Facilitation

Facilitation: “Chapter 10: Interpersonal Violence Street Crime—‘Getting Paid,’” Inequality and Violence in the United States, Barbara H. Chasin, Prometheus Books: Humanity Books, 2004, 223-244.

Key-words: economic opportunity, crime, ethnographic studies, illegal behavior, youths, violence, narcotics business, tough persona, self-protection, attitude, tenacity, inner-city, aggression, ghetto, alienation, swaggering, fear, mistrust, respect, unemployment, African American, Latino, urban, liberating, drug users, drug trafficking, crack markets, banks, prison, recidivism, exclusion

Key-phrases: ‘getting paid’, honoring criminal skills, absence of hope for the future, female-headed house holds, pro-longed high unemployment, accepted norms, fear of crime, ‘underground economy’, physical risks, hierarchy within criminal organizations, ‘drug-war’, Big Brother, social policy, defeated equality

Key-names: Mercer Sullivan, Elijah Anderson, Sen. John Kerry, Oscar Blandon, Contra Leader, Rick Ross, Malcolm X, Edward M. Guillen, Todd R. Clear…

Key-ideas: stigma of race, the fallout from rampant drug use and drug trafficking, resulting in alienation and absence of hope for the future, young men becoming tough and violent to fear- which ultimately means respect on the street, less pressure on the streets and drug trade to conform to the ‘norm’, youths involved in crime have same values as over all population but have lack of materials to reach socially approved goals, the business of drug dealing is ran as any other job in America- yet different setting and different ways of obtaining support and respect from employees and customers, customers being the victim rather then the criminal, government support of drugs in order to stop the trade from being so violent…

How does this article contribute to gender studies? What is it arguing for? against?

When it comes to this chapter contributing to gender studies, it was difficult at first to find a connection. Yet the idea of ‘woman-headed house holds’ was repeated often and reiterated in several situations. Also, racial statistics came into play more often then the idea of ‘gendering’ those that make a living off of the drug trade. Yet underneath all of the evidence, it is clear that society sees it more acceptable for men to be in gangs, for men to commit the violent crimes on the streets and be convicted and sent to prison, where the violence and interaction between other violent men increases. Yet, it is connected heavily to the fact that many of these young boys, especially those of African American descent, that come from a female headed house hold, are more likely to find a place in the world of illegal activity. This is then connected to the supported idea that the life of crime and drug trafficking is the only place for them (them as in young boys of an inner city area, in a place with little job and education funding) is in the world of drug trafficking, trading, and ultimately a world of violence. There is also the fact that the majority of stories and scandalous drug affairs are connected my men. One of the main argument of this extensive chapter seems to be the never ending cycle of the drug trade in America and crime; children grow up in communities in single parent homes, with little financial and community support, leading them to the turning of the consistency of the life in a gang, which leads to violence as a way of conducting business, which can lead to violation of the law, which means prison, where lack of funding for rehabilitation programs and education leads to more violence as a way of proving one still has a ‘voice’ in a society which they are excluded from, which ultimately is the same idea that landed them in prison in the first place. The piece also argues for the realization that prisons in America are in fact digging American society into an already bigger hole of crime, racism, and violence. According to the chapter, Europe in particular sees narcotic usage as a form of mental illness, not that of a crime, which means more funding for programs to improve the life of the criminal so one can see and feel a need for a place in functional society. The article also argues that the crime of drug trade is truly not so different from the everyday accepted ‘office jobs’, proving the point that people that do commit these horrid crimes of violence are much more similar to that of any blue-collar job.


“Philippe Bourgois found that in East Harlem ‘regular displays of violence are necessary for success in the underground economy—especially the street-level drug-dealing world. Violence is essential for maintaining credibility and preventing rip-offs by colleagues, customers, and intruders. Thus behavior that appears irrationally violent and self-destructive to the middle- or working-class outsider can be interpreted, according to the logic of the underground economy, as judicious public relations’ ” (229).

Question: Why is violence so accepted in the world of crime? In connection with the movie ‘Tough Guise’, did Katz prove a valid point that men in American society feel a consistent need to express and conduct them selves physically and emotionally violent, as a result of the small ‘box’ media has put men into…does this translate to the drug world?

Malcolm X claimed that “When a person is a drug addict, he’s not the criminal; he’s a victim of the criminal. The criminal is the man downtown who brings this drug into the country. Negroes can’t bring drugs into this country. You don’t have any boats. You don’t have any airplanes. You don’t have any diplomatic immunity. It is not you which is responsible for bringing in drugs. You’re just a little tool that is used by the man downtown...And you and I will never strike at the root of it until we strike at the man downtown”(233).

Question: So who is ultimately to blame? Society that facilitates exclusion with poverty and not the ‘norm’ family? Or the drug dealers? Or those in the excluded parts of society? Why are men the most recognized?