THE FUNNY SIDE OF DRUG DEALING: RISK, HUMOR, AND NARRATIVE IDENTITY

• Published date: 01 August 2017
• Date: 01 August 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12148

THE FUNNY SIDE OF DRUG DEALING: RISK,

HUMOR, AND NARRATIVE IDENTITY∗

TIMOTHY DICKINSON1and RICHARD WRIGHT2

1Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas at El Paso

2Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University

KEYWORDS: narrative criminology, humor, narrative identity, drug dealers, risk

management

In this study, we explore the role humor plays in the narrated identities of drug

dealers, in their negotiation of the threat of formal punishment, and in their cultural

membership and authority. By drawing from interview and observation data gathered

from 33 active drug dealers residing in St. Louis, Missouri, we find that humor facili-

tates identity work among illicit drug dealers in several ways. Humor is an important

symbolic boundary marker distinguishing dealers from others they consider “stupid”

or less circumspect. It also indicates dealers’ identities as “smart” and simultaneously

establishes and validates their subcultural authority and membership in the symbolic

group of “smart” dealers. Furthermore, drug dealers use denigrating humor in their

narratives to distance their former and virtual identities from their present identities.

Finally, humor also reduces dealers’ perceptions of the threats posed by police and po-

tential snitches by casting dealers’ present identities and former reactions to the threat

of punishment in a positive light. We conclude by discussing implications for narrative

criminology, extant humor research, and current understanding of symbolic bound-

aries, identity work, and deterrence.

Scholars studying crime have long relied on offenders’ narratives or spoken render-

ings of experience (Presser, 2008: 2) as sources of information regarding the foreground,

commission, and aftermath of criminal activity (see, e.g., Laub and Sampson, 2003;

Shaw, 1930; Shover, 1996; Sutherland, 1937; Sutter, 1966; Thomas and Znaniecki, 1918;

Thrasher, 1936; Wright and Decker, 1994, 1997). The sizable body of work grounded in

this tradition has for the most part been focused on treating offenders’ reports as accurate,

albeit sometimes subjective, representations of the factors contributing to crime initia-

tion, persistence, and desistance (Maruna, 2001; Presser and Sandberg, 2015). Within the

past three decades, however, a small but growing number of researchers have challenged

the view of offenders’ reports as simply representations of events that researchers could

have witnessed had they been with narrators at the time in question (Presser, 2009: 182;

Sandberg and Ugelvik, 2016; see also Frank, 2010: 88). Instead, these researchers have

argued that offenders’ narratives are phenomena worthy of study in and of themselves

∗We would like to thank Eric Baumer and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful com-

ments and criticisms on previous drafts of the article.

Direct correspondence to Timothy Dickinson, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Texas

at El Paso, 500 West University Avenue, Liberal Arts Building, Room 116, El Paso, TX 79968

(e-mail: tedickinson@utep.edu).

C2017 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12148

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 55 Number 3 691–720 2017 691

692 DICKINSON & WRIGHT

because of their influence on offenders’ identities and the etiology and execution of crime

(see, e.g., Copes, Hochstetler, and Williams, 2008; Horgan, 2009; Maruna, 2001; Presser,

2008; Presser and Sandberg, 2015; Sandberg, 2009; Toch, 1993; Youngs and Canter, 2012).

Termed “narrative criminology” (Presser, 2009), researchers in this growing field have

made significant strides in exploring how offenders’ narratives shape their identities and

the crime decisions guided by these identities. What has received less attention, however,

are the ways in which the tone of offenders’ narratives may influence this process. More

specifically, little is known about the role humor plays in how offenders make sense of

the past, construct their identities, and direct their future crime decisions. In the present

study, we fill this gap by examining the humorous narratives of a group of active illicit

drug dealers residing in and around St. Louis, Missouri. By using a narrative framework,

we illustrate how these dealers’ use of denigrating humor in relaying their experiences

with detection and apprehension by police explains their identities in relation to the risks

of selling illicit drugs, demonstrates their cultural authority within drug-dealing circles,

and helps situate them in the world.

NARRATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

By building on work in psychology, sociology, and sociolinguistics (see, e.g., Bruner,

1987; Ewick and Silbey, 1995; Ezzy, 1998; Frank, 2010; Gergen and Gergen, 1988;

McAdams, 1990; O’Connor, 2000; Somers, 1994), narrative criminologists recognize that

human “lives are ceaselessly intertwined with narrative” (Polkinghorne, 1988: 160) to

such an extent that it is difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to understand their expe-

riences and identities—or an individual’s sense of who he or she is (see Presser, 2008: 2)—

apart from narrative forms (Bruner, 1990; Maruna, 2015; McAdams, 1996, 1998). When

individuals recall the events and experiences in their lives, they do so via narratives be-

cause this temporally orders, or “sequences,” these events and experiences (Cerulo, 1998;

see also Labov and Waletzky, 1997; McAdams, 1990, 1993; Mead, 1938). This sequencing

has a purpose. Individuals selectively organize the events, episodes, or identities in their

lives with the intention of serving the “moral” or “point” of their story. This process is

referred to as “emplotment” (Davis, 2000: 37; see also DeGloma, 2014; Ewick and Silbey,

1995; Frank, 2010).

Through emplotment, individuals retrospectively give meaning to what is otherwise

merely a succession of events and actions (Bruner, 1987; Frank, 2010; Mattingly, 1998;

McAdams, 1990, 1993; Somers, 1994). That is, they highlight some memories at the ex-

pense of others to explain to themselves and others how the events and experiences of

their pasts are related to their present situations and self-identities (McAdams, 1993,

2001). Explanations of how an individual’s past is related to his or her present iden-

tity can take one of two shapes. McAdams (1990) suggested that one way individu-

als construct their present identities is by connecting them with their past actions and

identities—a process he has termed “unification.” A second way that individuals can

construct their present identities is by distinguishing them from their past actions and

identities. Zerubavel (1998, 2003) termed this process “periodization” (see also Davis,

2000). In addition to constructing their identities through unification and periodiza-

tion, individuals can also do so by establishing symbolic boundaries separating them

from others whom they deem to be different on one or more dimensions (Copes, 2016;

Copes, Hochstetler, and Williams, 2008; Zerubavel, 1998). This process helps to establish