In the Words of Elijah Anderson The Atlantic May 1994: “At the heart of the code….respect.”
Elijah Anderson first presented his concept of the Code of the Street to the general reading public in this article, (emphasis added throughout):
Of all the problems besetting the poor inner-city black community, none is more pressing than that of interpersonal violence and aggression. It wreaks havoc daily with the lives of community residents and increasingly spills over into downtown and residential middle-class areas. Muggings, burglaries, carjackings, and drug-related shootings, all of which may leave their victims or innocent bystanders dead, are now common enough to concern all urban and many suburban residents. The inclination to violence springs from the circumstances of life among the ghetto poor–the lack of jobs that pay a living wage, the stigma of race, the fallout from rampant drug use and drug trafficking, and the resulting alienation and lack of hope for the future.
……
Simply living in such an environment places young people at special risk of falling victim to aggressive behavior. …This is because the street culture has evolved what may be called a code of the streets, which amounts to a set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior, including violence. The rules prescribe both a proper comportment and a proper way to respond if challenged. They regulate the use of violence and so allow those who are inclined to aggression to precipitate violent encounters in an approved way. The rules have been established and are enforced mainly by the street-oriented, but on the streets the distinction between street and decent is often irrelevant; everybody knows that if the rules are violated, there are penalties. Knowledge of the code is thus largely defensive; it is literally necessary for operating in public. Therefore, even though families with a decency orientation are usually opposed to the values of the code, they often reluctantly encourage their children’s familiarity with it to enable them to negotiate the inner-city environment.
At the heart of the code is the issue of respect–loosely defined as being treated “right,” or granted the deference one deserves. However, in the troublesome public environment of the inner city, as people increasingly feel buffeted by forces beyond their control, what one deserves in the way of respect becomes more and more problematic and uncertain. This in turn further opens the issue of respect to sometimes intense interpersonal negotiation. In the street culture, especially among young people, respect is viewed as almost an external entity that is hard-won but easily lost, and so must constantly be guarded.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/05/the-code-of-the-streets/306601/
A research definition:
from the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice 2009 Research in Brief: “The Code of the Street and African-American Adolescent Violence”:
The “code of the street” theory, developed by Yale professor Elijah Anderson, presents an explanation for high rates of violence among African-American adolescents. Observing life in a Philadelphia African-American neighborhood, Anderson saw that economic disadvantage, separation from mainstream society, and racial discrimination encountered by some African-American adolescents may lead to anti-social attitudes and to violent behavior.
The authors go on to say:
Elijah Anderson, a professor of sociology currently at Yale University presents a compelling argument for the high rates of violence among African American adolescents. In his “code of the street” thesis. Anderson argues that the economic disadvantage, social dislocation and racial discrimination encountered foster deviant, anti-social attitudes (i.e., a street code) and developmental pathways that are related to violent behavior. (Stewart & Simon, 2009).
Elijah Anderson’s 550 word Synopsis of the Code of the Street
Also from Stewart and Simon’s “The Code of the Street and African-American Adolescent Violence”:
Of all the problems besetting the poor, inner-city black community, none is more pressing than that of interpersonal violence and aggression. It wreaks havoc daily with the lives of community residents and increasingly spills over into downtown and residential middle-class areas. Muggings, burglaries, carjackings and drug-related shootings, all of which may leave their victims or innocent bystanders dead, are now common enough to concern all urban and many suburban residents. The inclination to violence springs from the circumstances of life among the ghetto poor — the lack of jobs that pay a living wage, the stigma of race, the fallout from rampant drug use and drug trafficking, and the resulting alienation and lack of hope for the future.
Simply living in such an environment places young people at special risk of falling victim to aggressive behavior. Although there are often forces in the community that can counteract the negative influences — by far the most powerful being a strong, loving, “decent” (as inner-city residents put it) family committed to middle class values — the despair is pervasive enough to have spawned an oppositional culture, that of “the streets,” whose norms are often consciously opposed to those of mainstream society. These two orientations — decent and street — socially organize the community, and their coexistence has important consequences for residents, particularly children growing up in the inner city.
Above all, this environment means that even youngsters whose home lives reflect mainstream values — and the majority of homes in the community do — must be able to handle themselves in a street- oriented environment. This is because the street culture has evolved what may be called a code of the street, which amounts to a set of informal rules governing interpersonal public behavior, including violence. The rules prescribe both a proper comportment and the proper way to respond if challenged. They regulate the use of violence and so supply a rationale that allows those who are inclined to aggression to precipitate violent encounters in an approved way. The rules have been established and are enforced mainly by the street oriented, but on the streets the distinction between street and decent is often irrelevant; everybody knows that if the rules are violated, there are penalties. Knowledge of the code is thus largely defensive; it is literally necessary for operating in public. Therefore, even though families with a decency orientation are usually opposed to the values of the code, they often reluctantly encourage their children’s familiarity with it to enable them to negotiate the inner-city environment. At the heart of the code is the issue of respect — loosely defined as being treated “right” or granted the deference, or “props,” one deserves. However, in the troublesome public environment of the inner city, as people increasingly feel buffeted by forces beyond their control, what one deserves in the way of respect becomes more and more problematic and uncertain. This in turn further opens the issue of respect, or “street credibility,” to sometimes intense interpersonal negotiation. In the street culture, especially among young people, “street cred” is viewed as almost an external entity that is hard-won but easily lost, and so must constantly be guarded; it is high maintenance and is never secured once and for all but depends on a series of performances that effectively answer challenges and transgressions by others.
As explanation and predictor of increased risk of aggressive and violent behavior
From a Stewart and Simon paper abstract
Based upon his ethnographic research in Philadelphia, Anderson (1997, 1999) argues that exposure to extreme community disadvantage, residing in “street” families, and persistent discrimination encourage many African Americans to adopt an oppositional culture that he labels the “code of the street.” The code entails a cynicism regarding societal rules and a distrust of others combined with the belief that one must be prepared to use any means necessary to protect oneself, avoid exploitation, and maintain respect. Anderson contends that commitment to this code dramatically increases the probability of involvement in acts of aggression and violence. Several recent studies have provided support for Anderson’s thesis (Brezina et al., 2004; Ousey, 2005; Stewart & Simons, 2006; 2010).
“Social Adversity, Genetic Variation, Street Code and Aggression: “A Genetically Informed Model of Violent Behavior” Youth Violence Juvenile Justice. 2012 January 1; 10(1): 3–24. doi:10.1177/1541204011422087