Little Village as a Community
Robert Vargas’s “Wounded City: Violent Turf Wars in Chicago Barrio” examines how a history of urban political neglect of integratory efforts of the rising minority and immigrant population produced the fractured community of Little Village. The political gerrymandering of jurisdictional boundaries of the neighborhood’s east side led to an underresourced climate with insufficient avenues for social and economic mobility available. Job opportunities were scarce, and quality of life was significantly lower in these impoverished areas when compared to the neighboring counties. The lack of inclusive efforts into the greater Chicago infrastructure, in conjunction with rising poverty rates led to the resurgence of gangs. Over time, they grew in power and established social control over the area through violence. The rise of gangs generated a cyclical battle between local, underresourced, law enforcement and the powerful gangs leading to the exacerbation of the communities’ problems. With access to the communications network that bridges residents and police, the gangs were able to emulate formal social control over the city. They established a police-like role and created pseudo-formal laws by actively punishing citizens when they violated it. Law enforcement agencies surrendered their authority by punishing citizens who called for low-impact emergencies as they believed that it was a waste of time considering the limited resources they had.
It is conflicting to see how people in Little Village are forced to act against their own community in order to maximize positive outcomes for themselves. If police are also willing to punish citizens through “street justice,” it makes you wonder if anyone is left in the area that still cares about improving the community. The state of Little Village has pushed its people towards a political indifference in regard to the interests of the community as a whole. Due to the gang’s rising threat, the residents have got no other choice left but to replace community values for the values of the criminal subculture that controls them.
Little Village reminded me of reading about rooming houses discussed in Zorbaugh’s The Gold Coast and the Slum because of how the people of Little Village disassociated themselves from their area and neighbors. Distrust plagued relationships between residents, leading to the loss of their identification with the greater community. The rapidly changing and ever demanding urban climate pushes residents into a state of anomie and normlessness. In this scenario, the residential areas are not bound together by common interest as every familial unit is forced to think for themselves in order to avoid conflict with the local gangs.
Little Village serves as a classic example of conflict theory, where, structural, top-down, oppression of the lower classes manifests in resentment and leads to violence. The creation of the gangs reveal how the community was prompted to create informal outlets for social control. The question I provided prompts the discussion of how power dynamics have changed and reshaped the values the community practices. Discussion revealed the importance of recognizing how political disenfranchising and neglect produces social conflict as well as examined how social strain was reproduced through the actions of the residents at the micro-level.
I find this entry particularly thoughtful and intriguing since I dedicated my efforts in my first Midterm paper towards presenting a case that there is a communal presence in Little Village. This entry certainly challenges claims made in my paper and allows me to elaborate and think critically about my own analysis of community in Little Village. I do agree that gangs emulate social control in Little Village and as a counterpoint in my own argument suggested residents may conform to the wishes of gangs out of fear. However, through the adoption of informal street codes and the role of social organizations such as Youth Inc, I believe relationships between residents and gang members were able to flourish organically.
After reading this entry and thinking about my own argument, I recalled an instance in Vargas’ work where a resident explained how moving from Little Village would not alleviate the current neighborhood conditions she faced. She explained if she were to move, she would simply come into contact with different gangs in different neighborhoods. From this reflection an issue extending beyond the boarders of Little Village arose in my mind. What does this suggest about the living conditions and standards of lower class Americans? Can a community ever be fostered in an orthodox manner if many of these neighborhoods lack formal institutions and are characterized by gang presence? Is community life in these neighborhoods then dictated by the social control and “pseudo-laws” enforced by local gangs? In this case, is adopting a mutual street code the best way to maintain order and maximize ones own interests in a neighborhood?
The point that really resonated with me from your blog is if police punish citizens through “street justice,” is there anyone left in the area who still cares about improving community. I think this is an interesting point because it suggests that the police are just there to lessen violence created by the gangs rather than solve the source of the violence and create a prosperous community. If the goal is to just lessen violence, the police end up putting community members themselves (those not part of a gang) in danger as well. This creates distrust among residents and neighbors, connecting to your point about Zorbaugh’s The Gold Coast and the Slum. The people of Little Village dissociate themselves from each other and from the area in order to protect themselves, not only from the gangs, but also from the police. These impersonal ties cause the area to lose a sense of community, despite being in such close proximity to each other. This makes gangs the idea of gangs in this area really interesting because the gangs themselves act as communities that Little Village itself could not provide them.
You argue that because Little Village “disassociated themselves from their area and neighbors” and has “distrust plagued relationships between residents” it creates a loss of community among its people. Scholars rely on the definitions of community that consists of geographic location, common ties, and social networks. This leads to residents seeking protection and stability from their local gangs. Criminal leadership shares desires for some sort of social good. You state, “Due to the gang’s rising threat, the residents have got no other choice left but to replace community values for the values of the criminal subculture that controls them.” I think that Little Village is not replacing community values for one of a criminal subculture. Little Village is replacing NORMATIVE community values for ones that they create with the lack of resources that they have. The norm is a community without the law is highly disorganized. However, with the silence voices residents have towards city officials, they turn to gangs to seek community order. Little village does not reply on official forms of government to maintain social order and cohesion. Gang leaders, politicians, and community members negotiate and create their own social order using violence, unsuspecting alliances, community organizing, and federal grants.
I enjoyed reading and found the ideas presented in your blog to be very thoughtful. However, there is one instance where I would suggest an alternative interpretation. In your second to last paragraph, you compared rooming houses and Little Village. You claim that the two are comparable because the people from Little Village dissociated themselves from their area and neighborhood. I think that this is true to an extent, however I think the west side exemplifies how the two areas of dissimilar. Unlike the East, the West was able to avoid Gerrymandering and therefore greatly improve where they live. However, avoiding gerrymandering took a massive amount of organizational unity and sense of community. I would even debate that the west side has a stronger community than my affluent suburban/rural town because they had to fight for their basic needs to be met. Through this I think that west side residents do not suffer from anime or normlessness because it seems they are very involved in improving where they live.
I think your analysis of the relationship between the residents of Little Village, the gangs, and the cops is apt. Without the cops taking a hands-off approach because they deem the troubles of the residents to be minimal strikes a chord with me because of how the relationship in my neighborhood is with the cops. As the cops are viewed as more of an obtrusive force instead of protective the residents of an area may look towards different groups for protection or and order. In the case of Little Village, gangs assume the mantle of keeping the peace by implementing their own codes of conduct that may isolate people within their own homes because it is safer to be inside than outside. The comparison you made to Zorbaugh’s world of furnished rooms is interesting as well as both communities create a community through the types of limited interactions they have with one another. While there is not a tight-knit community where residents visit each other’s homes they can all acknowledge their own collective similarity as they live under the same street codes and accrue the same animosity and distrust of the police. The residents are not thankful that the gangs are in charge rather helpless due to the lack of institutional support in the area.