Social Bridges and Contexts in Criminology and Sociology by Lorine A Hughes Lisa M Broidy

Author:Lorine A Hughes, Lisa M Broidy [Lorine A Hughes, Lisa M Broidy]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780367359423
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2020-12-31T00:00:00+00:00

Group process, evolution, and definitions

The emphasis on the gang as a group takes us back to perhaps the longest standing debate in the understanding of gangs: definitions of gangs and gang members. In their excellent contribution to this volume (Chapter 6), Esbensen and Maxson examine this issue. Broadly speaking there are two “camps” in gang definitions, and they differ largely based on the inclusion of criminal activity as part of the criteria for membership. As Esbensen and Maxson note, Thrasher cast quite a wide net in defining gangs, contextualizing them among “play groups” and “organized crime.” The keys to his definition lie in its broad inclusive nature and the omission of criminal involvement in the definition of gang membership. Jim followed such an argument, citing a level of permanence, non-adult sponsored, and frequent interaction as key characteristics. Such a definition, he argued, was more useful for understanding gangs in comparison to other youth groups, whether they be involved in crime or not. For Jim, the group process, not the criminal activity, was the key focus. Including crime in the definition, as the late Dave Curry (2015) put it, is “tautology with a capital T.” The study of group process opens up channels to study a wide range of groups, whether they maintain criminal, political, or other orientations (Short 1974b; Short and Hughes 2018). Jim makes a compelling point.

The alternative definition (articulated by Klein, Esbensen, Maxson and others, and the one we subscribe to) includes many of the same elements as Jim’s approach but also requires involvement in illegal activity as a necessary criterion for gang membership. From our perspective, what makes the gang of interest to criminologists is its involvement in crime. And what distinguishes gangs—whether we are talking about young gangs, prison gangs, outlaw motorcycle groups, or other criminal groups—from other social collectives is their criminal activity. As we have written in the past (Curry, Decker, and Pyrooz 2014; Pyrooz and Densley 2018), the crime tautology critique loses much of its bite when the unit of analysis drops down from the group to the individual-level; after all, gang membership does not by definition require criminal activity. We must recognize that not following Jim’s admonitions leads to a narrower study of groups, leading to a more specialized agenda in gang research.

The organizational structure of gangs is relevant as a comparison point to other groups involved in crime. Gang structure accounts in part for the impact of the group on the behavior of individuals. Understanding the group helps understand what motivates individuals to do in a group what they would not do as an individual. This is what we refer to as group process, something that can be observed across criminal and non-criminal groups and takes place within the context of an organizational structure such as a gang. The organizational structure of gangs shows considerable diversity. At one extreme, gangs are described as highly organized groups; in other contexts, they lack organizational structure and purpose and fail to exercise discipline over their members.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.