The Voice of DuBois in the 21st Century: Elijah Anderson’s Emergence as an Urban Ethnographic Black Studies Scholar
Dr. Elijah Anderson was the Charles and William L. Day Distinguished Professor of Social Sciences and Sociology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Presently, he is the Sterling Professor of Sociology and African-American Studies at Yale University. He is a scholar, who has followed in the footsteps of the prolific African-American philosophical thinker and sociologist, W.E.B. DuBois. Anderson, an African-American sociologist, research was influenced by DuBois’s earlier study of The Philadelphia Negro, would also go on to further the work of DuBois by writing about Black urban life in Philadelphia, through his publication of Code of the Street, as well as ghetto lifestyles throughout America. In fact. Anderson focused upon DuBois’ study of 19th-century urban poverty of African-Americans in Philadelphia in his own publication entitled, The Study of African-American Problems: W. E. B. Dubois’s America then and Now. In addition to the aforementioned, another factor that influenced Anderson’s publication of Code of the Street is that he grew up in a working-class Black family where distinctions had to be made between being a “decent” or a “street” family. It is through Anderson’s publication of Code of the Street that Anderson refutes in the 21st Century, as DuBois did in the 20th Century that Black residents of the urban ghetto were the problem, (DuBois’ p.21) rather than structuralism within American campus.
Before and after Anderson’s publication of Code of the Street the focus of his research and writing would center on various aspects of African-Americans and their lower-class counterparts, that lived in urban poverty. Such publications included, but were not limited to, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community; Against the Wall: Poor, Young, Black and Male; A Place on the Corner; Problems of the Century: Racial Stratifications in the United States; and Sexuality, Poverty, and the Inner City.
Reviews of Anderson’s Code of the Street reveals that it is a groundbreaking study which focuses upon inner-city African-American youth violence in Philadelphia through four years of ethnographic research, which is essential reading for policymakers, educators, and sociologists endeavoring to provide social uplift for America’s poor. ( Wall Street Journal, Synopsis) In short, Elijah Anderson’s motivation for publishing Code of the Street, stems from his working-class family’s background as An African-American male, his personal example of hard work and study that led to his middle-class status despite limited resources, his impression with DuBois’ sociological research techniques in the study of 19th century impoverished Philadelphia Blacks, and his intellectual curiosity of 20th century Philadelphia inner-city life of Black working-class “decent” and “street” families and the multiple factors that are responsible for their choices. (Stossel, pp 1-8)
Inner-city African-American youth, who feel alienated from the rest of America, due to their utter poverty, perceptions of limited opportunities, and desire for validation have developed survival mechanisms and social mores, known as “codes,” where they endeavor to obtain respect through multiple means such as selling drugs, verbal threats, being sexually promiscuous, and gang violence. Despite such realities, some urban families have become resilient in that they have managed to be “decent “ rejecting “street” violence and gang activity culture, in exchange for educational advancement and endeavors to obtain middle-class standard professions.
On Germantown Avenue, the primary section of Philadelphia where Anderson has conducted his research one will find variations of middle-class professional neighborhoods, where both Blacks and Whites live, to ghettos primarily inhabited by Black and Hispanic lower-class residents with various “staging areas” – which are business establishments, schools, and abandoned houses where violence, drug use and or trafficking occurs regularly. Whereas such inner-city urban life is regarded as the dwelling place of violence, in reality, it is regulated by an unwritten set of laws known as the “codes of the street” that is based upon a person’s ability to negotiate respect by threat or actual realization of physical and verbal harm. Some individuals learn to “code switch” which is the ability to aspire as a member of a “decent” family while simultaneously, if necessary, manifesting physical and verbal damage to perpetrators for protection. Other “code switchers” have mastered the theatrical art of acting “street” thus inducing fear in the minds and hearts of would-be assailants thereby making it unnecessary for them to become violent.
Anderson’s argument is most convincing as evidenced from four years of engaging ethnographic primary source research interviewing actual urban minority, predominately African-American families and their youth, involved in Philadelphia’s Germantown street codes. As an urban sociologist, Anderson is concerned with the issue of sociological stratifications of race and class specifically, and gender in general, as a means of understanding how the underclass functions in a capitalistic society. He also examines the manner in which the majority of the urban underclass subdivides or self alienates themselves from the larger core of American society by creating their illegal market of drug selling, playing numbers, shooting craps, and theft. In contrast to this behavior, the exception also exists whereas some families decide to stand out more positively by being successful. The latter group, as a result of success despite the odds, is accused of “acting white” and feeling superior to their self-victimized relatives and neighbors.
As an endeavor to gain a deep understanding of inner-city youth life and its violent attributes Anderson shows through such interviews and self-observations of how Philadelphia’s Germantown’s community is subdivided between both mainstream and self-alienated groups within close proximities. A major viewpoint of Elijah Anderson is that people in the inner city, where African-Americans have become a large majority of the population, find it difficult to adjust to an economy which has shifted from one that is manufacturing-oriented, where minimum skills obtained well-paying jobs, to one that is technologically and service-oriented, where specialized skills are needed for employment. The research methodology is not new here for Anderson. As a student of DuBois’ research, Anderson is aware of the manner in which, during the 19th century, such sociological studies examined how African-Americans found it difficult, as a result of industrialization to compete with whites for skilled labor jobs. In this context, Anderson, I think, envisions Philadelphia’s urban Germantown community as a microcosm of the larger spectrum of American’s urban poor and minority communities where “codes of the street” are developed cross categorically as a means of projecting a super inflated perception of Black masculinity through acting tough, sexual dominance, verbal threats, and various types of gang violence including murder.
Perhaps Anderson’s most convincing evidence presented validating his thesis regarding the duality of urban “decent” and “street” families, who code switch out of necessity, as a means of being positive role models, though encouraging their children to go to college and become productive members of the middle class, while simultaneously protecting families from violence, in a community which is surrounded by such is the case of Marge, a mother of five. (Anderson, pp.40-41)
Marge, who is interviewed by Anderson, testifies that despite economic scarcity she manages to get baseball mitts and a bat for her sons, which was provided free of charge by their coach. Her son’s friends ask if they could borrow the baseball items, which Marge discourages due to the probability that they would not be returned. Upon recognition that, as convinced, such items were not returned she decided to speak to the mother of her son’s friend as politely as possible. Marge was surprised when she was verbally assaulted with foul profanities, by her son’s friend’s mother, yet her demeanor revealed that she was not fearful. Next, she testified, that her daughter Annette, presently a biochemist, as a ninth-grader who was constantly physically threatened at Germantown High School, actually had her assailant fight her in front of their house. After Marge stopped the fight her daughter’s assailant returned, however with 20 plus relatives and/or friends as an endeavor to afflict additional damage. Marge, while standing on the porch told her sons to bring the baseball bats, thus verbally threatening the crowd, which eventually convinced the crowd to retreat. As a “decent” law-abiding working-class poor urban resident she demonstrated that she would “code switch” thus using violence as a means of both psychological and physical survival for the family as a single mother.
Elijah Anderson’s Code of the Street is extremely significant in terms of understanding the social reality of urban youth in America. Anderson’s research and publication is a major splash in that it challenged the historical belief of the equality of opportunity, democracy, and the concept of access to the middle class by all hardworking individuals. It also presents the idea of a separate and unequal America, one in which health care, education, and crime-free neighborhoods are available for the affluent and the other, in which violence and generational poverty perpetually permeate the inner city.
Anderson’s work also helps the reader to understand both the “causes of violence” in American inner cities. As we can see from the Code of the Street violence is caused both out of the perception of the need for protection. Urban youth who perceive that violent act will happen to them actually joined gangs out of an endeavor to have protection and their “need for documentation” and validation. Since urban youth recognize that the police will not adequately provide protection in their communities, they see it as their plight to find it for themselves. However, gangs do not simply allow outsiders into the group. Aspirant gang members must prove themselves worthy of admission known as a process of initiation and “documentation.” In this context, they will not admit individuals who they perceive might “rat” or convey the inner codes and secrets of gang members. Though the process of testing potential gang members may be requested to embark on multiple acts of violence such as drive-by shootings, bank robberies, individual and collective physical assaults, and even murder.
Anderson’s work demonstrates that there are additional factors which are responsible for the causation of violence. One major factor is the feeling of “immediacy” which occurs with the urban poor due to the pattern of denial of some of life’s necessities as well as their growing inability to cope with delayed gratification. Urban youth who perceive that they may never be able to afford nice clothing, jewelry, sneakers, cars, or other items may rob street residents and travelers at gunpoint with the understanding that if they resist, they will be killed or seriously injured. The reality of the matter is that some of the assailants could be family members that are jealous of the economic success of their more affluent relatives. Anderson displays situations in which family members, who become educated, obtain good jobs, purchase homes, or move out of the inner city are seen as “acting white.” Such jealousy could lead to vandalism of their relatives’ property. This sense of “immediacy” would mean that for some families the route for obtaining nice commodities through hard work, educational attainment, and industrious savings would be perceived as too delayed and perceptually unattainable.
Urban youth who envision that the route to the middle class is too unattainable resort to being “street dependent youngsters” whose eventual future would be short-circuited by prisons and gang violence. Such street dependent youngsters redefine the concept of family to become non- biologically related individuals who are willing to die for them if necessary as well as provide avenues for economic capital through illegal means such as selling drugs, robbing, prostitution, and additional scamming means. To project their sense of manhood or the perception that they are urban youth they must have a sense of “cockiness” as if they are attitudinal. This attitude projects the idea that they also have a sense of entitlement where they are lauded by women and revered by younger urbanites who will see them as cool and hip.
In the context of helping the reader understand both the “causes of violence” and one’s “response to potential violence” Anderson provides chapter three entitled “Drugs, Violence and Street Crime” where the drug trade is provided as an underground economy whereas quick money and the illusion of a quality lifestyle can be realized. The realization of the drug trade stems from the imperfections of American capitalism where racial discrimination allows for the existence of limited white-collar jobs for black males. In fact, entire zip codes, according to Anderson, within inner-city Philadelphia are overlooked by census surveyors, and Black males and females are also feared by employers. The few African Americans who are successful in obtaining jobs face a racial divide where their salaries and quality of work are less than their white counterparts. This economic shortage leads to young boys, who grew up in urban city neighborhoods thus being socialized into gang groups that market drugs as a way of living. The competition for drug selling can be stiff in some neighborhoods where certain gangs have claimed turf, which is exclusive marketing rights. In this context, it becomes easy for such competitors to “get their buttons pushed” thus causing violence, given the reality that their monopolized market area(s) have been intruded upon thus leading to shootouts and other violence manifestations
Many African-Americans in the inner city of Philadelphia who are victimized by the inequities of capitalism become victimizers of others. As a result of getting strung out on drugs, such previous victims start selling illegal substances as a way of supporting their habits. The increase in drug trafficking in their neighborhoods often leads to war zones where drug lords become responsible for the innocent killing of children who are usually playing on the street. In fact, this behavior is not only segregated to Philadelphia, but it is also noted in Kollwitz’s work entitled, There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in the Other America. Pharaoh and Lafayette, brothers who lived in the inner city of Chicago, testified to the manner they nearly escaped a drive-by shooting in their neighborhood. They later recognized however that a young girl was shot in the leg. (Kotlowitz, p.40)
An additional unfortunate aspect of drug selling in the inner city is that it leads to a “psychological attachment to money” which inadvertently causes other social problems such as sexually promiscuous behavior, teenage pregnancy, economic dependency, and modifications to traditional decent cultural values. Given the fact that young girls in the inner city have not been economically validated by their fathers, they oftentimes seek affirmation from drug dealers which they both select and are selected by such dealers, to be one of several girlfriends. In fact, young boys who identify with urban drug gang culture, project a sense of elevated macho culture, where it is expected of them to become womanizers. Anderson informs that their drug money in retrospect is just as psychologically addictive as the drug because it allows them to have expensive exotic cars which women find attractive, jewelry, frequent travel opportunities, and the illusion that they have escaped poverty. Their women however often are abused physically and emotionally by such men out of their psychological need to be controlling and feel powerful.
In contrast to the behavior of earlier urban African-Americans, where fathers married their girlfriends prior to having children, or if children were born out of wedlock marriage would be inevitable, such young inner-city men are socialized to be noncommittal to marriage. In this context, they often become transient within several households parenting numerous children by multiple women. Black urban women often fall into the trap of double-dipping from a system of welfare dependency on the one hand and obtaining financial support and gifts from their urban boyfriends. Yet, despite such womanizing these men often have a “main” girl that does their cooking, cleaning, and other chores. In many of these relationships, their female partners have learned not to complain about the extra relational affairs out of fear that they will be hit. In fact, some adopt the attitude that it is better to share their partner rather than to not have one at all—especially if he is a good provider, which speaks to the reality that they also have a “psychological attachment to money.”
Despite the reality that many inner-city African-Americans in Philadelphia adopted the codes of the street as “street families,” Anderson impressively informs that many such families became resilient “decent” families, thus finding traditional economic and drug-free means of survival. In the last two chapters of this book Anderson focuses upon the “Decent Daddy” and the “Black Inner-City Grandmother in Transition,” to demonstrate the manner inner city or rural poverty, failed at destroying the ethics of such individuals. Anderson demonstrates that the “codes of the street” were not irresistible elements for all individuals. The multiple cases of decent families, especially fathers, and grandmothers, who end up raising their grandchildren to be productive members of society is well documented and researched. In short, Anderson clearly signifies that despite poverty and crime-infested neighborhood families can choose whether they will be “decent” or “street.” Decent fathers met economic scarcity with obtaining multiple jobs to provide a way of adequate financial provision, and to discover means of relocating to better neighborhoods and school districts. Grandmothers helped keep their grandchildren in tack when their own children did not have the resiliency to resist the codes of the street or died though gang activity and other violent means.
Anderson also reveals that former gang members could experience a conversion process in which they would eventually reject street values and adopt a decent goal. For example, Robert, who spent numerous years in jail, decided that he would become an honest hard-working business owner upon dismissal from prison. This would be an extremely difficult task for him especially since he built a negative reputation in the community. In fact, he managed to run a fruit stand in which an inspector disrespectfully tells him he must disband. Despite the temptation to become physically violent, Robert maintained his posture and eventually found a better restaurant opportunity in his old neighborhood. His new business grew, and he became economically successful in the long run, despite adversity.
Professor Anderson has provided a deep and sharp analysis of the economic and sociological factors, which are responsible for inner-city poor youth, largely African-Americans in Philadelphia, being alienated from their white middle-class counterparts, while simultaneous examining how some members of the same oppressed group are able to resist the “codes of the street,” and become decent productive working-class and middle-class members of society. A major strength of Anderson’s work is that it provides an insider’s perspective of urban life in the Germantown region of Philadelphia through first-hand interviews and ethnographic research. The book’s title clearly conveys its internal content and the thematic organizational structure, which successfully helps the reader comprehend the dilemma and plight of the city’s underclass population.
Elijah Anderson’s understanding of the philosophical, sociological, economic, and historical background of the underclass in Philadelphia was made available through his study of Dubois research and publication of the classic study, The Philadelphia Negro. Anderson writes, “Du Bois pointed to the problem that kept African-American men from finding jobs: the lack of education, connections, social skills, and white skin color, as we which led to a lack of hope for the future.” (Anderson, p.109) Anderson while endeavoring to make analytical connections with Du Bois’s analysis in the 19th century and his analysis of Black youth life, primarily male, in the 20th century added, “Today it is clear what that persistent state of affairs has led to.” (Anderson, p.109) It is in this context that Anderson was able to see the foundational and continuous economic divide within Philadelphia, as well as the multifaceted reasons for gang violence as an alternate route and endeavor for economic success and validation, which was supported by his numerous interviews.
Anderson’s research methodological skills of conducting interviews as an endeavor to provide an insider’s perspective of “street” and “decent” families, who either affirmed or rejected the codes of the street, was most effective in convincing scholars that his thesis is valid. Numerous examples of this include the testimonies of “decent men” like Mr. Bland, an African-American taxi cab driver from South Carolina that migrated to Philadelphia (Anderson, pp. 180-181), Don Moses, a gypsy taxi cab driver (Anderson, pp. 183-184), and Mr. Charles, a seventy-six year old man (Anderson, p.190) who gave testimonies of how hard work brought eventual success to them and their children, to street testimonies of a father who gave deep details of how he lost his son to urban gang violence. (Anderson, pp 104-204). Anderson’s scholastic work has clearly made scholars of African-American studies understand the philosophical, economic, and sociological divide of the urban youth experience in America.
Anderson’s organizational presentation which is thematic rather than chronological helps thinkers comprehend its multiple philosophical, political, and sociological concepts. Examples of such include the economic divide of Germantown Avenue in the into decent and street families, the importance of respect, violence and sexually promiscuous behavior, complexities, and significance of fathers, grandmothers, reformed drug dealers, and resilient role models. Although very strong, Anderson’s Code of the Street could have greater heightened analysis if he had some comparison and contrast regarding the similarities and differences in life experiences of urban youth in Philadelphia during DuBois era of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, with his late 20th century ethnographic research within this city and selected urban Northern inner cities. Yet like DuBois who argued that the problem of the twentieth century was the problem of the color line, Anderson provides, significant outcomes research, which validates and documents that the problem of urban inner-city life for African-Americans is the reality of structuralism within American capitalism.
Dr. Felton O. Best is CSU Professor and Professor of Philosophy and Director of African American and Religious Studies Programs at CCSU.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Elijah Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City, New York: W.W. Norton, 1999
DuBois, W.E.B. The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study (Introduction by Elijah Anderson) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995
Kotlowitz, Alex There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up In the Other America New York: Anchor Books, 1991
Strossel, Sage Atlantic Online: Unbound Interviews (http://www.Theatlantic.com)
Wall Street Journal & Synopsis (http://barnesandnobles.com/ newsletter) (Anderson’s Book Reviews)
RIGHTS RESERVED BY AUTHOR. MAY BE REPRINTED, REPUBLISHED, CITED WITH PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR.
