Oppositional Culture: The Pursuit of a Decent Life

To explain the social origins of the oppositional culture is to explain the why humans seek peace of mind and overall security for their own well-being. The system of oppositional culture essentially represents “two poles of value orientation” (Anderson 2000: 35). Ideally, everyone in society would associate themselves with the upper pole of value orientation, but this clearly is not the case. Society dictates how one is to behave and respond in a given environment; Anderson calls this behavior of decency – cleverly enough – the “decent” behavior which represents the upper tiers of the value orientation scale (Anderson 2000: 35). On the other hand, many people struggle financially and thus have to “hustle” and perform an act of “code-switching” between decent and “ghetto” (or “street”) behaviors in order to secure their lives yet still fit into the ideals of society (Anderson 2000: 35-37). These acts (or lack thereof) create a marker for various individuals as to how high or low on this orientation scale they are ranked; this is the scale of value orientation and how “decent” or “street” one is. According to Elijah Anderson (2000), street families commonly have one set frame of mindset that dampens any advancement. First and foremost, he claims that street parents differ from decent parents in a sense that they “often show a lack of consideration for other people and have a rather superficial sense of family and community” (Anderson 2000: 45). What is it to be a mother? While to the decent mothers it is to foster the growth of a future generation and a future representation of one’s self, to a street mother it is simply to possess the child as though the child were considered an individual’s property, if one may. Various examples are given in The Code of the Street that depicts street mothers at local bars “getting high and socializing with other adults” that show this rather superficial grasp of what it is to be “unified” as a family (Anderson 2000: 49). An example of what Anderson would call street families being inconsiderate towards others would be the story of a woman named Maxine who lets her children play noisily outside, deals drugs throughout the night, and contribute towards the litter found on the streets (Anderson 2000:50). The decent would refer to these people as ignorant as the decent families would – in consideration for others – do their part of contributing towards the common area shared with the rest of the community. Another story of Yvette tells a story of a young girl who was sheltered her entire life from the lives of the “street” individuals including those in her extended family. As a result of this isolation, Yvette’s future was protected and her life secured. However, a simple decision of choosing to be decent is not enough to actually be decent in itself as there are a variety of factors that hinder upward social mobility from street lives to decency. Street families often raise and subject their young to the harsh conditions of street life. With that said, the children grow up with the values and significances of what it takes to get by street-style. It is often hard to break such routines simply due to the fact that this is what has been accepted as the way of life. Another factor that may also hinder the upwards mobility is the fact that being street while moving upwards towards a decent life may be seen by the street as a form of deception to selfishly ensure their own well-being. Men especially trying to escape the street life for decency would be seen as committing an act of betrayal, “selling out,” or in the case of non-white males “acting white” (Anderson 2000: 65). In the case of Robert, the street life that he left came back to passively attack him through retaliation. The street individuals that he formerly associated himself with would drive by his new establishment of attempting to live a “legitimate” life showing him what he could have gained had he chosen to return to the life in which he held high power, gained enormous amounts of respect, and made for himself an honorable reputation status (Anderson 2000: 296). Because of this act of betrayal, the street members would disown Robert and no longer associate him with their street community therefore eliminating the street life as a fallback plan. Once Robert – or anyone seeking to leave the street life, for that matter – chooses to disassociate themselves from the street in pursuit of a decent life, they are often on their own as they have come to disrespect and betray their origins. In addition to Robert is an individual named John who was not as successful in his pursuit for decency. John was not able to effectively code switch between lives to get where he needed to go. As mentioned earlier, code-switching juggles two identities and was exactly what Robert needed to progress into his new future. In fact, Robert accepted his new decent identity in lieu of his original street identity that had led him to serve time locked up. Anderson stated that the prisoners “rode and harassed” Robert thereby fueling his desire to change the course of his life towards a new life where he would be rewarded for his legitimate efforts (Anderson 2000: 291). Along with Robert were three other individuals enduring much of the same situation as Robert was. John on the other hand was a less successful code-switcher. His anger and street identity often landed him without a job and serving time locked up. Interpretation of both characters in The Code of the Street revealed that John strived for his new identity whereas Robert became his new identity. Robert was able to obtain his goals with determination and the acceptance of delayed gratification (Anderson 2000: 296). The fact that John was not able to hold back and resist punching another person in the face not only showed that he was ineffective at code-switching between street life and decent life, but it also showed the inability to accept delayed gratification as he was always looking for a quick fix in his life. Punching someone in the face would provide John with the immediate satisfaction of retaliation but would land him without a job and unable to pay his fines (Anderson 2000: 244). Financial dependency was another factor that made it harder for John to accomplish what Robert had accomplished. John had children of his own as well as a mother and a brother to take care of; in essence, he was the head of his household. To say that John did not make enough of a living would be speaking modestly at the least. John made next to nothing and was still expected to pay his fines and support his children at the same time (Anderson 2000: 245). John used his children to flaunt his fertility and manliness as a sign of power in the street life although it only defiled his image in the decent life. What the decent would probably see as an identity problem for John would be advantageous in John’s street identity. Similarly to Robert, John had his own “old head” to guide him through in the pursuit of decency. Robert, however, had the addition of the aforementioned three individuals who sought to better themselves in much the same way. This factor gave Robert power in numbers while John was in it alone (Anderson 2000: 293). Another possible factor was the fact that Robert was harassed and mistreated while locked up with a much longer sentence than John’s repeated short sentences. This gave Robert a second to reevaluate his life as he did not want any part of these conditions, whereas John used his sentence almost as a trophy status marker of his masculinity and toughness in the street (Anderson 2000: 291). It can be said that John was given a fish whereas Robert was taught how to fish; John’s “fish” would be his multiple jobs given to him and Robert’s learning how to fish would be building his fruit stand, selling his fruit, and working his way up from absolutely nothing. Both individuals asked for help, but it would seem that John asked for favors whereas Robert asked for advice. Throughout The Code of the Street, various examples are given to support the theory that upward social mobility is often impossible unless one is determined and makes radical successful changes in identity and lifestyle; it is not enough to simply strive for a decent life, one has to become that decent individual. Anderson tells of many individuals and their stories with the most significant being that of John and Robert. John was not able to code-switch as effectively and therefore struggled to get past obstacles in his life. With external factors aside, John still tried for a life of decency whereas Robert completely abandoned any trace of his street life and became his new decent identity. To advance up society’s scale of value orientation from street to decency involves hard work and determination which may often be impossible given the factors that have placed an individual in the street pole to begin with. The glass wall that prohibits many from making it through lies in between the two poles of street and decency and involves abandoning (and therefore betraying) the street in pursuit of an unsecured decent life eliminating any fallback options. This is where many of the individuals that Anderson speaks of hits the glass wall and did not make it through; this point-of-no-return is the clearest marker on the scale to differentiate between street and decent. This glass wall on the value orientation scale marks the code of the street.

References
Anderson, Elijah. 1999. The Code of the Streets: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. W. W. Norton & Company: New York.