Counting Gangs: Conceptual and Validity Problems with the Eurogang Definition

  • Judith Aldridge
  • Juanjo Medina-Ariz
  • Robert Ralphs
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we reflect on the utility of the Eurogang definition across a number of research projects in which it has been employed. We suggest that “street orientation” aspect of the definition might more properly be considered a descriptive—rather than defining—criterion, and raise validity concerns in relation to the key aspect of the Eurogang definition: that the group’s “involvement in illegal activity” is part of its “group identity.” In particular, using case studies, we describe three types of delinquent youth group that we argue should not be considered gangs, but which would be using the Eurogang definition. Finally, we raise for discussion and debate the possibility for an alternative definitional criterion: that gangs are groups with a reputation for violence or its threat, even if rarely enacted.

Keywords

Europe Cocaine Smoke Ketamine Amphetamine 

References

  1. Aldridge J, Medina J (2008) Youth gangs in an English city: social exclusion, drugs and violence (No. ESRC RES-000–23–0615)Google Scholar
  2. Aldridge J, Medina J, Ralphs R (2008) Dangers and problems of doing ‘gang’ research in the UK. In: van Gemert F, Peterson D, Lien I-L (eds) Street gangs, migration and ethnicity. Willan, Cullompton, pp 31–46Google Scholar
  3. Aldridge J, Shute J, Ralphs R, Medina J (2009) Blame the parents? Challenges for parent-focussed programmes for families of gang-involved young people. Child Soc 25:371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aldridge J, Measham F, Williams L (2011a). Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Aldridge J, Ralphs R, Medina J (2011b) Collateral damage: gang territory and policing in an English city. In: Goldson B (ed) Youth in crisis? ‘Gangs’, territoriality and violence. Routledge, London, pp 72–88Google Scholar
  6. Decker SH, Van Winkle B (1996) Life in the gang. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Erikson EH (1963) Childhood and society. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Esbensen FA, Weerman FM (2005) Youth gangs and troublesome youth groups in the United States and the Netherlands: a cross-national comparison. Eur J Criminol 2:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hennigan KM, Spanovic M (2012) Gang dynamics through the lens of social identity theory. In: Esbensen FA, Maxson CL (eds) Youth gangs in international perspective: tales from the Eurogang program of research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein MW, Maxson CL (2006) Street gang patterns and policies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Maher, J (2007) Angels with dirty faces: youth gangs and troublesome youth groups in South Wales. PhD thesis, University of GlamorganGoogle Scholar
  12. Matsuda KN, Esbensen FA, Carson DC (2012) Putting the “gang” in “Eurogang”: characteristics of delinquent youth groups by different definitional approaches. In: Esbensen FA, Maxson CL (eds) Youth gangs in international perspective: tales from the Eurogang program of research. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Matza D (1964) Delinquency and drift. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Maxson CL, Klein M (1995) Investigating gang structures. J Gang Res 3:33–40Google Scholar
  15. Medina J, Ralphs R, Aldridge J (2010) Mentoring siblings of gang members: a template for reaching families of gang members? Child Soc. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00307.x, Online First
  16. Medina J, Aldridge J, Ralphs R (2011) Gang transformation, changes or demise: evidence from an English city. In: Hazen JM, Rodgers D (eds) Global gangs: comparative perspectives. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  17. Omole T (2011) Drug use. In: Fuller E (ed) Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2010. Information Centre for Health and Social Care, London, NATCENGoogle Scholar
  18. Ralphs R, Medina J, Aldridge J (2009) Who needs enemies with friends like these? The importance of place for young people living in known gang areas. J Youth Stud 12:483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sharp C, Aldridge J, Medina J (2006) Delinquent youth groups and offending behaviour: findings from the 2004 offending, crime and justice survey. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Shiner M, Newburn T (1997) Definitely, maybe not? The normalisation of recreational drug use amongst young people. Sociology 31:511–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tajfel H (1978) Differentiation between social groups. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Thrasher F (1927) The gang. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Tita GE, Cohen J, Engberg J (2005) An ecological study of the location of gang “set space”. Soc Probl 52:272–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vigil JD (1988) Group processes and street identity: adolescent chicano gang members. Ethos 16:421–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vigil JD (2002) A rainbow of gangs, street cultures in the mega-city. University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  26. Weerman F, Maxson CL, Esbensen FA, Aldridge J, Medina J, Van Gemert F (2009) Eurogang Program Manual: Background, development, and use of the Eurogang instruments in multi-site, multi-method comparative research. http://www.umsl.edu/~ccj/eurogang/Eurogang_20Manual.pdf
  27. Wood J, Alleyne E (2010) Street gang theory and research: where are we now and where do we go from here? Aggress Violent Behav 15:100–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yablonsky L (1960) The violent gang. Commentary 30:125–130Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Aldridge
    • 1
  • Juanjo Medina-Ariz
    • 1
  • Robert Ralphs
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice, School of LawUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of SociologyManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations