life is usually safe. If one person is street-dumb, however, or loses his head, things can easily go amiss and the victim may pay with his life
or suffer a serious injury. e
Most often in the inner-city community, the perpetrator of the
crime and the victim are both black, so they have limited confidence in the agencies and agents of social control. The criminal transaction is often a matter for them to deal with on their own and on the spot. They must negotiate with each other, settling the score in the best
way they know.
The potential perpetrator's first consideration is the selection of
the right social setting and victim. He must assess the general surroundings, such as how secluded and dark the spot is and whether the potential victim appears able to handle himself. He may size up his prey. In the right circumstances a seemingly ordinary individual
can become a predator.
In the holdup a profound power transaction occurs. The holdup
man wants first to relieve the victim of his property. The victim often does not want to give it up, despite the holdup man's demands. Some stickup men use language calculated to override resistance. "Give it up," they say, "I got to have it." The streetwise victim fully cooperates with this command and may even help the perpetrator rob him. He knows the chances are good that the perpetrator is quite nervous about this whole transaction. In fact, the adrenaline is flowing strongly for both individuals, and so things can very easily go amiss. The wise victim knows this and so may seek to help the person attain
his objective.
So the victim says, "All right. There it is. Please don't hurt me."
In saying this, he is effectively submitting to the power of the holdup man and giving him his props. Such deferential behavior is itself often
~
··1~;
.
t.
{'
~'
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 127
a large part of what the stickup man wants. He wants the person "with something" to recognize him, to acknowledge his power resources and what he can do to the victim. The wise victim, recognizing this, submits.
All that comes to mind wen I was reading this paragraph was a scene from season four I believe it was when Omar was walking down the street and people were just dropping their drugs at his feet almost as if it was homage to appease the wrath of Omar, which is exactly what it was. People fear Omar just by his name. Everyone fears Omar and his shotgun more than anything in the world and all the smart people he sticks up give up the drug/money whatever because they know he will not hesitate to blow them away, even just to make a point. It is beyond business, it is a matter of respect and reputation
Much like Ibukun, I immediately thought of Omar when I read this part of Anderson’s piece. Omar’s repuation moves far before he does: in other words, if Omar is seen even at a distance, people immediately began scrambling to make sure that they don’t get in his way. Even “tough guys” try to avoid a conflict with Omar at all costs. His sawed-off shotgun is the stuff of legend in Baltimore, giving him immense power over almost anyone who he crosses paths with.
This submission is what the perpetrator wants, but it is also what he understands. After all, he has the power in these circumstances, a power that anyone should perceive. He has a gun and is pointing it at the victim, threatening to shoot. Or he may have a knife, threatening serious bodily harm. He further knows-as does the victimthat he is an anonymous stranger and more than likely will get away. Here the perpetrator often makes assumptions based on race and the concentrated poverty all around him. Also built into his act is the assumption that me police will not expend very much energy trying to bring him to justice, and he may assume that any thinking black person would assume the same thing. Therefore, he reasons, it is certainly easier for the person to give it up. The perpetrator's need to remain anonymous is acknowledged by the street-smart victim when me victim goes out of his way not to look at the perpetrator. Such a victim will absolutely not look the assailant in the eye, for though it is unlikely that the victim could actually recognize the perpetrator again, the look in the eye both introduces a certain level of ambiguity into the situation and could be taken as a direct challenge to the perpetrator's newly won authority. Once the victim and the perpetrator lock eyes, a bond that could be deadly has been established, and the event takes on the quality of being memorable. In that event, what started as a simple effort to relieve the victim of his money turns into an ambiguous transaction that may now require the victim's life.
At issue here are the participants' claims on human dignity, claims that have been thrown into furious competition. In order to get out of the situation unscathed, the victim must find a way to allow his assailant to exit with his (the assailant's) dignity intact-which in these circumstances is a goal quite difficult to accomplish. Not only are there competing notions of what constitutes enough dignity, but there is also the problem of just how to grant it-insofar as the vehicle for granting it can become part of its definition, shaping how little or how much is being granted. The wisest victim in such circum-
128 I CODE OF THE STREET
stances simply defers, agreeing with and "yessing" the assailant beyond reason. Yet even then it is not clear that the victim can avoid harm. The victim is clearly at the mercy of the assailant, who holds the power in this situation.
After the stickup the perpetrator may even attempt to "cool out" the victim of the crime. A stickup man with style and wiliness might go so far as to .give the victim a big hug, mainly for the benefit of potential onlookers, in an attempt to give the impression that a stickup has not just occurred, that "we're all right." Some will make excuses or even offer apologies for their behavior, explaining that they or a relative was just robbed.
Thus there is an etiquette of the stickup. Assailant and victim must both know and play their roles. At issue is a core tenet of the code of the street: respect. Primarily, the assailant wants his victim's money, but he also wants things to go smoothly. He wants to wield his power undisputed; he wants his possession of that power to be recognized. Nothing conveys this recognition better than the clear act of total deference. Not to defer is to question the authority, the worth, the status, even the respectability of the assailant in a way that easily suggests contempt or even arrogance. Such a resistant victim is "acting uppity" (for the moment), and such behavior can utterly confuse the assailant. In these circumstances the assailant usually wants a simple way out of the situation: he may use his gun or knife, or he may simply flee. The victim's resistance-or inability to play along-thus may "flood out" the situation with too much information, rendering it unpredictable. If the assailant is not ready to "raise the ante," he may turn tail and run-or he may shoot. Few victims, streetwise or not, take this risk by flooding out the situation intentionally. If they do so inadvertently and survive, they have good fortune or luck to thank for it. It may be much safer to acquire the street knowledge of the etiquette and then help the assailant carry out his job of robbery.
This section on stickups reminds me of the stickup between one of Marlo’s boys (I think) and Namond that happened right outside of Cutty’s gym and Cutty had to interfere. Unlike Namond who tried to fight the stickup boy who was high on drugs and carrying a gun, Cutty demonstrates his street wisdom by backing down. This scene clearly shows Namond’s lack of knowledge and inability to survive on the street.
This scene sheds light on an underlying tension: the importance of having street knowledge (ie. backing down in certain situations), while at the same time asserting a street boy mentality that is rooted in respect. As Anderson points out, there is an etiquette of a stickup and street-wise individuals know how to maneuver this encounter. Yet, Anderson also points out that the core issue of a stickup is respect. As I see it, the game is sending different and confusing messages to young corner boys. On one hand, they are supposed to not let anyone disrespect them and if they are disrespected they have to make the person pay, but at the same time they are supposed to have the knowledge to know when to allow certain types of disrespect and back down. This tension is clear in Namond- he cannot distinguish between situations in which he should assert his corner boy mentality and when to back down.
This is a really interesting point you bring up and this scene between Namond and one of Marlo’s boys illustrates well the underlying tension you address as the importance of street knowledge vs. asserting a street boy mentality centered on respect. From this scene we see Namond’s lack of street survival skills, which are ultimately confirmed for us by the end of the season. You mention that the game is sending confusing messages to corner boys, but can this rationale be applied to any other characters but Namond? Maybe the rules of the game and discretion during stickup situations are meant to be implied and mutually understood among those in the game and on the streets. This scene could have been used to foreshadow this tension Namond is struggling with and the crossroads he is grabbling with in his life between being a “decent” kid or a “corner” boy.
The scene you describe in which Namond confronts the high stickup boy (who is actually Sherrod, Bubbles’ “adopted” friend) is a great example of the confusing and sometimes contradictory mentality that being a “streetwise” individual requires. Namond is torn between his social obligation to “man up” and assert his strength (something he later does to Duquan, and receives a beating from Michael for it) and his inability to recognize and remove himself from an incredibly dangerous situation.
I think that all of the corner boys portray this tension to some degree. Michael must fight his emotions as he questions whether or not the people he is ordered to kill “deserve” it. Duquan continuously reverts to selling drugs despite his obvious lack of respect and inability to successfully do so. Randy is forced to contend with the discipline and respect his foster mother has instilled in him and the consequences of being labeled a snitch.
Ultimately the tragedy of Season 4 is that the “corner boy” culture is forced upon kids who are very rarely able to see past it. Only Namond escapes; Michael takes on the role of stickup boy, which promises only a short life, likely with a violent end; Duquan starts shooting heroin, a path that leads only to ruin; and Randy is lost to an uncaring and ineffective group home system.
Of course, the victim is most often surprised by the robbery and has no time to act deliberately. In fact, most stickup men greatly appreciate the element of surprise in pulling off their jobs. They may approach from the dark shadows of the street or from another car in
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 129
a parking lot, or they may stalk their victim, choosing an opportune moment to announce, "Give it up."
The phenomenology of the stickup allows us to see that the assailant is not always identifiable as such; at most times and in most circumstances, he is part of the cultural "woodwork," revealing himself only at the opportune moment. Up to the point at which the stickup begins, the assailant has managed to be taken as a "law-abiding" citizen, someone who might even offer a helping hand to a person in distress. However, not everyone can pull off such deception. Young black, Hispanic, or even white men are often second-guessed in public, making it difficult for them to "get the drop" on a victim. To get the drop requires a certain Cunning and stealth. The argument can be made that given the greater defensiveness of the potential victims, the assailants, in order to survive as a species, have had to adapt, beCOming ever more creative in the manner in which they pull off their jobs.
Robert Hayes, a thirty-year-old black security guard who works at a Center City CVS, lives in the West Oak Lane section of Philadelphia. On a warm June day, on a busy section of Girard Avenue, he had just left a "cash exchange" after cashing a check. It was the middle of the afternoon, and people were all about. As he began walking away from the cash exchange, he heard a voice say, "Hey, excuse me, wait up." As Robert looked up, he saw a young black man trotting toward him holding up a brown paper sack, as if he had something to show him. Robert, suspecting nothing amiss and curious about what might be in the bag, waited for the man. As the man approached Robert, he directed him to look into the bag. Robert complied with the man's request and saw a black 9-millimeter pistol with the man's finger on the trigger. The man then said, "Give it up. Don't be no fool." Robert replied, "Well, I don't have any money." The man then said, "I just saw you leave the cash exchange. Le' me hold that fat wallet in your back pocket." Robert complied. And the man smiled
at him and said, "Have a nice day," and went on about his business, clearing out of the area very quickly. In these circumstances Robert knew better than to resist, though a part of him wanted to. He says that he thought of his two young children and his wife and that he
130 / CODE OF THE STREET
could always get more money and a wallet. What most upset him was the fact that this "young boy" had churnped him, had gotten the drop on him, and made a fool of him. "That hurt more than anything else," he says. But he adds, "I know in my heart that I did the right
thing."
One of the greatest fears of people in the inner-city community is
to be on the wrong end of a stickup, and they fear the stickup man, or, as he is known in the community, the stickup boy. (The term "stickup boy" initially referred to those who held up drug dealers, but it has come to refer to young holdup men in general.) In dealing with this fear, residents have developed a working conception of the proclivities of the stickup boy. As was indicated above, their belief that he "picks his people," allows residents to move at least some of the responsibility for a successful robbery from the stickup man to the victim by averring that it is up to those who use the streetsparticularly themselves-not to be "picked" for a stickup. So residents, especially those who present themselves as streetwise, try to behave in ways that let potential stickup boys, as well as anyone else, know that they are not "the one" to be targeted for a stickup. They become preoccupied with giving the right signal to people with whom they share the neighborhood streets and other public spaces.
For young people this means being prepared to meet challenges with counteractions. When they are hit or otherwise violated, they may hit back. Or they may even "pay back" later on by avenging transgressions. An important part of the code is not to allow others to chump you, to let them know that you are "about serious business" and not to be trifled with. The message that you are not a pushover
must be sent loudly and clearly.
Of course, this does not always work. There are circumstances in
which the stickup boy will try anyone, including those who have proved they do not deserve to be tested. For instance, the victim could be absennnindedly walking down a street at the wrong time or simply be unlucky. But the belief on the street is that the stickup boy generally knows who is vulnerable and who is not.
Around the streetcorners and carryouts-the staging areas-where
so many drug dealers and corner boys hang out, the would-be stickup boys generally know who is who, who "can fight" and who cannot,
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 131
who has nerve and heart and who is a chump. Around such places, in various social arenas, and on the streets more generally, the chump gets little or no respect, and those who resemble him are the ones who most often get picked on, tried or tested, and become victims of robbery and gratuitous violence. Some people so labeled readily report such offenses to the police, a cardinal sin among those strongly invested in the street code.
Stereotypically, the chump is the "quiet" person who, as they say on the corner, "minds his business and don't bother no one. Dresses nice." He is also often "decent" and kind. But in this area of so much deprivation, onlookers are very inclined to take his displays of kindness for weakness, thus degrading a positive force in the public community. However, for personal security and standing around the carryout, it is important to demonstrate to all others that one is not a chump; but in order to do so a man must often present a street front, moving and acting in certain ways that more clearly identify him with the street. One common way is to swagger, display a quick . temper, and a foul mouth, but also to let others know in no uncertain
terms that he is prepared and able to defend himself or, as the young men say, to show them he "can hold his hands." The person must be ready and willing to fight, to "get physical," if the situation demands it, or to display the nerve and heart to engage in a standoff when necessary. In a word, he must be able through his demeanor to send the message that he will stand up to others and not let others roll on him. Such an image may require wearing the latest styles, including the "drug dealer look," and having a hip and ready "conversation"knowing just what to say to keep others from moving on him verbally (the proper reply to someone who tests you)-although actions almost always speak louder than words. The posture at the opposite extreme of that associated with the chump has come to be described as "thorough" or being "a thorough dude" -knowing "what time it is," or being exceptionally streetwise. But for many, such an image is often just that-a front, a posture, a representation-and it is very difficult to enact so as to convince or fool those who are streetwise.
While reading this section about not wanting to be a “chump,” I could not help thinking about Namond and his situation in The Wire. He is constantly putting on the front that he is tough but Cutty, Bunny Colvin, and even his friends can see past the act. Namond lacks the ability to get “physical if the situation demands it.” A scene where this is made obvious is the one where Namond attempts to beat up the younger boy that steals his stash but is unable to follow through. Instead it is Michael who punches the young boy. No matter how hard Namond tries to be streetwise, he never actually attains this goal.
On this same topic, I think it is interesting that everyone including Marlo and his gang immediately realize the street potential in Michael. So this makes me raise the question: is a street attitude something one is born with or something that one acquires through past experience? Ideas?
The smarter stickup boys, however, are increasingly coming to fear the chump because of the likelihood that he is precisely not down or knowledgeable about the code of the street. Such a person out of
132 I CODE OF THE STREET
fear, so the reasoning goes, could cause a stickup to go wrong by carrying a gun or knife or by losing his composure and physically contesting the dominance of the stickup boy during a robbery. When a stickup has progressed to a certain point, the chump, through his inexperience with the streets, may misread the situation and believe he is in more danger than he actually is. He may then panic, :flooding the situation out and effectively bringing what began nonviolently to a violent end. If the chump becomes nervous and tries aggressively to protect himself and/ or his loved one, he may in reality be raising the stakes to a dangerous level.
The thorough dude, in contrast, may understand intuitively when the assailant is in control, but until the moment when there is a shift in who controls the situation, he may be able to alter the outcome. Such a person is seldom a passive player, rather, he knows what time it is; and at the right time, he defers to the power of the assailant. He understands that when a gun is put in your face, you do what you can to defer to or appease the person with the gun. You then "give it up," saying something like, "Here it is. It's all yours. Please don't hurt me." Effectively, he cuts his losses, saying, "You got me that time," and he tries to learn from his mistake and to make sure that this never happens to him again.
SEE BUT DON'T SEE
People residing in the drug-infested, depressed inner-city community may understand the economic need for the drug trade. Many residents become demoralized yet often try to coexist with it, rationalizing that the boys who deal drugs are not necessarily bad boys but are simply doing what they think they need to do to make money. They themselves, however, don't want to be victimized by the trade, nor do they want their friends and loved ones to be harmed. Many have come to believe that the police and the public officials don't care about their communities, and this belief encourages them to give up any hope of doing something about the drug trade. As a result, they may condemn the dealing but also tolerate it. They become inured
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 133
-." ,'
''''1
;,;
to it. They also understand that some local people rely on it for financial support. The Robin Hood phenomenon helps the justification process. As was mentioned above, some dealers try to assist their community by surreptitiously donating money to various organizations and helping to support their families and friends with drug profits. One drug dealer told me he paid for his aunt's surgery as well as for all his mother's bills, and he was very proud of having done that. He was proud of having taken' his girlfriend out to fancy restaurants, proud of everything he had become. He knew drug dealing was wrong, but he accepted his role in it. Of course, not everybody in the community is so accepting of the drug trade. Most people have very, very negative feelings about dealing, feelings that are most obviouslyon display when violence occurs. That is an important pointsome people object only when violence erupts.
Another reason for seeing and yet not seeing drug transactions is that as people walk the streets of the community, they cannot help seeing what's going on, but are afraid to get involved. Concerned for their own safety, they don't even want people to notice them witnessing what is going on. After an incident like a shooting or a gang war, people tend to clam up for fear of retribution, especially where the authorities are concerned. If a bust occurs, anyone who is considered to have been paying too much attention to the drug activity might be suspected of having told the police about it. The way people deal with this fear and the need to protect themselves is by seeing but not seeing.
Many parents see but don't see for another reason: they realize that their own son is probably involved in the trade. They disapprove of it, but they also benefit from it. A mother who receives money, sometimes even large sums of money, from her son may not ask too many questions about its source. She just accepts the fact that the money is there somehow. Since it is sorely needed, there is a strong incentive not to interrupt the :flow. Some people are so torn over what they are tolerating that they pray and ask forgiveness from the Lord for their de facto approval. Yet they cannot bring themselves to intervene.
The economic unraveling in so many of these communities puts people up against the wall and encourages them to do things that
134 / CODE OF THE STREET
they would otherwise be morally reluctant to do. A boy who can't
get a job in the regular economy becomes a drug dealer not all at once but by increments. These boys make a whole set of choices and decisions based in part on what they are able to do successfully. A boy who grows up on the streets thoroughly invested in the code of the street is also closer to the underground economy. Once mastered, the savoir faire of the street world-knowing how to deal coolly with people, how to move, look, act, dress-is a form of capital, not a form middle-class people would respect, but capital that can nonetheless
be cashed in.
Since the code of the street is sanctioned primarily by violence and
the threat of violent retribution (an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth), the more inner-city youths choose this route in life, the more normative the code of the street becomes in the neighborhood. Neighbors are encouraged to choose between an abstract code of justice that is disparaged by the most dangerous people on the streets and a practical code that is geared toward survival in the public spaces
of their community.
Children growing up in these circumstances learn early in life that
this is the way things are and that the lessons of those who might teach them otherwise become less and less relevant. Surrounded by violence and by indifference to the innocent victims of drug dealers and users alike, the decent people are finding it harder and harder to maintain a sense of community. Thus violence comes to regulate life in the drug-infested neighborhoods and the putative neighborhood leaders are increasingly the people who control the violence.
The ramifications of this state of affairs reach far beyond innercity communities. A startling study by the Sentencing Project revealed that 33 percent of young black men in their twenties are under the supervision of the criminal justice system-in jail, in prison, on probation, or on parole. This astounding figure must be considered partly responsible for the widespread perception of young black men as dangerous and not to be trusted. This kind of demonization affects all young blacks-those of the middle class, those of the dwindling working class, as well as the street element.
One might ask, "What can account for the disproportionate per-
centage of blacks among the adjudicated?" African Americans have
~l' •
~
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 135 been overrepresented in the prison population since the first studies were done, but the jump in their numbers over the past generation has been exponentiaL Part of the answer would have to be crack cocaine. The prison terms for the possession and sale of crack cocaine are stiffer than those for powder cocaine, a drug that is more expensive and more prevalent in the middle class. Another factor is that proportionately more blacks are dealers, and this speaks to the overall inability of young black men to get into the workforce. The glamorous hipness of dealing that certifies one as firmly in the oppositional culture is also a factor. When jobs disappear, leaving people poor and concentrated, the drug economy becomes an unforgiving way of life, organized around violence and predatory activity.
THE VIOLENT DEATH
Television images portray and even glamorize the fast life, and movies such as The Godfather, Set It Off, Boyz 'n the Hood, and Menace II Society that feature gratuitous violence help legitimize violence for many young men.!" The films have a certain realism and deal with the complex problems that emerge every day on the ghetto streets. When young men see a leading man resort to violence to settle a dispute, they can ask, "What does it do for him? Was he right? Did the victim deserve what he got?" The answers help them deal with their own problems: "How bad should I be? Should I take that jacket off that guy?"
But probably most important, the films, along with rap music as well as their everyday experiences, help youths become inured to violence and, perhaps, death itself. Those residing in some of the most troubled areas typically have witnessed much street violence that has at times resulted in maiming or death. All of this contributes to the posture that dying "ain't no big deaL" One must understand that some young people bereft of hope for the future have made their peace with death and talk about planning their own funerals. They sometimes speak in euphemistic phrases like "going out" or "checking out." After experiencing the deaths of so many young friends, the
-
136 I CODE OF THE STREET
hopeless conclude that life is bound to be short "for the way I'm living," or "if the deal go down, dying ain't no big thing." The high death rate among their peers keeps many from expecting to live beyond age twenty-five.
With such an outlook, "living fast and large" in the present makes sense, for "tomorrow ain't promised to you." Young men like this tend to lead an existential life that may acquire meaning only when faced with the possibility of imminent death. Not to be afraid to die is by implication to have few compunctions about taking another's life, for the right reasons, if the situation demands it. The youths who have internalized such attitudes and convincingly display them in their bearing are among the most threatening people of all. The most aggressive develop "beefs," and harbor grudges, at times with complete strangers, and gain a reputation for being "touchy" or "crazy." And they convey the message that they fear no one. With credibility for this position, supported by words and deeds, a young man can gain a sense of respect and power on the streets. This is what many youths strive to achieve, whether they emerge from a decent or a street-oriented background, for its practical defensive value, but also for the positive way it makes them feel about themselves as men.
At times a parent, particularly one steeped in the teachings of the church, will say to the young person directly, "Son, you living too fast. You living too fast. Better slow down. You gon' die." Some young people take it as a kind of warning, even as a sign from above, that "Mother would speak to me that way. Maybe I better heed what she is saying." But for this kind of message to be taken seriously, other events generally have to come together so that it seems prudent and wise for the young man to try to make a change. Of particular importance is the support or example of friends. If they have suffered severe setbacks like arrests, assaults, or serious drug-related health problems, their example may serve as a sign-and it can be a powerful influence in encouraging the person to try to change. What he needs then is a serious helping hand: a caring old head can make a real difference. Without such support the young person may simply muddle along, perhaps hitting on or missing an opportunity to be saved from the streets.
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME I 137
Sometimes young people are looking for an excuse to change, and a sign can be enough. They are often strongly if passively religious, at times invoking "God" or "the Lord" in conversations with peers. They may reflect on the notion that there is a higher power to be reckoned with, and that can be a support in the effort to change. Such people may also invoke the notion of fate, particularly when confronting things they cannot fathom or fully understand. Fate can be used to explain failure in a way that cushions disappointment. A young man can respond to a love affair that does not work out, a loss in the lottery, a fight that does not go his way, or material things that are totally out of reach by simply saying, "That wasn't meant for me," or "That wasn't for me." With feelings of deep resignation, he may let go of the desire to acquire or to achieve the particular objective, at least for the present.
On the other hand, the notion of fate can also encourage a person to be reckless in meting out violence. The belief that whatever one does or says was meant to be allows one to take chances that are not perceived as chances, risks that are not seen as risks, because what will b\ will be. Hence the person is able to walk the streets almost fearlessly, knowing that "when my time is here, it is here, and there's nothing I can do about it." Thus one can live life to the fullest, believing that it is just not "my time" -for now. In the heat of the moment, during an altercation, this belief can determine the outcome of a fight to the death, giving an individual the advantage that only profound faith in his or her ability to prevail can provide.
When a violent death does occur, it affects not just the victim and his or her family but the entire community. Something terrible has happened, and the community grieves and mourns. Many ask, "Why?" Johnny, Robert, Marcel, Kevin, or Rashawn was such a wonderful person, with so much promise, so much to give. Why was he "taken out like this"? The family often tries to accept the explanation that it is "the Creator's will." Its members may question "the Supreme Being," but always with the understanding that His authority is legitimate. For them, the fact that the young boy died must say something about the living, but also about the way the young boy lived his life. There is a strong belief in fate and the notion that a person has a time to be on the planet, but that
.;a::
'",,;'
i~
¥.
138/ CODE OF THE STREET
people can "rush" their time by "living fast" or "running in the fast lane."
THE AFTERMATH OF DEATH
When a young life is cut down, almost everyone goes into mourning. The first thing that happens is that a crowd gathers about the site of the shooting or the incident. The police then arrive, drawing more of a crowd. Since such a death often occurs close to the victim's home, his mother or his close relatives and friends may be on the scene of the killing. When they arrive, the women and girls often wail and moan, crying out their grief for all to hear, while the young men simply look on, in studied silence; they are there to help the young women if they require assistance. Soon the ambulance arrives and takes the person to the nearest hospital. If he is still alive, the mother or a relative or a neighbor will ride along inside the ambulance. At times, though, it is too late, and the ambulance will go to the morgue.
The next day, the relatives and neighbors and friends look for a report of the crime in the local newspaper. Friends and relatives may already be angry, and they sometimes vent this anger at the newspaper for not running a long enough story of the shooting or the death of their loved one. They sometimes vent at the police, calling them incompetent, racist, or worse. They may wonder why the person responsible for this deed has not been brought to justice. In the community there is profound sadness. People talk about the victim. "It is such a shame." "Why did he have to go this way?" "All he wanted was a decent life in this world." And there are many questions. Some people begin to question their faith. "Is there a God?" People who haven't spoken to one another in many months now find something to talk about. They speak of the deceased. Community residents develop a bond based on their links to this person.
The younger people take it especially hard. They wonder aloud why this happened, but in fact they know why. They know the boy was a drug dealer. They know that he violated in some way the code of the street and possibly messed up someone's money. "He did
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME / 139
somebody wrong," or he "thought he was slick." It was something. Otherwise, the youth's death simply makes no sense. "Why do people have to be like that?" they ask. The girls sit on their stoops and cry. Some people pass by and say not a word. Everyone knows that the community is in mourning. Nothing has to be said. All is communicated by the sad looks on people's faces. Girls and boys, friends of the deceased, hug one another spontaneously. Again they bond. This is a terrible thing, a tragedy.
These feelings persist all week. Then there is the wake, as friends
. and relatives gather at the boy's home. They sit with the family members and try to comfort them. They recall the boy's positive points. Even though they all know the negative things about him, they almost never mention them, It is widely known that the boy was a drug dealer, but nobody will speak about his drug dealing or how it might have led to his death. They all know the boy was involved in "the life," yet at this moment they deny it. It is not good to speak of the boy's negative attributes, even though, deep down inside, everyone is aware of them. They may even know who killed him. But no one comes forward to tell the authorities, because the police are not to be trusted; they are alien forces in the community. The people in the community discuss this among themselves. The boys, his homies, make oblique threats to the people who did this. It is their obligation to get even, to deal with the assassin, and they say as much by their looks. But in reality, over the next days and weeks, nothing is done. Most people leave it to the police, the authorities, although it is important to act as though they will get the person who did this. Around the stoops, they talk big. At the spot where this "went down," they talk big. Over time, though, nothing happens, and they really want to leave it alone.
Of course, whether they do in fact leave it alone depends on what kind of homie the boy was. If he was very popular, then a group might try to do something to pay back, and a deadly feud can start. More often, there is just talk about getting even. They say, "This wasn't the first shooting, and this won't be the last on these streets." As they are saying these things, gathering together and bonding, various graffiti artists of the neighborhood erect memorials for the young man. Some will paint their car windows with messages of hope
140 1 CODE OF THE STREET
like "Rock, RIP." Some make T-shirts with the boy's picture emblazoned across the front as a memorial to him.
The day of the funeral arrives. At 11 A.M. on a Monday, the community of friends and relatives gathers at the local funeral parlor. Many are dressed in black; the young people are mainly in black leather. Most people are young, from fifteen to twenty-eight or so, but there are also older women and men, some very well dressed, others not. Some of the people appear to be quite poor. There are ladies with big gold earrings and girls whose hair needs fixing. There are girls with babies in tow. A two-year-old walks about the lobby of the funeral home, and the mother has to run after him as others look on. A number of homeboys in Timberland boots and black leather jackets stand outside in the light rain, suspiciously eyeing everyone who arrives. They talk to one another and mill about. Two or three police cars are also there, just in case of trouble. It is the police's job to protect the peace, to maintain order, and the cops sit and watch the crowd come and go. They ask no questions, but people think they are there to investigate, too. Both the cops and the residents have seen this all before, and everyone knows what to expect.
An old head in the community says,
I knew the boy welL I always warned him about these drugs, but he couldn't resist. He knew. I told him I'd come to his funeral. And this is what I'm doing. It is a shame. But you know, it is the system. It is the system. No jobs. No education. And the drugs are all about. You realize what amount of drugs come in here [the neighborhood]. That's not us. It is them. The white people. They bring the drugs in here. They don't want us to have nothing. But this is what they give us. All this death and destruction. I know a boy did shoot him, but it was really the system. The
system.
Inside, it is standing room only. This must give the young man's mother and other family members some support. His father is nowhere to be seen, however, and the old head says, "He's in jaiL" The old head adds that most of the men are in jail. That's where they are. That's what happens to the men. The victim was just nineteen
DRUGS, VIOLENCE, AND STREET CRIME 1 141
years old. His friends are here, his homeboys and-girls. The girls wail and cry. The boy's mother cries and wails; this is a "drama for his mama," as community residents say. People whisper. A number of girls become so distraught that they get up and walk out of the service, tears streaming down their faces. The minister preaches about the young man. People sing sweet songs. There are testimonials about the boy's life, but here, too, nothing is said about the drugs or any of the other negative things he was involved with. Only the positive is accentuated.
FOUR
Tlbe Mating Game
H E problem of teenage pregnancy in the inner city draws as much attention and expressions of puzzlement from the wider community as do the problems of drugs and violence. These kinds of behavior appear to work against everything for which decent young Americans
strive: education, good jobs, a stable household, and middle-class values. Yet they make sense of a sort in the world of the street and in relation to the code that dominates it. Chapter 3 explored the relationship between the code and the underground economy of drugs and violence; this chapter looks at what young people, both decent and street, face as they grow up and find one another in this same world. It needs to be made clear that for these teenagers the benefits they perceive as deriving from their sexual behavior outweigh the risks. Their outlook on sex and pregnancy, like their outlook on violence, is strongly affected by their perceived options in life, and their sexual behavior follows rules very much shaped by the code of the street. Such perceptions are formed by the fortunes of immediate peers, family, and others with whom the youths identify. Among teenagers one of the most important factors working against pregnancy is their belief that they have something to lose by becoming parents at an early age; many believe they have something to gain.
,f
THE MATING GAME 1 143
THE SOCIAL CONTEXT
In many of these neighborhoods it is the strong, financially stable, tightly knit, "decent" family, often but not always nuclear, that works to instill high aspirations in children and expectations of a good future that would be undermined by youthful parenthood. With the connections and examples of such families and their representatives in a neighborhood, a youth may hope to prevail in life despite presumed obstacles-financial, cultural, or other. The presence of these models can serve as a powerful inspiration to those who may be otherwise disadvantaged, and it can work socially as a bastion against the street culture. This street culture is characterized by support for and encouragement of an alternative lifestyle that appears highly attractive to many adolescents, despite their family background. Its activities are centered on the "fast life" and may include early sexual activity, drug experimentation, and other forms of delinquency. But while relatively advantaged youths with clear options may dabble in this culture, becoming hip enough for social approval and then moving on, those with fewer apparent options and a limited sense of the future may more fully invest themselves in the culture, attempting to gain status according to its principles and norms. The relative prominence of this culture in the poorest inner-city neighborhoods brings about not only a prevalence of much antisocial behavior but the high incidence of teenage parenthood as well.
As has been an important theme throughout this volume, working poor residents, for social purposes, distinguish values they see as decent from those they associate with the street. Generally, decency is a highly regarded personal quality, and the assigning of a street orientation to a person is usually deeply discrediting. In the impoverished neighborhood the meanings of the terms sometimes overlap, compete, and even support one another; their interaction is highly complex. In fact, though, these distinctions operate more or less to identify social polarities; and particularly among the young their social referents may be used to distinguish the socially "lame" from the "hip."
Among residents of the impoverished inner-city neighborhood, the culture of decency is usually represented by close and extended
:.: .
.~
_;'
144 1 CODE OF THE STREET
families, often characterized by low-income financial stability. It emphasizes the work ethic, getting ahead, or "having something" as important goals. Decency becomes an organizing principle against which others are then judged. The family unit, often with the aid of a strong religious component, instills in its members a certain degree of self-respect, civility, and propriety and even, despite prevailing impoverished living conditions, a positive view of the future. Many such decent families become highly protective of their children and motivated to leave the neighborhood. Those who cannot afford to leave try to accomplish socially what they cannot accomplish otherwise: they attempt to isolate their children from the children whom they associate with the street, for they believe that teenage pregnancy, early involvement with drugs, crime, and violence, and other difficulties begin in early childhood, in deep involvement with the play groups on the streets. Decent local role models, male or female "old heads," sometimes through direct mentoring, encourage young people to see possibilities and take advantage of opportunities available to people like themselves.
To negotiate this setting effectively, particularly its public places, one must to some degree be hip or down or streetwise, showing the ability to see through troublesome street situations and to prevail. To survive in the setting is thus to be somewhat adept at handling the streets, but to be streetwise is to risk one's claim to decency; for many youths decency is often associated with being lame or square. In growing up, young people of the neighborhood must therefore walk something of a social tightrope, coming to terms with the street. For instance, youths who go away to college and return are sometimes taunted and challenged by their more street-oriented peers with the mocking question "Can you still hang?" (Can you still handle the streets?) Those who would be socially mobile often feel they must be hip enough to get along with their more street-oriented peers, but square enough to keep out of trouble or avoid those habits and situations that would hurt their chances for social mobility or even simple survival. It is in this sense that many adolescents, simply by growing up in an underclass neighborhood, are at special risk.
Youths are at risk in other ways as well. Many observe the would-be legitimate role models around them and tend to find them unworthy
THE MATING GAME 1 145
of emulation. Conventional hard work seems not to have paid off for the old, and the relatively few hardworking people of the neighborhood appear to be struggling to survive. At the same time unconventional role models beckon the youths to a thriving underground economy, which promises "crazy" money, along with a certain thrill, power, and prestige. Streetwise and severely alienated young men can easily deal in the drug trade, part-time or full-time, as was shown in the preceding chapter. They may even draw their intimate female counterparts along with them, "hooking them up," and smoothly initiating them into prostitution.
Given that persistent poverty is so widespread in the neighborhood, for many residents, particularly the young, values of decency and law abidingness are more easily compromised. Needing money badly, these people feel social pressure and see the chance for making sometimes huge sums outside their front door. Because of all the vice and crime in the neighborhood, those who can leave tend to do so, isolating the very poor and the working poor even more. This exodus further demoralizes neighborhood residents and makes them more vulnerable to a number of ills, including rising drug use and teenage pregnancy.
The manufacturing jobs that used to provide opportunities for young people in inner-city neighborhoods and strongly, although indirectly, supported values of decency and conventionality have largely vanished from the economy, replaced by thousands of lowpaying service jobs often located in the suburbs, beyond the reach of poor neighborhoods. These changes have damaged the financial health of the inner city and undermined the quality of available role models. The trust and perceptions of decency that once prevailed in the community are increasingly absent. In their place, street values, represented by the fast life, violence, and crime, become more prominent.
The consequences of these changes can be illustrated by their effect on one of the community's most important institutions, the relationship between old heads and young boys. The old head was once the epitome of decency in inner-city neighborhoods. Thanks to a vibrant manufacturing economy, he had relatively stable means. His acknowledged role in the community was to teach, support, encour-
146 1 CODE OF THE STREET
age, and, in effect, socialize young men to meet their responsibilities regarding work, family life, the law, and common decency. Young boys and single men in their late teens or twenties had confidence in the old head's ability to impart practical advice. Very often he played surrogate father to those who needed his attention and moral support.
But as meaningful employment becomes increasingly scarce for young men of the neighborhood and the expansion of the drug culture offers opportunities for quick money, the old head is losing prestige and authority. Streetwise boys are concluding that his lessons a bout life and work ethic are no longer relevant, and a new role model is emerging. The embodiment of the street, this man is young, often a product of the street gang, and indifferent, at best, to the law and traditional values.
Traditional female role models, often paragons of decency, have also suffered decreased authority. Mature women, often grandmothers themselves, once effectively served the community as auxiliary parents who publicly augmented and supported the relationship between parent and child. These women would discipline children and act as role models for young women, exerting a certain degree of social controL As the neighborhoods grow ever more drug infested, ordinary young mothers and their children are among the most obvious casualties. The traditional female old head becomes stretched and overburdened; her role has become more complicated as she often steps in as a surrogate mother for her grandchildren or a stray neighborhood child.
These women universally lament the proliferation of drugs in the community, the "crack whores" who walk the neighborhood, the sporadic violence that now and then claims innocent bystanders. The open-air drug sales, the many pregnant girls, the incivility, the crime, the many street kids, and the diminished number of upstanding (as the residents say) role models make it difficult for old and young alike to maintain a positive outlook, to envision themselves beyond the immediate situation. As neighborhood deterioration feeds on itself, decent law-aiding people become increasingly demoralized; many of those who are capable leave, while some succumb to the street.
This is the social context in which the incidence of teenage preg-
THE MATING GAME 1 147
nancy must be seen, complicated by peer pressure, ignorance, passion, luck, intent, desire for conquest, religion, love, and even deep hostility between young men and women. It is nothing less than the cultural manifestation of persistent urban poverty. It is a mean adaptation to blocked opportunities and profound lack, a grotesque form of coping by young people constantly undermined by a social system that historically has limited their social options and, until recently, rejected their claims to full citizenship.
The lack of family-sustaining jobs denies many young men the possibility of forming an economically self-reliant family, the traditional American mark of manhood. Partly in response, many young black men form strong attachments to peer groups that emphasize sexual prowess as proof of manhood, with babies as evidence. These groups congregate on street corners, boasting about their sexual exploits and deriding conventional family life. They encourage this orientation by rewarding members who are able to get over the sexual defenses of women. For many the object is to hit and run while maintaining personal freedom and independence from conjugal ties; when they exist, the ties should be on the young man's terms. Concerned with immediate gratification, some boys want babies to demonstrate their ability to control a girl's mind and body.
A sexual game emerges as girls are lured by the (usually older) boys' vague but convincing promises of love and sometimes marriage. At the same time the "fast" adolescent street orientation presents early sexual experience and promiscuity as a virtue. But when the girls submit, they often end up pregnant and abandoned. However, for many such girls who have few other perceivable options, motherhood, accidental or otherwise, becomes a rite of passage to adulthood. Although an overwhelming number may not be actively trying to have babies, many are not actively trying to prevent having them. One of the reasons for this may be the strong fundamentalist religious orientation of many poor blacks, which emphasizes the role of fate in life. If something happens, it happens; if something was meant to be, then let it be, and "God will find a way." Willi the dream of a mate, a girl may be indifferent to the possibility of pregnancy, even if it is not likely that pregnancy will lead to marriage. So the pregnant girl can look forward to a certain affirmation, particularly after the
148 / CODE OF THE STREET
baby arrives-if not from the father, then from her peer group, from her family, from the Lord.
Thus, if it becomes obvious that the young father's promises are
empty, the young woman has a certain amount of help in settling for the role of single parent. A large part of her identity is provided by the baby under her care and guidance, and for many street-oriented girls there is no quicker way to grow up. Becoming a mother can be a strong play for authority, maturity, and respect, but it is also a shortsighted and naive gamble because the girl often fails to realize that her life will be suddenly burdened and her choices significandy
limited.
In these circumstances outlook, including a certain amount of edu-
cation, wisdom, and mentoring from decent role models, becomes extremely important. The strong, so-called decent family, often with a husband and wife, sometimes with a strong-willed single mother helped by close relatives and neighbors, may instill in girls a sense of hope. These families can hope to reproduce the relatively strong family form, which is generally regarded in the neighborhood as advantaged. The two parents or close kin are known as hard workers, striving to have something and strongly emphasizing the work ethic, common decency, and social and moral responsibility. Though the pay may be low, the family often can count on a regular income, giving its members the sense that decent values have paid off for
them.
A girl growing up in such a family, or even living in close social
and physical proximity to some, may have strong support from a mother, a father, friends, and neighbors who not only care very much whether she becomes pregnant but are also able to share knowledge about negotiating life beyond the confines of the neighborhood. The girl may then approach social mobility or at least delay pregnancy. In these circumstances she has a better chance to cultivate a positive sense of the future and a healthy self-respect; she may come to feel she has a great deal to lose by becoming an unwed parent.
Contributing strongly to this outlook are ministers, teachers, parents, and upwardly mobile peers. At times a successful older sister sets a standard and expectations for younger siblings, who may attempt to follow her example. The community and the decent family
THE MATING GAME / 149
help place the successful one high in the sibling hierarchy by praising her achievements. At the very least, such support groups can strongly communicate their expectations that the girl will do something with her life other than have a baby out of wedlock-that is, they subscribe to and seek to pass on middle-class values.
Although the basic sexual codes of inner-city youths may not differ fundamentally from those of other young people, the social, economic, and personal consequences of adolescent sexual conduct vary profoundly for different social classes. Like all adolescents, inner-city youths are subject to intense, hard-to-control urges. Sexual relations, exploitive and otherwise, are common among middle-class teenagers as well, but most middle-class youths take a stronger interest in their future and know what a pregnancy can do to derail it. In contrast, many inner-city adolescents see no future that can be derailed-no hope for a tomorrow much different from today-hence they see little to lose by having a child out of wedlock.
Sexual conduct among these young people is to a large extent the product of the meshing of two opposing drives, that of the boys and that of the girls. For a variety of reasons tied to the socioeconomic situation, their goals are often diametrically opposed, and sex becomes a contest between them. As was noted above, to many boys sex is an important symbol of local social status; sexual conquests become so many notches on one's belt. Many of the girls offer sex as a gift in bargaining for the attentions of a young man. As boys and girls try to use each other to achieve their own ends, the reality that emerges sometimes approximates their goals, but it often brings frustration and disillusionment and perpetuates or even worsens their original situation.
Each sexual encounter generally has a winner and a loser. The girls have a dream, the boys a desire. The girls dream of being carried off by a Prince Charming who will love them, provide for them, and give them a family. The boys often desire either sex without commitment or babies without responsibility for them. It becomes extremely difficult for the boys, in view of their employment prospects, to see themselves taking on the responsibilities of conventional fathers and husbands. Yet they know what the girls want and play that role to get sex. In accepting a boy's advances, a girl may think she is maneu-
150/ CODE OF THE STREET
vering him toward a commitment or that her getting pregnant is the nudge he needs to marry her and give her the life she wants. What she does not see is that the boy, despite his claims, is often incapable of giving her that life, for in reality he has little money, few prospects for earning much, and no wish to be tied to a woman who will have a say in what he does. His loyalty is to his peer group and its norms. When the girl becomes pregnant, the boy tends to retreat from her, although, with the help of pressure from her family and peers, she may ultimately succeed in getting him to take some responsibility for the child.
SEX: THE GAME AND THE DREAM
To many inner-city male youths, the most important people in their lives are members of their peer groups. They set the standards for conduct, and it is important to live up to those standards, to look good in their eyes. The peer group places a high value on sex, especially what middle-class people call casual sex. But though sex may be casual in terms of commitment to the partner, it is usually taken quite seriously as a measure of the boy's worth. A young man's primary goal is thus to find as many willing females as possible. The more "pussy" he gets, the more esteem accrues to him. But the young man not only must "get some"; he also must prove he is getting it. This leads him to talk about girls and sex with any other young man who will listen. Because of the implications sex has for their local social status and esteem, the young men are ready to be regaled with graphic tales of one another's sexual exploits.
The lore of the street says there is a contest going on between the boy and the girl even before they meet. To the young man the woman becomes, in the most profound sense, a sexual object. Her body and mind are the object of a sexual game, to be won for his personal aggrandizement. Status goes to the winner, and sex is prized as a testament not of love but of control over another human being. The goal of the sexual conquests is to make a fool of the young woman.
The young men describe their successful campaigns as "getting
'!III
THE MATING GAME /151
over" young women's sexual defenses. To get over, the young man must devise a "game," whose success is gauged by its acceptance by his peers and especially by women. Relying heavily on gaining the girl's confidence, the game consists of the boy's full presentation of self, including his dress, grooming, looks, dancing ability, and conversation, or "rap."
The rap is the verbal element of the game, whose object is to inspire sexual interest. It embodies the whole person and is thus crucial to success. Among peer-group members, raps are assessed, evaluated, and divided into weak and strong. The assessment of the young man's rap is, in effect, the evaluation of his whole game. Convincing proof of effectiveness is the "booty": the amount of sex the young man appears to be getting. Young men who are known to fail with women often face ridicule from the group, having their raps labeled "tissue paper," their games seen as inferior, and their identities devalued.
After developing a game over time, through trial and error, a young man is ever on the lookout for players, young women on whom to perfect it. To find willing players is to gain affirmation of self, and the boy's status in the peer group may go up if he can seduce a girl considered to be "choice," "down," or streetwise. On encountering an attractive girl, the boy typically sees a challenge: he attempts to "run his game." The girl usually is fully aware that a game is being attempted; but if the young man is sophisticated or "smooth," or if the girl is inexperienced, she may be duped.
In many instances the game plays on the dream that many innercity girls harbor from their early teenage years. The popular love songs they listen to, usually from the age of seven or eight, are imbued with a wistful air, promising love and ecstasy to someone "just like you." This dream involved having a boyfriend, a fiance, or a husband and the fairy-tale prospect of living happily ever after with one's children in a nice house in a good neighborhood-essentially the dream of the middle-class American lifestyle, complete with nuclear family. It is nurtured by daily watching of television soap operas, or "stories," as the women call them. The heroes and heroines may be white and upper middle class, but such characteristics only make them more attractive. Many girls dream of becoming the com-
152 / CODE OF THE STREET
fortable middle-class housewife portrayed on television, even though they see that their peers can only approximate that role.
When a girl is approached by a boy, her faith in the dream clouds her view of the situation. A romantically successful boy has a knack for knowing just what is on a girl's mind, what she wants from life, and how she hopes to obtain it. The young man's age-he may be four or five years older than the girl-gives him an authoritative edge and makes his readiness to "settle down" more credible. By enacting this role, he can shape the interaction, calling up the resources he needs to play the game successfully. He fits himself to be the man she wants him to be, but this identity may be exaggerated and temporary, maintained only until he gets what he wants. Essentially, he shows her the side of himself that he knows she wants to see, that represents what she wants in a man. For instance, he will sometimes "walk through the woods" with the girl: he might visit at her home and go to church with her family or even do "manly" chores around her house, showing that he is an "upstanding young man." But all of this may only be part of his game, and after he gets what he wants, he may cast off this aspect of his presentation and reveal something of his true self, as he flits to other women and reverts to behavior more characteristic of his everyday life-that which is centered on
his peer group.
The girl may refuse to accept reports of the boy's duplicity; she
must see for herself. Until she completely loses confidence in the young man, she may find herself strongly defending him to friends and family who question her choice. She may know she is being played, but given the effectiveness of the boy's game-his rap, his presentation of self, his looks, his age, his wit, his dancing ability, and his general popularity-infatuation often rules.
Aware of many abandoned young mothers, many a girl fervently hopes that her man is the one who will be different. In addition, her peer group supports her pursuit of the dream, implicitly upholding her belief in the young man's good faith. When a girl does become engaged to be married, there is much excitement, with relatives and friends oohing and aahing over their prospective life. But seldom does this happen, because for the immediate future, the boy is generally not interested in "playing house," as his peers derisively refer to
domestic life.
THE MATING GAME 1 153
While pursuing his game, the boy often feigns love and caring, pretending to be a dream man and acting as though he has the best intentions toward the girl. Ironically, in many cases the young many does indeed have good intentions. He may feel profound ambivalence, mainly because such intentions conflict with the values of his peer group and his lack of confidence in his ability to support a family. At times this reality and the male peer group's values are placed in sharp focus by his own deviance from them, as he incurs sanctions for allowing a girl to "rule" him or gains positive reinforcement for keeping her in line. The group sanctions its members by pinning on them demeaning labels such as "pussy," "pussy whipped," or "househusband," causing them to posture in a way that clearly distances them from such characterizations.
At times, however, a boy earnestly attempts to be a dream man, with honorable intentions of "doing right" by the young woman, of marrying her and living happily ever after according to their version of middle-class propriety. But the reality of his poor employment prospects makes it hard for him to follow through.
Unable to realize his vision of himself as the young woman's provider in the American middle-class tradition, which the peer group often labels "square," the young man may become even more committed to his game. In his ambivalence he may go so far as to make plans with the girls, including going house-hunting and shopping for furniture. A twenty-three-year-old woman who at seventeen became a single parent of a baby girl said this:
Yeah, they'll [boys will] take you out. Walk you down to Center City, movies, window shops. [laughs] They point in the window, "Yeah, I'm gonna get you this. Wouldn't you like this? Look at that nice livin' room set." Then they want to take you to his house, go to his room: "Let's go over to my house, watch some TV." Next thing you know, your clothes is off and you in bed havin' sex, you know.
Such shopping trips carry important psychological implications for the relationship, serving as a salve that heals wounds and erases doubt about the young man's intentions. The young woman may report to her parents or friends about her last date or shopping trip, describe
154 1 CODE OF THE STREET
the furniture they priced and the supposed payment terms. She continues to have hope, which he fuels by "going with" her, letting her and others know that she is his "steady" -though for him to maintain status within his peer group, she should not be his only known girl. For the young man, however, making plans and successive shopping trips may be elements of the game-often nothing more than a stalling device to keep the girl hanging on so that he can continue to
receive her social sexual favors.
In many cases the more the young man seems to exploit the young
woman, the higher is his regard within the peer group. To consolidate his status, he feels moved at times to show others that he is in control, which is not always easy to accomplish. Many young women are strong, highly independent, and assertive, and a contest of wills between the two may develop, with argUl11ents and fights in public over the most trivial issues. She is not a simple victim, and the roles in the relationship are not to be taken for granted but must be negotiated repeatedly. To prove his dominance unequivocally, he may attempt to "break her down" in front of her friends and his, "showing the world who's boss." If the young woman wants him badly enough, she will meekly go along with the performance for the implicit promise of his continued attentions, if not love. A more permanent relationship approximating the woman's dream of matrimony and domestic tranquillity is often what is at stake in her mind, though she
may know better.
As the contest continues and the girl hangs on, she may seem to
have been taken in by the boy's game, particularly by his convincing rap, his claims of commitlllent to her and her well-being. But in this contest anything is fair. The girl may play along, becoming manipulative and aggressive, or the boy may lie, cheat, or otherwise misrepresent himself to obtain or retain her favors. In many of the sexual encounters informants relate, one person is seen as the winner, the other as the loser. As one male informant said, "They trickin' them good. Either the woman is trickin' the man, or the man is trickin' the woman. Good! They got a trick. She's thinkin' it's (the relationship'S] one thing; he playing another game, you know. He rhinkin' she all right, and she doing somethin' else.
This part of Anderson’s work was really interesting to me. Love, as we know it from the perspective of UVA students who most likely have the resources and means to go here and receive an education, looks nothing like this. In the game, there are winners and losers, love is about validating yourself through controlling a woman if you’re a young man, or being uncontrollable or marriage material if you are a woman. There are end goals and means to get them that go beyond our depictions of traditional love. Men will be unfaithful, women will slip on their birth control, etc. It really does just boil down to a game itself. This part was interesting to me mainly because you would not see the effects of losing work and not being able to ensure the American dream for your partner as reaching so far as being a part of traditional mating practices. Anderson is suggesting that these practices come from the problems that go as far back as what Du Bois identified in Philadelphia in 1899. The game makes relationships about social status and someone’s relationships more then about anything else, which most likely leads to the stereotype of the not present father and single mother.
In the social atlllosphere of the peer group, the quality of the boy's
THE MATING GAME 1 155
game emerges as a central issue, and whatever lingering ambivalence he feels about his commitment to acting as husband and provider may be resolved in favor of peer-group status. In pursuing his game, the young man often uses a supporting cast of other women, at times playing one off against the other. For example, he may orchestrate a situation in which he is seen with another woman. Or, secure in the knowledge that he has other women to fall back on, he might start a fight with his steady in order to upset her sense of complacency, thus creating dynamic tension in the relationship, which he uses to his own advantage. The young woman thus may begin to doubt her hold on the man, which can bring about a precipitous drop in her selfesteem.
The boy may feel proud because he thinks he is making a fool of the girl, and when he is confident of his dominance, he may "play" the young woman, "running his game," making her love him. He may brag that he is "playing her like a fiddle," meaning he is in full control of the situation. Though his plan sometimes backfires and he looks like the fool, his purpose is often to prove he "has the girl's nose open," that she is sick with love for him. He aims to maneuver her into a state of blissful emotionality, showing that she, not he, is the weak member of the relationship.
During this emotional turmoil the young girl may well become careless about birth control, which is seen by the community, especially the males, as being her responsibility. She may believe the boy's rap, becoming convinced that he means what he says about taking care of her, that her welfare is his primary concern. Moreover, she wants desperately to believe that if she becomes pregnant, he will marry her or at least be more obligated to her than to others he has been "messing with." Perhaps all he needs is a little nudge. The girl may think little about the job market and the boy's prospects. She may underestimate peer-group influences and the effect of other "ladies" that she knows or suspects are in his life. If she is in love, she may be sure that a child and the profound obligation a child implies will forge such a strong bond that all the other issues will go
. away. Her thinking is often clouded by the prospect of winning at the game of love. Becoming pregnant can be a way to fulfill the persistent dream of bliss.
156 1 CODE OF THE STREET
For numerous women, when the man turns out to be unobtainable, just having his baby is enough. Sometimes a woman seeks out a popular and "fine," or physically attractive, young man in hopes that his good looks will grace her child, resulting in a "prize"-a beautiful baby. Moreover, becoming pregnant can become an important part of the competition for the attentions or even delayed affections of a young man-a profound, if socially shortsighted, way of making claims on him.
PREGNANCY
Up to the point of pregnancy, given the norms of his peer group, the young man could simply be said to be messing around. Pregnancy suddenly introduces an element of reality into the relationship. Lifealtering events have occurred, and the situation is usually perceived as serious. The girl is pregnant, and he could be held legally responsible for the child's long-term financial support. If the couple were unclear about their intentions before, things may now crystallize. She now considers him seriously as a mate. Priorities begin to emerge in the boy's mind. He has to decide whether to claim the child as his or to shun the woman who has been the object of his supposed affections.
To own up to a pregnancy is to go against the peer-group street ethic of hit and run. Other street values at risk of being flouted include the subordination of women and freedom from formal conjugal ties, and some young men are not interested in "taking care of somebody else" when it means having less for themselves. In this social context of persistent poverty, they have come to devalue the conventional marital relationship, viewing long-term ties with women a burden and children as even more of one. Moreover, a young man wants to "come as I want and go as I please," indulging important values of freedom and independence. Accordingly, from the perspective of the street peer group, any such male-female relationship should be on the man's terms. Thus, in understanding the boy's relationship to the girl, his attitudes toward his limited financial
THE MATING GAME 1 157
ability and his need for personal freedom should not be underestimated.
Another important attitude of the street group is that most girls have multiple sexual partners. Whether or not this claim is true in a particular case, a common working conception says it holds for young women in general. It is a view with which many young men approach females, initially assuming they are socially and morally deficient, though many are willing to adjust their view as they start to "deal" with the woman and to get to know her intimately. The double standard is at work, and for any amount of sexual activity women are more easily discredited than men.
To be sure, the fact that there is a fair amount of promiscuity among the young men and women creates doubts about paternity and socially complicates many relationships. In self-defense the young men often choose to deny fatherhood; few are willing to own up to a pregnancy they can reasonably question. Among their streetoriented peers, the young men gain ready support for this position; a man who is "tagged" with fatherhood has been caught in the "trick bag." The boy's first desire, though he may know better, is to attribute the pregnancy to someone else.
The boy may be genuinely confused and uncertain about his role in the pregnancy, feeling great ambivalence and apprehension over his impending fatherhood. If he admits paternity and does right by the girl, his peer group will likely label him a chump, a square, or a fool. If he does not, he faces few social sanctions and may even win points for his defiant stand, with his peers viewing him as fooling the mother and getting over her. But ambivalence may also playa role, for men who father children out of wedlock achieve a certain regard, as long as they are not "caught" and made to support a family financially on something other than their own terms. Hence the boy may give-and benefit from-mixed messages: one to the girl and perhaps the authorities, another to his peer group. To resolve his ambivalence and allay his apprehension, the boy will at this point perhaps attempt to discontinue or cool his relationship with the expectant mother, particularly as she begins to show clear signs of pregnancy.
At the insistence of her family and for her own peace of mind, the young woman wants badly to identify the father of her child. When
158 1 CODE OF THE STREET
the baby is born, she may, out of desperation, arbitrarily designate a likely young man as the father; at times it may be simply a lover who is gainfully employed. As I have mentioned, there may be genuine doubt about paternity. This atmosphere often produces charges and countercharges; the appointed young man usually either denies responsibility and eases himself out of the picture or accepts it and plays his new role of father part-time.
In the past, before welfare reform, the young woman sometimes had an incentive not to identify the father, even though she and the local community knew whose baby it was, for a check from the welfare office was much more dependable than the irregular support payments of a sporadically employed youth. With today's new welfare reality, there is much more incentive to publicly identify the father and try hard to hold him accountable. Moreover, the new welfare laws give sexually active young people pause and will likely work to decrease the long-term incidence of out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancy. In this new context sanctions are more strongly applied, if not on moral grounds, then for financial and legal considerations. In these circumstances the young map. has greater incentive to do right by the young woman and to try out the role of husband and father, often acceding to the woman's view of the matter and working to establish a family.
But such young men often are only marginal members of the street-oriented peer groups, if they hang with these groups at all. Instead, they tend to emerge from decent, nurturing families with positive outlooks. The young man is likely to be further advantaged and "blessed" with what community members refer to as a "decent daddy" or with a close relationship with a caring old head who looked out for and helped raise him. Religious observance is often also an important factor in the lives of such young men, and locally they are viewed as decent people. In addition, these men usually are employed, have a positive sense of the future, and tend to enjoy a deep and abiding relationship with the young woman that often can withstand the trauma of youthful pregnancy.
Barring such a resolution, however, a street-oriented young man may rationalize his marriage as a "trap" into which the woman has lured him. This viewpoint may be seen as his attempt to make simul-
THE MATING GAME 1 159
taneous claims on the values of the street group and those of conventional society. As one young man said in an interview,
My wife done that to me. Before we got married, when we had our first baby, she thought, well, hey, if she had the baby, then she got me, you know. And that's the way she done me. [She] thought that's gon' trap me. That I'm all hers after she done have this baby. So, a lot of women, they think like that. Now, I was the type of guy, if I know it was my baby, I'm taking care of my baby. My 01' lady [wife], she knowed that. She knowed that anything that was mine, I'm taking care of mine. This is why she probably wouldn't mess around or nothing, 'cause she wanted to lock me up.
In general, however, persuading the youth to become an "honest man" is not simple. It is often a very complicated social affair that involves cajoling, social pressure, and at times physical threats.
An important factor in determining the boy's behavior is the presence of the girl's father in her home. When a couple first begin to date, some fathers will "sit the boy down" and have a ritual talk; single mothers may play this role as well, sometimes more aggressively than fathers. Certain fathers with dOmineering dispositions will "as a man" make unmistakable claims on the dwelling, informing the boy, "This is my house, I pay the bills here," and asserting that all activities occurring under its roof are his (the father's) singular business. In such a household the home has a certain defense. At issue here essentially are male turf rights, a principle intuitively understood by the young suitor and the girl's father. The boy may feel a certain frustration owing to the need to balance his desire to run his game against his fear of the girl's father.
For the boy often can identify respectfully with the father, thinking about how he might behave if the shoe were on the other foot. Both "know something"-that is, they are aware that each has a position to defend. The boy knows in advance that he will have to answer to the girl's father and the family unit more generally. If the girl becomes pregnant, he will be less likely to leave her sUll1ffiarily. Furthermore, if the girl has brothers at home who are about her age or
1601 CODE OF THE STREET
older, they too may influence his behavior. Such men, as well as uncles and male cousins, particularly if they have respect on the street, not only possess a degree of moral authority but also may offer the believable threat of violence. Concerning the traditional father's role and his responsibility to protect his daughters, the Reverend Mosby, a seventy-five-year-old minister, had this to say:
If a boy got a girl pregnant in my day, he married her. That's what I had to do. She was my best girl, so I didn't have no problem with that. When she became pregnant, I just went on and got married. It wasn't no problem. Her father said, "What you gonna do about it? Are you gonna do the honorable thing or what? I wanta know." You gotta tell him something. "Put yourself in a man's shoes. I expect you to act like a man." You ain't gonna tell Daddy you wasn't going to marry his little girl. But Daddy's not around [today] now when daughter gets pregnant. The daddy say, "Look, if you don't many my daughter, you're gonna have to deal with me." But if Mama gonna say, "You gonna have to deal with me," you don't have no problem with it. It doesn't put any fear into you. I can take care of her [the boy might think]. But he doesn't know whether he can take care of Daddy or not. 'Cause Daddy ain't gonna play fair, you know what I mean? Mama might play fair. Daddy ain't gonna play fair-Daddy gonna get the shotgun. Daddy tells him right in the front, "Now, I want you to take care of my little girl. You're dating her, and I'm not gonna let any other boy come here." He's trying to give you a message: "Now, if you mess up, I expect you to clean up."
When you were courting, you hadda go meet the family. And Daddy and Mama looked you over, and if they approved, then you could come to the house, calling on their daughter. Today, the girl is out there courting, and the mama don't know nothing about it. She don't even know the boy. And she ain't got timeshe's so busy courting herself, she ain't got time to find out who her daughter'S seeing. And then sometimes-going to the bar with her daughter. Especially if she's had a baby at seventeen and eighteen, there's not too much difference in the age, right?
THE MATING GAME 1 161
I see some of the mamas and daughters wandering in the bar. There's no way in the world a child of mine could drink. When I was going to the bar-I never went [to] them that much-but when I was going to the bar, I couldn't go in the bar with her. Because I had to have that respect.
And as one young man said in an interview,
The boys kinda watch theyself more [when a father is present].
Yeah, there's a lot of that going on. The daddy, they'll clown [act out violence] about them young girls. They'll hurt somebody about they daughters. Other relatives, too. They'll all get into it. The boy know they don't Want him messing over they sister. That guy will probably take care of that girl better than the average one out there in the street.
In such circumstances, not only does the boy think twice about running his game, but also the girl thinks twice about allowing him to do so.
A strongly related important defense against youthful pregnancy is the "decent" inner-city family unit. Two parents, together with the extended network of cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, nieces, and nephews, can form a durable team, a viable supporr group engaged to fight in a COmmitted manner the problems confronting inner-city teenagers, including street violence, drugs, crime, pregnancy, and poverty. This unit, when it does endure, tends to be equipped with a survivor's mentality. Its weathering of a good many storms has given it wisdom and strength. As has been argued throughout this volume, the parents are generally known in the community as decent, but more than this, they tend to be strict on their children; they impose curfews and tight supervision, demanding to know their children's whereabouts at all times. Detefll1ined that their offspring will not become casualties of the inner-city environment, they scrutinize their children's associates, rejecting those who seem to be "no good" and encouraging others who seem on their way to "amount to something."
By contrast, in domestic situations where there is only one adult-
162 1 CODE OF THE STREET
say, a woman with two or three teenage daughters-the dwelling may be viewed, superficially at least, as an unprotected nest. The local street boys may be attracted to the home as a challenge, just to test it out, to see if they can get over by charming or seducing the women who live there. In such a setting a man-the figure the boys are prepared to respect-is not there to keep them in line. Girls in this vulnerable situation may become pregnant earlier than those living in homes more closely resembling nuclear families. A young man
made the following comments:
I done seen where four girls grow up under their mama. The mama turn around and she got a job between 3 P.M. and 11 P.M. These little kids, now they grow up like this. Mama working three to eleven o'clock at night. They kind a raise theyself. What they know? By the time they get thirteen or fourteen, they trying everything under the sun. And they ain't got nobody to stop 'em. Mama gone. Can't nobody else tell 'em what to do. Hey, all of 'em pregnant by age sixteen. And they do it 'cause they wanta get out on they own. They can get they own baby, they get they own (welfare) check, they get they own apartment. They wanta get away from Mama.
THE BABY CLUB
In the absence of a strong family unit, a close-knit group of "street girls" often' fills a social, moral, and family void in the young girl's life. With the help of her peers and sometimes older siblings and the usually very limited supervision of parents, after a certain age she primarily raises herself. On the street she plays seemingly innocent games, but through play she becomes socialized into a peer group. Many of these neighborhood "street kids" are left to their own devices, staying out late at night, sometimes until one or two in the morning, even on school nights. By the age of ten or twelve, many are aware of their bodies and, according to some residents, are beginning to engage in sexual relations, with very little knowledge about
THE MATING GAME 1 163
their bodies and even less about the long-term consequences of their behavior.
The street kids become increasingly committed to their peer groups, surviving by their wits, being cool, and having fun. Some girls begin to have babies by age fifteen or sixteen, and soon others follow. Many of them see this behavior as rewarded, at least in the short run.
As the girl becomes more deeply involved, the group helps shape her dreams, social agenda, values, and aspirations. The hip group operates as an in crowd in the neighborhood, although decent people refer to its members as fast and slick and believe they have tried everything at an early age. Girls raised by strict parents are considered by this hip crowd to be lame or square and may suffer social ostracism or at least ridicule, thus segmenting the neighborhood even further. The street peer group becomes a powerful social magnet, drawing in girls only loosely connected to other sources of social and emotional support, particularly the weak and impoverished ghetto family typically headed by a single female.
When some of the girls get pregnant, it becomes important for others to have a baby, especially as their dream of a "good life," usually with an older man twenty-one or twenty-two, begins to unravel. They may settle for babies as a consolation prize, enhancing and rationalizing motherhood as they attempt to infuse their state with value. Some people speak of these girls as "sprouting babies," and having a baby may become an expected occurrence.
As the babies arrive, the peer group takes on an even more provocative feature: the early play and social groups develop into "baby clubs." The girls give one another social support, praising each other's babies. But they also use their babies to compete, on the premise that the baby is an extension of the mother and reflects directly on her. This competition, carried on at social gatherings such as birthday parties, weddings, church services, and spontaneous encounters of two or more people, often takes the form of comparing one baby to another. First the baby's features are noted, usually along the lines of "spoiledness," texture of hair, skin color, and grooming and dress, as well as general "cuteness." To enhance her chances at such competitions and status games, the young mother often feels
1641 CODE OF THE STREET
the need to dress her baby in the latest and most expensive clothes that fit (rather than in a size larger, which the baby can grow into): a fifty-dollar sweater for a three-month-old or forty-dollar Reebok sneakers for a six-month-old. This status-oriented behavior provokes criticism from more mature people, including mothers and grandmothers. As one forty-five-year-old grandmother said,
Oh, they can't wait until check day [when welfare checks arrive) so they can go to the store. I listen at 'em, talking about what they gon' buy this time. [They say.] "Next time my check come, I'm gon' buy my baby this, I'm gon' buy my baby that." And that's exactly what they will do-expensive stores, too. The more expensive, the better; some will buy a baby an expensive outfit that the baby only gon' wear for a few months. I seen a girl go ... went out, and she paid, I think she paid forty-five dollars for a outfit. I think the baby was about six weeks old. Now, how long was that child gon' wear that outfit? For that kind of money. They do these silly; silly things.
And as a twenty-three-year-old woman college graduate from the community (who did not become pregnant) said,
Once there was a sale at the church at Thirteenth and Beaufort. A friend of mine had some baby clothes for sale. They were some cute clothes, but they weren't new. They were seat suits, older things. The young girls would just pass them by. Now, the older women, the grandmothers, would come by and buy them for their grandchildren. But the girls, sixteen or seventeen, had to have a decked-out baby. No hand-me-downs. Some would pay up to forty dollars for a pair of Nike sneakers. They go to Carl's [a downtown children's boutique). And the babies sometimes are burning up in the clothes, but they dress them up anyway. The baby is like a doll in some ways. They [young mothers) sometimes do more to clothe the baby than to feed the
baby.
But this seeming irresponsibility of the young mother evolves in a logical way. For a young woman who fails to secure a strong com-
THE MATING GAME 1 165
mitmentfrom a man, a baby becomes a partial fulfillment of the good life. The baby club deflects criticism of the young mothers and gives them a certain status. "Looking good" negates the generalized notion that a teenage mother has messed up her life, and amid this deprivation nothing is more important than to show others you are doing all right.
In public gathering places the mothers lobby for compliments, smiles, and nods of approval and feel very good when they are forthcoming, since they signal affirmation and pride. On Sundays the new little dresses and suits come out and the cutest babies are passed around, and this attention serves as a social measure of the person. The young mothers who form such baby clubs develop an ideology counter to that of more conventional society, one that not only approves of but enhances their position. In effect, they work to create value and status by inverting that of the girls who do not become pregnant. The teenage mother derives status from her baby; hence her preoccupation with the impression that the baby makes and her willingness to spend inordinately large sums toward that end.
Having come to terms with the street culture, many of these young women feel an overwhelming desire to grow up, a passage best expressed by the ability to get out on their own. In terms of traditional inner-city experience, this means setting up one's own household, preferably with a good man through marriage and family. Sometimes a young woman attempts to accomplish this by purposely becoming pregnant, perhaps hoping the baby's father will marry her and help her realize her dream of domestic respectability. However, an undetermined, but some say growing, number of young women, unimpressed with the lot of young single men, want to establish households on their own, without the help or the burden of a man.
Sometimes a young woman, far from becoming victimized, will take charge of the situation and manipulate the man for her own ends, perhaps extracting money from him for "spending her time." At parties and social gatherings, such women may initiate the sexual relations, asserting some control over the situation from the start. Some men say that such a "new" woman is "just out to use you"; she becomes pregnant "for the [welfare] check, then she through with you." Consistent with such reports, in the economically hard-pressed
166 1 CODE OF THE STREET
local community it was for a long time socially acceptable for a young woman to have children out of wedlock-supported by a regular welfare check.
In this way, welfare and persistent poverty have affected the norms
of the ghetto culture, such as the high value placed on children. "The check" has thus had an important impact on domestic relations between young men and women. In the past, the young woman could count not only on the public aid but also on a serious interest on the yOllilg man's part after the baby arrived. And, very often, the honest man was discouraged from marrying the young woman for fear of putting the check in jeopardy. In the Reverend Mosby's day the young man frequently took at least a fatherly interest in his child, and the girl's father and the rest of the extended family could at times be expected to encourage the boy to become an honest man, thus creating dynamic tension between the requirements of welfare on the one hand and pressure from the family to do right on the other. The welfare check, in some instances, has served to bond the young man with the woman, without the benefit of wedlock-in effect uniting them in the regular expectation of the welfare check. In the impoverished conditions of the inner city, when the check arrives, the young man may expect his share, even though he and the young woman do not reside under the same roof. If a new suitor emergesand one frequently does-there are sometimes arguments, and even violence, over who has rights to the check, as various individuals voice their claims.
With the advent of welfare reform, more young women and men are inclined to pause, to be more circumspect in their sexual habits, in large part because the check is no longer to be counted on. Babies may become less significant symbols of status, but they will continue to be important symbols of passage to adulthood, of being a grown woman, and of being a man. Most young mothers and fathers, I believe, do not have babies just for the check, but in structurally impoverished areas, the regular cash the check provides is not unimportant. In the past it perhaps was a question less of whether the girl was going to have children than of when, for she often saw herself as having little to lose and much to gain by becoming pregnant, and this remains true in a social sense. In the new climate of welfare
THE MATING GAME / 167
reform, however, there is more of an impetus for young men and women to take greater responsibility for their personal lives and, in turn, to have fewer babies out of wedlock. But the jury is still out on this:
THE GOOD MAN AND THE NOTHIN'
In their small, intimate groups, the women discuss their afternoon soap operas, men, children, and social life, and they welcome new members to the generally affirmative and supportive gatherings. Although they may criticize men's actions, especially their lack of commitment, at the same time they often accept such behavior, viewing it as characteristic of men in their environment. Nonetheless, the women draw distinctions between "the nothin' " and the "good man." The nothin' is a "a man who is out to use every women he can for himself. He's somethin' like a pimp. Don't care 'bout nobody but himself." One older single mother, who now considers herself wiser,
said, '
I know the difference now between a nothin' and a good man. I can see. I can smell him. I can just tell a nothin' from the real thing. I can just look at a guy sometimes, you know, the way he dresses. You know, the way he carries himself. The way he acts, the way he talks. I can tell the bullshitter. Like, you know, "What's up, baby?" You know. "What's you want to do?" A nice guy wouldn't say, "What's you want to do?" A nice guy wouldn't say, "What's up, baby? What's goin' on?" Actin' all familiar, tryin' to give me that line. Saying, "You want a joint? You wan' some 'caine?" Hollerin' in the street, you know. I can tell 'em. I can just smell 'em.
In this social climate the good man, who would aspire to play the role of the decent daddy of old, is considerate of his mate and provides for her and her children, but at the same time he runs the risk of being seen as a pussy by the women as well as by his peer group.
168 / CODE OF THE STREET
This inversion in the idea of the good man underscores the ambivalent position of girls squeezed between their middle-class dreams and the ghetto reality. As one woman said with a laugh, "There are so many sides to the bad man. We see that, especially in this community. We see more bad men than we do good. I see them [innercity girls] running over that man if he's a wimp, ha-ha."
Family support is often available to the young pregnant woman, though members of her family are likely to remind her now and then that she is messed up. She looks forward to the day when she is "straight" again-when she has given birth to the baby and has regained her figure. Her comments to girls who are not pregnant tend to center wistfully on better days. If her boyfriend stops seeing her regularly, she may attribute this to the family's negative remarks about him, but also to her pregnancy, saying time and time again, "When I get straight, he'll be sorry; he'll be jealous then." She knows that her pregnant state is devalued by her family as well as by her single peers, who are free to date and otherwise consort with men, and she may long for the day when she can do so again.
When the baby arrives, however, the girl finds that her social activities continue to be significantly curtailed. She is often surprised by how much time and effort being a mother takes. In realizing her new identity, she may very consciously assume the demeanor of a grown woman, emphasizing her freedom in social relations and her independence. During the period of adjustment to the new status, she has to set her mother straight about telling her what to do. Other family members also go through a learning process, getting used to the girl's new status, which she tries on in fits and starts. In fact, she is working at growing up.
Frustrated by the baby's continuing needs, especially as she becomes physically straight again, the girl may develop an intense desire to get back into the dating game. Accordingly, she may foist her child care responsibilities onto her mother and sisters, who initially are eager to help. In time, however, they tire, and even extremely supportive relations can become strained. In an effort to see her daughter get back to normal, the grandmother, typically in her mid-thirties or early forties, may simply informally adopt the baby as another one of her own, in some cases completely usurping
a
THE MATING GAME 1 169
the role of mother. In this way the young parent's mother may minimize the deviance the daughter displayed by getting pregnant, while taking g.enuine pride in her new grandchild.
OF MEN AND WOMEN, MOTHERS AND SONS
The relationship between the young man and woman undergoes a basic change during pregnancy; once the baby is born, it draws on other social forces, most notably their families. The role of the girl's family has been discussed. The boy's family is important in a different way. There is often a special bond between a mother and her grown son that competes with the claims of his girlfriend. The way this situation is resolved has considerable consequences for the family and its relationship to the social structure of the community. In teenage pregnancy among the poor, the boy's mother often plays a significant role, while that of his father, if he is present at all, is understated. Depending on the woman's personality, her practical experience in such matters, and the girl's family situation, the mother's role may be subtle or explicit. At times she becomes deeply involved with the young woman, forming a female bond with her that is truly motherly, involving guidance, protection, and control.
From the moment the boy's mother finds out a young woman is pregnant by her son, the question of whether she knows the girl is important. If the young woman means something to her son, she is likely to know her and her family or at least to have heard something about her from her son. On learning of the pregnancy, the mother might react with anything from disbelief that her son could be responsible to" certainty, even before seeing the child, that he is indeed the father. If she knows the girl's character, she is in a position to judge for herself. Here her relationship with the girl before "all this" happened comes into play, for if she likes her, there is a good chance she will side with her. She may even go so far as to engage in playful collusion against her son, a man, to get him to do right by the girl. We must remember that in this economically circumscribed social context, particularly from a woman's point of view, many men
170 / CODE OF THE STREET
are known not to do right by their women and children. To visit certain inner-city streets is to see a proliferation of small children and women whose fathers and husbands are largely absent. These considerations help explain the significance of the mother's role in determining how successful the girl will be in getting the boy to take some
responsibility for the child.
The mother may feel constrained, at least initially, because she is
unsure her son actually fathered the child. She may be careful about showing her doubt, however, thinking that when the baby arrives she will be able to tell in a minute if her son is the father. Thus, during the pregnancy, she nervously waits, wondering whether her son will be blamed for a pregnancy not of his doing or whether she will really be a grandmother. In fact, both the boy's and the girl's relatives often constitute an extended family-in-waiting, socially organized around the idea that the truth will be told when the baby arrives. Unless the parties are very sure, marriage-if agreed to at all-may be held off
until after the birth.
When the baby arrives, plans may be carried out, but often on
condition that the child passes inspection. The presumed father generally lies low in the weeks after the baby's birth. He is apt to visit the baby's mother in the hospital only once, if at all. In an effort to make a paternal connection, some girls name the baby after the father, but by itself this strategy is seldom effective. In cases of doubtful paternity, the boy's mother, sisters, aunts, or other female relatives or close family friends may form visiting committees to see the baby, though sometimes the child is brought to them. This inspection is often surreptitious, made without the acknowledgment of the girl or her family. The visitors may go to the girl's house in shifts, with a sister dropping in now, the mother another time, and a friend still another. Social pleasantries notwithstanding, the object is always the same: to see if the baby belongs to the boy. Typically, after such visits the women will compare notes, commenting on the baby's features and on whom the child favors or resembles. Some will blurt out, "Ain't no way that John's baby." People may disagree and a dispute ensue. In the community the paternity of the father becomes a hot topic. The viewpoints have much to do with who the girl is, whether. she is a good girl, and whether she has been accepted by the boy's.
-
THE MATING GAME / 171
family. If the she is well integrated into the family, doubts about the paternity may slowly be put to rest, with nothing more said about the subject.
The word carrying the most weight in this situation is often that of the boy's mother, as is shown in this account by a young man:
I had a lady telling me that she had to check out a baby that was supposed to be her grandbaby. She said she had a young girl that was trying to put a baby on her son, so she said she fixing to take the baby and see what blood type the baby is to match it with her son to see if he the daddy. 'Cause she said she know he wasn't the daddy. And she told the girl that, but the girl was steady, trying to stick the baby on her son. She had checked out the baby's father and everything. She knowed that the blood type wasn't gon' match or nothing. So the young girl just left 'em alone.
If the child clearly resembles the alleged father physically, there may be strong pressure for the boy to claim the child and assume his responsibilities. This may take a year or more, since the resemblance may initially be less apparent. But when others begin to make comments such as "Lil' Tommy look like Maurice just spit him out [is his spitting image]," the boy's mother may informally adopt the child into her extended family and signal others to do the same. She may see the child regularly and develop a special relationship with its mother. Because of her social acknowledgment of her son's paternity, the boy himself is bound to accept the child. Even if he does not claim the child legally, in the face of the evidence he will often acknowledge "having something to do with him." As one informant said, "If the baby look just like him, he should admit to himself that that's his. Some guys have to wait till the baby grow up a little to see if the baby gon' look like him 'fore they finally realize that was his'n.
. Because yours should look like you, you know, should have your . features and image."
Here the young man informally acknowledging paternity may feel ,some pressure to take care of his own. But owing to his limited .employment and general lack of money, he feels that he "can only
172 1 CODE OF THE STREET
do what he can" for his child. Many young men enact the role of father part-time. A self-conscious young man may be spied on the street carrying a box of Pampers, the name used generically for all disposable diapers, or cans of Similac-baby formula-on the way to see his child and its mother. As the child ages, a bond may develop, and the young man may take a boy for a haircut or shopping for shoes or clothes. He may give the woman token amounts of money. Such gestures of support suggest a father providing for his child. In fact, however, they often come only sporadically and-an important point-in exchange for the woman's favors, social or sexual. Such support may thus depend upon the largesse of the man and may function as a means of controlling the woman.
If the woman "gets papers" on the man, or legalizes his relationship to the child, she may sue for regular support-what people call "going downtown on him." If her case is successful, the young man's personal involvement in making child support payments may be eliminated: the money may simply be deducted from his salary, if he has one. Sometimes the woman's incentive for getting papers may emerge when the young man lands a good job, particularly one with a major institution that includes family benefits. While sporadically employed, the youth may have had no problem with papers, but when he finds a steady job, he may be served with a summons. In some cases, especially if they have two or three children out of wedlock by different women, young men lose the incentive to work, for much of their pay will go to someone else. After the mother of his four children got papers on him and he began to see less and less of his pay, one of my informants quit his job and returned to the street corner and began to hustle drugs.
Under some conditions the male peer group will pressure a mem- '. ber to admit paternity. The key here is that the group members have no doubts in their own minds as to the baby's father. When it is clear that the baby resembles the young man, the others may strongly urge' him to claim it and help the mother financially. Ifhe fails to acknowledge the baby, group members may do it themselves by publicly associating him with the child, at times teasing him about his failure "to take care of what's his." As one young man said,
THE MATING GAME 1 173
My partner's [friend's] girlfriend came up pregnant. And she say it's his, but he not sure. He waitin' on the baby, wairin' to see if the baby look like him. I tell him, "Man, if that baby look like you, then it was yours! Ha-ha." He just kinda like just waitin'. He ain't claimin' naw, saying the baby ain't his. I keep tellin' him, "If that baby come out looking just like you, then it gon' be yours, partner." And there on the corner all of 'em will tell him, "Man, iliat's yo' baby." They'll tell him.
Although the peer group may urge its members to take care of ilieir babies, they stop short of urging them to marry the mothers. In general, young men are assumed not to care about raising a family or being part of one, but this is contradicted by many of these men's strong family values. So many of them are unable to suppOrt a family that they hesitate to form one that is bound to fail, in their minds. Much of the lack of support for marriage is due to poor employment prospects, but it may also have to do with general distrust of women to whom the men are not related by blood. As my informant continued,
They don't even trust her that iliey were the only one she was dealin' [having sex] with. That's a lot of it. But the boys just be gettin' away from it [the value of a family] a whole lot. They don't Want to get tied down by talkin' about playin' house, haha, what they call it nowadays, ha-ha. Yeah, ha-ha, they sayin' they ain't playin' house.
In a great number of cases, peer group or no, the boy will send the
. girl on her way even if she is carrying a baby he knows is his. He ' often lacks a deep feeling for a woman and children as a family unit and does not want to put up with married life, which he sees as giving a woman some say in how he spends his time. This emphasis on
i~'freedom" is generated and supported in large part by the peer group
f. Even if a man agrees to marriage, it is usually considered to be
)uly a trial. After a few months many young husbands have had enough.
174 1 CODE OF THE STREET
This desire for freedom, which the peer group so successfully nurtures, is deeply ingrained in the boys. It is, in fact, nothing less thanthe desire to reestablish the situation in their mothers' homes. A son is generally well bonded to his mother, something she tends to encourage from birth. It may be that sons, particularly the eldest, are groomed to function as surrogate husbands because of the high rate of family dissolution among poor blacks.
Many young boys want what they consider an optimal situation.
In the words of peer-group members, "they want it all": a main squeeze-a steady and reliable female partner who will mimic the role their mothers played, a woman who will cook, clean, and generally serve them and who will ask few questions about the ladies they may be seeing and have even less to say about their male friends. The boy has grown accustomed to home-cooked meals and the secure company of his birth family, in which his father was largely absent and could not tell him what to do. He was his own boss, essentially raising himself with the help of his street peers and perhaps any adult (possibly an old head) who. would listen but not interfere. For many, such a life is too much to give up in exchange for the "problems of being tied down to one lady, kids, bills, and all that." The young man's home situation with his mother thus competes effectively with the household he envisions with a woman his peer group is fully prepared to discredit.
Now that he is grown, the young man may want what he had while growing up, plus a number of ladies on the side. At the same time he wants his male friends, whom he must impress in ways perhaps inconsistent with being a good family man. Since the young men from the start have little faith in marriage, small things can inspire them to retreat to their mothers or whatever families they left behind. Some spend their time going back and forth between two families; if their marriages seem not be working, they may ditch them and their wives, though perhaps keeping up with the children. At all times they must show others that they run the family, that they "wear the pants." This is the cause of many domestic fights in the ghetto. When there is a question of authority, the domestic situation may run into serious trouble, often leading the young man to abandon the idea of marriage or of dealing with only one woman. To "hook up" with a woman, to
THE MATING GAME / 175
marry her, is to give her something to say about "what you're doing, or where you're going, or where you've been." Many young men find such constraint unacceptable.
In many instances the young man does not mind putting up with the children, given his generally small role in child rearing, but he does mind tolerating the woman, whom he sees as a threat to his freedom. As one man commented about marriage,
Naw, they [young men] getting away from that 'cause they want to be free. Now, see, I ended up getting married. I got a whole lot of boys ducking that. Unless this is managed, it ain't no good. My wife cleans, takes care of the house. You got a lot of guys, they don't want to be cleanin' no house, and do the things you got to do in the house. You need a girl there to do it. If you get one, she'll slow you down. The guys don't want it.
Unless a man can so handle his wife that she will put few constraints on him, he may reason that he had better stay away from marriage. But with a growing sense of being independent of men, financially and otherwise, fewer women may allow themselves to be treated in this manner.
As jobs become scarce for young black men, their success as breadwinners and traditional husbands declines. The notion is that with money comes control of the domestic situation. Without money or jobs, many men are unable to play house to their satisfaction. It is much easier and more fun to stay home and "take care of Mama," some say, when taking care consists of "giving her some change for room and board," eating good food, and being able "to come as I want and to go as I please." Given the present state of the economy, such an assessment of their domestic outlook appears in many respects adaptive.
SEX, POVERTY, AND FAMILY LIFE
In conclusion, the basic factors at work " here are youth, ignorance, " the culture's receptiveness to babies, and the young man's attempt to
176 1 CODE OF THE STREET
prove his manhood through sexual conquests that often result in pregnancy. These factors are exacerbated by persistent urban poverty. In the present hard times a primary concern of many inner-city residents is to get along as best they can. In the poorest communities the primary financial sources are low-paying jobs, crin1e-including drugs-and public assistance. Some of the most desperatepeople devise a variety of confidence games to separate others from their money.
A number of men, married and single, incorporate their sexual lives into their more generalized efforts at economic survival, 'or simply making ends meet. Many will seek to "pull" a woman with children on welfare, since she usually has a special need for male company, time on her hands, and a steady income. As. they work to establish their relationships, these men playa game not unlike the one young males use to get over sexually. There is simply a clearer economic motive in many of these cases. When the woman receives her check from the welfare department or money from other sources, she may find herself giving up part of it to ensure male company.
The economic noose restricting ghetto life encourages men and women alike to try to extract maximum personal benefit from sexual relationships. The dreams of a middle-class lifestyle nurtured by young inner-city women are thwarted by the harsh socioeconomic realities of the ghetto. Young men without job prospects cling to the support offered by their peer groups and their mothers and shy away from lasting relationships with girlfriends. Girls as well as boys scramble to take what they can from each other, trusting only their own ability to trick the other into giving them something that will establish their version of the good life-the best life they can put together in their environment.
We should remember that the people we are talking about are very young-they range in age mainly from fifteen years to their early twenties. Their bodies are grown, but they are emotionally immature. These girls and boys often have no very clear notion of the longterm consequences of their behavior, and they have few trustworthy role models to instruct them.
Although middle-class youths and poor youths may have much in common sexually, their level of practical education differs. The igno-
THE MATING GAME 1 177
ranee of inner-city girls about their bodies astonishes the middleclass observer. Many have only a vague notion about birth control until after they have their first child-and sometimes not even then. Parents in this culture are extremely reticent about discussing sex and birth control with their children. Many mothers are ashamed to talk about it or feel they are in no position to do so, since they behaved the same way as their daughters when they were young. Education thus emerges as a community health problem, but most girls come in Contact with 'community health services only when they become pregnant-sometimes many months into their pregnancies.
A baby could in cold economic terms be considered an asset, which is without doubt an important factor behind exploitative sex and outof-wedlock babies, though this seems to be changing. Public assistance was one of the few reliable sources of money, low-income jobs are another, and, for many people, drugs are yet another. The most desperate people thus feed on one another. Babies and sex were once more commonly used for income than they are now; women continue to receive money from welfare for having babies, and men sometimes act as prostitutes to pry the money from them.
The lack of gainful employment today not only keeps the entire community in a pit of poverty but also deprives young men of the traditional AmeriCan way of proving their manhood-by supporting a family. They must thus prove themselves in other ways. Casual sex with as many women as possible, impregnating one or more, and getting them to have his baby brings a boy the ultimate in esteem from his peers and makes him a man. Casual sex is therefore fraught with social significance for the boy who has little or no hope of achieving financial stability and hence cannot see himself taking care of a family.
The meshing of these forces can be clearly seen. Trapped in poverty, ignorant of the long-term consequences of their behavior but aware of the immediate benefits, adolescents engage in a mating game. The girl has her dream of a family and a home, of a good man who will provide for her and her children. The boy, knOWing he cannot be that family man, because he has few job prospects, yet needing to have sex to achieve manhood in the eyes of his peer group, pretends to be the decent and good man and so persuades the girl to
178 / CODE OF THE STREET
give him sex and perhaps a baby. He may then abandon her, and she realizes he was not the good man, after all, but rather a nothin' out to exploit her. The boy has gotten what he wanted, but the gir11eams that she has gotten something, too. The baby may bring her a certain amount of praise, (in the past) a steady welfare check, and a measure of independence. Her family often helps out as best they can. As she becomes older and wiser, she can use her income to turn the tables,
attracting her original man or other men.
In this inner-city culture people generally get married for love and
to have something. But this mind-set presupposes a job, the work ethic, and, perhaps most of all, a persistent sense of hope for an economic future. When these social factors are present, the more wretched elements of the ethnographic portrait presented here begIn to lose their force, slowly becoming neutralized. For many of those who are caught in the web of persistent urban poverty and become unwed mothers and fathers, however, there is little hope for a good job and even less for a future of conventional family life.
F I V E
lhe Decent Daddy
H E code of the streets and the world it reflects have taken shape in the context of the existing structures and traditions in the black community in the United States. Some of these traditions go back to the time of slavery
and have served to keep the community together for many generations. Elements of the code, which works to organize problematic public areas, can be traced back to the Roman era, to the shogun warriors, and particularly to the old American South and West! or even to biblical times: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." And in drug-infested and impoverished pockets of American cities today, where many residents lack faith in the law, people, but especially youths, often take responsibility for their own safety and security, letting the next person know they are prepared to defend themselves physically, if necessary. The code poses visible threats to those traditions, but at the same time two of its key elements reflect those same traditions-decency and violence.
The unprecedented improvements that the manufacturing era brought to standards of living for urban working-class people were perceived by blacks as an opportunity to make an assault on the caste-like system of race relations in the United States. Leaders in the black community were convinced that the situation of blacks
Logging in, please wait...
0 archived comments