Alt-Right Gangs

A Hazy Shade of White

Shannon E. Reid, Matthew Valasik

• Editorial: University of California Press
• Año: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780520971844
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Sozialwissenschaften
• Categoría: Kriminologie

Alt-Right Gangs provides a timely and necessary discussion of youth-oriented groups within the white power movement. Focusing on how these groups fit into the current research on street gangs, Shannon E. Reid and Matthew Valasik catalog the myths and realities around alt-right gangs and their members; illustrate how they use music, social media, space, and violence; and document the risk factors for joining an alt-right gang, as well as the mechanisms for leaving. By presenting a way to understand the growth, influence, and everyday operations of these groups, Alt-Right Gangs informs students, researchers, law enforcement members, and policy makers on this complex subject. Most significantly, the authors offer an extensively evaluated set of prevention and intervention strategies that can be incorporated into existing anti-gang initiatives. With a clear, coherent point of view, this book offers a contemporary synthesis that will appeal to students and scholars alike.

1

THE DILEMMA OF DEFINITIONS
AND CATEGORIZATIONS

I started this gang called the Proud Boys!

GAVIN MCINNES (JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE [FEBRUARY 23, 2017])

We [PENI] were a group of fucken white boys that formed together to protect each other, gang style. It wasn’t nothing fucken political at all. Some of the members might have been more political . . . but generally we were only interested in being gangsters.

SIMI, SMITH & REESER (2008: 766)

INTRODUCTION

This chapter aims to orient the reader to the definitional and categorization issues that impact the study of youth-oriented white power groups. That is, groups where the majority of members fall between the ages of 12 and 25 (Weerman et al. 2009). In order to address the current state of literature about white power youth, we need to examine how definitions and categorizations have shifted the dialogue in possibly unexpected and unanticipated ways. This discussion is even more critical since the research has seen both the exclusion (whether explicit or implicit) of these youth by gang researchers, and the inclusion of these youth by researchers focused on the more expansive WPM. This definitional gap has had long-term consequences for how white power youth are studied. Properly categorizing youth-dominated, street-oriented groups, such as racist skinhead groups, allows for the development of more appropriate research questions and data collection protocols so that findings from these studies can be generalizable and used effectively.

To better understand these issues, it is necessary to first consider how the inclusion of white power gang youth in studies that attempt to encapsulate the entire WPM and its iterations potentially misclassifies these youth. Second, we must examine how the definitional decisions of early skinhead and street gang researchers have influenced the divide between these two groups (e.g., Curry & Decker 1998; Hamm 1993; Klein 1995). This examination allows the reader to understand how and why these group distinctions were made so that we can then center the study of white power gang youth within the broader lens of gang research. It is important to note that our reference to, and usage of, the term white power youth is meant to limit our focus on youth who are members of street-based youth groups that have adopted white power ideology and/or signs and symbols. Youth involved in these groups have previously been referred to colloquially as racist skinheads (Baron 1997; Blazak 2001; Borgeson & Valeri 2018; Brake 1974; Cooter 2006; Fangen 1998; Hicks 2004; Moore 1993; Moore 1994; Pilkington, Omel’chenko & Garifzianova 2010; Pollard 2016; Reid & Valasik 2018; Sarabia & Shriver 2004; Simi 2006, 2009; Simi & Futrell 2015; Simi, Smith & Reeser 2008; Tarasov 2001, 2008; Valasik & Reid 2019). We use the term alt-right gangs to avoid limiting our discussion to only those youth who have adopted the “skinhead” label for their group or identity (since skinheads can be both racist and non-racist) (see Borgeson & Valeri 2018).

CATEGORIZING WHITE POWER GANG YOUTH

While many books and articles aggregate these youth (aged 12–25) into the larger WPM, we contend that including these youth in studies also containing and discussing long-established white power groups organized around older individuals, such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), neo-Confederates (e.g., League of the South), Christian Identity sects (e.g., The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord), Creativity (formerly known as The Church of the Creator) sects (e.g., Creativity Movement, Creativity Alliance), racialized Odinists (e.g., The Silent Brotherhood), and neo-Nazis (e.g., National Socialist Movement, White Aryan Resistance) is a misclassification of these youth. While it makes sense, from a social-movements perspective, to aggregate all individuals who use white power symbols and language together, this is an oversimplification. These white power groups are not interchangeable and are very likely to have distinct risk factors and behavioral characteristics. The inclusion of youth in these larger studies has a number of negative implications, including an overemphasis on the roll and impact of ideology, an underestimation of the prevalence of cafeteria-style offending patterns, and an inability to develop generalizable findings. While the need for larger sample sizes may have driven many of the definitional and aggregation decisions made by researchers (see Blee 1996; Hamm 1993), the consequences of these decisions have greatly limited our ability to create effective prevention, intervention, and suppression policies and programs that can be utilized by policy makers, law enforcement, or local stakeholders to address white power groups (see Reitman 2018).

By examining the different samples from some key studies, one can see how this aggregation can affect policy makers’ and practitioners’ use of research findings. The purpose of these examples is not to call out any particular researcher but rather to highlight the over-inclusion of youth in larger white power studies.

1. Freilich and colleagues (2009) use Berlet and Vysotky’s (2006) typology organizing far-right groups into three categories: religious, political, and youth cultural. For their study, Freilich et al. (2009) focused on (in order) Aryan Nations, National Alliance, and Public Enemy #1 (PEN1).

2. Blee (2003) uses a broad definition, sampling women with an association to a group that is considered an active racist group (i.e., racist skinheads, Christian Identity, Ku Klux Klan, and neo-Nazi groups).

3. Simi and colleagues collected data from members of any white supremacist group, with participants ranging in age from 19 to 61 (Simi, Sporer & Bubolz, 2016; Simi, Blee, DeMichele & Windisch 2017).

All of these definitions make several assumptions that are yet to be supported in the literature. First is the notion that each type of white power group has the same motivations and risk factors for membership as the others. Among other problems with this idea is the substantial age range within many of these groups. Can we expect that a 16-year-old who joins a racist skinhead gang has the same motivations and risk factors for membership as a 40-year-old who joins the KKK? Second is the view that ideology is the principal motivator for membership. For this to be accepted, one must assume that an individual joins a gang such as PEN1 solely because of white supremacist motivations instead of other reasons (e.g., protection, economic interest, self-identity, etc.) (see Borgeson & Valeri 2018). When we consider the race-based organization of prisons (see Goodman 2008), it seems difficult to believe that individuals choose to join PEN1 or Aryan Brotherhood because they are seeking out like-minded racists rather than because there are a limited number of groups providing protection for white prisoners. On the street, similar constraints about group availability in the criminal market may play a role in group selection. For instance, Christensen (1994) found that skinhead gang members will switch between racist and non-racist skinhead gangs based on a desire to be a member of a group, underscoring the role of social relationships over ideology in membership choices. Third is the idea that adhering to a white power ideology is a definer for all of these groups, rather than just being a descriptor. Currently, the aggregation of different types of far-right groups together for research purposes assumes that they all share a common ideology (see Belew 2018). However, as we have seen with racist skinhead gangs in Europe, the ideological signs and symbols of these groups are used for intimidation purposes rather than to assert a belief (van Gemert, Peterson & Lien 2008). Instead, if ideology is treated as a descriptor, then more appropriate distinctions can be utilized to delineate similarities and differences not only between the various types of white power groups but also between those groups and other types of subcultural groups (e.g., street gangs, extremist groups, criminal syndicates).

It is not only social movement studies, that have unnecessarily limited or expanded their samples to the detriment of the understanding of youth in white power groups. For example, Klein (1995: 22) states in The American Street Gang that his book is a discussion “of street gangs, not skinheads” partly because of what he perceived as a lack of street orientation on the part of racist skinhead groups. Racist skinheads are “inside; they’re working on their written materials; or if outside, they’re looking for a target, not lounging around.” However, since street gang survey research does not ask questions that could identify membership in a white power gang, these youth may be captured in these studies without researchers being aware they are in the sample (e.g., the G.R.E.A.T. survey, see Esbensen, Osgood, Peterson, Taylor & Carson 2013; Esbensen, Peterson, Taylor & Osgood 2012). In these surveys, researchers are unable to distinguish racist skinheads from other white youth that claim gang membership. For example, youth captured in the Division of Juvenile Justice study include white power youth (i.e., members of different skinhead gangs) that all analyses count as gang members. However, were it not for the data, qualitative and official, collected directly by the researchers, their membership in these groups would have been unknown and they would have been assumed to be members in conventional gangs (see Magnus & Scott 2020; Maxson et al. 2012; Reid & Maxson 2016; Scott 2018a, 2018b, 2019; Scott & Maxson 2016; Valasik & Reid 2019). As we will see next, if these youth were not identified by very particular indicators, they would be categorized as conventional gang members across a range of gang definitions.

DEFINING WHITE POWER GANG YOUTH (A.K.A. ALT-RIGHT GANGS)

The next major issue surrounding the study of white power youth is the question of definitions. We consider how definitions have been used to disqualify youth, and their groups, that fall under the white power/alt-right heading from street gang studies. At the core of the distinction between street gangs and racist skinheads lies a definitional quandary. The definitional distinction between racist skinheads and street gangs is in the role of ideology (Reid & Valasik 2018). A review of the racist skinhead literature finds that the “otherness” of skinhead youth, as compared to street gang youth, is often focused on the mythology around skinheads as “the foot soldiers” of the far right (Christensen 1994; Keane 1993; Moore 1993) and bastions of the working-class ideal (Pollard 2016). This chapter lays out our argument that ideology should not be the limiting factor in excluding racist skinheads from research on street gangs. Ideology itself is neither adhered to in such a strict way nor so unique to youth in white power groups that it places them outside of the street gang spectrum (Simi 2006, 2009; Simi et al. 2008; Valasik & Reid 2019). Thus, to focus on the ideology or race-based orientation of skinheads is to ignore or minimize the role that ideology and racial/ethnic pride play in the formation, maintenance, and membership of non-white street gangs (see Brotherton & Barrios 2004; Cureton 2011; Francisco & Martinez 2003; Helmreich 1973; Moore 1978, 1991; Short 1974; Short & Moland 1976; Vigil 1996). The use of ideology as a reason to limit the inclusion of racist skinheads in gang studies has directly impacted how researchers study white power youth, how their findings influence the training of law enforcement officers, and how policies are supported and implemented to deal with white power youth groups (Reitman 2018; Valasik & Reid 2018a).

Next, consider some common definitions used to identify gangs and gang members. These definitions are used to analyze how white power youth groups fit into these street gang definitions.

1. The California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act, California Penal Code section 186.22(f), states that a criminal street gang is defined as “any ongoing organization, association or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its primary activities the commission of one or more of the criminal acts [. . . ], having a common name or common identifying sign or symbol, and whose members individually or collectively engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity.”¹

2. In social science research the definition of a gang has varied widely, but Esbensen and colleagues point out that most definitions include, at minimum: (1) a focus on youth status (i.e., the majority of their members are between 10 and early 20s); and (2) group members engage in delinquent or law-violating behavior (Esbensen, Winfree, He & Taylor 2001). Other research definitions expand upon this to include, but are not limited to, control of and/or demarcation of territory, a sense of permanence, utilization of signs and symbols (i.e., tattoos, hand signs, graffiti) to designate in-group/out-group status, and participation in violence (see Fleisher 1998; Klein 1971; Puffer 1912; Short 1996; Thrasher 1927).

3. The Eurogang definition identifies a street gang as “any durable, street-oriented youth group whose involvement in illegal activity is part of their group identity” (Weerman et al. 2009: 20).

4. Self-nomination of gang membership (Decker, Pyrooz, Sweeten & Moule 2014; Esbensen, Winfree, et al. 2001; Esbensen, Osgood, et al. 2001; Esbensen & Osgood 1999; Webb, Katz & Decker 2006).

The review of these definitions underscores how youth who join alt-right gangs would clearly fall under these definitions. Other white power groups, such as the National Socialist Movement or the League of the South, would not fall under this definitional umbrella due to the majority of these groups’ membership being beyond the 12–25 age range, lacking a street-orientation, and criminal activity not being part of their group’s collective identity. In California, members of groups such as PEN1, Aryan Brotherhood, Nazi Low Riders, La Mirada Punks, West Coast Costa Mesa Skins, and the Orange County Skins have been charged with crimes that were “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang” (California Penal Code section 186.22(f)), with several members having gang enhancements added to their sentences. In 2010, the California Department of Justice’s Division of Law Enforcement put out a report on Organized Crime in California with a section on “White Street Gangs” highlighting both racist and non-racist white street gangs. The report states, “Today’s white gangs in California and across the nation consist of white males from the ages of 12 to 27 years old. Law enforcement officials report rising levels of criminal activity by the white gangs, including credit card theft, fraudulent checks, vehicle theft, home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, and murder” (Harris 2010). For law enforcement purposes, these white power youth groups would be considered a gang (e.g., PEN1), while other white power groups, with their older members, are not (e.g., National Socialist Movement). Law enforcement also focuses on these youths’ participation in a range of offenses, rather than focusing on hate/bias crime (see also Simi et al. 2008).

As mentioned above, it is not a true definitional distinction between street gangs and white power gangs that has researchers “removing” white power youth from larger gang studies, but rather a reliance on an outdated understanding of these groups and their members. Even though the field of gang research still fails to agree on a common description for street gangs, the Eurogang definition “has become widely adopted and appears regularly in publications” and could be considered the most appropriate definition for determining what is a street gang (Maxson & Esbensen 2016: 7). Under this definition, racist skinhead groups would clearly be considered a street gang, as indicated by Pyrooz and colleagues’ (2018) recent study. Furthermore, over the last two decades many edited volumes of street gang scholarship include research that discusses or focuses on such white power gang groups (see Dekleva 2001; De Waele & Pauwels 2016; Kersten 2001; Lien 2001; Reid et al. 2020; Salagaev, Shashkin, Sherbakova & Touriyanskiy 2005; Sela-Shayovitz 2012; Shashkin 2008; Simi 2006). For example, Klein (2001: 17) stated in The Eurogang Paradox, “Skin...