« My micro-credit essay with Karol Boudreaux | Main | Assorted links »
Gang Leader for a Day
Here is my review of Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets. I found this a difficult review to write. The book is very interesting and Venkatesh is one of the world's best and leading social scientists (and I don't say that lightly). Still, I thought his book was...how can I put it....somewhat evil, if I may call upon that old-fashioned concept. The book required him to work with, and often encourage, a vicious gang leader for up to six years. For instance:
J.T., the gang leader at the center of the story, and of Mr. Venkatesh's research, becomes wrapped up in the idea of having his own biographer. Eventually it became his obsession that Mr. Venkatesh record the details of his life, including the shakedowns. In part, this was J.T.'s narcissism, and in part he needed the motivation of an observer. Most of all, J.T. seemed to enjoy having an audience: "I realized that he had come to rely on my presence; he liked the attention, and the validation," Mr. Venkatesh reports. None of J.T.'s underlings were qualified for the role of courtier, but the highly intelligent and nonjudgmental Mr. Venkatesh was perfect.
Here is my conclusion:
When it comes to understanding the world, biography is truly the underappreciated method in the social sciences. The life of the individual reveals what is otherwise hidden in abstract numbers or faceless questionnaires. Mr. Venkatesh is to be applauded for his path-breaking work and his compelling exposition. He's lucky that he didn't have to pay a high price, but by the end of the story the reader is wondering whether someone else might have, due to Mr. Venkatesh's unintended encouragement of J.T. Yes, evil really can be attractive, and the biographical achievement here is splendid, but when I return to the thought of encouraging and feeding the ego of a gang leader for six years running, I can't bring myself to be attracted to this book.
I would recommend that you read Gang Leader for a Day, but ultimately I could not shy away from writing a negative review. Let me know what you think.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 9, 2008 at 08:19 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
Did you get the impression that the gang leader committed some crimes solely because he had an observer to motivate him? That would seem to be the crucial question.
Posted by: Peter at Jan 9, 2008 9:25:43 AM
Thank you for your review; I expect I'll read the book based upon your recommendation.
You wrote:
I would recommend that you read Gang Leader for a Day, but ultimately I could not shy away from writing a negative review.
It strikes me that you're sidestepping the issue of whether or not overall the world was better for the book having been written (considering the process involved), and whether or not your recommendation and attention would encourage future books he would also deem "somewhat evil". You seem somewhat off-kilter on both ethical and moral grounds (or utilitarian and classical liberal grounds if you prefer).
Posted by: Brent Buckner at Jan 9, 2008 9:58:04 AM
Gang leaders aren't the only morally questionable subjects for a book. Shall authors shy away from writing books about government leaders? Governments are regularly criticized for the evil acts they commit, and these acts are regularly on a scale which dwarf anything gang leaders are likely to do. And yet I don't see any hand wringing about biographies of government leaders. On the question of whether writing the book causes the gang leader to commit additional evil acts - isn't that precisely what is going on with journalists and terrorists? Terrorists commit their acts in large part because they expect journalists to spread the word about their deeds. Is it evil, then, for journalists to report terrorist attacks?
Posted by: Constant at Jan 9, 2008 10:46:28 AM
I read an advance copy of the book and found it riveting. Fascinating insight not just into the gang but the entire economic lives of everyone in the projects. Venkatesh may not have addressed whether he propped up his subject but he was startlingly honest about the rest of his actions. In sum I think his time spent with the gang was well worth it for the lessons it yielded, but decide for yourself. Highly recommended.
Posted by: reader at Jan 9, 2008 11:01:31 AM
Interesting, of the boundaries of journalism in terms of ethics, and the delineation between neutral (ie. 'good', or at least
'not bad') and flawed or even 'evil' involvement. When is someone crossing the line - to perhaps even acting as accomplice to
anti-social or unlawful behavior? How can it ever be known to what degree that author's behavior (granted I haven't read the
book) influenced the actions of his subject? A host of moral questions arise - from utilitarian topics as "end justifies the
means" and "for a greater good" (comment by Brent Buckner above), as well as instinctual or ontological ones such as "it feels
wrong" or "it's playing with fire (ie. the devil's handiwork) - so no good can ever come from it." Our company ethics classes
always sum up ethical dilemmas by defaulting to "if it seems wrong to do, it is" - erring on the side of caution. But there's
stories of under-cover agents that need to do 'wrong' in order to win the confidence of those they're penetrating - so there's
much gray to go around.
Posted by: TomG at Jan 9, 2008 11:33:53 AM
It seems to me that political correctness is the only thing which kept you from writing a positive review of a book that you otherwise seemed to enjoy. Who cares, no one will judge you - write your review without fear of what someone might assume you think or condone.
Or at least make it explicit through a disclaimer.
Posted by: Jonathan at Jan 9, 2008 1:47:30 PM
I would recommend that you read Gang Leader for a Day, but ultimately I could not shy away from writing a negative review.
That's squirrelly. The review itself says "Most of all this is a story of male friendship" and claims the book does not teach "why crime is high, how the drug trade works, or why so many people seem to make dysfunctional lifestyle choices." The review indicates that the author practically suborned crime and, by inference, buying the book encourages it as well. So it is a non-fiction male bonding-through-crime biography that might encourage crime.
Yet, you “recommend” that we read the book? Sorry, you “would recommend”. Why the subjunctive tense here? It reduces the concreteness of the verb “recommend” to what purpose?
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Jan 9, 2008 2:12:20 PM
Constant makes an excellent point.
On the other hand, Tyler's point is interesting although difficult to make much sense of.
Posted by: sa at Jan 9, 2008 2:39:10 PM
Columbia's, indeed just about every university's, Institutional Review Board will be thrilled to hear more reasons for shutting down research into the uncomfortable sides of life. I take your point and it is worthwhile for social scientists to be even more aware of these sorts of issues but there is real value in letting the light shine in, even if what we see is very, very ugly.
Posted by: haniberi at Jan 9, 2008 4:09:48 PM
I haven't read the book yet but the surface parallels with Hunter S. Thompson and Bill Buford seem quite striking. As I recall, at least Buford addressed the moral dilemma that he faced that Tyler mentions. I read Hell's Angels so long ago that I can't recall if HST did too.
Or is this different because HST and Buford were writers/journalists (hence, already morally suspect and they didn't claim to be doing 'research' either - just looking for material) and Venkatesh is an academic?
Posted by: notsneaky at Jan 9, 2008 6:00:28 PM
Sounds a lot like "The Last King of Scotland."
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jan 9, 2008 8:49:27 PM
To me, this book seems like a piece Susan Faludi wrote about porn actors and actresses in the New Yorker a few years ago: it seems like it would be interesting--sex, drugs, violence, money, whatever--but the people are so totally empty and boring that I couldn't make myself care enough to finish the article.
Posted by: y81 at Jan 9, 2008 10:29:07 PM
This is similar to the questions that have been raised in regard to ethnography more or less forever. You become a participant/observer in a group and your observations become the raw material of your career. Maybe the group practices infanticide or euthanasia. Fine if you are dealing with tribal societies, I suppose, but the presumption is that the group has its own ethical system that is appropriate for that particular culture. Anthropologists have pretty much run out of their raw material -- autonomous primitive cultures, so have been looking for substitute 'subcultures' within contemporary society for at least the last half century. After all, they need their raw material.
I would skip all the hand wringing and simply go back to Durkheim's 'Rules of the Sociological Method and note that, "crime is "bound up with the fundamental conditions of all social life" and serves a social function. He stated that crime implies, "not only that the way remains open to necessary change, but that in certain cases it directly proposes these changes... crime [can thus be] a useful prelude to reforms." In this sense he saw crime as being able to release certain social tensions and so have a cleansing or purging effect in society. He further stated that "the authority which the moral conscience enjoys must not be excessive; otherwise, no-one would dare to criticize it, and it would too easily congeal into an immutable form. To make progress, individual originality must be able to express itself...[even] the originality of the criminal... shall also be possible" (Durkheim, 1895)."
A little crime is a symptom of a vital society.
Posted by: Zigurrat at Jan 10, 2008 1:31:42 AM
" "I realized that he had come to rely on my presence; he liked the attention, and the validation".
Who is there left who doesn't know - from the context of the criminal justice system, rather than biography - that if the attention young suspects and criminals receive when they encounter police, defence and prosecution lawyers, and social workers is sufficiently greater in quantum and focus than they have received from educated, unrelated adults in other areas of their lives before then of course it has a significant effect and of course it is often perceived by the recipient as positive, and validation.
Could it really be that an experienced social scientist would not already know this? Even if the phrase "I realised ..." was a literary choice to spotlight the drama, it's hard to think the writer would want his peers to understand him to mean he didn't know this before he started.
Posted by: polly at Jan 10, 2008 3:50:56 AM
Polly: This was Venkatesh's first serious project, he wasn't an experienced social scientist when he started this... arguably it's only the naiveté of youth that made him authentic enough to be able to do this research.
Posted by: SR at Jan 10, 2008 11:17:52 PM
Gang Leader for a Day..what evil has to offer is conquered by good.so thats contrary to say that the research went vague.
Posted by: software development india at Jan 16, 2008 1:41:04 AM
I was reading excerpts of Gang Leader for a Day, and it basically documents slum life, but you can't look at it from an ethical or moral angle. You have to look at it as a combination expository book on gang life as well as a biography of JT. As for Tyler saying that JT may have overstated himself, yes, it might be true, but then again in any sort of sociological study where the author is put into the same situation as Venkatesh, you have to expect this sort of thing to happen. It isn't necessarily a bad thing either, and as software development india said, the bad aspects are definitely overshadowed by the amount of quality information gained in the subject.
Posted by: Devo at Jan 19, 2008 11:56:05 PM
Wow. So much discussion of the moral dilemma. I found the book fascinating. The author struggled with the morals of his actions but admits at being captivated by the excitement of being allowed into the inner circle of the gang.
I think it took great courage to do what Sudhir did. Whether his observations of the crimes committed by J.T. changed any of J.T.'s behavior (for the worse) is so debatable. Why not just enjoy the glimpse Sudhir gives you into another world.
The audiobook includes an interview with the author where he reveals that he is starting similar research in additional cities, including Paris. I look forward to listening to more of his experiences.
Posted by: Jason at Jan 22, 2008 10:56:47 PM
I will read this as I found his previous book while looking for something else at the Library. 'Off the Books' was also very interesting...I know poverty but only had to do some hustling not what the South Chicago women had to do to survive. Is that where Michelle Obama hails from? Also, is this where Obama's alleged slum landlord holdings can be found? Hillary threw that barb out and it made me wonder where in Chicago Obama had worked.
Posted by: Helen at Jan 27, 2008 7:04:24 PM
This is not a glimpse in another world, it is a glimpse in our world.
Posted by: Julio at Jan 29, 2008 9:35:05 PM
I am a former member of Louis Farrakhans Nation of Islam. I read this book mainly because the author succeeded in an area that was my biggest weakness as an activist and as a black man who outgrew his poor neighborhood. This author befriended and got to know poor people up close and that takes a lot. I use to hate my leaders in the NOI pressuring me to sell the Final Call in projects and poor neighborhoods. Though I agreed with black power and the uplifting message Farrakhan had on the inside, on the outside I was a bourgie black college student with the same fears of the black underclass as any white liberal or conservative. I respect the author for being open minded and courageous enough to hang with people society is afraid of and just wants to lock up. This book should be presented to congress and political leaders to understand crime and poverty. I wish I wrote this and I wish I lived among my brothers who are struggling in these poor neighborhoods with no hope. The author is a modern day WEB Dubois. I am 40 minutes into the audio book and I am full of vivid pictures and ideas all because this indian dude chose to do more then sell a paper to a gangbanger and pressure him to go to a march. The author went home with the gangbanger, met his children, his baby mama's, HIS MOTHER, and dared to ask the gangbanger baout his life and dreams. Louis Farrakhan should invite this author to the mosque to teach us how to help our brothers in the projects even more. this book is almost better then Malcolm X.
Posted by: Prince Akbar at Jan 30, 2008 11:58:48 PM
I am reading the book right now. The most powerful thing about the book to me is the description of the underground economy in the Robert Taylor Housing Projects in Chicago during the story.
J.T., as the local leader of the "Black Kings" gang is the de facto administrator and protector of a huge urban housing development with thousands of tenants and visitors. The gang is described as tax collector, service-provider, community organizer, and protector for the people who live in this area.
I found the description of J.T.'s rule over the area as very much like that of a feudal lord over his fiefdom in the Dark Ages. Clearly, this is a section of America that the legitimate authorities have abandoned to crime and poverty, so it is left to those who live there to establish their own form of order. It is this order, as described by Venkatesh, that gives the book its true power as an image of the modern American condition.
Posted by: Rice Man at Feb 10, 2008 9:13:42 AM
I picked up this book because I was curious to know what it was like to live on the 'other side'. I stumbled upon this thread and was saddened by some of the above postings lacking in knowledge of what it's like to live in the world Sudhir experienced. I am not a socioligist, doctor of any kind, just a Chicago woman, born and raised here and applaud this man for doing so..outside of his element. He trusted J.T. who let him into a world most of us would wane away from.
I don't think he (Sudhir OR J.T.) was looking for attention in the "look at what I've done" (can you tell I'm not as educated as you in my words) but more so..look what's around you, this is real, this is what is really happening...or happened - in inner cities. These men took a chance on one another in a world and grew together you and I would never trespass on.
They BOTH gave me a birdseye view on a life that I would be TERRIFIED to live in yet thousands of men, women and children do.
Thank you Sudhir and J.T. for letting us into your lives and be safe.
Posted by: Chance at Feb 14, 2008 2:45:35 AM
I disagreed with your review of the book. I do not believe that evil is what Sudhir Venkatesh wanted to show through this book. I believe he wanted us to wake up to the fact that the daily life of gang members or people who deal with gang members, is a life of challenges. Although some may believe that the acts commited were to impress Sudhir, they were also acts that would have occurred without his presence. Gangs do not hang around until they feel the need to commit a crime to impress an outsider.
Posted by: jane at Feb 27, 2008 12:39:15 PM
