Reviewer: Jeremy Gordon
Red text highlighted gray are comments not changes
to the text
Elijah Anderson’s “The Code of the Streets”
In the field of
the criminology, there are many areas of life and society that apply to crime
causation and the phenomena of criminality.
Elijah Anderson’s
theory “TheCcode
of the Sstreets”
theory addresses this topic from a socio-criminological point of view andand discusseses
how crime and violence in the inner cities are directly related to the oppressive
nature of our nation and its history.
In this paper, the historical context in which Anderson developed his
theory is discussed. A summary then
follows in which the main points and arguments of Anderson’s theoretical
framework are described. “The Ccode
of the Sstreets”
theory is a rather recent one, emerging in a field in which conservatism is a
trend and questioning of the status quo has
not been historically doneis
uncommon. Therefore, his work has
been critiqued and questioned, not only in the field of criminology, but other
social sciences as well. Examples of
some of the critiques are discussed in the third portion of the paper. Anderson’s area of study, racism and crime,
is receiving a lot of attention currently in the criminal justice system. Therefore, in a multitude of literary
resources, derivatives of Anderson’s work and his ideology can be found.
The historical
foundation of the United States has been grounded in the oppression and racism
directed towards minority populations.
The developmental stages of this nation’s establishment, and its
institutions, represent oppression and racial genocide of our indigenous
population. The origin of our
democratic society was based on the destruction of these Native Americans. As time progressed, American society found a
new victim, the Africans. Our nation
was built on the sweat and labor of African slaves, who
arethe ancestors of our current African
American population,
and the focus of Elijah Anderson’s
criminological theory. “Code
of the Streets.”
The
institution of slavery deemed blacks property of the white majority. Although slavery was abolished in 1865, the
detrimental effects of its existence run rampant throughout American history. The direct institutional discrimination of
slavery and inequality became indirect as blacks gained “equality.” Our nation continues to flourish in a manner
in which institutionalized discrimination is at the forefront (yet covert) of
our nation’s policies and procedures.
While great strides towards equality have been made, the damage that has
already occurred, has been extremely detrimental to
the African American community.
Initially,
in deeming minorities “different” and “unequal,” our society created the
institutions necessary for the emergence of subcultures. Historically, our nation has single-handedly
built the ghetto, and this inner-city ghetto is the focus population of
Anderson’s theory. The ghetto poor live
in a totally different world than the white, middle class majority. The foundation of our nation set up an
unequal playing field and created many other social injustices that exist
within the African American community.
Anderson’s ideology expands on the racism thatthat
existss within the confines of our nation’s
institutions, particularly focusing on the American criminal justice
system. It is quite evident that
minorities have higher rates of certain crimes and Anderson seeks to explain
that the values of African American’s (particularly young black males living
in theinner cities) valuesare
not only conducive to crime,
but actuallyand they justify such
criminalactivity. Anderson’s work has depicted that a definite
subculture has in fact emerged from the historical context of institutional
racism and discrimination (Anderson,
1990: , 9-12), creating violence.
“Of all
the problems besetting the poor inner-city black community, none is more
pressing than that of interpersonal violence and aggression” (Anderson, 1994:
, 107).
Today, the stigma of race, the lack
of adequate employment, rampant drug use and the trafficking and further
alienation all lead to a lack of hope amongst the African American community
(Anderson, 1994:
, 107-108). Alienation from mainstream society and its
institutions has become a key factor in the evolution of Anderson’s theory “Ccode
of the Sstreets.”
theory. Living in impoverished
areas with little opportunity places the majority at
risk for aggressive behavior. It is
literally survival of the fittest in these marginal areas. While opposing forces exist to counteract
these problem areas, the majority of young black males (the focus of Anderson’s
theory) in these communities must be able to handle
themselves on the streets. While all
people are considered at risk in the ghetto, young black males
in particular remain the focus of theinterpersonal
violence. A set of informal rules
governing interpersonal relationships exists amongst these individualsyoung black males. Anderson’s theory attempts to explain the
violence and despair amongst this specific group of ghetto dwellers. While all citizens are involved in the
neighborhood interaction, Anderson focuses on the majority represented in the
American criminal justice system: young, black males.
Anderson
developed his theory and ideology as a modern day response to critical theories
of crime. He is telling a story that
has historically, rarely been told. Having grown up in a white society, and
being a black sociologist in a predominantly white area of study, Anderson’s
past provides an insightful introspection into
sub-cultural learning theories. He
combines use of Sutherland’s differential association theory and Durkheim’s
theory of anomie. On a general level,
the young black males studied by Anderson lack the appropriate means to achieve
societally prescribed societal
goals. Specifically, they learn
the “criminal” means from their immediate surroundings, which are positively
reinforced by their cultural surroundings.
Similar to Albert Cohen’s “Content on the Delinquent Subculture,”
Anderson focuses on the delinquent conduct as being “right” according to the
standards of the subculture (Cohen,
1955: , 25-32).
A
male is expected to defend the name and honor of his mother, the virtue of
womanhood, and to accept no degradation about his race, age or masculinity
(Wolfgang and Ferracuti,
1982: , 158-161). This idea exemplifies the attitude of young
black men, in the inner city, forced to adhere to a white male culture’s
ideology and legal system. Anderson’s
works: The Code
of the Streets (1999),
A Place on
the Corner (1978),
and Streetwise:
Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (1990) allprovide contemporary accounts of a
“subculture of violence.” Anderson
arguess that a “code of the streets” exists
in poor, inner-city African-American communities. While some people do not adhere to the values underlying this
particular code, it places all young African-American males under extreme
pressure to respondto
in certain ways
to certain
compromising situations. Anderson
Heargues ostensibly that young black
males learn criminal activity as a means to cope with this “subculture of
violence” (Wolfgang and Ferracuti,
1982: , 140,
158-161).
Anderson's theory
is a socio-criminological theory based on ethnographic data. He focuses on interpersonal violence, particularly
among inner-city youths. Specifically,
Anderson (1999) discusses
that the reason forcrime exists
is because so many inner-city young people are inclined to commit
aggressive acts and violence towards one another. They are do so because they take the law into their own hands. In
their community, there is a cultural adaptation to a profound lack of faith in
American criminal justice system, including the police. Our past,
as a nation, has made it so young African Americans view
law enforcement as representing the dominant Anglo society, with little regard
for inner city residents (Anderson,
1994: , 107-116). Lack of hope for the future is another
reason for inner-city violence amongst this subculture. When there is a lack of
hope for the future, crime and violence increase. To expandclarify,
quite a bit of jealousy exists amongst people in some of the most marginalized,
and impoverished situations. And, wThe
combination of jealousy and competition for scarce resources creates disputes
(Stossel, 1999:
, 1-7). Derived from Walter Miller’s idea of the attribute lower class
being a causal factor in delinquency, Anderson focuses on the lower class
community itself, which has a long established distinctively patterned tradition
with an integrity of its own. According to the community’s constituents,
it is not a delinquent subculture.
Rather, it is viewed as a community that has arisen through conflict
with middle class culture and is oriented to the deliberate violation of middle
class norms (Miller,
1958: , 5-19).
Similar
to WEB Dubois’s ideas, Anderson focuses on the fact that the inner city ghetto
is a marginal neighborhood, lacking opportunity. The inclination towards violence arises from every day life of
the ghetto poor (Anderson,
1994: , 107-116). Anderson attributes the violence that exists
as a direct result of the lack of human and social capital and legitimate
opportunity for advancement (Stossel,
1994: , 1-7). The theory explains that the
violence is an “unofficial” public social organization that exists
within these marginal communities to maintain a sense of order in a socially
disturbed area. The roles of civil law
in most of these economically depressed and drug- and crime-ridden pockets of
the city have been severely weakened (Anderson,
1999: , 9-12). This idea is similar to Durkheim’s theory of
anomie (1897). It appears to be a
vicious cycle. Powerlessness,
meaninglessness and normlessness all exist in the ghetto. Violence is then used as a protective
measure against these problems, which in turn causes more anomie.
The “code of the
streets,” which is depicted as disorder by
mainstream society, is in fact “a set of proscriptions and prescriptions, (or
informal rules of behavior), organized around a desperate search for respect,
that governs public social relations, especially violence, among so many
residents, particularly young men” (Anderson,
1999: , 9-10). These unwritten rules and guidelines, while
a result of a subculture of young African-Americans, elaborateon the importance of respect amongst
the inner-city ghetto dwellers.
Anderson describes how “possession of respect –and the credible threats
of vengeance- is highly valued for shielding the ordinary person from the
interpersonal violence on the street” (Anderson,
1999: , 10). By “shielding” he means protection from the
mundane reality of violence in the community.
Amongst a group of young, black men in an impoverished, marginal area,
the “code of the street” arises in a context of thwarted ambitions and impinges
on every aspect of a community’s life (Anderson,
1999: , 9-12). At the broad societal level of his theory,
Anderson explains that black inner-city occupants live in a different social
context than white, middle class America.
It is this different way of life that promotes and enables deviant
behavior.
In
this social context of persistent poverty and deprivation, alienation from broader society’s institutions,
notably that of the criminal justice, is widespread (Anderson, 1994:
, 107-116). As a response to this alienation, the “code of the street”
emerges and personal responsibility for one’s safety takes precedence over the
influence of law enforcement. This
“results in a kind of ‘people’s law’ based on ‘street justice’” (Anderson, 1999:
, 10). When having to take the law into their hands in order to protect
themselves, and for purposes of survival, a primitive form of social exchange
emerges. This violence, according to
the criminal justice system, is deviant behavior, considered unacceptable
within mainstream America. However, in
the inner-city, it is learned behavior, a response to the communal anomie that
exists due to depravity and a lost sense of hope. While the violent behavior causes a great source of anxiety on
inner-city streets, it creates a sense of order and organization within a
socially disorganized environment. The
bottom line of this theory is that amongst young black inner-city males,
violence is a significant factor in alienating inner-city communities from
mainstream society and is a part of a vicious cycle that lends itself to
promoting exactly what it admonishes.
Elijah Anderson’s=s A"Ccode
of the Sstreets"@ is a rather recent criminological
theory that combines a subculture of violence learning theory with Durkheim’s=s sociological theory of anomie. Anderson has developed his theory through
participant ethnographic methodology, which is not an attempt to explain the
offender’s=s
motivation, nor reason for behavior, rather it is a field study that can
describe a multitude of variables causing the dependent variable: crime. It
focuses on the distinctive collective reality that patterns of criminal
violence create in inner-city neighborhoods.
The A"Ccode
of the Sstreets"@ is not the goal or product of an
individual’s=s
actions, but is the A"fabric
every day life, a vivid and pressing milieu within which all local residents
must shape their personal routines, income strategies, and orientations to
schooling, as well as their mating, parenting, and neighborhood relations”@ (Anderson,
1999: 326).
While ethnographic
approaches to studying violence and crime in the inner city can be affective,
there are some inherent flaws in its methodology, resulting
in which causescriticism. To begin, it is merely observation of a
particular place, of a certain group of people, at a particular point in
time. It does not offer insight into
micro-social reasons of causation, rather attributes cause to huge societal
deficits. It provides reason to ask the
trite question A"which came first, the chicken
or the egg?"@
One being racism and institutional discrimination and the other being
the actual violence stemming from the A"code
of the streets." In addition, ethnography is a subjective method of
research and stems from an individual’s perception of a reality and in fact is
“culture-studying culture” (Ferrell and Hamm,
1998: 10).
Anderson’s=s specific theory has not actually
been critiqued. However, his liberal
ideas of causation of violence and crime have been contradicted. Previously existing theories (i.e., demonic, pathological, and
functionalism) also provide valid argument against his sociological
theory. On the broadest level, many
sociologists would argue that racism, today, does not exist and that Anderson
is merely using the race card as a crutch to explain why young African American
males in the inner-city are considered deviants and act the way that they
do. Specifically, Gilder (1978), in his
work the Visible Man: A True Story of
Post-Racist America, discusses
argues that the traditional racism that
existed in American is no longer the true problem in today’s
Americansociety. Gilder (1978: ix-xiii) depicts “the
invisible man today..” Surely, it is not the jobless youth of the
streets described by Anderson’s theory, or even the welfare mother. Rather, it is the successful middle-class
black, that has become currently
making up the majority of his race in this country. He, however, is “explained away” by his
community and by White America (Gilder,
1978: ix-xiii). These great strides and
advancements of African Americans and the general move to equality are not
mentioned anywhere in Anderson's work, which enables him to focus on the
detriments of slavery and its effects.
Gilder (1978: x), in complete contrast to Anderson,
states that it is this refusal to acknowledge
the progress that is the “worst racism in America, black or white –the
respectable kind- that will only acknowledge blackness if it is holding a gun
or applying for food stamps, a racism that claims as somehow ‘white’ the
essential values of any modern economy or ordered society.”
(Gilder,
1978: x). In blaming the oppressive history of our nation, Gilder would
argue that Anderson focuses on social forces as an attempt to rationalize for
the visible violence of young men.
Gilder also discusses the problems in the inner-city ghetto, but
attributes the young, violent men as its major “affliction” not racism (Gilder, 1978: xi). Anderson also fails to mention the valuables
of a subculture and the structure that its institutions can provide, which can
in fact make life easier amongst a close-nit community. A sense of neighborhood can in fact have beenbe
developed amongst a group of struggling people, however,
Anderson does not argue this point. In
addition, Anderson’s=s
theory does not explain why many of these same victims of racism and
institutional discrimination are not violent, nor criminal (particularly women
and older community residents).
Beginning with
Lombroso’s=s
theory, biological components have offered
contradiction to Elijah Anderson’s=s
socio-criminological perspective. The
pathological perspective, still alive today, offers scientific evidence and
hard science that juxtaposes Anderson’s=s
argument. C. Ray Jeffrey (1978),
previously known for his studies of environmental factors related to crime,
argues that we must move beyond the idea of environment impacting crime. He argues that studying the brain, motor
centers, and behavior are more explanatory as causal
factors of crime than Anderson’s=s
ideology (Jeffery, 1978: 19). The physiology of deviants would better
explainmore so why some residents in the
inner-cities that thatAnderson describes remain law
abiding citizens even though they too are victims of their environment. A combination of pathological and
environmental factors have also been addressed that can be perceived as
supplement to Anderson’s=s
theory. For example, in Bio-social
Bases of Criminal Behavior, it is argued that while lower-class lower
class crime may be caused by socioeconomic factors, genetic factors also
add to the equation (Mednick &and
Christiansen, 1977). Harold Kelley (1979: 93-94)
also pools biochemical and social research, in contradiction to Anderson’s=s beliefs states that A"as
the biochemical causes are found and treated most citizens would see the goals,
means, rewards and punishments provided by advanced capitalist societies to be
sufficient for them to conform.”
(Kelley, 1979: 93-94).
In Crime and
Human Nature, James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein (1985)
argue that many criminologists are most often trained as sociologists and
are simply uneasy with biological and psychological explanations of crime. In
opposition to the very theory of Anderson, they argue that crime and
delinquency are in fact shaped by inherited pathologies and genetic
contributions (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985:
80-209). Their idea of studying
intelligence and delinquency also provides information that opposes Anderson’s=s views. Mental capacity plays a vital role in pathological studies of
criminality. It has been noted that
between twenty-five and fifty percent of our nation's inmates are considered
mentally defective and incapable of sufficiently surviving and maintaining in
society (Goddard, 1914: 6-518). It should be mentioned however,
that over half of our nation’s=s
prison population is minority, and it is from this population that the figures
of mental capacity are derived.
While Anderson’s theory holds credence in
critical criminology, in other perspectives, it lacks substance. Additionally, Iit
lacks universality, and direct causation of
criminality. In encompassing racism as
the major causal factor of disorder within the inner cities, it ignores other
major problems that exist amongst inner-city communities (i.e.: teenage pregnancy, out of wed-lock
births, alcohol and drug abuse, the breakdown of the family, etc.). In doing so, Anderson's theory does not
provide a means by which to eradicate crime and violence, rather explains a
cycle.
The notion that oppression and racism affect all areas of American existence is extremely popular in criminological theories today. The emergence of critical theory within criminology and criminal justice alone represents that macro-societal forces (ie, oppression) are being used to identify reasons for crime. Critical criminology applies to theories claiming that crime is the outcome of conflict and domination, and identifies that oppression is actually one of the greatest crimes against mankind. Critical criminologists oppose the existing social order of power based on inequality and are concerned with broad-societal level changes.
Today,
the emergence of critical theories amongst other oppressed minorities gives
credence to Anderson’s belief that the societal institution of oppression lends
way to criminality and social definitions of crime. Feminist theories today exemplify that crime exists as a social
phenomenon amongst certain populations because of broad social practices and
policies. In Currie’s articles, “Women
and the State: A Statement on Feminist Theory” and “Feminist Encounters with
Postmodernism: Exploring the Impasse of the Debates on Patriarchy and the Law,”
the idea of sexism and oppressive tendencies of American culture come into play
in determining causation for criminality.
Morris and Gelsthorpe also address this issue in Women,
Crime and Criminal Justice.
Women are not the only other minorities who are exposing oppression’s
detrimental effects within the criminal justice system. Hispanics, Native Americans and Asian
Americans are also
finding themselves involved in a system
set up by the white man for the white man.
African
Americans and oppression is an anextremely
popular topic within criminology and criminal justice literature. The
British Journal of Criminology addresses this topic quite
frequently. In
“Some Recent Approaches to the Study of Race in Criminological Research. Race as a Social Process,” (37, no. 3,
(1997): 383-400) by For example, Holdaway
(1997) ,conceptualizes
race is conceptualized as a phenomena in
criminological research. In “Violent Racism: Victimization, Policing and
Social Context” (40, no. 3, (2000): 532), Additionally,
Bowling (2000) addresses
the problem of racism within the criminal justice system. He identifies blacks as being victims, which
is similar to Anderson’s argument. . In
“Racism and Criminology” (35, no. 2, (1995): 295), Murji
(1995) addressesargues
that society is racist and in turn, the study of crime is as well. Racism is deeply embedded in our society and
its institutions. In the International
Journal of the Sociology of Law,
(26, no. 4, (1998): 393, Goodney
(1998) addresses the relationship of the young black male and violence. is addressed in Goodney’s article “Understanding
Racism and Masculinity: Drawing on Research with Boys Aged Eight to
Sixteen.” Goodney, like
Like Anderson, Goodney addressesargues
that racism in American society exists and has an effect on crime amongst
young males.
The
idea that racism and oppression affect all aspects of our existence, including
criminology, is becoming quite popular in other fields of study. In the journal Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 19, no.2, (1996): 488, Dee Cook and Barbara Hudson (1996)
address in “Racism and Criminology”find
that racism runs rampant within criminological studies. It addresses that because
racism exists in American society, it spills into all facets of life amongst
minorities. African American studies
also expand on Anderson’s theory in addressing the societal problem of racism
and its effects on the criminal justice system.
The topics of race and oppression run rampant throughout modern literature and criminology-related journals. Anderson’s theoretical implications underlie research that is quite popular today and seems to be gaining in popularity. The numbers are too many to count, for articles with these specific variables exist in almost every recent publication. Anderson’s ideas are not new, yet are currently beginning to branch off into every area of criminal justice. Currently, Anderson is working on the effects of racism in policing and the courts, and the effects of a black minority being the majority population within the criminal justice system.
Crime is a distinct social phenomenon. There exist just as many reasons for criminality as there are crimes and criminals. Elijah Anderson addresses an important sociological factor that has been a contributing force in the establishment of criminality. In focusing on two of the greatest social crimes of our nation, oppression and racism, he addresses how crime is in fact a social construct. His theory explains criminality within a subculture from the point of view of a black male, within the confines of a white world.
Anderson, Elijah. (1978). A Place on the Corner. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press.
Anderson, Elijah. Homepage. University of Pennsylvania Homepage. Retrieved September 13, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.bkstore.com/upenn/fac/anderson.html
Anderson, Elijah. (1990). Streetwise: Race, Class and Change in an Urban Community.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anderson, Elijah.
(1999). The Code of the
Streets: Decency, Violence and the
Moral
Life Of the Inner City. New York and London: WW Norton and Company.
Anderson, Elijah. (1994). "The Code of the Streets." Atlantic Monthly 273 (5)
(May): 81-94.
"Street Life." Atlantic Monthly. August 18, 1999. Interviews. Sage Stossel
Best, Harry. (1930). Crime and the Criminal Law in the United States. New York:
Macmillan.
Bowling, Benjamin. (2000). "Violent Racism: Victimization, Policing and Social
Context." The British Journal of Criminology. 40(3): 532.
Cao, Liqun, Anthony Adams, and Vickie J. Jensen. (1997). "A Test of the Black
Subculture of Violence Thesis: A Research Note." Criminology, 35: 367-379.
Cook, Dee and Barbara Hudson. (1996). "Racism and Criminology." Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 19(2): 488.
Curtis, Lynn A. (1975). Violence, Race and Culture. Lexington, MA: Heath.
Ferrell, Jeff and Mark S. Hamm. (1998). Ethnography at the Edge. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Holdaway, Simon. (1997). "In Some Recent Approaches to the Study of Race in
Criminological Research. Race as a Social Process." The British Journal of Criminology, 37(3): 383-400.
Gilder, George. (1978). Visible Man. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Gilder, George. (1981). Wealth and Poverty. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Goodney. (1998). "Understanding Racism and Masculinity: Drawing on Research With
Boys Aged Eight to Sixteen." International Journal of Sociology of Law,
26(4):
Lane, Roger. (1986). Roots of Violence in Black Philadelphia 1860-1900. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press.
Lapsansky, Emma Jones.
(1994). William Penn's Dream
and Urban Reality. New York
and London: Garland Publishing.
Miller, Walter B. (1958). "Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang
Delinquency." Journal of Social Issues, 14: 5-19.
Morris and Gelsthorpe. (1987). Women, Crime and Criminal Justice. Oxford and New
York: Blackwell Publishing.
Murji, (1995). "Racism and Criminology." The British Journal of Criminology, 35(2):
295.
Sheldon, Randall G.
(2000). Controlling the
Dangerous Classes: A Critical
Introduction
To the History of Criminal Justice. Boston and London: Allyn and Bacon.
Simon, David and Edward Burns. (1997). The
Corner: A Year in the Life of an Inner
City Neighborhood. Baltimore, Maryland: Broadway Books.
Sulton, Anne T.
(1994). African-American
Perspectives On: Crime Causation, Criminal
Justice Administration and Crime Prevention. Colorado: Sulton Books.
Wolfgang, Marvin E. and Franco Ferracutti. (1982).
The Subculture of Violence:
Towards an Integrated Theory of Criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage.