Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Beginning in the 1970s, scholars began considering how social capital—the sum of one’s relationships and social spheres—may impact behavior (see Bourdieu, 1985; Coleman, 1988a, 1988b; Granovetter, 1973, 1983; Loury, 1977). This was not a new development in the social sciences, as both historical (Durkheim, 1984; Marx & Engels, 1947; Shaw & McKay, 1942; Weber, 1965) and contemporary (Anderson, 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) sociology are grounded in understanding the impact of environment on behavior. The modern conception of social capital has become more than just the flavor of the week. For some, it appears to be the remedy for numerous social ills (see Portes, 1998), although as more attention has been paid to the topic, it has become apparent that social capital is not necessarily exclusively positive (Browning, 2009; McCarthy & Hagan, 1995; Rubio, 1997). Those in possession of social capital may “cash it in,” calling in favors for debts, which may lean toward more deviant or nefarious contexts.

The rise of interest in social capital echoes the rise of an equally influential paradigm in the social sciences: the life-course perspective. The life-course perspective concerns the interweaving of age-graded trajectories that are influenced by historical and geographical contexts, social embeddedness, human agency, and the timing of life events (Elder, 1994, 1998; Elder & Giele, 2009). For example, population changes tied to the Baby Boom and (de)industrialization led Elder (1974) and others to focus on aging in post-World War II America. They found that subtle differences in one’s birth cohort—in terms of month and year of birth—during the Great Depression could significantly change earnings over one’s life span. The life-course perspective and social capital are intimately tied, as people exist within overlapping social spheres of family, friends, and coworkers and such relationships grow, evolve, and decline over the life course (Cochran, Larner, Riley, Gunnarsson, & Henderson, 1993; Fischer, 1982; Mueller & Elder, 2003). Understanding the reciprocal relationship between social capital and the life course—and factors that influence such evolving relationships—is a central task for social scientists, as this line of study garners knowledge on the nature of human lives.

Gangs exert powerful influences on communities and the lives of individuals, especially those who join gangs (e.g., Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Melde & Esbensen, 2011; Miller, 2011; Short & Strodtbeck, 1965; Thrasher, 1927). As street-oriented groups that exhibit durability across time and engage in illegal activity, the youth and young adults who comprise gangs maintain a collective identity through varying degrees of relational ties.Footnote 1 As such, gangs serve as an optimal context to understand how they function as both a source and a suppressor of social capital for their members. At the same time, movement into and out of gangs makes the applicability of a life-course framework—onset, continuity, and change—to the context of gang membership appropriate. Missing from the current inventory of research, however, is the integration of social capital, the life-course perspective, and gang membership.

This article examines social capital over the life-course in the context of gang membership. Specifically, we focus on how social capital evolves over time in the lives of gang members, especially in relation to joining and leaving a gang. We begin by discussing social capital, differentiating it from other forms of capital. Next, we detail the life-course perspective in criminology and apply it to the context of gang membership. In the key section of this article, we examine how social capital evolves in relation to key parameters—onset, continuity, and desistance—of gang membership. In particular, we highlight (1) the nature of gangs and how they impact social capital and (2) the increasingly important role of technology, particularly the Internet and social media, in the lives of gang members. Finally, we conclude by detailing directions for future research and offer research questions for future empirical studies.

Social and Human Capital

Social capital refers to the sum of relational ties among persons and consists of a pooled set of social investments or resources at one’s disposal (Bourdieu, 1985; Coleman, 1988a, 1988b; Portes, 1998). Such relationships involve an interdependent system that entails various norms and obligations within which actors operate. Coleman (1988a, 1988b) described social capital in the context of social structures and the facilitating effect of structure on individual action. Portes (1998) outlined three distinct elements at play in Coleman’s work: (1) individuals who possess social capital, making their own resources and connections available to others with the expectation that the behavior will be reciprocated; (2) the common fate of individuals in a situation will motivate individuals and lead them to action; and (3) the social structure of the group or community may act as a driver of social capital through enforceable trusts (Portes, 1998).

Note that social capital differs from other forms of capital—physical and human capital—in significant ways. Physical capital refers to tangible or observable materials and is often realized in terms of possessions, including property and income. Human capital refers to skills and knowledge acquired over time, through means such as education and experience. Social capital, perhaps, is less tangible than the previously mentioned forms of capital in that it is realized in terms of collective relationships and thus access to ideas and information. Such relations are often latent until one has to seek information or favors. All forms of capital have been typically viewed positively. Indeed, friends, favors, materials, objects, skills, and knowledge are usually good things to possess. More than other forms of capital, however, social capital can just as easily be used for antisocial purposes (Putnam, 2000) and viewed in terms of deviant social structures.

Granovetter’s (1983) propositions about the strength of weak ties and embeddedness of action are instructive in this regard. The social spheres in which individuals exist provide a distribution of both resources and restrictions that vary along socioeconomic lines, the nature of the social ties, and values within those spheres. In turn, these spheres influence behavior. “Weak” ties allow for individuals to receive information from outside of their close social networks, through friends of friends or acquaintances, for things such as available job openings. Hagan’s (1993) extension of Granovetter’s work to criminal embeddedness expands this line of theory to the negative uses of social capital. McCarthy and Hagan (1995) referred to this as “criminal capital” which is achieved more readily when one is more deeply embedded—by way of delinquency, delinquent peers and parents, and criminal justice system involvement—within criminal contexts. In this sense, criminal embeddedness, and the street-oriented capital associated with it, serves to restrict more useful forms of social capital as prosocial ties become attenuated the longer one is involved in criminal activities. Put differently, embeddedness in criminal enterprises slowly chokes off weak, noncriminal ties. The resulting isolation from these prosocial ties makes it more difficult to achieve legitimate work or schooling opportunities. As these opportunities are reduced, the necessity of remaining in the criminal network is reinforced.

Linked with social capital is human capital. As previously noted, human capital consists of not only skills and knowledge, but also collaborative processes. An individual’s intangible assets make them attractive insofar as social capital allows others to potentially harness one’s human capital. In social networks, it may pay to know individuals, but the talents that those individuals offer are just as valuable. In criminal networks, particular skills might include such things as the ability to manufacture drugs, procure weapons, or simply be aware of police or gang activity in a neighborhood. Each bit of knowledge becomes more useful when it can be shared with, and used by, others. As with the impact of criminal embeddedness on social capital, similar effects should be expected on human capital. Growing exposure to other criminals or delinquents requires that individuals adopt certain street skills and attitudes (Anderson, 1999), lest they be victimized. More broadly, the acquisition of antisocial human capital might also make it more difficult to maintain employment or stay in school precisely because of “street” posturing. Attitudes and knowledge on the street are unlikely to translate well in positive social endeavors such as work.

There is perhaps no better context to explore Hagan’s notion of criminal embeddedness and the larger concepts of social and human capital than that of gangs. Yet, gangs are constantly evolving over time—through age-graded development, replenishing their ranks, falling apart—thus it is necessary to adopt a framework that can account for the similarly evolving nature of social capital. For this reason, we turn to the life-course perspective in criminology to better understand social capital in relation to movement into and out of gangs.

Gang Membership and Capital in the Life-Course Perspective

The life-course perspective concerns the interweaving of age-graded trajectories that are influenced by historical and geographical contexts, social embeddedness, human agency, and the timing of life events (Elder, 1994, 1998; Elder & Giele, 2009). The latter component, timing, is especially important to the life-course perspective due to the influence placed on age-appropriate behaviors and divergences from such lines of development. Central to this component are the concepts of trajectories and turning points (Elder, 1985). Trajectories refer to stable lines of development over the life-course. Education, family, and employment are social institutions that qualify as trajectories because they exhibit persistence across time. Other less durable states, such as athletics or social club participation, qualify as trajectories as well in terms of their prominence in the life-course. Events that alter life-course trajectories in significant ways are referred to as turning points. Child birth, violent victimization, or the loss of a parent qualifies as turning points because such events may redirect life trajectories in a manner that could not have been predicted prior to their occurrence.

Gang membership is consistent with the life-course concepts of trajectories and transitions. Because gang membership involves at least some degree of persistence across time, it qualifies as a trajectory (Krohn & Thornberry, 2008; Pyrooz, Sweeten, & Piquero, 2012). In addition, because gang membership impacts life circumstances in significant ways, the event of gang joining qualifies as a turning point (Melde & Esbensen, 2011; Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003). Given that there are approximately 30,000 active gangs and over 700,000 gang members in the USA (Egley & Howell, 2011), including approximately 150,000 incarcerated gang members (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2009), understanding the movement into and out contains considerable relevance for researchers. This movement, however, is also likely to correspond with changes in social capital as one of the most prominent features of the adolescent life-course—the peer network—will change in significant ways.

Gangs, Social and Human Capital

Gangs tend to cluster in region, cities, communities, neighborhoods, and street blocks that can be characterized by greater levels of social and economic deprivation, racial and ethnic heterogeneity, and areas that are urbanized and densely populated (Katz & Schnebly, 2011; Pyrooz, Fox, & Decker, 2010; Tita, Cohen, & Engberg, 2005). At the same time, gang members tend to display a degree of shared characteristics across a range of demographic, economic, and social factors (Klein & Maxson, 2006; Krohn & Thornberry, 2008). Because gangs are, by definition, comprised of multiple individuals and such individuals are situated similarly in many respects, the group-based environment is a natural source of social capital. That is, due to overlapping relationships and ties among gang members, information and ideas found within these connections and linkages are components of social capital.

Themes such as fraternity, family, companionship, and camaraderie are echoed in the gang literature, consistent with conceptions of social capital (Coleman, 1988a, 1988b; Putnam, 2000). Indeed, classic works in the gang literature (Miller, 2011; Short & Strodtbeck, 1965; Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1947) have described gang and corner boys having local hangouts, often on street corners or social clubs, in their neighborhood. Many of these youth and young adults came from intergenerational families, composed of uncles and older brothers, fathers, and sons, all of whom spent time hanging out, joking, smoking, and gambling. These groups often have female auxiliary groups serving as counterparts to the male gang members (Miller, 2011). The contemporary literature describes gangs in the context of the neighborhood, school, and even in correctional facilities (Brunson & Miller, 2009; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Fleisher, 1998; Griffin, 2007; Miller, 2001; Moore, 1991). In other words, gangs emerge and meet the various needs of individuals in a number of environments.

There is a darker side to social capital in the gang context, however. While gangs function as a form of social capital because they are social circles comprised of relational ties, the nature of the gang context acts as a “social suction.” That is to say, gangs do not promote connections to nonfamilial peer networks; neither do they encourage strengthening relationships to conventional socializing institutions such of education, employment, or family. Indeed, such connections would pull gang members away from the control of the group, thereby eliminating the prominent role of (and need for) the gang in the lives of their members. Gangs would be obsolete if gang members were strongly tied to such institutions. On the one hand, gangs are a source of social capital, allowing one entrance into an extended network of peers and to tap an extended network of acquaintances. On the other hand, given what is known about gangs, on balance, do such networks mediate (i.e., cut off) or moderate (i.e., double) the ego-centric or individual-level networks?

The problem is that the social capital that can be found in the context of gangs would not be considered as a “pure” source of capital that is described in the larger literature. As described above, not only do gangs avoid conventional connections, but the overall orientations of the gangs also clash with such conventional ties. By virtue of the gangs’ involvement in criminal and delinquent activities, there is a natural distrust in authorities due to aggressive suppression policies. Such distrust culminates in anti-snitching practices that are at odds with the criminal justice system, resulting in a vicious cycle between gangs and the police with the community caught in the middle. In addition, status is enhanced among peers in the gang context, not by receiving straights A’s in the classroom or by volunteering at community clean-up events, but instead by physical prowess, risk-taking, nihilism, and aggressive banter (Anderson, 1999; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Klein, 1971; Miller, 1958; Short & Strodtbeck, 1965).

Further, the overlap between drugs, guns, violence, and gangs complicates matters. Gang members are more likely than non-gang members to want, need, own, use, or be victimized by firearms (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995; Decker, Pennell, & Caldwell, 1996; Decker & Pyrooz, 2010; Lizotte, Tesoriero, Thornberry, & Krohn, 1994). Guns represent symbols of power and dominance and are highly valued in areas where the codes of the street prevail (Anderson, 1999)—areas where gangs are likely to be found. Drugs provide opportunities to make money when other legitimate opportunities are either not present or unwanted. Drug markets themselves are ripe with violence (Howell & Decker, 1999) and many gang members sell drugs (Hagedorn, 1988; Klein, Maxson, & Cunningham, 1991; Venkatesh, 1997). Selling drugs can bring members into contact with unstable addicts, aggravating the potential for violence, as well as leading the individual to be labeled by the community and isolated from prosocial individuals (see Anderson, 1999). Even though gang members tend to act as individual entrepreneurs, rather than collective forces, in the drug market (Decker et al., 1998; Hagedorn, 1994), this places gang members at elevated risks for criminal justice involvement. In this sense, gangs value what McCarthy and Hagan (1995) referred to as “criminal capital,” or the multiple forms of capital that are oriented around street code status enhancement. Street capital in the gang context is likely to have serious consequences, especially in terms of traditional conceptions of social capital.

We detail a hypothetical relationship between social capital and gang membership in Fig. 9.1. We make no between-individual assumptions about the evolving nature of social capital prior to gang membership, but we speculate that the net sum of relationships among future gang joiners is less than that of gang avoiders. In other words, we expect that an absence of social capital—and its absence of restraining influences—may lead to gang joining.

Fig. 9.1
figure 0091

Social capital in relation to the onset and termination of gang membership

Full size image

Upon gang joining, we would expect to find an initial bump or benefit in social capital, ramping up during the periods immediately before and after gang joining due to the evolving nature of peers networks. This bump, however, is only temporary because the pernicious effects of the gang and attendant group-based processes take over, resulting in an accelerated decline in social capital. Peer networks of gang joiners shrink as previous, gang avoiding friends pursue in their life-course trajectories attempting to avoid the risk-taking and aggressive behaviors of the gang context. Declines in social capital are expected to decelerate as individuals begin to desist from gang membership. After one has left the gang, residual social and emotional ties are likely to be in place (Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2010) allowing for continued reductions in social capital, but as the ties lessen, levels of social capital should increase to the extent that ex-gang members navigate into more prosocial and conventional environment. The consequences of gang membership for social capital are unlikely to be experienced uniformly across gang members.

Gang Member Embeddedness

While similarly situated in a number of respects, gang members are not a homogenous group; neither can the gang experience be described by homogeneity. There is variability in involvement, identification, behaviors, roles, and the overall prominence of the gang experience between individuals that join gangs and within gang members across time (Esbensen, Winfree, He, & Taylor, 2001; Klein, 1971; McGloin, 2005, 2007; Pyrooz et al., 2012; Vigil, 1988). Pyrooz et al. (2012, p. 2) drew from social network theory to describe gang member variability as a concept they termed gang embeddedness, which captures “individual immersion within an enduring deviant social network.” Using item-response methodology, gang embeddedness tapped (1) contact with the gang, (2) position within the gang, (3) importance of the gang, (4) non-gang peers, and (5) participation in serious gang activities. Taken together, this concept captures the degree to which some gang members operate at the fringe of the gang, while others operate at the core. Identifying these differences not only has important implications for criminological outcomes—such as leaving gangs, as Pyrooz et al. (2012) demonstrated—but also for the relationship between social and human capital and gang membership.

Because gangs are “social networks that embed their members in deviant routines and isolate them from prosocial arenas” (Thornberry et al., 2003, p. 7), we anticipate that Fig. 9.1 captures within-individual differences in social capital according to whether someone is or is not in a gang. However, there is more to this story when considering variability around this hypothetical curve. We expect a good deal of this story to be told in terms of gang member embeddedness. Specifically, we would expect not only between-gang member variability or differences at the outset of gang membership, but also (1) continued consequences of gang embeddedness and (2) multiplicative differences according to the duration of gang membership. Factors that push and pull individuals deeper into gangs—drugs, violence, deviant peers, and psychological and social factors—will likely contribute to greater embeddedness and negatively impact social capital, regardless of how long someone remains in a gang. At the same time, those more deeply embedded will persist along the gang trajectory for longer time periods, which in turn will correspond with continued negative effects on social capital. Thus, gang embeddedness in combination with long lengths of gang membership will work at odds with social capital, as they doubly contribute to knifing off connections and relationships to conventional social institutions. Most importantly, the capital that gang members are accumulating in the street is unlikely to help in obtaining gainful employment.

Leaving the Gang

Exiting the gang is an area in gang research that has been poorly understood. However, recent research on this issue, drawing from the larger social science literature examining exiting from groups, indicates the substantial impact of desistance on social capital (Bjorgo, 2002, 2009; Cronin, 2009; Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Decker & Pyrooz, 2011; Ebaugh, 1988; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Pyrooz et al., 2012). First, gang membership is negatively correlated with age. As gang members transition into adulthood, very few retain involvement and identify as gang members. Even as gang members renounce these ties, emerging adulthood is not a “kind” place for gang members, as deficits in various forms of capital such a transition difficult and those most likely to be involved with gangs cannot avail themselves to many types of prosocial support such as work or marriage.

Second, a series of pushes and pulls characterize the desistance process, resulting in a decision to de-identify as a gang member. As with extremist groups, cults, and terrorist groups, there are diverse reasons for leaving gangs. Pyrooz and Decker (2011) described such pushes and pulls relative to the gang, in that pushes are factors internal to the group and pulls are factors external to the group that drive individuals away from the gang. Decker and Lauritsen (2002) found the experience of violence and the fear of future violence, especially crippling or lethal violence, motivate gang leaving. The victimization of friends and loved ones, including fellow gang members, can penetrate the veil of invincibility that many gang members believe they possess as group members. As individuals age, they tire of constantly looking over their shoulders for rival gangs or of persistent police harassment. In this sense, street capital cannot compensate or protect an individual in a manner comparable to what truly desistance can bring to their lives.

Concerns about family and familial obligations also pervade in the exit process. Thrasher (1927) noted that many corner boys simply stopped coming around when they married. Fleisher and Kreinert (2004) pointed to pregnancy among females as a driver for becoming inactive from the gang, for three reasons. First, pregnant girls are uncomfortable putting the fetus in a position to be harmed. Second, girls are unlikely to attack a pregnant gang member. Most importantly, With respect to social capital, what is most important for these pregnant women is access to social services. While pregnancy may not be considered normal, it avails young women to assistance from agencies, or “weak ties.” These ties, coupled with the pregnancy itself, reduce gang involvement and increase exposure to prosocial individuals, which in turn can promote reentry into legitimate social spheres.

Third, there is variability in the rate at which people leave gangs. For some, the route one follows to leave the gang follows a “knifing-off” pattern. For others, the route is more gradual, reflecting a slow attenuation of social and emotional ties that corresponds with replenishing social capital in conventional environments. There are two sides to this process in relation to social capital, however. Those with more social capital are better equipped for abrupt departures as they can easily integrate into environments external to the gang. For these individuals, eruptions of serious gang violence could easily push them out of the gang and into prosocial spheres. Alternatively, those who rely overwhelmingly on the gang will have more difficulty in exiting. The same sequence of gang violence may actually push these individuals deeper into the gang because there are few alternative routes. Consistent with such hypotheses, Pyrooz et al. (2012) demonstrated that those more deeply embedded in gangs remained for much longer periods, while those more weakly embedded desisted quickly. Regardless of how this process manifests, there are specific circumstances that mark the deidentification process. Thus far, we have detailed most of the cognitive processes, but there are also behavioral steps that must be in place.

Fourth, there are methods to leaving the gang that may involve some degree of hostility. That is, leaving the gang may present the potential for conflict with group members who may not appreciate fellow gang members trying to leave. Hence, terms such as “blood in, blood out”—shedding blood to enter and exit the gang—are associated with gangs. It is often believed that the only way to leave the gang is by getting murdered or murdering one’s mother (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). It is not uncommon, however, to hear that it is necessary to get “jumped out” of the gang or having to “go on a mission” against rival gangs before one is “cleared” to leave. Indeed, it has been shown that anywhere from 10 to 20% of gang members experience such hostile departures (Decker & Pyrooz, 2011; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011). Yet, these processes could be moderated by social capital in the gang context, or street capital. Decker and Pyrooz (2011) found that the myth of getting jumped out of a gang has some basis in reality; those who “put in work” did not have to endure such departures. “Putting in work” reflected the accumulation of social capital among gang members. Specifically, individuals who dedicated a substantial portion of time and effort to the gang—spending time in prison, making the gang money—meant not having to endure a violent departure. In other words, social capital on the street serves at least to some degree as a protective mechanism for some individuals leaving the gang.

Finally, the removal from social settings is also a technique that can help with group desistance, but can also reduce social ties and capital. Moving may help facilitate exiting the gang, since different neighborhoods or cities may help remove gang ties (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002). In addition, because school is a key social setting and a primary driver of childhood and adolescent friendships (Bidart & Lavenu, 2005; Haynie, 2002), leaving school serves as a catalyst for the severing of social and gang ties (Brunson & Miller, 2009; Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2010; Pyrooz, Fox, & Decker, 2010). Thus, changing schools and neighborhoods likely means the elimination of weak social ties and the fraying of more intimate ties. In doing so, accumulations of social capital are negatively impacted.

Moving to any of these new locations can still prove problematic. If moving to a new school or neighborhood in the same city, rival gangs may be aware of an individual’s former gang ties (Harding, 2010). Alternatively, being in a new school or neighborhood may prove uneventful, and the desisting or ex-gang member may return to their old stomping grounds to see other friends and family (see Miller, 2008). Or, they may seek out comparable peer groups or clash with the existing social structure, both of which could be problematic. Either way, social structures and networks are intricately involved in this process, as replacing social capital can be difficult. Thus, leaving the gang is a difficult process, wrought with shifting identities and friendships. The push and pull of membership illustrate these difficulties, and the inconsistent ways in which social capital works in the context of deviant groups may play an instrumental role in the desistance process. Further, the human capital acquired during gang membership is unlikely to be applicable in the above-ground economy. Indeed, the attitudes and skills learned by former members may hinder attempts to “go straight” absent cognitive shifts that acknowledge and address them. In each instance, one mechanism that has recently become available may contribute to the growth of human and social capital and may be affecting gang membership: the Internet.

Gang Membership and Technology

One of the broad concerns about the proliferation of gangs and gang membership relates to new technologies and media. Research on the lyrical content of rap music finds that many references are made to both code of the street ideals like toughness, aggression, and violence (Kubrin, 2005), and also gangs. A prominent concern has arisen with respect to the growth of the Internet and the spread of gangs (Papachristos, 2005). Much like for right-wing extremist groups and terrorist organizations, the Internet offers gangs a medium through which to spread their message and have easy access to multiple individuals. As Maxson (1998) noted, the spread of gangs is due to the spread of gang culture rather than the migration of gangs or gang members—such processes can be easily facilitated by the Internet. While criminologists have been slow to embrace the online world as a research arena, we can draw from other social sciences to try and understand if and how gang members are using the Internet. Further, the Internet is agnostic to ideology as it is a medium of communication; thus, the Internet can be used for both prosocial and antisocial purposes in the lives of gang members (Decker & Pyrooz, 2011).

Social lives continue to move into online forums, as most Americans currently use the Internet (Zhang, Callegaro, & Thomas, 2008). The migration of substantial portions of social life to online formats has implications for the nature and impact of social capital. Scholars differ on how much impact the Internet has on people’s individual lives, with some suggesting that new technologies only reinforce one’s attitudes and beliefs (Tyler, 2002), while others contend that the Internet can revolutionize how individuals receive, use, and benefit from information (see Anderson, Bikson, Law, & Mitchell, 1995; Mehra, Merkel, & Bishop, 2004). With respect to social and human capital, it appears that Internet use and the presence of new technologies can supplement them. Indeed, with the continued growth of social networking sites, blogs, and online dating sites, it may be easier than ever to meet people with similar interests or to locate new information online. What individuals do and how they act in-person are similar to how they act online (Hargittai, 2007), which raises larger questions about how gangs may exploit the Internet and how the Internet may threaten the existence of gangs.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest that the former is taking place. For example, a search of the Internet video site Youtube for “gang fight” videos yields over 54,000 hits. However, we generally know very little about gang members or other offenders using the Internet (Decker & Pyrooz, 2011). Digital resources are not distributed equally among people or places (Stern, 2010) and differential patterns of Internet access suggest that many of those at risk for gang membership would be less likely to access and use the Internet, based on their limited education, wealth, and race/ethnicity (Hoffman, Novak, & Schlosser, 2000; National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2000). Decker and Pyrooz (2011), however, find that many gang members can access the Internet, and that most use social networking sites, though with less frequency compared to the general population. The lower prevalence of Internet use among gang members is not surprising, and may reflect the unequal distribution of digital resources (Hargittai, 2007). Such patterns of differential access and use follow the relationship between economic disadvantage and the presence of gangs in urban areas (Pyrooz, Fox, & Decker, 2010). While not all members embrace this technology, many gang members report using the Internet for illicit means (Pyrooz & Decker, 2011). Whether such behavior translates into criminal capital on the street remains to be seen. More broadly though, member involvement in crime often leads to imprisonment, historically due to street crimes. Those spending significant amounts of time incarcerated will have less exposure to computers and the Internet as correctional facilities, by design, do not have Internet access and maintain many restrictions on the technologies available to inmates.

In spite of these hindrances, technological advances in the past two decades have made computer technology cheaper and more easily accessible for those who, 10 years ago, may only have had access at a public library or school. Perhaps cell phones and laptops represent the same status symbols and access to capital as the pagers of the early 1990s (see Anderson, 1999; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). Indeed, the Internet likely provides numerous opportunities for gang and nongang members alike to increase or decrease their accumulation of human and social capital. In light of the findings by Decker and Pyrooz (2011), it is important to consider how technology may then affect gang members before, during, and after their membership.

For nonmembers, the Internet may be an easy way to gain information about gangs—Youtube videos, Facebook, and MySpace pages, and access to local, national, and international news. In doing so, it enables making contact with current gang members, and potentially avails individuals to membership opportunities. Such information serves as a catalyst of emerging gangs in diverse, nontraditional locations (Maxson, 1998). Further, because information on illicit activities is available online, this may serve to accelerate the level of criminality of new members. In conjunction, new members may still be able to draw out their embeddedness curve via social networking sites. The friends who they may see least frequently, those who are the most prosocial, are still available and able to be contacted. Thus, the early relationship between technology and capital acquisition among gang members is mixed. The Internet provides opportunities to gather gang information and potentially contact members, while simultaneously allowing for the maintenance of friendships once gang joining has taken place. As these new members become more embedded, they enter the persistence period of membership. Here, the role of the Internet changes from facilitating membership to increasing criminal embeddedness.

For current gang members then, the Internet likely offers opportunities to expand beyond their original social spheres, building “criminal capital” through the sale of drugs and stolen goods, planning fights, and harassing rivals online (Decker & Pyrooz, 2011). These actions may carry more weight in the gang context, but are perhaps as visible or valuable when compared to selling drugs or getting into fights in the local park or on the corner. Alternatively, for others members, it may simply seem implausible or dangerous to use the Internet for gang activities, as law enforcement may be monitoring them. In either case, it is at this stage that the attenuation of social ties has taken place. Presumably, fewer prosocial peers are maintaining contact with the gang members and the “suction” effect is in full force. Because of this isolation and the decreasing levels of human and social capital, individuals will begin desisting. Further, their accumulation of prosocial human capital will likely have stalled, thus preventing easy reentry into licit enterprises. Unable to cope with the loss of capital as well as other events during membership, such as violence, the Internet offers opportunities to begin reconnecting with lost friends.

For desisting and former gang members, the Internet offers a means for developing weak ties to nongang members. The discreet, potentially anonymous nature of the Internet then offers an easier opportunity to find help leaving the gang. These resources may range from local nonprofits to contact information for other former members. Likewise, the Internet offers opportunities for occupational and educational attainment unavailable to gang leavers of generations past. These opportunities are particularly salient, given the limited understanding of gang desistance and the mechanisms that assist in the desistance process. In this instance, the role of technology is then echoing the role it played for gang joiners: supplementing levels of capital and providing opportunities for new information and new friends through the formation of weak ties. The degree to which this technology assists gang leaving, however, is still unknown. Rather, the Internet acts as a means of reacquiring lost social and human capital, as well as redeveloping social ties with nongang members. In each of these scenarios, the Internet plays a variety of roles, each changing depending on where individuals are in terms of their gang embeddedness. Because of this, the role of the Internet on the relationship between gang membership and capital warrants further investigation. We consider this as well as other directions for future research next.

Directions for Future Research

While much progress has been made in the last quarter century with respect to the study of gangs, there remain areas of research that are underdeveloped. Chief among these is a more rigorous incorporation of social and human capital into understanding the onset, persistence, and desistance processes of gang membership. The life-course perspective offers an opportunity to do just this, given its emphasis on life events and social embeddedness. In considering this relationship, we present five directions for future research and specific research questions for empirical inquiry.

First, understanding the longitudinal relationship between joining and leaving a gang and human and social capital is critical. As shown in Fig. 9.1, we posit that the onset of gang membership will see a “bump” in social capital, as an individual has solidified new social ties. However, given the “social suctioning” effect of gangs, individuals are expected to begin losing prosocial friends over time. This is attributable to spending less time hanging out or participating in prosocial endeavors, perhaps also dropping out of school or leaving their job. The longer one stays in the gang, the more isolated one becomes. The duration of gang membership should then correspond negatively to the acquisition of social capital. In conjunction with this decline in social capital comes an increase in criminal capital (Hagan, 1993). An individual will make different friends, many of whom will be fellow gang members, as well as retain some friends from before joining. Gang joining will also entail substantial changes to human capital. Leaving school or work because of gang membership inhibits the acquisition of both technical and healthy interpersonal skills. Like the new friends a new gang member is making, the knowledge they are acquiring inside the gang is likely to have limited value in licit enterprises. Further, the limited applicability of capital acquired inside the gang will be reinforced if the gang member becomes incarcerated (Rose & Clear, 1998). Future research should then ­concentrate on obtaining more precise estimates of the embeddedness–capital relationship, as well as how desisting and former gang members begin to rebuild their social and human capital.

Second, the impact of technology on gang member’s social and human capital requires further investigation. With many gang members reporting Internet access (Decker & Pyrooz, 2011), the Internet provides opportunities to supplement and expand on their reserves of social and human capital. The Internet may be acting to fill structural holes in social networks, expanding capital through diversified ties, exposing members to new potential friends, customers, and victims. Technology may simply allow for reinforcing in-person social ties, giving members the opportunity to stay in constant contact, planning assaults on rivals and parties. Specifically, the rise of social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace allows gang members to monitor and harass rivals, as well as sell drugs and stolen goods. While these members are gaining criminal capital online, we do not know if such behaviors translate into street credibility. Alternatively, membership on social networking sites like Facebook may allow for recent gang joiners to continue discreet relationships with their nongang friends online, thereby slowing the loss of social capital early in their membership. The human capital element of technology also offers opportunities for research. The Internet offers gang members a discreet way to continue gaining knowledge (both prosocial and otherwise) away from the gang. Because work on gangs and technology is still in its infancy, the acquisition of knowledge by gang members should continue to be of interest to both academics and practitioners.

Third, researchers must recognize that gangs act as sources of social and human capital. While we posit that gang joining has deleterious effects on social capital over time, comparisons must be made between those who do and do not join gangs. Given the social roots of gang joining, it may be that joining is the result of limited social capital (Rubio, 1997), or is intended to positively supplement already existing levels (Pih, De La Rosa, Rugh, & Mao, 2008). We would expect then that those who do not join gangs enjoy higher levels of social and human capital in the long term, and slightly lower levels in the short term. Concurrently, researchers should consider how gangs and nongang groups directly impact levels of capital. We expect that gangs and other antisocial groups (cults, hate groups) act in similar ways, slowly drawing members away from prosocial arenas. In drawing from research on these groups, the notion of embeddedness is important. Comparisons between such groups in their effects on capital, however, have yet to be made.

Fourth, future research should consider the age-based timing of the effects of gang membership on capital acquisition. While gang membership typically only lasts 1 year (Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 2004), and that age is inversely related to gang membership, we should then expect that younger gang members might accumulate capital differently. This is illustrated among historical gangs, where age-graded divisions yielded increasing levels of delinquency among members (Miller, 2011). Further, individuals who are “born into” gangs may exhibit the lowest levels of social capital; experiencing isolation from nongang members at an early age and achieving sufficient levels of gang embeddedness (and thus criminal capital) by the time other peers are only starting to join. These individuals represent perhaps the lowest percentage of all joiners, especially in areas where gangs have only recently come into fruition. Broadly though, as the probability of gang membership peaks at age 15 years (Decker & Pyrooz, 2011), then early joiners should experience more severe negative consequences on social and human capital. We posit those individuals to be the most likely to drop out of school, have trouble acquiring or maintaining jobs, and have frequent run-ins with the law. Those who join later will be closer to completing high school and will have formed a number of prosocial relations prior to joining.

Fifth, and last, the generational effects of gang membership on capital warrant greater attention. If gang members engaged in less lethal violence and drug use prior to the 1960s (e.g., Miller, 2011; Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1947), then these same individuals may have accrued criminal capital in fundamentally different ways than contemporary members. Does this mean that current gang members attain criminal capital in the same manner uniformly, or are there distinct variations based on certain behaviors and beliefs that research has yet to explore in depth? This question must be considered in light of gender, location, race, and time period. Each may have independent, as well as additive and multiplicative, effects on social and human capital, though such comparisons have yet to be explored in much depth (for exceptions, see Peterson, Miller & Esbensen, 2001; Pih et al., 2008).

These considerations are all questions of the relationship between gang membership and social capital over the life-course. In conjunction, we briefly consider one manner in which this relationship may be quantified. Social networking methods of data collection and analysis offer one way to measure how social capital is affected by gang membership. Research examining reciprocity is becoming more prevalent (e.g., Schaefer, Light, Fabes, Hanish, & Martin, 2010), and social network analyses of gangs and gang members occurring more frequently. Prior research has used data from police records (McGloin, 2005; Morselli, 2008; Sarnecki, 2001; see also Papachristos, 2009) or specific gang data (Fleisher, 2006; Papachristos, 2006). Future research would be wise to begin harnessing the social network methodology with greater frequency. This is by no means an easy task, but would provide a greater understanding of how gang embeddedness changes relative to individuals moving in and out of the gang (Pyrooz et al., 2012). By focusing on egocentric networks, it becomes possible to explore empirically how gang membership attenuates ties to nongang members over time.

Conclusions

The study of gangs in the social sciences is an old tradition, dating back to the early twentieth century, and still continues to draw the attention of researchers. This is due, in part, to the continued growth in the size and scope of gang membership both in America and abroad (Decker, Van Gemert, & Pyrooz, 2009; Egley & Howell, 2011). Much of this research has considered the role of the physical and social environments in facilitating the emergence of gangs, as well as the persistence of individual’s gang membership. More recent scholarship has instead focused on how an individual’s social networks influence behavior. In the case of gangs, membership slowly draws members away from prosocial institutions.

In this chapter, we have explored the role of gang membership on the acquisition of human and social capital. The role of capital is not exclusively a positive one, however, and we refer to Hagan’s (1993) development of criminal capital in juxtaposition to more prosocial ties among gang members. The onset of gang membership likely yields a slight increase in capital, as it corresponds with an increased number of social ties. Over time, as an individual becomes more embedded in the gang, ties to prosocial peers and institutions are disrupted and show signs of decay. Concurrent with concerns about this “suction” effect are the role that technology plays in enhancing or decreasing capital. The relationship between gangs and technologies like the Internet is a complex one that researchers are only beginning to unravel. In some instances, the Internet may assist in gang joining and membership, allowing members to plan out crimes. In others, members may harness the Internet to begin trying to rebuild their prosocial networks. These complexities lend themselves to future research opportunities and considerations, which we have discussed as well as display above (Table 9.1).

Table 9.1 Directions for future research
Full size table