Article about "innovation" hypothesis - that criminals get domesticated and only use crime as a social ladder.
There is a very interesting comparison of Italian mafia and organized crime today.
When read alongside Ianni, what is striking about Goffman’s book is not the cultural difference between being an Italian thug in the early part of the twentieth century and being an African-American thug today. It’s the role of law enforcement in each era. Chuck’s high-school education ended prematurely after he was convicted of aggravated assault in a schoolyard fight. Another boy called Chuck’s mother a crack whore, and he pushed his antagonist’s face into the snow. In a previous generation, this dispute would not have ended up in the legal system.
The implication from the juxtaposed stories in the article seems to be that allowing criminals to gentrify themselves is a better outcome than rigorously policing them.
But just because the mafiosi had happier outcomes than the crack dealers, it doesn't follow that the crime outcomes are better, which is surely what the rest of us are concerned about. It seems quite plausible that corrupt and criminal businesses practices continue to exist (or evolve based on other pressures) despite criminals not inducting their own children.
The shocking state of inner cities with widespread crack cocaine addiction is a tragedy, and the policing methods described in the article seem to be about containment rather than a solution. But taking a laissez-faire approach in order to allow criminals to gentrify themselves would be quite a stretch.
Another way of looking at it is that rigorous policing and removal of corruption from the police and law enforcement is a contributing factor in the current decline in social mobility.
The article is not at all forthcoming with solutions but it is a good example of 2nd order effects where removal of one problem (Mafia) leads to the creation of another (lower social mobility).
3 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 18.5 ms ] threadThere is a very interesting comparison of Italian mafia and organized crime today.
When read alongside Ianni, what is striking about Goffman’s book is not the cultural difference between being an Italian thug in the early part of the twentieth century and being an African-American thug today. It’s the role of law enforcement in each era. Chuck’s high-school education ended prematurely after he was convicted of aggravated assault in a schoolyard fight. Another boy called Chuck’s mother a crack whore, and he pushed his antagonist’s face into the snow. In a previous generation, this dispute would not have ended up in the legal system.
But just because the mafiosi had happier outcomes than the crack dealers, it doesn't follow that the crime outcomes are better, which is surely what the rest of us are concerned about. It seems quite plausible that corrupt and criminal businesses practices continue to exist (or evolve based on other pressures) despite criminals not inducting their own children.
The shocking state of inner cities with widespread crack cocaine addiction is a tragedy, and the policing methods described in the article seem to be about containment rather than a solution. But taking a laissez-faire approach in order to allow criminals to gentrify themselves would be quite a stretch.
The article is not at all forthcoming with solutions but it is a good example of 2nd order effects where removal of one problem (Mafia) leads to the creation of another (lower social mobility).