Cintron’s article Angels’ Town details different ways of communicating gang affiliation using main stream symbols that would otherwise seem innocent when looked at outside of a gang perspective. The primary example used in the article is gang members wearing specific athletic team jerseys, using the teams colors to represent their chosen gang colors and thus show other members which gang they were affiliated with.
Cintron also makes the statement that “[h]and signs, tattoos, jewelry, clothes, oral language, and miscellaneous objects used the same vocabulary to signal one’s gang affiliations and to insult other gangs” (166).
This brings me to a question that I’ve struggled with throughout this course. Should we include aspects of communication other than the written word as a form of literacy? Do you really need to be literate in gang signs and vocabulary to understand their warning or is their symbolic literacy only necessary for members themselves? Would outsiders benefit from becoming more literate about gang members inner workings?
And an optional question slightly unrelated to literacy: Near the end of the article, Cintron brings up the idea of giving gang members a legitimate voice in communities. Do you think that including gang leaders at town hall meetings would help the city and gangs understand each other and work together better or would it only lead to more distruction? Is there a chance that by giving gang members a legitimate voice to make changes in the community that they may finally feel legitimately respected and thus stop their destructive ways in attempt to gain illegitimate respect?
34 Responses to Symbols as Literacy?