Gang Leader for a Day Review

Basil Chiasson

November 21^st 2011

Anth 201-004

Yellow Card

Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Street by Sudhir Venkatesh. New York. Penguin Books, 2008, 238 pp US $16.00

            In his book Gang Leader For a Day, graduate sociology student Sudhir Venkatesh performs research on people living in the Robert Taylor projects located on the South side of Chicago. In his research, he interviews and observes project tenants including: squatters, pimps, prostitutes, police officers, local community leaders, street hustlers and the members of the community who simply try to survive in the projects. Venkatesh uncovers many truths about the projects that may never have been told without his research.

Initially, Venkatesh’s research is traditional surveying of  project tenant’s but he soon finds this method of gathering information  ineffective, as many people he talks to openly tell him that they believe that this method will get him nowhere and that he should try something else (7-8). After being mistaken for a Mexican spy and held hostage by members of the local gang the Black Kings, Venkatesh develops a relationship with the local gang leader J.T. (18-19). Through this relationship, Venkatesh is gradually exposed to members of the community and starts to get an understanding of what it is like to be poor and black in Chicago’s inner-city.

 One of the first major surprises to Venkatesh about project life is that in times of emergency, no one calls the police or ambulances. This seems to be because there is a belief that the police are uncomfortable with and apathetic towards the members of the projects. Instead, the members of the Black Kings will be notified of the emergency and they will seek proper action. In one instance, a woman living in one of the buildings who was pursuing a career in modeling was beaten up by her manager. The woman was driven to the hospital and the man who beat her up was beaten up himself by members of the gang. This type of conduct was demonstrated again later in the book at drive-by shootings that occurred at outdoor building parties. Venkatesh was shocked when no one called the police, but deferred to members of the gang to retaliate accordingly.

This was not the only case of members of the Robert Taylor projects avoiding dealing with the authorities. Instead of calling the fire department or maintenance, Robert Taylor residents would bring their troubles to the head of the building council, Ms. Bailey. At first it seemed that Ms. Bailey was performing a valiant service for her tenants, but as time went on and she allowed more access and information to Venkatesh, it became clear that this was not the case. Most of the time, if tenants actually wanted something accomplished they had to bribe Ms. Bailey, and in some cases had to do so continuously. This included those who where living there illegally as well as the gangs who wanted permission to sell drugs on the premises without her interference.

It also seemed that members of the police were involved in their own kind of “hustle”. Venkatesh personally saw an officer raid someone’s home and beat him because he had not given the officer his “cut” of the revenue he made from selling cocaine (235-236).
Even the members of the projects who tried to obey the law had a hard time surviving. Many groups of women, for example would form networks that exchanged services such as cooking and babysitting for one another(196-197).

            Despite the fact that Venkatesh’s findings were profoundly informative and insightful, it must not be overlooked that he broke many ethical codes for conducting research to get this information. First, despite the fact that his professors and advisors told him that he should focus on the poverty in general of the Chicago projects, he continued to focus primarily on the gang life of the Black Kings. Second, Venkatesh was not always direct in his intentions with the people he interviewed and studied. In most cases he would not tell people much, if anything about who he was other than that he was doing research for the university (earning him the nickname “The Professor”).  The most questionable case of misleading his research participants was with J.T., the gang leader who in many ways was the primary subject of his research. J.T. was constantly under the impression that Venkathesh was actually writing about him and all of the supplemental research was just for background about who he was. Although never outright denying it, Venkatesh never told J.T. the true nature of research. Finally, since Venkatesh was spending so much time with the gang, he was invlolved unintentionally in activity that could have gotten him into a lot of trouble. This included being around when there was conspiracy of explicit illegal action such as where the “foot soldiers” of the gang would sell their drugs and even what the retaliation plan was for after a drive by shooting. If Venkatesh had to testify in court, he would either have to lie, which could spoil the validity of his research, or tell the truth, which would earn contempt or even violent action from the gang.

If not for the above infringements of research conduct however, it is possible that Venkatesh would not have been able to get such comprehensive data and thus the true nature of inner-city poverty may never have been fully revealed.