Field Observations of Middle Class “Gangs”

This paper describes the experiences of a participalnt-observer who spent two weeks with several groups of middle class deviant youtths in a suburb of Los Angeles. These observations are related to prevailing conceptions of delinquent gangs, in an attempt to identify parallel and divergent characteristics of the middle and lower class groups. As a result of these observations and comparisons, questions are raised concerning the prevalence of highly structured gangs, dimensions which differentiate delinquent groups, the extent to which adult recognition structures and legitimizes gangs, and the essenitial similarity between delinquent and nondelinquenit groups. he sociological literature about gangs contains at least two sharply conflicting descriptions of the extent of gang structure and the nature of their values. In the most prevalenit view, the gang is seen as a kind of primary group, highly structured, relatively permanent and autonomous, possessing a well developed delinquent subculture which is transmitted to new members. The gang is ilnterpreted as meeting strongly felt needs of its members and as providing a collectively derivTed solution to common problems of adjustment. Different writers wh1o hold this view have stressed different problenis, but nearly all have agreed that one of the most important funlctions of the gang is to establish close bonds of loyalty and solidarity between menmbers of a tightly knit peer group. Colhenl has identified the primary needs met * The observations reported in this paper were carried out as part of a Youth Studies Center developmental proj ect, which ultimately led to an action-research program concerned with the treatment of delinquent gangs. Both the developmental proj ect and the action-research program, now in process, received support from the Ford Foundation. The authors would like to thank A. W. McEachern of the Youth Studies Center, Uni-versity of Southern California for his generous and valuable assistance, criticism, and encouragement. A shorter version of this paper was read at the annual meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association in Sacramento. April 1962. by the gang as those of resolving status frustration for lower class boys, and providing an expression of masculine identificaLion for middle class boys. Parsons2 has also emphasized the aclaievement of sexual identity as a problem dealt with by delinquent behavior. Cloward and Ohlin,3 following Merton's conception, have specified the discrepancy between aspirations toward success goals and opportunities for achieving them as the problem giving rise to gang behavior. Kvaraceus and Miller4 have stressed the inherent conflict between lower and niddle class values and the delinquent's predisposition to the former in explaining gang behavior. Eisenstadt,5 and Bloch and NiederhofferI6 have pointed to the gang as a collective response to the adolescent's striving toward the 1 Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The CuIlturc o-l the Gang ((Glelico: Free Press, 1955)). 2 Talcott Parsons, "Certain Pritmary Sources and Patterns of Aggression in the Social Structure of the Western World," reprinted in Mullahy (Ed.), A Study of Interpersonal Relations (New York: Grove Press, EvergreenEdition, 1949). 3 Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theor-y of Dcliniquent Ganigs (Glencoe: Free Press, 1961). 4 William C. Kvaraceus and Walter B. Miller, Delinquent Behavior: Culture and the Individual (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1959). 5 S. N. Eisenstadt, Fromxq Generation to Generationi: Age Groutps anzd Social Structutre (Glencoe: Free Press, 1956). 6 Herbert A. Bloch and Arthur Niederhoffer, The Gantg: A Study of Adolesce-nt Behavior (Newv York: PhilosophIical Library, 1958). This content downloaded from 157.55.39.208 on Fri, 14 Oct 2016 04:14:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MIDDLE CLASS GANGS 329 attainment of adulthood and the f rustrations attendant on the transition from one age status to another. These authors identify different comiiponents of the gang subculture according to their interpretation of its function, but implicit or explicit in all these positions is the view of the gang as an integrated and relatively cohesive group. A strikingly different interpretation of the structure of gangs describes them as informal, short lived, secondary groups without a clear cut, stable delinquent structure. Lewis Yablonsky7 has suggested a conceptualization of thie gang as a "near-group," specifying the following definitive characteristics: diffuse role definitions, limited cohesion, impermanence, miniimal consensus on norms, shifting membership, emotionally disturbed leaders, and limited definition of membership expectations. On a continuuumil of the extent of social organization, Yablonskv locates the gang midway between the mob at one end and the group at the other. The gang is seen as in a state of equilibrium, moving sometimes closer to one end of the continuum and sometimes the other, but never actually becoming completely disorganaized like a mob or completely organized like a group. He contends that detached worker programs, by treating the gang as a true group, may actually make it one. When a detached worker acknowledges a gang's leaders, recognizes its territorv, membership, name, and purpose, lhe crystallizes its organization, lending it a structure which it did not previously have. This Yablonsky calls the "group-fulfilling prophecy." The gangs he has observed are, in actuality, quite different from groups. They are "neargroups" which have a diffuse and malleable structure that enables them to meet the varied and individual needs of the members. For many gang members who are unable to meet the demanlds and responsibilities of more structured social organizations, it is the gang's very lack of organization and absence of expectations which constitute its primary sources of satisfaction. Youths affiliate with a gang not for a feeling of belonging and solidarity but because it is an organization within which they can relate to others in spite of their limited social abilities. The flexibility oI gang organization means that it can mieet diverse, momentary needs of the members who, accordingly, participate in it witlh varying intensity. Yablonsky suggests that in a gang there are a few core m-nembers, surrounded by a large number of peripheral memibers to whom the gang is muclh less important and whlo are more loosely attached to it. James F. Short, Jr., objects to Yablonsky's description of the gan-g as a near-group on the grounds that he has overstated the case,8 but agrees, nevertheless that gangs do not have "the stability of membership, the tiglhtly knit organization and rig-id hierarchical structure which is sometimes attributed to them."9 Most of the groups he has observed have the kind of shifting memberslhip which Yablonsky de-