Abstract
The Gang’s All Queer sets out to contest the heteronormative framework of criminological research regarding “who” can be a gang member and “how” people navigate boundaries and identity work in the precarious social arena of gangs and street life. On both fronts, Panfil successfully accomplishes the task, though not without reflexive wrestling over some subjects. The study uses in-depth interviews with 53 gay men in Columbus, OH, 48 of which were gang involved. The question of whether or not the participants are members of “real gangs” is a conflict that surfaces throughout the book, even within some interviewees’ assessments of themselves. The reader, however, is left with a clear impression that these are indeed gang members. The more relevant question is what type of gang are they in. There already exists an abundance of gang typologies. Maybe these gangs fit into some of them, or maybe they comprise a new category that should be added. Either way, the study is the most extensive endeavor on the subject of gay gangs we have to date and challenges the assumptive boundaries of mainstream criminology.
The book is segmented into three parts, with the first providing insight into the formation, representation, and negotiation of a gay identity. Here, Panfil captures the audience with vivid descriptions of vogue houses and vogue balls, while also making the reader feel disquieted when discussing gay derogatory epithets. The in-depth look at the uses, responses, and complexities of the “F” word is meant to be academic and enlightening rather than gratuitous, but the reader cannot help but feel discomfort at its pervasiveness. Panfil recognizes the complications in discussing the word, even offering up a candid anecdote to demonstrate personal confusion on the matter.
For Part II of the manuscript, Panfil tenders an original typology of gangs based on the composition of gay, lesbian, and bisexual members (GLB) and discusses the variations in how gay gang members navigate identity maintenance in each type of group. These analyses include gay gangs, comprised primarily of GLB members, individual gay gang members in predominately straight gangs, and hybrid gangs, which have reached a “critical mass” of at least 25% GLB members. Each scenario provides a unique context for gang relationships, identity work, and participation in criminal activity. Whether gay gang members are open or closeted about their sexuality, and the types of criminal activity they participate in, largely depend on which type of gang they are members of.
The final portion of the book frames the criminal activities of gay gang members as resistance strategies. Physical violence is often a response to antigay harassment and thus justified in the narratives of the participants. The anecdotes used represent the respondent’s right to express themselves and fight back against oppression. However, from the reader’s perspective, in the stories told, the respondents almost always are the victors, suggesting a purposeful omission of opposing stories, a skewed form of impression management, or braggadocio commonly characteristic of gang members in general. Similarly, their discussions of drug dealing and escorting are framed in ways that allow for moral or “good” interpretations of their behavior. These strategies for resisting stereotypically negative depictions of gay and minority men fit well into the author’s theme of identity work and simultaneously humanize the participants in their desire to be understood in a positive light.
Panfil closes the book by providing details of the research strategy in a methodological appendix. Although the study generally followed expected standards of rigorous qualitative research, there were a few things that were problematic. For example, some of the members of all gay gangs were interviewed in the presence of other members. There were occasions in these scenarios in which the bystanders would dispute the responses the interviewees had given. Their answers and behavior may have been different had the interviews been conducted in private. While Panfil notes a few other minor issues with methodology, they are provided in genuine and thoughtfully reflexive context throughout the work, acknowledging mistakes, discrepancies, and alternate perspectives.
With The Gang’s All Queer, Panfil set out to advance the scholarship of queer criminology but also enhanced gang literature as a whole. Panfil shined a spotlight on what has largely been unexplored, challenging the assumptions of gang membership and gang composition. If there is any issue with the book, it is what is left out. The author does not address the decision to limit the study to gay men and does not explore the perspectives of lesbian women. Since some of the gangs included lesbian and bisexual members, it would seem that entrée into doing so would be possible. The lack of gun violence among gay gang members is also an important finding that calls for more discussion. In all, these criticisms are minor and may be purposefully omitted and on reserve for further research on GLB gangs. In the meantime, The Gang’s All Queer has been the most thorough examination of gay gangs to date and belongs on the research shelf of any serious gang scholar and as assigned reading for classes where the aim is to introduce students to the full breadth of gang culture.