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 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.

“…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.”

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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

“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?

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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.

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.”

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?

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?

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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.