The Code of the Street

• Author: Robert Agnew,Timothy Brezina,Francis T. Cullen,John Paul Wright
• Published date: 01 October 2004
• Date: 01 October 2004
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204004267780
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1541204004267780Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeBrezina et al. / THE CODE OF THE STREET

THE CODE OF THE STREET

A Quantitative Assessment of Elijah Anderson’s

Subculture of Violence Thesis and Its

Contribution to Youth Violence Research

Timothy Brezina

Tulane University

Robert Agnew

Emory University

Francis T. Cullen

John Paul Wright

University of Cincinnati

Based on extensive field research, Elijah Anderson argues that the behavior of many

youths is influenced by a street culture or “code” that prescribes violent reactions to

interpersonal attacks and shows of disrespect. Although Anderson’s account has been

well received by the criminological community, questions remain about the validity and

generality of his findings. To address these issues, the authors review other (mostly

quantitative) studies of youth violence and consider whether the findings of these studies

are consistent with Anderson’s account. The authors also conduct analyses to determine

whether Anderson’s observations can help to extend the existing body of quantitative

research and, hence, further our understanding of youth violence. Overall, the results of

this assessment suggest that Anderson’s observations provide valuable insight into the

general problem of youth violence and that future research in this area would benefit

from greater attention to the social processes he has served to highlight.

Keywords: youth violence; strain theory; ethnographic research; victimization

Few writings in contemporary criminological theory match the eloquence and,

arguably, the insight of Elijah Anderson’s (1999) Code of the Street. Drawing on extensive

field research, Anderson observed that the behavior of many low-status youths is

influenced by a street culture or “code” that prescribes violent reactions to interpersonal

attacks and shows of disrespect. At the heart of this code is the belief that it is necessary to

303

Authors’ Note: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2001 meetings of the American Sociological

Association, Anaheim. The authors would like to thank Elijah Anderson, Scott N. Brooks, and members of the

Tulane Sociology Research Group for the helpful comments they provided on earlier drafts. Address all

correspondence to Dr. Timothy Brezina, Department of Sociology, Tulane University, 220 Newcomb Hall, New

Orleans, LA 70118; e-mail: tbrezin@tulane.edu.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 2 No. 4, October 2004 303-328

DOI: 10.1177/1541204004267780

© 2004 Sage Publications

show no tolerance for interpersonal transgressions; otherwise, one displays weakness to

others and will likely become the target of further transgressions (also see Anderson, 1990,

1994, 1998).

An important argument in Anderson’s (1999) account is that adherence to the street

code (hereafter, the code) is not simply a reflection of corrupt values or deviant

socialization. Rather, it represents in part an adaptation to status insecurity and to the

persistent threat of violence that is present in some urban communities. In such

communities, many young men believe that enactment of the code is a necessary aspect of

street survival whether or not they are personally inclined to physical aggression and

whether or not they are completely committed to elements of the code (Anderson, 1999).

Anderson’s “code of the street” thesis is of special interest to criminologists because

it represents a particularly rich and detailed example of a subcultural account of violence

(also see Bernard, 1990; Luckenbill & Doyle, 1989; Wolfgang & Ferracuti, 1967). As some

criminologists have observed, “Anderson’s account is perhaps the best description of a

subculture of violence now available, and it is important because it makes us aware of the

complexity of this subculture” (Cullen & Agnew, 1999, p. 107; also see Kasinitz, 1992;

Short, 1991).

The ethnographic nature of Anderson’s research is partly responsible for its level of

detail and complexity and is arguably one of the strengths of his work. The ethnographic

approach, however, is not without certain limitations. As Anderson (1999) has recognized,

the goal of objectivity is not easy to achieve in the context of ethnographic research because

it requires researchers to try to set aside their own values and assumptions about what is

and is not morally acceptable—in other words, to jettison the prism through which they

typically view a given situation. By definition, one’s own assumptions are so basic to

one’s perceptions that seeing their influence may be difficult, if not impossible.1(p. 11)

Although Anderson is clearly sensitive to the subjectivity inherent in ethnographic

research, this sensitivity has not shielded his work from allegations of “observer bias,” as

seen in a recent debate between Anderson (2002) and Wacquant (2002) overthe pitfalls of

urban ethnography.

Moreover, Anderson’s observations are limited to a specific geographical location,

encompassing two neighborhoods in Philadelphia. Thus, although Anderson (1999, p. 9)

hopes that his research “may offer insight into the problem of youth violence more

generally,” questions have also been raised about the generality of his findings (see Short,

1991).

One possible way to answer such questions is to supplement Anderson’s qualitative

observations with quantitative data. If quantitative data are consistent with Anderson’s

observations, this should increase confidence in the plausibility and generality of his

findings, especially if such data are collected by a variety of researchers and are drawn from

other areas. As we describe below, relevant data are already available in the form of existing

quantitative studies on youth violence. Although not designed to provide a direct test of

Anderson’s account, the results of several previous studies have implications for the

validity and generality of Anderson’s findings and conclusions.

Thus, to facilitate an assessment of Anderson’s subculture of violence thesis, we

review other (mainly quantitative) studies of youth violence and consider whether the

findings of these studies are consistent with his account. We also conduct our own analyses

to build on the existing body of research and to help assess the generality of Anderson’s

304 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice