This week’s discussion and readings by Murphy, Lee and Rios picked up on our previous conversations about the “iconic ghetto”. Elijah Anderson coined the term “iconic ghetto” and asserted that despite legislation that has made racial integration and incorporation possible, racial segregation persisted in neighborhoods, restaurants and schools throughout the United States. The “ghetto” in turn starts to become associated with the places “where blacks live.” When outside of “the ghetto,” African Americans have to figure out how to navigate these primary white and segregated spaces. In their works, Murphy, Lee and Rios explore how African Americans navigate not only these white spaces but also “the ghetto.” While each author highlights different passage through these areas, an underlying theme throughout all of these works is the notion of a resistance identity. My expert question based off of these readings focused on how sociologists might be focusing too heavily on the negatives of the ghetto and are abandoning or ignoring cultural benefits of these communities such as resistance identities.
Rios’ article “Dummy Smart” is the only article in which the concept of a resistance identity is explicitly mentioned. Resistance identities according to Rios, “are those identities created by subordinated populations in response to oppression” (102). These identities are used as a way of creating a sense of agency and power within a society in which those included feel displaced or mistreated. In Rios study, the members of this society are Latino and Black men from Oakland, California. Rios examines how obtaining this sense of power and agency often becomes entangled with legal trouble. For example, in order to assert his dominance and power in the community over a local storeowner, Mike, a Latino teenager, steals a bag of chips when he feels as though he is being disrespected and mistreated by the owner. Mike had more than enough money to pay for the bag of chips but he was determined to prove a point to the members of the community that try and exclude him from mainstream society. By acting against the law and traditional norms of society, the young men are trying to “one-up” these “excluders”. To the men living in Oakland, the notion of power and dignity is more significant than spending a few days in juvie. Although I do not believe that sociologists should encourage or praise the criminal actions of these boys, it is impressive and important to note and explore how these men find spaces for themselves in a society that has marginalized them for years.
This idea of a resistance identity is further echoed in Murphy’s article about “litterers.” Murphy claims that those who litter are perceived by their community as being “outsiders and disreputable” (1). After readings Rios’ article, I began to examine the litterers in a broader context within the ghetto. When thinking about the litterers in this framework, I started to ask myself if littering could be used as a way of creating a resistance identity. Was it possible that by littering these members of the community felt as though they were taking control of their community and re-claiming their space? Was throwing trash on the ground and consequently disrespecting the physical space of the community, a mechanism for acquiring respect in the eyes of the litterer? The litterers in this community, feeling that the label of outsider has been placed upon them, could be determined to gain back a sense of power and respect. As a result, they are driven to cling onto these resistance identities, which propel them to rebel against societal norms. Ironically, by continuing the behavior that has warranted the reputation of “disreputable,” the litterers believe that they will be seen in a more esteemed manner.
It is easy to write off the litterers in this community as disrespectful but when examined in a larger context, it is important to think about the different ways in which people go about acquiring power and dignity and how the traditional forms of achieving these characteristics may not be equally available to everyone in society. The resistance identities, similar to the rap battles discussed by Lee, offer the people in the ghetto a sense of respect and almost a release from the daily burdens that they feel have been imposed on them. To the members of the ghetto, resistance identities are a way of reclaiming a feeling of pride that they rightfully believe have been stripped from them by mainstream white society.
I think Rios’ notion of “organic capital” was a really interesting way to convey this idea of resistance identities that you mention. To me, his idea idea of “organic capital” was more than just away to escape the burden of society, but in a larger sense, as a way for certain populations to form a sub-community within their larger community. In doing this, these individuals were able to come together daily, and establish a sense of belonging amongst each other. I think had these individuals not been rejected and labeled as immoral by their fellow community members, then this notion of resistance identities would be nothing but a term only applicable to a few. I think moving forward in trying to better tie communities together, whether that’s though integration or increasing housing policies, the idea of resistance identities should be taken into consideration, as a way to make society functional for all.
This idea of “organic capital” was evident in Lee’s piece on rap battles, where the individuals studied were able to create meaningful bonds through rapping. Without developing this form of “organic capital”, the rap battles would have otherwise been rejected by their larger community, and in a larger sense, these individuals would have had no place in their society. Although the rap battles came across as deviant and dangerous to the rest of the community, to them it was their sense of belonging, and ultimately, their agency.
I really like how Blake expands on Emma’s discussion of resistance identities by bringing in organic capital. In ghetto communities where groups are restricted access to mainstream forms of capital, organic capital and resistance identities can be effective ways affirming identity and existence for oneself. I do worry about how intentionally some of forms of organic capital and/or resistance identities are created.
Rios argues that, ““many of [the boys] realized that they were actively involved in adding fuel to the fire. However, they believed that it was worth the negative consequences. Maintaining a sense of dignity –– feeling accepted and feeling that their human rights were respected –– was a central struggle” (Rios, 115)
The struggle between maintaining dignity and adding fuel to a fire is difficult for me. I wish that there were better/more accessible ways for these boys to resist without provoking a system that feeds the need for resistance identities.