The Wire and Street Culture

While reading Anderson’s descriptions of decent and street families, I thought of Wallace in the Wire and how he was somewhat stuck in a middle ground between these two cultures. He participates in drug dealing and spends time with D’Angelo, Poot, and Bodie. He may even “dream of leading the drug dealer’s life” or more specifically, that of Avon Barksdale, “the king” (Anderson 111). Wallace and Poot are interested in learning how to become the king as D’Angelo explains the hierarchy in a game of chess. Wallace is clearly involved in the street culture.

However, Wallace seems more concerned about education than Bodie and Poot. He takes care of young kids by housing them and making sure they go to school with a lunch. Also, he knows that Alexander Hamilton was never a president, which the other boys are unaware of. However, Wallace does not push the issue event though he is correct. As Anderson points out that “education is undermined” and unaccepted in the street community because education implies “giving up the value of the street” (Anderson 97).

Wallace seems to have more hope for a better future than the others though. When D’Angelo says that the man who invented the chicken nugget is probably still “working in the basement” without any credit or money for his ideas, Wallace replies that “he still had the idea though.” He must in some way value the inventor’s innovation and have a hope that his own actions may better his life that D’Angelo doesn’t share.  

Wallace walks the line between street and decent that Anderson describes, even adopting different personas for the different roles in his life. While taking care of the younger kids, he is more decent, but he must shield this identity when he is around D’Angelo and the other drug dealers. I think Wallace feels the pull of drug dealing and street culture as a means of money. He struggles to feed all the kids and the food he does provide is not a filling meal. Thus, the street culture is one way he is able to finance his decent lifestyle. I believe that falling into the street culture could be the plight of many individuals, just so that they can try to keep others, such as their children, decent.

The Wire, Street Code, and Trophies

           In his introduction, Anderson lays out a very graphic illustration of a major thoroughfare in Philadelphia, one I am sure we can all relate to if we’re from a big city.  Or just take Poplar here in Memphis, for example.  More specifically, Anderson’s explanations of North Philadelphia (pg 28-31) are easily represented in The Wire.  “A young boy appears, dressed in an expensive athletic suit and white sneakers.”  In every episode DeAngelo is dressed with an air of authority down in the pit, so that his “small groups of boys” know who is in charge.  The drug lords (Avon, Stringer, Stick-Um) and the others fit this description even better.  Anderson says “the beeper has become a status symbol” as well, not just the clothes.  The whole community is immersed in the drug trade because for some, as I’m sure we’ll see soon in The Wire, “the family has come to rely on the drug money” just to stay afloat.  Young men, young women, parents, community leaders, and especially the police know everything that goes on, but do little to stop it. 

            On page 75, Anderson speaks heavily about the idea of “trophies.”  Despite his hard, evidence the trophies of the inner-city are also present amongst the middle class though they might be manifest in different ways.  For example, “acquiring valued things” like jackets, shoes, “girlfriends” and cars in the inner city can constitute as a trophy.  Even some immaterial objects, like pride and honor are at stake in the inner city.  However, the trophies of the middle class are just as important to societal control.  How often do we see men breaking their bank to drive a Lexus or live in a 4,000 square foot house—hence the mortgage crisis?  Additionally, in our meritocratic middle class, the test score and the awards gain social control.  By blowing thousands of dollars on SAT prep scores, just so you can win a scholarship, the middle class teenager has a chance at societal mobility and bragging rights at the lunch table.

The Isolated Impoverished

This piece was very reminiscent of many of the themes highlighted in the Wire though what especially stuck out to me was the idea of inner-cities and low-income neighborhoods as separate entities from the rest of the cities in which they are located. In the text Anderson talks about how many of the government services that we take for granted in wealthy areas of town such as a strong police force, neighborhood maintenance, trash pickup etc. are virtually non-existent low income areas. This problem is both perpetuated and caused by the systemic nature of our society as well as the infrastructure the government builds to isolate the poor and ensure that wealth and middle-class citizens are not exposed to these areas.  Anderson references the “highway that now allows motorists to drive over North Philadelphia rather than through it- thereby ignoring its street life, its inhabitants, and its problems”.

Because of this culture of systemic isolation of American cities’ impoverished population, a “code of the street emerges” which is what I associated most with the Wire and the distinct cultural norms that exist within the towers and the other spaces dominated by Avon Barksdale and his crew. The Author emphasizes how the basis of this code is respect and respecting the hierarchical nature of relationships and interactions. For example, when Omar steals the stash of heroin from Barksdale’s people, Avon orders them to kill Omar and to lay out his body in a public space so that everyone would know that Avon was the dominant figure within their area of town. Barksdale was disrespected and that behavior would not go unpunished according to the code of the street. What this shows are the dramatically varying societal norms and customs existing among the urban poor and the urban middle class largely as an effect of the governmental infrastructure to deal with the poor.  

My question is in the same vein of the Orsi piece we read the first day of class: With such a disconnect between impoverished and middle/upper-class civilians how can any government, police force, non- profit organization or volunteer possibly make any substantial and effective efforts to alleviate any of the problems found in urban impoverished areas?  

Germantown Avenue vs. Poplar/Peabody

I don't know about the rest of you, but during the Introduction to today's reading I kept comparing Germantown Avenue to Poplar and Memphis (ironically, the path to Germantown). Very similarly to my other post, Anderson, draws imaginary lines down a main thoroughfare highlighting the differences between the communities it connects. Poplar is a great example of economic segregation in Memphis but I believe it is not the only one. The other one that came to my mind relatively quickly was Peabody Avenue. Last year, in the HOPE VI class I took, we spent a fair amount of time traversing between mid-town and South of the Forum, aka the Triangle Noir District. The easiest way to do it was to take Peabody. In midtown, Peabody Avenue is fully of the breathtakingly beautiful homes that have come to represent the elegance of Central Gardens. Large, historic, and well-kept, these homes have a feeling like that of Chesnut Hill which Anderson describes. However as one begins to travel westward, towards downtown, the size, quality, and upkeep of the homes and businesses begins to slide. The Church Health Center's main office as well as restaurants like Bon Thai are located on Peabody and are an interesting mix into the mostly residential street. Up until you hit the intersection with I-240, the neighborhood remains pretty well cared for. But after you go underneath the highway, you can literally feel the difference in street culture. Potholes, cracks, and uneven paving clearly demarcate where things have changed. As well, the street name changes to Vance Avenue after you pass the Memphis InterFaith Association (MIFA) headquarters. The stores on Vance slowly become more like those Anderson describes in Germantown and North Philadelphia and many of them have riot bars and cages. As one continues down Vance, one sees all the forms of urban decay that Anderson describes, but also some gentrification and hopeful efforts at rebirth. Several non-profits and churches like Streets Ministries and Advance Memphis have their headquarters on Vance, close to the currently under construction HOPE VI project, Cleaborn Homes at Heritage Landing (I think it's still called that?). Then, after the HOPE VI project, one passes Foote Homes, the last public housing project in Memphis before hitting the newly gentrified region of South Bluffs (where many Rhodes graduates now live). 

I think the similarities between Peabody and Germantown Avenues are striking. What do you think? Have any of you traveled down this street or a similar one in Memphis or your hometown? What do you think caused this economic segregation? What, if anything should be done to correct it?

Growing Up Decent

Chapter One of this reading compares "decent" and "street" families. While both types of families may occupy the same neighborhood, they are described as having contrasting values and each type of family considers itself distinct from the other. It is important to note, as the author does, that, "most residents are decent or are trying to be" (36). One distinction between the description of decent and street families has to do with their outlook. Street-oriented individuals are more cynical, less trusting. Decent families have some sense of “hope for the future.” They may have more of a sense of agency, a sense that they play an active role in deciding their future. Street-oriented individuals may find themselves spiraling into a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

While reading, I was stuck with two questions. First, how do children of street-oriented families extract themselves from the cycle? Second, how do decent parents manage to keep their kids decent, while still ensuring they are safe on the streets? For the first question, I have little optimism. With such limited support, it seems very difficult for children of street families to learn to live like a decent family. Perhaps with positive role models such as extended family members or fictive kin members, teachers, etc., children can learn how to seek out the right supports. For the second question, it seems as though decent parents are caught between steering their children away from violence, while still making sure they know “the code” of the street and are prepared to protect themselves if necessary. This makes me wonder how decent children see themselves relative to street children. Is there a distinct hierarchical relationship? Yvette’s story (p. 53) suggests that there is, and this seemed to lead to issues for her involving jealousy. There seems to be a very fine line for decent children between being street and being too decent that you don’t belong.

Manhood and Wallace

While there are many parallels between what we read in Code of the Street and The Wire, I thought the strongest resemblance was between Wallace and the concept of manhood. Anderson explains that on the street manhood requires an individual to be somewhat ruthless. By acting ruthless a person sends the message that they are capable of violence, which proclaims that they can take care of themselves. Additionally, Anderson explains that, “For many inner-city youths, manhood and respect are two sides of the same coin; physical and physiological well-being are inseparable, and both require a sense of being in control, of being in charge” (91). In sum, manhood is the showing others that you are in control and unforgiving. If you display these traits you earn respect from other men on the street.

In episode 6 of The Wire, we are given an inside look into Wallace’s life. He seems to be the caregiver to multiple children while, at the same time, working for D’Angelo. After seeing the dead body of Brandon, Wallace is a visibly disturbed. In a very tender moment, he shares his compassion for Brandon with D’Angelo. Immediately D’Angelo reminds Wallace to toughen up and no longer discuss his feelings. In those quick ten seconds you witness D’Angelo describing Anderson’s concept of manhood to Wallace. If Wallace wants to be respected and known for his manhood he must put those compassionate feelings behind him and show a strong outer self. Even if Brandon’s beat up body does affect Wallace he needs to act ruthless in order to be taken seriously on the street.  

Decent versus street?

I really liked this reading. It was narrative and easy to read. But something that really bothered me was the simplification and dichotomy of “decent” versus “street,” as though the two cannot intersect. This reminds me a lot of recurring conversation regarding middle class morals and norms. One middle class norm is, as the text pointed out, the man being breadwinner. But in some situations, the options are to 1) not be a breadwinner, or to 2) win bread by dealing drugs. Neither of these options follows middle class values, so this man cannot be a “decent” man, and his family not a “decent” family. This seemed to me like a really unfair comparison, which it is. But the reading also drew my attention to the fact that people in rough economic situations—such as in Maxine's neighborhood—are proud of their decency. It can take a lot of effort to successfully run a household on a very low income without delving into off the books business such as drug dealing to supplement low income. There are not many areas one can think of that are both low income and safe, so it occurred to me that the people of Maxine's neighborhood, less than judging her for her involvement in drugs, are fearful for their own decency and angry that their efforts to live in a safe, “decent” neighborhood have been ruined. On the other hand, advancing one's own family and gaining opportunities is seen as disrespectful to people of the community which one may be attempting to exit. It seems very strange to me how high the sensitivity is around this issue of people trying to better themselves versus people who find themselves unable to do so. The relationship between the two seems originated in fear and pride on both sides.