Gang Leader for a Day Essay

In the book, Gang Leader for a Day, a rogue sociologist passionately dives into the lives of mavin of Chicagos toughest housing projects in an attempt to develop an insight as to how the urban imp everywhereished lived. throughout the text it becomes clear that a conflict paradigm is being reflected. A conflict society is based on accessible inequality, in which both(prenominal) individuals benefit and thrive to a greater extent than others, which tends to lead to conflict and thus change. This is unadorned both in the housing projects where a halo know as the B leave out Kings stockpile over and in like manner in the surrounding neighborhoods where the more than elite citizens, including persons from the authors university, shy aside from associating with the nearby poor black nearby commonplace, thus creating unbalanced communities. In the text the author, Sudhir Venkatesh, observes how elites use their power to potency the less powerful.This is obvious in the Robert T aylor Homes, where the Black Kings profit from dose gross sales that control the community, spot the rest of the families ar struggling to survive. There blush bug out to be hierarchies within a hierarchy. For example, within the Black Kings doughnut in that respect were leaders much(prenominal) as a man known as J.T., who would make thousands in profits from commanding others and consequently in that respect were young teenage men who actually sold the drugs and barely pull in minimum wage (256).Aside from the drug sale employees, other workers such(prenominal)(prenominal) as those who ran shops or did menial work from their high rises were as well controlled by the gangs, who would use fear tactics to implement various taxes upon them. Clearly the legal age of the society is being controlled by the middle and upper-class from surrounding neighborhoods and also the gangs in the lower-class community, creating favorable inequality. However, conflict and change do app ear by the end of the book when the Chicago Housing Authority along with President Clinton decides to demolish Robert Taylor Homes in hopes of eliminating the hierarchy of gangs and stimulating a more prosperous society (269-270).There are many different particularors presented in the text that lead to the disadvantage of meagreness, including social, institutional, economic, and governmental influences. The obvious social influences were the relationships between and within the gangs. Although members within the gang act as a family, of all time protecting each other, the members who werent as fortunate to be caller of their inner circle were treated unjustly, such as C-Note (62). Since gangs took over the disadvantaged community, they had control over who was allowed to move up in the social ladder and who was not. Since the community was filled with violence, thefts, drug abuse, and prostitutes, people tended not to want each other, which would explain why it must kick in b een so great(p) for the citizens to retain steady relationships and jobs (105).If there was no trust within relationships, distinctly it would be baffling to make yourself known in the community as a decent and honorable person who can handle a job. I believe it was because of these un permanent relationships that so many persons in Robert Taylor Homes had to give to menial work as their source of income. Institutions such as work, school, and hospitals also influenced the sustainment of meagreness. For example, the police refused to patrol Robert Taylor Homes because they believed it was too risky and there were provided two social-service centers for nearly twenty thousand children (37). Similarly, hospitals seldom ever resolveed to shootings in the neighborhood and when children dropped out of school there wasnt much encouragement to get them back in.The lack of public tending was clearly a factor in creating and maintaining poverty since the citizens had a lack of resou rces to free themselves from their difficulties. Furthermore, even if the police or other institutions were present, they were extremely f constabularyed. This is evident in the fact the trustworthy police would raid gang parties and eliminate their belongings, openly violating the law themselves (231). If cops displayed law breaking, how could they expect their citizens to dutifully hold fast the law? Another reproached institution was the Chicago Housing Authority, which demolished public housing to replace it with recreation (262). Not only did they take away the only homes the poor had, but also ineffectively relocated them to a community where they could thrive.One of the main economic problems that many people, particularly gangs, in Robert Taylor faced was the fact that they didnt want to trade in their post for entry-level jobs because in many cases, gang leaders made far more than they would become if they worked minimum wage jobs (72). Many of the gang leaders such a s J.T. held the false belief that the drug economy was useful for the community, since it redistributed the drug addicts money back into the community via the gangs philanthropy (115). However, the drug economy is not a stable or lucrative economy compared to your average jobs because it was clearly very hard for people to get ahead in gangs, thus no one ever had a fair shot of earning more money in their conduct span.Nevertheless, the situation can tend to be a colour in area of debate since a lot of the residents did attempt to hold wage-earning jobs but continued to get laid off (60). In this case, the immunity economy of drug sales may have been the only filling for residents looking for an income. Another way the gangs play into the economic situation is when there are drive by shootings, in which case parents would have to take time off from work to stay home with their kids (105). This further goes to order the negative widespread effects of gangs on urban, poor commun ities in that their unlawful drug sales or shootings sustained the low SES of parents with real jobs.The political economy of felon capitalism evident in the text is other flawed institution creating poverty (37). As touched upon earlier, if the government allows certain communities to roleplay these underground social systems where only one group benefits, wherefore the community will obviously continue to be poorly balanced. The legal age of the community will be fighting for a means of income while the various gangs benefit from the only wealth available. Another political flaw is that members of the community were told how to vote. It appeared that the gangs had a misconstrued delineation of how to go about political reform. Their stem of responsible voting was to gather in meetings and choose the alderman who would best keep the police away from their drug economy, there was no discussion of platform, no list of vital issues (77). The lack of knowledge of real political issues was ultimately detrimental to the community as a whole, as the cycle of outlaw capitalism would just continue to rule Robert Taylor.As mentioned before, Robert Taylor was heavily run by gangs, leading to various social factors such as marginalization, alienation, disempowerment, and social Darwinism to overtake the community. Robert Taylor residents were marginalized by the gangs within their community and also as a whole by the larger community through government spend and vicious rumors to alienate them from the more elite neighborhoods (36). This ties in to the disempowerment in Robert Taylor, which is passing evident in the gangs where there are leaders who control drug dealers, squatters, foot soldiers, etc. (50-51). In this hierarchy, if a member of the gang disobeys the rules, such as by withholding money, then the leader will disempower that individual, morose them to rat drugs for a week or even a month in effect, decreasing their income.Similarly, social Dar winism is evident in drug dealers because the work is essentially based off of the idea that those who are fittest or around able will thrive while the so-called weak are left to die. For instance, if drug dealers are fearful they could be shot, if mothers refuse to sell their bodies, they could have no food for their children that week. Even residents with real, marketplace jobs are subjected to this theory, as none of their jobs are very stable and they could succumb to an absence seizure of income at any time. I believe it is both a elaboration of poverty and a lack of resources that are responsible for the deviant behavior and poverty in Robert Taylor. Clearly there is a high lack of resources, such as the police or hospital who wont respond to calls in the neighborhood (37, 48). For example, if there are no police then gangs can get away with beating each other up instead of letting the law handle it (226).Yet at the selfsame(prenominal) time it is the gangs who encourage t he younger generation to become part of their culture, contribute violent behaviors in them from a young age (258). Due to the absence of government assistance programs for the poor, citizens grew up with the belief that they were infinitely bound to poverty. In effect, they developed traits that would benefit their lifestyle, such as the drug economy, but did not bother developing skills that would extend beyond their culture of poverty, such as an education. Even when residents had a chance to make a better life for themselves and escape the projects, they would become lonely and move back (248). It is because of this continual dismiss from society that the residents develop feelings of helplessness and marginality, ultimately leading to a culture of poverty.In the text, the author was able to get a very personalized insight into the lives of those living in the projects, something that definitely expanded the sociological depiction of poverty (43-44). However, the fact that he failed to inform the university of what he was doing or follow any reporting requirements was not very ethical of him in acquiring his research (119). Before becoming part of the lives of gang members, he should have become informed on the fact that there is no research-client confidentiality for donnish researchers (186). His lack of pursuit of this knowledge was immoral because he could have jeopardized the lives of Robert Taylor residents if he ever had to testify against them. One line the author should not have crossed was becoming a gang leader for a day, fashioning what was supposed to be a research-client relationship far too casual. It is the fact that he knowingly crossed the line from observer to participant on multiple occasions by hearing jokes, sharing a beer, and give someone a dollar that made his methods unethical (107).