Scott Jacques and Richard Wright’s piece, Code of the Suburb, outlines the lives of middle-class drug dealers. While many of these suburban kids used drugs, few of them actually became dealers. It is this transition, from drug user to drug dealer, that Jacques and Wright explore. Their findings present a unique dichotomy between the drug dealers short-term, and long-term goals.
Jacques and Wright present this notion of “coolness” to highlight the middle-class drug dealer’s short-term goals. Irrespective of the consequences, these suburban teenagers only care about becoming cool in the eyes of their peers. It is through this notion of “coolness” that these teenagers disregard the law and the expectations of their parents, and become drug dealers. This made me think of Grace’s expert questions regarding the three dimensions of community that we have defined throughout the semester. I think this notion of “coolness” highlights the socio-structural sense of community. Specifically, the idea of “coolness” makes “invisible” groups “visible.” Before becoming drug dealers, these kids were largely invisible by their peers. They were not seen as cool, but instead were seen as “lame.” Further, the kids who took on the idea of being “lame” were disrespected and ostracized into their own social group comprised of other “lame-os” (Jacques and Wright 6). In order to gain some respect from their peers, and more specifically become “visible”, these kids resorted to selling and using drugs, showing their peers that they acted irrespective of the law and their parent’s rules (7). This contrast between being lame and being cool is correlated with the idea of making invisible groups visible. As drugs allowed them to transition from being lame to being cool, it also allowed for the once “invisible” group of “lame-os” to become “visible.” This representation of “coolness” satisfied their short-term goals and put them higher up on the social ladder.
There is a stark contrast between their short-term goals of being cool, and their long-term goals of obtaining successful careers and financial success. While these kids did engage in heavy drug consumption, they also knew that this was a temporary phase which would soon be replaced by careers and independence from their parents. However, one thing that we discussed in class was how this short-term phase led to the development of quasi-primary ties, in that these kids were only connected through the consumption of drugs, rather than deep personal connections. From my high school experience, I think this is true of drug dealers today. When I was in high school it was pretty obvious that the drug dealers were their own distinct friend group within the school. Looking back, it is more clear that these groups of kids were not friends through their similarities and interest, but rather through their habits of using and selling drugs. Now that they are much older, many of these drug dealers are no longer friends, as they broke out of their temporary drug phase, and went their separate ways. Conversely, the kids who did not consume drugs and had deeper and more meaningful relationships with their high school peers, are still friends to date. Through this, I think it is evident in both in Jacques and Wright’s, piece and my experiences that quasi-primary ties amongst drug dealers is a common phenomenon.
One thing that I found interesting in Karyn Lacy’s piece, Race- and Blass-Based Identities, was her discussion on strategic assimilation, and the black middle-class’ intentionally limited incorporation into the white mainstream. Further, I thought her idea of racial dualism was very interesting, as it showed the ways in which these middle-class individuals resisted the white mainstream, and instead were able to maintain their strong ties to the black community (Lacy 153). In contrast to the work of Jacques and Wright and the quasi-primary ties therein, I think Lacy’s piece showed a greater sense of community in suburban life by outlining the stronger and more meaningful ties to one’s culture.
One of the questions you proposed for the class discussion was: how might the idea of strategic assimilation inevitably lead to drug dealers in the black middle-class community? I keep trying to believe that you were attempting to make a connection between the two texts assigned, however I don’t understand what led you to ask this. It would be a completely different question to ask if you didn’t say “inevitably”, because this term suggests that it is destined for black people in the middle-class to become drug dealers; which makes you sound extremely classist and racist. Black people in the middle class have to work twice as hard compared to the average white person to be seen as an equal in predominately white areas. Specifically, when discussing the level of discrimination in society Lacy states, “Wealthier blacks report more discrimination than poor blacks, are less optimistic about racial progress, and are less inclined to believe that whites positively type blacks” (160). This suggests that blacks have to maintain a certain image in order to effectively navigate the white space they live in. Black people in the black middle class have too much to lose if they chose to deal drugs in these suburban areas. Therefore, inevitable wasn’t the right choice of words, rather you should have asked: how might the idea of strategic assimilation lead to drug dealers in the black middle-class community?
After our class discussion, I questioned whether parents should be accountable for their children’s mistakes. The reading made it clear that these young dealers lived with well-educated parents in an affluent neighborhood and did not fit the “academic or media image of a drug dealer.” The adolescents became drug dealers not for the money, but to gratify the short-term desire for “coolness” while in high school. In the event that the police became involved, the parents hired attorneys and paid the court fees to prevent the family from enduring the shame and embarrassment attached to the adolescent labeled as a drug dealer. Because the parents removed the possibility of punishment for the drug dealing offense in the hopes of reviving their children’s future, should not the parents be held accountable and suffer the consequences for their negligence in overlooking their children’s drug dealing? From the young dealers’ perspective, their parents did not care about the “morality of substance use and distribution so much as the engaging in crime could hurt their family’s reputation…” Jacques and Wright state it is unfair to blame the parents for their children’s lawbreaking transgressions. I disagree; there should be no free pass for dealing drugs. As a parent, you need to pay attention, have repercussions and punishment for behavior that is not tolerated within the community.
Throughout the duration of the reading, I thought deeply about the contrasts between the iconic suburb and ghetto. It was clear that these young children were relatively well off and did not have much to worry about. The paper didn’t go into much detail with this but I wonder what the perception of black drug dealers was. Whether it be from music or other influences, it would be interesting to visualize the perspectives of these suburban drug dealers and how they perceive the other side of what they will never encounter. To a large degree, privilege allows these suburban drug dealers to not only get away from their parents but also the cops. Police in the neighborhood does not actively seek to find drug dealers. They simply have to follow some degree of precaution and they would be safe and sound. The ability to additionally opt out of drug dealing is something drug dealers in the ghetto may not have the privilege to do. These suburban dealers can easily throw away that dealing identity and the community wouldn’t bat an eye. On the other hand, someone in the ghetto is attached to that identity and that is what the rest of the world sees, a violent uneducated drug dealer.
First off, I completely agree that the labelling of drug dealers is vastly different between the suburban and urban areas, largely centered around ethnic identity perceived future potential. However, I think it is also interesting to consider how spatial organization influences the patterns of surveillance and police involvement in suburban vs. urban areas. In the suburbs, the phenomenon of “suburban sprawl”must definitely be taken into consideration. In addition to the culture of avoidance, the low-density, automobile-dependent nature of the suburbs enable these teen drug dealers to conceal their actions not only from the police, but from their parents and neighbors as well. However, in high-density urban areas in which automobiles are less prominent as modes of transportation and privacy, in addition to higher police presence and focus on drug dealing, I imagine drug dealing would also be more visible due to the built space.
Additionally, I would like to push back a bit against the idea that suburban and drug-relation relationships cannot be considered primary ties. Although many of the relationships may begin as secondary ties in the “pursuit of coolness,” I think that the amount of time they spend together combined with the risks they will take on each other’s account demonstrates that the relationships often become primary ties over time. One of the informants gave an anecdote explaining that although they often do do drugs together, they often end up playing seemingly pointless games which act as an excuse to simply spend time together. Through these superficial hangouts and supposedly meaningless games, they forge relationships that enable them to trust each other enough to risk their own futures for one another (hiding/transporting drugs for each other, etc.). Furthermore, this argument brings me back to our later discussion about whether the suburb can be thought of as a continuation of privacy and autonomy outside of the urban setting. The discussion of “weak families” who have independent routines and the culture of weak ties between residents leads me to ask how is this different than what we consider the beneficial autonomy and anonymity of the city?
I think that there is a fair point when offering the opinion that suburban drug dealers deal drugs to become “cool.” However, I also believe this can represent a privileged view of the reality of becoming a drug dealer. For instance, not every drug dealer has the social mobility to withdraw from the game after they start dealing. Nevertheless, I think this search for “coolness” is an interesting way to analyze the life of young middle-class drug dealers. These dealers search for more popularity to move up the social ladder shows how popularity is incredibly highly regarded in high school. Young adults are willing to face potential jail time and expulsion for the ability to be more well known around school.