April 17, 2008
April 7, 2008
A Chicken With Its Head Cut Off
I agree with Chavette’s post against you, Simple Scholar. Women are the only ones who can create good males; however, I do not think the masculine persona that is aligned with sex, violence, drugs, or weapons is as dead as you would like to think it is.
Men are not men without a female counterpart. The cliche applied to women that they have been called man’s better half is for a definite reason. That is because man, by nature is a hooligan. He is the body that is unthinking, and all doing. The woman is the head that comes to direct his every action, assuredly for the better. Without such a marriage of mind and matter man could not function. He is, by nature, a brute animal with only base needs and motivations. His pursuits are mainly the achievements of sex and violence, and while one may too readily resurrect the crude adjective of “cave man” to explain such behaviour, I assure you it would not be inaccurate.
I say this not without a sense of irony, being a man myself; however, that does not mean that I should deny what I know is inherently true, [i][b]and[/b][/i] have had backed up by strong scientific research. You see, colleague, anything and everything has been and is proven by scientific endeavour. For every study concluding that smoking kills, there is a counterpart study suggesting quite the opposite.
Men are hooligans by nature; and though I am adamant when I say that a father will never change this fact, I could certainly accept the conclusion that a woman can. What is the one thing which is most conspicuously absent from a gang setting? What is the one thing that is never seen amongst a group of gang members? Not even I will say that the answer is a father figure, because on occasion even that phenomenon may be witnessed. Within certain gangs an older man claiming responsibility as the effective leader can be seen not uncommonly. So, there you have your father figure. What is missing is a woman, and a mother at that. Granted, certain gang members have their “honeys” and their girls, but none of them have ever dealt with a mother figure. Why? Because it would fix them. It would change their gang into something productive, and that is the last thing the want. As brutish as a man is, the last thing he wants to part with is that animalistic pleasure of his, the violence and the sex. He wants to remain a hooligan, and the only thing that will ever change that he spurns away like the devil.
Men are not men without a female counterpart. The cliche applied to women that they have been called man’s better half is for a definite reason. That is because man, by nature is a hooligan. He is the body that is unthinking, and all doing. The woman is the head that comes to direct his every action, assuredly for the better. Without such a marriage of mind and matter man could not function. He is, by nature, a brute animal with only base needs and motivations. His pursuits are mainly the achievements of sex and violence, and while one may too readily resurrect the crude adjective of “cave man” to explain such behaviour, I assure you it would not be inaccurate.
I say this not without a sense of irony, being a man myself; however, that does not mean that I should deny what I know is inherently true, [i][b]and[/b][/i] have had backed up by strong scientific research. You see, colleague, anything and everything has been and is proven by scientific endeavour. For every study concluding that smoking kills, there is a counterpart study suggesting quite the opposite.
Men are hooligans by nature; and though I am adamant when I say that a father will never change this fact, I could certainly accept the conclusion that a woman can. What is the one thing which is most conspicuously absent from a gang setting? What is the one thing that is never seen amongst a group of gang members? Not even I will say that the answer is a father figure, because on occasion even that phenomenon may be witnessed. Within certain gangs an older man claiming responsibility as the effective leader can be seen not uncommonly. So, there you have your father figure. What is missing is a woman, and a mother at that. Granted, certain gang members have their “honeys” and their girls, but none of them have ever dealt with a mother figure. Why? Because it would fix them. It would change their gang into something productive, and that is the last thing the want. As brutish as a man is, the last thing he wants to part with is that animalistic pleasure of his, the violence and the sex. He wants to remain a hooligan, and the only thing that will ever change that he spurns away like the devil.
In Reply
Dearest Chavette,
While it is true that we have ascended (note we have ascended and not descended, or simply come into) to an era of ever increasing equality, but to compare men to High Fidelity’s Rob is a slap in the face to any self-respecting male. It is true that the new rite of passage for males is based largely on female approval but Rob is a failure as a masculine man. He is pathetic, and the only way he can salvage his life is to completely submit to Laura. This is not a success as you claim, it is simply an admission of his failure. I agree that the model of masculinity has changed drastically over the centuries and I would by no means endorse or glorify thuggism in any terms other than masculinity. My purpose was to highlight the traits that remained from the glory of Stalky. Our co-blogger Eaglet agrees, having said: “I do think that modern gangs have become the latest menifestation of the Stalky model, albeit a very violent and negative one.” Yes they are violent and criminal but they come as close to Stalky-esque masculinity as you can find in today’s society. Many people go about their daily lives in a manner similar to Rob, eking out a sub-par existence, slaves to the fairer sex. But the poindexters and creampuffs that live in a world where their only validation comes from females, who they fear and don’t understand, are only males in the sense that they have the correct chromosomes.
The times they have changed, and the definition or model of true masculinity has become muddied; and to insult males by implying that Rob is the new model is wrong. Thugs and gangsters are by no means the ideal, but in their rebellious, tightly-knit groups they are as close as any modern males come to the glory days.
So while I agree that the female has a new heightened role in masculinity, I do not agree that “women are the only ones capable of creating good males.” Because accepting defeat and bowing completely to female control like Rob is shameful. The lives of adolescent males do tend to revolve around females but males today compete by being appealing, in order to ‘get’ or ‘get-with’ females. And in many cases males don’t get females by surrendering their testicles (if they do then they fail as males). Females want masculine men which is probably why thugs and gangsters never have a shortage of attractive women to ‘get with.’
Sincerely,
--SS
While it is true that we have ascended (note we have ascended and not descended, or simply come into) to an era of ever increasing equality, but to compare men to High Fidelity’s Rob is a slap in the face to any self-respecting male. It is true that the new rite of passage for males is based largely on female approval but Rob is a failure as a masculine man. He is pathetic, and the only way he can salvage his life is to completely submit to Laura. This is not a success as you claim, it is simply an admission of his failure. I agree that the model of masculinity has changed drastically over the centuries and I would by no means endorse or glorify thuggism in any terms other than masculinity. My purpose was to highlight the traits that remained from the glory of Stalky. Our co-blogger Eaglet agrees, having said: “I do think that modern gangs have become the latest menifestation of the Stalky model, albeit a very violent and negative one.” Yes they are violent and criminal but they come as close to Stalky-esque masculinity as you can find in today’s society. Many people go about their daily lives in a manner similar to Rob, eking out a sub-par existence, slaves to the fairer sex. But the poindexters and creampuffs that live in a world where their only validation comes from females, who they fear and don’t understand, are only males in the sense that they have the correct chromosomes.
The times they have changed, and the definition or model of true masculinity has become muddied; and to insult males by implying that Rob is the new model is wrong. Thugs and gangsters are by no means the ideal, but in their rebellious, tightly-knit groups they are as close as any modern males come to the glory days.
So while I agree that the female has a new heightened role in masculinity, I do not agree that “women are the only ones capable of creating good males.” Because accepting defeat and bowing completely to female control like Rob is shameful. The lives of adolescent males do tend to revolve around females but males today compete by being appealing, in order to ‘get’ or ‘get-with’ females. And in many cases males don’t get females by surrendering their testicles (if they do then they fail as males). Females want masculine men which is probably why thugs and gangsters never have a shortage of attractive women to ‘get with.’
Sincerely,
--SS
Re: Bad Boys Last Good Males.......More like Women are the only ones Capable of Creating Good Males!
Dear Simple Scholar,
You must remember that our societal age is ‘post-patriarchal, where women are now capable of success where once men held sole proprietorship. Therefore, even though these thugs and gangsters are actually capable of living the lifestyle boasted through their conversations, the definition of masculinity has changed, moving further away from having to constantly showcase a ‘masculine’ persona’ that is aligned only with ‘sex, violence, drugs, or weapons’. Thus, we can either glamorize a fast-fading model, or catch up to the new model which is centered around the woman because the new rite-of-passage is achieved when the new post-patriarchal woman no longer thinks of the man is pathetic. That, Simple Scholar, is the new masculinity--where all male performance is concerning or centered around Women.
As we see through Nick Hornby’s Rob, his success only occurs with complete submission to Laura--the new Sapient Head.
However, you may be right to some degree, for Gang Culture does in a sense, provide “a space for active masculinity, a site in which to play warrior”. However, like the quotation states, this is merely ‘play’-time--an escapism from the impending post-patriarchal world, where man is a constant target for emasculation, more often than not, at the hands of the New Woman.
-Chavette.
You must remember that our societal age is ‘post-patriarchal, where women are now capable of success where once men held sole proprietorship. Therefore, even though these thugs and gangsters are actually capable of living the lifestyle boasted through their conversations, the definition of masculinity has changed, moving further away from having to constantly showcase a ‘masculine’ persona’ that is aligned only with ‘sex, violence, drugs, or weapons’. Thus, we can either glamorize a fast-fading model, or catch up to the new model which is centered around the woman because the new rite-of-passage is achieved when the new post-patriarchal woman no longer thinks of the man is pathetic. That, Simple Scholar, is the new masculinity--where all male performance is concerning or centered around Women.
As we see through Nick Hornby’s Rob, his success only occurs with complete submission to Laura--the new Sapient Head.
However, you may be right to some degree, for Gang Culture does in a sense, provide “a space for active masculinity, a site in which to play warrior”. However, like the quotation states, this is merely ‘play’-time--an escapism from the impending post-patriarchal world, where man is a constant target for emasculation, more often than not, at the hands of the New Woman.
-Chavette.
Appeal of Gangs and the Stalky Model
I realise that today is the due date of this project, and that to post on both the second-to-last AND last days looks rushed and disorganised, but I realised I had never posted the following information. I think it's relevant to our overall discussion, and Step 2 is connected to our in-depth debate about parenting and fulfillment of the father role. (I know that we as contributors had planned to commit to critically discussing each other's posts for the remaining time, but as I forgot to post this earlier in the semester, I am doing so now.)
FROM:http://www.ehow.com/how_2032607_.html
How to Understand the Appeal of Gangs:
Step 1:
Gangs deal in such blatant brutality that it's difficult to understand how anyone could be sucked into them at any age. People want to believe all kids are coerced or frightened into membership and though that's true for some, there's a deeper truth. Gangs exist and are growing, simply because gangs are meeting genuine human needs that appeal to young people, albeit in a dangerous and pathological way. Gangs provide for those needs, yot kids don't realize the dangers.
Step 2:
What do gangs offer? They provide an immediate promise of belonging to something. Gang allegiance depends on members trading individuality for community. For a lonely young person, the feeling of belonging is very powerful. Suddenly, they aren't alone anymore. The gang becomes mother, father, brother and friend. Family, friends, church, sports, academics, and hobbies are suddenly set aside, as allegiance to the gang is all-consuming.
Step 3:
Gangs maintain a sense of mystery and secrecy, and this is extremely appealing to young people. While gangs operate outside the law, the sheer excitement and mystery surrounding gang life is a huge draw for young people. It is human nature to want to be "in the know" and to be privy to inside information makes people feel important. Gang members have secret hand signals, tattoos, neighborhood grafiti and colors that show everybody that they belong, similar to the exclusivism seen in lodges, sororities and country clubs. It's natural for anyone to feel better when chosen to be a part of something, when others were not.
Step 4:
Easy money is a lure for kids to join gangs. Kids as young as 5 or 6 are given great wads of money and the promise of more to come if they join. Money is a powerful incentive for anyone, but to a child or young teen, it is practically irresistable.
Step 5:
Gangs foster a sense of power that is very appealing. Young people feel invincible anyway, so gangs deliberately foster the myth of invincibility that only age and experience can normally dispel. Power is addictive, and many young people like the rush.
Step 6:
As soon as possible, recruits are expected to perform a home invasion, rape, murder or carjacking as a form of initiation. Gangs do this for several reasons. First, it makes the recruit cross an inner psychological line. The new member’s own innocence is shattered and he’s now a like-minded participant. Once a new member does something like this and gets away with it, there's usually some kind of tangible reward, such as money or stolen goods, as well as the applause and praise by other members for their courage and loyalty. When a young person is the center of a hero party atmosphere, it's difficult to resist.
Step 7:
Eventually, real danger becomes a plaything to gang members. Guns no longer seem like things that can kill, but as tools to get what they want. Running from the police, carjacking, rape, and all the rest become games of power—proving grounds for rank in gang activity. Young people lack the discernment to really see the consequences of these actions.
Step 8:
After a while, this participation into brutality for sport robs the young person of any sense of goodness he may have had and replaces it with a sense of shame. The gang becomes the justifier, an agent of salvation making wrong seem right. The gang provides members freedom from moral obligations and shame.
Step 9:
Unfortunately, the gang member eventually becomes an important and powerful person in the organization. The gang member is ruled by mindless obedience and follows a group mentality. For all intents and purposes, the original young person, won by shining promises and street savvy power talk has been obliterated as an individual who thinks and chooses for himself.
Step 10:
It is a very hard battle to reform a gang member—never impossible, but very difficult. Why? The gang member, now feeling dehumanized and undeserving of redemption into normal society, usually doesn't feel he deserves another chance. After brutalizing innocent people, turning from family, church and friends, and knowing what the gang members are capable of doing to someone who left, getting out seems impossible. The gang has won--now the individual is his own taskmaster and a better way of life seems to belong to a better type of person.
Step 11:
The only way to undermine the appeal fo gangs is to start meeting the person's needs. Kids need to belong to something beigger than themselves. Getting them involved in community, church, sports or other organizations is a start. Knowing where they are and who they're with is also critical. Many schools, churches and community organizations have programs to fight against gang membership. There are no easy answers but keeping track of your kids and knowing their friends, activities and whereabouts is considered one of the best preventative steps to deterring gang membership.
In Analysis:
I realise that this is not a critical article, but it does represent the popular view of gangs, and explains them in a simplistic manner, which I found useful.
Step 3 parallels with #10 of the Stalky Model: exclusive and shared code of speech.
Step 6 parallels with #8 of the SM: centrality of performance, rite of passage.
As a final thought from me, I do think that modern gangs have become the latest menifestation of the Stalky model, albeit a very violent and negative one.
FROM:http://www.ehow.com/how_2032607_.html
How to Understand the Appeal of Gangs:
Step 1:
Gangs deal in such blatant brutality that it's difficult to understand how anyone could be sucked into them at any age. People want to believe all kids are coerced or frightened into membership and though that's true for some, there's a deeper truth. Gangs exist and are growing, simply because gangs are meeting genuine human needs that appeal to young people, albeit in a dangerous and pathological way. Gangs provide for those needs, yot kids don't realize the dangers.
Step 2:
What do gangs offer? They provide an immediate promise of belonging to something. Gang allegiance depends on members trading individuality for community. For a lonely young person, the feeling of belonging is very powerful. Suddenly, they aren't alone anymore. The gang becomes mother, father, brother and friend. Family, friends, church, sports, academics, and hobbies are suddenly set aside, as allegiance to the gang is all-consuming.
Step 3:
Gangs maintain a sense of mystery and secrecy, and this is extremely appealing to young people. While gangs operate outside the law, the sheer excitement and mystery surrounding gang life is a huge draw for young people. It is human nature to want to be "in the know" and to be privy to inside information makes people feel important. Gang members have secret hand signals, tattoos, neighborhood grafiti and colors that show everybody that they belong, similar to the exclusivism seen in lodges, sororities and country clubs. It's natural for anyone to feel better when chosen to be a part of something, when others were not.
Step 4:
Easy money is a lure for kids to join gangs. Kids as young as 5 or 6 are given great wads of money and the promise of more to come if they join. Money is a powerful incentive for anyone, but to a child or young teen, it is practically irresistable.
Step 5:
Gangs foster a sense of power that is very appealing. Young people feel invincible anyway, so gangs deliberately foster the myth of invincibility that only age and experience can normally dispel. Power is addictive, and many young people like the rush.
Step 6:
As soon as possible, recruits are expected to perform a home invasion, rape, murder or carjacking as a form of initiation. Gangs do this for several reasons. First, it makes the recruit cross an inner psychological line. The new member’s own innocence is shattered and he’s now a like-minded participant. Once a new member does something like this and gets away with it, there's usually some kind of tangible reward, such as money or stolen goods, as well as the applause and praise by other members for their courage and loyalty. When a young person is the center of a hero party atmosphere, it's difficult to resist.
Step 7:
Eventually, real danger becomes a plaything to gang members. Guns no longer seem like things that can kill, but as tools to get what they want. Running from the police, carjacking, rape, and all the rest become games of power—proving grounds for rank in gang activity. Young people lack the discernment to really see the consequences of these actions.
Step 8:
After a while, this participation into brutality for sport robs the young person of any sense of goodness he may have had and replaces it with a sense of shame. The gang becomes the justifier, an agent of salvation making wrong seem right. The gang provides members freedom from moral obligations and shame.
Step 9:
Unfortunately, the gang member eventually becomes an important and powerful person in the organization. The gang member is ruled by mindless obedience and follows a group mentality. For all intents and purposes, the original young person, won by shining promises and street savvy power talk has been obliterated as an individual who thinks and chooses for himself.
Step 10:
It is a very hard battle to reform a gang member—never impossible, but very difficult. Why? The gang member, now feeling dehumanized and undeserving of redemption into normal society, usually doesn't feel he deserves another chance. After brutalizing innocent people, turning from family, church and friends, and knowing what the gang members are capable of doing to someone who left, getting out seems impossible. The gang has won--now the individual is his own taskmaster and a better way of life seems to belong to a better type of person.
Step 11:
The only way to undermine the appeal fo gangs is to start meeting the person's needs. Kids need to belong to something beigger than themselves. Getting them involved in community, church, sports or other organizations is a start. Knowing where they are and who they're with is also critical. Many schools, churches and community organizations have programs to fight against gang membership. There are no easy answers but keeping track of your kids and knowing their friends, activities and whereabouts is considered one of the best preventative steps to deterring gang membership.
In Analysis:
I realise that this is not a critical article, but it does represent the popular view of gangs, and explains them in a simplistic manner, which I found useful.
Step 3 parallels with #10 of the Stalky Model: exclusive and shared code of speech.
Step 6 parallels with #8 of the SM: centrality of performance, rite of passage.
As a final thought from me, I do think that modern gangs have become the latest menifestation of the Stalky model, albeit a very violent and negative one.
April 6, 2008
Parenting Styles Are Important, But So Are BOTH Parents
I hate taking the middle stance on a topic, but I agree with parts of busogre, Chavette and Seven Tense's arguments regarding the impact of parenting.
To begin, parenting styles are changing, and this does have a significant impact on a child. Academics of child psychology have consistently proven that different parenting styles result in different children. Authoritarian parenting teaches a child rebellion, they have problems with authority figures and social relationships; passive parenting results in children who have no self-control; uninvolved parenting results in children who disregard rules and laws; and authoritative parenting results in children who are sociallly responsible and competent, self-reliant and have good self-esteem. This authoritative parenting style is the one that child psychologists have labeled as ideal. This parenting style involves having clearly explained rules, and provides emotional and psychological support for their child. Therefore, the father is someone who "watches from a distance…give[s] security" which results in a successful childhood and for a boy, masculinity as an adult. Thus parents do "encode hooliganism" into the brains of their children by their parenting style. Also, did you notice that the three other types of parenting styles result in children who have characteristics that could potentially land them in a gang? (rebellion, no self-control, disregard for the law). Any Child Psychology text will tell you more about these parenting styles and their effects on children as they grow up and into their adulthood.
I agree that every child needs a father, and I take that assertion a step further: every child needs a parent of both sexes. How can a woman be a masculine role model for her son? How can a man be a feminine role model for his daughter? How can a mother relate to their son about the changes their pubescent body is going through (and visa versa)? To go back to the beginning of our supposed evolution as humans, families had both father and mother millions of years ago, and families still need a father and mother now.
Boys search for men to be their role models. When they do not have a father in their home, they turn to men in other places of authority to fill this void: athletes, actors, fictional characters, etc. Children do not always know what is best for them, and so will sometimes choose poor role models for themselves. And what is the purpose of a role model? They serve as a goal for their lives; when children have achieved the quality (or qualities) they admire in their role model, they believe they will have success in life.
The role of parents is to teach their children what is right and wrong. If parents teach a child that acting out, violence and gang culture is acceptable, a child will accept that as true. If parent teach the opposite, a child is less likely to see gangs as an option in their life.
To begin, parenting styles are changing, and this does have a significant impact on a child. Academics of child psychology have consistently proven that different parenting styles result in different children. Authoritarian parenting teaches a child rebellion, they have problems with authority figures and social relationships; passive parenting results in children who have no self-control; uninvolved parenting results in children who disregard rules and laws; and authoritative parenting results in children who are sociallly responsible and competent, self-reliant and have good self-esteem. This authoritative parenting style is the one that child psychologists have labeled as ideal. This parenting style involves having clearly explained rules, and provides emotional and psychological support for their child. Therefore, the father is someone who "watches from a distance…give[s] security" which results in a successful childhood and for a boy, masculinity as an adult. Thus parents do "encode hooliganism" into the brains of their children by their parenting style. Also, did you notice that the three other types of parenting styles result in children who have characteristics that could potentially land them in a gang? (rebellion, no self-control, disregard for the law). Any Child Psychology text will tell you more about these parenting styles and their effects on children as they grow up and into their adulthood.
I agree that every child needs a father, and I take that assertion a step further: every child needs a parent of both sexes. How can a woman be a masculine role model for her son? How can a man be a feminine role model for his daughter? How can a mother relate to their son about the changes their pubescent body is going through (and visa versa)? To go back to the beginning of our supposed evolution as humans, families had both father and mother millions of years ago, and families still need a father and mother now.
Boys search for men to be their role models. When they do not have a father in their home, they turn to men in other places of authority to fill this void: athletes, actors, fictional characters, etc. Children do not always know what is best for them, and so will sometimes choose poor role models for themselves. And what is the purpose of a role model? They serve as a goal for their lives; when children have achieved the quality (or qualities) they admire in their role model, they believe they will have success in life.
The role of parents is to teach their children what is right and wrong. If parents teach a child that acting out, violence and gang culture is acceptable, a child will accept that as true. If parent teach the opposite, a child is less likely to see gangs as an option in their life.
April 4, 2008
Society is My Daddy
I agree with Chavette. The chances of a son becoming a hooligan is significantly decreased when they have an actual father to guide them. On the other hand there are those who do become hooligans even though they do have fathers. My argument for that is that the father is not fulfilling their role and therefore the child is left to find examples in the media, as there millions of examples of males in the media. Thus the child may find themselves influenced by things like gang culture as it is displayed in the media. This would obviously promote hooliganism.
As for males who lack fathers completely, I argue that has to do with economics of the household. Without a father there is a significant gap that needs to filled in terms of household income. It's unfortunate but women do earn less money then men in general. This means the mother is unable to fill this gap. Therefore it is up to the children, both the males and the females, to attempt to fulfill the place left by the absentee father. This prematurely exposes children to society before they are ready. I argue that this is the greatest factor in creating hooligans. When the sons are not able to fulfill this role, as this immaturity stops them from earning the money needed, they turn to alternative sources of income. This could very well be something like theft or drug dealing. However they are not true hooligans at this moment. As their lack of experience is what leads them to being caught. It is when they are in prison that they become true hooligans. Being in prison is a sort of rite of passage for them. Here they learn the skills they need to cause true destruction. Instead of stealing from convenience stores, they steal cars, steal from houses and the like.
Thus without a father figure at home, they are forced to look for them elsewhere. In some cases they turn to the media, which teaches them that violence is cool. In others, they are forced in to an unbearable situation. This situation that society has forced them in corrupts them forever and leads them to becoming true hooligans. So there are my two cents. Feel free to object.
As for males who lack fathers completely, I argue that has to do with economics of the household. Without a father there is a significant gap that needs to filled in terms of household income. It's unfortunate but women do earn less money then men in general. This means the mother is unable to fill this gap. Therefore it is up to the children, both the males and the females, to attempt to fulfill the place left by the absentee father. This prematurely exposes children to society before they are ready. I argue that this is the greatest factor in creating hooligans. When the sons are not able to fulfill this role, as this immaturity stops them from earning the money needed, they turn to alternative sources of income. This could very well be something like theft or drug dealing. However they are not true hooligans at this moment. As their lack of experience is what leads them to being caught. It is when they are in prison that they become true hooligans. Being in prison is a sort of rite of passage for them. Here they learn the skills they need to cause true destruction. Instead of stealing from convenience stores, they steal cars, steal from houses and the like.
Thus without a father figure at home, they are forced to look for them elsewhere. In some cases they turn to the media, which teaches them that violence is cool. In others, they are forced in to an unbearable situation. This situation that society has forced them in corrupts them forever and leads them to becoming true hooligans. So there are my two cents. Feel free to object.
March 31, 2008
Everyone Needs Their Daddy!
“Even today we still have the tradition continuing on. So, then you have to wonder: "what good would a father do?" A father, candidly speaking, would only end up encouraging his boy to do gang-like things” (Seven Tense, “No One Has a Dad, and No One Needs One”).
To even consider, let alone pursue this limited ideology is plain dangerous. For one, fathers embody the masculine model which men are able to apply themselves to.
Therefore, I continue with my argument that, “Rather, there is a continuation of the vicious, violent cycle which has made our new, ambiguous masculine ‘model’”. Our masculine model is now ambiguous because no longer is there the Mr. King ‘figures’ or concrete fathers. Instead these children are left to control the model on their own; hence, the ambiguity and overall perversion of masculinity into ‘distorted hooliganism’. The once innocent pranks and safe-guarded rites-of-passage which Stalky and his boys benefitted from are no longer prevalent, much to the reasoning of there no longer being a Mr. King figure—a father type, who is the perfect amalgamation of structured violence as well as a resource of stability. Without the latter characteristic (stability), what society produces are vicious hooligans, ready to ‘take it a step further’ by inverting themselves from structured masculinity into complete chaos, all because of the absence of ‘daddy’.
Next,
“It is encoded into their brains whether or not they will become hooligans simply by the way they are raised and brought up by parents. And the only way to counteract that would be to completely change the way we raise our boys, teaching them that what was once masculine is no longer the way” (Seven Tense, “No One Has a Dad, and No One Needs One”).
For one, this is simply untrue. It is not about changing parenting styles; instead, it is about the father trying to stay true to his pre-figured role as someone who watches from a distance, giving the needed security to his son so that one day he may be able to surpass his own father and achieve his own masculinity. However, this achieved masculinity, because of the father’s presence, is structured, healthy and lasting, oppose to dangerous and limited, as a hooligan proves to be, again, many times because of a lack of this father-son dynamic.
Chavette
March 27, 2008
No One Has a Dad, and No One Needs One
A few posts ago, by co-blogger, Chavette, posted an interesting essay on the absence of men, specifically fathers, in the lives of hooligans (See "Where's Daddy" below). I thought perhaps if I rationalized it long enough in my mind I might have drawn an adequate conclusion out of the mess that it was, but I found myself sadly mistaken. You see, Chavette, I understand the likely connection you would draw given your evidence, but this post seems to lack something in the way of a conclusion, or rather a decent conclusion.
It may be possible that being fatherless can be connected to hooliganism, you've proved that adequately; however, you fail to continue mindlessly repeating questions long enough to decide whether or not having a father would make any difference. Allow me to fill in the gap and give you and answer.
What are men usually like, historically speaking? They are usually quite aggressive, and tactless, in the way they perform their actions. This was what separated men from women, and fathers everywhere were expected to encourage it in their boys, to harden them up, to make them more manly. Even today we still have the tradition continuing on. So, then you have to wonder: "what good would a father do?" A father, candidly speaking, would only end up encouraging his boy to do gang-like things.
How many times has a boy out there been taught to "fight back and stand up for yourself"? Standing up for yourself is fine, but fighting isn't. The idea that the world of men should operate on an "eye for an eye" principle was thought of by none other than men trying to raise other men.
How many times has a boy in our society been told to "show them what you're made of" and "make your mark" in the world? If you've got to show someone something, it usually means you've got something to prove. A boy doesn't start thinking about this until he's told to do so by his father. He starts to wonder what's wrong with him. What has he got to prove, and how is he going to do it? Well, he'll never "make his mark" by beating someone up. That's not going to be anything lasting. What about beating up something that isn't human, like that window, that house, or that car? Yes, the boy realizes, those would stand as lasting proof exactly what I'm made of. I'll make my marks on these things in order to make my mark on society.
The presence of a father will do nothing for the hooligan child. If anything it will make matters worse than ever. There is nothing a parent can do for their child that will help them avoid a gang's life. It is encoded into their brains whether or not they will become hooligans simply by the way they are raised and brought up by parents. And the only way to counteract that would be to completely change the way we raise our boys, teaching them that what was once masculine is no longer the way. We would have to completely alienate the concept of masculinity that generations of boys and men have grown up with. Of course, we already know that wouldn't help an ounce, because society has already done that and to no avail.
Perhaps it was always supposed to be this way. Perhaps hooligans will always exist, if only to show us the error of our species and its ways.
It may be possible that being fatherless can be connected to hooliganism, you've proved that adequately; however, you fail to continue mindlessly repeating questions long enough to decide whether or not having a father would make any difference. Allow me to fill in the gap and give you and answer.
What are men usually like, historically speaking? They are usually quite aggressive, and tactless, in the way they perform their actions. This was what separated men from women, and fathers everywhere were expected to encourage it in their boys, to harden them up, to make them more manly. Even today we still have the tradition continuing on. So, then you have to wonder: "what good would a father do?" A father, candidly speaking, would only end up encouraging his boy to do gang-like things.
How many times has a boy out there been taught to "fight back and stand up for yourself"? Standing up for yourself is fine, but fighting isn't. The idea that the world of men should operate on an "eye for an eye" principle was thought of by none other than men trying to raise other men.
How many times has a boy in our society been told to "show them what you're made of" and "make your mark" in the world? If you've got to show someone something, it usually means you've got something to prove. A boy doesn't start thinking about this until he's told to do so by his father. He starts to wonder what's wrong with him. What has he got to prove, and how is he going to do it? Well, he'll never "make his mark" by beating someone up. That's not going to be anything lasting. What about beating up something that isn't human, like that window, that house, or that car? Yes, the boy realizes, those would stand as lasting proof exactly what I'm made of. I'll make my marks on these things in order to make my mark on society.
The presence of a father will do nothing for the hooligan child. If anything it will make matters worse than ever. There is nothing a parent can do for their child that will help them avoid a gang's life. It is encoded into their brains whether or not they will become hooligans simply by the way they are raised and brought up by parents. And the only way to counteract that would be to completely change the way we raise our boys, teaching them that what was once masculine is no longer the way. We would have to completely alienate the concept of masculinity that generations of boys and men have grown up with. Of course, we already know that wouldn't help an ounce, because society has already done that and to no avail.
Perhaps it was always supposed to be this way. Perhaps hooligans will always exist, if only to show us the error of our species and its ways.
March 15, 2008
Block Watching
In a recent article, woman revealed that her car was vandalized in her drive way. She immediately came to the conclusion that it was young individuals who were responsible for the mess. She claims that the damage to her car represents anger, since amateur psychology is so accurate she must be correct.
In the article it mentions she did not see who had done it however her immediate response was to teenagers and more than likely she believes MALE teenagers are responsible, although this is not mentioned in the article. This is another way individuals in society respond to moments such as these. They use stereotypes to interpret the event. The media negatively portrays teenagers, therefore teenagers must be responsible. It could not be a drunken adult. It could not be someone she had angered at one point or time. It MUST be a teenager.
Furthermore the article goes to cite someone else from the neighbourhood. This person goes to say that events such as these happen in a pattern that seem to ebb and flow. Thus by this statement, this sort of thing happens often enough that it can be charted and patterned it would seem. Once again with this kind of thinking the problem is focused on the young, as what respectable adult would damage another persons property. Once again ignoring the examples cited above. However another interesting thing is the term neighbourhood. This term is vague in its definition, as it does not define how large the area of the neighbourhood is, how many people live there. It is a simple designation that people use to imply that unity or how close to events occurred, such as this. Why this is important is simple. This event could have happened blocks apart, however due to the designation of neighbourhood, it may as well have bee a next door neighbour that was vandalized. Thus this creates a higher rate of frequency in an area that is actually true.
Finally the solution presented in the article is to be involved in a block watch. A block watch is a group of individuals who get together and police their own block. However studies have shown that people are unable to keep this program alive and it eventually parts and thus the block is more vulnerable as it lacks the safety net that everyone believes that they have.
Here is the link for those who are interested.
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=e70fe38b-ce80-45e2-99db-6daf49b7e4de&k=19787
In the article it mentions she did not see who had done it however her immediate response was to teenagers and more than likely she believes MALE teenagers are responsible, although this is not mentioned in the article. This is another way individuals in society respond to moments such as these. They use stereotypes to interpret the event. The media negatively portrays teenagers, therefore teenagers must be responsible. It could not be a drunken adult. It could not be someone she had angered at one point or time. It MUST be a teenager.
Furthermore the article goes to cite someone else from the neighbourhood. This person goes to say that events such as these happen in a pattern that seem to ebb and flow. Thus by this statement, this sort of thing happens often enough that it can be charted and patterned it would seem. Once again with this kind of thinking the problem is focused on the young, as what respectable adult would damage another persons property. Once again ignoring the examples cited above. However another interesting thing is the term neighbourhood. This term is vague in its definition, as it does not define how large the area of the neighbourhood is, how many people live there. It is a simple designation that people use to imply that unity or how close to events occurred, such as this. Why this is important is simple. This event could have happened blocks apart, however due to the designation of neighbourhood, it may as well have bee a next door neighbour that was vandalized. Thus this creates a higher rate of frequency in an area that is actually true.
Finally the solution presented in the article is to be involved in a block watch. A block watch is a group of individuals who get together and police their own block. However studies have shown that people are unable to keep this program alive and it eventually parts and thus the block is more vulnerable as it lacks the safety net that everyone believes that they have.
Here is the link for those who are interested.
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=e70fe38b-ce80-45e2-99db-6daf49b7e4de&k=19787
March 11, 2008
Bad Boys Last Good Males
I recently came across an interesting article by Patricia Vettel Tom that analyzes some photographs that Bruce Davidson had taken in 1958. The article entitled Bad Boys was published in a 1997 art journal and takes an in depth look at the gang culture portrayed in Davidson’s photos. On top of that, Tom goes on to relate the pictures to ideas of anti-conformity and outlaw masculinity. Her notions and ideas are not only pertinent to the late 1950’s, they ring true for the 90’s when she wrote it, and remain valid even today. If you are able to separate gangsters and thugs from their criminality, upon close inspection, they may just be the last real masculine males.
“Man is a rebel by nature who cannot conform”
Tom’s article raises a point: conformity is bogus and emasculating; if you want to be a sheep and follow the herd then you are a sheep and not a man. Makes sense. Gangsters may be criminal in their anti-conformity but at least they are doing something to preserve their masculinity. Tom quoted Norman Mailer in her article, saying:
“If their conversation runs the predictable riverbed of sex, gang war, drugs, [and] weapons, well, at least they live out a part of their conversational obsession, which is more than one can say for the quiet, inhibited, middle-aged desperadoes of the corporation and the suburbs.”
Thugs, rebels, cut-ups, gangsters, they have the courage and guile to walk on the other side. Maybe we are all a little bit jealous of these people, not only because they seem to have money, cars and girls, but because they truly possess the masculine qualities that we can only claim to have.
“[G]ang culture provides a space for active masculinity, a site in which to play warrior”
People fear criminals and thugs because you are never quite sure what they are capable of; they have no fear but manage to instill it in us. They are warriors of the street, fighting for their own, while we are part of the herd, slaves to the “man”. It seems strange that the punks corrupting our streets are the new model for masculinity, the reincarnates of Stalky, but that is the way it is. They have more in common with the old school masculine world than any straight shooting “good” citizen could ever dream of. They are courageous and cunning, they have the will to rebel, they have coded speech, tightly knit-groups, they are masculine. Maybe it is time to look up your local crack slinging chapter and start wearing gang colours in an attempt to redeem some masculine qualities that may have gotten lost in the stacks of paper piling up from your desk job, or forgotten about after countless hours of gaming.
Article:
Tom, Patricia Vettel. "Bad Boys."Art Journal; Summer97, Vol. 56 Issue 2, p69, 6p, 5bw
-SS
“Man is a rebel by nature who cannot conform”
Tom’s article raises a point: conformity is bogus and emasculating; if you want to be a sheep and follow the herd then you are a sheep and not a man. Makes sense. Gangsters may be criminal in their anti-conformity but at least they are doing something to preserve their masculinity. Tom quoted Norman Mailer in her article, saying:
“If their conversation runs the predictable riverbed of sex, gang war, drugs, [and] weapons, well, at least they live out a part of their conversational obsession, which is more than one can say for the quiet, inhibited, middle-aged desperadoes of the corporation and the suburbs.”
Thugs, rebels, cut-ups, gangsters, they have the courage and guile to walk on the other side. Maybe we are all a little bit jealous of these people, not only because they seem to have money, cars and girls, but because they truly possess the masculine qualities that we can only claim to have.
“[G]ang culture provides a space for active masculinity, a site in which to play warrior”
People fear criminals and thugs because you are never quite sure what they are capable of; they have no fear but manage to instill it in us. They are warriors of the street, fighting for their own, while we are part of the herd, slaves to the “man”. It seems strange that the punks corrupting our streets are the new model for masculinity, the reincarnates of Stalky, but that is the way it is. They have more in common with the old school masculine world than any straight shooting “good” citizen could ever dream of. They are courageous and cunning, they have the will to rebel, they have coded speech, tightly knit-groups, they are masculine. Maybe it is time to look up your local crack slinging chapter and start wearing gang colours in an attempt to redeem some masculine qualities that may have gotten lost in the stacks of paper piling up from your desk job, or forgotten about after countless hours of gaming.
Article:
Tom, Patricia Vettel. "Bad Boys."Art Journal; Summer97, Vol. 56 Issue 2, p69, 6p, 5bw
-SS
March 10, 2008
Where's Daddy?
The absence of fathers
With frightening regularity, young black men are shooting at and being shot by one another in Toronto. Yet few people are talking about the conditions in which many of the shooters and the shot at are growing up. They are being raised without fathers in communities in which gangs promise the lure not only of extra cash but of affirming the young men's budding sense of masculinity and of belonging to something greater than themselves. Meanwhile, community leaders are grasping at useless symbols. The University of Toronto is proposing to scrap its century-old sport-shooting range. Ontario's Attorney-General wants a national ban on handguns (which are already tightly controlled).
The vicious cycle that affects young black men is familiar by now from countless urban centres in the United States. Economist Ronald Mincy of New York's Columbia University, who is black and grew up fatherless, writes of a generation of inner-city men who drop out of school and are thus poor marriage prospects. Unmarried, they are unlikely to stay connected with their children. Uneducated, they are not likely to find good jobs, since the decent-paying, low-skilled jobs have mostly disappeared. As for the low-level jobs that immigrants take, Prof. Mincy says young black men don't want those because they are used to a higher standard of living on welfare.
Even the booming job market of the past 15 years hasn't helped young black men. In American inner cities, more than half drop out of high school. In 2004, 72 per cent of black males in their 20s who had dropped out of high school were jobless; the figure includes those in jail and those who were free but not looking for work. By comparison, just 34 per cent of white high-school dropouts were jobless. If high-school graduates are included, half of black men in their 20s were jobless.
Prof. Mincy is one of countless voices, black and white, in the United States raising the issue of father-absence. At a time when nearly 50 per cent of all black children in Canada have just one parent in the home, compared with slightly under 20 per cent of Canadian children generally, who is raising the issue in Canada? Where are the fathers? Where are the programs to encourage responsible fatherhood? Talk about fathers is as absent as the fathers themselves.
"Black people will never reach economic parity if black children have to depend on one income and white children depend on two," writes Prof. Mincy. That's as true in Canada as it is in the United States, but you wouldn't know it from the silence.
I came across this article in the Globe and Mail newspaper, describing the conditions behind the rise of gang culture and individual male on male violence. Although this article concentrates exclusively on Black Males, I cant help but apply this issue to our general polemic. Is the absent father a prerequisite for a dismal outcome of performed masculinity? Is the reasoning behind the countless men from fairly wealthy homes committing such heinous crimes versus simple tom-foolery evident in Stalky Model & Co. due to this same absence of a father-figure? Thus, I continue with my question, is the damaged home the answer to where we went wrong? Is it these very cracks in our home foundation which has contributed to a move away from the innocent rebellion present in the Browing school, to a lethal, new age where continuous violence makes a man. In short, there is no graduation from this stage in maturing. Rather, there is a continuation of the vicious, violent cycle which has made our new, ambiguous masculine ‘model’.
With frightening regularity, young black men are shooting at and being shot by one another in Toronto. Yet few people are talking about the conditions in which many of the shooters and the shot at are growing up. They are being raised without fathers in communities in which gangs promise the lure not only of extra cash but of affirming the young men's budding sense of masculinity and of belonging to something greater than themselves. Meanwhile, community leaders are grasping at useless symbols. The University of Toronto is proposing to scrap its century-old sport-shooting range. Ontario's Attorney-General wants a national ban on handguns (which are already tightly controlled).
The vicious cycle that affects young black men is familiar by now from countless urban centres in the United States. Economist Ronald Mincy of New York's Columbia University, who is black and grew up fatherless, writes of a generation of inner-city men who drop out of school and are thus poor marriage prospects. Unmarried, they are unlikely to stay connected with their children. Uneducated, they are not likely to find good jobs, since the decent-paying, low-skilled jobs have mostly disappeared. As for the low-level jobs that immigrants take, Prof. Mincy says young black men don't want those because they are used to a higher standard of living on welfare.
Even the booming job market of the past 15 years hasn't helped young black men. In American inner cities, more than half drop out of high school. In 2004, 72 per cent of black males in their 20s who had dropped out of high school were jobless; the figure includes those in jail and those who were free but not looking for work. By comparison, just 34 per cent of white high-school dropouts were jobless. If high-school graduates are included, half of black men in their 20s were jobless.
Prof. Mincy is one of countless voices, black and white, in the United States raising the issue of father-absence. At a time when nearly 50 per cent of all black children in Canada have just one parent in the home, compared with slightly under 20 per cent of Canadian children generally, who is raising the issue in Canada? Where are the fathers? Where are the programs to encourage responsible fatherhood? Talk about fathers is as absent as the fathers themselves.
"Black people will never reach economic parity if black children have to depend on one income and white children depend on two," writes Prof. Mincy. That's as true in Canada as it is in the United States, but you wouldn't know it from the silence.
I came across this article in the Globe and Mail newspaper, describing the conditions behind the rise of gang culture and individual male on male violence. Although this article concentrates exclusively on Black Males, I cant help but apply this issue to our general polemic. Is the absent father a prerequisite for a dismal outcome of performed masculinity? Is the reasoning behind the countless men from fairly wealthy homes committing such heinous crimes versus simple tom-foolery evident in Stalky Model & Co. due to this same absence of a father-figure? Thus, I continue with my question, is the damaged home the answer to where we went wrong? Is it these very cracks in our home foundation which has contributed to a move away from the innocent rebellion present in the Browing school, to a lethal, new age where continuous violence makes a man. In short, there is no graduation from this stage in maturing. Rather, there is a continuation of the vicious, violent cycle which has made our new, ambiguous masculine ‘model’.
March 9, 2008
Wanted: People for Organization -- Must Hate IOC
When one is asked to characterize the actions of a gang-member there are obviously certain elements which would show up on any person's list, such as violence and vandalism. As the first point needs no explanation, I wish to address the second. You see, it is quite easy to view a site of the city which has been "tagged" by various different styles of graffiti and say it has been "vandalized." One can also just simply say a place has been "vandalized" when it's outer appearance is scarred by unwanted or ugly elements, such as broken windows, soiled foundations, or posters of propaganda. Eventually, when one begins to notice a specific pattern of vandalization, it becomes quite easy to associate such acts with the people who do them. Instead of calling them individuals we begin to ascribe them the name of "vandals" for their association with this violence of place.
If we are lucky, this is where the associative process will end. The vandal will be apprehended sooner or later and this violence will end. It is when this hooligan is left to his own devices for far too long that a problem begins to develop. He/she may find a kinship with other members of his/her kind. A group of vandals may group together and begin a process of widespread vandalization, attacking any number of locations throughout the city, their violence-of-place only kept in check by the number of members in the group and how little they can accomplish at any one time.
The possibility for greater danger is not absent from this situation, however. When the group eventually becomes too large to control how long will it be before one vandal chooses to scar a human instead of a building? The line separating a group of vandals and a gang is indeed a thin red one, and it can be crossed with only a modicum of effort. Violence of place is not so different from violence of man in that they both show such reckless disregard for society, its laws, and its people. How many times has a brick been thrown at a building; how many windows are broken by baseball bats; how many mailboxes are intentionally run over? How easily could you mistake vandalism for gang activity if these hooligans were vandalizing people instead of objects?
I can think of one particular group of people today which is exhibiting startling similarity to this criminal evolution. To illustrate, I present this citation from 24 Hours newspaper (Tuesday, February 26th edition):
There has been a noticeable spike in ... vandalism. The Omega countdown clock, Premier Gordon Campbell’s riding office, a “Welcome to Vancouver” sign near Hastings Park and several Royal Bank of Canada branches have been recent targets.
I have kept the most important words of this phrase intentionally absent, just so my readers may be able to imagine how vandal-like this group's actions are, how so like any other band of petty hooligans. Though for any keen reader of the papers you will have no doubt already filled in the blanks; however, for those of you less inclined to daily reading let me continue with my final damnable piece of evidence, this time, a picture:
Yes, yes, it is the Anti Poverty Committee to which I am referring. This ragtag bunch of vandals have progressively been upping the ante on their antics sine day one, and for the most part their tireless tirades and voluminous vandalizations have been only just tolerable. As Vancouver's hosting of the 2010 Olympic Games draws nearer, however, their actions have escalated to outright threats against key member of the Olympic Committee. The picture above is the epitome of that conclusion: a profusion of large posters sprout up around downtown Vancouver, each bearing the ominous decree, "Dead IOC Prez." Upon further examination, one also notices a grand serpent, bearing all the markers of Olympic authority along its body, being deftly beheaded by a masked ninja with a horde of cheering individuals behind him.
This is where the APC feels out the boundaries outlined by that thin red line. Before this, they were just a large group of humbled hooligans; however, now they have begun to show so many of the trademark signs of a group that is going out of control. As I have said, it would only take one violent act for the entire group to finish their criminal evolution, and posters like this are the undeniable precursor to that act. Why else would Vancouver's finest be out in full force on the exact date and time of International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge’s arrival?
Let us be both practical and serious. No one would take such a threat lightly, and assuredly no one would stand idle in light of its existence. On the contrary, they would certainly act. My greatest concern, however, is which party is doing the acting? The Police are doing all they can just to stand there and protect the head of that black serpent; but what actions are the Anti Poverty Committee likely to take next? If the pattern is anything to go by, God forbid, then I expect the next threat will not be left unfulfilled.
We are witnessing the evolution of a gang. You cannot deny that the Anti Poverty Committee has taken drastic measures to communicate its point to the city; and while that goal is an admirable one, what will their goals be known as once a member of the Olympic Committee truly is assassinated like some base animal? Look at this group of people. What do you see? Do you see a responsible organization, or simply organized crime?
If we are lucky, this is where the associative process will end. The vandal will be apprehended sooner or later and this violence will end. It is when this hooligan is left to his own devices for far too long that a problem begins to develop. He/she may find a kinship with other members of his/her kind. A group of vandals may group together and begin a process of widespread vandalization, attacking any number of locations throughout the city, their violence-of-place only kept in check by the number of members in the group and how little they can accomplish at any one time.
The possibility for greater danger is not absent from this situation, however. When the group eventually becomes too large to control how long will it be before one vandal chooses to scar a human instead of a building? The line separating a group of vandals and a gang is indeed a thin red one, and it can be crossed with only a modicum of effort. Violence of place is not so different from violence of man in that they both show such reckless disregard for society, its laws, and its people. How many times has a brick been thrown at a building; how many windows are broken by baseball bats; how many mailboxes are intentionally run over? How easily could you mistake vandalism for gang activity if these hooligans were vandalizing people instead of objects?
I can think of one particular group of people today which is exhibiting startling similarity to this criminal evolution. To illustrate, I present this citation from 24 Hours newspaper (Tuesday, February 26th edition):
There has been a noticeable spike in ... vandalism. The Omega countdown clock, Premier Gordon Campbell’s riding office, a “Welcome to Vancouver” sign near Hastings Park and several Royal Bank of Canada branches have been recent targets.
I have kept the most important words of this phrase intentionally absent, just so my readers may be able to imagine how vandal-like this group's actions are, how so like any other band of petty hooligans. Though for any keen reader of the papers you will have no doubt already filled in the blanks; however, for those of you less inclined to daily reading let me continue with my final damnable piece of evidence, this time, a picture:
Yes, yes, it is the Anti Poverty Committee to which I am referring. This ragtag bunch of vandals have progressively been upping the ante on their antics sine day one, and for the most part their tireless tirades and voluminous vandalizations have been only just tolerable. As Vancouver's hosting of the 2010 Olympic Games draws nearer, however, their actions have escalated to outright threats against key member of the Olympic Committee. The picture above is the epitome of that conclusion: a profusion of large posters sprout up around downtown Vancouver, each bearing the ominous decree, "Dead IOC Prez." Upon further examination, one also notices a grand serpent, bearing all the markers of Olympic authority along its body, being deftly beheaded by a masked ninja with a horde of cheering individuals behind him.
This is where the APC feels out the boundaries outlined by that thin red line. Before this, they were just a large group of humbled hooligans; however, now they have begun to show so many of the trademark signs of a group that is going out of control. As I have said, it would only take one violent act for the entire group to finish their criminal evolution, and posters like this are the undeniable precursor to that act. Why else would Vancouver's finest be out in full force on the exact date and time of International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge’s arrival?
Let us be both practical and serious. No one would take such a threat lightly, and assuredly no one would stand idle in light of its existence. On the contrary, they would certainly act. My greatest concern, however, is which party is doing the acting? The Police are doing all they can just to stand there and protect the head of that black serpent; but what actions are the Anti Poverty Committee likely to take next? If the pattern is anything to go by, God forbid, then I expect the next threat will not be left unfulfilled.
We are witnessing the evolution of a gang. You cannot deny that the Anti Poverty Committee has taken drastic measures to communicate its point to the city; and while that goal is an admirable one, what will their goals be known as once a member of the Olympic Committee truly is assassinated like some base animal? Look at this group of people. What do you see? Do you see a responsible organization, or simply organized crime?
~~Seven Tense
March 3, 2008
Blame it on the Post-Modern?
While trying to narrow down my research, I came across a study co-produced by Delbert Joe and Norman Robinson, both specialists of the socio-educational issues impending Vancouver’s current gang culture. Their study includes an in depth analysis of gang culture in Downtown Vancouver’s, Chinatown, which is summarized in their article aptly named, “Chinatown’s Immigrant Class; The New Young Warrior Class”. Their research pinpoints the problem of such gangs to the overflow in immigration during the 1960’s, “when both Canada and the United States adopted less restrictive immigration Laws, under which substantial numbers of poorly educated and disaffected Hong Kong youth began to enter Canada and the United States”.
I then thought to myself, why would immigrants trying to better their lives in Canada, turn to gangs and crime? However, it soon made sense, when I considered Alan Sillitoe’s Smith, the narrator of The Long Distance Runner. Like Smith, these hopeful immigrants turned gang members blame the system--the ‘in-laws’; they too have been mismanaged by ‘them’ and now in turn choose to be cunning in hopes of regaining an identity lost in their fight for acceptance--this fight is soon inverted from acceptance into the system to an on-going war to find an identity outside of it.
Joe and Robinson go on to characterize three socio-cultural antecedents which are identified as important in the development of Chinese Youth Gangs:
(1) the weakening among many Hong Kong immigrants of the traditional Chinese pattern of close parental guidance and supervision;
(2) the resultant emergence of youth peer-groups who challenge parental authority and Chinese values;
(3) the strong attraction of North American success symbols for gang members, and their perceived inability to achieve success through legitimate means because of difficulties in learning English.
With these three points in mind, we can (with confidence) assume that these young Chinese immigrants landed with hopes of betterment and instead, were faced with a broken system, unavailable to all people--especially immigrants, whose obstacles are two-fold: both trying to make it in a foreign place and re-establish a traditional atmosphere. I find (with experience) that the latter is often neglected; thus it is because of the lack of this traditional influence and structure that already apparent friction is further irritated.
It is soon after their arrival that these immigrants lust after identity, which is often mislead; therefore, gangs come to existence. This is the instance where Joe and Robinson pin-point the creation of a new identity: young warriors. Both researchers suggest that martial arts play a key role in many of these gangs, both for self-defense and offense. There is a militaristic theme and the enemy is the system--the government, other Canadians and often, Canadian-born Chinese.
However, I keep the question open: Is it the lack of traditional and conservative structure which breeds gangs and overall gang culture, or can this particular case be viewed as foreign to our overall discussion of where we went wrong…
Hope to hear some insight.
I then thought to myself, why would immigrants trying to better their lives in Canada, turn to gangs and crime? However, it soon made sense, when I considered Alan Sillitoe’s Smith, the narrator of The Long Distance Runner. Like Smith, these hopeful immigrants turned gang members blame the system--the ‘in-laws’; they too have been mismanaged by ‘them’ and now in turn choose to be cunning in hopes of regaining an identity lost in their fight for acceptance--this fight is soon inverted from acceptance into the system to an on-going war to find an identity outside of it.
Joe and Robinson go on to characterize three socio-cultural antecedents which are identified as important in the development of Chinese Youth Gangs:
(1) the weakening among many Hong Kong immigrants of the traditional Chinese pattern of close parental guidance and supervision;
(2) the resultant emergence of youth peer-groups who challenge parental authority and Chinese values;
(3) the strong attraction of North American success symbols for gang members, and their perceived inability to achieve success through legitimate means because of difficulties in learning English.
With these three points in mind, we can (with confidence) assume that these young Chinese immigrants landed with hopes of betterment and instead, were faced with a broken system, unavailable to all people--especially immigrants, whose obstacles are two-fold: both trying to make it in a foreign place and re-establish a traditional atmosphere. I find (with experience) that the latter is often neglected; thus it is because of the lack of this traditional influence and structure that already apparent friction is further irritated.
It is soon after their arrival that these immigrants lust after identity, which is often mislead; therefore, gangs come to existence. This is the instance where Joe and Robinson pin-point the creation of a new identity: young warriors. Both researchers suggest that martial arts play a key role in many of these gangs, both for self-defense and offense. There is a militaristic theme and the enemy is the system--the government, other Canadians and often, Canadian-born Chinese.
However, I keep the question open: Is it the lack of traditional and conservative structure which breeds gangs and overall gang culture, or can this particular case be viewed as foreign to our overall discussion of where we went wrong…
Hope to hear some insight.
Policing Their Own
If anyone remembers, I mentioned an article I had been looking for, well this week I found the article. The article was about setting up an aboriginal police force with the intent that their community would trust this police force and set a strong relationship with them and by extension the RCMP in general as well. This is a response to the high crime rates among that community.
Though the intent is both logical, and good, it also follows a set way of thought. First, it can be seen as the RCMP abandoning doing their duty there personally. Though this task force is apart of the RCMP, they are must respond to the aboriginal counsel and community rather than the RCMP themselves. Though the RCMP is going to be invovled in the Community Consultive Group that the Unit responds to, how involved they are going to be is another question entirely. The second thing that they are doing is by abandoning their role there, they are showing a lack of concern as they are handing the role of policing over to another inexperienced force.
Thus, this is one of society's responses to hooliganism. To wash their hands of the individuals and communities and let them fend for themselves. Hoping to hide from the problems that select communities generate by having them police themselves. Though once again they are involved in the CCG, the article does not specify the extent of their involvement and therefore that could mean there is little to no involvement, or hopefully they will be heavily involved in the Units movements. But either way I see this as a negative thing, as its a step towards cutting off a section of society, as they isolate them from the rest of society.
Here is the article for anyone interested.
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=c63e2508-3220-4fb5-99c7-171139bed60c&k=58739&p=2
Though the intent is both logical, and good, it also follows a set way of thought. First, it can be seen as the RCMP abandoning doing their duty there personally. Though this task force is apart of the RCMP, they are must respond to the aboriginal counsel and community rather than the RCMP themselves. Though the RCMP is going to be invovled in the Community Consultive Group that the Unit responds to, how involved they are going to be is another question entirely. The second thing that they are doing is by abandoning their role there, they are showing a lack of concern as they are handing the role of policing over to another inexperienced force.
Thus, this is one of society's responses to hooliganism. To wash their hands of the individuals and communities and let them fend for themselves. Hoping to hide from the problems that select communities generate by having them police themselves. Though once again they are involved in the CCG, the article does not specify the extent of their involvement and therefore that could mean there is little to no involvement, or hopefully they will be heavily involved in the Units movements. But either way I see this as a negative thing, as its a step towards cutting off a section of society, as they isolate them from the rest of society.
Here is the article for anyone interested.
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=c63e2508-3220-4fb5-99c7-171139bed60c&k=58739&p=2
March 2, 2008
Blue Flags and Red Bandanas
I write this while listening to the inspirational rhymes and beats of the likes of G-Unit, Bun-B, Lil Wayne, and Snoop Dogg. These word wizards just have that certain panache when it comes to describing the nuances of thuggery, hustling, and gang life in general. They have the ability to romanticize a curb stomping or slinging crack in an alley in a way that very few can. Their music manages to make things that shock and appal regular people seem commonplace, cool, and masculine. The question that I hope to answer through the course of my blogs asks: is there a certain bit of old school masculinity, hidden amongst the violence and illegal activities, in gangs and individual thugs?
By old school masculinity I am referring to the widely accepted masculine qualities outlined in Kipling’s Stalky & Co. that were touched upon in an earlier blog.
“I keep a blue flag hanging out my backside but only on my left side, yeah that’s the Crip side” from Snoop Dogg’s, Drop it Like it’s Hot.
“Red bandana in my back pocket, I’m for real” from The Game’s One Night.
One such masculine trademark outlined in the Stalky Model is a close-knit group of friends. Thugs show incredible loyalty to their fellow gang members, so much in fact that they are willing to kill for their partners in crime. A lot of it has to do with the safety in numbers idea that is vitally important in a world of competitive drug trafficking and territorialisation. Part of being in a gang is knowing that someone will be there to cover your back in a time of need. Essentially this is an extremely masculine environment. Large groups comprised of (mostly) males work together to achieve a common (but criminal) goal, and in the process form loyalties and friendships with their gang and learn a deep hatred for anyone who wears the wrong colour or sells something on the wrong block.
“Took two drags off the blunts, and started breaking down the flag/The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods” from Wu Tang Clan’s, A Better Tomorrow.
Another trait that common gangsters have in common with Stalky and his gang is a shared or coded form of speech. Gangster rap is so laden with slang terms and created language that it is often difficult to even decipher. Real life street thugs who more often than not aren’t black millionaire rappers still share their own esoteric speech. More than likely it comes in the form of drug related dialogue, the part of their lives that they share and are passionate about. Grams, ounces, pounds, chronic, smack, ice, the list goes on.
When you look at the idea of a group of males forming friendships and working towards a common goal, sans violence and crime, it has the appearance of a wholesome masculine thing. Like Scouts gone bad. When breaking it down to its most simple level those thugs and their mates out there who are usually “known to the police” have something going that relates directly to model masculine ideologies. There are still many more aspects of the model to be analyzed, but this was a good a place as any to start, and now to stop.
-SS
By old school masculinity I am referring to the widely accepted masculine qualities outlined in Kipling’s Stalky & Co. that were touched upon in an earlier blog.
“I keep a blue flag hanging out my backside but only on my left side, yeah that’s the Crip side” from Snoop Dogg’s, Drop it Like it’s Hot.
“Red bandana in my back pocket, I’m for real” from The Game’s One Night.
One such masculine trademark outlined in the Stalky Model is a close-knit group of friends. Thugs show incredible loyalty to their fellow gang members, so much in fact that they are willing to kill for their partners in crime. A lot of it has to do with the safety in numbers idea that is vitally important in a world of competitive drug trafficking and territorialisation. Part of being in a gang is knowing that someone will be there to cover your back in a time of need. Essentially this is an extremely masculine environment. Large groups comprised of (mostly) males work together to achieve a common (but criminal) goal, and in the process form loyalties and friendships with their gang and learn a deep hatred for anyone who wears the wrong colour or sells something on the wrong block.
“Took two drags off the blunts, and started breaking down the flag/The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods” from Wu Tang Clan’s, A Better Tomorrow.
Another trait that common gangsters have in common with Stalky and his gang is a shared or coded form of speech. Gangster rap is so laden with slang terms and created language that it is often difficult to even decipher. Real life street thugs who more often than not aren’t black millionaire rappers still share their own esoteric speech. More than likely it comes in the form of drug related dialogue, the part of their lives that they share and are passionate about. Grams, ounces, pounds, chronic, smack, ice, the list goes on.
When you look at the idea of a group of males forming friendships and working towards a common goal, sans violence and crime, it has the appearance of a wholesome masculine thing. Like Scouts gone bad. When breaking it down to its most simple level those thugs and their mates out there who are usually “known to the police” have something going that relates directly to model masculine ideologies. There are still many more aspects of the model to be analyzed, but this was a good a place as any to start, and now to stop.
-SS
February 25, 2008
Hello To Everyone!
Hello to everyone! I am Chavette, another contributor to this blog. My expertise will lie in the issues of our current gang problem in Canada, as well as the possible solutions and direction we have been aiming/going towards. I will argue this new transition in masculinity as a perversion of the schoolboy ‘Stalky Model’ and decipher the impending issue of “what/where we went wrong” to have reached such a disastrous present. Whereas Seven Tense will be dealing with how our society perceives a gang member in present day, my main opus will be directed towards the general gang culture and how we have now come full circle to a violent template for achieving masculinity (or attaining manhood for that matter). I’m eager to hear from everyone and continue with our polemical quest.
Modern-Day Stalky School
This doesn't really belong in my area of focus, but I came across this article in the New Zealand Herald (yes, I do read the NZH on a regular basis), and I thought that it would be interesting to share.
The following article provides an overview of the top school in New Zealand. This school just happens to be run in the Catholic Lasallian style; and just happens to develop a brotherhood among their students by dividing them into 'Houses' (yes, like at Hogwarts), and having house chants (perhaps a unique language?) and competitions; and just happens to have educated TWO of New Zealand's All Blacks (the elite, international rugby team) John Kirwan and Isaia Toeava; and just happens to have a dean that has "always been there for us - always pushing us even when we don't want to do it" and is described as "a tough teacher and a good guy" (kind and sapient Head); and just happens to be rated as the best school in New Zealand.
Sound very much like a Stalky school to me (except for the top school part). Perhaps Alex of Clockwork Orange would have liked this school too.
Here's the link to the article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10491703&pnum=0
If you're interested, here is the link to the school's website:
http://www.delasalle.school.nz/?sid=1
E.
The following article provides an overview of the top school in New Zealand. This school just happens to be run in the Catholic Lasallian style; and just happens to develop a brotherhood among their students by dividing them into 'Houses' (yes, like at Hogwarts), and having house chants (perhaps a unique language?) and competitions; and just happens to have educated TWO of New Zealand's All Blacks (the elite, international rugby team) John Kirwan and Isaia Toeava; and just happens to have a dean that has "always been there for us - always pushing us even when we don't want to do it" and is described as "a tough teacher and a good guy" (kind and sapient Head); and just happens to be rated as the best school in New Zealand.
Sound very much like a Stalky school to me (except for the top school part). Perhaps Alex of Clockwork Orange would have liked this school too.
Here's the link to the article:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10491703&pnum=0
If you're interested, here is the link to the school's website:
http://www.delasalle.school.nz/?sid=1
E.
February 23, 2008
"Oh, that guy? Yeah, I knew him."
What is the least that you could say about a Gang member? How many adjectives are the bare minimum when applying this characterization? Well, if you don't know, wouldn't you at least like the Police to?The phrase Known to Police has officially entered the public consciousness as a Gang-related term. It is found in nearly every article that has dealt with Gangs specifically. Wherever one term is used, it seems, the other is soon to follow. To cite a specific instance, I use an article from the Metro newspaper, February 12th edition:
While police have not made any connection between this shooting and any other homicides or gang activity, they say [the murdered man] was known to police.
What does it mean to be Known to Police; and why not a gang-exclusive usage? Well, to be blunt with you, my readers, I don't think it is supposed to be taken literally. It is true that our beloved law enforcement agency of the lower mainland knows many of the individuals who perpetrate these heinous crimes; however, the Police also know those who are the victims of such criminal activities, and it is not because they went to their Bar Mitzvah.
Both parties are known to Police because they are criminals, violators of the law in equal right and respect (thought both traits are conspicuously lacking). Returning to the article to which I referred earlier, I find that though a man was murdered (no doubt by a Gang's bullets) he was by no means innocent. Years earlier, the reporter writes, this individual was KTP for carrying handguns, and tens of thousands of dollars in cash. He was also evidenced as being party to a road rage incident which saw him and several of his acquaintances violently attack an unarmed driver. Citing from another article (this one from 24 Hours, February 18th edition) I find another instance of this linguistic association:
Both parties are known to Police because they are criminals, violators of the law in equal right and respect (thought both traits are conspicuously lacking). Returning to the article to which I referred earlier, I find that though a man was murdered (no doubt by a Gang's bullets) he was by no means innocent. Years earlier, the reporter writes, this individual was KTP for carrying handguns, and tens of thousands of dollars in cash. He was also evidenced as being party to a road rage incident which saw him and several of his acquaintances violently attack an unarmed driver. Citing from another article (this one from 24 Hours, February 18th edition) I find another instance of this linguistic association:
[John Doe] was known to police and the shooting is believed to be a targeted hit.... However...a resident of the Downtown Eastside who says he saw the shooting, stated that he knew the man as a drug dealer.
There is a peculiar link that we might feel inclined to draw when examining articles with such content in them. It would seem that a Gang member is someone who acts as a neighborhood vigilante of sorts. He goes from place to place and assassinates those people who only work to harm our people and our home. Drug dealers, thieves, car-smashing, driver-beating hooligans, they're no use to society, right? Why not get rid of them? And so on.... Continuing with this line of logic, we might even feel inclined to praise the Gangs for "cleaning up the streets." We might even see them as doing us a great service. Be careful, my friends, and think about this before it goes too far. This hooligan is not helping you but helping himself. If he is "cleaning up the streets" he does so only to make way for more of his kind.
Though we tell ourselves that actions speak louder than words do not let the capricious Gang member steal your allegiance even for a second. We cannot allow ourselves to believe that such an individual is doing good, or even working towards a worthy goal. Death is not the principle on which we have founded our judicial system, and it is certainly not the one which drives the hearts and minds of our society. Murder will absolutely not be tolerated, and that is what it means to be Known to Police. You are not a martyr for whose death the hooligan will be lionized; neither are you a bounty hunter among men. You are a criminal, and Vancouver is watching.
Though we tell ourselves that actions speak louder than words do not let the capricious Gang member steal your allegiance even for a second. We cannot allow ourselves to believe that such an individual is doing good, or even working towards a worthy goal. Death is not the principle on which we have founded our judicial system, and it is certainly not the one which drives the hearts and minds of our society. Murder will absolutely not be tolerated, and that is what it means to be Known to Police. You are not a martyr for whose death the hooligan will be lionized; neither are you a bounty hunter among men. You are a criminal, and Vancouver is watching.
The plan is prevention.
As I was browsing for one particular article, I stumbled upon this one instead. Unlike Stalky and Co., gangs, according to this article, operate in direct detriment to the society at large. Meaning, there is no respect for any sort of system. Instead their actions have negative impacts on the system itself. This is shown in the fact that "honest businesses" are harmed by gangs. This is important as our society is propped up by our commerce. Without it, we would lose benefits such as health care, education, and other government funded programs. The article mentions that though most reactions to gangs are responses to their actions, the article argues that prevention of gang actions is far more beneficial. Though no detail is given, they list some of these preventive measures that they believe would help.
This is what I believe is the most interesting fact about this article. The notion of prevention. The reason is of course that prevention operates not on the present but on the future. To be able to do so, assumptions on members of our society must be made. The term "at risk youth", though not mentioned in this article, is one we are all very familiar with. This term is the main focus of prevention. This is important because it singles out members of society by factors such as income, where they live, education and race. Thus the notion of prevention is not just an act to stop gang violence, but it also marginalizes members of society, as they are "different" or "vulnerable" to such a life style. So response of society to the change in the model in terms of gangs, is to attack itself and quite possibly perpetuate the cycle that has already started.
This will probably not be the final word on this subject, as it is a big one. So expect a continuation of this topic as I find more available articles.
Here is the source that I drew from in this week's post:
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=031d5d44-2248-43b3-9bed-
617d2bb445c1
This is what I believe is the most interesting fact about this article. The notion of prevention. The reason is of course that prevention operates not on the present but on the future. To be able to do so, assumptions on members of our society must be made. The term "at risk youth", though not mentioned in this article, is one we are all very familiar with. This term is the main focus of prevention. This is important because it singles out members of society by factors such as income, where they live, education and race. Thus the notion of prevention is not just an act to stop gang violence, but it also marginalizes members of society, as they are "different" or "vulnerable" to such a life style. So response of society to the change in the model in terms of gangs, is to attack itself and quite possibly perpetuate the cycle that has already started.
This will probably not be the final word on this subject, as it is a big one. So expect a continuation of this topic as I find more available articles.
Here is the source that I drew from in this week's post:
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=031d5d44-2248-43b3-9bed-
617d2bb445c1
February 22, 2008
Biker Gangs
While browsing the Internet for intelligent things to say on this blog, I came across the following article examining Biker Gangs. Although this article is almost a year old and this blog is not intended to focus on one particular type of gang, I believe that it is still relevant to our discussion here. Of particular interest is the list of what police call typical characteristics of biker gangs:
(1) Biker gangs show off their colours in public
(2) Biker gangs use force and violence to survive and grow. Intimidation, arms and explosives are their weapons of choice.
(3)The organizations have a hierarchical structure. Committing crimes is left to new recruits while those higher up reap the rewards.
(4)The hierarchical structure allows the leaders to operate with impunity while flaunting their image of power to attract recruits and draw them into crime.
(5)It is difficult for law-enforcement agencies to infiltrate these organizations because becoming a member involves committing crimes. North American clubs also tend to require their members to own American-made bikes, often Harley-Davidsons.
When comparing this list to the "Stalky Model," we can see quite a difference in the way biker gangs operate and the SModel. Here, brawn (#2) beats out cunning (SModel: "individual cunning and pluck - beats brawn and size"). There is no "respect for the larger system" (SModel), as leaders operate with impunity and performing a crime is a new recruit's initiation in the biker gang.
However, there is a great deal of emphasis placed on performance in biker gangs, which is part of the SModel.
Here is the full article from the website of the CBC.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bikergangs/
Let me know what you think.
E.
(1) Biker gangs show off their colours in public
(2) Biker gangs use force and violence to survive and grow. Intimidation, arms and explosives are their weapons of choice.
(3)The organizations have a hierarchical structure. Committing crimes is left to new recruits while those higher up reap the rewards.
(4)The hierarchical structure allows the leaders to operate with impunity while flaunting their image of power to attract recruits and draw them into crime.
(5)It is difficult for law-enforcement agencies to infiltrate these organizations because becoming a member involves committing crimes. North American clubs also tend to require their members to own American-made bikes, often Harley-Davidsons.
When comparing this list to the "Stalky Model," we can see quite a difference in the way biker gangs operate and the SModel. Here, brawn (#2) beats out cunning (SModel: "individual cunning and pluck - beats brawn and size"). There is no "respect for the larger system" (SModel), as leaders operate with impunity and performing a crime is a new recruit's initiation in the biker gang.
However, there is a great deal of emphasis placed on performance in biker gangs, which is part of the SModel.
Here is the full article from the website of the CBC.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bikergangs/
Let me know what you think.
E.
February 19, 2008
Hello to You All
Hello, I am Simple Scholar another contributor to this group blog. I will have the priveledge of examining how the gangs of today fit into the Stocky Model of old (mentioned/outlined previously). I will look at what Stocky-like traits of masculinity the "OG's" of the mean streets of Vancouver (and perhaps abroad) possess and discuss how and what influences this has on gangs and the public. I will do my best to find some current real-life examples to help support my claims. I look forward to sharing with you all in the very near future and am eager for your comments and insight.
February 17, 2008
Introducing Myself
Hello, this is another member of the group for this discussion. To maintain anonymity, I will be going by the pen name Busogre. So my avenue of discussion is how the model has changed from the previous one and how has society been dealing with it.
So as my posts go on every week, I will identify at least one quality that has changed, and how this change affects society. Not much more to say really, because I am intentionally keeping this post brief as it is only an intro for myself and my topic. Anyway, I look forward to sharing my opinion with you all.
So as my posts go on every week, I will identify at least one quality that has changed, and how this change affects society. Not much more to say really, because I am intentionally keeping this post brief as it is only an intro for myself and my topic. Anyway, I look forward to sharing my opinion with you all.
February 11, 2008
Another Introduction!
Hello and welcome!
I (Eaglet) am another contributor to this blog, and as Seven Tense has explained the purpose of this blog, I will simply limit myself to saying that my posts will be focussing on how the "Stalky Model" (based on Kipling's novel "Stalky & Co.") has changed in regards to being a gang member.
To avoid confusion, the "Stalky Model" is defined as the following, according to our professor of English (not my words here!)
>a close-knit group of contrasting male companions.
>unspoken (taboo'd) respect for the larger system.
>resistance, criticism & forms of rebellion written into the system as an outlet against revolution.
>stalkiness" - individual cunning and pluck - beats brawn and size.
>a kind and sapient Head.
>Stoic-Christian blend that is fully orthodox to neither.
>under the Stoic-Christian ethic, judicious violence is built into the system.
>centrality of performance as a defining value: its ultimate form is a rite of passage.
>an angular authority-confidante -- typically an ecclesiastic - as a personified conscience.
>exclusive and shared esoteric code of speech – i.e. slang -- & cultural artifact
As I mentioned above, I will focus on how this code is different for today's gang members.
Thanks,
E.
I (Eaglet) am another contributor to this blog, and as Seven Tense has explained the purpose of this blog, I will simply limit myself to saying that my posts will be focussing on how the "Stalky Model" (based on Kipling's novel "Stalky & Co.") has changed in regards to being a gang member.
To avoid confusion, the "Stalky Model" is defined as the following, according to our professor of English (not my words here!)
>a close-knit group of contrasting male companions.
>unspoken (taboo'd) respect for the larger system.
>resistance, criticism & forms of rebellion written into the system as an outlet against revolution.
>stalkiness" - individual cunning and pluck - beats brawn and size.
>a kind and sapient Head.
>Stoic-Christian blend that is fully orthodox to neither.
>under the Stoic-Christian ethic, judicious violence is built into the system.
>centrality of performance as a defining value: its ultimate form is a rite of passage.
>an angular authority-confidante -- typically an ecclesiastic - as a personified conscience.
>exclusive and shared esoteric code of speech – i.e. slang -- & cultural artifact
As I mentioned above, I will focus on how this code is different for today's gang members.
Thanks,
E.
February 9, 2008
Where it all begins.
Hello and welcome to Deviance, Defiance, And Death, a blog examining the present incarnation of hooligan culture: the gangs of Vancouver. The objective of this blog is to provide a forum where people can engage in an inciteful, and perhaps polemical, dialectic about gang culture.
There are five members of the panel of students that will lead this discussion, who will introduce themselves all in due time. Let this christening post be my introduction, though, while we are here. My alias is Seven Tense and you can expect my posts to examine the treatment of the complex social stigma of what it is to be a gang member. I will attempt to illuminate what it means for an individual to be in a gang and how he is perceived by those outside a gang.
Outside sources, especially those of current and developing news stories, will be used often, so I ask my readers to keep at least somewhat up to date on this issue that has swept itself over Vancouver, the city we all love. Outside of that, I don't suspect it will be too complicated :p .
Comments, as always, are welcome, and encouraged.
There are five members of the panel of students that will lead this discussion, who will introduce themselves all in due time. Let this christening post be my introduction, though, while we are here. My alias is Seven Tense and you can expect my posts to examine the treatment of the complex social stigma of what it is to be a gang member. I will attempt to illuminate what it means for an individual to be in a gang and how he is perceived by those outside a gang.
Outside sources, especially those of current and developing news stories, will be used often, so I ask my readers to keep at least somewhat up to date on this issue that has swept itself over Vancouver, the city we all love. Outside of that, I don't suspect it will be too complicated :p .
Comments, as always, are welcome, and encouraged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)