Gang Leader For a Day

Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets (2008)

by Sudhir Venkatesh

The author describes himself as a "rogue sociologist," a bold bit of branding that's more than just posturing.  Tired of the stilted questionnaires and lack of human feeling in poverty research, Venkatesh one day takes it upon himself to walk straight up to a high-rise in Chicago and talk to the drug dealers.  He's accosted roughly and initially mistaken for a Hispanic, but one charismatic middle-level dealer, JT, is impressed with Venkatesh's bravado and allows him to see the day to day life of the people in the projects as well as some of the seedier aspects of gang life in the Black Kings.  For ten years, Venkatesh remained a somewhat trusted figure, an outsider for sure, albeit one with privileges as a sympathetic observer, and every once in a while getting his hands dirty (or his feet – at one point he joins in the beatdown of a woman-abusing junkie).  Eventually Venkatesh is even allowed to make the rounds of the South Side and even suggest ways to iron out squabbles and problems that JT deals with.

There are problems with this sort of rogue ethnography, of course.  Venkatesh is for better or worse an ally of the Black Kings, and thus may not be allowed to see the toll their protection racket may take on civilians, small business owners, and others trying to get by.  However, it's fascinating to hear how the gangs act as de facto police in the area, dispensing favors and settling disputes.  The real police, like EMTs, rarely come to the projects, so certainly the Kings are providing a needed service, but are they filling a need left by a racist system or, through violence, creating a reason for their interference and growing power?  It's more likely closer to the latter; JT isn't stupid, and uses Venkatesh for his own ends, as when he takes economic data recorded by the sociologist to extract more tribute.  In all, this is an eye-opening and enthralling look at a too-often hidden side of poverty in America, although since it's through the lens of a crack dealer in a high-rise in the '90s, it's a bit skewed.

Why Good Things Happen to Good People

Why Good Things Happen to Good People: The Exciting New Research That proves the Link Between Doing Good and Living a Longer, Healthier, Happier Life (2007)

by Stephen Post and Jill Neimark

The (main) author, Stephen Post, is a professor of bioethics at Case Western, and the president and founder of the Institute for Research on Unlimited Love (IRUL), located at the school.  In this book, he makes the claim that possessing and acting on loving traits such as generosity, courage, listening, respect, creativity, humor, compassion, and so on help improve one's outlook, health, and lifespan.  Citing dozens of studies commissioned and funded by his own IRUL institute, and with some dubious phrases such as "compassion may be oxytocin, the feel-good hormone" and "drumming in groups can boost the immune system" (these statements probably not approved by the FDA), he does show some evidence that altruism is linked to health.  Of course there is also a lot of reliance on correlation as well: veterans who performed acts of bravery were found to score high on maturity and emotional stability; those who volunteer to help others tend to live longer.  But does volunteering make you live longer, or do healthier, positive, stress-free people volunteer?  The passages on forgiveness and listening are the strongest, in my view.  With practical advice including how to use Tonglen breathing, a Tibetan Buddhist technique for sending compassion into the universe, and great quotes such as "you can't hear with your heart until you silence the noise of the ego," these chapters give readers ways to improve their daily life by reducing stress.  I also enjoyed some of the advice on conflict: while listening to others, accept what they say, check how your body is reacting, and instead of replying, ask yourself, how can I meet this with kindness?  In all, Post's "proofs" of the benefits of living with love fall somewhere between dubious science and cultish zealotry, but shouldn't we all act like it is true anyway?  After all, "compassion is the basis of morality."  Until we have more rigorous proof, that's good enough.