Jacked Up and Unjust: Pacific Islander Teens Confront Violent Legacies

Jacked Up and Unjust

Jacked Up and Unjust

Pacific Islander Teens Confront Violent Legacies

Katherine Irwin and Karen Umemoto

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

University of California Press, one of the most distinguished university presses in the United States, enriches lives around the world by advancing scholarship in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. Its activities are supported by the UC Press Foundation and by philanthropic contributions from individuals and institutions. For more information, visit www.ucpress.edu.

University of California Press

Oakland, California

© 2016 by The Regents of the University of California

Some of the research included in this book was supported by an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and private funding from two families in Hawai‘i (through the Hawai‘i Community Foundation). The contents of this book are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessary represent the official views of the funding agencies or agents. We are purposely not identifying which DHHS agency funded the violence prevention initiative as a step to protect the real names of the schools, communities, and people in this study.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Irwin, Katherine, author. | Umemoto, Karen, author.

Title: Jacked up and unjust : Pacific Islander teens c0nfront violent legacies / Katherine Irwin and Karen Umemoto.

Description: Oakland, California : University of California Press, [2016] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2016015751 | ISBN 9780520283022 (cloth : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780520283039 (pbk. : alk. paper) | eISBN 9780520958883 (eBook)

Subjects: LCSH: Youth and violence—Hawaii—21st century. | Youth—Hawaii—Social conditions. | Pacific Islander American teenagers—Hawaii—Social conditions.

Classification: LCC HQ799.2.V56179 2016 | DDC 303.6083509969—dc23

LC record available at http://lccn.lov.gov/2016015751

Manufactured in the United States of America

25  24  23  22  21  20  19  18  17  16

10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

Katherine Irwin: To Louis Ortiz, for being an extraordinarily supportive, encouraging, and inspiring partner

Karen Umemoto: To Kay and Hank Umemoto, for the loving foundation and guidance you always provided

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Introduction

1. Literature Review and Background

2. The Caring Adult Role and Youth Research

3. Us Girls Get the Second Half: Girls’ Early Socialization and Outspoken Femininity

4. Fighting for Her Honor: High School Girls’ Struggles for Respect

5. Boys’ Fights and the Jacked-Up System

6. Sea of Good Intentions: Juvenile Protection in the Shadow of Punishment

7. Youth Prepare for Adulthood

8. Theoretical Conclusions

9. Compassionate and Constructive Policy and Practice

Appendix 1. Data Sources and Participant Demographics

Appendix 2. Demographics of Quoted Teens

Notes

References

Index

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our utmost gratitude belongs to individuals who must remain anonymous and pseudonymous due to the nature of this work. They are the students, school administrators, counselors, teachers, security guards, community-based program leaders, youth workers, and juvenile justice system employees who generously shared their stories and time with us. We also want to thank the high schools we call Seaside and Cleveland and the neighborhoods we named Northward and Stevens Heights for literally and figuratively opening their doors to us. We are also grateful to the State of Hawaiʻi Department of Education for allowing us to conduct the research.

Maura Roessner, senior editor at the University of California Press, and the Press’s faculty board deserve countless praises for encouraging this work. Barbara Owen and Barbara Bloom also deserve gratitude for introducing Katy to Maura and for taking part in dozens of productive conversations about critical criminology research. We extend many thanks to Jack Young, the editorial assistant for this project, for keeping us on track toward publication. Dianne Glei deserves appreciation for editing chapters and talking through this project with Katy. We also thank Laurie Schaffner, Jennifer Schwartz, and the anonymous University of California Press reviewers, who offered supportive and insightful suggestions to improve the book.

Because the initial research for this book was collected through grant funding from an agency at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) there were many DHHS-based project managers who supported this research. Like the individuals at Northward and Seaside, they must remain anonymous. Karen and Katy, however, are thankful for their support.

Additionally, many University of Hawaiʻi-based researchers, professors, and students assisted this project, especially the coordination and completion of focus groups. We are indebted to Earl Hishinuma, who spent many hours reading and commenting on this book and assisting in the early research phases. Corey Adler, Bo Keopaseut, Jeanelle Sugimoto-Matsuda, Jane Chung-Do, Stephanie Nishimura, Janice Chang, Deborah Goebert, and Susana Helm were members of the many UH teams during the first phases of the research. We are thankful for their hard work. A special word of thanks goes to Tai-An Miao for her support and especially for her inspiration as someone who has shown such dedication to youth, their families, and to systems change.

Thanks to the philanthropic work of two families in Hawaiʻi, the lunch bunch program received generous funds. These philanthropists wanted to remain anonymous. We hope it is enough to say that we are extremely thankful to the Hawaiʻi Community Foundation for facilitating and coordinating the funding from these families. There were also numerous organizations in Northward and Stevens Heights that made this work possible. We sincerely thank them, but we cannot identify them by name. Carrie Shoda-Sutherland and RaeDeen M. Keahiolalo Karasuda were also lunch bunch champions, connecting Katy and Karen to funding sources. Katy is especially thankful for RaeDeen’s keen scholarship and her friendship through the years.

This work was also made possible through years of friendship and colleagueship at UH. Kalei Kanuha, William Wood, and Patricia Steinhoff served as chairs of the Department of Sociology at UH (Katy’s department), and each encouraged this work. Thank you all for recognizing the importance of community-based research and service. Sanna King, a sociology graduate student, became a research partner and part of the lunch bunch team. We are thankful for all of her efforts. Penny-Bee Kapilialoha Bovard, Izzak Williams, Alexis Ibarra, Holly Sevier, Nick Gibson, Nick Chagnon, and Mari Kita always expressed interest in and support of the research. Izzak Williams and Nick Gibson deserve particular appreciation for attending camping trips with the lunch bunch teens. We hope that the games, campfires, and storytelling made up for the sleep that you lost at camp.

Katy’s colleagues and friends were also enormously helpful. Her thanks go out to Meda Chesney-Lind, Lisa Pasko, Janet Davidson, Ashley Maynard, Katie Dragar, Lori Yancura, Jen Lois, Alice Fothergill, Adina Nack, Jennifer Darrah, Lisa Uperesa, Nandita Sharma, and Krysia Mossakowski, all of whom supported her as she completed chapters. She greatly appreciates all of their advice, comments, and views regarding this work. Kim Burnett, Stacia Murray, and Tammy Real kept Katy sane, active, and healthy throughout the book-writing process and she is so thankful for their steadfast support.

The support and incisive ethnographic insights of Patti and Peter Adler deserve special recognition. Katy is always thankful for the time that Peter and Patti take to talk through emerging ideas and ethnographic dilemmas. Thanks also to Brye and Jori Adler, Patti and Pete’s adult children, who have listened with uncanny patience as Katy, Patti, and Pete discussed (and sometimes disagreed) about the art, science, and ethics of ethnography.

Katy’s family—Fran Irwin, Marsha Rosenbaum, Johnny Irwin, Anne Rosenbaum Conger, James Conger, Jeanette Irwin, and Dave Mosick—deserve much gratitude for their support throughout this project. Fran Irwin, Katy’s mother, was especially patient as Katy talked about her developing chapters during their many mother/daughter outings. Last but most important among Katy’s supporters is Louis Ortiz, who lived through and supported every part of this project. A thousand thanks and Katy’s dedication of this book to Louis are probably not enough to express the depth of Katy’s gratitude to her husband.

This research was also made possible through the collegial support of the UH Department of Urban and Regional Planning (Karen’s department). One could not ask for a more nurturing social and intellectual environment and Karen’s thanks go to Dana Singer, fellow faculty, and the rest of the staff and student assistants for creating and sustaining it. Kem Lowry and Dolores Foley have been especially important mentors and supporters. Friends more than colleagues, Krisna Suryanata and Keith Mattson, and their sons, always helped to keep balance and perspective in life, which is no small feat.

Karen’s family has also played an important role. Her father, Hank Umemoto, has been an inspiration through the writing as a fellow author who is leaving his kids his stories, the greatest gift. Karen’s mother, Kay Umemoto, has always been a source of comfort and encouragement, as have Jasmine Grace, Bruce Umemoto, and Michelle and Elle Nakamura. Last but not least, a debt of gratitude goes to Brian Niiya whose patience, encouragement, and partnership in the journey of life have, along with the companionship of May Niiya, been fortunate and fulfilling beyond words.

Introduction

Angel’s fights were legendary.¹ Six feet tall at sixteen, she was a formidable opponent who could smack down anyone who challenged her. Few attempted to directly confront Angel. Instead, her adversaries usually yelled derogatory remarks from across the hallways and yards at school, leading her to call back, Oh, shut your ass up. You know I can beat your ass on the spot! If Angel did catch up with a girl who insulted her, a fight was sure to ensue. Along with the resulting bloodied noses, torn clothing, and bruised bodies, Angel’s opponents would be ridiculed for attempting, but failing, to bring her down. Only a stupid bitch would try to fight with Angel.

Angel felt proud of her fighting abilities, although she noted that having a reputation as a competent fighter was different for girls than it was for boys. Her male cousins, she noted, were well-respected fighters, and the fact that they had been in and out of prison for violence only added to their reputations in their community. Very few people messed with (disrespected) them. In comparison, Angel felt that her peers sometimes treated her as if she were crazy and out of control. She recounted, I felt so stupid about it [fighting] because everybody used to look at me like, ‘Oh shit, who’s it going to be next, who’s next?’ I’m like, what the heck are you talking about? Angel did not want to be seen as an indiscriminant fighter who engaged in stupid or crazy physical confrontations.

Additionally, other girls targeted Angel, chastising her, avoiding her, and sometimes accusing her of being big and ugly. If her foes could not bring her down physically, then they could use traditional femininity norms against her by letting her know that she was not petite, frail, or pale enough to be considered beautiful. At times, Angel resisted the narrow American definitions of beauty by saying, Big and bold, Miss Beautiful. I’m fucking beautiful by myself! At other times, however, she worried about her looks.

Though fighting did not elevate Angel’s reputation among her female peers, Angel did not mind this social isolation. In fact, she did not particularly respect other girls. For example, one day Angel announced, Some girls just irk me out. I’m serious. The list of things that irritated her about schoolgirls was long. How they dressed (too slutty), how they talked (too fake), and how they spent their time (too into boys) were high on her list of complaints.

Given that Angel was one among many high school teens who was suspended frequently for fighting, she was eventually referred to a counseling-based program to help her manage her anger. This is where Katy and Karen, the authors of this book, first met her. More specifically, Angel was referred to the lunch bunch—a support group that met at school to provide teens with food, cold drinks, and a nonjudgmental environment in which to talk about the challenges in their lives.

The lunch bunch program began in 2007 after a collection of high school counselors spoke with us about collaborating to provide services for teens who were having trouble in school, often for fighting. The counselors organized the group sessions with students while we searched for grant funding to cover food, curriculum, activities, and field trips for the teens. It was during our attendance at the weekly lunch bunch sessions that we learned more about Angel than that she was a formidable fighter. We came to know her as an intelligent, thoughtful, and talented young woman who was facing enormous upheavals.

Probably the most salient event during Angel’s teen years was her mother’s death. After this, she was shuttled from family member to family member and from state to state as her aunts and uncles attempted to collectively care for her. By her junior year, Angel had been enrolled in three different high schools and was living with an aunt on Oahu. Angel did not particularly like this aunt, saying, She is so irritating. She lifts these weights like this (flapping her arms quickly like a chicken). She’s not doing anything. She eats too much. I tell her, ‘You ain’t got no man. You’ll never get a man unless you stop eating everything out the fridge all the time!’

At the end of her junior year of high school, Angel’s aunt was preparing to send her to live with other family members on the U.S. continent, creating mixed feelings for Angel. On the one hand, when she moved, her conflicts with girls on Oahu would end; on the other hand, she would be dislodged from cherished parts of her past. She explained that once a week she visited her mother’s grave. She sat, talked to her mother, cried, sometimes laughed, and complained about her auntie. What would happen, Angel worried, if she moved three thousand miles away from where her mother was buried?

•  •  •

Benny, another lunch bunch teen, was also known as a competent fighter. Standing five feet, six inches tall, Benny was slim, nimble, and able to outmaneuver boys who tried to scrap [fight] with him. If anybody step up to [fight] me, I can see it, react, grab, leap, something, get the hell out of the way [of a punch]. In an outcome consistent with Angel’s assessment that fighting had different consequences for girls and boys, Benny was able to gain a positive reputation among his peers because of his scrapping abilities. He explained, When I was younger, like sixth grade, seventh grade, stepping up, like starting fights and everything, that’s what you’ve got to do. By fighting boys who were older, bigger, and stronger than him, Benny eventually made his name.

There were many benefits to being male and a good fighter. For example, he was able to step with big dogs (that is, hang out with the older boys). Benny also noted that a boy’s reputation as a fighter could raise the status of his family. He said, This boy, he’s cool, he represent his last name so well. That family is going to be known. Later, he said, Ask anybody, any Hawaiian kid; they will tell you. You come home crying, Mom will give you a licking [beating] or your father will give you a licking. If you lose, it brings disrespect to your family.

Probably what Benny liked the most about his rep as a fighter was the authority it gave him among his peers. For example, Benny noted that some kids had a habit of losing control and going into what he called survivor mode, meaning that they were unable to stop themselves during a fight. He described how a well-respected teen—a youth who was known—might be the only one who could intervene in a brutal battle: Some kids, they up and up brawling, a big brawl. They don’t stop. Unless somebody they utmost respect tells them to stop, they’ll stop. Benny wanted to be that person with utmost respect.

However, after spending years nurturing his tough reputation, Benny began to rethink his approach. The school was changing, and the other old dogs were fading away. He also began to contemplate the kind of man he wanted to become. Manhood, in Benny’s eyes, was equated with being a father, head of the family, and provider. He explained: As you get older, with time you get wisdom. As you get older, you get the bigger picture of what to do. I’m trying to stay out of trouble. You cannot be doing shit all your life. I want to grow up to be the best that I can, provide the best I can. I’m going to have life lessons, a lot of life lessons to teach my kids. I will give them a childhood I never had.

What Benny wanted most for his future children was stability. Benny’s mother had abandoned the family when he was nine years old, and Benny and his siblings lived with his father in a tent under a bridge for a portion of their childhoods. Eventually his father was incarcerated, leading the state to place all of the children in foster care.

Despite Benny’s commitment to staying out of trouble, his wishes for a bright future grew dim by the end of his senior year of high school. Benny had started hanging out with a crowd of young men with whom he worked on a construction team. He purchased a car (with a hefty auto loan) and stopped attending classes. During the last months of the school year, Benny started drinking heavily every weekend (and on some weekdays) with his work buddies. His goal of graduating from high school receded into the distance. One day in May, just before graduation, Benny quietly admitted to Katy that he had a drinking problem and that it was getting out of hand. He said that he was failing some of his courses, drinking regularly, and didn’t know if he was going to graduate.

•  •  •

This book focuses on the experiences of Angel and Benny as they faced crossroads in their teen lives. In addition, we include the stories of ninety-seven other adolescents, most of whom are of Native Hawaiian, Samoan, or other Pacific Islander ancestry, including many of mixed heritage (see table 1 in appendix 1). Based on our work with the lunch bunch and our presence in two high schools to assist with violence prevention programming, we were also able to get to know and conduct interviews with sixty-three adults (parents, high school staff, and juvenile justice and community workers) who have added depth to our understanding of the youth’s experiences.

By centering this book on the experiences of teens, particularly those who have been involved in fights, we broaden our vision not only of youth violence, but also of what it means to grow up in a country that has marginalized vital segments of its population. Teens’ narratives help us in at least two important ways. First, by focusing on the experiences of girls as well as boys living in the same neighborhoods and attending the same schools, we can see how violence is different for girls than it is for boys. Moreover, we can note how traditional gender ideologies and practices influence girls’ and boys’ lives in ways that make systems of male domination problematic for all teens.²

Second, by focusing on a population of teens who are often overlooked, primarily Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and other Pacific Islander youth, we can think in new ways about how racial inequalities and historic injustices throughout the United States inform the problem of youth violence. Indeed, Native Hawaiian teens (like Benny), as well as teens who trace their ancestry to other parts of the Pacific (like Angel), often struggle in communities that confront high rates of poverty, a lack of services for families, and overincarceration in ways that are disproportionate when compared with White, Asian, and most other ethnic or racial groups.³ These teens also battle a long history of injustice stemming from U.S. colonial conquest in the Pacific, which included the imposition of a rigid racial caste system; thus, racialization in American colonial contexts is important to consider.

The youth in this study are not representative of the overall youth population in Hawaiʻi and we ask that readers not selectively interpret the text in any way that perpetuates negative stereotypes of Hawaiian and Pacific Islander youth as a problem population. One purpose of this book is to understand the patriarchal, colonial context that situates the voices of the youth that we present throughout the book. We are cognizant of the fact that scholarly narratives have historically been employed to perpetuate derogatory and demeaning depictions of colonized subjects with ethnic specificity that continues to burden youth. The youth whose stories are featured here have faced far more than their fair share of challenges and their voices are seldom heard in mainstream media. They have experienced the brunt of discipline by schools and courts and, partly as a result, are astute about their situation in ways that offer valuable knowledge and insight. From their grounded experiences, we hope that needed changes will become more clear to us all.

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

The narratives of youth can add depth to many literatures, and chapter 1 reviews some of the assumptions within the fields of youth violence, critical youth studies, and punishment in the juvenile justice system and schools. Chapter 1 also includes a brief review of the colonial history of Hawaiʻi.

In chapter 2, we review our research methods and explain the choices we made, given that the juveniles in this study were a vulnerable population. While we wanted to gain an intimate knowledge of teens’ worldviews and experiences, we did not want to compromise their safety, and this tension determined our roles as we interacted with the teens.

We begin to lay out our empirical findings in chapters 3 and 4 by focusing on girls’ narratives. Chapter 3 examines girls’ early childhood experiences in families and at school, and we highlight the unique pressures that these girls experienced while growing up. We look at how the girls’ family responsibilities, dress, demeanor, and their status in families and at school were constrained by gender—a set of conditions that the girls thought of as inherently unfair and unjust. Considering these pressures, some girls spoke and struck out against those who harassed and targeted them, sometimes violently. We take up the subject of peer and school-based culture for teens in chapter 4, where we outline the femininity norms confronting female teens. In this chapter we note that notions of femininity were complicated and sometimes contradictory. In this way, girls’ violence is viewed against the backdrop of multiple constraints and contradictions.

In chapter 5 we explain boys’ perspectives of violence, exploring their critical consciousness of larger power arrangements. Like the girls in our study, the boys experienced gender expectations as an important backdrop. However for the boys, racial hierarchies were a primary lens through which they saw the world. In chapter 5 we look at how historic acts of injustice in colonial lands live on in the collective memories of youth. Some boys summarized these past and present injustices succinctly as the jacked-up U.S. system. As males, the boys sensed that they had agency and strength, and they used these resources to resist or manipulate what they saw as unjust systems and stereotypes set against them.

In chapter 6 we juxtapose the work of compassionate adults against the harsh zero-tolerance policy environment and highlight the positive impacts of caring adults on youth at critical times in adolescence. We begin with a brief review of the rise of zero-tolerance policies and how they took shape nationally and in Hawaiʻi. We hear the stories of June and Auggie, who experienced the punitive sting of the juvenile justice system as teens under this policy environment. We contrast that with examples of school and court professionals who made a marked difference in the lives of youth and explore the meaning and importance of discretionary power using an ethic of care.

Having introduced this book with Angel’s and Benny’s narratives, we complete the adolescent journey for these two teens and others in chapter 7. In this chapter, we examine the variety of ways that the youth prepared for young adulthood. Considering that several teens in this study grew up in chaotic circumstances—facing homelessness, multiple foster home placements, and incarceration—we look at whether supportive and capable adults can intervene in teens’ lives to help them as they prepare for adulthood. Just as gender shaped the childhood and teen experiences of both girls and boys, we find that transitions out of adolescence differed by gender according to the pressures, constraints, and opportunities facing girls and boys.

Chapter 8 showcases the theoretical interpretations of the findings outlined in chapters 3 through 7. With a focus on racial and gender inequalities, which we call the system of colonial patriarchy, we fill gaps in perspectives about youth violence and interlocking inequalities, and in the field of critical youth studies.

In chapter 9 we conclude this book with an exploration of compassionate policy reforms and emancipatory practices within the rising tide of juvenile justice reform nationally and in Hawaiʻi specifically. We begin with a story of a family loss to highlight the failures of the existing justice system to bring resolution and restore peace in the face of violence. We press for better alternatives and describe the possibilities of hoʻoponopono, a practice of healing and restoration traditional to Native Hawaiians, for work among youth and families.

1

Literature Review and Background

Several literatures have helped us build our view of violence in the lives of the girls and boys in this study. First, we explore how criminologists have traditionally explained youth violence. We also examine statements about masculinity and violent street codes (Anderson 1999), and review feminist explanations of the ways that girls’ violence relates to male domination.

Because violence is only a part of the experiences of the teens, our second goal is to outline themes in the critical youth studies literature as a way to connect the experiences of these adolescents with common trends affecting youth from a variety of backgrounds. Third, we briefly outline the literature on punitive trends in juvenile justice and education institutions. Because our primary goal is to trace how youth violence is related to the histories of racialization, colonialism, and patriarchy in the United States, our fourth and last goal is to offer a thesis about colonial patriarchy.

YOUTH VIOLENCE: CRIMINOLOGISTS’ EXPLANATIONS

The topic of youth violence has been a concern in seminal criminological work—including analyses of gangs and street corner boys—since the early- to mid-twentieth century (Cloward and Ohlin 1960; Cohen 1955; Merton 1957; Miller 1958; Shaw 1930; Shaw and McKay 1942; Thrasher 1936). To summarize a long history of youth violence scholarship, one might say that criminologists tend to view physical aggression as a reaction of youth to blocked structural opportunities. In other words, when teens and young adults sense that their chances of gaining conventional, middle-class success are limited, violence can be an individual and collective solution.

In addition to the focus on blocked structural opportunities, there are at least three other common trends in this literature. First, criminologists have been rather male-focused for decades, with delinquent boys and criminal young men consistently in researchers’ spotlight. Second, criminologists have focused on urban areas, while suburban, small-town, and rural locales are often overlooked. Third, when discussing blocked opportunities for success, crime scholars often focus on middle-class status as a marker of success. Therefore, socioeconomic conditions and class inequalities that keep youth from entering America’s middle class remain central in many statements.

Since the 1980s, researchers (especially urban ethnographers) have been especially attuned to shifts in the U.S. political economy as an explanation for youth violence. In terms of economic shifts, the outmigration of industries from U.S. borders is said to have left many neighborhoods and certain segments of the U.S. population without stable employment. From the later part of the nineteenth century to the 1950s, American industries (many of which were located in urban centers) offered stable, unskilled or semiskilled jobs for working-class men (and some women). Once these industries were gone, the urban working class became the urban underclass in just a few decades. Remembering that criminologists often explain violence (and many other types of crime) as reactions to blocked economic opportunities, one can see how the rampant poverty left by deindustrialization introduced seemingly insurmountable barriers to inner-city youth.

Researchers have also argued that neoliberalism has exacerbated the economic dislocations described above.¹ Scholars (Anderson 1999; Block et al. 1987; Katz 1989; Wacquant 2014) assert that since the 1980s, politicians have espoused neoliberal ideologies and policies that have exacerbated the economic devastation in urban areas in many ways. Specifically, a neoliberal agenda has failed to connect the unemployed to jobs and has underfunded the services and institutions that could have supported those facing the brunt of deindustrialization and unemployment in the United States. Consequently, institutions such as public schools, community-based programs, and other service-centered organizations in the poorest areas of the country have been starved for funding and political support since the 1980s. Put simply, the institutions (including schools) meant to provide opportunities for young people and families were gutted.

Race-based inequalities have also been understood to influence youth violence through residential segregation and community stigma. Because of years of racial discrimination in formal policies and informal practices, the United States has been marked by severe racial residential segregation, what some have called a system of American apartheid (Massey and Denton 1987, 1993). De jure segregation through Jim Crow laws (beginning roughly in the 1870s) and then de facto segregation (after de jure segregation laws were dismantled in the 1950s and 1960s) meant that Black families and recent immigrants to the United States were barred from living in White neighborhoods. Instead, those designated as racial minorities were often restricted to living in particular urban enclaves or ghettos (Massey and Denton 1987, 1993; Wacquant 2001). Not surprisingly, many of these racial and ethnic enclaves faced the brunt of economic restructuring.

The racial stigma cast on communities is also seen by researchers as having played a significant role in blocking legitimate opportunities for those living in the poorest urban neighborhoods. Because inner-city neighborhoods became known as crime-ridden and violent communities, these areas, and the residents within them, were consequently marked by the problems brought on by deindustrialization. For example, public discourse and mass media portrayals have often painted inner-city dwellers as being welfare dependent, pathologically criminal, and dangerous to society (Wacquant 2001).²

Masculinity, Violence, and the Code of the Streets

As noted, criminological explanations of youth violence are decidedly male centered; there are at least two reasons for this. First, because many criminologists focus on the deindustrialization of urban centers and