Urban Youth, Gangs and the Role of Recognition

By D. Barbour

A place where death doesn't reside, just thugs who collide
Not to start beef but spark trees, no cops rollin by
No policemen, no homicide, no chalk on the streets
No reason, for nobody's momma to cry
-Nas (Thugs Mansion)

The epidemic of gang violence has become a problem that has captured the minds of most Americans. Whether it is the stylized depictions on TV or movies or the real life scenario urban youth face, it is a problem that threatens to overtake the urban community in the United States. Many have attempted to quell these problems through simply “getting tough on crime”; however just as one gang is stopped there are many more waiting to replace it. This type of gang intervention does not work because it only deals with the most obvious symptoms of the problem, while ignoring the root causes. Gangs do not form just because a couple of bad seeds want to cause trouble. Instead, urban youth form gangs as a response to the structural violence they face on an everyday basis. The system of rights that we all are guaranteed provide but a reminder to these youth that sometimes equality means something different depending on what side of the street you live on. The double standards that feed this idea can be seen in every aspect of the urban core, from failing schools, to gutted out neighborhoods with nothing left but liquor and convenience stores. Though the problem can be manifested in numerous ways, there is at the heart of it one simple cause: the denial of recognition of minorities in America. This denial creates a system in which the public and private autonomy of minority individuals is denied leading to structural violence in the form of physical, mental, and economic oppression. In the face of this, youth form gangs in which they seek to regain this recognition. Unfortunately, the structure that this often creates only perpetrates more violence. However, there are basic concepts in the gang structure that can provide a basis for a system of recognition that can work as a positive force to confront the oppression of the modern ghetto.

MISRECOGNITION AS A MEANS OF OPPRESSION

First, let us look further into how the denial of recognition can become such a destructive force. The majority of inhabitants in the inner city are comprised of minority populations, so to begin this discourse we must deal with the problem of racism. The basis of racism can be seen in what can be considered misrecognition. Misrecognition implies that an individual in a search for self-understanding is given, by the society around them, a false or misconstrued feedback. Misrecognition can be anything from basic characteristics to an all out denial of humanity. This can be seen in the early European conceptions of Africans as “subhuman” or native peoples as “savages”. These identities were placed on these groups not because that is what they were but because the Europeans could not or would not engage in true communication. Furthermore, with the movement of the European moral order from pre-modern to modern, the removal of the hierarchical system of separation left a void that was soon filled with cultural and racial separations. Therefore, for the status of the Europeans to remain intact it was imperative that they create a lower class through misrecognition of that class’s identity. Though the civil rights movement of the 1960’s removed much of the legal racism that existed in this country it failed to remove the more subtle structural violence that remains in many ways to this day. This is possible because though law now guaranteed equality it granted “freedom of choice and action that can be used differently and thus does not promote actual equality in life circumstances or positions of power.” [1]

THE ROLE OF TOLERANCE

Under the doctrine of equality, there has also been a recent emphasis put on tolerance. However, this concept as it is realized in America can do more harm than good. Under the influence of a theory of individual rights, tolerance is reduced to a kind of insincere respect based on the legal requirement. This respect is not based on understanding or the wish to understand the other. It is instead based on the “reason of the strongest”, [2] in which the welcome offered to the other is structured around retaining and protecting individual sovereignty. [3]
The doctrine of tolerance becomes hypocritical when placed within the concept of equality and the American dream. On one hand, the citizen is to respect the rights of another to have their own beliefs and culture, however, on the other hand this must be done through the lens of traditional American values, which in actuality could be considered European values. This immediately puts any person who has not grown up in these conditions or those who do not necessarily come to agreement with the majority on what these values are, in a situation of coerced conformity. Coerced conformity entails a communication in which one side is weaker than the other, which makes the individuals involved unequal. With out an opportunity for mutual recognition, the weaker party risks being misrecognized or not recognized at all. The minority is then relegated to a system of structural violence, in which equality and freedom is legally afforded, but the means to realize these rights are withheld. Furthermore, tolerance fuels the misrecognition by alleviating the majority of the need to understand the other. If under the auspice of tolerance another’s beliefs cannot be questioned, then the dialogue needed to understand those beliefs cannot be created. This allows any misconceptions or judgments made about the other to continue because there is no opportunity for them to be rebuked.

MODERN RACISM IN THE URBAN COMMUNITY

Modern racism can take the form of various latent forms of oppression including: biased hiring practices, lower wage rates for those who are hired, and the removal of municipal funding for predominantly Latino or African-American communities. This type of racism creates an economic disparity between minority individuals and the mainstream society. Coupled with the outsourcing of jobs within the inner city the individual is left with no choice but to find other forms of economic sustenance that due to the lack of opportunity, often leads to illegal activity. This illegal activity then reaffirms the stereotypes of those in power, leading to a never-ending cycle of prejudice and misrecognition.
Economic oppression, however, is not the only way in which racism affects the urban community. The process of recognition entails a social exchange in which the one being recognized receives feedback from another on their identity. Misrecognition then can cause stereotypes to be formed not only in the one recognizing the individual, but also in the individual themselves. In this respect, the individual takes this false recognition as being a legitimate communication about their identity. This leads to an internalization of the stereotype. In this situation, “self-depreciation becomes one of the most potent forms of oppression” [4], inasmuch as it destroys the potential for true self-understanding.
Since the coming of the industrial age, the inner city has been the gathering point for immigrants and migrants seeking jobs. These workers, many who were coming from rural or foreign backgrounds faced a way of life in the city that was in stark contrast to their own. A process of acculturation then had to be undergone in order to live in these new urban areas. This becomes particularly salient when these workers are of a different ethnic or cultural background. In these cases the type of acculturation is one sided in which the immigrant or migrant is forced to communicate on the terms of the values and ideals of the majority. The communication does not allow the individual to express their own unique identity in a framework of mutual recognition and therefore denies the person public autonomy. [5] Along with the denial of public autonomy, “socialization routines are definitely transformed when immigrants or migrants of low socioeconomic status must adapt to a place in the city.” [6] This is especially true in the case of social control institutions such as the family and schools. [7] In these situations, the family undergoes tremendous stress as the culturally prescribed roles and rules threatened or removed by the majority culture. This leads to a weakening of the family, and a further loss of a base for recognition. This continues when the children go to school. Schools are often set up to accommodate the majority culture without exceptions. This leaves the minority child at a disadvantage where learning is furthered hampered through a cultural barrier. In many cases, this leads to the child simply being left behind. This lack of two major social control mechanisms leaves the child helpless to create any type of real identity through recognition.

GANGS AS A RESPONSE TO OPPRESSION

One response to the denial of recognition was the creation of small autonomous groups that we now call gangs. The creation of these groups allowed urban youth to address many of the problems they faced. First, the withdrawal of the society at large from the Ghetto meant that the municipal needs of the ghettos were often ignored. The police rarely intervened to stop crime in these neighborhoods and when they did, they often caused more harm than good. Gangs addressed this problem as serving as a kind of community police that protected their respective neighborhoods. This is exemplified in the history of the Crips street gang in L.A., which was started initially as a community protection group. “Many of the young people of South Central Los Angeles were involved with small gangs. Those gang members roamed South Central taking property from anyone who feared them, including women and children. To protect the community, Tookie and Raymond organized the Crips.” [8]
Second, gangs provided a platform in which community concerns could be voiced. This purpose was also displayed in the Crips determination to be “A voice that would not only be heard by all but also felt by the white oppressor.” [9] This type of political awareness underscores many gang members’ views even today. This can be seen in the idolization of revolutionaries such as Che Guevara and Malcolm X.
Thirdly, in the midst of a society that ignored these groups, the gang provided a support system that fostered solidarity and a sense of connectedness to the individual’s culture. The first Pachucos in L.A. are a prime example of this. These individuals were second and third generation Latinos, who neither fit into the identity of mainstream America nor the identity of the countries they came from. In response to this, they started a “cultural rebellion” [10] by creating a new kind of style and identity within a structure that was the basis for the modern gang structure. This has also been marked as the beginning of the Chicano culture in America. In an environment that denied their recognition the Pachucos as well as modern gangs, create their own environment that could foster their demand for recognition.
Finally, the structural oppression that urban communities face often tears the family structure apart. As James Vigil comments, “in the face of job discrimination both parents may have to work. In the absence of affordable childcare, without close friends or relatives to care for them, children become latch-keyed and have to fend for themselves.” [11] Gangs provided a home for these children in which they could feel safe as well as loved. This familial relationship can be seen in everything from protection of ones home, to monetary and emotional support after a gang member gets out of jail.

THE PROBLEMS OF GANGS

Gangs however, have over time become increasingly violent, in which what was once a structure based on gaining recognition and support became a structure that perpetrated further violence on its members. This change can be seen as a function of the structural violence caused by the denial of true equality, and the modern moral order. In America, the prevailing theme in American values is the acquisition of status. The consumerist underpinnings of capitalism then merge this idea with material or monetary wealth. This value system penetrates the social imaginary of every individual including the otherwise closed off urban community. The problem arises in the fact that though urban youth receive these values they do not receive the means to attain them. Diego Muiro-Ramirez explains this in the terms of relative deprivation. This is defined in psychosocial terms as a “perceived discrepancy between men’s value expectations and their value capabilities.” [12} Add this to a doctrine of professed equal rights, and you create the mindset of injustice in those in question. This allows for the legitimization of illegal activity because it is the only perceivable method of gaining the rights urban youth are taught they have. Therefore, as the acculturation to a system of status through wealth increases, so does the level of perceived injustice and in turn the level of violence permissible. This creates a rift in the community, as competition for status becomes the sole motivator. This alternative method for survival through violence can be seen in the use of the “business” [13] of the gang as a form of economic sustenance.
Misrecognition, as mentioned earlier, can also lead to self-depreciation in which one comes to devalue ones own group. When this happens, self-hatred is projected onto others in which “the rage turns inward: the gang kind blows away his mirror image, another gang kid” [14]
Along with this violence comes a situation in which the individual becomes even more withdrawn into a smaller circle of possible actors in which to be recognized. The further withdrawal then provides even fewer opportunities to identify with non-violent or non-gang forms of recognition. Additionally, once a person joins a gang, their range of movement is often limited to their neighborhood. This affects the mobility of the gang member’s family as well, because if given the chance to move the family cannot for fear of possible violence against their children by gangs in the new neighborhood. The strict codes of gangs do not often let members communicate with other gang or with those associated with other gangs, which limits the opportunities for further recognition. Furthermore, the recognition that is received is just as misconstrued and misunderstood. The reason for this can be again found in the absence of mutual recognition within the acculturation process. The miscommunication between competing identities and realities, leads to confusion and frustrates any attempt to realize self-understanding. This plays an important role in misrecognition “in that fragmented family values and beliefs, uneven schooling and Anglization, and culture contact and conflict changes, lead many youth to identify with the streets.” [15] These street realities, expressed by the gang as well as formulated by them create a subculture based on survival and security though violence. The demand for respect becomes a will to power in which a failure to live up to violent standards leads to a loss of honor, which in part defines identity.

THE POSITIVE ROLE OF GANGS

There is however, a basis in the gang that allows for positive social action. It is simply a matter of removing the violence as the sole alternative to survival. This is not easy but examples of this spontaneous change have appeared.
Urban Courage is a network of gangs within Mexico that have denounced the use of violence and instead work for non-violent social change. It began with one gang that “realized it wasn't normal for kids to be killing other kids we didn't even know, over petty turf wars, especially since the streets don't belong to gangs. Streets belong to all of society.” [16] Soon after, other gangs independently followed suit and they eventually came together to form the coalition Urban Courage.
Another example would be the Latin Kings and Queens of New York. The two gangs are present in almost every major city in the U.S. However, this particular chapter decided to convert the gang from its pre-existing form into a group based on non-violence and community service. The still retained the symbols and rituals of the Latin Kings and Queens but simply refuse to take part in the cycle of violence they can create.
Finally, one of the most striking examples of non-violent gang intervention can be seen in the case of Stanley “Tookie” Williams. Williams was a co-founder of the Crips and is currently on death row. While in prison, Williams began a program to keep kids out of gangs. He also facilitated via prison, the truce between the long time rival gangs the Bloods and the Crips. His work has earned him nominations for both the Nobel Peace and Literature prizes.
It can be argued that the type of mentality found in gangs is the perfect one for non-violent work. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan was able to convert the Pathans, one of the world’s most ruthless warrior tribes, into the first and only nonviolent army that helped Gandhi remove the British from India. Khan was able to do this by appealing to the solemn sense of honor and dignity in the Pathans as well as their fearlessness in the face of death, to create an army that were disciplined enough to stand the British violence without fighting back. Gandhi himself often remarked that for Satyagraha to work it must be performed by those who are not afraid to fight. Gandhi even goes to the extent saying, “Where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.” [17] The code of the gang is based on many of the same characteristics as the Pathans, namely honor, courage, and loyalty. Furthermore, the problem that faced the Pathans is very much the same as urban youth. The Pathans were always unorganized because their code of honor often led them to fight amongst themselves. Likewise, the British held economic policies that often left the Pathans always fighting for resources. This parallels the usual structural oppression that forms in the ghetto as well as the violence community members perpetrate on themselves.
Nonviolence is important to this idea because it creates a situation in which dialogue can be created. Martin Luther King Jr. was able to create a dialogue with the American people simply because he did not result to violence. Instead, King appealed to the truth that all humanity was considered to share. Likewise, if gangs are going to provide the positive influence that they are often first created for, they must not appeal to violence but appeal to the truth. The only way to truly do this is through dialogue, and the only way to true dialogue is refusing a will to power. Gangs already have the ability to provide support as well as harness the vitality of the youth. What they lack is the ability to provide true recognition to their members. This discrepancy follows from the misperception that respect must be gained through physical violence, both within and outside the group.
Another important role gangs can play is by changing the mainstream culture as a whole. When any culture encounters another, regardless of the type of contact, each is changed. In the case of the urban community, and the larger majority, this culminates in a dynamic construction of cultural reality. The urban child wishes to be recognized in mainstream society so he or she tries to acquire its symbols of status (luxury items, money, power). At the same time however, the often-exaggerated attempts of urban communities to mimic the mainstream leads to a new set of symbols and practices. These new practices and symbols are then transmitted to the white suburbs where they become a part of the mainstream culture. This is what Ruben Martinez calls cultural dialogue. [18] Martinez elaborates on this when he says:
“Black rap is more popular with white suburban teens than with black kids; the vapid culture of the suburb leads them to desire their inner-city other. Middle-class kids talk the talk (black), wear baggies and Pendleton shirts (Chicano), turn their baseball caps backward, play out gangsta’ fantasies.” [19]
If the urban community has so much power in changing the cultural proclivities of mainstream society, then they have a very powerful mouthpiece in which to promote social change. If street gangs where based on community uplift and social change without violence, they could have a very effective means to assert their claims to the truth. Likewise, this could also uplift their assertion for recognition outside of the ghetto and into the mainstream public sphere. This however, is not a quick fix solution. It is not even the entire solution. It is instead a part of a wider change that must take place in not only the structures that perpetrate violence but also the underlying imaginaries that legitimize them. Gangs through social protest can also influence this change. The social awareness of the Black Panthers, Young Lords, and Brown Berets in the 60’s and 70’s is a perfect example. Though these groups at times perpetrated violence, the underlying structure helped renew their respective communities as well as give them a voice in the public area. It is also interesting to note that during these times of political awareness, “if you look at the neighborhoods... gang violence was at its lowest.” [20] This points to the effectiveness of simply giving a voice to inner-city minorities in dealing with gang violence. Social protest allows grievances to be heard, and in essence for those who are in marginalized groups a chance to exercise their autonomy. This is an important action, which not only betters the marginalized but also is necessary for the consistent actualization of rights in which social movements are key. [21]
The culture of violence that gangs often promote however must be halted. This is the key point and the one that is most problematic. This is not only because of the ingrained doctrine of violence of the street, but also because of the engrained doctrine of violence of our entire social imaginary. The entire American conscience is enveloped in a never ending mantra of might makes right. Our history books are a constant parade of war and violence, in which every turning point is based around a timeline of war. Our heroes are those who are willing to kill for land, property and freedom. It is little wonder why urban youth so easily embrace violence. What is needed is a movement that can reverse this cycle of violence. The struggle for civil rights in the 60’s changed the legal structure of America forever. However, what it failed to do is change the hearts and minds of every American. This left a system in which a true discoursive communication is not possible for minorities in America. The modern reaction to this is the creation of gangs that can either provide for the uplift of the community or allow for its demise. If fostered correctly, gangs can provide the vitality, courage, honor and solidarity that can create an effective social movement to counter the violence of the urban community

AN AMERICAN PROBLEM

The question of gang violence is not one that only affects those in the ghetto. The struggle for recognition, the violence, and the suffering of the ghetto is in many ways a barometer for the state of affairs in America as a whole. Regardless of their situation, “the ‘burb kid and the inner-city cholo or gangsta’ share the same existential void, and both fill it with the same violent aesthetic.” [22] This void is that which is created by the denial of a truly fulfilled life. As a society, we sell happiness as a commodity, wrapped up in pretty little packages or penthouse apartments. Our worth as a human has been reduced to an assessment of liquid assets and stock portfolios. This however does not provide the means to which we may infuse our existence with meaning, but instead leaves us feeling empty and denied. IN this way the suburban and urban child are both denied because they both adhere to the same unfulfilling doctrines of self-satisfaction. It is this doctrine, which, in the name of expedience, legitimizes violence as the sufficient means to the ends of self-understanding. No other alternative is offered, and in the terms of the majority who hold the power, none is needed. What follows from this is a culture of violence in which a will to power is the only goal. The violence of the inner city then is a wake up call to us all. We do not live in a vacuum. Instead, our identities are formed through a web of interconnected realities that can only bear fruit in a framework of mutual recognition. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” [23] The struggles of the inner city then are the struggles of every American.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Jurgen Habermas. “Struggle for recognition in the Denocratic Constitutional State”. In Multiculturalism: Examingin the Politics of Recognition . Ed. Amy Gutman. Princeton University Press. New Jersey. 1992. pg114

[2] Derrida. Deconstructing Terrorism pg161

[3] Derrida. Deconstructing Terrorism pg 161

[4] Charles Taylor “Politics of Recognition”, In Multiculturalism: Examingin the Politics of Recognition . Ed. Amy Gutman. Princeton University Press. New Jersey. 1992.

[5] Jurgen Habermas. “Struggle for recognition in the Denocratic Constitutional State”. In Multiculturalism: Examingin the Politics of Recognition . Ed. Amy Gutman. Princeton University Press. New Jersey. 1992.

[6] James Diego Vigil. Urban Violence and Street Gangs, Annual Review of Anthropology.Vol. 32 2003. pg 234

[7] James Diego Vigil. Urban Violence and Street Gangs, Annual Review of Anthropology.Vol. 32 2003. pg 234

[8] Stanley Tookie Williams. “About Tookie”. www.tookie.com pg 1

[9] Beth Dyer, Sara White, Eliticia Vieyra. “The Crips” unpublished manuscript 2005 pg 3

[10] Ruben Martinez. East Side Stories. Powerhouse Books. New York. 2000 pg 4

[11] James Diego Vigil. Urban Violence and Street Gangs, Annual Review of Anthropology.Vol. 32 2003 pg 235

[12] Ruben Martinez. East Side Stories. Powerhouse Books. New York. 2000

[13] This refers to the illegal procurements of capital such as theft, robbery, or drug dealing.

[14] Ruben Martinez. East Side Stories. Powerhouse Books. New York. 2000 pg 10

[15] James Diego Vigil. Urban Violence and Street Gangs, Annual Review of Anthropology.Vol. 32 2003 pg 235

[16] Gary Gach. “Part Four of Peacemaking: The Power of Nonviolence”., American Reporter June 17, 1997. pg 1

[17] Mahatma Gandhi. “Nonviolence”. In The Essential Gandhi. Ed. Luis Fischer Vintage Books, New York. 2002 pg 137

[18] Ruben Martinez. East Side Stories. Powerhouse Books. New York. 2000 pg 19

[19] Ruben Martinez. East Side Stories. Powerhouse Books. New York. 2000 pg 19

[20] Luis Rodriguez. “La Vida Loca: Joseph Rodriguez and Luis Rodriguez on the “crazy life”. Eastside Stories . Powerhouse Books. New York. 2000 pg 178
[21] Jurgen Habermas. “Struggle for recognition in the Denocratic Constitutional State”. In Multiculturalism: Examingin the Politics of Recognition . Ed. Amy Gutman. Princeton University Press. New Jersey. 1992 pg 113

[22] Ruben Martinez. East Side Stories. Powerhouse Books. New York. 2000 pg 19

[23] Martin Luther King Jr. Why We Can’t Wait Penguin Putnum inc. New York, 2000.pg 65

© 2005