Gangs
Gangs, often rooted in class and ethnicity, have been a problem in the United States since the mid-nineteenth century. They now are so large and numerous in some areas that they are likely to remain a pervasive source of community conflict for a long time to come.
Criminologists, psychologists, and sociologists provide most suggestions for reducing conflicts, but Leng and Henderson (1996) make an interesting case for looking to international relations for analogies useful in finding solutions. Gangs are like nations in having recognizable territory that they control internally and protect externally. Like the state system, gangs assume sovereignty over their own members and do not brook interference in their internal affairs. Members identify with their gangs (nationalism) and accept their values (patriotism). Life is a constant struggle, there are few restraints on behavior toward other gangs, and an unstable balance of power provides what little order exists. There is a rough parallel between the UN and international treaties in the state system and that of the police and the churches in the gang world in providing higher authorities.Despite these similarities, there are several important differences between the international and the urban gang systems. Gangs lag the interstate system with regard to human rights, sexism, racism, and religious tolerance. There is no expectation of seeking peaceful settlements before resorting to violence, which remains an accepted means of demonstrating power. Gangs have shown little concern for noncombatants and have become notorious for indiscriminant killing of innocent bystanders. In these characteristics, gangs are closer to terrorists than states.
The international model leads logically to mediation (Chapter 17) as the best method to minimize inter-gang conflict. Respected community leaders, often former gang members drawn from the same culture and locale, have proven able to exert influence.
However, unlike the usual international situation, the mediation problem is not a matter of finding common ground but of persuading gang members that it is in their mutual interest to assume responsibility for the violence and its consequences in their territories and to help them change existing behavioral norms. Getting leaders to apologize to innocent victims and surviving family members of gang violence has been an effective starting point, as even hardened gang leaders usually recognize the immorality of killing children.Mediation is treatment of symptoms rather than a cure for the disease. The usual prescription for a long-term solution is to eliminate the roots of the problem, commonly assumed to be child abuse and neglect, drugs, poverty, and racism. The negative attitude of inner city youth to education, responsibility, and morality seems even more basic. Which to focus on, and what to do about each, seems more a matter of belief than of science, liberals focusing on the first and conservatives on the second.