Content uploaded by James Diego Vigil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Diego Vigil on Aug 25, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093426
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003. 32:225–42
doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093426
Copyright
c
° 2003 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS
James Diego Vigil
School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, California 92697-7080;
email: vigil@uci.edu
Key Words urban studies, integrated and holistic frameworks, gang formation
theories
■ Abstract What causes urban street gang violence, and how can we better under-
stand the forces that shape this type of adolescent and youth behavior? For close to
a century, social researchers have taken many different paths in attempting to unravel
this complex question, especially in the context of large-scale immigrant adaptation
to the city. In recent decades these researchers have relied primarily on data gathered
from survey quantitative approaches. This review traces some of these developments
and outlines how frameworks of analysis have become more integrated and multidi-
mensional, as ethnographic strategies have come into vogue again. For the last couple
of decades, either a subculture of violence (i.e., the values and norms of the street
gang embrace aggressive, violent behavior) or a routine activities (i.e., hanging around
high crime areas with highly delinquent people) explanation dominated the discussion.
To broaden and deepen the picture, many other factors need to be considered, such
as ecological, socioeconomic, sociocultural, and sociopsychological, particularly in
light of the immigrant experience. A multiple marginality framework lends itself to a
holistic strategy that examines linkages within the various factors and the actions and
interactionsamongthemandnotesthecumulativenatureofurbanstreet gang violence.
Questions that are addressed in this more integrated framework are: Where did they
settle? What jobs did they fill? How and why did their social practices and cultural
values undergo transformations? When and in what ways did the social environment
affect them? Finally, with whom did they interact? In sum, in highlighting the key
themes and features of what constitutes urban street gang violence, this review sug-
gests that the qualitative style that relies on holistic information adds important details
to traditional quantitative data.
Urban gang violence has been examined from various sociological and psycholog-
ical perspectives (Covey et al. 1992, Decker 1996). Though the violence includes
an array of crimes (Zimring 1998), it is the gang conflicts that concern us here: the
turf and drug wars and battlesoverresources and thedrivebys and “counting coup”
escapades. Prior to the 1970s, gang violence was still popularly associated with
white ethnic enclaves in the cities of the Midwest and East, and gang incidents
were typically brawls involving fists, sticks, and knives. Today, gangs are made
up largely of darker-hued ethnic groups, especially African Americans and Latino
Americans, and handguns and other military hardware are the typical vehicles for
0084-6570/03/1021-0225$14.00 225
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
226 VIGIL
the acts of aggression and violent rampages so common in large cities, West and
East (Cook & Laub 1998, Sanders 1994, McNulty 1995).
Gangs are now made up, as they were in earlier days, primarily of groups of
male adolescents and youths who have grown up together as children, usually as
cohorts in a low-income neighborhood of a city. Yet, only about 10% of youth in
most low-income neighborhoods join gangs (Vigil 1988, Short 1996, Esbensen &
Winfree 2001). Those who do so participate together in both conventional and
antisocial behavior (Thornberry 2001). It is the antisocial behavior, however, that
attracts the attention of authorities as well as the general public (Decker & Van
Winkle 1996, Curry et al. 1994, Bursik & Grasmick 1995).
Hagedorn (1998) has made a distinction between the periods before and since
the 1970s, respectively labeling them industrial and postindustrial. He maintains
that the latter period has brought more violence because of several factors: “the
adoption of economic functions by some urban gangs, the use of violence to
regulate illicit commerce, the proliferation of firearms, the effect of prison on
neighborhood gangs, and the effect of mainstream cultural values of money and
success on gang youth with limited opportunities” (Hagedorn 1998, pp. 369–70).
Access to sophisticated weaponry has made violence easier to carry out, as
Canada (1995) has illustrated in his Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun. Indeed, in 1968 there
were about 80 million guns in the United States, and by 1978 the figure had grown
to 120 million; it was 200 million by 1990 (Reiss & Roth 1993). There were
50 million handguns, including those inexpensive pistols often referred to as Sat-
urday Night Specials, in 1991 (Hagedorn 1998). The historical importance of guns
in U.S. culture and the strong political support from groups such as the National
Rifle Association (NRA) for continued manufacturing and relatively unrestricted
sales of firearms have worked to facilitate gang acts of aggression and violence
(Lott & Mustard 1997). Meanwhile, drug use and abuse have blurred the thinking
of, and in a limited way drug sales have increased motives for, the street youth
who perpetrate most of the violence (Blumstein 1995, Klein & Maxson 1994).
However, there are also other factors that need to be considered in comprehending
gang violence (Spergel & Curry 1998).
Sociologists and social psychologists have extensively examined youth vio-
lence. Many, like Farrington (1996, 1998), have generally alluded to violence
as an aspect of human aggression (Huesmann & Moise 1999). More recently,
others, Messerschmidt (1995) for example, have seen it as an expression of mas-
culinity in working-class culture. In concurrence with anthropological evidence,
most agree that males are more physically aggressive than females (Rohner 1976,
Ember 1995). However, in recent years female gang members or females affiliated
with male gangs have begun to get involved in and participate in gang violence
(Chesney-Lind 1999). Female gang members are many fewer in number—from
4% to 15% of all gang members (Campbell 1991, 1990; Curry 2001; Miller 2002,
2001), but studies show that a high percentage of all incarcerated females in
the United States belong to gangs (Giordano 1978). Indeed, the arrest rates of
young women recently have increased at a faster pace than for nongang males
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS 227
(OJJDP 1996), and the offenses they are being charged with increasingly involve
violence. Of course, some of that increase is probably due to the fact that the crim-
inal justice system is less gender-biased in recent years: Females who engage in
deviant gang behavior are more apt today to be treated like their male counterparts
rather than being shuttled into counseling sessions, as was likely in the past.
Girls and young women in gangs (usually in auxiliaries of male gangs but
sometimes in autonomous groups or even, rarely, in mixed gender groups) are
especially severelyimpacted by street socialization. Like males they must struggle
with the same forces that generated their street experience but in addition must
contend with their own homeboys, who typically have little respect for them. As
gender roles continue to change, however, violence is becoming a more salient
aspect of the role of females in gangs (Campbell 1990).
Likeyoungmales,manyfemaleyouthsaresubjectedto:cultureconflict,poverty,
and associated family and school problems. In addition, they are apt to undergo
personal devaluation, stricter child-rearing experiences, tension-filled gender role
expectations, and problems with self-esteem stemming from all these forces. Sex-
ual abuse and exploitation experiences, initially with male relatives and later male
street peers, can lead to pent-up rage. Not surprising, some young females are
now channeling that rage into holding their own in the violence of the street gang
world. Thus, some females may take on the persona of a crazy person, as for
instance the Chicanas who call themselves Loca and do their best to live up to
it (Dietrich 1998). Male gang members are generally dismissive of “gang girls”;
but around these extremely violence-prone young women, the males show much
more respect.
Nevertheless, most aggressive gang behavior is committed by male youths
between 14 and 18 years of age (Hirschi & Gottfredson 1983, Gottfredson &
Hirschi 1990, Zimring 1996, Oliver 2003). Erikson (1968) has singled out the
psychosocial moratorium in that age span as a status crisis in the transition from
childhoodtoadulthood. Ambivalenceand unpredictability characterizethatperiod
ofhumandevelopment,as teensfacetheir newsocial andsexualidentitiesandroles
with uncertainty. As a result, they increasingly rely on peers and slightly older
male role models as guides. Some teenagers, especially those living in highly
stressful conditions, find it particularly difficult to work through this stage of
humandevelopment.Manygangmembers, whocharacteristically havebeenraised
in marginalized, highly stressful families, have their social development arrested
and remain peer-dependent well into their thirties and even forties. Of importance
to note, sociologists have quantitatively charted a noted increase, high point, and
decrease in aggressive, violent actions in that same 14 to 18 age span (Hirschi &
Gottfredson 1983, Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990). Because gang members often are
organized hierarchically by age, older gang members are able to goad younger
members (the 14- to 18-year-olds) to carry out acts of violence against rival gangs
(Vigil 1988a,b).
Violence can be defined as a conscious physical act aimed at causing injury,
whichoftenincludesbodilyandpsychologicaltraumaandusuallyisidentifiedwith
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
228 VIGIL
certain neighborhoods (Tonry & Moore 1998, Oliver 2003). Most current theories
areframedtoexplaindelinquencyoraggressionandnotyouthviolence(Farrington
1998). Although there is considerable research still in its infancy focused on bio-
logical determinants of youth violence, such as low heart rate, the majority of the
investigations and evidence support social and psychological factors (Raine et al.
1997).Indeed, when biological factorsareinvokedtheyare usually associated with
social and psychological explanations.
Let us summarize the anthropological, ethnographic tradition on the subject.
Membersof the Chicago School conducted someofthe first studies on gangs inthe
1920s.These researchers were a groupof sociologists and anthropologists who ad-
vocated and regularly practiced urban community studies that involved fieldwork
observation and intensive interviewing. Thrasher (1927) is the initial researcher
credited with studying gangs (and also Ashbury 1927 in New York, but his work
wasmoreanecdotal) indetailandestablishingthe baselineinformation fromwhich
all subsequent studies followed, including those of today (Hagedorn 1988, 1998).
Later, Whyte (1943), Yablonsky (1966), Keiser (1969), Suttles (1968), Dawley
(1992 [1973]), and Miller (1973, 1975) added to this ethnographic tradition. Soon
after, a renewed interest in gangs emerged among ethnographically oriented re-
searchers such as Moore (1978, 1991) and Horowitz (1983), and by the late 1980s
and 1990s qualitative, anthropological investigations were underway across the
nation (Alonso 1999). Anthropologists (e.g., Vigil 1988a, 2002a; Sullivan 1988;
Bourgois 1995; Fleischer 1995, 1998) have reworked and reconfigured these per-
spectives. Frameworks of analyses are now more holistic (Bronfenbrenner 1979),
and methods of research have been broadened as ethnographic approaches have
become more popular, even among sociologists (Hagedorn 1988; Padilla 1992;
Anderson 1994, 1997, 1998).
In the more recent past, major explanationsof gang violence can be fit (usually)
into one of two frameworks: subculture of violence (e.g., especially Wolfgang &
Ferracuti 1967) and routine activities (e.g., Felson 1987) explanations. In view of
recent emphases on multidimensional ways of looking at the subject, I underscore
that neither becoming a member of a subculture of violence nor being present
where routine activities of a violent nature occur is sufficient, by itself, to explain
youth participation in gang violence. Let us take each of these two explanations
and describe them in more detail.
The subculture of violence construct posits that it is the normative behavioral
systems of groups that support, encourage, and condone violence (Wolgang &
Ferracuti 1967). These norms help guide gang members in how and when they
react to real or imagined slights and threats to themselves or fellowgang members,
such as hostile stares (called “mad dogging” by street youths in Los Angeles), a
chanceencounterwith knowngang enemies(e.g.,whencruisingorwalkinginnon-
gangterritories),orpaybacks(i.e.,retaliationbyconsciouslyseeking gangenemies
to attack). Violence is expected or required under these and other conditions and
situations;otherwise the gang member risks beingdisrespected(“dissed”) by other
gang members. Failure to live up to these norms brings a loss of honor, and, as
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS 229
Horowitz (1983) has stated, ones self-image is tarnished for either not promoting
or defending these norms.
Many other researchers have relied on one form or another of the subculture of
violence explanation. Some of the most knowledgeable of gang writers have fo-
cusedonheartandcourage infighting (Cohen & Short 1958), the lower-classvalue
of confronting trouble and exhibiting toughness (Miller 1958), or the emphasis on
violent behavior in a “conflict subculture” (Cloward & Ohlin 1960). Focusing on
disputes between individuals, Luckenbill & Doyle (1989) have underscored that
challenges to the notion of self result in a series of events (i.e., naming, claiming,
and aggressiveness) that leads to the use of force or violence by members of the
subculture.
In contrast to a subculture of violence perspective, a routine activities explana-
tion (Felson 1987) relies on space/time dimensions (e.g., at the wrong place at the
wrong time) to substantiate a pattern of violence. The potential for violence is a
product of opportunity where one spends more time with criminal offenders who
are more likely to participate in offending activities. In short, motivated offenders,
suitable targets, and an absence of capable guardians converge in certain times and
places to increase the possibility of a crime (Kennedy & Baron 1993, Felson &
Cohen 1980). Risky lifestyles of young males on the streets increase contact with
similarly adventurous males and thus such associations and interactions heighten
the potential for crime and victimization (Sampson & Lauritzen 1990).
A number of other writings reflect the routine activities approach, stressing
that it is the “‘criminogenic potential’ of certain routines that accounts for their
‘victimization potential’” (Kennedy & Baron 1993, p. 92). Most assaults take
place in contexts such as bars, parties, and other gatherings. Although ecological
factors are paramountin a routine activities explanation, some writers suggest that
rational choice is involved even when certain areas or neighborhoods are known
as high-risk places (Seigal & Senna 1991, Cornish & Clarke 1986). A whole set
of spatial and human factors are reflected in violent episodes.
In sum, both the subculture of violence and routine activities approaches can
play a role in broadening our understanding of the issue of gang violence. Some
of the shortcomings in the subculture of violence approach are quite obvious.
Little empirical evidence has been offered on how violent norms are transmitted,
and much of the inferences on subcultural values are derived from the behavior.
Moreover, the approach tends to suggest a level of organization in gangs that is
not present in the street gangs that others and I have studied, which are more
loosely affiliated (Vigil 1988a, 2002a; Fleischer 1998; Klein & Crawford 1967;
Short & Strodtbeck 1965; Suttles 1968). On the other hand, a routine activities
explanation also has its limitations. For example, this perspective typically pro-
vides very little ethnographic evidence, relying mostly on official crime statistics,
demographic variables, and victim surveys. Though time/space are crucial, an an-
thropological perspective suggests that this type of data must be combined with
other factors. Thus, other situations and conditions need to be considered in the
equation.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
230 VIGIL
Two important considerations will provide examples for why a broader picture
must be drawn if we are to better understand gang violence. Embedded in both the
subculture of violence and routine activities frameworks are the issues of street
realities and the state of mind of the individual. In previous research (Vigil 1987),
I have outlined the importance of street socialization and a street state of mind
known as “locura” (from loco, crazy, and defined as a spectrum of behavior re-
flected in a type of quasi-controlled insanity) among Mexican-American gangs
and “crazy niggah” among black gang members. A short elaboration of street
socialization is followed by the meaning and import of locura.
Street realities insure that a street subculture emerges among children that are
bereftof socialcontrolfrom families,schools,andlawenforcement,which haveall
failedtomaintainorevengainaguidinginfluenceontheirlives.Streetsocialization
isimportantbecausesomeindividualswith particularlytarnished, traumaticfamily
and personal backgrounds have had to spend most of their lives in the streets. This
begins in early childhood and reaches a high point when an age/gender identity
crisis erupts during adolescence. It is then that the more group-oriented preteen
activities coalesce and merge into that of the street gang, and in most instances
it is a continuous process. As a result, youth who are street socialized dictate
the behavioral and attitudinal traits of the streets. The streets have become the
arena for what is learned and expected by others to gain recognition and approval.
Friendship and counsel, protection from street predators, and a wild, adventurous
lifestyle become crucial to street survival. This type of survival through safety in
numbersandrelianceonfriends to “watch your back” can lead to reckless behavior
and an early adoption of locura as a way to negotiate the streets and especially to
gain the support of street peers.
The culmination of all the street experiences is the shaping of a mindset of
locura.Itisanattitudethatisdeeplyinternalizedbysomegangmembers,especially
the regularones who havehad particularly traumatic livesand are “crazy-like,” but
is equally instrumental as an attitude that can be adopted as circumstances dictate.
Thinking and acting loco is like playing with insanity, moving in and out of crazy,
wild events and adventures, showing fearlessness, toughness, daring, and espe-
cially unpredictable forms of destructive behavior. This psychosocial mindset has
become a requisite for street survival and a behavioral standard for identification
and emulation. Gang members collectively value locura because it helps assuage
fear and the anxiety associated with the fight-flight (and even the middle ground
of fright) dilemma that street realities impose on a person.
Thus, a complex problem such as gang violence necessitates examining many
factors, such as neighborhood effects, poverty, culture conflict and sociocultural
marginalization, and social control, among other gang dynamics. Such a com-
binative approach has been defined and described in other works either as mul-
tiple marginality (Vigil 1988a, 2002a; Vigil & Yun 2002) or integrated systems
(Elliot 1994, Farrington 1996) or multivariate analysis (Cartwright & Howard
1966). But as we note, it also allows for the inclusion of street socialization
(Vigil1996, Bourgois1995)andlocura[thepsychologicalstateofquasi-controlled
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS 231
insanity (Vigil 1988b, Yablonsky 1966)]. In short, an eclectic approach
(Bronfenbrenner 1979) is warranted to address the array of facets central to gang
violence, and they must be integrated in ways that show the actions and reactions
among them.
Multiple marginality (Vigil 2002a, 1988a; Vigil & Yun 1998, 2002) is an inte-
gratedframeworkthatallowsfortheinclusionofthesubcultureofviolence,routine
activities, street socialization, locura, and other factors; in short, it combines so-
ciogenic and psychogenic elements and actions (see Figure 1). Klein (1995), Elliot
(1994), and Farrington (1996) utilize multidimensional frameworks too but inter-
pret the phenomena more from a sociological perspective (Covey et al. 1992).
Multiple marginality addresses the questions of what, where, how, why, and with
whom, and it aids in explanations that show dynamic exchanges and interrelation-
ships. As brief examples of how multiple marginality might shed light on these
questions, let us take each question in turn to examine how they relate to vio-
lence. “What” is a query that is easily answered by defining and describing what
Figure 1 Framework of multiple marginality: “Act and react.” From Vigil 2002a.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
232 VIGIL
constitutesayouthgang,including itsviolent proclivities.“Where” placesthe gang
in a certain locale in sections of urban areas that are usually visually distinct and
spatially separate from more upscale neighborhoods and where violence is more
likely. “How” requires an explanation of the social mechanisms and psychological
predispositions of gang members in carrying out the gang’s most salient activities,
violent acts among them. “Why” is answered when we describe the situations and
motivations that shape the thinking and actions of gang members toward either
other gang members or unsuspecting targets for violence. “When” is simply the
time and place that is more likely to trigger gang actions that end in violence.
Finally, “With Whom” carefully outlines the characteristics of gangs and gang
members from different neighborhoods and cohorts who are likely to participate
in the violent street rituals that often lead to injury or death. A more detailed
analysis follows with examples from various research enterprises and theoretical
persuasions.
This review on urban violence and gangs emphasizes a multiple marginality
framework as a way to integrate the concepts of subculture of violence, routine
activities, street socialization, and locura, while noting other significant factors
whereappropriate.Therearegangsin manyethniccommunities towhich thismore
holistic framework applies (Vigil 2002a), and some of the assessments may have
limited application to other regions of the world (Klein et al. 2001, Hazlehurst &
Hazlehurst 1998, Blanc 1995).
Most important for the purposes of this review is that multiple marginality
is more than a laundry list of factors but a model showing sequential, cumulative
linkagesamong factors.Foranthropologistsparticularly, butalso fortheearly gang
researchers, the quest for an understanding of urban gangs beganwhen researchers
started following peasants and sharecroppers into cities. Thus, immigration and
the experiences of immigrants adapting and adjusting to city life form the basis
for all else that follows, including and especially the maladaptation that so often
occurs among them (Martinez 2000). In this vein, there are multiple areas in which
immigrants and especially their children find themselves betwixt and between,
beginning with where they settle, what jobs they fill, and how and why their social
and cultural values and practices are challenged and typically undermined and
revamped. It also takes into account when the social environment shapes personal
identities with whom the individuals interact. As noted above, no more than 10%
of the youths become gang members in most affectedneighborhoods, and the most
marginalized families and children in each of these neighborhoodstend to fall into
this category.
On a theoretical plane, multiple marginality is, in an essential way, similar to
theintegrativeframeworkthat Farrington(1996,1998) and Bronfenbrenner (1979)
suggest is needed for increased explanatory power. As such, it accounts for the
reciprocal actions and reactions among factors, taking stock of sources and modes
of human aggression, all the while identifying the interrelationships of social and
personal development in the context of rapid urbanization and uneven culture
change.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS 233
One of the first things to contemplate is that the populations of mostly young
ethnic minority populations that contain most of the gang members in the United
States do not livein the more comfortable areas of the cities. Theydid not fallfrom
grace and then settle in the worst, most marginal places of the cities. The over-
whelmingfact is that theystarted their city livesinplacestheycould afford,usually
rundown, dilapidated, worn-out residences on the East coast where a criminal life
style was already in vogue (Venkatesh 1996). In the West, the Los Angeles area
primarily, often inferior empty spaces were all that remained for the newcomers,
and thus squatter-like settlements arose. Here is where the ecological factor takes
center stage (Vigil 2002b).
Place, in this instance, breeds certain human traits and adaptations. This factor
gave us the concentric circle explanation of the Chicago School in the early crime
and gang research days, a theory that singled out the second circle of the bull’s-eye
as where immigrants settled, and crime and vice were highly prevalent as com-
pared to the other inner and outer circles of the model (Park et al. 1925, Shaw &
McKay 1942). Indeed, as noted previously, it is in place that the routine activities
theory builds its case (Felson 1987, Kennedy & Baron 1993). Other writers have
also relied on place to explain the propensity for violence or violent incidents
(Kornhauser 1978, Covey et al. 1992, Block & Block 1995). Generally, immi-
grants reside in neighborhoods of cities that are visually distinct (e.g., rundown,
inferior) and spatially separate (e.g., across the tracks, freeway, river). In sum,
being new to the city and separate from mainstream people and institutions limit
the access, exposure, and identification that one has with the dominant culture and
customs, which thus blocks avenuesfor integration. Being thwarted and bottled up
in this manner, along with residential overcrowding, which I discuss shortly, en-
gendersfrustration and aggression amongpoorpeoplein general. Space becomesa
premium among them; places to congregate, shop, andcultivate romantic liaisons,
among other social outlets and activities, become contentious issues, potential
battlegrounds for conflict.
Is it an accident that most gang violence, drug sales, and turf wars, among
other rivalrous issues, occur between gangs from similar marginal areas? Place
alone seems to have an explanatory power beyond most of the other factors be-
cause so many other human habits and adjustments emanate from the demands
of place. However, let us turn to some of the other elements that frame gang
violence.
Socioeconomic status has received as much, perhaps more, attention than ecol-
ogy in explanationsfor violence, butcertainly both in tandem showthe cumulative
buildupsuggested by multiple marginality. Again, the discussion on status focuses
on youth from various ethnic minority populations, and, as with place, it is the
marginality of their status that often is the source for aggression and violence.
For example, they know that they live on the other side of the tracks; have lim-
ited access to entry-level jobs; receive harsh, uneven treatment from authorities,
including and especially law enforcement; and are faulted for their own problems
(Vigil 1988a, 2002a).
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
234 VIGIL
Competition over resources often sparks aggressive behavior and actions that
occasionally flare up and get out of control, resulting in very violent, unplanned in-
cidents. In recent years,much has been written abouthow industries and jobs have
vacated the inner city, the places we have mentioned, and set up business in dis-
tant suburban environs or foreign nations (Wilson 1987, Hagedorn 1988, Johnson
& Oliver 1991). This development has led many residents of the abandoned
neighborhoods to participate in illicit, illegal, and informal substitute economic
arrangements, of which drug trafficking and competition over markets was a major
one (Beckett 1997). Drug trafficking and the conflict for markets, for a time and in
some cities but not all (Howell 1996, Maxson 1998), accelerated and heightened
gang violence, leading to economic explanations for the increase in gang violence.
Within a multiple marginality framework, however, the drug connection just
added to an already dismal status dissonance (Fagan 1999). In fact, quite early in
gang research, several social scientists built strong cases for economic theories.
The most well known, of course, was Merton’s strain theory, which simply refers
tothe mismatch betweenthemeansof low-incomepeoples toreachthe status goals
established by dominant society. With such structural barriers in place, differential
opportunity paths were sought, such as illicit or illegal ventures that often entailed
violence (Merton 1949, Cloward & Ohlin 1960, Kornhauser 1978, Covey et al.
1992, Moore 1978).
Yet, it should be obvious that not everybody in such places or statuses becomes
a violent gang member because of where they are and what they do. Indeed,
as noted earlier, the great majority of youths in these situations avoid involving
themselves in gang activities. Nonetheless, they have to learn how to negotiate and
navigate through the aura of aggression and violence that pervades certain places.
This variation among low-income peoples in the same neighborhood can involvea
number of things. What, then, leads the minority into gangs and violence? Can one
live in the poorest house among poor houses? Can he have a much bigger family
than other families in the area? Can his family be materially poorer than the others
and also have less social capital? And as Anderson (1998) puts it, can poor people
be “decent” or “street” irrespective of what demands are made of them? Finally,
because of what is present in these marginal places and the strains inherent in a
marginal status, can these forces lead youth to spend more time in the street?
The discussion to this point has addressed the questions “where” and “what.”
Let us turn to “how,” “why,” and “with whom.” It is in these gang research areas
thatmuchhasbeenwritten, butoftenwithsuchadiffusedimpact,becausewhatthe
authorshavetosayisdependentonplaceandstatusasabasisfortheirexplanations.
Social and cultural marginality are often intertwined; but for our purposes let us
separate them for now. Socialization routines are definitely transformed when
immigrants or migrants of low socioeconomic status must adapt to a place in the
city. This is particularly the case with social control institutions, such as family,
schools, and law enforcement.
Socialcontroltheoryaccountsfor howthesedynamicchangesunfold, and there
are many variations of this explanation (Hirschi 1969, Goffredson& Hirschi 1990,
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS 235
Vigil 2002a, Covey et al. 1992). Familiesbecome stressed when their structure and
functionchangeastheyundergourbanization,butthestressisgreatlyincreasedand
intensified under the marginal situations and conditions outlined above (Sampson
& Laub 1990, Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber 1986). For example, in the face of
job discrimination, both parents may have to work. In the absence of affordable
childcare,withoutclosefriendsorrelativestocareforthem,childrenbecomelatch-
keyedand haveto fend for themselvesduring the day. Moreover,cultural strains on
rules and duties between first-generation parents and second-generation children,
and attenuated father presence and/or single-parent (mostly female) households,
often add to a family’s stress (Vigil 1988a, 2002a).
Schools generally have a poor record with poor, ethnic minority populations
and especially so if there is a sharp cultural contrast between the majority and mi-
nority cultures. This becomes painfully obvious when little or no communication
or ties between school and home occurs. This void is exacerbated in the classroom
when cultural and language differences interfere with learning. More important,
the current school practices for students who are experiencing learning difficulties
due to poverty and/or cultural differences are narrow and poorly funded. Thus,
for the most marginalized segments of the minority populations, the social con-
trol mechanisms commonly inculcated by family and school are all but absent.
The cumulative effects, as an example, become overwhelming at this point: small
dilapidated home; large family under crowdedconditions; precarious family struc-
ture with attenuated functions, sometimes marked by violence; unaccomodative
schools; hostile and aggressive law enforcement; and, in the absence of home and
school socialization, street socialization emerges and a multiple-aged peer group
becomes a substitute (Vigil 1999).
Already among street youth the sources of aggression and violencebecome ob-
vious, sometimes starting out with when they are the victims of domestic violence
to go along with what the streets have to offer. In short, street socialization leads
to a street subculture, and this is where and how the subculture of violence is
learned and practiced (Wolfgang & Ferruti 1967). This concept is a variation of
Sutherland’s much earlier work (1934) and essentially maintains that a violent
way of life dominates the streets, and a subcultural group of youth are the carriers
that instruct newcomers in the art of street violence. Street socialization combines
elements from social control theory (i.e., family, schools, and so on) and the sub-
culture of violence concept; it explains how a person becomes exposed to the
streets and then learns the gang subculture to participate in violent acts.
Closelylinkedtothisalterationofthesocializationprocessistheculturalfacetof
multiple marginality. Enculturation is one process of learning the culture to which
one belongs, and acculturation is another process of learning a new culture. What
we have with many gang members from different cultural backgrounds is erring
acculturation in their adaptation to the city and all that it entails (i.e., place, status,
social control and socialization, and so on). It is a core part of marginalization in
that fragmented family values and beliefs, uneven schooling and Anglicization,
and culture contact and conflict changes lead many youth to identification with the
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
236 VIGIL
street. What I have referred to as “choloization” for Mexican Americans is simply
a form of the cultural marginalization that many other ethnic groups encounter.
African Americans, for example, undertook different waves of migration from
the mostly rural South to American cities, north, east, and west throughout the
twentieth century. The creation of a street gang subculture itself is made up of bits
and pieces, fragments, of their past culture as they acculturate to the new, present
culture; and in theircase, it has been a historical processgoing back to their abrupt
uprooting from Africa.
Miller’s theory of “lower-class culture as a generating milieu” (1958) for street
violence addresses some aspects of the results of cultural marginality. The new
street values and beliefs that stem from these changes can work very well on the
streets when surviving violent confrontations is required; oftentimes the threat of
violenceisusedbystreetyouthasadeterrentforhavingviolenceusedagainstthem.
Thus,although street youth aggression and violence stemfromvarioussourcesand
motives, it is the street gang subculture and the complexities of its formation and
spread that best explain the level of gang violence today—with drivebys, wanton
shootings of innocent bystanders, and other physical harm as the gang takes on a
life of its own (Sanders 1994).
As noted earlier, the most aggressive and violent behavior among gang mem-
bers occurs during that adolescent status crisis, between childhood and adulthood.
The social psychology of human development, especially the redefinition of mas-
culinity and capability, is filled with real and symbolic messages. Earlier marginal
experiences in these youths’ lives lead to a social identity that, not coincidentally,
shapes a personal identity during what Erikson referred to as the “psychosocial
moratorium” (Erikson 1968). This is a time in human development when am-
biguity and conflict reign in the clarification and affirmation of one’s age and
gender identity. Bloch & Neiderhoffer (1958) underscored in their gang study that
“becoming a man” was a strong generator of aggressive and violent behavior. Part
of the evidence to this theory was referenced in a cross-cultural study (Burton &
Whiting 1961) that assessed male initiation rites that helped youth begin to think
of themselves as men, particularly in those societies where young males are raised
almost exclusively by women but must abruptly cut the apron strings and become
male warriors. It should not escape our attention that most modern-day gangs
have an initiation ordeal that helps test and screen novitiates (Vigil 1988a, 1996);
and, equally important, many of the gang males come from single-parent families,
usually female-headed, and then must adjust to street socialization dominated by
experienced gang males.
Humansare so malleable andresilientthat,rather than remain lostinthisaura of
marginality, confused and full of rage, they reconstitute a subculture and identity
using bits and pieces of the past mixed with the present but all shaken by the
forces of a difficult city reality. Key to this street gang identity is learning to act
crazy to survive(i.e., “loco” for Latino gangs and “crazy niggah” for blacks), to be
unpredictable,readyforanyaction,evenkillingsomebody,toshowyouare“down”
for your homeboys and set or “barrio.” Many of the gang members, however, have
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS 237
had particularly traumatic lives and, indeed, are crazy; these are usually known
as the most loco among Latinos and “ghetto heroes” among African Americans,
according to Monster Kody’s autobiography (Shakur 1993). Suffering from a type
of soul death and sense of worthlessness, leading them to question why anyone
else should be worth anything, these crazies can be responsible for most of the
gang homicides or, at the least, for instigating more conflicts and confrontations.
Strangely, sharing this aura of aggressiveness bordering on a quasi-controlled
insanitymindsetand behaviormakes for a strong street bond. Street gang members
look up to one another and show deference and respect for the locos and ghetto
heroes. What has happened is that, either because of their ownsoul death, personal
traumas, and wish to prove their masculinity during the adolescent passage, or all
of these, a street gang member has joined more than a particular gang but a whole
troop of suicidal persons who play a type of street Russian roulette. The mentality
is: A bullet is meant for you or me—if you are the one who survives, you, as would
be expected, amass more stature and respect. In recent years, unfortunately, the
bullets that have moved out of the roulette circle in the streets are marked “To
whom it may concern”!
CONCLUSION
In its simplest trajectory, multiple marginality can be modeled as: place/status →
street socialization → street subculture → street identity. The literature is rich in
certain areas, such as social control, subculture of violence, and socioeconomic
factors, but notably lacking is the qualitative information and insight that tell us
how and why people become violent if (a) their family is dysfunctional, (b) they
join a violent gang, or (c) they need money. The dynamic processes are missing in
most of these studies, however useful they may be in other regards. Anthropolog-
ical theorizing and methods can add significantly to the gang violence literature.
As this review has noted, an integrated framework showing actions and reactions
among factors is where the research is going, and the multiple marginality frame-
work is merely another step in that direction. Taking a holistic perspective is an
essential anthropological enterprise, and talking to and watching people in dif-
ferent settings over a long period of time while they evince different moods and
behaviors is also part of that heritage (Bronfenbrenner 1979). In this manner, the
actions and reactions are gathered, the reasons and modes for human aggression
better understood, and the connections between the street social identity and the
personal identity are discerned.
Anthropology and sociology were once one discipline; when they split, soci-
ologists forgot their roots and reached for larger samples to make more general
statements about urban issues. Though street gang members are a difficult pop-
ulation to investigate, as many sociologists already clearly understand, it is not
that difficult to integrate intensive, in-depth interviewing of gang members as part
of large-scale surveys. Large numbers count, but it is in the details that human
complexity is better examined and understood.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
238 VIGIL
Thecontextsoftime,place,andpeoplearealsoanimportantpartoftheequation.
Forexample,somegangshavebeenaroundforgenerationsandarefoundinvarious
large and middle-sized cities in the United States (Klein 1995). Studies in larger
cities show a tradition of an age-graded gang structure (Moore 1978, Klein 1971).
This cohorting network works to maintain the size of the gang as older members
“mature out” and the younger gang members, approximately from the ages of 14
to 18, are more likely to be led into and participate in violent behavior. Attention to
female gangs and affiliates has also increased (Miller 2001, Campbell 1991) and
helped broaden the discussion of gender roles (Messerschmidt 1995, Moore 1991,
Moore & Hagedorn 1996). Newer gangs have emerged in different urban enclaves
as a result of large-scale immigration, where increasingly more street youth are
opting for this lifestyle (Waters 1999). A few of these less-rooted gangs have tried
to catch up to the older gangs by becoming just as violent, and they are succeeding.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A hearty “thank you” goes to the many community residents and street gang
members who helped me better understand the street life that generates so much
violence. Students who helped on this project by digging up references are also
appreciated. Although I am responsible for the construction of this review and
what is written and emphasized, I would like to express a deep appreciation to
my colleague, Cheryl Maxson, who offered critical advice and feedback along
the way. Finally, to my long-time friend and co-writer on other projects, John
M. Long, goes a heartfelt thanks.
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at http://anthro.annualreviews.org
LITERATURE CITED
Alonso A. 1999. Territoriality among African-
American street gangs in Los Angeles.MA
thesis. Dept. Geogr., Univ. South. Calif.
Anderson E. 1994. The code of the streets. Atl.
Mon. May:81–94
Anderson E. 1997. Violence and the inner-city
street code. In Violence and Childhood in the
Inner City, ed. J McCord, pp. 1–30. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Anderson E. 1998. The social ecology of youth
violence. See Tonry & Moore 1998, pp. 65–
104
AshburyH. 1927. Gangs ofNewYork:an Infor-
mal History of the Underworld. New York:
Knopf
Beckett K. 1997. Crime and Drugs in Contem-
poraryAmerican Politics.NewYork: Oxford
Univ. Press
Blanc CS, with contributors. 1995. Urban
Children in Distress: Global Predicaments
and Innovative Strategies. Florence, Italy:
UNICEF
Bloch HA, Neiderhoffer A. 1958. The Gang:
a Study in Adolescent Behavior. New York:
Philos. Libr.
Block CR, Block R. 1995. Street gang crime
in Chicago. See Miller et al. 2001, pp. 186–
99
Blumstein A. 1995. Youth violence, guns, and
the illicit drug industry. J. Crim. Law Crimi-
nol. 86:10–24
Bourgois P. 1995. In Search of Respect: Selling
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS 239
Crack in El Barrio. New York: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Bronfenbrenner U. 1979. The ecology of hu-
man development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ. Press
Bursik RJ Jr, Grasmick HG. 1995. Defining
gangs and gang behavior. See Miller et al.
2001, pp. 8–13
Burton RV, Whiting WM. 1961. The absent fa-
ther and cross-sex identity. Merrill-Palmer
Q. 7:85–95
Campbell A. 1990. Female participation in
gangs. See Huff 1996, pp. 163–82
Campbell A. 1991. The Girls in the Gang.New
York: Blackwell. 2
nd
ed.
CanadaG.1995.Fist,Stick,Knife,Gun.Boston:
Beacon Press
Cartwright D, Howard K. 1966. Multivariate
analysis of gang delinquency: ecological in-
fluences. Multivar. Behav. Res. 1:321–37
Chesney-Lind M. 1999. Girls and violence: an
overview. See Flannery & Huff 1999, pp.
171–200
ClowardRA, OhlinLE. 1960. Delinquency and
Opportunity: a Theory of Delinquent Gangs.
New York: Free Press
CohenAK,Short JF Jr.1958.Researchindelin-
quent subcultures. J. Soc. Issues. 68:452–62
Cook PJ, Laub J. 1998.The unprecedented epi-
demicin youth violence. See Tonry & Moore
1998, pp. 27–64
Cornish DB, Clarke RV. 1986. The Reasoning
Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag
Covey HC, Menard S, Franzese RJ. 1992. Ju-
venile Gangs. Springfield, IL: Thomas
CurryGD.2001.Femaleganginvolvement.See
Miller et al. 2001, pp. 121–33
Curry GD, Richard AB, Fox RJ. 1994. Gang
Crime and Law Enforcement Recordkeep-
ing.Washington,DC: US Dept.Justice, Natl.
Inst. Justice, Res. in Brief
Dawley D. 1992 [1973]. A Nation of Lords.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press
DeckerSH.1996.Collectiveandnormativefea-
tures of gang violence. Justice Q. 13:243–64
Decker SH, Van Winkle B. 1996. Life in the
Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence.New
York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Dietrich L. 1998. Chicana Adolescents:
Bitches, ‘Ho’s, and Schoolgirls. Westport,
CT: Praeger
Elliott D. 1994. Serious violent offenders: on-
set, developmental, and termination. The
Am. Soc. Criminol. 1993 Pres. Address.
Criminology 32:1–21
Ember CR. 1996. Universal and variable pat-
terns of gender difference. In Cross-Cultural
Research for Social Science, ed. CR Ember,
M Ember, pp. 201–24. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall
EriksonE.1968.Psychosocialidentity.InInter-
nationalEncyclopediaoftheSocialSciences,
ed. D Sills, 7:61–65. New York: McMillan,
Free Press
Esbensen F, Winfree LT Jr. 2001. Race and
gender differences between gang and non-
gang youths. SeeMiller et al. 2001, pp. 106–
20
Fagan J. 1999. Youth gangs, drugs, and so-
cioeconomic isolation. See Flannery & Huff
1999, pp. 145–70
Farrington DP. 1996. The explanation and pre-
vention of youthful offending. In Delin-
quency and Crime: Current Theories, ed. JD
Hawkins,pp.113–31.Cambridge,UK:Cam-
bridge Univ. Press
Farrington DP. 1998. Predictors, causes, and
correlates of male youth violence. See Tonry
& Moore 1998, pp. 421–76
Felson M. 1987. Routine activities and crime
prevention in the developing metropolis.
Criminology 25:911–31
FelsonM,CohenLE.1980.Humanecologyand
crime: a routine activities approach. Hum.
Ecol. 4:389–406
Flannery DJ, Huff CR. 1999. Youth Violence:
Prevention, Intervention, and Social Policy.
Washington, DC: Am. Psychiatr. Press
Fleisher MS. 1995. Beggars and Thieves: Lives
of Urban Street Criminals. Madison: Univ.
Wisc. Press
FleisherMS. 1998. Dead End Kids:Gang Girls
and the Boys They Know. Madison: Univ.
Wisc. Press
Giordano PC. 1978. Girls, guys and gangs:
the changing social context of female
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
240 VIGIL
delinquency. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 69(1):
126–32
GoffredsonM, Hirschi T. 1990. A General The-
ory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Press
Hagedorn JM. 1988. People and Folks: Gangs,
Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City.
Chicago: Lake View
Hagedorn JM. 1998. Gang violence in the
postindustrial era. See Tonry & Moore 1998,
pp. 364–420
Hazlehurst K, Hazlehurst C. 1998. Gangs
and Youth Subcultures: International Explo-
rations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
HirschiT.1969.CausesofDelinquency.Berke-
ley: Univ. Calif. Press
HirschiT,GottfredsonM.1983.Ageandtheex-
planation of crime. Am. J.Sociol. 89(3):552–
84
Horowitz RB. 1983. Honor and the American
Dream. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ.
Press
Howell JC. 1996. Youth Gangs, Homicides,
Drugs and Guns. Tallahassee, FL: Natl.
Youth Gang Cent.
Huesmann LR, Moise JF. 1999. Stability and
continuity of aggression from early child-
hood to young adulthood. See Flannery &
Huff 1996, pp. 73–95
Huff CR. 1996. Gangs in America. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. 2
nd
ed.
HuffCR,ed.2002.GangsinAmerica III. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage
Johnson J, Oliver M. 1991. Economic re-
structuring and black male joblessness in
U.S. metropolitan areas. Urban Geogr.
12(6):542–62
Keiser RL. 1969. The Vice Lords: Warriors
of the Streets. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &
Winston
Kennedy LW, Baron SW. 1993. Routine activ-
ities and a subculture of violence: a study of
violence on the street. J. Res. Crime Delin-
quency 30(1):88–111
Klein M. 1971. Street Gangs and Street Work-
ers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
KleinM.1995.TheAmericanStreetGang.New
York: Oxford Univ. Press
Klein M, Crawford LD. 1967. Group, gangs
andcohesiveness.J.Res. Crime Delinquency
4:63–75
KleinMW,KernerHJ, Maxson CL, Weitekamp
EGM. 2001. The Eurogang Paradox: Street
Gangs and Youth Groups in the U.S. and
Europe. Boston, MA, Dordrecht, The Neth.:
Kluwer Acad.
Klein MW, Maxson CL. 1994. Gangs and co-
caine trafficking. In Drugs and the Crimi-
nal Justice System: Evaluating Public Policy
Initiatives, ed. D MacKensie, C Uchida, pp.
136–48. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Kornhauser RR. 1978. Social Sources of Delin-
quency. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Loeber R, Stouthamer-Loeber M. 1986. Family
factors as correlates and predictors of juve-
nile conduct problems and delinquency. In
Crime and Justice, ed. M Tonry, N Morris,
pp. 29–149. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Lott J, Mustard D. 1997. Crime, deterrence and
right-to-carry concealed handguns. J. Legal
Stud. 26:1–13
Luckenbill DF, Doyle DP. 1989. Structural po-
sition and violence: developing a cultural ex-
planation. Criminology 27(3):419–35
Martinez R Jr. 2000. Immigration and urban
violence: the link between immigrant Lati-
nos and types of homicides. Soc. Sci. Q.
81(1):365–74
Maxson CL. 1998. Gang homicide. In Study-
ing and Preventing Homicide, ed. D Smith,
M Zahn, pp. 197–219. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage
McNulty PJ. 1995. Natural born killers? Pre-
venting the coming explosion of teenage
crime. Policy Rev. 71:84–95
Merton RK. 1949. Social Theory and Social
Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press
Messerschmidt J. 1995. From patriarchy to
gender: feminist theory, criminology, and
the challenge of diversity. In International
FeministPerspectiveinCriminology:Engen-
deringaDiscipline,ed.NHRafter,FHeiden-
sohn. pp. 167–88. Philadelphia: Open Univ.
Press
Miller J. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs,
and Gender. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
URBAN VIOLENCE AND STREET GANGS 241
MillerJ.2002.Thegirlsinthegang.InGangsin
America III, ed. CR Huff, pp. 175–97. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage
MillerJ,MaxsonCL,KleinMW,eds.2001.The
Modern Gang Reader. Los Angeles: Rox-
bury. 2
nd
ed.
MillerW.1973.The molls.Society11(1):32–35
Miller WB. 1958. Lower class culture as a gen-
erating milieu of gang delinquency. J. Soc.
Issues 14(3):419–35
Miller WB. 1975. Violence by Youth Gangs and
Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major
American Cities. Washington, DC: US Dept.
Justice
Moore JW. 1978. Homeboys. Philadelphia:
Temple Univ. Press
Moore JW. 1991. Going down to the bar-
rio: homeboys and homegirls in change.
Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
Moore JW, Hagedorn JM. 1996. What happens
to girls in the gang? See Huff 1996, pp. 205–
18
OJJDP (Off. Juv. Justice Delinquency Prev.).
1996. Female Offenders in the Juvenile Jus-
tice System: Statistic Summary. Washington,
DC: US Dept. Justice
Oliver W. 2003. The Violent Social World of
Black Men. San Francisco:Jossey Bass. Rev.
ed. In press
Padilla F. 1992. The Gang as an American En-
terprise. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ.
Press
Park RE, Burgess EW, McKenzie RO, eds.
1925. The City. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Raine A, Brennan PA, Farrington DP. 1997.
Biosocial bases of violence: conceptual and
theoretical issues. In Biosocial Bases of Vio-
lence, ed. A Raine, PA Brennan, DP Farring-
ton, pp. 99–130. New York: Plenum
Reiss A Jr, Roth JA. 1993. Understanding and
Preventing Violence. Washington, DC: Natl.
Acad. Press
RohnerRP.1976.Sexdifferencesinaggression:
phylogenetic and enculturation perspectives.
Ethos 4:57–72
Sampson RJ, Laub JH. 1990. Crime and de-
viance over the life course: the salience of
adult social bonds. Am. Soc. Rev. 55:609–
27
Sampson RJ, Lauritsen JL. 1990. Deviant
lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the
offender-victim link in personal violence.
J. Res. Crime Delinquency 27(2):110–
39
Sanders WB. 1994. Gangbangs and Drive-bys:
Grounded Culture and Juvenile Gang Vio-
lence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter
Seigal LJ, Senna JJ. 1991. Juvenile Delin-
quency. St. Paul, MN: West Publ. 4
th
ed.
Shakur S (a.k.a. Monster Kody). 1993. Mon-
ster: the Autobiography of an L.A. Gang
Member. New York: Atl. Mon. Press
ShawC, McKayR.1942.JuvenileDelinquency
and Urban Areas. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Short J. 1996. Personal, gang, and community
careers. See Huff 1996, pp. 3–11
Short JF Jr, Strodtbeck FL. 1965. Group Pro-
cess and Gang Delinquency. Chicago: Univ.
Chicago Press
SpergelIA,CurryGD.1998.Thenationalyouth
gang survey: a research and development
process. See Miller et al. 2001, pp. 254–
65
Sullivan M.1988. Getting Paid. Ithaca: Cornell
Univ. Press
Sutherland EH. 1934. Principles of Criminol-
ogy. Chicago: Lippincott
Suttles G. 1968. Social Order of the Slum.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Thornberry TP. 2001. Risk factors for gang
membership. In The Modern Gang Re-
searcher, ed. J Miller, CL Maxson, MW
Klein, pp. 32–43. Los Angeles: Roxbury. 2
nd
ed.
Thrasher F. 1927/1963. The Gang. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Tonry M, Moore MH. 1998. Youth Violence.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Venkatesh SA. 1996. The gang in the commu-
nity. See Huff 1996, pp. 241–56
Vigil JD. 1987. Street socialization, locura be-
havior, and violence among Chicano gang
members. In Violence and Homicide in
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
11 Aug 2003 13:30 AR AR196-AN32-11.tex AR196-AN32-11.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: IKH
242 VIGIL
HispanicCommunities, ed. J Kraus, S Soren-
son, PD Juarez, pp. 231–41. Washington,
DC: Natl. Inst. Mental Health
Vigil JD. 1988a. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and
IdentityinSouthernCalifornia.Austin:Univ.
Texas Press
Vigil JD. 1988b. Group processes and street
identity: adolescent Chicano gang members.
Ethos 16(4):421–45
Vigil JD. 1996. Street baptism: chicano gang
initiation. Hum. Organ. 55(2):149–53
Vigil JD. 1999. Streets and schools: how edu-
cators can help Chicano maraginalized gang
youth.HarvardEducationalRev.69(3):270–
88
Vigil JD. 2002a. A Rainbow of Gangs: Street
Cultures in the Mega-City. Austin: Univ.
Texas Press
Vigil JD. 2002b. Community dynamics and the
rise of street gangs. In Latinos! Remaking
America,ed. MM Suarez-Orozco, MM Paez,
pp.97–109.Berkeley,CA:Univ.Calif.Press;
Cambridge, MA: David Rockefeller Cent.
Lat. Am. Stud., Harvard Univ.
Vigil JD, Yun SC. 1998. Vietnamese youth
gangs in the context of multiple marginal-
ity and the Los Angeles youth gang phe-
nomenon. In Gangs and Youth Subcul-
tures: International Explorations, ed. K
Hazlehurst, C Hazlehurst, pp. 117–39. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Vigil JD, Yun SC. 2002. A cross-cultural
framework to understand gangs: multiple
marginalityand LosAngeles. See Huff2002,
pp. 161–74
Waters T. 1999. Crime and Immigrant Youth.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Whyte WF. 1943. Street Corner Society.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Wilson WJ. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged.
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Wolfgang ME, Ferracuti F. 1967. The Subcul-
ture of Violence. London: Tavistock
Yablonsky L. 1966. The Violent Gang.New
York: Macmillan
Zimring FE. 1996. Kids, guns, and homicide:
policy notes on an age-specific epidemic.
Law Contemp. Probl. 59:261–74
ZimringFE. 1998. YouthViolence. Oxford: Ox-
ford Univ. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
P1: FRK
August 21, 2003 0:26 Annual Reviews AR196-FM
Annual Review of Anthropology
Volume 32, 2003
CONTENTS
Frontispiece—Ward H. Goodenough xiv
OVERVIEW
In Pursuit of Culture, Ward H. Goodenough 1
ARCHAEOLOGY
Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex?, Charles R. Cobb 63
It’s a Material World: History, Artifacts, and Anthropology,
Elizabeth M. Brumfiel 205
Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology in South America, Vivian Scheinsohn 339
BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Developmental Biology and Human Evolution, C. Owen Lovejoy,
Melanie A. McCollum, Philip L. Reno, and Burt A. Rosenman 85
Environmental Pollution in Urban Environments and Human Biology,
Lawrence M. Schell and Melinda Denham 111
The Neolithic Invasion of Europe, Martin Richards 135
The Social Brain: Mind, Language, and Society in Evolutionary
Perspective, R.I.M. Dunbar 163
Intergroup Relations in Chimpanzees, Michael L. Wilson and
Richard W. Wrangham 363
LINGUISTICS AND COMMUNICATIVE PRACTICES
Context, Culture, and Structuration in the Languages of Australia,
Nicholas Evans 13
SOCIOCULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Gender and Inequality in the Global Labor Force, Mary Beth Mills 41
Complex Adaptive Systems, J. Stephen Lansing 183
Urban Violence and Street Gangs, James Diego Vigil 225
Sustainable Governance of Common-Pool Resources: Context, Methods,
and Politics, Arun Agrawal 243
Urbanization and the Global Perspective, Alan Smart and Josephine Smart 263
viii
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
P1: FRK
August 21, 2003 0:26 Annual Reviews AR196-FM
CONTENTS ix
Resource Wars: The Anthropology of Mining, Chris Ballard and
Glenn Banks 287
The Anthropology of Welfare “Reform”: New Perspectives on U.S. Urban
Poverty in the Post-Welfare Era, Sandra Morgen and Jeff Maskovsky 315
Maddening States, Bego
˜
na Aretxaga 393
Highlights and Overview of the History of Educational Ethnography,
Daniel A. Yon 411
Children, Childhoods, and Violence, Jill E. Korbin 431
Anthropology, Inequality, and Disease: A Review, Vinh-Kim Nguyen and
Karine Peschard 447
THEME I: URBAN WORLDS
Environmental Pollution in Urban Environments and Human Biology,
Lawrence M. Schell and Melinda Denham 111
Urban Violence and Street Gangs, James Diego Vigil 225
Urbanization and the Global Perspective, Alan Smart and Josephine Smart 263
The Anthropology of Welfare “Reform”: New Perspectives on U.S. Urban
Poverty in the Post-Welfare Era, Sandra Morgen and Jeff Maskovsky 315
THEME II: INEQUALITY
Gender and Inequality in the Global Labor Force, Mary Beth Mills 41
Anthropology, Inequality, and Disease: A Review, Vinh-Kim Nguyen and
Karine Peschard 447
INDEXES
Subject Index 475
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 24–32 485
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volume 24–32 488
ERRATA
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology
chapters (if any, 1997 to the present) may be found
at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2003.32:225-242. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by Utrecht University on 04/24/06. For personal use only.
