Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
http://euc.sagepub.com/Criminology
European Journal of
http://euc.sagepub.com/content/8/1/17The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1477370810382259
2011 8: 17European Journal of CriminologyFiona Brookman, Trevor Bennett, Andy Hochstetler and Heith Copes
The 'code of the street' and the generation of street violence in the UK
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
European Society of Criminology
can be found at:European Journal of CriminologyAdditional services and information for
http://euc.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://euc.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://euc.sagepub.com/content/8/1/17.refs.htmlCitations:
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Article
Corresponding author:Fiona Brookman, Centre for Criminology, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd, CF37 1DL, UKEmail: [email protected]
The ‘code of the street’ and the generation of street violence in the UK
Fiona BrookmanUniversity of Glamorgan, UK
Trevor BennettUniversity of Glamorgan, UK
Andy HochstetlerIowa State University, USA
Heith CopesUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham, USA
AbstractJust over 10 years ago, Anderson (1999) published Code of the Street, which described a behavioural code that both generated and regulated street violence in the inner-city suburbs of Philadelphia. Since then, there has been some research conducted in the United States that has tested further the concept of a street code, but little similar work in Europe exists. In this paper, we explore narratives of incidents of street violence provided by convicted violent offenders. Examples are given of violence that appears to have the characteristics of code-following of the kind described by Anderson (1999). The paper notes the potential importance of the existence of a ‘code of the street’ in the United Kingdom in understanding and responding to street violence.
Keywordscode of the street, street culture, street violence
Introduction
In recent years, criminological research has developed a renewed interest in street culture and the rules governing life on the street. In particular, attention has focused on the
European Journal of Criminology8(1) 17–31
© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1477370810382259
http://euc.sagepub.com
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
18 European Journal of Criminology 8(1)
relationship between the behavioural prescripts of these cultures and the generation of violence. The major source of this renewed interest has been the work of Anderson (1999) and his development of the concept of the ‘code of the street’.
Anderson describes the code of the street as: ‘a set of informal rules governing inter-personal public behaviour, particularly violence. The rules prescribe both proper com-portment and the proper way to respond if challenged. They regulate the use of violence and so supply a rationale allowing those inclined to aggression to precipitate violent encounters in an approved way’ (1999: 33). At the heart of Anderson’s code is the idea of ‘respect’. Having respect on the street is a form of social capital that not only provides status to those who possess it, but also serves as a defence against future violence and victimization. People living in communities governed by the code vigorously guard their status on the street and are highly sensitive to signs of disrespect. Even the smallest slights can lead to confrontation and punishment.
A code of the street not only regulates and justifies violence, but also defines when it is expected or necessary. The code thus serves to precipitate violence when violence might not otherwise have been sought or wanted. In some situations the perpetrators might have to respond to challenges with force and aggression even when they have little personal motiva-tion to do so. The pressure to maintain an honourable reputation and to guard against future victimization affects almost everyone living in the area. Anderson explains that the code of the street is established and enforced primarily by the ‘street-oriented’ side of the commu-nity, yet the rules that it contains have to be obeyed by the ‘decent’ families who live in the area in order to survive. Although members of the ‘decent’ community generally oppose the values of the code, they are forced reluctantly to encourage their children to live by them.
The origins of the code lie in the poverty and deprivation of inner-city, black com-munities of the kind in which Anderson’s ethnographic research in Philadelphia was based. He argues that such environments generate despair that is ‘pervasive enough to have spawned an oppositional culture’ (1999: 32). Out of this oppositional culture ‘evolved a “code of the street”’ (1999: 33). Hence, Anderson describes the code as a part of a broader street culture that values honour and respect and demands a willingness to defend one’s self in the face of disrespect.
Anderson’s conceptualization of the code of the street is far-reaching and offers a power-ful insight into the mechanisms that might explain certain forms of street violence. However, there has been relatively little empirical research to test his ideas. Whereas there has been considerable research on the role of subcultures and more recently street cultures in the creation of a culture of violence, much less research has been done on the code of the street.
The aim of the current paper is to present the findings of a research study that aims to investigate whether there is evidence of a code of the street among violent street criminals in the UK. In particular, it aims to determine the extent to which street violence is in any way encouraged, governed or shaped by behavioural rules of the kinds described by Anderson.
Previous researchSince Anderson’s depiction of life on the street, there has been some empirical research that has attempted to elaborate the concept of the code of the street. The majority of this research has been conducted in the United States.
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Brookman et al. 19
Rich and Grey (2005) asked young, black, male hospital patients in Boston who had recently been shot, stabbed or physically assaulted to provide narratives of the events that led up to their injury. A quarter of the patients said that they had been assaulted by someone exacting revenge for a past act of disrespect. The respondents also explained that being labelled as a ‘sucker’, ‘chump’ or ‘punk’ would send out the message that they tolerated victimization. According to the authors, victims thus felt vulnerable and com-pelled to retaliate. Their accounts supported Anderson’s notions of the need to retaliate following disrespect and the consequences of not doing so.
Brunson and Stewart (2006) examined whether African-American women living in neighbourhoods in the USA similar to those described by Anderson also articulated a code. They discovered that the women adhered closely to the street code as described by Anderson. Notably, these women claimed to use violence as a means of maintaining respectable identities and reputations.
Some researchers have examined elements of the code using quantitative techniques. Stewart et al. (2006) used data from the Family and Community Health Study in the USA to investigate Anderson’s notion that following the street code by punishing disrespect led to a reduction in future victimization. In fact, the study found that those in the sample who adopted the street code were more likely to be victimized. The authors argued that this might be explained by the fact that punishing disrespect is in itself a sign of disre-spect, which in turn might have to be punished. These findings supported Anderson’s assumptions that followers of the street code are likely to retaliate against attacks on their status. However, they call into question whether following the code actually leads to greater safety and a reduction in victimization.
Brezina et al. (2004) undertook a quantitative assessment of Anderson’s thesis and its contribution to youth violence research. Their analysis of data from three waves of the National Youth Survey conducted in the USA, as well as their evaluation of prior quan-titative research on youth violence, led them to conclude that ‘past research on youth violence lends support to many of the hypotheses we derived from Anderson’s subcul-tural account’ (2004: 309). Most notably, they found significant support for the link between ‘definitions favourable to violence’ and adherence to the code of the street. As a result, they concluded that Anderson’s insights can be generalized beyond the two Philadelphia neighbourhoods that he studied.
Although there is substantial research in the UK and the rest of Europe on street cul-ture, very little work has been done specifically on the code of the street. One exception is research by Gunter (2008), who conducted an ethnographic study of young black Caribbean males in an East London neighbourhood. He claimed that he uncovered a ‘street logic’ (2008: 355) that was in keeping with Anderson’s code of the street. Many of the young black males he studied felt compelled to resolve disputes through the threat of physical violence in order to avoid losing street ‘rep’ or being subjected to ‘constant bullying and harassment’ (2008: 355). Even the young black males who represented the ‘decent’ families of the kind described by Anderson were compelled to follow the ‘street logic’ to navigate and survive in the neighbourhood.
The literature demonstrates that there have been several bodies of research that have investigated the links between subcultures that condone or encourage violent behaviour and interpersonal violence. Anderson’s (1999) original formulation of the concept grew
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
20 European Journal of Criminology 8(1)
out of his study of the black, inner-city suburbs of Philadelphia and much of the empiri-cal research that relates to it was conducted in US cities. Much less is known about the existence of a behavioural code among street offenders in Europe that defines and gov-erns the application of violence in the ways suggested by Anderson.
MethodsThe current study is based on the accounts of 118 offenders who, at the time of interview, were incarcerated in UK prisons for various forms of street violence (such as street rob-bery and assault). The research was conducted in six prisons selected by purposive sam-pling. This method of selection was designed to yield reasonable numbers of male and female prisoners and young and adult offenders. The ultimate purpose of this method was to generate a wide range of responses that would reveal a variety of aspects of street violence. The main method of data collection was semi-structured interviews.
Studies using interviews with incarcerated offenders are sometimes criticized on the grounds that the findings are based on information gleaned from unsuccessful criminals. It is unknown what proportion of all violent street offenders are successful in the sense of permanently escaping detection and what proportion are unsuccessful. However, the notion that active offenders are wholly successful and always free, whereas those impris-oned represent a unique sub-population of failed criminals is probably unrealistic (Shover, 1996). What is clear from our study is that almost all of our interviewees had committed many more violent offences than they had been apprehended for or charged with. As such, they had spent large proportions of their time as active and free offenders. Hence, the violent offenders who happen to be free and those who happen to have been caught and incarcerated are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups and not necessar-ily qualitatively distinct (Copes and Hochstetler, 2010).
Another common criticism of studies based on prisoners is that the responses given are particularly susceptible to distortion. Clearly the possibility of concealment, embel-lishment, exaggeration or outright deception cannot be overlooked in any conversation (criminal or otherwise). There may, however, be particular challenges posed in the case of interviews with incarcerated violent offenders. The prison context itself, for example, may inhibit full and frank conversations and prisoners may be particularly suspicious of the motives of researchers (Martin, 2000). In addition, prisoners may be undergoing ‘training’ or cognitive behavioural therapy within the prison setting and their accounts may be couched in therapy language (Brookman, 2010). The question then becomes the extent to which the interview setting determines the validity of offender narratives. It is unlikely that the interview setting itself is wholly responsible for shaping inmates’ descriptions of themselves and others. Instead, it is more reasonable to assume that their narratives are socially constructed and relevant to them in several settings, including past settings on the street (Sandberg, 2009a, 2009b).
Interviews took place in private rooms within each prison with only the researcher and interviewee present. Participants were asked at the beginning of interviews to pro-vide us with an alias in order to protect their identity, and those self-assigned pseudo-nyms are used throughout the paper. Interviewers went to great lengths to elicit detailed narratives. This was achieved by encouraging offenders to cast their minds back to their
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Brookman et al. 21
lives before incarceration. They were asked to recount in detail particular violent offences, how they emerged and unfolded and how they had interpreted them at the time. Similarly, they were asked to reflect more broadly upon their lifestyle.
On average, the interviews lasted one hour. All interviews were digitally recorded, with each offender’s permission, and subsequently transcribed. Interviews were analysed using NVivo 7 (Richards, 1999). To ensure inter-rater reliability, the authors independ-ently read the transcripts to identify relevant sections of data and common themes and, ultimately, to agree upon an appropriate coding scheme. For the current paper, we were attentive to accounts concerning general beliefs about the use of violence at the time of offending. In particular, we noted those that referenced behaviour consistent with a code of the street of the kind outlined by Anderson (1999).
The sample comprised 88 males and 30 females (see Table 1). The average age of the males was 28 years, with a range of 19 to 55. Three-quarters of the males interviewed were white and the remaining 25 percent were black, Asian or mixed race. The average age of the female interviewees was 24 years, with a range of 18 to 31. Almost three-quarters of the females interviewed were white and the remainder black, Asian or mixed race. The majority of the sample were currently serving sentences for convictions relat-ing to street robbery or violence against the person. The remainder were serving sen-tences for drug offences or other street offences, including sex-work-related offences and commercial armed robbery. Several offenders were convicted for more than one offence and most had extensive criminal histories, as well as long histories of alcohol and/or drug abuse. This meant that there was some overlap in patterns of offending, such that sex workers, for example, might also have been involved in drug offences, street robbery and/or assault. The interviews with these 118 individuals resulted in detailed descriptions of over 150 violent street offences.
Evidence of a code of the streetOffenders’ accounts provided many examples of the ways in which violence resulted from what appeared to be adherence to a code through references to rule-following. In many respects, the rules adhered to appeared similar to Anderson’s code of the street. In the following, we present examples of offenders’ narratives that were similar to the main elements of the code. The main elements of the code that are linked to violence ostensi-bly are: (1) the requirement that signs of disrespect are punished forcibly, (2) the need to avoid future victimization through fearsome acts of violence, (3) the need to show self-reliance by resolving disputes and other injustices through violence, and (4) the require-ment of maintaining a formidable reputation in order to maintain status and respect on the streets. In the conclusion, we will consider the extent to which these constitute evi-dence of a code of the street of the kind described by Anderson.
Punishing disrespectPerhaps the strongest element of the code is that personal slights that might affect personal identity and social status should be dealt with by forceful retaliation. There were several examples of occasions in which signs of disrespect were dealt with by
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
22 European Journal of Criminology 8(1)
violence. Mark, a street robber with a history of property crime, said that he had little desire to avenge a perceived wrong, but if he encountered the perpetrator there would be little choice: ‘Yeah, if I see him then obviously I can’t ignore him because of what he’s done to me, but I’m not gonna go round driving around looking for him.’ Tracy, a young woman who had convictions for robbery and street assaults, also explained that there was no choice but to retaliate against people who had wronged her, even when retaliation would lead to more trouble: ‘He disrespected me; do you know what I mean? It put me in a no win. He is not an angel himself.’ Tallulah, a young woman with convictions for a string of violent street offences, reflected this sentiment when she contended that she would never back down if challenged: ‘Yes I will fight them back, it is simple, I won’t walk off, I will stand my ground, I won’t walk off from nobody, not even a man, no way.’
The assertion that violence resulted from situations where there was ‘no choice’, plus offenders’ expressions of personal reluctance to escalate an encounter into violence, sug-gests that their actions were influenced by external factors. As a result, violent outcomes sometimes occurred even when the perpetrator had little heart for it or little inclination to seek violence. Tim, a man renowned for fighting, had reservations about retaliating against a wrong, but pointed out that if his transgressor persisted with implicit threats or did not show humility when confronted then the outcome was inevitable:
‘If he come up to me and just tries to give it “the big I am” and tries to belittle me again, I’ll just turn round and say to him “I ain’t interested, you know . . . just get out me face.” If he carries on after that – I’ve warned him. I’ve tried to walk away but if he carries on persisting and thinking that he can do something then I’ll have no choice. I’ll feel like I have no choice but to stand there. If he starts a fight with me, I’ve no choice but to fight back.’
Table 1. Characteristics of the sample
Characteristic n Percent
Gender Male Female
88 30
75 25
Age Up to 25 years 26 years and above
57 61
48 52
Ethnicity White Black Mixed race Unknown/other
82 10 17 9
70 8 14 8
Current convictiona
Street robbery Violence against the person Drug-dealing OtherTotal
49 46 7 16118
41 39 6 14100
a Defined as the most serious conviction when there were multiple convictions.
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Brookman et al. 23
Although fighting and assault are the most obvious ways of punishing disrespect, robbery can provide an equally powerful means of doing so. Anderson (1999) specifi-cally mentions the way in which possessions taken by force from another can become perceived as ‘trophies’ and evidence of effectively discrediting the status of the victim. There were several examples of victims who were robbed as punishment to rectify perceived disrespect.
Lucky, a man who had committed several robberies, noted that money played only a small part in motivating his crimes and preferred to characterize these events as fights: ‘Nah, it’s just, just one of those things innit, someone troubles you, it’s like payback time.’ Jay, a male with an extensive criminal record for robbery, commercial burglary and assault, believed that robbery provides a lesson for those who insult capable street fighters by punishing them and by symbolically establishing victory in the combat:
‘I was meeting a crack cocaine dealer I was, and I was waiting to use the phone box and there was someone using the phone. I kept tapping the window and saying “hurry up mate I want to use the phone”, and he called me a fucking arse hole. So I walked off and thought nothing of it. About 10 minutes later he came out of the phone box and called me an arse hole again, so I crossed over the road and we started exchanging words and before I knew it we were both fighting. I kicked his legs from underneath him and his wallet came out on the floor and I picked his wallet up and said “that will teach you, you stupid twat” and just walked off.’
Tallulah, when discussing a carjacking that she had committed, recalled a similar motive:
‘Yes, one night we were in Sheffield and this lass, we was at a nightclub and she got right cheeky with me and I were just off my face and as I was coming down, I thought right you bitch I am going to get you back and I took her car, and my partner at the time beat up her fella and I beat her up. Kicked shit out of them and then just drove it around Sheffield.’
In these accounts, violence is seen as street justice applied to those who are disre-spectful. It serves both to teach a lesson to the victim and to reinforce the principles of the street code.
Insuring against victimizationAnderson specifically noted the importance of personal status in insuring against vic-timization: ‘With the right amount of respect, individuals can avoid being bothered in public. This security is important, for if they are bothered, not only may they face physi-cal dangers, but they will have been disgraced or “dissed” (disrespected)’ (1999: 33). The ability to deal effectively with challenges on the street can insure against future violent attacks. In this case, not following the code might mean that the person is marked out by opponents as a potential victim.
Mary Jane, a prostitute with convictions for robbery, burglary and theft against clients, articulated this idea when she explained why fights with other women on the streets sometimes were necessary:
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
24 European Journal of Criminology 8(1)
‘No you are thinking they’re really high and all this lot and they’re just a bit mouthy and all that so you have to do it because at the end of the day, right, you gotta work on the street and if they can take the piss out of you then they all will. So you gotta stand your ground, it’s . . . the way it is, it’s the way the world is, d’ya know what I mean?’
Jason, a black drug dealer with convictions for attempted murder and firearms offences, explained how retaliation against perceived harms was necessary, not only to punish the offender, but also to maintain status and guard against future attack. ‘I mean, people don’t want to seem to lose face is it, and one hears that something happens to them. . . If anything happens to me something has to happen, standard.’
In addition to the perceived need to retaliate against personal attacks or other slights that have already happened, violence is sometimes seen as necessary to protect against attacks that might happen at some time in the future. In this case, a rival might be seen as a potential threat and pre-emptive actions might have to be taken to prevent the threats from materializing. This was also mentioned by Jason:
‘If we don’t look for them they look for us. . . So I was looking for them and they seen me as a bigger threat than anybody else, me and my friend, they seen us as the biggest threats so they made it their business to look for me.’
This kind of anticipatory violence can sometimes escalate to the point where extreme violence is used to protect against extreme violence. Jason continued:
‘the second time, some guy who used to move with us got killed and me and my cousin got arrested for it, my cousin got charged and I got released and then . . . I was walking through my estate with a girl, that’s when I’m picked upon and shot, and she got shot as well.’
These accounts show that offenders see violence and reputation as a deterrent against future attack, but are aware that this can also perpetuate violence and cycles of retalia-tion. However, they generally see themselves as living and surviving in a violent world that prioritizes actions directed at dealing with the immediate threat.
Self-reliance in resolving personal conflictsThere is a need for street offenders to maintain a belief in themselves and their abilities for self-reliance. In part, this is a result of being associated with a street culture that is substantially cut off from conventional society. This means that they are largely isolated from formal means of control such as the police and the courts for resolving disputes. It becomes necessary to handle personal conflicts oneself. The code demands that interper-sonal confrontations are handled by the participants and there is a strong preference that this is done immediately and with courage.
The common view among the offenders we spoke to is that the code of the street pro-vides an immediate, practical solution to personal conflicts. In most situations, following the code is seen as the right thing to do in a context with few effective alternatives. In the words of Leon (with convictions for robbery, burglary and assault), ‘From what I’ve
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Brookman et al. 25
seen, fights are better ended there and then and not really, really hurt the person, but give ’em a good kicking like, so that at least he knows there’s no point in coming back.’ Ali, a young Asian male with convictions for robbery and assault, explained that there is little point in attempting other resolutions: ‘If it was someone giving me grief, I’ve learnt from years that trying to walk away or negotiate or take their crap [doesn’t work] – you just have to deal with it, just fight.’ The lesson learnt by these offenders is that the most vio-lent form of retaliation comes from the hands of the disrespected. Street reputations might be undermined or lost if resolutions are sought from elsewhere.
However, it is also important for personal reputation that it is seen to be done (Anderson, 1999). Lucky explained that most of the people he encountered would be expected to retaliate either by themselves or with associates because ‘the person who’s attacked ain’t going to the police, cos they don’t deal with the police. You sort shit out on your own, unless you’re a proper muppet.’ Mary Jane expressed the same sentiment: ‘If I can’t sort my own problems out then it shouldn’t be sorted at all, d’ya know what I mean? I don’t need police; I can look after myself.’ The image of the rugged and feared individual can be undermined unless they can deal with their prob-lems themselves.
Maintaining a fearful reputationAmong those who adhere to the code, developing and maintaining a respectable repu-tation is a hard-fought battle. As a result, they can become extra sensitive to apparent slights. Failure to respond to a threat (real or imaginary) might be seen as a sign of weakness that could be detrimental to one’s reputation. Rabbit, a street robber with convictions for drugs possession and assault, contended that his only fear in fights was reputational:
‘Yeah it’s like fear really, you know what I mean? I was brought up with gypsies, so I’m not shy to throw a punch like. It’s like, I can, I’m in fear of my reputation, everyone hits me so I have to hit first.’
Similarly, James (convicted of carjacking as well as a wide range of other violent and property crimes) also noted the importance of reputation when discussing his reasons for fighting:
‘It was the, the rush and the excitement of actually doing that, and I think it was showing someone else the image that, bollocks, “look at the big I am” sort of thing. So it was like, one of them like. Big guy, I am, look at me, I can do this, what do you want, do you know what I mean?’
Several offenders claimed that demonstrations of violent potential were necessary to gain respect across a wide area. Another Mark, a carjacker, explained that one of his crimes was intended to strengthen his community reputation: ‘We wanted to make our-selves look big around the area, so we just done anything.’ Some saw their crimes as events that demonstrated their criminal potential and maintained a reputation for
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
26 European Journal of Criminology 8(1)
violence. They explained that, in their social world, the desire to maintain a respectable reputation was common. As Mo (a black male convicted of commercial robbery and drugs offences) explained: ‘there’s a lot of people in the area like, lots of people, . . . basi-cally trying to prove themselves.’
Reputations can become more secure over time, but they also require maintenance by the occasional notable acts of violence. As Anderson noted: ‘respect is viewed as almost an external entity, one that is hard-won but easily lost – and so must constantly be guarded’ (1999: 33). When asked whether reputations could be lost, Nathan gave support to this idea: ‘Yeah you can [lose it]. It’s like if you’re not fearless then you’re going to lose it.’ Gemma, a young female with convictions for weapons possession and drug-dealing, said that her reputation was on a firm foundation, but it was sometimes neces-sary to demonstrate the validity of her reputation. In explaining why she physically assaulted a particular girl, she noted the importance of maintaining her reputation:
‘We already had [respect], but . . . we had to keep, make sure people, I don’t know actually, so people knew that we were still the way we portrayed ourselves through the year. We had a reputation to keep basically.’
The importance of reputations for violence was not limited to defensive actions or righting perceived wrongs. Some offenders claimed that they committed robbery to enhance their reputation on the street. Stuart, a young, white, street robber, explained that robbery made perfect sense as a way of settling scores, but he was careful to point out that robbery had to be done in such a way as to send out the right message:
‘This [robbery] was just outside my area. I was walking home and I saw this kid who I didn’t get along with, I’d been drinking and I mean he was coming down the other side so I just run over, knocked him out, stamped on his head a couple of times, and took everything he had and that. . . I thought, fuck it, I’ve knocked him out now, you kna what I mean, I’ve stamped on his head, I may as well take what he’s got, innit. He can go back and tell his boys, you know what I mean.’
Other offenders contended that such a reputation could be established not only by violence but by daring or profitable crimes. In their view, different crimes earn different levels of respect, with the most brazen and those who are able to consistently make money from crime getting the highest accolades. Paul (with many convictions for street assaults) explained that violence might establish one’s credibility, but so did being a generally capable criminal:
‘I don’t know. People who know me say that I do whatever. I earned my respect by thumping everyone out there. I don’t need them to say, I do this or I do that, because why do they want to come and work for me. If they are such a good person why come looking for me to work for me? At the end of the day, I make a lot of good money out there.’
Another respondent, also called Paul (a high-level drug dealer), explained how vio-lence to maintain respect was often used with reluctance.
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Brookman et al. 27
‘I only use violence, only because of the reputation and to be able to. If I had a choice, I would not be using violence. If I could walk away and keep my position, I would. You have to do it. If you don’t, what is going to happen to you? At the end of the day, the people I’m connected to, it takes years to get where I am at the top. So I have to do it. I’m ashamed of it but this is the way it is.’
Violence for protection and maintenance of a reputation was a prominent theme in these interviews. These offenders noted that keeping up the appearance of being poten-tially dangerous was a continuing concern for them. At times, violence was a form of showing off and exhibiting fearlessness and prowess in a fight. At other times, violence was a more desperate means of reinforcing the view that they were untouchable and to be avoided. This view corresponds to the earlier notions that violence is not always desired but generally is necessary to maintain one’s reputation.
ConclusionThe main aim of this paper was to determine whether there exists a code of the street in the UK similar to that described by Anderson (1999) in his study of street life in the inner-city suburbs of Philadelphia. We also aimed to examine (if there was evidence of such a code) the way in which the code governed and shaped behaviour on the streets.
We should note that we are not making any assumptions about whether Anderson’s ideas are correct in relation to Philadelphia or confirming that a code of the street exists in the United States. The concept is not universally accepted and some writers have chal-lenged it. Wacquant (2002), for example, identifies what he sees as several major weak-nesses in the concept. He contends that it is unclear what the code of the street is and claims that it is variously described as ‘informal rules’, a ‘value orientation’, an ‘opposi-tional culture’ and a ‘script for behaviour’. The source of the codes is also described in different ways, including the idea that it is a product of current economic domination as well as an ancient version of masculine honour. He also argues that the thesis presumes a passive acceptance of the code and ignores agency and human inventiveness. The code is presented as a machine that, he claims, ‘moves people about in the manner of puppets’ (2002: 1493). However, it is debatable whether these criticisms properly represent Anderson’s views. Continued discussion on the concept of a code and recent empirical research investigating the topic suggest that the concept remains of academic relevance.
Anderson’s code of the street describes the conditions under which violence might be acceptable or required. There are several key elements of the code that define the way in which a street code might lead to violence in practice. These were described earlier as: the requirement that signs of disrespect are punished forcibly, the need to avoid future victimization through fearsome acts of violence, the need to show self-reliance by resolv-ing disputes and other injustices through violence, and the requirement of maintaining a formidable reputation in order to maintain status and respect on the streets.
The narratives discussed provide many instances of the enactment of violence con-sistent with these elements and the broader concept of a street code. Overwhelmingly, participants claimed that perceived disrespect should be confronted head on and usually with violence. According to these accounts, slights on character or other signs of
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
28 European Journal of Criminology 8(1)
disrespect could not go unpunished for fear of loss of status and negative consequences from peers. The fact that on so many occasions offenders stated that they ‘had no choice’ or that the decision was ‘out of their hands’ indicates the influence of external factors consistent with following a behavioural code. The common theme among these accounts is that violence is mandatory as a means of gaining and maintaining status on the streets.
There was also evidence of rule-following in relation to other elements of the code. Violence sometimes had to be administered, regardless of the immediate wishes of the perpetrator, to avoid future victimization. According to Anderson (1999), it is essential to avenge a wrong to avoid being ‘tried’ (challenged) or ‘rolled on’ (physically assaulted) by any number of interested others. The concept of self-reliance was something that also has to be preserved through violence as a result of limited conventional opportunities for justice. This meant that victims had to take the law into their own hands and deal directly with slights and other injustices against them. The outcome of this is that disputes rarely could be resolved by walking away or through negotiation. Instead, as Ali explained, ‘you just have to deal with it, just fight’.
Maintaining a fearful reputation on the streets was another element of the code described by Anderson and was revealed as a feature of street life among our offenders. Reputations not are only fought for and won, but also have to be maintained, which requires occasional acts of seemingly gratuitous violence. According to these accounts, there is some evidence of a street code among UK street offenders consistent with the ideas expressed by Anderson based on his work in America.
However, it is possible that these accounts are describing not guides to behaviour but rationalizations and neutralizations for independently motivated violence (Maruna and Copes, 2005). Jimerson and Oware (2006) argue that Anderson, as an ethnographer, viewed the code of the street as a cause of behaviour (especially violent behaviour), whereas ethnomethodologists would claim that the code of the street is no more than accounts or justifications of behaviour. They claim that the conflict can be resolved by combining the approaches, whereby the codes are viewed as both causes and conse-quences of action. However, it is perhaps an oversimplification to suggest that Anderson viewed the code solely as a cause of behaviour. In fact, he argued that the code of the street not only motivates violence, but also enables it through the provision of acceptable justifications. Specifically, he notes: ‘They [the informal rules] regulate the use of vio-lence and so supply a rationale allowing those who are inclined to aggression to precipi-tate violent encounters in an approved way’ (1999: 33).
It is also possible that the observations made by Anderson could be explained in another way. Gambetta (2009), for example, uses signalling theory to explain the micro-dynamics of interpersonal violence among prison inmates and provides several examples of inmates’ willingness to use violence in defence of their status or reputation. However, Gambetta does not go so far as to formalize this into a system of rules. Instead, he defines fighting as ‘a communicative act, an act aimed at shaping or modifying other prisoners’ beliefs. Needless to say, fighting over reputation also has material consequences, in that one who chooses to fight is possibly less likely to be victimized in future encounters’ (2009: 91). His focus is thus much more on the ‘fine details’ of interpersonal violence and he does not claim that his work represents a challenge to broader views.
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Brookman et al. 29
Sandberg (2008) also undertook ethnographic research on ethnic minority youths on the streets of Oslo in Norway and provides a slightly different explanation for street violence. Using Bourdieu’s (1986) concepts of social capital, he argues that marginalized ethnic minorities and some refugees use violence in order to accumulate symbolic capi-tal. ‘In street culture, a reputation for violence is an important asset. It is symbolic power or street capital’ (emphasis in original). Like Anderson, he maintains that, ‘building a violent reputation, or building street capital, not only commands respect but also serves to deter future assaults’ (2008: 161).
Accepting that there is no complete agreement on Anderson’s conception of the code of the street, and accepting that there might be alternative explanations, we can still ask to what extent the system of rules identified in our research is similar to that described by Anderson. The findings of the research provide examples of all of the main elements of the code proposed by Anderson. There are striking similarities between the descriptions of the code governing the use of violence in the UK and the code of the street described by Anderson in the USA. However, this does not mean that there are no differences. Anderson described the lives of black males living in the inner suburbs of a US city in the 1980s and 1990s, whereas we are describing the lives of predominantly white males living in mixed locations in England and Wales in the early 2000s. It is likely and to be expected that the different contexts will result in different codes.
We were not able to investigate in the current research whether the differences in the type of neighbourhood, city or country result in variations in the principles of the code. This would require a different kind of research that could examine the community con-text in which the code arose. There is clearly a need for ethnographic research and other kinds of community-based research in this area that could help identify more clearly whether a code of the street exists and, if so, the essential features and characteristics of the code and their relation to the settings in which it operates.
It is also important to demonstrate whether the code of the street can in fact independ-ently motivate violence that would not otherwise have occurred. There is already some evidence from this and other research discussed earlier to suggest that it can. The fact that some acts of violence might be the result of the perpetrator following a behavioural code that they might not always support or follow with conviction is of some signifi-cance for researchers who seek to understand violence or to prevent it. Additional research is required to confirm the existence of a code and to understand more fully the processes by which it might govern the enactment of particular forms of violent crime.
References
Anderson E (1999) Code of the Street: Decency, Violence and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: W.W. Norton.
Brezina T, Agnew R, Cullen F and Wright JP (2004) The code of the street: a quantitative assess-ment of Elijah Anderson’s subculture of violence thesis and its contribution to youth violence research. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2(4): 303–328.
Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson JG (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
30 European Journal of Criminology 8(1)
Brookman F (2010) Beyond the interview: Complementing and validating accounts of incarcer-ated violent offenders. In: Bernasco W (ed.) Offenders on Offending. Cullompton: Willan.
Brunson R and Stewart EA (2006) Young African American women, the street code, and violence: an exploratory analysis. Journal of Crime and Justice 29: 1–19.
Copes H and Hochstetler A (2010) Interviewing the incarcerated: Pitfalls and promises. In: Bernasco W (ed.) Offenders on Offending. Cullompton: Willan.
Gambetta D (2009) Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gunter A (2008) Growing up bad: Black youth, ‘road’ culture and badness in an East London neighbourhood. Crime Media Culture 4(3): 349–365.
Jimerson JB and Oware MK (2006) Telling the code: an ethnomethodological ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35: 24–50.
Martin C (2000) Doing research in a prison setting. In: Jupp V, Davies P and Francis P (eds) Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage.
Maruna S and Copes H (2005) What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 32: 221–320.
Rich JA and Grey CM (2005) Pathways to recurrent trauma among young black men: Traumatic stress, substance use, and the code of the street. American Journal of Public Health 95: 816–824.
Richards L (1999) Using NVivo in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Sandberg S (2008) Street capital: Ethnicity and violence on the streets of Oslo. Theoretical
Criminology 12(2): 153–171.Sandberg S (2009a) A narrative search for respect. Deviant Behavior 30: 487–510.Sandberg S (2009b) Gangster, victim, or both? Street drug dealers’ interdiscursive construction
of sameness and difference in self-presentations. British Journal of Sociology 60: 523–540.Shover N (1996) Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder, CO:
Westview.Stewart E, Schreck CJ and Simons RL (2006) I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect me: Does the code
of the street reduce or increase violent victimization among African American adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43: 427–458.
Wacquant L (2002) Scrutinizing the street: Poverty, morality, and the pitfalls of urban ethnography. American Journal of Sociology 107(6): 1468–1532.
Author biographies
Dr Fiona Brookman is Reader in Criminology and Deputy Director of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Glamorgan, UK. She has published principally in the areas of homicide and violence and is author of Understanding Homicide (Sage, 2005) and co-editor of the Handbook on Crime (Willan, 2010). She is currently researching and publish-ing on street violence and undertaking research into difficult-to-detect and unsolved homicides. Her research on homicide forms part of the British Murder Investigation Manual.
Dr Trevor Bennett is Professor of Criminology and Director of the Centre for Criminology at the University of Glamorgan, UK. Before this, he was Deputy Director and Acting Director of the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, UK. He has published
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Brookman et al. 31
widely in the area of offender behaviour, crime prevention, policing, and, most recently, drug use and crime. He is the co-author of Understanding Drugs, Alcohol and Crime (2005), Drug-Crime Connections (2007) and co-editor of the Handbook on Crime (2010). Email: [email protected]
Heith Copes is an Associate Professor in the Department of Justice Sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. His primary research explores the criminal decision-making process using qualitative methods. His recent publications appear in British Journal of Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Criminology and Public Policy and Social Problems. Email: [email protected]
Andy Hochstetler is Associate Professor of Sociology at Iowa State University, USA. Using wide-ranging methodologies, he writes on self-conception and the choice to offend. His work usually emphasizes identity and decision-making. He also maintains general theoretical interest in criminal decision-making, choice and dynamic relation-ships between psychological variables in longitudinal data. Email: [email protected]
at University of Glamorgan on April 29, 2011euc.sagepub.comDownloaded from
