62 pages • 2 hours read
Jill LeovyA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
In discussing the matter of black-on-black violence and the criminal justice system, the book continually returns to the concept of a state monopoly on violence—i.e., the fact that in modern society, the state has the sole authority to commit violent acts against people. This is presented as resolutely modern—Leovy even describes, for example, a case in the early 20th century in which two men tracked down and killed their mugger, an act for which the police turned a blind eye and the media lauded as simply taking the law into their own hands (a phrase that now typically carries a negative connotation). This concept is an important piece of Leovy’s thesis: the more optimistic view of this concept is that, assuming a benevolent state, a state monopoly on violence helps to provide for the safety and security of its populace because citizens, as a result, do not need to fear their peers. However, Leovy’s argument is that blacks in American society have not benefited from a state monopoly on violence; rather, the state has generally turned its back on black-on-black crime, which has in turn reinforced the need for communal justice, despite that the latter has been largely eradicated from modern society.
The phrase “Everybody knows” stands in for the larger concept that within the community, the perpetrators of violent crime are known to the rest of the community. In other words, the community is itself an in-group, and violence persists through a complex setup of shadow laws and communal justice. The popular perception of detective work is that of the police trying to unravel a mystery in order to bring the perpetrators to justice; there are often people in underground groups who have the information sought, but in popular media, these people are understood to exist in the shadows. In contrast, in places like South Central, the perpetrators of violence are known by everyone in the community—the only people they are not known to are the police. Detective work, therefore, is often described as a frustrating game of the police trying to figure out what the community already knows; the phrase frequently crops up to stand in for that frustrating concept.
The complexity of clothing choices is frequently referred to, though not explicated or interrogated—it serves more as a tie to circumstance than something the author wishes to unravel. The primary purpose of raising it, outside of it being tied resolutely into the situations described, is to explain the counterintuitive nature of certain clothing choices. For example, Bryant’s decision to wear a Houston Astros hat, a clothing choice that connotes gang affiliation, is difficult to understand from the outside, as to someone outside the community it may feel like an obvious bad choice that may make him a target. Counterintuitively, though, this choice may have actually made him feel safe, as described by one member of the jury in his trial, by allowing him to fit in (Bryant himself described it as a way of getting girls). Other clothing choices are described as absurd Rorschach tests: to those in the know, Da’Quawn Allen’s orange bandana was a ridiculous, childish attempt to look cool and play dress-up; to the media, it was evidence of his gang membership. Further, clothing can be tragic: Dion Miles, for example, an art student with no gang ties, died solely because he happened to be wearing red when he got off the bus at the wrong stop and ended up in Crip territory.
The complexity of language also comes into play in Ghettoside. Language serves as a marker in some respects: gang membership and ghettoside residence carries with it a complex set of terminology that both marks someone as an insider and keeps outsiders outside. Suspects are shown to “code-switch” at times—for example, the probationer is noted by Leovy for his ability to speak in gang member dialect in one second while switching into a more mainstream, almost poetic vernacular the next. (It’s important to note the tie this has with larger issues of systemic racism and classism, as language is often used as a key marker for acceptance into or rejection from mainstream society, in particular one’s ability to use so-called Standard English as opposed to an accented English, or more pertinently here, African American Vernacular English.)
Additionally, language is used as a way of blurring the lines between cops and gangs. For one, the police have their own style of in-group language, not only in the codes they use, but even, it’s often suggested, in the way the police talk to one another. Kouri, for example, is presented as an outsider both for his more wholesome language and his lack of interest in typical cop fare; Skaggs, on the other hand, is described as being able to perform a form of code-switching allowing him to fit in with other cops while simultaneously holding separate attitudes and interests. Both are able to move into South Central language, as well, when talking to residents, and it’s presented as key whether or not a detective can make that switch feel natural. Lastly, and interestingly, the police, gangs, and residents are shown to borrow from one another, further blurring the distinction between those on one side of the law or the other.