criminology

1

SYG2323: Criminology

SFC/Manning

Writing Assignment (WA 1): Secondary Data Analysis-Literature Review

Total Points Possible: 50 pts.

(See Syllabus for Due Date) ________

Write a summary analysis of the journal article given to you on Canvas (pick one). For the majority of

the essay, you are writing the article analysis in your own words but you must demonstrate the ability to

know when and how to use APA style in-text citations for quotes and paraphrases, and your sources

ideologies, definitions, dates and statistics. You also need to create an APA style reference page (at the

end of your essay). Give a good but brief introduction and be sure to explore the following phases of the

articles research process in your review: theory, methodology, findings and conclusions (if any are not

included in the article, you need to state that in the conclusions). Three page maximum length.

Show your ability to apply terminology from the assigned readings and classroom discussion into your

essay when appropriate. It is very important to note that this class is a discipline specific writing class

and we will be using APA style citations. You must demonstrate the ability to use the APA style tools

you have learned in-class in all your writing assignments this semester.

Type your name, writing assignment number, class meeting time and date in the upper right/left hand

corner, this header should be single spaced. The writing assignment should be in proper left align

paragraph format. The body of the text should be double spaced using a 10 or 12 font size with 1”

borders. To guarantee the assignments do not accumulate late points they must be turned in on or

before the beginning of the class period of the assigned due date. If you send the assignments as an E-

mail attachment, make sure your file is sent as a MS Word or Rich Text Format (rtf) document or I may

not be able to open it—which is the same as not receiving it. Remember, there is a loss of 5 points per

each day the assignment is late (see syllabus).

The Research Process Explored:

Abstract

Introduction

-Methodology: Analyze secondary data (the lit review is what we are doing for this assignment)
Theory

Methodology (primary data collection not conducted but explored)

Findings

Discussion & Conclusions

-References

i m Poverty? Race,
o f L o w – S k i l l e d

gers at the Gates:
irica, edited by R.
;rsity of California

ichter. 2003. How
ion and the Social
y, C A : University

Society. Berkeley,
:ess.
eroskedasticity-
Estimator and a

ry.” Econometrica

ihood Estimation
metrica 50:1-25.
i Disadvantaged:
md Public Policy.
ago Press.
pears: The World
York: Alfred A .

M . Neckerman.
Structure: The
and Public Policy
? Poverty: What
1S. Danziger and
irvard University

md Moral Order.
fornia Press,
inants of Recent
;.” International

innarelli. 2001.
‘are Programs:
deralism: Issues
igton, DC: The

Loprest. 2001.
Disadvantaged
New World of

i d R. Haskins.
Institution.
98. Growing up
•en Adapt to Life
: Russell Sage

Violence, Older Peers, and the
Socialization of Adolescent Boys in
Disadvantaged Neighborhoods

David J. Harding
University of Michigan

Most theoretical perspectives on neighborhood effects on youth assume that
neighborhood context serves as a source of socialization. The exact sources and
processes underlying adolescent socialization in disadvantaged neighborhoods, however,
are largely unspecified and unelaborated. This article proposes that cross-cohort
socialization by older neighborhood peers is one source of socialization for adolescent
boys. Data from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey suggest that adolescents
in disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to spend time with older individuals. I
analyze qualitative interview data from 60 adolescent boys in three neighborhoods in
Boston to understand the causes and consequences of these interactions and
relationships. Some of the strategies these adolescents employ to cope with violence in
disadvantaged neighborhoods promote interaction with older peers, particularly those
who are most disadvantaged. Furthermore, such interactions can expose adolescents to
local, unconventional, or alternative cultural models.

Most theoretical perspectives on neighbor-hood effects on youth assume that the
neighborhood serves as a source of socialization,
particularly for adolescents. Through differen-
tial exposure to behavioral models or cultural
ideas, disadvantaged neighborhoods are thought
to influence how young people make decisions
in domains such as schooling and romantic rela-

tionships. For example, Wilson’s (1996) social
isolation theory argues that residents o f poor
neighborhoods are isolated from middle class or
mainstream social groups, organizations, and
institutions as a result of joblessness. Social
isolation creates cultural isolation, which—
when combined with diminished educational
and labor market opportunities—leads to the

Direct correspondence to David J. Harding at
Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, ~
500 S. State St., A n n A r b o r , M I 48109-1382
(dharding@umich.edu). Funding for this research
was provided by the National Science Foundation
(SES-0326727), The William T. Grant Foundation, the
American Educational Research Association/Institute
o f Education Sciences, the MacArthur Foundation
Network on Inequality and Economic Performance,
and the Harvard M u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y Program on
Inequality and Social Policy, which is funded by an
NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeship grant. A n N I C H D Post-Doctoral
Fellowship at the Population Studies Center at the
University o f Michigan provided additional support.
Katherine Newman, Christopher Winship, Robert
Sampson, Christopher Jencks, Jeff Morenoff, A l

Young Jr., Renee Anspach, Andrew Clarkwest, Brian
Goesling, the ASR editors and reviewers, and audi-
ences at the C U N Y Graduate Center, Temple
University, Harvard University, UCLA, UC-Berkeley,
University o f Michigan, University o f Wisconsin,
Cornell University, New York University, and the
University o f Chicago provided helpful comments on
previous versions o f this article. Shutsu Chai,
Johnathan Smith, and Stephen Rose provided excel-
lent research assistance during the fieldwork, and
Shutsu Chai, Stephen Rose, Kai Jenkins, Lauren
Galarza, Aghogho Edevbie, Meaghan Cotter, Amanda
Braun, and Randall Monger worked tirelessly to code
the data. I thank Anthony Braga of Harvard University
and Carl Walter o f the Boston Police Department’s
Boston Regional Intelligence Center for providing the
incident data presented in Table 2.

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2 0 0 9 , V O L . 74 (June:445-464)

4 4 6 A M E R I C A N S O C I O L O G I C A L R E V I E W

development o f cultural repertoires that differ
from those of working- or middle-class com-
munities. Neighborhood interactions can thus
expose young people to “ghetto-specific” cul-
tural models.

The exact sources and processes underlying
such adolescent socialization are, however,
largely unspecified. Wilson (1996) argues that
in neighborhoods with high joblessness, life is
not organized around work, and the experience
of observing adults going to work or discussing
their jobs is absent. Yet critics counter that even
in high joblessness neighborhoods, many peo-
ple are working or going to school and that
neighbors can just as easily serve as models of
what not to do (Newman 1999). While many
African American middle-class families leave
ghetto neighborhoods, many also remain
(Patillo-McCoy 1999). Moreover, both survey
and ethnographic research show strong support
for mainstream ideals regarding work, educa-
tion, marriage, and cmldbearing among the poor
(Edin and Kefalas 2005; Goldenberg et al. 2001;
Newman 1999; Solorzano 1992; Young 2004).
What then are the sources of alternative or ghet-
to-specific cultural models in poor neighbor-
hoods? Who exposes adolescents to these ideas,
and why do adolescents take these individuals
seriously, often against the wishes of parents,
ministers, teachers, and other community
adults?

This article proposes that at least part o f the
answer lies in cross-cohort socialization. This
is the socialization of adolescent boys by older
neighborhood peers, particularly those most
likely to be available in the neighborhood: older
men who are unemployed, not in school, and
involved in the underground economy. Drawing
on representative survey data from the National
Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS), I
show that, compared with their counterparts in
more advantaged neighborhoods, adolescents in
disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to
spend time with older peers. The majority of this
article attempts to understand the sources and
implications of this pattern. Based on in-depth,
unstructured interviews with 60 adolescent boys
and their parents in three Boston communities,
I describe the role older peers play in the social-
ization o f adolescent boys in two poor areas.
Violence in these areas reinforces the neigh-
borhood as a form of social identity, restricts
adolescent boys’ pool of potential friends, struc-

tures their use of geographic space, and leads
younger adolescent boys to greater interaction
with older adolescents and young adults on the
street. A l l of these are unintended consequences
of boys’ strategies for navigating dangerous
streets. Older males, particularly those who are
unemployed and out o f school, become an
important potential source of neighborhood
socialization for these boys and have the power
to influence their decision making in domains
beyond safety. By contrast, adolescent boys in
a third Boston community with a low poverty
rate and less violence have few older friends and
acquaintances and experience less exposure to
such socialization.

N E I G H B O R H O O D EFFECTS A N D
A D O L E S C E N T S O C I A L I Z A T I

O N

Social isolation theory argues that lack of par-
ticipation in the mainstream labor market iso-
lates residents of inner-city communities from
middle-class social groups, organizations, and
institutions (Wilson 1996). According to this
theory, children in high joblessness neighbor-
hoods do not experience life organized around
work, and illicit income reduces attachment to
the labor market. Social interaction in isolated
neighborhoods leads to the development of cul-
tural repertoires that differ from the mainstream.
Socially and culturally isolated from wider soci-
ety and without resources or opportunities for
social mobility, residents’ social problems spi-
ral into a vicious cycle.

Social isolation theory assumes that neigh-
borhood interactions expose young people in
poor neighborhoods to neighborhood-specific
cultural models that differ from those common
among the middle class.1 Yet there is strong
support for conventional ideals about educa-
tion, work, welfare, and marriage among the
poor (Edin and Kefalas 2005; Goldenberg et al.
2001; Newman 1999; Solorzano 1992; Young
2004). It is unclear then, who transmits ghetto-

1 Quinn and Holland (1987:4) define “cultural
models” as “presupposed, taken-for-granted models
o f the world that are widely shared (although not
necessarily to the exclusion of other, alternative mod-
els) by the members of a society and that play an
enormous role in their understanding o f that world
and their behavior in it.”

V I O L E N C E , A D O L E S C E N T B O Y S , A N D O L D E R P E E R S 4 4 7

e, and leads
r interaction
idults on the
Dnsequences
; dangerous
lose who are
become an
ighborhood
/e the power
; in domains
cent boys i n
low poverty
r friends and
exposure to

O N

lack of par-
market iso-
unities from
zations, and
ding to this
;s neighbor-
ized around
tachment to
i in isolated
ment of cul-
mainstream.
1 wider soci-
rtunities for
oblems spi-

that neigh-
g people in
)od-specific
ise common
re is strong
oout educa-
among the

enberg et al.
992; Young
mits ghetto-

ine “cultural
anted models
although not
;mative mod-
that play an

of that world

specific or unconventional cultural models to
young people in disadvantaged neighborhoods
and how these models pass from generation to
generation. A purely structural account, in which
each succeeding generation faces similar struc-
tural barriers and develops similar cultural adap-
tations, does not suffice. Because adolescents
respond differently to structural limitations, as
evidenced by considerable variation w i t h i n
neighborhoods in outcomes, response to blocked
opportunities cannot be the whole story. Even
in the poorest neighborhoods, dropping out of
high school, joblessness, and teenage pregnan-
cy are far from universal.

One potential mechanism for these cultural
transmission processes that has not been fully
investigated is peers. As youths enter adoles-
cence, the focus of their social world shifts from
family to peers. Duncan, Boisjoly, and Harris
(2001) find relatively large correlations among
friends on developmental outcomes, in some
cases almost as large as correlations among
siblings. Peer effects are frequently invoked to
understand delinquency and drug use (Akers et
al. 1979; Haynie 2001; Sutherland 1947; Warr
and Stafford 1991), but l i t t l e recent work
addresses the role o f peers in neighborhood
effects, particularly with regard to outcomes in
other domains. One exception is Anderson
(1990,1999), who argues that peer “street” cul-
tures in disadvantaged neighborhoods promote
teenage pregnancy.

The broader literature on socialization
emphasizes that socialization is an active
process (Adler and Adler 1998; Corsaro and
Eder 1995; Eder andNenga 2003; Simon, Eder,
and Evans 1992), in which youths have con-
siderable agency to develop “new patterns of
t h i n k i n g and a c t i n g ” (Corsaro and Eder
1995:433) by mcorporating elements of both the
wider adult culture and local peer cultures
(Adler and Adler 1998). This “interpretive
approach” (Corsaro and Eder 1995) views a
youth as a “discoverer o f meaning” (rather than
an empty vessel to be filled by adults) who
engages in “creative appropriation” through
social interaction.

Yet socialization researchers typically study
middle-class youth (Adler and Adler 1998; Eder
1995; G i l l i g a n , Lyons, and Hanmer 1990;
Simon et al. 1992; Youniss and Smollar 1985),
and so they focus either on the family or age-
structured settings such as schools or organ-

ized sports (e.g., Fine 1979) where youths tend
to develop ties w i t h same-age peers.
Socialization of youths in urban neighborhoods,
which ethnographers describe as more age and
class heterogeneous (Anderson 1990, 1999;
Horowitz 1983; Sullivan 1989), is understudied.
Perhaps because their subjects tend to be pre-
adolescents embedded in age-structured, mid-
dle-class contexts, socialization researchers
implicitly make a binary distinction between
adults and children and assume that such con-
texts are the primary settings for formation of
friendships and peer groups. Indeed, Eder and
Nenga (2003) note the need for research on
adolescent socialization outside family and
school settings.

The ethnographic and urban poverty literature
on cultural transmission processes describes
the dynamics of multiple competing sources of
socialization among adolescents in disadvan-
taged neighborhoods. Classic accounts of crim-
inal socialization emphasize the role o f older
peers i n introducing adolescents to criminal
opportunities and skills (Cloward and Ohlin
1960; Sullivan 1989; Thrasher 1927; Whyte
1943). Anderson’s (1990, 1999) ethnographic
description o f the competition between con-
ventional (decent) and oppositional (street) ori-
entations in poor neighborhoods provides the
framework for much contemporary research.
Decent families compete with peer groups and
others with street orientations for adolescents’
attention when adolescents make key decisions
about school, crime, and sexual behavior.
Parents work to separate their children from
neighborhood influences (Furstenburg et al.
1999), and schools fail to engage students when
teachers interpret their street behavior as resist-
ance ( M a t e u – G e l a b e r t and Lune 2 0 0 7 ) .
Anderson has been criticized for using his sub-
jects’ cultural categories as analytical categories
(Wacquant 2002), but his ethnographic descrip-
tion o f competing cultural codes in poor neigh-
borhoods is widely accepted.

Although implicit in many ethnographic
descriptions o f life in poor neighborhoods
(Anderson 1999; Horowitz 1983; Suttles 1968;
Whyte 1943), the causes of cross-age interac-
tions and their implications for adolescent
socialization are underexplored. Anderson
(1990, 1999) laments the decline of the cultur-
al authority o f the “old head”—an older man
who imparts decent values to neighborhood

4 4 8 A M E R I C A N S O C I O L O G I C A L R E V I E W

boys. Such figures face competition from drug
dealers and hustlers presenting alternative mod-
els o f success (cf. Young 2007). A l t h o u g h
Anderson describes in detail the nature and
content of old heads’ interactions with adoles-
cents, he provides little information about their
replacements, the young men held in high regard
in the neighborhood because of their resources
from the underground economy and their suc-
cessful navigation of dangerous streets. How
they interact with and transmit cultural models
to adolescent boys is not specified, nor are the
reasons that adolescent boys take their mes-
sages seriously (apart from their social status in
the neighborhood). To understand how neigh-
borhood cultural transmission processes oper-
ate, we need to know how d i f f e r e n t
neighborhoods influence adolescent social net-
works and how interaction with different peers
shapes adolescent cultural frameworks.

Underlying my analysis o f boys’ perspec-
tives and experiences is a cognitive view o f cul-
ture. Rather than examining values or attitudes
and explaining individual behavior via involve-
ment in a particular subculture in which certain
behavior is normative, this perspective views
culture as fragmented and composed o f “dis-
parate bits o f information and . . . schematic
structures that organize that information”
(DiMaggio 1997:263). Following Harding
(2007), I view poor neighborhoods as cultural-
ly heterogeneous, presenting adolescents with
a wide array of competing and conflicting cul-
tural models. From this perspective, there are
multiple cultural models from which to choose
(Fuller et al. 1996; Quinn and Holland 1987;
Swidler 1986). Key concepts employed to
understand socialization are scripts or strategies
of action (Swidler 1986), repertoires or toolkits
(Hannerz 1969; Swidler 1986), and frames
(Benford and Snow 2000; Goffman 1974; Small
2002). A n advantage of this approach is that
socialization can occur not just via involvement
in a cohesive subculture but also via the intro-
duction of alternative ways of conceptualizing
problems (frames) and their solutions (scripts,
strategies of action). For example, older peers
may structure the frames regarding gender dis-
trust that adolescent boys bring to romantic
relationships (Harding formcoming).

S O C I A L O R G A N I Z A T I O N OF
V I O L E N C E

While social isolation theory posits cultural
consequences o f neighborhood disadvantage,
social organization theory emphasizes com-
munity capacity for social control, arguing that
neighborhood disadvantage leads to difficul-
ties mamtaining order (Park and Burgess 1925;
Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997; Shaw
and McKay [1942] 1969). Social organization
models have been used primarily to explain
neighborhood differences in crime, violence,
and delinquency ( f o r an e x c e p t i o n , see
Browning, Leventhal, and Brooks-Gunn 2005).
Social organization predicts not just a neigh-
borhood’s level of violence, but also how its
residents respond to violence. Sharkey (2006)
shows that adolescents in neighborhoods with
higher levels of collective efficacy have greater
“street efficacy,” that is, the perceived ability to
avoid violence and victimization in their neigh-
borhoods. Neighborhoods w i t h low social
organization may have difficulty regulating
other adolescent behaviors, but whether social
organization theory can explain neighborhood
effects on other outcomes remains unclear. This
article suggests one avenue through which social
organization can have consequences in domains
other than violence, such as education and sex-
ual behavior. When a community cannot ade-
quately control violence, adolescents’ social
networks, and therefore their socialization, are
affected.

Elaborating these neighborhood processes
requires understanding the organization of vio-
lence in poor neighborhoods. Many studies
focus on status contestation in gangs or the
interpersonal dynamics of reputation. According
to Thrasher (1927), conflict with other gangs is
a central element in gang life, and “gang war-
fare” erupts over status, economic assets, terri-
tory, and the safety o f members. Short and
Strodtbeck (1965) argue that gang conflict is
also part of status management within a gang,
as members use violence within the gang and
between rival gangs to establish and maintain
leadership roles.

Anderson (1999) describes the social and
cultural dynamics of street violence beyond the
role o f gangs. Young men “campaign for
respect” on the streets according to a “street
code” o f informal rules governing masculinity,
violence, and public behavior (cf. Mateo-

. . – . 3 * I P

SI

sits cultural
isadvantage,
asizes com-
arguing that
to difficul-

rrgess 1925;
1997; Shaw
)rganization
‘ to explain
e, violence,
p t i o n , see
j u n n 2005).
rst a neigh-
Jso how its
rkey (2006)
rhoods with
rave greater
ed ability to
their neigh-
low social
regulating

ether social
ighborhood
nclear. This
vhich social
in domains

on and sex-
;annot ade-
ints’ social
ization, are

I processes
tion of vio-
ny studies
ngs or the
. According
ler gangs is
‘gang war-
ssets,terri-
Short and
conflict is

l i n a gang,
3 gang and
d maintain

social and
beyond the
paign for
3 a “street
asculinity,
f. Mateo-

V I O L E N C E , A D O L E S C E N T B O Y S , A N D O L D E R P E E R S 4 4 9

Table 1. Percent of NELS Respondents from Urban Areas Reporting that They Spend Most of
Their Time w i t h People Who Are Older (but under age 26) at First Follow-up (10th
grade)

Zip Code Disadvantage
Quintile

A l l Adolescents
( N = 9,291)

Male Adolescents
(N = 4,514)

Female Adolescents
(N = 4,757)

1st (least) 48.5% 42.8% 55.0%
2nd 53.1% 44.6% 60.8%
3rd 57.0% 52.6% 60.6%
4th 58.4% 50.8% 65.5%
5th (most) 64.5% 55.6% 71.5%

All 55.9% 48.5% 62.5%

Source: NELS:88 base year (1988) and first follow-up (1990).
Notes: Estimates adjust for the NELS sampling design and weights. In each column, zip code differences are
statistically significant atp < .01.

Gelabert and Lune 2007). Where victimization
is common, young people view a reputation for
toughness—created and maintained by postur-
ing and fighting—as a form of protection. As
in the gang literature, violence is a means by
which status is achieved and maintained.
A l t h o u g h this form o f status contestation
through violence is often interpersonal,
Anderson notes (without development) that it
can be group or neighborhood based, as well.
Below I build upon these theoretical concepts—
status contestation, defended territory, and
respect, reputation, and masculinity through
violence—to understand the consequences o f
violence for the peer networks of adolescent
boys in poor neighborhoods.

N E I G H B O R H O O D D I S A D V A N T A G E
A N D I N T E R A C T I O N W I T H OLDER
PEERS

For older peers to play a role in the differential
socialization of adolescents in poor neighbor-
hoods, such adolescents must experience greater
interaction with them. I investigate whether this
is the case using nationally representative data
from the National Educational Longitudinal
Survey (NELS). In the first follow-up, con-
ducted two years after 8th grade respondents
were sampled, adolescents were asked about
the ages o f the “people with whom you spend
most of your time.” I use responses to this ques-
tion in conjunction with the respondent’s age to
construct an indicator for whether the respon-
dent spends most of his time with individuals
who are older than him but under age 26. This
age cutoff corresponds most closely to the age

range of older peers described by the adolescent
boys in the disadvantaged areas in the field-
work presented below.

Table 1 shows the percent of urban adoles-
cents who report spending most of their time
with individuals who are older but under age 26,
stratified by type of zip code, a proxy for neigh-
borhood. Zip codes are divided into quintiles of
a disadvantage scale constructed from the fol-
lowing census variables (measured at the zip
code level): family poverty rate, male unem-
ployment rate, percent of families headed by a
single mother, median household income, per-
cent of workers in managerial or professional
occupations, and percent of individuals over
age 25 who have a college degree. Results are
presented for all urban adolescents and for boys
and girls separately. Further information about
data and methodology is presented in the Online
Supplement on the ASR Web site (http://www2.
asanet.org/journals/asr/2009/toc069.html).

Three limitations of these data make it d i f f i –
cult to detect differences across neighborhoods
in the type o f interactions with older peers on
which I focus in the qualitative data below (i.e.,
older, non-kin males in the immediate neigh-
borhood). First, zip codes provide very broad
definitions o f neighborhoods. Averaging over
larger, more diverse geographic areas w i l l atten-
uate any neighborhood differences based on
neighborhood socioeconomic composition.
Second, a key characteristic of disadvantaged
neighborhoods in the qualitative analysis is
neighborhood violence, but NELS data do not
provide information on neighborhood violence.
To the degree that some low-violence disad-
vantaged neighborhoods are included in the

4 5 0 A M E R I C A N S O C I O L O G I C A L R E V I E W

data, they w i l l attenuate the neighborhood dif-
ferences in interaction with older peers. Third,
although the qualitative analysis focuses on
non-kin older peers, the wording o f the NELS
survey question does not allow me to exclude
family members from the older peers captured
in the NELS data or to focus on same-sex older
peers. This may be exacerbated by the “most of
your time” wording in the NELS question,
which suggests a greater level of interaction
than that described in the qualitative interviews.
To the degree that kin or opposite sex individ-
uals are included in the NELS responses, neigh-
borhood differences w i l l again be attenuated.
For these reasons, the neighborhood differences
observed in the NELS data are smaller than
those observed in the qualitative data present-
ed below, where the measures can be more pre-
cisely defined.2

Despite these limitations, this descriptive
analysis provides evidence that, compared with
adolescents in middle-class neighborhoods, both
male and female adolescents in disadvantaged
neighborhoods are significantly more likely to
interact regularly with older peers. Although
base levels o f older peer interaction are higher
for girls than for boys, cross-neighborhood dif-
ferences are similar. Girls’ greater interaction
with older peers is likely due to their dating
older boys, a consistent finding in the literature
on adolescent romantic relationships (Elo, King,
and Furstenberg 1999; Ford, Sohn, and
Lepkowski 2001). A logistic regression pre-
sented in the Online Supplement controls for a
large number of individual and school covari-
ates and also finds neighborhood differences in
interaction with older individuals.

This analysis simply shows that, although
the magnitudes o f neighborhood differences
are different, the neighborhood differences in
cross-age interaction observed among adoles-
cent boys in the fieldwork data also exist in a
nationally representative sample of adolescents.
It demonstrates an association between neigh-
borhood disadvantage and the probability o f
cross-age interaction, for which qualitative data
are ill-suited.

2 Note that there is also a difference between the
time period of the NELS survey (1990) and the field-
work (2003 to 2004).

F I E L D W O R K M E T H O D O L O G Y

I conducted unstructured interviews with 60
adolescent boys, ages 13 to 18, living in three
predominantly African American areas o f
Boston (20 boys per area). For 80 percent, I
also interviewed a parent or primary caretaker.
I focus on boys because of their greater involve-
ment in and exposure to street violence and to
allow a gender match between subject and inter-
viewer. The Online Supplement provides a
detailed description of the fieldwork and analy-
sis, including subject and neighborhood char-
acteristics, subject recruitment, interview
content, data interpretation and cross-check-
ing, analysis procedures, and challenges in con-
ducting f i e l d w o r k w i t h this p o p u l a t i o n ,
including issues of race and social distance.

I selected the study areas to allow for explic-
it comparisons between similar youth in neigh-
borhoods with different poverty rates. Two of the
areas (“Roxbury Crossing” and “Franklin”)
have high rates o f family poverty (35 to 40 per-
cent). The third area (“Lower Mills”) has a low
poverty rate (below 10 percent). Each area con-
sists of two contiguous census tracts. Additional
neighborhood characteristics from the 2000
Census are provided in the Online Supplement.
As I define them, Roxbury Crossing, Franklin,
and Lower M i l l s are areas o f the city rather
than social neighborhoods. Each area encom-
passes multiple locales that more closely
approximate neighborhoods recognizable to res-
idents, but the neighborhoods within each area
share parallel histories and demographic and
structural characteristics.

To understand the boys’ neighborhoods, the
interviews investigated how the subjects con-
ceptualize their neighborhoods as geographic
and social spaces and how the neighborhood
overlaps with their social networks, daily trav-
el, and institutions. Although a full discussion
is beyond the scope of this article, when the boys
and their parents describe their neighborhoods,
they are referring to much smaller spaces, often
a few blocks in any direction.3 The

boundaries

3 Furstenberg and colleagues (1999) note that def-
initions o f neighborhood boundaries vary consider-
ably across individuals, but I am aware of no prior
research that explicitly investigates adolescents’ per-
ceptions of neighborhood size. However, evidence

Table 2. V i o l
City

Homicide

Robbery

Aggravated Ass;

Source: Author’s
Note: Denomina

of these more!
reinforced by
Roxbury Cros
delineate the
anonymity foi
ening the ge
Hereafter, “ne:
graphic and &
jects, and “are;
study areas.

Space limit
description of
ence between I
low poverty ai
zation of violf
patterned in u
and Raudenbv.
2004). Young
borhoods are
and violence (
2000; Center;
the adolescei
and Franklin
their counter]
these neighbo
present threat

from a differei
conceive of the
(Cobbina, M i l !
tent with the s
Hunter (1974)
poor tend to h£
borhoods. Hai
social construi
more detail.

VIOLENCE, ADOLESCENT BOYS, AND OLDER PEERS 451

vs with 60
ng i n three
n areas o f
I percent, I
y caretaker,
.ter involve –
ence and to
ct and inter-
provides a
£ and analy-
rhood char-
, interview
•ross-check-
nges in con-
o p u l a t i o n ,
distance,

v for explic-
itly i n neigh-
;s. Two of the
“Franklin”)

35 to 40per-
s”) has a low
ich area con-
s. Additional
m the 2000
Supplement,
ng, Franklin,
S city rather
area encom-
ore closely
dzable to res-
l i n each area
Jgraphic and

orhoods, the
ubjects con-
: geographic
eighborhood
s, daily trav-

discussion
vhen the boys

hborhoods,
spaces, often

boundaries

note that def-
‘ary consider-

o f no prior
olescents’per-
ver, evidence

Table 2. Violent Crime Counts and Rates per 1,000 Residents ( i n italics) by Study Area and for
City of Boston as a Whole

F r a n k l i n
Roxbury
Crossing Lower M i l l s City of Boston

2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004

Homicide 4 8 1 ‘ 0 0 3 39 61
.34 .67 .16 .31 .07 .10

Robbery 16 68 48 46 26 23 2759 2433
6.39 5.71 7.78 7.46 2.72 2.40 4.68 4.13

Aggravated Assault 171 157 83 90 58 44 4113 4151
14.37 13.19 13.46 14.60 6.06 4.60 6.98 7.05

Source: Author’s calculations from incident data provided by Boston Police Department.
Note: Denominator for rates is 2000 Census total population.

of these more limited spaces are to some degree
reinforced by the violence described below.
Roxbury Crossing, Franklin, and Lower Mills
delineate the three study areas and provide
anonymity for the research subjects by broad-
ening the geographic scope o f reference.
Hereafter, “neighborhood” w i l l refer to the geo-
graphic and social spaces defined by the sub-
jects, and “area” w i l l distinguish the three larger
study areas.

Space limitations preclude a more detailed
description of the three areas, but a key differ-
ence between the two high poverty areas and the
low poverty area is the level and social organi-
zation of violence. Violence is highly spatially
patterned in urban areas (Morenoff, Sampson,
and Raudenbush 2001; Sampson and Morenoff
2004). Young people from high poverty neigh-
borhoods are exposed to high rates o f crime
and violence (American Academy of Pediatrics
2000; Centers for Disease Control 1997), and
the adolescent boys from Roxbury Crossing
and Franklin are no exception. In contrast to
their counterparts in Lower M i l l s , the boys i n
these neighborhoods must contend with an ever
present threat o f conflict and victimization.

from a different city also suggests that adolescents
conceive o f their neighborhoods as particularly small
(Cobbina, Miller, and Branson 2008). Also consis-
tent with the small neighborhoods identified here,
Hunter (1974) finds that young individuals and the
poor tend to have smaller definitions of their neigh-
borhoods. Harding (forthcoming) investigates the
social construction o f neighborhood boundaries in
more detail.

Table 2 shows violent crime rates and counts
for the three study areas and for Boston as a
whole during the fieldwork period. Because
they are rare events, homicides provide indica-
tions of the most severe violence. By this meas-
ure, Franklin is the most violent of the three
study areas. Rates of robbery and aggravated
assault, much more frequent events, illustrate the
key distinction between Lower M i l l s , the low
poverty area, and the two high poverty areas,
Roxbury Crossing and Franklin. By both meas-
ures, Roxbury Crossing and Franklin have much
higher rates of violence than do Lower Mills or
Boston as a whole. This street violence is rarely
random or indiscriminate. Rather, it is organized
by both interpersonal and neighborhood-based
“beefs,” ongoing conflicts that wax and wane
and are largely based on individual and neigh-
borhood status contestation. Neighborhood
rivalries structure much of the serious violence
that occurs in Boston’s disadvantaged neigh-
borhoods, including Roxbury Crossing and
Franklin.

The ability to make comparisons across
neighborhoods is a key aspect o f this study’s
design. Few qualitative studies allow systemat-
ic comparison o f experiences in poor and non-
poor neighborhoods. Asking similar questions
and discussing the same topics with individu-
als i n different neighborhoods reveals key dif-
ferences in the daily lives of adolescent boys
across neighborhoods. It was only through these
explicit comparisons that I discovered neigh-
borhood differences in experiences o f violence,
threats of victimization, and the role of older
males i n social networks. Across areas, it is
important to compare adolescents from similar

‘•V

452 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

family backgrounds, so I selected subjects to
achieve economic diversity in each area.

A G E STRUCTURE OF PEER
N E T W O R K S

Compared w i t h their counterparts i n Lower
M i l l s , the boys i n Franklin and Roxbury
Crossing interact more often with older ado-
lescents and young adults, particularly those
from their own neighborhoods. As suggested by
the NELS data, adolescent boys’ peer networks
in these two disadvantaged areas include indi-
viduals who are considerably older. Of the boys
interviewed in Franklin and Roxbury Crossing,
75 percent reported older men from outside
their families as part of their peer networks.
These older men were at least two years older
and sometimes in their mid-20s. By contrast,
only 15 percent of Lower Mills subjects report-
ed interacting with older adolescents and young
adults outside their families. In this section, I
describe how the social organization o f vio-
lence structures the age composition o f ado-
lescent boys’ peer networks i n R o x b u r y
Crossing and Franklin. In highlighting the role
o f .same-sex older peers, I am not arguing that
these actors are the only source of socialization
for the Franklin and Roxbury Crossing sub-
jects. Parents, siblings, same-age peers, girl-
friends, and extended families play important
roles as well. I focus on older peers because their
role has not been previously explored, because
comparisons across neighborhoods revealed
this stark difference, and because of their poten-
tial role in non-family cross-cohort socialization.

Two mutually reinforcing processes explain
why the adolescent boys o f F r a n k l i n and
Roxbury Crossing tend to associate more with
older peers. First, neighborhood violence
increases the salience o f neighborhood identi-
ty, leading boys to choose friends from those
available locally. Boston boys view their neigh-
borhoods as small geographic areas. Venturing
outside the neighborhood or interacting with
boys from other neighborhoods increases the
risk o f victimization, so fewer same-age friends
are available and use o f geographic space is
constrained. Second, as the younger adolescent
boys o f Roxbury Crossing and Franklin strug-
gle to cope with the ever-present threat o f vio-
lence, relationships with older peers are one
strategy for securing at least a measure o f pro-

tection. In times o f danger, older peers can be
called on to intervene, and relationships with
older peers provide status and reputational
advantages that can help prevent conflict. By
contrast, adolescent boys in Lower Mills face a
much lower threat of victimization. Their social
lives are not structured by strong neighborhood
identities that restrict social networks or the use
o f geographic space, so strategies for reducing
the threat of victimization are less necessary.

NEIGHBORHOOD VIOLENCE AND

SOCIAL

IDENTITY

Among the adolescent boys o f Franklin and
Roxbury Crossing, neighborhood violence is
simultaneously structured by neighborhood
identities and a primary way in which these
identities are experienced and reinforced in
daily life. Nearly all o f the subjects in these
two poor, violent areas use neighborhoods as
categories to distinguish insiders from outsiders.
Neighborhoods strongly influence, but do not
rigidly determine, which male peers boys social-
ize with and would consider as potential friends.
In Franklin and Roxbury Crossing, 32 o f 40
boys (80 percent) reported that more than half
o f their friends live in their immediate neigh-
borhoods, and 22 of the boys (55 percent) had
no friends from outside their neighborhoods.
Only three of 40 boys reported no neighborhood
friends. In Lower Mills, 13 of 20 boys (65 per-
cent) reported that more than half of their friends
live in their neighborhoods, and seven of the
boys (35 percent) had no friends outside the
neighborhood. Four of 20 Lower M i l l s boys
reported no neighborhood friends.

M a r c u s , a 16-year-old f r o m R o x b u r y
Crossing, helps illustrate the power of neigh-
borhood distinctions. A boy from Marcus’s
development owed him four dollars. Marcus
wanted the money but did not want to fight his
neighbor for it. Instead, Marcus told him that i f
he did not repay, he would rob his friend from
another neighborhood:

A kid owed me $4 He lives in this development,
so I didn’t want to do nothing to him, because I
knew it would cause problems. I said, ” I see you
coming around here with a kid that you hang out
with, and I really don’t care for the kid, ’cause the
kid’s not from around here. It’s either I get my
money, or we’re going to have problems,” because
that $4 means something to me, ’cause my fami-
ly does not have that much. I told him, ” I ‘ l l rob your

VIOLENCE, ADOLESCENT BOYS, AND OLDER PEERS 4 5 3

peers can be
mships with
reputational
conflict. By

r Mills face a
.. Their social
leighborhood
rks or the use
for reducing
necessary.

SOCIAL

Franklin and
d violence is
leighborhood

which these
reinforced i n
jects in these
hborhoods as

m outsiders,
but do not

boys social-
Qtial friends.

, 32 o f 40
than half

sdiate neigh-
percent) had
“hborhoods.

ghborhood
>oys (65 per-
? their friends
seven of the
outside the
M i l l s boys

R o x b u r y
o f neigh-
Marcus’s
. Marcus
fight his

urn that i f
end from

‘elopment,
because I
I see you
hang out
cause the
I get my
‘because
my fami-
rob your

friend the next time I see him around here.” . . . I
had my $4 in my hand the next day…. We just
shook hands, and we left it at that.

This story reveals the salience o f neighbor-
hood distinctions for Marcus, but it also indi-
cates that this distinction is not universally
important, as the other boy did have a friend
from another neighborhood. From Marcus’s
perspective, conflicts among neighborhood
insiders are different from those between youth
from different neighborhoods. Conflicts among
neighbors are resolved quickly, although some-
times with a physical fight. Third parties from
the neighborhood take on a mediating role to
resolve a dispute before it escalates into an
ongoing beef. There is often social pressure to
resolve a dispute and “leave it at that.” When
conflicts between youths from different neigh-
borhoods emerge, however, each youth becomes
a representative o f his neighborhood, with its
reputation at stake. Others may become
involved, either to seek retribution and redemp-
tion for the neighborhood or to protect its rep-
utation.4

Consider an incident recounted by Chris, a
14-year-old Franklin resident. Soon after arriv-
ing at a nearby roller rink, Chris and “his boys”
encountered a group o f youths from a rival
street who insulted a girl from his neighborhood:

We almost got into a fight. Some Lucerne [Street]
kids was there…. They were just making mad
noise. Cause in the Vous [the roller rink] they’re
like “Lucerne, Lucerne.” . . . There was all kinds
o f kids there though. The Point was there, and the
Head was there. D Block was there…. They had
a dance contest and the girl that was from [our
neighborhood], she was dancing. And they was
talking mad trash, so we almost got in a fight with
them. They was scared. They l e f t . . . . We was there
like 20 deep.

Neighborhood is a central organizing cate-
gory in Chris’s account. It structures not only
what happened, but the way he tells the story.
In mentioning the Point, the Head, and D Block,
Chris describes other youths using local slang

4 The role o f third parties in within- versus cross-
neighborhood violence is consistent with Black’s
(1993) argument that vengeance increases with social
distance (Phillips 2003) and the finding that medi-
ating third parties within groups can reduce violence
(Phillips and Cooney 2005).

for their neighborhoods. Chris and the boys
from his neighborhood are not being chival-
rous i n defending the g i r l . Rather, they are
defending their own neighborhood from insult
with a masculine display of physical force. A n
outside observer might expect an older brother
or boyfriend to challenge the insult, but here the
conflict quickly became a contest between
neighborhoods rather than individuals.

W i t h these dynamics, neighborhoods i n
Roxbury Crossing and Franklin become what
Suttles (1972) terms “defended communities.”
Neutral spaces such as schools, public trans-
portation, and commercial areas are also sites
o f contestation and conflict. Confrontation
between youths from different neighborhoods is
always a possibility, and youths often ask each
other what neighborhood they are from as a
challenge or physical threat. I n Roxbury
Crossing and Franklin, violence, neighborhood
identity, and community membership are close-
ly linked. Tyree, who is 17 and from Roxbury
Crossing, described how he experiences the
obligations o f community membership with
regard to violence:

I f you’re not w i l l i n g to help in the neighborhood,
then you really can’t be here. Like, i f you wasn’t
in that circle, you was outside that circle There’s
people in the neighborhood that live on the same
street and could see you getting jumped that would-
n’t care. “Oh it’s not my problem.” But i f you was
really tight, grew up together, been through ups and
downs and really been cool, know family members,
then there’s always a chance of help. I always got
to help the people in my neighborhood because you
never know when it’s going to come back to you.
I could be outside the neighborhood getting ready
to get jumped, and he could walk by and help.

People who do not support their neighbors in
fights or do not defend the neighborhood can-
not rely on neighbors for other forms of assis-
tance. Although not all boys see things this way,
for adolescents like Tyree, participating in this
system of obligations defines membership in the
community, including access to mutual protec-
tion.

By contrast, the boys of Lower Mills do not
link identity and community membership to
mutual obligations of protection. Lower M i l l s
boys tend to look to sources of membership
other than the neighborhood to situate their
identities. Small friendship groups, interests
such as sports or music, and involvement in
religious or ethnic groups are more important.

4 5 4 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

For example, Isaac, age 13, is the quarterback
of the Pop Warner football team. He frequent-
ly plays football at either the park near his house
or the after-school program he attends. He has
one or two friends from the neighborhood but
most are from his team or program. He describes
himself as someone who does not “have any
enemies,” by which he means that, unlike oth-
ers at his public middle school, neither he nor
his neighborhood has beef with anyone.

Jason, who is 18 and from Lower Mills, also
confirms the absence o f neighborhood-based
identities and rivalries in Lower M i l l s . He dis-
missed the notion of gangs in his neighborhood
as i f gangs were a passing phase among younger
adolescents:

Gangs are kind of like 8th grade. That’s kind of dry
now. Nobody is in a gang any more. You do what
you gotta do. I know people that is like freshman
year in school, don’t see them wearing their ban-
dannas any m o r e . . . . Like you won’t hear anyone
like, “Oh yeah, a whole bunch o f Crips jumped
some old lady” or something. It wouldn’t be like
a gang, it would just be a group of kids. It’s not real-
ly a gang any more cause when it comes down to
it, people are mostly for theirself.

For Jason, group-based conflicts and the
social symbols that go with them (colored ban-
dannas) are a middle-school fad, lifted from
popular culture. Some remnants remain, but
Jason does not see such conflicts affecting his
daily life; violence does not touch Lower Mills
youths like Isaac and Jason very often. When
violence does occur, it is both less serious and
more likely to stem from interpersonal disputes
than from ongoing neighborhood conflicts. I f a
boy from Lower M i l l s ventures outside his
neighborhood, he must avoid encroaching on
others’ turf, but he need not fear encountering
someone with whom his neighborhood has beef.
Lower Mills neighborhoods are outside the sys-
tem of neighborhood conflicts.

Parents also take seriously the connections
between safety, neighborhood identity, and con-
flict. For example, two parents cited neighbor-
hood identities as affecting their decisions about
school choice. When Terrell, from Franklin and
now age 16, and his mother tried to decide
which high schools he preferred, she insisted
that he not include two schools on his preference
list because many youths from a rival housing
development attend them, which would put him
at risk of assault at school. When Manuel, now

age 15, and his mother made the same decision,
she favored a particular high school because
other youths from their Franklin housing devel-
opment attend that school. He would have neigh-
borhood friends to keep him safe at school and
while traveling there and back.

By contrast, instead of violence, Lower Mills
parents worry about other challenges that ado-
lescent boys face, like staying focused on school
and avoiding early fatherhood. Darnell’s moth-
er, for example, focuses on her fear that her 13-
year-old son w i l l get “sidetracked” from school:

Violence? This neighborhood, not too much. Most
of the kids, they basically play at the park and my
son is not the fighting type. That is not one o f my
concerns, at least not right now…. I don’t want him
to get sidetracked. Girls, no. Girls and falling into
the wrong crowd. I just think i f he sees people
doing things that they think is fun but is stupid, that
he might want to try it too, just cause everybody
else is having f u n . . . . I mean because he is very
independent. He spends a lot o f time by himself
just by choice. Like sometimes I have to tell him,
go outside and play, but he is in his room writing
and reading I think he’s getting into girls. Once
he really gets into girls, I try and steer him away
from that, sex and getting girls pregnant, diseases
and just all the little things that can go on between
teenagers.

While Franklin and Roxbury Crossing parents
worry constantly about their sons becoming
enveloped in the neighborhoods’ dangers, Darnell’s
mother makes it a point to encourage him to inter-
act with his neighborhood friends and can focus
her parenting energy on other concerns.

The link between neighborhood identity and
violence affects not only those actively involved
in violence but also the boys who remain on the
sidelines. Only a small proportion of Franklin
and Roxbury Crossing youths defend their ter-
ritory from intrusion by others, confront youths
from other neighborhoods in neutral territories,
or carry out the retribution and revenge that
keep beefs going. Some boys even opt out of
neighborhood social life altogether (Furstenburg
et al. 1999). Nonetheless, any boy who ven-
tures outside his own neighborhood to go to
school, a store, or downtown risks confrontation
with youths from other neighborhoods. Most
youths travel in groups to avoid being harassed
when leaving their neighborhoods. Even those
Franklin and Roxbury Crossing youths who
never start fights with youths from other neigh-
borhoods are enveloped in the system of place-

; decision,
)1 because
ling devel-
lave neigh-
school and

ower Mills
s that ado-
1 on school
ell’s moth-
hat her 13-
om school:

much. Most
)ark and my
)t one of my
n’t want him
I falling into
sees people
s stupid, that
5 everybody
e he is very
: by himself
; to tell him,
3 0 m writing
3 girls. Once
er h i m away
ant, diseases
i on between

;ing parents
becoming

rs, Darnell’s
rim to inter-
d can focus
ns.
dentity and
:ly involved
main on the
of Franklin
id their ter-
r ont youths
: territories,
:venge that
opt out o f

^urstenburg
‘ who ven-
)d to go to
nfrontation
Dods. Most
lg harassed
Even those
ouths who
ither neigh-
m ofplace-

VIOLENGE, ADOLESCENT BOYS, AND OLDER PEERS 455

based antagonisms. Terrell was threatened with
a gun when he visited a friend who lived near
a rival housing development. The two develop-
ments had beef at the time, but Terrell was never
involved until then:

Just from us living around here, sometimes it’s a
safety issue… . Because these people [from our
development] get a lot of people riled up against
them. So they want revenge in any way. And they
don’t care i f you hang with them or you don’t
hang with them, as long as you live around here,
you’re a target to certain people.

I was actually with one of my friends, and we
were going to [a grocery store] in Jamaica Plain.
We were walking up and some people asked me
where I was from, so I told them. And then, they
pulled out a hand gun on u s . . . . It had to be like
three o’clock in the afternoon.

And it’s more than just trying to ignore it, you
gotta watch your back too. You can’t just say, “Well
yeah, I ‘ m from around here, but I don’t mess with
those guys [who are involved in neighborhood
beefs].”They’re gonna say, “So what!”

Contrast Terrell’s experience w i t h that o f
Delbert, age 14 and from Lower Mills. Like
his Franklin and Roxbury Crossing counter-
parts, Delbert tries to travel with a group when
he leaves his neighborhood, even to take the
train to go downtown. Because his Lower Mills
neighborhood is outside the system o f neigh-
borhood beefs, however, his chances of victim-
ization are far lower than Terrell’s:

I was on the T [the Boston subway] one day. I was
coming from downtown, the m o v i e s . . . . And I
was sitting there and these three kids who were like
17 came over to me and was like, “Where are you
going, where are you from, do you know the big
gangs that are around there,” and questions like that
and I answered no to all o f them.

Int: And then they left you alone?
Yeah, cause I said no.

The youths who confronted Delbert were
looking for people from certain neighborhoods
and approached him because they suspected he
was from one o f them. As a resident o f Lower
M i l l s , however, he has no connection to the
neighborhood conflicts that the youths on the
train were trying to draw out, and so he was left
alone. Neighborhood identity does not structure
Delbert’s safety as it does for Terrell.

NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITIES AND CROSS-

AGE INTERACTIONS

The small size o f the neighborhood territories
amplifies the consequences o f neighborhood
identities and defended territory for an adoles-
cent boy’s freedom of movement. Boston’s rel-
atively small public housing developments,
usually covering only a few blocks and con-
sisting of several hundred families, are natural
organizing units. Large private or co-op hous-
ing developments are also natural geographic
areas. Many of the geographic areas, however,
are single streets, one to three blocks long, and
sometimes parallel streets have longstanding
beefs.

Terrell’s experience illustrates how simply
being associated with a particular neighbor-
hood enmeshed in ongoing beefs can limit one’s
freedom o f movement. Many adolescents in
Franklin and Roxbury Crossing adopt the sur-
vival strategy of remaining in their home neigh-
borhoods as much as possible, geographically
constricted as it may be, and avoiding interac:
tion with males from other neighborhoods.5
Simon, a 16-year-old Franklin resident who has
experienced many altercations with adolescents
from other neighborhoods, rarely leaves his
neighborhood anymore. He explains how leav-
ing can easily lead to a violent confrontation i f
he is not with a group o f friends:

I don’t feel safe at all. Well, probably a little bit,
like in my neighborhood, it’s all right. But other
places? Noooo, I don’t really go out of my area that
much because I know people, just from looks, get
murdered…. Because you’re like an alien, you’re
not known over there. So the first thing you do
when you walk through there, all eyes is on y o u —
“Where you from?” . . . I f they got problems with
that area They just see you over there, and
knowing you’re not from over there, and they just
set it off with you right there It happens to me
a lot of times The best thing to do, i f you’re not
with people you know, you have to be at the [local
community center], because that’s the most safest
thing. That’s about it i f you’re not with a lump
sum [large group] o f people.

5 Cobbina and colleagues (2008) also note that ado-
lescents in high violence areas view their immediate
neighborhood as safe and stay close to home as a safe-
ty strategy.

4 5 6 A M E R I C A N S O C I O L O G I C A L R E V I E W

This strategy leaves only people who live in
one’s own neighborhood as potential friends.
The social space in question is quite small, so
same-age peers are often not abundant, leaving
older peers to f i l l the gap. Marcus, age 16,
described how the lack of same-age peers in his
development led him to socialize with the “older
guys” who are a fixture of the streets. These
older guys dispense advice to Marcus and his
friends:

[ M y two friends and I ] are the three younger indi-
viduals that live around here, so we’re forced to be
around nothing but older guys. . . . We’re put
around older guys that done been through it, that
tell you what to do, and what not to do, and how
to do it, and when to do it, and when it’s appropriate
to confront somebody, or that you’ve got a prob-
lem with.

We just hang out, talk about things that done
happened—laugh, joke with each other. One per-
son might be fixing on their car; one person might
be fixing on their bike, listening to music, and we
all just go gather around there, and just t a l k . . . .
Maybe the older guys might be sitting down, and
drinking beer and playing cards, and everybody
just gather around.

The scene Marcus described is frequently
visible to any observer who spends time in the
neighborhoods o f Franklin and Roxbury
Crossing. Hanging out in a mixed age group
(with older individuals at the center), usually on
the basketball court, a stoop, or the corner, older
adolescents and young adults recount their expe-
riences and dispense general advice.

Previous ethnographic work describes the
extensive use o f public space in poor neigh-
borhoods, owing to overcrowded apartments
and lack o f air conditioning in the summer,
which leads to “street interaction and informal
meetings” (Horowitz 1983:39). Similarly, for
adolescent males i n Franklin and Roxbury
Crossing, parks and corners are a venue for
cross-age interaction. Joseph, age 15 and from
Franklin, spends most of his non-school time at
the neighborhood basketball court and nearby
athletic fields, where he encounters individuals
o f every age, some older and some younger:

I know little kids and older, like adults, like in
their 20s or so. Teenagers my age. I know most
everyone on that court. And we all just play with
them. And now we play with our own age and
stuff like that. So it carries on through the ages, like
a legacy.

For Joseph, the neighborhood’s public spaces are
where the “legacy” is passed down to him from the
older generations, and where he w i l l pass it on to
the younger boys he encounters as well. Limited
from venturing outside their local area by vio-
lence, boys like Joseph come into frequent contact
with older males in these settings, and these males
become part of their social networks, not neces-
sarily as friends but as acquaintances.

The streets and parks of Lower Mills neigh-
borhoods present a stark contrast. Compared
with Franklin and Roxbury Crossing, the reg-
ular observer of Lower Mills will witness far less
activity in the neighborhood’s public spaces.
Greater family economic resources mean more
youths participate in formal programs after
school and on the weekends and have the pock-
et money to venture outside the neighborhood
to the movies or the arcade. For those without
such resources, there are simply fewer others of
any age hanging around the neighborhood.
When the youth of Lower Mills do associate
with older peers, their interactions are more
often family-based and take on a different char-
acter. When age inappropriate discussions or
activities arise (e.g., concerning romantic rela-
tionships, sex, or drug or alcohol use) younger
adolescents are pushed away. Delbert described
his experiences with older neighborhood peers:

Int: You said the older youths would be your broth-
er and his friends?

Yeah. His friends about like a range o f 17, 18,
and 19. Some ofthemare20 They don’t let us
hang out with them. And then i f we try hangin’ out
with them, they’ll say get out of here.

Int: Why?
Because they don’t want us to do bad things.

They want us to live our own lives and not copy
what they do and to be ourselves.

Int: What kind of bad things might you be doing?
Smoking [marijuana] probably.
Int: And why would you want to

hang out with

them ?
Cause they’re older and they’re more experi-

enced and some of them . . . [pause], but most of
them look like they’re going in the right direction.

Just as importantly, the working- and lower-
middle-class neighborhoods of Lower M i l l s
have fewer idle young men and older adoles-
cents of working age with whom younger ado-
lescents might pass the time.6 By contrast, Tyree,

6 See the Online Supplement.

lie spaces are
him from the
pass it on to

veil. Limited
area by vio-
l e n t contact
i these males
s, not neces-
s.
Mills neigh-
:. Compared
ing, the reg-
itness far less
iblic spaces,
s mean more
>grams after
ive the pock-
eighborhood
rose without
wer others o f
ighborhood.
do associate
ns are more
ifferent char-
scussions or
imantic rela-
use) younger
>ert described
)rhood peers:

beyourbroth-

nge o f 17, 18,
ley don’t let us
try hangin’ out

i o bad things,
i and not copy

‘you be doing?

hang out with

more experi-
: ] , but most o f
ight direction.

I – and lower-
Lower M i l l s
ilder adoles-
/ounger ado-
mtrast, Tyree,

VIOLENCE, ADOLESCENT BOYS, AND OLDER PEERS 457

now age 17, described the characteristics and
behaviors of the older peers in the Roxbury
Crossing neighborhood where he grew up:

I’d say they were like 16 to like 22. They was basi-
cally not going to school, selling drugs, shooting
guns, and really basically doing all the negatives.
Like they would rather sell drugs than go job hunt-
ing. . . . They rather stand outside on the comer all
day than make sure their little brothers and sisters
is getting off to the school bus.

It seems like the older you get the worser it
gets. Like i f you’re living in the neighborhood, i f
you started off young, the older you get, the hard-
er it is to leave the neighborhood because you feel
that’s where you’re from and that’s what you got
to, you got to hold the neighborhood down.

As a younger teen, Tyree did not see older
peers who were working or in school because
they were not hanging around in the streets. As
a result, the older males who were actually pres-
ent seemed more and more disadvantaged as
they got older. Tyree began to see himself
becoming more like them as he spent time with
them and became involved in neighborhood
rivalries, what he calls “holding down” the
neighborhood.

It is clear why younger adolescent boys grav-
itate toward the available older adolescents and
young adults—for both status and, as w i l l be dis-
cussed below, protection—but why do older
adolescent males and young adults in Franklin
and Roxbury Crossing attend to younger teens?
First, they see it as their duty to look out for the
younger adolescents and children in the neigh-
borhoods with which they so strongly identify,
similar to the “fictive k i n ” relationships Stack
(1974) describes. They learned this behavior
from adults and from the youths who came
before. They also see this guardian and friend-
ship behavior as a way to keep the neighborhood
safer, to keep the peace and prevent the drama
that conflicts can create. David, a 17-year-old
from Franklin, described how he watches over
younger adolescents as part o f his role as a
community member. Others who came before
looked out for fhm, and the youths he looks out
for w i l l grow up to do the same:

I f I look after somebody, then, they can probably
grow up and look after somebody else—that’s
basically what makes it a community—everybody
looking after somebody. So, i f something happens
in your neighborhood you can like stop it before
it gets worser. Like somebody selling drugs, shoot-
ing. Before those folks moved in, there was none

of that stuff going down, we could pinpoint it right
now—like take that out of here. And, basically, just
watch out for your kids. .

Note that David refers to this as watching
out for “your kids,” indicating his identification
with the neighborhood as a locus o f cross-age
ties. Yet caring for younger children and ado-
lescents extends beyond simply keeping the
peace. Older adolescents recount with pride
how they help the younger ones by giving them
a dollar when the ice cream truck arrives or
when they want a snack from the corner store.
As Stack (1974) and Newman (1999) describe,
those who have money or other resources are
obliged to share it with others in the communi-
ty, and these reciprocity norms extend to ado-
lescents as well. For Marcus, relationships with
younger adolescents have a particularly kin-
like motivation: the lack of fathers among neigh-
borhood youth.

Some kids don’t know who their father i s . . . . I
never had a big brother, so I never had an older
brother to look up to, to throw a football around
with, because me and my father never really did
that So, when a younger guy comes and asks
me to play ball, I ‘ l l be happy to play with him,
because I want him to feel like he has an older per-
son to hang out with.

Int: So what are some of the things that you try
to impart on the younger kids?

Just like the older guys tell me. I tell the little
dudes that are maybe 13, 12, “Don’t hang out in
one spot for too long, because that’s going to make
it look bad on you, and then it’s going to make it
look bad on us, because now they [the police]
think that we have you out here doin’ stuff, so
now they’re goin’ to think that we’re trying to start
up something.”

As Marcus’s account suggests, an older ado-
lescent’s interactions with younger adolescents
are about more than a simple altruistic notion
o f community and collective responsibility. By
taking responsibility for their juniors, older
peers gain the status that comes with such roles.
Whether providing a dollar for the ice cream
truck, offering instruction on how to shoot a bas-
ketball, giving a lesson on avoiding police
harassment, or sharing knowledge about roman-
tic relationships, Marcus gains the respect of
both the neighborhood kids and others his age
who play the same role. Although the focus of
this article is on the potential negative—and
often unintended—consequences o f cross-
cohort socialization, these accounts illustrate

458 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

that cross-age interactions are often altruistically
motivated and serve constructive functions as
well.

OLDER PEERS AS A PROTECTION STRATEGY

Despite the power o f neighborhood identities
and conflicts to limit the mobility and social net-
works o f adolescent boys in Roxbury Crossing
and Franklin, the boys must leave the neigh-
borhood sometimes, at least for school. In addi-
tion, although cross-neighborhood beefs are a
key part of youth violence in Boston, conflict
among youths from the same neighborhood
also occurs. For both these reasons, adolescent
boys in Franklin and Roxbury Crossing must
develop protection strategies. As discussed
above and in prior research, these strategies
include traveling in groups, staying close to
home, developing a reputation as a tough fight-
er, and avoiding particular people, locations,
and activities that might increase one’s risk o f
victimization (Anderson 1999; Cobbina et al.
2008; Jones 2004). Many youths employ mul-
tiple strategies, while others withdraw from
neighborhood social life entirely (Furstenburg
et al. 1999), as did several o f the Roxbury
Crossing and Franklin subjects.

Another strategy involves relationships with
older peers who can provide security through
both direct intervention and reputational sta-
tus. A n example of older peers providing a
measure of protection comes from Chris, age 14,
whose Franklin housing development has an
ongoing beef with a nearby rival development.
As Chris explained, “the drama” began again at
a party:

Me and my boys bagged these Franklin Field girls
[got their phone numbers], and the guys from
Franklin Field got mad. So they brought it [the
fight] to us. We beat them up a little bit. Then the
older mens came, then we got our older mens, so
that it looked like a go. But then the girls called
us like, “We don’t want drama.” So I was like,
forget it.

As Chris made his way home, however, he
was jumped by Franklin Field youth riding in a
car driven by one of the “older mens.” They
were looking to win back some pride for their
neighborhood. As his mother confirmed, Chris
was beaten fairly badly but suffered no serious
injuries. As the cross-neighborhood conflict
escalated, Chris and his friends secured the help

of some older adolescents and young adults
(the “older mens”) from his development. This
show of force seemed to halt the conflict:

Then they [the youth from Franklin Field] started
riding through here [Franklin H i l l ] . So me and
my little niggas told our older niggas, and then they
got involved. Once they got involved, they
[Franklin Field] didn’t want it. Our OG’s [original
gangstas], they didn’t even get involved. There
was just me and the older niggas. It was just a cou-
ple of niggas from up here [Franklin H i l l ] , and they
[Franklin Field] couldn’t handle i t . . . . Because i f
the whole [Franklin H i l l ] team came together, it
would have been a problem.

Three sets o f actors o f different ages and
experiences populate Chris’s account. “Little
mens” (or “little niggas”) are neighborhood
teenagers close to Chris’s age (about 13 to 16
years old). “Older mens” are in then late teens
or 20s and, as veterans o f previous beefs, have
honed their reputations based on past deeds.
Currently, they may be hustling or dealing drugs
or working, but they are usually a common
presence on the streets. OG’s, or original gang-
sters, are in their 30s and 40s. survivors of the
worst days o f violence in Boston. They grew up
in the neighborhood and were leaders in their
day. Their sometimes legendary reputations
cement their place at the top o f the social hier-
archy, but their daily connections to the neigh-
borhood are often weak, as many have moved
away from street life. Chris’s account illustrates
the complexity of social interactions with older
peers. The older peers’ role in cross-neighbor-
hood conflicts can vary, in this case they helped
to contain it.

James, who is 14 years old and from Roxbury
Crossing, provides another example of how
relationships with older youth provide protec-
tion in a violent neighborhood:

I know mostly everyone cause I’ve grown up with
everyone. So kids who are 11 and I was 7 and 8,
I was probably outside playing basketball with, or
they seen me. So now they’re probably about 16,
17…. The kids who was doing bad things, I know
most of them. So I wouldn’t feel bad walking
down the street cause they probably wouldn’t mess
with m e . . . . I know most of them with a good
relationship; I could talk to them and hold a con-
versation, but that’s about i t . . . . I f somebody was
like trying to jump me or do something stupid,
they’d probably come in and stop it.

In addition to direct intervention, an associ-
ation with older friends can provide status and

VIOLENCE, ADOLESCENT BOYS, AND OLDER PEERS 459

ling adults
>ment. This
mflict:

ield] started
So me and

md then they
Dived, they
G’s [original
lived. There
isjustacou-
ill], and they
. Because i f
: together, it

t ages and
int. “Little
ghborhood
i t 13 to 16
r late teens
)eefs, have
>ast deeds,
i l i n g drugs
i common
;inal gang-
vors of the
ly grew up
:rs i n their
5putations
ocial hier-
the neigh-
ive moved
illustrates
w i t h older
•neighbor-
ley helped

n Roxbury
le o f how
de protec-

•wn up with’
•as 7 and 8,
iall with, or
y about 16,
Qgs, I know
id walking
uldn’tmess
ith a good
hold a con-
lebody was
ing stupid,

an associ-
status and

respect, which translate into protection. When
others know that a boy has older friends, that
alone is often enough to make them think twice
about “messing w i t h ” him (see Jones 2004:55
for a similar example among adolescent girls).
Miguel, age 16 and from Roxbury Crossing,
described the benefits of his relationships with
older youths:

Most of my friends are a lot older than me.
Probably like, maybe 20.

Int: How did you get to know them?
Hanging out, like in the summer time we go out,

we just sit down on the steps and chill, we talk and
stuff like that. People playing baseball, they just
tend to come over and they start playing and you
just get to know them.

Int: So why would someone who s younger want
to be friends with people who are older?

A lot more people will respect the younger per-
son. They wouldn’t mess with him because he has
a lot of older friends.

Miguel’s interactions w i t h older youths,
which started when he moved to the housing
development at age 13 and began hanging out
with them, earn him respect from others. In
Miguel’s view, the respect that these relation-
ships provide can protect him. When retaliation
from older youths may be forthcoming, ado-
lescents may be less likely to start a fight.

I have emphasized the importance of neigh-
borhood violence in understanding the greater
cross-age social interaction in Roxbury Crossing
and Franklin compared with Lower Mills. Family
connections, however, could be an alternative
explanation. Lareau (2003) argues that among
lower-class families there is considerable inter-
action with extended family members. Although
the data from this study are consistent with this
description of such families, the interactions with
older peers described by adolescents in Roxbury
Crossing and Franklin were not typically facili-
tated by family connections. Nor is there a dif-
ference between adolescents with large extended
families and those without such families.

I M P L I C A T I O N S FOR S O C I A L I Z A T I O N

I have argued that both the level and the organ-
ization o f violence in Franklin and Roxbury
Crossing increase adolescent boys’ interactions
and relationships with older adolescents and
young adults. I now discuss the potential impli-
cations of these interactions for socialization.
The strategies that the boys of Roxbury Crossing

and Franklin use to deal with violence and vic-
timization can have unintended consequences.
Although relationships with older peers pro-
vide some protection, they also expose these
boys to alternative or ghetto specific (Wilson
1996) cultural models that influence their behav-
ior and decision making in other domains, such
as romantic relationships and schooling. By
contrast, Lower Mills boys tend to have more
age homogenous friendship groups. Their peer
networks are more similar to those of middle-
class children in the bureaucratized and age-
graded social settings that Lareau (2003)
describes. As a result, older peers play a small-
er role in the socialization of Lower Mills boys.

The potential consequences of interactions
with older peers depend on their characteristics.
Not every older adolescent or young man in
the neighborhood sells drugs, impregnates mul-
tiple partners, or drops out of school. But indi-
viduals who might serve as more positive role
models are not as visible because they spend
more time outside the neighborhood, either
working or in school. The older peers who are
available and visible in Roxbury Crossing and
Franklin, and who can provide some measure of
protection, are seldom positive role models,
although not for lack o f good intentions.
Marcus, who tries to be an older brother figure
to the boys in his neighborhood, is an occa-
sional drug dealer, frequently skips school, and
at age 16 already has two young women who
claim they are pregnant by him.

Eduardo, now age 17, recalled how when he
was 12 years old, older friends in the neigh-
borhood introduced him to drinking, marijua-
na, and stealing cars. A t about the same time,
he became considerably less interested i n
school:

I turned 13 in fall of ’99. That summer of 2000,
that’s when everything went downhill. By the time
8th grade came around, I went to school for maybe
about a week.

Int: Why do you think you weren’t interested in
school?

The peers around me. Smoking [marijuana],
drinking. We were always around girls. Those type
of things. Stealing cars. Selling car parts The
so-called friends around me, they knew how to
steal cars. I just got into it. At first, I just started
breaking car windows, then I learned how to steal
a car.

I considered them my age. Now, that I look
back at it, though, they weren’t my age, but when

460 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

I thought about it [at the time], they were my
age…. ‘Cause my whole life I grew up around
people a lot older than me, and that affected me a
lot The other guys that were 14 or 15 were still
acting younger. At 12,1 was into girls. I was into
partying…. I was around older guys…. I just
ended up acting mature. The other 12-year-olds,
they were thinking about, mommy, buy me some
sneakers. At 12-years-old, I was thinking how to
get ’em myself.

Eduardo imitated the behavior of older friends
with whom he was spending time, but older
friends and acquaintances can also have more
subtle influences on younger adolescents through
then cultural power to frame and contextualize
daily life i n the neighborhood and beyond.
Through both then words and their deeds, they
expose younger adolescents to and reinforce cul-
tural models that often differ from those privi-
leged i n middle-class culture. The older
adolescents and young adults who are respected
in Roxbury Crossing and Franklin because of
their mastery of the streets regularly dispense
advice about girls, school, and staying out of
trouble. The guidance comes in the form of gen-
eral statements that can be interpreted and applied
to future situations or from recounting experi-
ences and interpretations of daily life.

Such general statements have little impact
when they come from teachers or parents. But
older adolescents and young men, especially
those with status earned on the streets, command
the attention o f their younger counterparts
because they have been through experiences
that the younger boys w i l l soon face (see Young
[2007] on the similar appeal o f “redeemed” old
heads). By virtue of then reputations for tough-
ness, their exploits in previous conflicts, and
often their resources from the underground
economy, these young adults sit atop a status
system that defines masculinity and confers
great cultural power, particularly in the eyes o f
adolescent boys (Anderson 1999).7

7 One possible unintended consequence of inter-
actions with older peers is that they may actually
increase a boy’s risk of victimization, as spending
unstructured time with delinquent peers has the
potential to expose boys to violent situations (Osgood
et al. 1996). The boys in this study did not seem to
recognize this risk. In addition, the level of interac-
tion with older peers described here may not rise to
the level required to increase this risk, as most of the

I briefly summarize here an example of how
interactions with older peers structure boys’
thinking in one seemingly unrelated domain,
romantic relationships. For adolescent boys
begirming to explore sexual and romantic rela-
tionships, the stories and views of older peers
play a role in structuring frames and expecta-
tions regarding girls and girlfriends by defining
the categories boys use to understand girls.
These categories include “good girls” who are
interested in real relationships and focus on
school, “stunts” who are just after sex and may
transmit an infection, and “golddiggers” who are
after a man’s money and may trick a boy into
fathering a child. As a result, Roxbury Crossing
and Franklin boys tend to approach potential
girlfriends with hesitation, expecting them to try
to take advantage of the relationship in some
way. By contrast, these distinctions are far less
salient for Lower Mills boys, and they approach
relationships with more positive expectations,
expecting most girls to be “good girls.” The
gender distrust that is created and legitimized
i n part by interactions w i t h older peers i n
Roxbury Crossing and Franklin has the poten-
tial to affect relationship behavior and contra-
ceptive practices among the boys from these
areas (Harding forthcoming).

C O N C L U S I O N S

Theoretical perspectives on neighborhood
effects, such as social isolation theory, assume
that the neighborhood context serves as a source
of socialization for youth. Through differential
exposure to behavioral models or cultural ideas,
disadvantaged neighborhoods are thought to
influence how young people make decisions in
domains such as schooling and romantic rela-
tionships. Yet the empirical literature largely
fails to identify and describe the sources and
processes underlying such cultural transmis-
sion, especially given recent research showing
strong support for conventional cultural ideals
among poor parents, community leaders, and
other residents o f poor neighborhoods.
Understanding cultural transmission processes
in poor neighborhoods requires understanding
with whom adolescents interact (compared with
those in more advantaged neighborhoods), why

interactions occur within the relatively safe confines
of the neighborhood.

VIOLENCE, ADOLESCENT BOYS, AND OLDER PEERS 461

iple o f how
:ture boys’
:d domain,
scent boys
lantic rela-
Dlder peers
:d expecta-
ry defining
tand girls,
s” who are
i focus on
;x and may
rs” who are
a boy into
y Crossing
a potential
them to try
ip i n some
are far less
y approach
pectations,
girls.” The
egitimized
r peers i n
the poten-
nd contra-
Tom these

hborhood
ry, assume
as a source
lifferential
tural ideas,
thought to-
ecisions in
antic rela-
rre largely
jurces and
transmis-

h showing
ural ideals
aders, and
orhoods.
.processes
erstanding
pared with
nods), why

ife confines

those interactions occur, and their socialization
consequences. Based on fieldwork with ado-
lescent boys in three areas of Boston, this arti-
cle proposes that disadvantaged older
adolescents and young men are important
sources of socialization for boys i n poor neigh-
borhoods, thereby identifying one potential
pathway for neighborhood socialization.

The NELS data indicate that adolescents in”
disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely
than other adolescents to spend time with older
individuals. A similar association is evident in
the qualitative data, and the remainder of the
analysis draws on these data to understand its
causes and consequences. Greater interaction
w i t h older peers among boys i n Roxbury
Crossing and Fraruclin is in no small part a prod-
uct of the level and organization of violence in
these neighborhoods. When victimization is
based on neighborhood identity, the salience o f
such identities is magnified. Venturing outside
one’s neighborhood carries risk o f challenge,
and youths from other neighborhoods are poten-
tial enemies rather than potential friends. The
neighborhood is one o f the only spaces where
a young man feels safe from challenge from
youths from rival neighborhoods, regardless of
whether he is actively involved in neighbor-
hood beefs. The result is a restricted set o f pos-
sible friends, and older peers become a more
attractive choice. Spending more time in the
immediate neighborhood also increases boys’
exposure to interactions with older neighbor-
hood peers. Older peers become a source o f
protection, through both then reputation and
then capacity to intervene. By contrast, for the
boys of Lower Mills, victimization is much less
of a threat and these.coping strategies are large-
ly unnecessary.

These strategies may have unintended con-
sequences in other domains. Attachments to
and interactions with older peers, however ben-
eficial for safety and status, have the potential
to expose young adolescent males to—and rein-
force the legitimacy of—local frameworks
regarding not only violence but also other
domains, such as romantic relationships.
Because the older peers available in Franklin and
Roxbury Crossing often present models at odds
with mainstream society, these interactions can
influence the frames and strategies that boys
bring to their decision making. The messages
offered by the older peers are complex and at

times consistent with mainstream notions of
responsibility, safe sex, and the importance of
schooling. Nevertheless, the cross-cohort social-
ization processes described here explain how
adolescent boys encounter—and take serious-
ly—local cultural models that can be at odds
with mainstream models held by adults i n then
communities or presented in the media or at
school. In terms of cultural repertoires (Swidler
1986), this suggests that the repertoire elements
selected for activation depend on social net-
works and patterns of association.

The fieldwork on which this analysis is based
is limited to adolescent boys, so it is not clear
whether girls experience neighborhood vio-
lence similarly. Boys have higher rates o f par-
ticipation in violence, so they may be more
affected by cross-neighborhood conflicts.
Furthermore, conceptions o f masculinity drive
responses to both individual and neighborhood-
based challenges (Anderson 1999), and boys
with absent fathers may be more susceptible to
the influences of older male peers. Although
gender differences in violence seem to be declin-
ing (recent ethnographic research documents
violent behavior among girls in inner-city neigh-
borhoods), there is disagreement over the exis-
tence o f gender differences i n strategies for
dealing with violence (Cobbina et al. 2008;
Jones 2004; Ness 2004). Moreover, some evi-
dence suggests that violence among girls takes
place more frequently in and around schools
(Cobbina et al. 2008; Jones 2004).

In addition, the fieldwork and analysis focus
on the experiences of urban African American
and Latino boys in primarily African American
neighborhoods in Boston, so it is not clear
whether the cultural transmission processes
described here operate in other neighborhoods
or among youths from other racial and ethnic
groups. Because the research design prioritizes
cross-neighborhood comparisons, differences
within neighborhoods by race and ethnicity are
also outside the scope o f this study.

Moreover, it is possible that two features o f
Boston neighborhoods led to the structure o f
neighborhood-based conflicts and the small size
o f neighborhoods described here: the relative-
ly small size of Boston’s public housing devel-
opments, compared with those in Midwestern
cities such as Chicago, and the citywide atten-
dance areas for Boston high schools. In addition,
compared w i t h cities like Chicago or Los

462 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Angeles, Boston has relatively little history o f
race-based gang conflict or prominent “corpo-
rate gangs” that control territory across large
geographic areas. Only through further research
can potential differences and similarities by
gender, race, urban setting, and neighborhood
be investigated and the generalizability of the
findings assessed. Finally, while this study
focuses on one particular strategy boys use to
cope with violence, other strategies are also
available and many boys employ multiple strate-
gies. Future research should investigate how
boys choose strategies and what explains vari-
ation within neighborhoods.

This study elaborates some of the processes
by which social isolation and social organiza-
tion may account for neighborhood effects on
adolescents. Social isolation theory must spec-
ify how local cultural models regarding educa-
tion, work, and relationships are transmitted
within a neighborhood. I propose one cultural
conduit: cross-age interactions between younger
adolescents and older peers on the street. With
respect to social organization theory, this arti-
cle shows how the failure of a community to
control violence can have spillover effects in
other domains through the impact of violence
on the age-structure of peer networks.

Another possible implication of these argu-
ments is that older peers may play a role in
other cross-generational processes, independent
of the family-based intergenerational transmis-
sion processes that are the focus of much strat-
ification research. Suttles (1968) and Horowitz
(1983) highlight the age segmentation of street-
corner groups in inner-city neighborhoods. The
argument here, while recognizing some degree
of age segmentation, emphasizes that disad-
vantaged neighborhoods, in comparison with
more advantaged ones, have more cross-age
social interaction. Such cross-age interactions
may account for the transmission of social phe-
nomenon such as norms about violence or
frames regarding schooling.

More generally, these arguments suggest that
violence is a critical characteristic of poor neigh-
borhoods, structuring adolescents’ daily lives
and social networks. Considerable research
examines the relationship between neighbor-
hood disadvantage and crime and disorder (e.g.,
Sampson and Groves 1989; Sampson and
Raudenbush 1999; Sampson et al. 1997), and
psychologists focus on the cognitive and devel-

opmental effects o f exposure to violence
(Aneshensel and Sucoff 1996; Margolin and
Gordis 2000). However, few prior studies exam-
ine the social effects of neighborhood violence.
This article links violence, older peers, and
socialization, suggesting that neighborhood vio-
lence plays a role in the intergenerational trans-
mission o f disadvantage.

David J. Harding is Assistant Professor in the
Department of Sociology and Assistant Research
Scientist at the Population Studies Center at the
University of Michigan. His recent work includes
“Collateral Consequences of Violence in
Disadvantaged Neighborhoods ” (Social Forces, June
2009), “Cultural Context, Sexual Behavior, and
Romantic Relationships in Disadvantaged
Neighborhoods” (ASR, June 2007) and Living the
Drama: Community, Conflict, and Culture among
Inner-City Boys, forthcoming from University of
Chicago Press.

REFERENCES

Adler, Patricia A. and Peter Adler. 1998. Peer Power.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Akers, Ronald L . , Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-
Kaduce, and Marcia Radosevich. 1979. “Social
Learning and Deviant Behavior: A Specific Test of
a General Theory.” American Sociological Review
44:636-55.

American Academy of Pediatrics. 2000. “Firearm-
Related I n j u r i e s A f f e c t i n g the Pediatric
Population.” Pediatrics 105:888-95.

Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise. Chicago, I L :
University of Chicago Press.

. 1999. Code of the Street. New York:
Norton.

Aneshensel, Carol S. and Clea A. Sucoff. 1996. “The
Neighborhood Context o f Adolescent Mental
Health.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior
37:293-310.

Benford, Robert D. and David A . Snow. 2000.
“Framing Processes and Social Movements: A n
Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of
Sociology 26:611-39.

Black, Donald. 1993. The Social Structure of Right
and Wrong. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Browning, Christopher R., Tama Leventhal, and
Jeanne Brooks-Gunn. 2005. “Sexual Initiation in
Early Adolescence: The Nexus of Parental and
Community Control.” American Sociological
Review 70:758-78.

Centers for Disease C o n t r o l . 1997. “Rates o f
Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death
among Children: 26 Industrialized Countries.”
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
46:101-105.