Violent Stories

Introduction

Following the seminal studies of Anderson (1990, 1999) and Wilson (1987, 1996), contemporary research on the relationship between culture and crime has relied on the concept of street culture to better understand the high prevalence of robbery, burglary, carjacking, drug dealing, and interpersonal violence in poor urban neighborhoods (Anderson, 1999; Jacobs, Topalli, & Wright, 2003; Jacobs & Wright, 1999, 2006; Kennedy & Baron, 1993; Papachristos, 2009; Shover & Honaker, 1992; Stewart & Simons, 2010; Wilkinson, 2001; Wright, Brookman, & Bennett, 2006; Wright & Decker, 1997). This research has produced descriptions of the motivations, decision-making processes, and culturally specific behaviors that precede criminal activity. It has also located the origins of street culture in the collective struggles of residents coping with extreme and concentrated poverty (Anderson, 1999; Jacobs & Wright, 1999; Wilson, 1987, 1996). Despite many advances in the literature on street culture, scholars have not closely examined the transmission of street culture among street youth. Researchers generally agree that elements of street culture are transmitted through street socialization (Anderson, 1999; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Oliver, 2006; Vigil, 1991, 2002, 2007; Wilkinson, 2001), but little is actually known about this process (Brezina, Agnew, Cullen, & Wright, 2004). This study examines the transmission of street culture among active gang members and nongang street-oriented youth. The author first applies a cognitive view of culture to the literature on street culture ¹ and then relies on ethnographic recordings of conversations to argue that street-oriented youth negotiate the elements of street culture through the retelling of violence narratives. These stories provide context for cultural ideas and follow a cultural script that both justifies the use of violence and reinforces expectations for when and how to use violence during interpersonal conflicts. They clarify the meaning of manhood, little boy, respect, real nigga, imposter, killer, and love as understood by members of the gang. They communicate that violence is a proper response to the improper conduct of peers and violent retaliation is an expected reaction to victimization.

Conceptualizing Street Culture

Contemporary sociologists commonly view culture as being comprised of schematic structures that organize information and develop strategies of action (DiMaggio, 1997; Swidler, 1986; see also Harding, 2007; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Small, 2002). Culture supplies a repertoire of tools, consisting of symbols, stories, rituals, and worldviews, that are used to shape one’s interpretations of different situations and contexts (Swidler, 1986; see also Hannerz, 1969; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991, 2008). It is, as Swidler (1986) argues, a “tool kit”that allows people not only to navigate an array of different situations but also to actively engage, manipulate, and construct elements of culture. These tools, or schematic structures, define culture and can be measured or observed independent of behavior. They are also flexible, as individuals participate in their construction. Accordingly, people are not perfectly socialized to blindly follow a cultural system. The schematic structures found within cultures are influential but subject to collective processes and social interactions. Close examinations of social interactions can reveal both the elements of culture and the subtle processes that shape these elements.

Given that individuals interact with culture by negotiating various perceptual schemas (Corsaro, 1992), scholars have worked to define the cultural mechanisms most essential to this process. Goffman (1974) developed the notion of a cultural frame, which represents the basic elements of social organization that govern personal involvement in social events. Frames simplify an otherwise complex world by highlighting and making sense of objects, events, experiences, and sequences of actions (Small, 2002). Or, as Corsaro (1992) suggests, frames are the working hypotheses used to understand ongoing events. Another important cultural object is a script, which reflects a cognitive understanding of event sequences so that individuals can anticipate what will or should happen next (Abelson, 1981; Corsaro, 1983; Harding, 2010). Individuals enter situations or interact with other persons and, based on their intuitive understanding of cultural scripts, predict how their actions will influence future events. This understanding often constrains one’s options by eliminating behaviors that do not fit a given event or situation (see Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Lamont & Small, 2008).

Street culture is a complex system of cognitive structures organized around a primary framework that emphasizes the struggle for survival on the streets. Although typically not couched in the language of frames and scripts, research on street culture has identified an array of cultural devices that influence behavior, particularly interpersonal violence. Anderson’s (1999) street code reflects a tool kit that allows individuals to make sense of and successfully navigate interpersonal interactions in the street. The code informs individuals about the meaning of respect and establishes expectations for how public behavior, including violence, influences personal status on the street. Scholars have also examined how frames like legal cynicism, fatalism, and various parental/sex roles and moral categories influence interpretations of events and social interactions (Anderson, 1990, 1999; Brezina, Tekin, & Topalli, 2009; Harding, 2010; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Rosenfeld, Jacobs, & Wright, 2003). When these frames coalesce, they construct a cultural system that is unique to street life.

Street culture also includes an array of identities and labels that help individuals categorize peers or make sense of situations. Researchers identify that a socially constructed notion of masculinity, which places an extreme emphasis on toughness, is a central element of street culture (Anderson, 1999; Hannerz, 1969; Oliver, 1994, 2006; Wilkinson, 2001). Jones (2010) argues that some inner-city girls adopt a “ghetto chick” identity to help them navigate dangerous social settings or situations. The notion of a gang member is also meaningful in street life and is often equated with toughness and violence (Lauger, 2012). Individuals can internalize a gang member identity and/or publically perform as a gang member to manage difficult life or social circumstances (Garot, 2007, 2010; Hennigan & Spanovic, 2012; Stretesky & Pogrebin, 2012; Vigil, 1988, 1991). Identity claims are subject to peer assessments and can result in an array of negative labels that are meaningful to local residents. Wilkinson (2001) notes how some street participants use labels, like “punk” or “herb,” to describe submissive individuals who are generally unwilling to engage in violent conduct. These labels are accompanied by an understanding of the definition of being an herb, the behavioral signs of being an herb, the potential social consequences of being labeled as an herb, and the behavioral options that one may employ to avoid the label. Other researchers have identified how negative labels like “snitch,” “wannabe,” “stunt,” “gold digger,” and “hood rats” influence social interactions on the street (Garot, 2010; Harding, 2010; Lauger, 2012; Miller, 2008; Rosenfeld et al., 2003). Each label and identity has meaning and can be applied to specific people and events; they become part of a person’s cultural tool kit on the streets.

Cultural Transmission and Social Routines

To develop a theoretical understanding of street culture, researchers must examine how and why street culture emerges and spreads across certain populations. Contemporary subculture theorists have made some effort to explain the origins of street culture by arguing that it is rooted in the shared experiences of residents living in impoverished and socially isolated urban communities (Anderson, 1999; Bernard, 1990; Jacobs & Wright, 1999; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Kubrin, 2005; Wilson, 1987, 1996). Hypermasculine identities built around an exaggerated emphasis on toughness function as a substitute for when conventional conceptions of masculinity are unattainable (Oliver, 1994). Historical exposure to apathy, corruption, and prejudice within the justice system produces legal cynicism or a basic distrust of the formal legal system (Jacobs & Wright, 2006; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011). Early and frequent exposure to violence helps produce a fatalistic worldview, and many youths assume that early death is both unavoidable and uncontrollable (Brezina, Tekin, & Topalli, 2009). The lived experiences of residents in areas of concentrated disadvantage produce cultural adaptations that are variably embraced by those local residents. Moreover, the prevalence of concentrated disadvantage, disenfranchisement, and concentrated violence in different cities provides some continuity in these cultural adaptations across geographical locations.

The elements of street culture are not just adaptive; they are also transmitted through social relationships (Hannerz, 1969; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011). Early research examined how personal stories, jokes, and routine conversations among peers and within families contribute to local street culture (Hannerz, 1969). Contemporary researchers often assume that a process of learning or street socialization transmits cultural ideas (for example see Oliver, 2006), but few carefully examine this socialization process in action (Brezina et al., 2004). A number of studies note that interactions with significant others, such as parents, relatives, or select peers, shape one’s understanding of violence and street life (Anderson, 1999; Heimer, 1997; Jones, 2010; Vigil, 1991, 2002, 2007; Wilkinson, 2001). Still, with the considerable attention given to street culture, there is a scarcity of research that carefully examines the specific socialization processes that construct and transmit the elements of street culture.

Cultural sociologists who examine nonstreet socialization repeatedly argue that cultural transmission often occurs during social routines or the basic activities common to the daily lives of individuals (see Blum-Kulka, Huck-Taglicht, & Avni, 2004; Cook-Gumperz, 2001; Corsaro, 1992; Corsaro & Eder, 1990; Eder & Enke, 1991; Eder & Nega, 2003; Ehrlich & Blum-Kulka, 2010; Fine, 1986; Goodwin, 1980; Goodwin & Kyratzis, 2007; Kyratzis, 2004). During adolescence, the routines that develop and transmit cultural elements often occur within the context of daily conversation (Kyratzis, 2004). As peers converse, they use and manipulate cultural ideas through the processes of framing, contextualization, and embellishment (Corsaro, 1992). Framing involves the process by which meaning is created or applied to a given situation (Benford & Snow, 2000; Goffman, 1974, 1981; Small, 2002; Snow & Byrd, 2007; Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986). ² This includes the coherent structuring of events and ideas in a compelling and meaningful way and then accentuating those ideas deemed most important (Snow & Byrd, 2007). Contextualization then produces a collective understanding for when a frame should be employed and applied to a given context (Gumperz, 1982). Embellishment occurs when conversations exaggeratedly highlight the importance or frequency of particular acts as being part of a given framework (Corsaro, 1992). Observing these three elements during routine conversations should provide insights into how youth transmit street culture.

Storytelling is one social routine that allows individuals to communicate cultural ideas through the articulation of sequenced events. Stories recount past events in a logical temporal order in which characters relate to each other, typically within the context of opposition or a struggle (Chen, 2012; Ewick & Silbey, 1995). The retelling of past experiences allows the storyteller to reinterpret an event while also providing the opportunity to utilize a script for how the event transpired. As peers gather and converse about a specific event, individuals familiar with the incident serve as the primary storytellers, but the whole group participates in negotiating the meaning of the story. To tell the story, the group, led by the primary storyteller, collectively uses personal characterizations, labels, and cultural categories, which are linked together by a plot (Hollander & Gordon, 2006). Plots can mirror cultural scripts, as they are grounded in an established understanding of how events should transpire. The storyteller strings together events as if to suggest that his or her actions were the inevitable and predictable consequence of such circumstances (Shuman, 1986). The individuals listening to the story often agree, and everyone involved further establishes their understanding of predictable event sequences.

Personal stories are social performances that categorize, rather than duplicate, experience and generate shared knowledge about events and cultural ideas (Miller & Moore, 1989; Shuman, 1986). They are orchestrated, infused with subjectivity, and structured in culturally appropriate ways so that the storyteller’s actions appear justified to the audience (Miller & Moore, 1989; Ochs & Capps, 1996; Shuman, 1986). Shuman’s (1986) detailed analysis of fight stories within an inner-city junior high school finds that storytellers construct narratives so that their actions are always an appropriate response to the offenses of another person. Yet appropriateness is largely contingent on the expectations of both the storyteller and the audience. A fight narrative about strength, respect, and retaliation in one setting may be a story about self-defense and regret in another, even if the actual fights were similar. Stories provide insight into how groups of people understand the meaning and consequences of behavior. And when stories about similar types of events are repeatedly told among a group of people, they shape expectations and alter how individuals perceive social events. The individuals in this study often communicated essential cultural ideas by telling stories about personal experiences with violence. These stories framed, contextualized, and embellished elements of street culture. They also followed a script that reinforced how, why, and when violence should occur in street life. ³

Methodology

The data for this study come from 18 months of ethnographic research during which the author interviewed and/or observed 55 street gang members and street-oriented individuals in Indianapolis. Of these individuals, 32 were active gang members, 11 were former gang members, and the remaining 12 were either actively involved in or familiar with street life. The ages of individuals participating in this study ranged from 13 to 45. Of the study participants, 51 were males, 54 were Black, and 1 was White. Most of the active gang members and their nonaffiliated associates were teenagers; a few were in their early 20s. The study did include a number of participants who were over 40 years old, as they provided me with valuable insights into street life and helped establish a wider network of contacts in the streets of Indianapolis.

The sampling strategy initially relied on a chain referral system that began with a few individuals I met at a nonprofit organization. The executive director of the organization was a former gang member with numerous connections to active gang members in Indianapolis. He agreed to help me make contact with gang members and establish credibility among local residents. I began to spend time at the organization about 1 year before data collection began, helping the executive director with various projects and working with individuals who came in for help. Through this process, I was introduced to a number of key participants in the research project who helped me establish credibility with local gang-affiliated youth.

Research activities during the earliest part of the study included both hanging out and establishing relationships with a growing pool of research participants. I gradually became familiar with local issues by talking to 15 active and inactive gang members about their life stories, gangs in Indianapolis, and street life in the city. They communicated this information during unstructured interviews, informal one-on-one conversations, and informal group conversations that occurred in the nonprofit organization. As this referral system expanded and interview data increased, emergent themes in the interview data required a more thorough examination of how active gang members’ awareness of and interactions with other gangs influence their day-to-day negotiation of street life. This led me to observe the routine interactions of street-oriented youth and examine how they negotiated elements of local street culture during communicative events.

Although I continued to interact with other study participants, during the last 12 months of research I spent a large amount of time with select members of a single youth gang called the DFW Boyz. Within the gang, a small network of five members routinely provided me with access to their daily lives, but I also interacted with other members of the gang less frequently. Two brothers, 17-year-old Shawn and 16-year-old Layboy, were my primary contacts, and they became the focal points of this study. I met Shawn and Layboy through the aforementioned nonprofit organization and periodically interacted with them for a year before data collection. I helped them fill out job applications, took them to job interviews, drove them home from the organization, and played basketball with them. Their centrality to this study was caused by both their willingness to give me full access to their daily lives and their status as influential members of a well-known street gang. Overtime, I realized that once Shawn and Layboy vouched for me, most of their peers unquestioningly accepted my role as an unthreatening researcher who was writing a book about gang life in Indianapolis.

The DFW Boyz gang was midsized and unorganized, as the 50 to 75 members did not have a formal leadership structure, membership list, or an established set of rules. In 2008, at the time of the study, the gang had been in existence for about 3 years, and it still remains active in the city in 2013. Members were not confined to a single neighborhood, as subgroups were scatted throughout the city. This fragmented structure allowed for dense and frequent interactions within the subgroups but loose or infrequent connections between the subgroups. A single gang member would interact with the same people on a day-to-day basis but sporadically encounter other members of the gang. Members also frequently interacted with nongang street-oriented youth and individuals who were not heavily involved in street life. The gang was not collectively entrepreneurial, as members inconsistently pursued various illicit money-generating activities. They were, however, heavily involved in violence. The name DFW Boyz is a pseudonym that reflects the self-described meaning of their real name. They are “Down For Whatever,” which typically means that members are willing and able to fight when the opportunity arises. Of the five individuals who I routinely observed, one (Shawn) has been murdered, one (Layboy) has been the victim of two shootings and has been imprisoned for both robbery and burglary, and another (TJ) was shot but not mortally wounded since the conclusion of my study. Shawn and Layboy’s younger brother Dre, who was member of the gang and a less central figure in the study, was also murdered after the conclusion of the study.

The frequency of my interactions with Shawn, Layboy, and members of the DFW Boyz peaked during the spring and summer of 2008, as I spent about 30 hr a week with the boys. Most of the activities I observed were mundane. We often hung out in apartments or on street corners. We drove around the city tracking down other members of the DFW Boyz or filling out applications for summer jobs. Although no one was paid for their participation in this study, I did give Shawn and Layboy small amounts of money for the efforts they made to meet up with fellow gang members. I volunteered to compensate them for their time and expenses, which typically included giving them money to buy more minutes for their cell phones or paying for food during our travels through the city.

During this time I heard frequent conversations between members of the gang, and on many occasions I recorded these conversations. Many of the recordings occurred on street corners, outside of apartment complexes, or during other social gatherings in public spaces. Research participants were always told that their conversations were being recorded. I also heard or was involved in conversations that could not be recorded. The boys often conversed in my car, but they also controlled the radio and listened to loud music, which made recording impractical. I encountered similar problems inside apartments and during some social gatherings. Although the tape recorder may have caused the research participants to alter their stories, the recorded stories used in this study were similar to those I heard when the tape recorder was not on.

The data provides a rare opportunity to both examine the conversations between street-oriented youth and analyze how they use, understand, and manipulate various elements of street culture. This study specifically examines five stories that are embedded in four different conversations. These stories were included in this article for multiple reasons. First, the individuals in this study and not the researcher determined how each conversation transpired. I was a part of these conversations and occasionally asked influential questions, but I was not directly asking for stories about violence. Second, the conversations occurred in slightly different social settings, as Shawn and Layboy interacted with different peers. The data include a conversation with their younger brothers, another with nongang-affiliated associates, and two with fellow gang members. Third, each conversation reveals a slightly different element of the violence script. When combined, they form a more complete depiction of how some Indianapolis youth negotiate street culture. Fourth, the conversations are representative of the routine storytelling practices between the individuals in this study.

Although an ethnographic methodology allows for the observation of cultural processes, there are some limitations to the strategy employed in this study. First, I decided not to observe members of the DFW Boyz at night when violence was most likely to occur. This reduced my risk for violent victimization and decreased the probability that my research would be ended prematurely due to the ethical concerns that accompany observing violence. Yet it also limited my exposure to nightly social settings and routines. My observations were not comprehensive but still covered an array of social gatherings and events. Second, although the study lasted 18 months, the specific conversations used in this article are cross-sectional in nature and cannot fully capture the transference and evolution of cultural ideas over time and across social networks. The data do demonstrate that the individuals in this study are actively involved in framing, contextualizing, and embellishing cultural ideas by telling personal stories about violence. Third, given the dearth of research on the specific forms of communication that foster street socialization, the purpose of this study is to examine how street-oriented youth negotiate multiple cultural ideas by telling personal stories of violence. This study does not make inferences about the consequences of street socialization; it does not examine how cultural ideas influence or constrain the actions and decisions of the individuals in this study.

The Social Routine of Storytelling and the Violence Script

A common type of story told by Shawn and Layboy focused on their participation in violent or potentially violent events. This focus among gang members is not uncommon. Researchers have historically noted that gang members cultivate group-based myths by talking about violence more often than they actually engage in violence (Klein, 1971, 2005). In Indianapolis, stories about violence allowed gang members to exaggerate the frequency and intensity of their violent exploits. Believable stories convinced audiences that the storyteller was both willing and able to use violence, which enhanced his or her reputation in the streets (see Lauger, 2012). ⁴ These stories were also told in a manner that highlighted a logical ordering of events so that one’s violent actions were merely a response to another’s improper conduct. The sequence of events was skewed in favor of the storyteller, as he or she never seemed to act inappropriately. For example, when the DFW Boyz overwhelmed an opponent with superior numbers, it was a sign of strength (or “being deep”). But when another gang overwhelmed them with superior numbers, it was an indication that the other gang was weak. After all, only cowards needed 10 people to beat up or intimidate two individuals. Stories about personal experiences with violence categorized rather than replicated experience to better communicate cultural expectations.

Although each violent event involved different persons, places, and underlying relational dynamics, they often followed a central script. Justified violence occurred when the storyteller was publically challenged or disrespected by someone characterized as being soft, weak, a wannabe, or one of many other negative terms. The situation escalated when the offending party refused to acquiesce, and the storyteller was forced to act violently. At times, stories bypassed the initial escalation process and began with the storyteller being unjustly assaulted, which created a need to retaliate. Storytellers often reacted justly to the unjustified or irrational behavior of their counterparts. Stories contextualized cultural frames that were embedded in the conversation and embellished details to highlight either the storytellers’ strengths or their adversary’s weakness. Details within the narratives provided the audience with clear expectations about justified street violence.

The following story occurred during a conversation with Shawn, Layboy, and their younger brothers Lonnie, Dre, and C-Note. Dre and C-Note admired their older brothers and listened intently when Shawn and Layboy retold stories about violent or potentially violent situations. The conversation was laden with stories about violence, and participants took turns sharing different situations that they had encountered. This story followed the violence script, which is evident in the following conversation.

Shawn began this section of the conversation by saying, “I can fight real good. I’ve been fighting since I was little. Most people know me from back in the day. A lot of people from Baltimore [an apartment complex], everywhere.”

“Last time we talked you said you don’t disrespect anybody unless they’re acting like little boys?” I asked to purposefully activate the “little boy” frame.

Shawn responded, “Ah yeah, acting like little boys.”

“What’s the difference between somebody acting like a boy and a man?”

Shawn replied, “Boys is like little kids. They just mouthy and don’t understand nothing. They just talk off the top of their head. Real man going to respect you no matter what. He ain’t going to come at you like, ‘Nah nigga’ you disrespect, whoopty woo.’ Playing he said she said. He’ll come at you correct. ‘They said this. They said that.’ I want to hear both sides of the story. Calm and steady instead of raising your voice, ‘Nigga, nah nigga’ trying to cause a scene. Come on now just talk to me calm and steady. But when you raise your voice, that’s when I’m raising my hand. The higher you raise your voice, the higher my hand will go. I’m going to smack you like you’re a little girl in front of everybody. I just wish you would take a swing back or tighten your fist like your going to take a swing. That’s one of the most embarrassing things. You can get slapped in front of a whole group of people. You got to show more manhood than that.”

Shawn, Layboy, and the rest of the DFW Boyz’ routinely, though inaccurately, claimed that they never instigated violent confrontations. Their aggression was typically in response to an obvious personal affront that mandated a swift and brutal response. Their interpretation of events often employed cultural frames and labels to justify their reaction. By utilizing the frame that distinguishes real men from little boys, Shawn provided a rationale or justification for a violent outburst. Slapping someone in public was a predictable and deserved form of retribution for acting like a child. Further violence was then contingent on how the recipient of the slap responded. If the person submitted to Shawn, additional violence would not have been needed though Shawn would have likely labeled the individual as being soft or a wannabe. But if the individual tightened his fist, Shawn would have responded with more aggression. A similar script developed during the subsequent story, as Shawn and Layboy retold a brutal attack as if they were merely responding to a logical sequence of events. Layboy began the story by recounting how someone had insulted his gang.

“We got another story where dude said, ‘fuck DFW Boyz’ or something.”

Shawn noted how the initial insult turned into an actual threat, “He [the instigator] come to the crib with little bro’ and them, some baseball bats.”

Layboy continued, “So we seen him the next day. All of them was at the court and my niggas.… We seen him at the court and we said, ‘Did you say fuck DFW Boyz?’ He said ‘nah.’ What he say?”

Shawn responded to Layboy’s question, “He said, ‘Nah, I didn’t say that.’ ‘Ah ok’ [They replied at the time of the incident]. Then he looked at me and said, ‘If you all want some problems or something, it’s nothing.’ We like, ‘What?’ We was about to walk away, when he said ‘nah.’ We started walking this way. Then when we turned our back he said, ‘If you want a problem or something.’ Dude on the bench was like, ‘You done messed up.’ I was like, ‘What you say?’ He was like, ‘I’m just saying.’”

The instigator supposedly insulted the gang, which forced Shawn and Layboy to confront him on the basketball court. His denial coupled with a vague threat (“if you want a problem or something”) incensed Shawn and Layboy. When they tried to clarify the victim’s statement, he responded again with a vague but perceptibly disrespectful statement (“I’m just sayin’”). Moreover, Shawn and Layboy present themselves as being reasonable, even benevolent. They were going to forgive the instigator for his initial insults, but he continued to insult them. This merited a violent response, a fact that was verified by the neutral, and possibly fictitious, observer. Shawn then told how they attacked the instigator.

He kept on dribbling the little basketball or whatever. There’s four of us we in a circle and he’s in the middle. I was about to crack him because he started falling towards my way. So I just cocked back and bam, smacked him right in the forehead. And he fell backwards and before he hit the ground my other brother Aaron caught him smack in his face hit the ground. He got up quicker than a mug and started running. He turned around and swung one time. I was like, “Nigga you can’t fight.” After we knew he couldn’t fight, my brother backed him to the post and smacked him again. He takes off running, but I’m too fast so I trip him. Had him by the shirt and tag him in the back of the head. Bam, Bam, Bam. Bro goes over there and grabs him by the shirt, stomp his head into the concrete. We stomped this nigga head in for a little bit. Let him breath. He got up and started walking away. Then he picked up his phone. We like, “Nigga who you calling?” He’s like, “Nah, I’m calling my job, I’m on my lunch break.” I said, “Alright, tell Marcus,” he had a little buddy Marcus that was with him. We said, “Tell him that when we see him we going to get him too.” Couple weeks later we see Marcus on the church van. So we stopped the church van. Tell them we want Marcus. Trying to snatch him off the van. They like, “He ain’t here, he ain’t here.” Trying to lie and stuff. So I said, “alright.” Kept to my senses—it’s a church van.

Shawn continued, “Then we see’s him again at the basketball court. I’m about halfway home, and I hear somebody say my name. I turned around. I see Layboy trailing behind a dude. I see him with his cast on. That’s him right there. He’s over in the apartments. I get him again. Jump up on him. Me and bro’ about to stomp his head in. Dude named Shorty like, ‘don’t jump him man, don’t jump him. Fight him one on one.’ So a chick up there, his little girlfriend I guess, ‘call the police.’ Getting all loud and stuff. I told her, ‘nigga, shut up bitch.’ It’s nothing big. So I banged him one on one. With one hand [broke it in first encounter] I banged him up. Bro’ still jumped in and stomped his neck in to the concrete.”

Although discerning the accuracy of any given story is challenging, this story was likely embellished to highlight or reinforce the centrality of violence in the boy’s local culture. Shawn’s description of stomping the victim’s head into the concrete “for a little bit” was vague, but it implied a severe beating. Yet the victim was still able to walk away and use the phone, which suggests that the original beating was not as severe as originally implied. The story continued with more violence as Shawn and Layboy assaulted Marcus. Their actions were, however, controlled and justified. They realized that pulling him off a church van was unreasonable, and they “fairly” listened to requests for a one-on-one fight. Shawn even fought him with one hand, although Layboy did jump and “stomp his neck in to the concrete.” Overall, the story was told to model a script that justified the boy’s use of violence. They were insulted, threatened, and when they sought clarification on the issue were insulted again. Shawn and Layboy described each phase of this process in detail, thereby communicating to their brothers how to interpret social interactions. A neutral observer validated their anger by acknowledging that the victim had violated an informal rule. Shawn and Layboy’s reaction was severe and likely exaggerated, but it was inevitable. It was part of a predictable script, and the boys told the story as their younger brothers listened and nodded with approval.

Within this small network of DFW Boyz, individuals rarely told stories about violent victimization, but on occasion someone would acknowledge getting “jumped” or beaten up. The narrative structure changes when the storyteller is the victim rather than the assailant. Given that personal stories are public performances influenced by the immediate social setting (Miller & Moore, 1989), the storyteller contours the narrative in a self-serving way. The orderly script that highlights an attacker’s rational and just behavior and the inevitability of violence is replaced by one characterized by unpredictability, irrationality, and unjustified violence. Unjustified and irrational violence then becomes a precipitating event that warrants a response and makes the storyteller’s aggression both inevitable and rational.

The following story was embedded in a long conversation between Shawn, Layboy, and fellow gang members Young G and Killa-Con. The boys hung out in the living room of an apartment and talked about recent events on the streets by sharing stories about violence, group conflict, robberies, and other criminal activities. The conversation switched to the prospects of getting jumped, and Killa-Con began to tell a story that highlighted the dangers inherent to street life, identified the irrational conduct of adversaries, and reinforced group expectations for how to handle conflict. Killa-Con was an established member of the gang who had characterized himself as being a killer, one of the crazy members of the gang. When I asked him to explain, he said, “Like nine times out of ten they won’t even let me have a pistol. When we with somebody and you rapping [talking negatively] or whatever, I ain’t going to talk to you. I’m going to take it out and let you have it right there. It’s all over with…that’s why they call me Killa-Con.” His public self-image was more consistent with being the aggressor and not the victim in a violence story. He structured this narrative so that overwhelming odds and the unpredictable actions of assailants explained his victimization and did not undermine his reputation as a killer.

I went to Sutton place and there’s three females walking past me and shit, I start hollering at the females, “what’s up you all.” They like, “shit, we’ll come chill with you.” So they left, and they like, “we’ll be back.” When they came back all these niggas start rolling up in cars and everybody start walking up talking about “Haughville bitch” [claiming a west side hood]. I ain’t thinking nothing of it. These niggas ain’t nothing. So I’m with two other people in the car. Someone went to his window and was like, “you got a square [problem] with my nigga?” He’s like “no.” So they like, “Haughville bitch” and just hit him. So I hopped out of the back seat of the car getting ready to fight. I’m like, “what’s happening?” As soon as I hopped out of the car about fifty motherfuckers rushed me. I got my ass whooped that night. They threw a bike at me. They threw a big wheel at me. They was hitting me with everything. Shit, I had to go to the hospital to make sure I had no internal bleeding. Still going to retaliate on those niggas though.

Violent retaliation is a salient feature of street life (Jacobs & Wright, 2006, 2008, 2010; Topalli, Fornango, & Wright, 2002), and stories that conveyed a retaliatory ethic were common among members of the DFW Boyz. Jacobs and Wright (2006) note that violent retaliation arises from a moralistic need to get even coupled with a cultural scheme that fundamentally distrusts the legal system and emphasizes personal autonomy for handling one’s problems. Scholars have also found that this ethic is intensified for gang members who regularly deal with the pervasive threat of intergroup conflict (Decker, 1996; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Papachristos, 2009). Storytelling draws on these prior experiences, existing threats, and cultural ideas to communicate and transmit the retaliatory ethic among street offenders. Members of the DFW Boyz told stories about ongoing street conflicts and specific incidents from prior street conflicts; they were part of the gang’s folklore that reinforced its capacity for violence to members, associates, and unaffiliated peers. They also followed a predictable script in which the gang’s retaliation was measured, rational, and inevitable.

Although the DFW Boyz mostly discussed fights, their stories about retaliation typically involved gun violence. Such narratives not only allowed them to communicate when, why, and how gun violence emerged on the street but also provided vital context to an array of important cultural frames that are linked with retaliation. Some scholars have aptly noted that the use of guns is closely associated with authentic masculinity, power, and elite status in street life (Anderson, 1999; Wilkinson, 2001; Wilkinson & Fagan, 2003). The DFW Boyz frequently used the terms “shooters,” “killers,” or “hot boys” to elevate the status of individuals who were willing to resort to gun violence. They used stories to contextualize frames about strength and “realness,” reinforcing the notion that the capacity to use guns places a person or a group at the pinnacle of street life.

The following story occurred between five DFW Boyz in the parking lot of an apartment complex. It was part of an extended conversation that focused heavily on an emerging conflict between the DFW Boyz and another gang called the Naptown Boyz. Although members of the DFW Boyz were incensed about a recent incident in which the Naptown Boyz tried to “jump” a member of the gang, they generally downplayed the severity of the conflict. They reasoned that the Naptown Boyz were unwilling and unable to resort to serious violence, and so the DFW Boyz could easily intimidate and/or force the group to submit. Still, the threat of violence caused the group to talk about guns, shootings, and different people in the city. Aaron, Shawn and Layboy’s older brother, mentioned a specific person who “brings his guns out a lot” to threaten other people.

Lil’ Crazy responded:

That’s what I’m saying. Motherfuckers trying to pull out their guns and shit like that. We don’t pull our heaters [guns] out. We don’t really need to get heaters until like some serious shit.

Shawn provided an example, “When they start to shoot at us like they did at Woodlawn.”

“Yeah,” agreed Lil’ Crazy, “We brought out the heavy artillery then.”

“What was this?”

Lil’Crazy tried to clarify the setting, “When we was sleeping over there in the bricks [an apartment complex].”

Shawn bragged, “We shut the motherfucker down. We was just shooting. Came over that day and shut it down. We was over there, “ah nah, nigga.” Them niggas shot at us, the East Side Boyz. They shot at us one time from the bricks ‘cause we outside, they shoot at us. Then the niggas from the bricks start talking shit, we come over there about one hundred strong with pumps [shotguns] and all kinds of shit. They didn’t come outside.”

Lil’Crazy added, “Motherfuckers walking down the street ‘what’s going on bro.’ Heaters [guns] all in their path. ‘Who you trying to get.’ That’s how much love we got.”

This piece of DFW Boyz lore contrasts the gang’s actions to that of its peers and then describes how members react to threatening situations. Other people frequently use guns as a means to threaten or intimidate, but the DFW Boyz use guns judiciously. The narrative structure also highlights three important features of gun violence. First, members of the DFW Boyz are willing and able to use gun violence, but their aggression is, again, a reaction to the unjust actions of another party. They were shot at simply for being outside the apartment complex, and violent retaliation is the expected response for being the target of haphazard and unjustified violence. Second, the retaliatory actions of the DFW Boyz were likely embellished to highlight the connection between strength, power, and extreme violence on the streets. The DFW Boyz did not just shoot back at the East Side Boyz; they “brought out the heavy artillery” and “shut the motherfucker down.” Shawn said that they “were shooting” and had 100 people armed with shotguns (“and shit”), which provides an exaggerated image of the gang engaged in a mass shooting. This communicates that retaliation should be severe. Third, Lil’ Crazy’s use of the word “love” in the conclusion to the story indicates that third parties affirm both the group and its excessive use of violence. Admiration is one anticipated benefit of violent retaliation. By communicating these features of gun violence, the story reinforces a collective understanding of when, why, and how guns should be used on the street.

During another extended conversation, Shawn and Layboy collaboratively told a story about when members of the DFW Boyz attempted to retaliate against someone for shooting at their brother Aaron. The story follows the violence script yet varies in that it primarily focuses on the decision not to shoot at the offending person. In a cultural milieu where violence appears to be a scripted conclusion to conflicts, the story is a reminder that violence is not inevitable (see also Garot, 2007). Motivated offenders sometimes encounter situational constraints that inhibit retaliation (Jacobs & Wright, 2006). This story provides insight into how individuals justify inaction by placing those constraints into the violence script. Stories that combine both the desire and the inability to retaliate allow street offenders to talk about events that are culturally problematic. Topalli (2005) aptly notes that street-oriented youth need to neutralize or justify their “good behavior” in order to protect their self-image within the street environment. By controlling the narrative, storytellers can still structure the events in a culturally acceptable way by describing their willingness to engage in violence while also justifying their inaction as being a rational response to situational constraints.

This conversation occurred outside of an apartment complex, as the boys talked to Chris and Delron who were friendly with but not members of the DFW Boyz. They discussed how they knew multiple recent homicide victims in the surrounding area. In a collective attempt to make sense of the violence, they suggested that the next few months in the city would be violent because people were killing each other over “stupid stuff.” By activating the subjective notion of “stupid stuff” the boys were acknowledging that there were good and bad reasons to kill someone. Given that such a distinction is an important part of the boy’s cultural toolkit, I asked them to explain good reasons for killing someone. Layboy mentioned money but didn’t elaborate.

Shawn then stated:

“I ain’t kill for nobody but my family. If I consider you family.”

“Yeah”, agreed Chris. “You my friend, but if you get shot I’m going to be mad.”

“When your brother got guns pulled on him did you guys come back?” This question referred to an incident in which a jealous boyfriend shot their older brother.

Shawn and Layboy both responded, “Ah yeah.”

“They call we ride,” affirmed Shawn.

Layboy began to tell a story, “One time we all had guns in our hand.”

Shawn added to the emerging narrative, “I had the 12 gauge [shotgun], the big boy. We drove up to the door, stepped out of the car. It was nothing.”

“You got to think twice,” Layboy interjected. “If I kill this man …”

Shawn continued the story by recounting how social ties inhibited his group from killing a rival. “We at this man’s house right now. We in front of his crib. My brother’s cool with his brother though. But it was the big brother that was violent. So you think of this. Is he going to let you come in there and kill his big brother? His boy? You his friend. You all been real cool for years. But is he going to help us kill him? No, no he’s not going to do it. If we go in we got to kill him too.”

Layboy added another constraint that inhibited the use of lethal force. “If we got to kill him, then we got to kill his momma.”

Shawn agreed and mentioned another constraint. “Then you got to think who you tell? You didn’t say what you about to do but you said you about to go over there. So now that person is like ‘dude said he was going over there earlier. So he probably did it.’ So they’ll get him too.”

“They’ll get everybody,” warned Layboy.

Shawn countered, “If he would have been alone it would have been a different outcome.”

“Some of them dirty. Some of them crooked. They’ll try to get you man,” responded Delron, with a reminder that violent retaliation was always a possibility.

“Who would have pulled the trigger?”

Shawn responded, “Who would have pulled the trigger? We all would have been pulling that boy.”

“If everybody together we all going to shoot,” agreed Delron.

“We not shooting in the air,” clarified Layboy. “We don’t waste bullets. Some people do.”

Delron added, “That’s what I call a stunt right there. You pow pow in the air. That’s how it be in the Meadows [apartment complex] just pow pow pow pow.”

“It takes a real nigga with a lot of guts to shoot a person,” replied Chris.

The boys controlled the narrative and structured the story in a way that justified their inaction even when they were compelled to retaliate. The presence of the target’s brother and mother and a lack of secrecy about the group’s actions made retaliation unreasonable. Their inaction also allowed them to talk about the outcome if such constraints had not been present. Shawn’s statement, “If he would have been alone it would have been a different outcome,” although vague, implied a willingness and ability to retaliate with lethal force and affirmed expectations about when to use violence. Their response to my question, “Who would have pulled the trigger,” provides an interesting contrast between two types of inaction. “Stunt” is a negative label used to describe the inaction of an individual who is trying to act tough but is not tough, and a “stunter” routinely plays a tough guy/girl role but cannot back it up with action. Stunters shoot in the air in an effort to intimidate and are generally unwilling to shoot at a person. Members of the DFW Boyz avoid the stunter label, as they are collectively willing to shoot at a person, but situational constraints made their inaction inevitable and reasonable.

Personal stories also allow individuals to contextualize the meaning of cultural frames. Chris’ use of the “real nigga” frame makes a clear connection between authenticity and violence; “stunters” are not “real niggas” because they are not willing to shoot a person. As the boys continued to talk, they further described how being real was connected to a capacity to use violence. Given that they framed their inaction in the previous story in a manner that maintained their “realness,” the boys relied on a story that focused on the actions of two other groups to demonstrate the contrast between “real” and “fake niggas.”

“Copying, copying another way you get hurt,” declared Chris. “You got to come up with your own thing.”

“Imposters,” mocked Shawn.

Delron agreed, “Nowadays you got to come up with your own stuff.”

Shawn added, “Now you can’t be like everybody else. It’s not going to work. ‘Cause you’ll try to be like them so much and then you caught up in traffic.”

“It’s getting too tight,” said Chris. “You can’t fit in.”

Shawn then told a third-person story about inaction that demonstrated a contrast between “real niggas” and imposters. “If they can’t see it by now it’s time for you to stop. You see five murders in 24 hours. It’s not even hot yet so everybody ain’t even outside. Wait till everybody gets outside, there’s conflict everywhere. I seen dudes from 50th and Post get into it with a few dudes from Chicago at the Expo. Everybody from Post strapped and only one dude from Chicago strapped. He come with a big old 45 [caliber handgun]. He sit there right in the middle of the street, in front of all of them and said, ‘If you all hard, shoot me.’ They all just sit there. ‘Ah shoot, dude told them to shoot him, shoot him.’ ‘I ain’t going to shoot him, you shoot him. Shoot him, shoot him.’ He’s sitting there like, ‘shoot me. Which one of you all going to shoot me?’ There’s fifty guys on two of them, ‘I told you guys you wouldn’t shoot me.’ And they all scared. And he sat down.”

“He sat down,” agreed Layboy. “He sat down like this.”

Shawn continued, “He put his thing up sat down and put it in his lap, ‘shoot me, shoot me.’ They all just sat there and walked around and then left.”

Shawn’s third-person narrative provides a clear contrast between the actions of “real nigga’s” and the inaction of imposters. The fearless actions of the person from Chicago forced the Indianapolis natives into a scripted situation whereby his challenges should have been met with violence. The individuals from 50th Street and Post Road outnumbered those from Chicago by a ratio of 50:2, yet they did not respond aggressively to the public taunts of one gun toting person. They passed the responsibility for shooting on to other people in the group (“I ain’t going to shoot him, you shoot him”), which Shawn interpreted as being caused by fear. As previous stories have demonstrated, violence is the anticipated response to a situation where a person or group is publically challenged and there are no situational constraints that inhibit aggressive action. Because the group did not follow the cultural script of the streets, Shawn categorized them as imposters and used the story to provide important context that allowed his peers to understand when to apply the cultural frame of “fake” or “imposter” during social interactions. The story also communicates anticipated consequences for failing to properly respond to threats, taunts, or disrespectful acts that occur during interpersonal interactions.

Discussion

Personal stories about violence allow street-oriented youths to categorize experience in a way that generates or reinforces the meaning of cultural ideas and shapes their understanding of interpersonal violence. The stories in this study apply meaning to the cultural frames of manhood, little boy, respect/disrespect, real nigga, imposter, killer, stupid stuff, and love. They contextualize when and how these frames should be applied to people or situations. Storytellers highlighted the importance of violence and superiority in their cultural milieu by embellishing the intensity of violence or the number of people involved in violent events. These stories also follow a script that organizes cultural frames and establishes expectations for when to engage in violence, the intensity of violence to be used, and the consequences for inaction. In short, extreme violence is the expected response to the improper, illogical, and disrespectful actions of peers. Violent victimization merits retaliation and lethal violence is warranted when friends or family become targets of gun violence. Violence authenticates masculinity and produces admiration (love) among peers. Failing to follow the script without a reasonable excuse may cause one to be labeled as an imposter or a little boy.

Stories exemplify how individuals and groups negotiate and transmit the meaning of lived experience during routine social interactions. Youths must make sense of local violence and be able to predict how and when it will occur in the future. Their understanding of violent events begins to develop when they are exposed to violence narratives at an early age (see Miller & Moore, 1989), but youths become storytellers when they start to witness or participate in violence. Regarding the active framing of cultural ideas, Goffman (1974, 1981) maintains that although frames change and individuals may have some effect on the meaning of a given frame, they do not invent the world that they live in. Each story relies on local culture to categorize experience, and each storyteller likely alters the story to fit his or her immediate needs. Snow and Byrd (2007) argue that frames evolve when they are creatively linked to other frames to provide new interpretations of events. Violence narratives allow youths to make sense of and link frames to experience, which may produce changes in cultural ideas.

Researchers in other settings argue that cultural transmission is a reflexive process, as youths immersed in a broader cultural milieu actively construct and reproduce culture by participating in communicative events (Corsaro & Eder, 1990; Harris, 1995; see also Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Corsaro (1992) calls this process the interpretive reproduction of culture. Even preschool children negotiate cultural artifacts by taking ideas from the adult world, which they do not fully understand, and create new meanings so that a relatively autonomous culture emerges. During adolescence, youths continue to build social knowledge through interactions with peers, and their cultural systems evolve. Thus, preexisting cultural traditions influence how new cohorts of street-oriented youths understand social events, but through collaborative communicative endeavors these cohorts amend aspects of culture. Indeed, street culture is a flexible system subject to the thought processes of its participants, and street socialization involves a process whereby individuals both come to understand and subtly shape various frames and scripts that allow them to make sense of their social environment.

The prospect that individuals actively and creatively transmit street culture during routine conversations implies that street culture is neither static nor homogeneous. Communicative events that create, reproduce, and ascribe meaning to various frames and scripts produce subtle variations in how individuals understand the primary cognitive mechanisms that define street culture. The living conditions of street-oriented youths from different cities may produce a consistent need to divide so-called real niggas from imposters. Yet as people talk, they creatively interpret and reproduce the elements of culture, which leads to subtle variations in how they understand and employ the real nigga and/or imposter frames. Across geographical locations, individuals immersed in street culture may differ in their understanding of a “real nigga”. Moreover, these meanings evolve with new experiences and new conversations.

The individuals embedded within the immediate social network of Shawn, Layboy, and the other DFW Boyz likely embrace a relatively homogenous ideoculture or group-level microculture (see Fine & Kleinman, 1979). Their conversational routines establish a clear understanding of manhood, little boy, respect/disrespect, real nigga, imposter, killer, stupid stuff, and love. Their repetitious stories of violence produce clear expectations about how contentious social interactions should unfold. By conversing about their experiences in the streets, they all variably contribute to the construction of this culture. The degree to which their understanding of these cultural constructs is consistent with their peers in Indianapolis and beyond is not entirely clear. Moreover, the degree to which their negotiation of culture is truly creative in any conversation is also unknown. Both issues merit further investigation.