James Diego Vigil addresses the multiple sociological and psychological perspectives in his essay, “Urban Violence and Street Gangs.” Each perspective states a theory about different factors that relate to the result of gang activity. Vigil then transitions into the anthropological approach, which calls for a combination of factors to be studied for the issue.
“Gangs, Networks, and Subcultural Delinquency,” written by Paul Lerman, strictly focuses on the sociological aspect of factors relating to gang activity. Ideas are agreed upon between the two authors, but Vigil’s essay would suggest that Lermen is a little narrow-minded.
In this essay I will examine the connections between James Diego Vigil’s, “Urban Violence and Street Gangs,” and Paul Lerman’s, “Gangs, Networks, and Subcultural Delinquency.”
Vigil begins his essay by briefing the reader on the progression of American gang violence prior to the 1970s up to the modern era. Before the seventies gangs were primarily made up of white males in cities of the Midwest and the East Coast. Most of the violence among them were brawls with fists, sticks or knives. Now gangs have branched out to a wider array of ethnic groups from across America with guns as their common weapon of choice. The major progression of gangs causes many of us to question how the violence has progressed to such deadly outcomes and why would anyone want to enter such a dangerous niche? Instead of evoking a question out of the readers by using historical progressions of gangs Lerman touches upon studies performed by Shaw and McKay that have lead many American Sociologists to believe that criminal gang activity arises from tradition or subculture. However, both of the author’s summaries serve as introductions to the content of their essays.
Vigil transitions into sociologists and social psychologists perspectives to examine the multiple research methods and theories used to explain the questions stated above. Many sociological and psychological perspectives have agreed to the theory that violence is an aspect of human aggression; but more recently others perceive it as an expression of masculinity among the working-class (226).
He addresses that the most aggressive offenses among gangs are commonly committed by males ranging in ages between fourteen and eighteen. This statistic leads to Erickson’s psychosocial moratorium theory that describes that specific age range of human development. Vigil summarizes it by writing, “Ambivalence and unpredictability characterize that period of human development, as teens face their new social and sexual identities and roles with uncertainty. As a result they increasingly rely on peers and slightly older male role models as guides” (227). Vigil’s introduction of Erickson’s psychosocial moratorium presents a psychological perspective that examines the shaping of a human being by natural development and role models. He then transitions to the more modern frameworks of violence known as subculture of violence and routine activities.
The subculture of violence describes violence as being normal behavior in a system of groups, while routine activities takes the approach that observes where a teen spends most his leisure time to calculate the risk of involvement in violent offenses. The multiple perspectives and theories introduced by Vigil serve as a set up for his eventual shift to the anthropological thought that calls for a combination of factors that lead to gang activity. In Lermen’s essay this wouldn’t fly because he searches for answers through the sociological lens that fits tightly with the subculture of violence and routine activities as mentioned by Vigil.
Paul Lerman explores the subculture of violence and routine activities by sampling a select group of boys not specified in the paper ranging from age ten to nineteen. He ranges the ages from ten to nineteen to display differences throughout the years. Tables are introduced at the headings of the text to give the reader a visual of the data obtained. He walks through each table and explains what they mean to his research. Lerman’s major findings involved boys in the slums and boys with shared values.
He asked his sample the question of “Who do you usually go around with?”; with option of answering self, one or two others, or regular. Except for the age range of fourteen to fifteen the majority answered one or two others. Lerman’s data suggests that the slums cannot be counted as a valid subculture influence for gang activity because the majority of teens do not roam in groups. However, his findings on interaction displayed that boys with shared deviant values tend to be at a higher risk for performing illegal activities and conforming to gangs. He addresses the loss of subculture as lost creditability when he writes, “The data clearly supports the view that ‘subculture’ and ‘gang’ are not synonymous” (71). Instead his research displays a high association with routine activities as being a major factor in developing gang activity. Lerman’s essay is not quite a concrete answer to the question, but it does lead the reader to take on the sociological perspective of interaction, which is something that Vigil does not fully pursue.
Vigil uses the sociological and psychological perspectives as valid ideas to broaden the understanding of the issue, however, he introduces the anthropological perspective that calls for a combination of other factors. He reinforces the necessities of researching multiple factors by describing the “locura.”
Locura (defined as a range of behavior in a somewhat controlled insanity) is the street state of mind among Mexican-American gangs (230). Formation of this state of mind is completed through street socialization, which begins at an early age. Children without social guidance from families, school, and the law tend to spend a lot of their free time out in the streets. Vigil states, “The streets have become the arena for what is learned and expected by others to gain recognition and approval” (230). In such a dangerous place the major method taught to its pupils is the locura. As described earlier locura is like playing with insanity. It’s a tool used by gangs to display fearlessness, toughness and unpredictable forms of destruction. Gang members value this mindset because it helps relieve the psychological “fight-flight” mode that the urban streets can inflict upon a person.
Vigil’s description of the locura portrays the complexities of gangs and in-turn expresses the need for more complex research methods. He lists “factors, such as neighborhood effects, poverty, culture conflict and sociocultural marginalization, and social control” must be expanded upon (230). The recognition of these factors result in Vigil’s introduction of multiple marginality.
Multiple marginality is a combinative research approach that can include the subculture of violence, routine activities, street socialization and multiple other factors. This approach is exactly what Vigil was looking for when he asked for a more complex research method. It brings up the questions of what, where, how, why and with whom. Vigil gives an example of each question to further explain how multiple marginality can be used in regard to violence for the reader.
“What” can be answered by describing the youth gang; “Where” locates the gang and provides visual distinction between areas of higher crime versus lower crime; “How” calls for the social surroundings and psychological aspects of the human; “Why” is answered when describing the situations and motivations that mold the thinking and actions of gang members; “When” maps the time and place when crime will likely occur and “With Whom” profiles the characteristics of gang members and people who are most likely to become gang members.
Vigil’s explanation of multiple marginality connects all the prior forms of research and reshapes them to form more than a “laundry list of factors but a model showing sequential, cumulative linkages among factors” (232), which contrasts sociological research of Paul Lerman.
