This week, we read about suburban life and the way it impacts different groups such as high school teenagers and African American families intent on holding on to their identity and culture. These readings highlighted the limitations and issues that arise from a suburban lifestyle and the ways that people altered their lives and spaces to accommodate their needs. For example, the young adults of Peachville could not find a suitable and enjoyable way to spend their time, so some of them decided to turn to dealing and consuming drugs. In the case of Sherwood Park residents, they were very particular in advising their children of which spaces and people to interact with in hopes of showing the importance of black identity. In both cases, we see the way suburban life has certain limitations and how people respond to fill their social and cultural desires.
The lack of stimuli in the suburbs was most apparent in visualizing how the middle class teenagers interacted with drugs. It is important to note that throughout the article, the true focus as to why drugs became a central part of these kids lifestyle is because it was a way to be social with friends and increase their status. There certainly was a large emphasis on consuming drugs and the spotlight that came along with it, but the true reason is that suburban life did not offer enough in terms of entertainment and stimulation for these individuals. In concept, the other large incentive to selling drugs is the economic incentive although many of the dealers expressed that was not as much of a factor in their decision to get involved with selling. What this shows is that these individuals were finding a way to cope with an underwhelming lifestyle rather than trying to make an economic gain or simply enjoying the effects. They experienced disdain with their situation and had to find something to fill the void. In this case, they turned to getting involved with drugs because it met all the criteria they needed for developing socially. They were looking for ways to spend time with their friends, acquire social capital, and become someone who was seen as “cool” by any means necessary. These teenagers latched onto selling and consuming drugs because they could not find anything in their suburban environment that produced all these needs.
With the neighborhoods that Lacy introduced, suburbia had the wrong kind of culture for some families and fell short in providing adequate stimuli for the development of their black identity. The mothers and fathers of Sherwood Park were extremely concerned with the lack of black culture exposure and wanted their kids to not spend as much time with white families and residents because of the hyper-exposure of white culture they received in suburban spaces. In certain instances, some families felt as though navigating the suburbs was harder than navigating less than privileged neighborhoods because they felt more comfortable with an environment that had a black identity. Living in a more middle class region, the shortcomings in terms of culture are exposed in neighborhoods like Sherwood Park and the necessity to alter their community becomes primary concern. It is true that, statistically, there is far less diversity in suburbia than in other regions however, these conflicts of culture stem from the struggle groups face in the lack of adequate culture by the suburbs.
Suburban life is supremely popular among families because it offers, in most cases, a safe and quaint neighborhood in which to raise a family. While there are distinct advantages to the more serene vibe suburbia life brings on, there is also the issue of a lack of stimuli and entertainment. The pieces by Jacques & Wright and Lacy, illuminate the struggles of living in suburbia and that its shortcomings require other elements to fill the needs of its residents.
-Wilson M.
I believe that a strong argument can be made for blaming suburban struggles, like adolescent drug involvement, on the lack of activity, but I also wonder what role cultural differences between urban and rural environments play in shaping these actions.
Jaques & Wright make it clear that social status and perceptions carry a lot of weight in the lives of suburban adolescents, but it can also be argued that this desire for social status extends beyond the boundaries of high school. Suburban culture is often defined as a culture of weak ties, and if people only know each other on a surface level, could this increase the desire to constantly portray oneself in the best light?
In class we discussed Baumgartner’s concept of moral minimalism, which is a trend to avoid confrontation or conflict. This theory can be applied to the ways in which many suburban parents handle their adolescent children who are involved in the consumption or distribution of drugs. In many cases, when they were made aware of this information, they often reacted to it in very discreet manners that avoided conflict. Perhaps this could be due to the uncomfortable nature of these disagreements or a desire to maintain social status that is a result of a respectable family reputation.
Could it be that the culture of avoidance and weak ties that have developed in the suburbs are the true cause of these seemingly rebellious acts and the surprisingly relaxed reaction to them?
I do agree that the reading focused on the association between the lack of activities in the suburbs and teenagers becoming drug dealers; however, I would argue that it was not what the suburb lacked, but instead what it had that encouraged drug dealing. Most of the adolescents in the “Code of the Suburb” made the personal decision to become a drug dealer. This is in part possible because of the freedom that suburban teenagers have. Suburban teenagers, and many in “Code of the Suburb,” had personal vehicles. In my hometown (Chantilly, VA), it was common for high schoolers to be driving immediately after they received their driver’s license. Oftentimes, students drove their own car to school, to practice, to their friend’s home, and to the theater. In the case of the teenagers of Peachville, their cars allowed them to transport drugs and meet friends to do drugs. The local grocery stores and the large parking lots were also another element of the suburb that facilitated drug dealing. The parking lots in front of local grocery stores were large enough that drug dealers could avoid suspicion, especially from law enforcement. Dealers even had the advantage of walking into the grocery store if he or she felt like they were being too suspicious.
As I was reading “Code of the Suburb,” I couldn’t help but think of the privilege suburban teenagers had to call it quits on drug dealing. It was easy for these teenagers to become drug dealers and it was easy for them to put it in their past. Even though the suburb can be a form of the panopticon, I believe that the level of trust between neighbors that exists in the suburbs is a reason why many of the young drug dealers did not caught. The identity of the typical ‘suburban kid’ (plays a sport, has dinner with his/her family, goes to college, etc.) is so heavily mapped onto the bodies of the teenagers of Peachville that their parents and their neighbors cannot imagine the neighborhood teenagers being drug dealers.
I think its interesting, from my perspective, to look at the teenagers of Peachville as being encouraged to partake in drug dealing and drugs instead of being forced or coerced into it from the lack of stimulus of the town. I think mjeong raised some good points about the accessibility of their town with cars and how all the resources at their disposal were accomplices in their deviance. Although the town and their disposition may have enticed this kind of behavior, I am still curious about whether or not other stimulus would have produced a different result. For example, if they had been even closer to a city or had easier access to a major city, would some of these individuals have made the same choices or been involved with the same people. It is difficult to answer this question, but it is thought provoking to entertain the idea of an alternate outcome.
Another factor I was thinking about is the overall relationship that teens have with drugs in our society. More stimulus may have generated different ends, but there’s also a good chance it wouldn’t have changed anything. There is a potent culture with adolescents to get involved with drugs and to consume drugs early on. Whether this inclination stems from wanting to rebel, having “cool” stories to tell friends, or just enjoying the feeling of narcotics, there is reason to believe that there needs to be more than simply having a sufficient amount of stimulus. There may not have been an overwhelming amount of activities for these teens to partake in, but its not as if there was nothing. The reading talked about school activities in the form of playing in a band or for an athletic team/club as ways to fill up time and participate in something they were passionate about. Perhaps these activities were simply not entertaining enough to catch the attention, but there is always a decision to make and it seems as though Peachville is a case study that represents the patterns and actions of numerous neighborhoods and teens in the United States.
I also liked the point about the accessibility and mobility of the drug market for these teenagers. In some places, it is not as easy to get involved with drugs in this way and then exit on your own accord. It can be difficult to gain trust from people who are involved in this type of underground economy and then exit it just as easily. This also leads me to think about the difference it would make if entering this industry was not so simple. If people had to take a larger risk, maybe it would be a deterrent or deciding factor to enter in the first place.