Code of the Street
Introduction
From its very inception, United States of America was intended to be a land of plenty, where opportunity abounded and everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic origins, could in fact claim their share of a new life, filled with opportunity, wealth and comfortable living. For urban dwellers of the 20th-21st century, however, the “American Dream” appears to have gone sadly unfulfilled. Researcher Elijah Anderson, in his book Code of the Street, begins with the premise that “Almost everyone residing in poor inner-city neighborhoods is struggling financially and therefore feels a certain distance from the rest of America, but there are degrees of alienation, captured by the terms “decent” and “street” or “ghetto,” suggesting social types” Anderson, p.1. From that starting point, the researcher has created a work that attempts to explain how massive unemployment, racial stigma, and substance abuse have eroded the concept of decency, generated violence, and generally lowered the morals of those living in urban areas of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In doing so, Anderson uses a combination of sociological approaches, minority studies and statistical analyses to create decisive commentary.
Key Concepts Discussed
Elijah Anderson uses key concepts as catalysts to move the research forward. Therefore, it is important to understand these key concepts if one is to fully comprehend and appreciate the research. Naturally, at the center of Anderson’s research is the term for which his book is named, “Code of the Street”. For the researcher, this term is all encompassing for a the set of rules, means of survival, and standards of behavior that make it possible for individuals, both good and bad, to survive on the streets of urban areas. Anderson makes the point that it is this “code” that has formed the rules of the street since the beginnings of human civilizations dating back to ancient Shogun warriors, Roman citizens, and moving forward to the American colonies and, of course, modern day Philadelphia.
Another key concept that is critical in Anderson’s research is that of personal values; more precisely, he makes a distinction between those in the city which have “decent” values and those who have less desirable “street” values. It is the clash of these values- the classic scenario of good versus bad-that leads to another concept of Anderson’s, that of “oppositional culture”. It is this oppositional culture, Anderson maintains, that makes it virtually impossible for any individuals within the city to be able to rise above their current circumstances and escape the cycle of crime, poverty and violence.
Lastly, a concept that is at the heart of both “decent” and “street” families, Anderson maintains, is that of “the man of the house”. In both white and black urban families, it is the presence of a dominant male force that can either hold the family together when he is present and functional or destroy the core of the family when he is absent or abusive or dysfunctional. For those who embrace “street” values, the tendency, according to Anderson, is to flee from the responsibility of family leadership in favor of pursuing the material gains that can be had through criminal activity of the sort which has led to Philadelphia becoming one of America’s most violent and poverty-stricken cities. This reflects back to the embracing of a deviant “Code of the Street”.
Through the presentation of the key concepts, Anderson makes the point that the worst that urban areas like Philadelphia have to offer are strong enough that they are in fact able to hold back even those who have plans to overcome the temptations and pitfalls of the city. With this in mind, it is possible to look at Code of the Street from a sociological viewpoint.
Sociological Report
One of the most interesting facets of Anderson’s research is the sociological analysis that he incorporates a combination of macro and micro sociology into his work. Earlier, the point was made that at the heart of the urban experience is the fact that there is, at its core, a macro sociological element of bad intentions which overwhelms the good and traps even the most honorable people at times. Additionally, Anderson uses a micro sociological approach when he discusses how individuals, when faced with the possibility of being trapped in the urban setting, can in fact undergo “code-switching”, the sociological equivalent of going to the dark side of life, for it is most frequent that the switch is from the good to the bad, and rarely vice versa. As an example that Anderson uses, young African-American males frequently find that the booming drug trade in Philadelphia provides an easier way to gain money, power and street credibility than staying in school and taking menial jobs in the hopes of someday, maybe, gaining something substantial in the urban environment. It is important to understand this example because in it lies what may be the key to the downfall of Philadelphia and other cities like it, for if there is a way to prevent code switching from good to bad, or perhaps to increase the switch from bad to good, urban areas, including Philadelphia and others, can experience a modern day renaissance.
Researcher’s Description/Analysis of the City of Philadelphia
Elijah Anderson’s analysis of the city of Philadelphia itself likewise forms a critical part of his overall research. He paints a picture of Philadelphia whereby the evil allure of illegal drugs, issues of racial divides, and a declining economy have created an atmosphere where decent people try to co-exist with an ever-growing subculture of violent, criminally driven individuals. In the meantime, infrastructure crumbles and teen pregnancy skyrockets, bringing into the city new generations of people who will essentially face the same problems.
Anderson’s depiction of Philadelphia, in a personal aside, is similar to those that this researcher has frequented in other parts of the United States- areas where the decay intensifies as one moves from one part of the city to the other, where the tendency is for individuals to live under an animalistic, mob-like mentality, and where the quest to advance one’s own interests usually overrides common sense and what is right.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can fairly be said that Elijah Anderson presented an objective view of Philadelphia’s population in that not everyone in the city is bad, but that the temptations and tough realities of urban life are often too much for decent people to remain so. Personally speaking, this researcher is convinced of Anderson’s description and analysis because at the heart of Philadelphia, and other cities like it, are the flaws and tendencies of human beings, which sometimes have toxic outcomes. Lastly, as another personal note, in reading Code of the Street, this researcher has reached one very important conclusion- as far as society has supposedly advanced, the darkest nuances of the human condition still lead urban citizens down the wrong path and as such, every effort should be made to help these individuals in order to improve the overall condition of society not only in Philadelphia, but anywhere that decent people strive to improve their lives.
Works Cited
Anderson, Elijah. Code of the Street. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999.
