A comparison of New York gangs in the 1950s as studies by Lewis Yablonsky to contemporary Los Angeles gangs in the 1980s

The purpose of this study is to compare contemporary gangs in Los Angeles to those studied by Lewis Yablonsky in New York in the 1950s. In so doing, an analytic framework is derived from Yablonsky's study, The Violent Gang. Descriptive data concerning Los Angeles gangs were collected from June 1984 through August 1988 while the researcher was simultaneously employed as a Probation Officer in a Los Angeles County Probation Camp and as a part-time teacher in a probation camp and Los Angeles County adult custodial facilities. The researcher conducted informal interviews in these settings with gang members and custodial staff; a participant observer, I collected artifacts from gang members as well as documents from the Probation Department. These then are the bases of the data. This essentially replicates the method of research used by Yablonsky in his study. One of the major elements of Yablonsky's study was the near-group. This study discusses his near-group theory in depth and challenges some of his findings. Another element of Yablonsky's study is the sociopathology of gang leadership. While this study recognizes that sociopathic behavior exists within the gang, I found that sociopathy exists more situationally than as a permanent behavior. Unlike Yablonsky's gangs of the 1950s, today's contemporary gangs appear to have situationally based, non-sociopathic leadership and members whose self-esteem, while acting within the context of the gang, is high. Group cohesion involving rituals is interpreted in terms of Randall Collins' discussion of rituals and their importance of controlling gang members and their beliefs. Implications for future developments and research on gangs in Los Angeles and elsewhere are also explored. Prevention of violence in terms of alternative social groupings are suggested. From these data, one major finding is the importance of ethnicity in violence, group cohesion and primary activities. In fact, all other findings must be interpreted in terms of ethnicity. Some historic background information is included to facilitate interpretations for the importance of ethnic differences.