Transcript

They play because they must.

They want to win, and win big.

They dream of cashing in and leaving the street casino.

The academic debate around gangs is highly charged and often disconnected from the arena of policy and practice. For the Dawes Unit, part of the social business Catch22, working in the space between research, policy and practice and attempting to bridge these fields has always been a challenge. Simon Harding’s contribution to this discussion has therefore been a refreshing change in providing a highly explanatory theoretical account which is both accessible and relevant to policy and practice writes Rachel Sturrock, Research and Policy Officer at the Dawes Unit in her review of The Street Casino: Survival in violent street gangs by Simon Harding. Policy Press. 2014………..

Social Field Theory

For those not in the know, field theory was developed by the Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu as a lens to understand relationships of power in a particular social world. Within this field, people are actors playing the same game. As Harding writes:

‘The goal of actors within the social field is to overcome their unequal allocations of skills and resources to achieve advantage that will ultimately lead to success’ (p.5)

As he applies this idea to the world of gangs, he uses the metaphor of a casino- the actors all start with a certain allocation of chips and their goal is to increase their own while reducing the stack of other players. These chips are what he calls ‘street capital’ which is an aggregate of your street knowledge and skills, your habitus (lifestyle, values, traits and expectations), your social capital (your relationships and networks in the community), your reputation and your status.

Unlike previous research in which girls have been peripheral or non-existent, social field theory allows for a gendered understanding of gangs. Harding argues that game is structured to replicate male privilege, with male violence a key strategy for advancement. Therefore girls have a ‘capital deficit’ when they enter the game, and they have to use their own strategies to advance in the field. However, the importance of social skill cannot be underestimated and whilst girls’ activity is often less visible than males’, their activity in trading information, and effectively managing the network is critical in sustaining the social field and enhancing their own position.

Central to this is the idea of a ‘game’ that players buy in to, something that means everything to them, and that they play to achieve ‘distinction’. This central idea resonates brilliantly as it moves us away from talking about ‘groups’ with ‘members’ to a ‘field’ of ‘actors’. This shift in language better reflects concepts like being ‘on road’ and other descriptors young people use themselves to express what gangs are.

Understanding gang violence

This understanding is then useful in elucidating thorny concepts researchers have grappled with in the past. Whilst gang violence is often described as chaotic and volatile this theory highlights underlying dynamics and begins to provide a much needed academic illumination. In the struggle to build up ‘street capital’ young people must establish a ‘rep’, and disrespect becomes a personal challenge, a violation. Those who are playing the game must put their lives at risk to defend their ‘rep’ or they risk becoming a victim:

‘Having established market share of street capital, you must now strive to defend it at all costs, preventing it from being destroyed, diminished or acquired. This is referred to as ‘respecting your rep.’ Any attempt to interfere with this rep is a violation’ (p.135)

He describes physical violence as part of the ‘gang repertoire’ along with graffiti, violent dogs, drug dealing etc. The concept of street capital allows us to re-think what people may have seen as a gang ‘initiation’ in the past. Rather than a young person carrying out an instruction in order to gain entry into a group, a violent act of this sort can be seen as a young person acting to build up their reputation in this lethal game.

Understanding territoriality

His interpretation of territoriality is particularly persuasive; he dismisses the idea that ‘gang wars’ in South London are ‘turf wars’ over drug dealing territory. Rather he talks about violence between rival areas as:

‘Not about expanding physical territory but about broken relationships; they are related to issues of disrespect and the ritualised humiliation of rivals to gain advantage in the quest for street capital’ (p.159)

He argues that ‘a tough reputation is built on a tough neighbourhood’ and therefore the defending of territory is risk management. Young people use the violation of ‘enemy’ territory as a way to bolster their reputation at their rivals’ expense.

Moving forward

Harding’s theory of the gang does not fit comfortably with the current gang research field which tends increasingly to use the Eurogang definition and criteria for gang involvement.[i] Rather the Eurogang definition emphasis on street-orientation seems to fit with what Harding terms the ‘elementary tier’ or ‘youngers’, who use expressive crime and control of public spaces to build up their ‘rep’. Harding’s understanding is far broader than this, allowing for the centrality of girls and the different behaviours of older young people who are still part of the gang social field.

It could be argued that the danger with a broader definition lies in the net-widening potential, as young people inhabiting whole neighbourhoods are swept up as part the ‘gang social field’. As we know, only a small minority of young people are involved with gangs and even looking at those who have offended and been caught up in the criminal justice system many have no connection to gangs.

However, his argument is that any young person traversing gang associated territory, and in the social field of the gang, whether affiliated or not is at risk, and survival in this field means daily risk management and enormous stress. He argues young people are pushed further towards this field as they seek support to address their lack of status and social capital.

This interpretation creates a moral imperative to understand this world and there are clear policy implications. The analysis has the capacity to move the discussion on gang intervention away from a narrow risk management perspective in which the community and the family are potential risks. Rather it resonates with the Dawes Unit approach of building community capacity and resilience and creating strong relationships to support and safeguard young people.

Rachel Sturrock

rachel.sturrock@catch-22.org.uk Research and Policy Officer, Dawes Unit, Catch22

To find out more about the work of the Dawes Unit, follow them on Twitter @DawesUnit or visit their website.

[i] “a street gang (or troublesome youth group corresponding to a street gang elsewhere) is any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of its group identity.”

Tags: Dawes Unit, Gangs, Pierre Bourdieu, Simon Harding, The Street Casino