Tolerance of Gang Violence and Social Problems

Most people can agree that gang violence is definitely a problem for communities when it comes to safety and well-being. However the tolerance of gang violence in communities can be just as bad because it perpetuates the problem and leads to the problem growing. The tolerance of gang violence stems from various social forces that lead to no alternative other than accepting the violence as part of life. This post aims to explore these forces and how they affect the tolerance of gang violence within communities as well as explain why this tolerance is such a big problem. The first thing that should be looked at when it comes to the tolerance of gang violence is how it affects the community as whole and how it becomes a problem. 

Gang violence and tolerance of it can be a problem for obvious reasons most of which are due to the fact that violence is generally seen as deviant behavior that hurts communities. The violence that gangs bring to a community not only affects gang members but the community as whole and these effects are not limited to just people being injured or killed in the cross fire. Tolerating it leads to the problem of gang violence not being solved and left to grow. The tolerance of gang violence is something that most people would find appalling and wouldn’t be able to understand but for those that live in communities that see gang violence such acts, although disturbing, are in some cases tolerated and seen as necessary. This leads not only to more problems than just violence but also the proliferation of the violence in these communities. 

The problems that are caused by this violence can be seen in Sudhir Venkatesh’s book Gang Leader for a Day in which he focuses on the activities of a gang in one of the Chicago projects. In Gang Leader for a Day Venkatesh talks about the problems that people face due to the gang violence in the area. These problems range from a lack of police to a lack of maintenance and repair services to members of the community. This leads to a lapse in safety and well-being for members of the community. In one instance Venkatesh talks about having to have a gang member bring someone in need of medical care to the hospital because the ambulance would not come to the neighborhood. This was also the case with the police in the area who were unwilling to patrol such a dangerous neighborhood. The problems that a lack of services to a community creates lead the community to look to others for these services and create an alternative economy of sorts. Most of the time it ends up being the gang who caused the problems in the first place picking up the slack left behind.  Most of the time the services they provide come with some sort of fee much like in Gang in Leader for a Day when the gang collected taxes for protection.

It is easy to see how something like this can lead to the tolerance of the gang and the violence that comes with it. When people have nowhere else to turn the gang is their best option as illustrated in the example above. This dependence comes from a lack of outside support of the community and this lack of support is assumed to be non-existent to those from outside the community that have access to these services. The lack of understanding of the outside community helps to propagate this problem because the community facing it doesn’t have many options but to tolerate gang violence in order to get help from the gang when needed because there are no other options. This however is not the only reason that communities come to accept gang violence in their communities.

Another reason for gang violence to be tolerated within a community comes from the idea that there is no alternative and that violence has become the norm to that community and those surrounding it. For most people if you asked them where they would expect to see gang violence their answer would be in a city and if you asked them why their answer would more than likely be because of unemployment or because it is a bad neighborhood. These answers although very simple are not wrong and be backed by the graphs below. One of the graphs shows the prevalence of gang violence by area type and was provided by the National Gang Center and the other shows the unemployment rate by county in 2013 provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the first graph you can see that there is a much higher rate of gang violence in large cities compared to any other area type and in the second graph you can see the average unemployment rate by county in the US with urban areas having the highest rates. By comparing the two graphs you can see that the counties that are more urban see higher unemployment rates and has some impact on the amount of gang violence. Due to the fact that there is more gang violence in these areas people come to view this type of behavior as the norm and begin to tolerate it.

 

As gang violence and presence become the norm in some places outside observers might wonder why it continues to be perpetuated and also why anyone would want to live in such a place. The perpetuation of gang violence and the acceptance of it can also be caused by the idea of a lack of capital both socially and economically which is a product of social class. This idea was talked about in the article Community Tolerance of Gang Violence by Ruth Horowitz where the tolerance of gang violence was looked at in poor neighborhoods.  After reading the article it was clear that part of the reason for the tolerance of such actions comes from an inability to get out. Many people in these neighborhoods are poor and cannot afford to move out and because of this come to accept the violence as normal. This inability to get out comes from a lack capital socially and economically.

What is meant by capital is that there is a lack of opportunities afforded to many people in these communities both socially and economically and this leads to people looking for a way to gain this capital which is where gangs come in. The problem of a lack of capital can be fixed for some by working with gangs because gangs have the ability to provide this capital. For those that receive this help it is a huge advantage not afforded to them regularly due to the fact cultural and economic capital is something that comes with social standing. As was talked about in Horowitz’ article social standing or class in these neighborhoods is usually working class to the very poor. Most times the capital gangs provide is just economic but it can sometimes be cultural and even this slight help is useful. This leads to the acceptance of gang actions like violence because in some ways the gang benefits the community. Examples of this can be seen in Venkatesh’s book when the gang in the book is seen trying to help the community by paying rent for some or sending younger members to a community meeting to learn.

The reasons for the tolerance of gang violence are all socially created and a solution to this problem needs to be found. One potential solution to this problem is assistance to these areas in way of social and economic opportunities. These opportunities are part of the reason that gang violence is tolerated in the first place so if this is eliminated maybe some of the tolerance can be as well. Potential ways to provide these opportunities could be through community programs in those areas affected by gangs.

In the end the tolerance of gang violence comes from various social constructs that cause people to have few alternatives other than accepting violence. This leads to various problems in the community that lead to a perpetuation of the problem. However one way that this can be solved by working with others outside the community to provide opportunities to members of the community. This will eventually lead to the problem being solved but the only way that this can happen is if some initiative is taken to solve this problem and realize how much it hurts and affects a community. 

Sources: 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/.

Horowitz, Ruth. "Community Tolerance of Gang Violence." Social Problems 34, no. 5. Jstor. http://www.jstor.org/stable/800540.

Venkatesh, Sudhir. Gang Leader for a Day. New York: Penguin Group, 2008. 

US Department of Justice. www.nationalgangcenter.gov/.

US Department of Labor. http://www.bls.gov/home.htm.

Attending a Meeting

Attending a meeting or event that is outside of our own comfort zone might sound like an awkward experience for most people but you can learn a lot from these types of interactions. From my own experience I learned more about the beliefs of others as well as reinforced something that I have always been taught and have learned. That being said our assignment this week was to go to a meeting outside of our comfort zone and write about our experience. The meeting I attended was a church service of a different denomination in my hometown while on break, I am Catholic so I went to a local Lutheran church to accomplish this assignment.

Entering another church was something very foreign to me and felt really weird compared to walking into my own church. The way the service was set up as well as the customs were very similar but different and this made me somewhat uncomfortable. The potential differences also made me a bit apprehensive because I wasn't sure what to expect or how to conduct myself in a different church but in the end I just followed everyone else. The reason I felt the way I did was probably due to my own norms and beliefs being different than those I was expecting or experiencing. However I realized while I was there that both my own church and the one I was visiting were similar in many ways and it felt a little less foreign. As the service progressed I noticed differences and started to try and see how many there were and in the end there weren't that many. 

As far as I could tell during the service people treated me the same as they would any other visitor to their church or member. Everyone was friendly that I interacted with and seemed pretty comfortable with guests visiting their church. The reason I knew this is because everyone was friendly and I didn't feel like anyone was looking at me any different or like I was doing something wrong.

Comparing this to my own church I realized there were a few differences in how the service was conducted as well as the beliefs being slightly different. In my own church we make the sign of the cross and say different prayers to saints during mass which is pretty normal to me but this is something that was not done during the service I attended. Additionally I noticed that there was no Communion and I was later informed that it is given every other week compared to every week in my church. These differences are part of that churches norms and beliefs which are the reason it is a different denomination. However the culture is similar and the reason for attending the service is the same and in the end I realize the two churches aren't much different. 

From this experience I have learned that although you might think something will be different from your own experiences it might actually be very similar. I also learned/reinforced the idea that people aren't that different even though they might have different beliefs or cultures. In the end this reinforced what I have learned and been taught which is that people are people and even though they might be different have something that they can teach us and are happy to do so.

Violating a Gender Norm

Breaking a gender norm is something most people see as peculiar or odd and they don't really think about how they or someone else would react or feel in that situation. That being said our assignment this week was to have a member of our group break a gender norm and then have the other group members see how people reacted. To accomplish this task we first had to come up with a way to break a gender norm, our ideas ranged from a man carrying a purse to a guy ordering fruity drinks at the bar. The reason we came up with these ideas is because men are supposed to be masculine and do manly things and when they don't people tend to react negatively or see the man as week. Our first two ideas although good were not very feasible in this particular setting. For the guy carrying a purse idea it would be tough to get a reaction due to the fact people would have to first notice then visibly react. In the case of our second idea of a guy ordering fruity drinks at a bar we would have had to go to the bar and we really did not have time during class to do this. In the end we decided to have one of the female group members walk up to a guy and start hitting on him and in the process use a cheesy pick up line. 

We decided to break a gender norm in this way because here at Michigan Tech it is definitely something out of the ordinary due to the fact that there are many more men than women at the school. Also we felt that there was a very strong association with gender in this case because throughout our culture we always see that it is a man that initiates contact with a woman if he is interested in her and not the other way around. This can be seen in movies, TV, and books and is strongly ingrained into our culture. 

Our plan to violate this gender norm was to go to a public place on campus like the library or café and have one group member violate the norm. While our norm violator was accomplishing their task the rest of the group would sit not far away pretending to be a study group for our sociology class and listen in on the conversation. The first place we tried to do this was the reading room in the library. Our first attempt did not go as planned because the ‘victim’ of our experiment was really focused on his homework. This could have been part of his reaction to the situation because he did seem pretty uncomfortable and not really wanting to be in that situation. For our violator the situation also felt awkward and uncomfortable because it is not something she would normally do. After the failed experience in the library we tried the same thing at one of the tables in Fisher. This time the experiment worked fairly well because the guy responded and seemed confused at first that a girl was hitting on him and then he looked pretty uncomfortable with the whole situation as he kept messing around on his laptop. Our violator in this experiment said she felt pretty awkward just going up to guys and hitting on them because it is not something she would normally do and using the pickup line probably made it slightly more awkward.

         

In the end this matters because it challenges not only gender role normalcy but also how we have been socialized to behave. Since we were young we have come to learn through our culture and socialization that a man is expected to go out and find a woman and pursue her not the other way around. This is something that doesn't necessarily have to be the norm because it is based almost solely on how we have been socialized to behave and therefore, like most things, we can learn to view the norm differently. Our violation of this norm challenged this somewhat and showed that it is obviously possible to change how we have been socialized to view these types of interactions. Additionally this shows we can change the normalcy of certain gender roles if an effort is made to make them normal. Ultimately gender roles are socially constructed and can be changed as people change how they socialize and how others view those actions.

Everyday Sociology and PEDs

The entry that I read from the Everyday Sociology Blog for this assignment was about the recent case of Alex Rodriquez, or as most people know him A-Rod and how society views the use of performance enhancing drugs and when their use could be viewed as cheating. Most of the blog talks about how deviance is socially constructed and why we deem some actions unacceptable while other actions that are similar are acceptable in other contexts. In this particular case the blog talked about how the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in professional sports is viewed as deviant, while the use of PEDs to help with anxiety for a performance is acceptable. The article cites the reason for things being this way in sports is because we see PEDs as giving an unfair advantage to players that use them compared to those that don’t. It also compares surgeries, like corrective eye surgery, that can help the performance of players to PEDs and questions why they are allowed in sports.

After reading the post from the Everyday Sociology Blog I looked at a blog post from an ESPN writer and another from a writer on Deadspin. Both of the posts I found were focused mainly on whether or not the PEDs actually give athletes an edge and why they are such a big deal in baseball compared to other sports. Each of these articles almost takes a sociological perspective in questioning the norms of society and why PEDs are considered deviant in baseball. For example in the Deadspin post the writer Scott Lemiuex points out that PEDs are more of a taboo in baseball because it is America’s pastime and people think that it should remain drug free. This is also mentioned in the ESPN post by writer David Schoenfield but he points out that most people care more that it helps players hit homeruns more than anything else. In his post he talks more about homeruns and the fact that the records broken by players using PEDs are sullied by this fact.  By the end each of these other posts ended up shifting the focus more on something other than the sociological implications with the ESPN article looking at the homerun data and the one from Deadspin becoming more of an opinion piece. In the end looking at these articles they both brought up sociological concerns even if they weren’t intending to do so or thinking about sociology.
The thing I learned from sociology about this issue is that everything that we do is done in a certain context and the norms we set can vary depending on the situation. In this situation PEDs and their use are unacceptable when it comes to baseball, America’s pastime. This is because most people see it as an institution that needs to remain PED free to retain its integrity. This integrity is something that most Americans value and when looking at a society from a sociological perspective we can learn a lot from the values a culture has and how those values fit with the norms of a society.   

Sources:

 http://deadspin.com/what-the-dumb-hysteria-over-a-rod-and-peds-is-really-ab-1167255086
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/39131/does-a-rod-really-gain-an-edge-from-peds
http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2013/09/constructing-deviance-a-rod-drugs-and-cheating.html

My Culture

                Thinking about my own culture is something that I have never really done before and trying to think of the key aspects of it in some ways is almost a challenge.  The key aspects of my culture are heavily influenced not only by where I live and have lived but how I was raised and what I have learned in school and elsewhere. Some of the key aspects of my culture come from my religion or values my family and friends have instilled in me. The things that I value or the values and norms that have been instilled in me are more than likely typical of someone from a middle class family that has grown up in rural area.

                For my entire life I have grown up in the UP with friends and family always living close by and always being there for support. Even now while I am up here at Michigan Tech I have family that lives half an hour away and a network of friends that are always there for me. The value of my family and its importance in my life is something that was instilled in my belief system since I was young. From a young age I was taught that family comes first, this was something that was easy for me to grasp because I have two younger brothers that I have looked out for since I was young. Having to watch out for them got me to realize that having someone there for me when I need it is important if I run into trouble. This might differ from someone who does not like their family or view them in the same way that I do.  For example I might differ from someone that was an only child who might have been given whatever they wanted and only worried about themselves.

Another thing that is important to me is to treat people with respect and to treat them how I would want to be treated. This golden rule was instilled in me at very young age by my parents and has allowed me to gain many friends as I have grown up. This is important when you are young because it helps you learn how to act in groups and to get along with people. The idea of respecting everyone and their beliefs has also instilled in me the value of acceptance. The value of acceptance is something that is fairly important to me because if I can’t accept others viewpoints or beliefs I feel as though I am missing out on a way of thinking about things even if I don’t agree with that perspective. This is something that has been reinforced over the years by my father who is a police officer. In his job he has to look at things from different viewpoints all the time when dealing with people that are in disputes or bringing in complaints. He would always tell me to look at things from each perspective before making a decision about something or someone. This has led me to be accepting of different ideas or beliefs and adapting to be able to get along with just about anyone.

In addition to the values of family, respect, and acceptance another thing that I was raised to value is hard work. As I grew up I was always taught to try my best and work hard to accomplish my goals. This was instilled in me in various ways the most obvious to myself being through always having to earn my allowance or work to save money to buy the next best toy or gadget as I was growing up. This was also instilled in me through school work because I realized that the harder I worked the better my grades were. Also when my grades were good my parents would reward me by letting me have friends over or if it was hockey season and I wanted one, getting me a new hockey stick. Eventually I have come to realize that hard work is kind of its own reward which differs somewhat from what I see with kids growing up now who seem to feel entitled to everything including grades.

Overall the things that I value and find important in my life are not limited to the examples I have given above and are wide ranging with some being more important than others. Each one shapes my actions and personality in ways that make me who I am. These values have been reinforced through my daily interactions with people as well as my friends and family. These values more than likely would differ from the values someone from a different culture would have. Culture and the values within it all shape who we are and differ based on the values and beliefs instilled in us as we grow up and learn about our environment and interact with it.  

Data as Evidence

For this posting I decide to look at the differences in the unemployment rate, comparing my home county to the state and national averages. The reason I decided to do this is because the area I am from is a small town rural community and within the county I live the economy is mostly based around factory jobs that don't even require a high school diploma. I am wondering whether or not there was a significant difference in the unemployment rates when comparing the county to the state and the rest of the nation. The following graphs show the data I found on the kids count data center.

From the two graphs I noticed that the average for the nation was significantly lower than the average for my home county of Dickinson and the state of Michigan. I figure this could be due to the fact that most of Michigan has a similar economy to that of my home county and is based mostly around factory jobs. This is especially true in the Detroit area and downstate where most of the economy has been based on the auto industry and jobs within it. But this only explains why my home county and the state have similar unemployment rates, not why there is such a big difference between the two.

The information in the two graphs starts before the financial crisis that happened in 2008 and ends either in 2011 or 2012(for this I used 2011). The information shows that unemployment for both the nation and state increased dramatically in 2008, especially in Michigan, and I wonder why this was the case. Is this due to the fact that most people in Michigan and in my home area work in factory jobs that in this time period were reduced? Or could it be due to a difference in education or both?




The reason that all of this matters is that unemployment is a problem for not just the unemployed but everyone. The social implications of having all kinds of unemployed people can be wide ranging and possibly lead to higher crime rates or an increase in poverty rates. To see whether or not this was true for  poverty, I looked up the poverty rates for children in Michigan during the same period as the other two graphs. This information didn't really show what I expected, it showed that poverty rates stayed the same and then began to increase as the unemployment rates got better. This illustrates that there isn't correlation based on factors and things we would generally hypothesize to be related. This was talked about in the text book, You May Ask Yourself, which explains that correlation is fairly tough to prove and isn't always obvious. However there could be some causality here but it isn't obvious and I would like to see more data before I made too many presumptions about the effects of unemployment on society.

The Sociological Imagination

The Sociological Imagination: 

My day started at around 7a.m. when I got up, ate breakfast, brushed my teeth, and headed to the gym to weight lift. When I finished weight lifting I showered came home and then walked to my first class of the day. After class I walked over to the admin building to pick up my parking permit for the upcoming school year then headed home to do homework. Around 6, I rounded up my brother and housemates to see what they wanted to do for dinner and we decided to make a meal and then sat down as a group to eat. I finished my day by watching some football and working on the homework I had left before now heading to bed.

One of the first things I did during the day was head to the gym to work out and improve my health, so that this year while snowboarding I don’t dislocate my shoulder again. Going to the gym, running, and being active are things that society promotes and declares are good things that people should be participating in. This makes a lot of sense in a world where we understand that exercise improves health and is beneficial to us. It also would follow that in a world where self image and how others view you that the use of weight lifting and exercise to improve oneself is also encouraged.  This also relates to the problem of self image and how society presents a certain view of how one should look which can cause problems for people that prioritize image over anything else.

While lifting one thing I never really thought about or took notice of is the fact that I wipe down machines after I am done with them. This is something society has shaped and promotes because cleanliness and health are highly valued. This is something I had accepted as an everyday thing when in reality society has shaped this activity making it somewhat unacceptable not to follow this practice.

After lifting I showered which is something society tells me I need to do every day or I will become unattractive due to the fact that I am filthy and smell. Once again society shapes this activity telling us cleanliness is the way to go and the way to be socially acceptable.  

During my day I picked up my parking permit for my car so that I can drive to class on days where the weather is bad or I need to get to campus quickly. How parking is structured is something that is shaped heavily by society. Without parking lots and parking passes, we might park our cars where ever is closest causing problems for the handicapped or those who need to park on campus to run an errand. With the parking structured and shaped by society we have handicap spots, visitor parking, metered parking, lots for faculty, students, and commuters. All of these were created because society created a hierarchy of parking priority so that parking has become convenient and easy to do.

Towards the end of my day my brother, my housemates, and I made dinner and then sat down and ate together. Why do we do this? What is the point? As long as I can remember I have sat down at the dinner table with my family and ate a meal as a unit. This is something that I have always done and never questioned but is something most people I know do and is a widely acceptable practice. The reasoning I have and most people have for doing this is to sit down to not only eat but also to spend time with family or friends. Ultimately I see this practice as something that would be almost inevitable as society developed because it provides a break from work to stop and communicate and spend time with others.   

The things I talked about in this post are all pretty routine and boring but it got me thinking about how society has shaped me and the way I conduct myself every day. Things like cleanliness and structure are important to our society and seen as good, so after looking at my day from a sociological standpoint it is pretty clear. Health and image are also something that after I think about them sociologically are shaped by society. They shape it in ways that are both good and bad, certain aspects of fitness where people do it to become healthy are good but when people place all emphasis on image it can cause problems and have a negative effect. When you look at TV and other media the bar is set pretty high for image and there is quite a bit of emphasis placed on it. This definitely seems to cause problems within society and more than likely has other sociological impacts which I hope to look into later when I know a bit more about sociology and this particular topic.