Gang Leader for a Day Essay

In the book, Gang Leader for a Day, a rogue sociologist passionately dives into the lives of one of Chicago’s toughest housing projects in an attempt to develop an insight as to how the urban impoverished lived. Throughout the text it becomes clear that a conflict paradigm is being reflected. A conflict society is based on social inequality, in which some individuals benefit and thrive more than others, which tends to lead to conflict and thus change. This is evident both in the housing projects where a gang known as the â€Å"Black Kings† take over and also in the surrounding neighborhoods where the more elite citizens, including persons from the authors university, shy away from associating with the nearby poor black nearby public, thus creating unbalanced communities. In the text the author, Sudhir Venkatesh, observes how elites use their power to control the less powerful. This is evident in the Robert Taylor Homes, where the Black Kings profit from drug sales that control the community, while the rest of the families are struggling to survive. There even appear to be hierarchies within a hierarchy. For example, within the Black Kings gang there were leaders such as a man known as â€Å"J.T.†, who would make thousands in profits from commanding others and then there were young teenage men who actually sold the drugs and barely earned minimum wage (256). Aside from the drug sale employees, other workers such as those who ran shops or did menial work from their high rises were also controlled by the gangs, who would use fear tactics to implement various taxes upon them. Clearly the majority of the society is being controlled by the middle and upper-class from surrounding neighborhoods and also the gangs in the lower-class community, creating social inequality. However, conflict and change do appear by the end of the book when the Chicago Housing Authority along with President Clinton decides to demolish Robert Taylor Homes in hopes of eliminating the hierarchy of gangs and stimulating a more prosperous society (269-270). There are many different factors presented in the text that lead to the disadvantage of poverty, including social, institutional, economic, and political influences. The obvious social influences were the relationships between and within the gangs. Although members within the gang act as a family, always protecting each other, the members who weren’t as fortunate to be party of their inner circle were treated unjustly, such as C-Note (62). Since gangs took over the disadvantaged community, they had control over who was allowed to move up in the social ladder and who was not. Since the community was filled with violence, thefts, drug abuse, and prostitutes, people tended not to trust each other, which would explain why it must have been so hard for the citizens to keep steady relationships and jobs (105). If there was no trust within relationships, clearly it would be hard to make yourself known in the community as a decent and honorable person who can handle a job. I believe it was because of these unstable relationships that so many persons in Robert Taylor Homes had to succumb to menial work as their source of income. Institutions such as work, school, and hospitals also influenced the sustainment of poverty. For example, the police refused to patrol Robert Taylor Homes because they believed it was too risky and there were only â€Å"two social-service centers for nearly twenty thousand children† (37). Similarly, hospital’s rarely ever responded to shootings in the neighborhood and when children dropped out of school there wasn’t much encouragement to get them back in. The lack of public assistance was clearly a factor in creating and maintaining poverty since the citizens had a lack of resources to free themselves from their difficulties. Furthermore, even if the police or other institutions were present, they were extremely flawed. This is evident in the fact the certain police would raid gang parties and steal their belongings, openly violating the law themselves (231). If cops displayed law breaking, how could they expect their citizens to dutifully follow the law? Another flawed institution was the Chicago Housing Authority, which demolished public housing to replace it with recreation (262). Not only did they take away the only homes the poor had, but also ineffectively relocated them to a community where they could thrive. One of the main economic problems that many people, particularly gangs, in Robert Taylor faced was the fact that they didn’t want to trade in their status for entry-level jobs because in many cases, gang leaders made far more than they would have if they worked minimum wage jobs (72). Many of the gang leaders such as J.T. held the false belief that the drug economy was â€Å"useful for the community, since it redistributed the drug addict’s money back into the community via the gang’s philanthropy† (115). However, the drug economy is not a stable or lucrative economy compared to your average jobs because it was clearly very hard for people to get ahead in gangs, thus no one ever had a fair shot of earning more money in their life span. Nevertheless, the situation can tend to be a grey area of debate since a lot of the residents did attempt to hold blue-collar jobs but continued to get laid off (60). In this case, the underground economy of drug sales may have been the only choice for residents looking for an income. Another way the gangs play into the economic situation is when there are drive by shootings, in which case parents would have to take time off from work to stay home with their kids (105). This further goes to show the negative widespread effects of gangs on urban, poor communities in that their illegal drug sales or shootings sustained the low SES of parents with real jobs. The political economy of outlaw capitalism evident in the text is another flawed institution creating poverty (37). As touched upon earlier, if the government allows certain communities to run these underground social systems where only one group benefits, then the community will obviously continue to be poorly balanced. The majority of the community will be fighting for a means of income while the various gangs benefit from the only wealth available. Another political flaw is that members of the community were told how to vote. It appeared that the gangs had a misconstrued depiction of how to go about political reform. Their idea of responsible voting was to gather in meetings and choose the alderman who would best keep the police away from their drug economy, â€Å"there was no discussion of platform, no list of vital issues† (77). The lack of knowledge of real political issues was ultimately detrimental to the community as a whole, as the cycle of outlaw capitalism would ju st continue to rule Robert Taylor. As mentioned before, Robert Taylor was heavily run by gangs, leading to various social factors such as marginalization, alienation, disempowerment, and social Darwinism to overtake the community. Robert Taylor residents were marginalized by the gangs within their community and also as a whole by the larger community through government neglect and vicious rumors to alienate them from the more elite neighborhoods (36). This ties in to the disempowerment in Robert Taylor, which is highly evident in the gangs where there are leaders who control drug dealers, squatters, foot soldiers, etc. (50-51). In this hierarchy, if a member of the gang disobeys the rules, such as by withholding money, then the leader will disempower that individual, forbidding them to sell drugs for a week or even a month – in effect, decreasing their income. Similarly, social Darwinism is evident in drug dealers because the process is essentially based off of the idea that those who are â€Å"fittest† or most able will thrive while the so-called â€Å"weak† are left to die. For instance, if drug dealers are fearful they could be shot, if mothers refuse to sell their bodies, they could have no food for their children that week. Even residents with real, marketplace jobs are subjected to this theory, as none of their jobs are very stable and they could succumb to an absence of income at any time. I believe it is both a â€Å"culture of poverty† and a lack of resources that are responsible for the â€Å"deviant† behavior and poverty in Robert Taylor. Clearly there is a high lack of resources, such as the police or hospital who won’t respond to calls in the neighborhood (37, 48). For example, if there are no police then gangs can get away with beating each other up instead of letting the law handle it (226) . Yet at the same time it is the gangs who encourage the younger generation to become part of their culture, instilling violent behaviors in them from a young age (258). Due to the absence of government assistance programs for the poor, citizens grew up with the belief that they were infinitely bound to poverty. In effect, they developed traits that would benefit their lifestyle, such as the drug economy, but did not bother developing skills that would extend beyond their culture of poverty, such as an education. Even when residents had a chance to make a better life for themselves and escape the projects, they would become â€Å"lonely† and move back (248). It is because of this continual neglect from society that the residents develop feelings of helplessness and marginality, ultimately leading to a â€Å"culture of poverty.† In the text, the author was able to get a very personal insight into the lives of those living in the projects, something that definitely expanded the sociological depiction of poverty (43-44). However, the fact that he failed to inform the university of what he was doing or follow any reporting requirements was not very ethical of him in acquiring his research (119). Before becoming part of the lives of gang members, he should have become informed on the fact that there is no research-client confidentiality for academic researchers (186). His lack of pursuit of this knowledge was immoral because he could have jeopardized the lives of Robert Taylor residents if he ever had to testify against them. One line the author should not have crossed was becoming a gang leader for a day, making what was supposed to be a research-client relationship far too casual. It is the fact that he knowingly crossed the line from observer to participant on multiple occasions by â€Å"hearing jokes, shari ng a beer, and loaning someone a dollar† that made his methods unethical (107).