cultures vs. subcultures

[kasia]

often times, we argue that judgment ought not to be passed, esp. moral judgment, when dealing with a person of another culture. the assumption is that their habits, beliefs and values are shaped by their own culture and should be judged against our culture. to do so would be considered ethnocentric.

why is this concept not similarly applied when dealing with subcultures? by subcultures, i am speaking of groups within our society that may be part of our mainstream culture but also belong to a certain group wherein different values and beliefs are formed and held. gangs, for example, have a subculture of this society.

surely, not every action taken by a gang member as a result of his gang affiliation should be tolerated - especially because some may be harmful to society. however, should moral judgment be passed? similar to a person from a different ethnic culture, a gang member who acts in a certain way may have done so because of what he was taught by his group to be right.

and even going a step further than withholding moral judgment, should the affiliation with a subculture allow one to use that as a mitigating circumstance or even a full defense in court? this has been done before when the defendent belongs came from a different ethnic background, but what if the background is not related at all to race but just a certain societal group?

[Chu Chi]

Hmmm...the more complex the case, the more I default to this simple format: Who is being mistreated/harmed?

After hours and hours of testimony, depositions, transcripts zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

Im still focused on that question.

CC

[nola]

There should be more education and understanding of subcultures such as gangs, why people need them, what is needed to replace them, like my thread on why people do drugs, why people need them, what is needed to replace them. More understanding of gangs, drugs, etc. can lead to more understanding of gang members or addicts obviously and to mitigating circumstances for defense in court. If so many people have drug problems, there obviously need to be more solutions and less punishment.

[damashii]

I think group affiliation plays a larger role in our societal outlook then race. Race is a fantasy that we get duped into believing because it's an easy way to catagorize the ugliness around.

On the other hand subcultures have always played a role on peoples outlook on life, especially in homogenous societies. And when we look at these subcultures and compare them to our own it's hard to say what is right and what is wrong.

But coming from this forum we know what oppression is, we know what greed is, we know what hate is, and what maliciousness is. It's hard to find what the intent of other subcultures actions are, but individuals also have those bad characteristics just mentioned regardless of subculture. Even if you know the people of a certain subculture had a hard upbringing, I think it's important to say "no" to those bad characteristics. Tyrants on any societal level are, I dont think any good.

I think individuals go to a certain subculture because of the way soceity defines them and the way they define themselves. So in the end it's the individual intent and action that should be judged. imho

[kpih]

Oh boy, this is a heavy one. For those of you who dismiss sociology, you don’t want to read on…

Okay, let me put on my pedantically bookish hat…

These are certainly very interesting and fundamental questions in sociology.

The issue in question lies in the acts or ideologies that are central to the subculture in relation to the mainstream culture. The act or ideology that is central to any subculture defines the form of sanction delivered by the mainstream culture. Subcultures that are organized around acts and ideologies that are agreeable to the mainstream culture typically are tolerated or even embraced by the mainstream culture. For instance, extreme sports, any serious hobbies/collection, clubs, and so forth are subcultures that are not negatively sanctioned by mainstream culture.

However, if the act or ideologies of any given subculture is considered as threats (justified or unjustified) to the group that subscribe to the mainstream culture (i.e. the hegemony), then the sanction is likely to be negative. (Consider various groups that are marginalized in the US: Muslims, homosexuality, Democrats (joking!) etc.)

In our particular cultural context, minority gangs are assumed by mainstream culture to be a threat to public safety and social stability. (Minority gangs vis-à-vis White gangs, long story involving racism and the construction and politics on gangs) Hence gangs and gang membership are automatically viewed as a criminal violation instead of a subculture. While there is a linkage between gang involvement and criminal acts, membership by itself does not necessarily cause criminality. (as kasia pointed out) In many communities gangs are simply a fact of life. In a large number of cases (in East LA for instance), multiple individuals from the same or different generations in the same family are members of the same gang. The notion of gangs as a family henceforth is a type of subculture within the community. (see D. Vigil, 2002. A RAINBOW OF GANGS: Street Cultures in the Mega-City)

However, as mentioned before, gang membership is also a clear predictor of escalating delinquent and criminal behavior. So the gangster subculture does have a negative impact on the members and other individuals. Does that constitute adequate cause to intervene?

There is a delicate balance I think. Nola intimated that we should study gangs as a social problem and not a social disease. Understanding the pro-gang conditions are absolutely necessary in drafting effective prevention and intervention programs.

however, should moral judgment be passed? similar to a person from a different ethnic culture, a gang member who acts in a certain way may have done so because of what he was taught by his group to be right.

Sounds like Sykes and Metza to me (Neutralization).

So do you suggest the decriminalization of gang membership? Or at least not increasing sentence based on membership? Well a violation of the law is still a violation of the law. In most cases (as in violent crimes and drug trafficking charges) they are quite aware of the mainstream moral values even though they are socialized under a subculture. Taking it to the extreme, even though a gang member might believed in capping a member of the rival gang is righteous thing to do, it is very difficult to argue that he was not aware that killing is wrong.

Also our justice system serves the function of deterrence. The harsher sentences are imposed to deter other gang members from committing crimes. (Okay it does not work at all, but that is the function of the system...)

should the affiliation with a subculture allow one to use that as a mitigating circumstance or even a full defense in court? this has been done before when the defendent belongs came from a different ethnic background, but what if the background is not related at all to race but just a certain societal group?

In the case of ethnic background the nature of the question is a little different. A distinct ethnic group we could argue that the person was socialized in complete isolation of our mainstream behavioral conducts, therefore the presence or absence of mind could be legally justifiable to a certain degree I suppose. However, when it comes to a serious crime (for instance, serious domestic abuse or even homicide), the public probably wants retribution and blood, and a full defense is highly unlikely...

A gang member, however isolated the community and the subculture from the mainstream society, is still aware that in the United States killing of another person is not only morally wrong, it also results in penalty from the state.

Also, cultural relativity only goes so far. I agree the power to define acceptable acts is debatable; still, absolute relativity is an impossibility in any organized human society. For instance, female circumcision is a culturally approved act in some parts of the world. Hypothetically an immigrant performs female circumcision on his daughter in the states, could we allow the act based on respect on the culture? The example, albeit extreme in nature, puts into question the delicate balance between cultural relativity and its limits I think.

[John0101]

^ wow that was quite a read. Its gonna me quite a while for me to digest that.

[nola]

Also our justice system serves the function of deterrence. The harsher sentences are imposed to deter other gang members from committing crimes. (Okay it does not work at all, but that is the function of the system...)I think your answer is no. To cultural relativity.

So are you saying that the justice system and harsher sentences do not work at all?

What do you think should be done about the problems caused by gangs?

[Hiroshi2]

Well since everybody's talking about gangs................



In my city, gangbanging's back on the rise. It went out for a minute, then came back................and of course this has everybody (well, almost everybody) saying, we need more police, we need more money, etc. But I be trying to tell people, no that's not the way to go. There is a psychological reason why gangs exist, that I think is sort of like what kasia is saying.



Gangs exist in the first place because of the basic human desire to be part of a family, part of a group of people who can love you unconditionally, or as close to that as possible. Some people are born into healthy, stable, two-parent households.................and that is their family. And that's great. Cool. But many people aren't, especially in impoverished urban communties.


A lot of kids in such envirornments come from broken homes. They might have a mother to live with, but often she is too busy working to stay at home and watch the kids and can't stop her growing boy, who may physically overpower her, from doing what he wants anyway. So he goes out into the street to find a "real" family.................because he doesn't have one at home. He finds it in the form of Bloods, Crips, Folks, etc. Because even though those dudes may sell drugs, shoot people, rob people, and commit all kinds of felonies, serious crimes, etc., they provide him with a sense of family. Gangs have their own way of dressing, talking, signals, etc. So he feels like he is part of an exclusive group of people....................more than just a clique. A family. Which he never had at home. Because if he had a good family back home, he'd never risk his life by going out in the street doing things for his "street family" if he had a "real family" at home. But since he doesn't the gang is his only family in the whole wide world. So he'll do anything for them. He'll adapt, change his ways if he has to, let them mold him, etc. Because that's his family, and depsite all the trouble they put him through, he gets more love from them than anybody else. So in his mind, all of it is justified.


So the obvious solution to that problem is to have more stable families and households in our communities. Don't know how to do that, that's complcated. But that's the problem and general solution, I think, in a nutshell.

[nola]

Better nuclear families and alternative families that don't involve crimes and felonies. Better social programs and money for social programs.

[chas2u]

what do you mean by subculture??? there are people who barrack for the cleveland browns like i do , and then there are bandwagon hoppers like the san francisco 49er fans lol :D

if a subculture benefits society then its not a problem, gangs however tend to be anti-social.