University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The sociolinguistics of tagging and Chicano gang graffiti

(USC Thesis Other)

The sociolinguistics of tagging and Chicano gang graffiti

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE SOCIOLINGUISTICS
OF TAGGING
AND CHICANO GANG GRAFFITI
by
Matthew Busby Hunt
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Applied Linguistics)
August 1996
© 1996 Matthew Busby Hunt
UMI Number: DP71563
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
in the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
Dissertation Rjblishing
UMI DP71563
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
uesf
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, written by
Matthew Busby Hunt
under the direction of h Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirements for the degree of
DO CTO R OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean
Date
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It w ould be a d isse rta tio n in and o f its e lf to acknowledge a ll o f
the people fo r w hom c re d it is due. B u t I w ill offer an abbreviated lis t.
I m u s t th a n k R obert H eylm un and Em m a Leon w ho firs t clued me in to
the idea th a t one could and should th in k about language and the w ay it
is used ra th e r th a n m erely u sin g it. W ith o u t th e ir influ e n ce , it is
d o u b tfu l th a t I w ould have ever considered applied lin g u is tic s as a fie ld
o f s tu d y or career.
A long the way, I have had the good fo rtu n e o f stu d yin g u nder
some b rillia n t, dedicated people. J e ff E lm an, R onald Langacker, D avid
P e rlm u tte r, Linda T h o rn b u rg , G raham Thurgood, K aren M istry, E laine
Andersen, F raida D u b in , Doug B iber, E lin o r Ochs, Steve Krashen and
R obert K aplan have provided me w ith an excellent education in
lin g u is tic s . I am g ra te fu l fo r th e ir trem endous im p a ct upon m y
th in k in g and life .
In a d d itio n to those great m inds, there are a n u m b e r o f scholars
w ho m u s t be singled o u t fo r th e ir c o n trib u tio n and m y u n d yin g
g ra titu d e .
• Fred B rengelm an, w ith h is encyclopedic know ledge in a w ide
a rra y o f subjects, was a priceless m entor.
• V id a S am iian directed and supported me b o th academ ically and
s p iritu a lly .
• Diego V ig il was and is an in s p irin g role m odel to em ulate.
II
• Ed Finegan’s d ire ctio n forced me to consider th in g s th a t I
w ould n o t have w ith o u t h im . H is in sig h ts have sharpened b o th
m y th in k in g and th is w ork.
• Dave Eskey, fo r w hom the title o f “S a in t” seems m ore
appropriate, m u st be com m ended fo r h is valuable in sig h ts, h is
vast patience, and h is bravery to d ire ct such an u n u s u a l project
as th is . He gave me the confidence to see th is w o rk to its
co m p le tio n .
• W ith o u t J im Gee, th is project w ould n o t have begun. N ot a day
goes b y th a t I am n o t rem inded o f h is perspective on som ething.
He has changed the w ay I view the w orld.
I m u st also th a n k the m any in d iv id u a ls who c o n trib u te d to the
contents o f th is project. The taggers and gang m em bers I interview ed
riske d a great deal in being so open about th e ir lives w ith an outsider.
I do n o t lis t th e ir nam es here in order to p ro te ct them , b u t
m e n tio n in g them sp e cifica lly w o u ld n o t come close to com pensating
them adequately fo r th e ir generous c o n trib u tio n s .
There are also a num b e r o f people w hom I w ish to th a n k , in
a d d itio n to those above, w ho added d ire c tly or in d ire c tly to th is
project. Laura Reiter, Linda W illia m s C ulver, and K a th y S tubaus are
c ritic a l to ru n n in g USC’s L in g u istics D epartm ent and are alw ays
b ending backw ards to get stu d e n ts th ro u g h the program — I was no
exception. R obin B elvin and m em bership in h is G raduate S urfers in
L in g u is tic s clu b was a w o n d e rfu l supplem ent to m y s p iritu a l grow th
and lin g u is tic s background. Ed O’C onnell and R obin D ryfoos S tern
m ade the tra n s itio n in to graduate school m ore palatable. A nd o f
iii
course, N ick D im m itt and the lu n c h -tim e b a ske tb a ll group were
p rob a b ly the b rig h te s t a d d itio n to m y academ ic life a t USC.
I w ould also lik e to th a n k the E n g lish and Foreign Languages
departm ent fa c u lty a t Pasadena C ity College fo r th e ir su p p o rt. How ard
H ertz, M el D onalson, R ussell F rank, and R obert O ventile m u st be
recognized fo r th e ir c o n tin u in g c o n trib u tio n to m y academ ic and
in te lle c tu a l developm ent— R obert also g ra cio u sly edited the fin a l copy
o f th is d isse rta tio n . B ro ck K lein, in p a rtic u la r, has been the dearest
colleague o f them a ll, n o t o n ly h elping me get va rio us Jobs th ro u g h the
years, b u t in s p irin g me to be a b e tte r teacher and hum an. H is
com m ents on d ra fts o f th is and other w o rk have been and alw ays are
h e lp fu l.
J u liA n n Slevcove and Dave C u a tt were b o th extrem ely h e lp fu l in
the photo scanning and enhancem ent used in th is d isse rta tio n . They
each gave me a crash course in usin g Adobe Photoshop, and w ith o u t
th e ir assistance, the photos herein w ould have been m uch m ore
d iffic u lt to read.
Friends and fa m ily have also c o n trib u te d in num erous ways to
th is effort. George K n ig h ts and Joe Slevcove have always given me
frie n d s h ip , love, and su p p o rt w henever there has been a need. They
are b e tte r th a n friends. Dave C ort, Ken K irb y, and M a tt H udson were
b ig m o tiva to rs fo r me early in th is p roject. I m iss th e ir frie n d sh ip s
dearly. Rob and Janice Lee and Kelley and Roger D erm ody also
deserve m y sincerest th a n ks, n o t o n ly fo r th e ir m oral su p p o rt, b u t fo r
p ro vid in g ta n g ib le assistance w ith homes to crash a t d u rin g those late
n ig h ts in LA.
iv
M y in -la w s, Joan and Roger Derm ody, and m y m other, Nancy
H u n t, were cru c ia l to m a in ta in in g m y life w h ile doing graduate studies.
There is n o th in g th a t th e y w ould n o t have done to help, and they
should be com m ended fo r the great love and care th e y gave m y boys,
ta k in g care o f them so th a t I could w o rk. M y b ro th e rs, S cott and Trey
H u n t, have always been a help--S cott, w it^ the diversions o f fis h in g
and d ivin g in order to m a in ta in m y sanity, and Trey, a police officer,
w ith h is u n iq u e perspective tow ards th is w o rk.
It is h a rd to im agine th a t I ever w ould have fin ish e d a
d isse rta tio n w ith o u t the in s p ira tio n o f m y fa th e r, R obert H u n t. He has
alw ays ta ke n an in te re s t and supported me in a ll th a t I have done
th ro u g h o u t m y life . C onsistent w ith th a t, he read and com m ented on
every chapter o f th is d isse rta tio n . He has been the greatest fa th e r and
frie n d a m an could have.
A nd fin a lly , I w ould lik e to acknowledge Lynne H u n t, m y w ife.
As a stu d e n t o f lin g u is tic s , I am awed by the pow er o f language, fo r it is
th ro u g h language th a t we in te rp re t o u r experiences and m ake sense o f
o u r w orlds. Yet, iro n ic a lly , I cannot help b u t re tu rn to the old adage
th a t words cannot capture my feelings fo r her. She has been m y
stre n g th , m y su p p o rt, m y Joy, m y life. It is on ly appro p ria te to
dedicate th is w o rk to her, fo r w ith o u t Lynne, it could n o t have
happened. She tru ly p u t me th rough.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE
1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
2 Graffiti as Genre and Register.................................................. .................... 2
3 Text................................................................................................................... 4
Oral vs. Written Modes............................................................................ 9
4 Defining Graffiti................................................................................................ 13
Specific Canvases and Writing Contents.............................................. 18
Writing Instrument................................................................................... 20
Writing Purpose....................................................................................... 21
Font.......................................................................................................... 23
Authorization............................................................................................ 24
Ownership................................................................................................ 26
Mainstream Institutional Practice and Representation...................... 28
Reinterpreting Graffiti.............................................................................. 33
Graffiti and Social Semiotics.................................................................. 35
5 Summary; Graffiti and Sociolinguistics........................................................ 37
CHAPTER TWO
1 Explanations of Graffiti................. ................................................................... 40
2 Graffiti/Ethnographic Data Collection............................................................. 46
3 Sociolinguistic Concepts.................................................................................. 49
Linguistic Activity....................................................................................... 49
Concepts from Giddens' Social Theory.................................................. 58
Convention, Markedness, Discourse, and Ideology............................ 60
Social Meanings.............................................................. ......................... 63
4 Summary............................... ............................................................................ 65
CHAPTER THREE
1 Sources............................................................................................................. 67
2 Tagging Society................................................................................................ 68
Demographic Make-up ................................................................. 69
Achieving Fame....................................................................................... 71
Ubiquity..................................................................................................... 73
Danger/Risk.............................................................................................. 76
Style......................................................................................................... 79
The Piecing Distinction........................................................................... 83
3 Tagging Contents............................................................................................ 87
Moniker.................................................................................................... 88
Crew......................................................................................................... 93
Abbreviation and Economy Register.................................................... 95
Crew Name Salience/Indexing............................................................... 99
Joining Crews........................................................................................... 102
Dates/Numbers......................................................................................... 104
VI
Characters................................................................................................. 108
Punctuation Marks................................................................................... 109
By-Lines................................................. ................................................... 111
4 Conflicts .................................................................................................. 111
Battles........................................................................................................ 111
Sanctions................................................................................................... 113
5 Summary........................................................................................................... 118
CHAPTER FOUR
1 Sources............................................................................................................... 120
2 Gang Society..................................................................................................... 122
Demographic Make-up: Age, Gender, Ethnicity, and SES................ 125
Types of Membership.............................................................................. 127
Cliques/Klikas........................................................................................... 130
Clique Names........................................................................................... 132
Gang Member Names............................................................................. 133
Achieving Respect.................................................................................... 136
3 Chicane Gang Graffiti........................................................................................ 137
Graffiti Types and Functions.................................................................... 138
Initiation...................................................................................................... 138
Rosters/Roll-Calls....................................................................................... 140
Boundaries........................... .................................................................... 142
Cross-Outs................................................................................................ 144
Memorials.................................................................................................. 147
Drug Advertisement.................................................................................. 148
Love Proclamation..................................................................................... 150
The Ingrained Habit of Graffiti Writing.................................................... 151
4 Chicane Indexing.............................................................................................. 152
Language.............. .................................................................................... 152
Words.......................................................................................................... 153
Fonts............................................................................................................ 154
Punctuation........................................................... 156
Titles................................................................................ 157
Additional Messages................................................................................ 158
5 Summary............................................................................................................ 159
CHAPTER FIVE
1 Literacy and Contextualization....................................................................... 164
2 Ideology and Social Practice.......................................................................... 170
Register Justification................................................................................ 171
Fame and Respect............................................................................... 173
Bravery........................................................................................................ 173
Group Memberships.................................................................................. 175
Landscape and Spaces.......................................................................... 176
Locations................................................................................................... 180
Ownership................................................................................................... 181
VII
Perseveration........................................................................................... 182
Cross-outs.............................................................................................. 183
Language Usage....................................................................................... 185
Writing Letter Names of Abbreviations................................................... 187
Register Specific Contextualization........................................................ 187
3 Graffiti Contents................................................................................................ 190
Required Elements: Names.................................................................... 191
y and K...................................................................................................... 193
Messages.................................................................................................. 194
Numbers..................................................................................................... 195
Punctuation............................................................................................... 197
Symbols..................................................................................................... 199
Fonts ................ 200
4 Simple Registers............................. 204
Chicano Gang Graffiti Elaboration.......................................................... 207
Tagging Elaboration................................................................................. 210
5 Summary....,........................ 213
CHAPTER SIX
1 Summary............................................................................................................ 216
2 Conclusions....................................................................................................... 221
3 Future Research.................................................................................................. 229
REFERENCES......................................................................................... 234
APPENDIX A: TAGGING GLOSSARY.............................................................. 243
APPENDIX B: GANG GLOSSARY.................................................................... 246
VIII
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER ONE
Figure 1.1 Political advertisement, Ensenada, B.C.,
Mexico (enhanced)....................................................................... 15
Figure 1.2 Graffiti on rock. Riverside County,
California (enhanced)................................................................... 16
Figure 1.3 Privately owned residential trash cans
with addresses, Santa Monica, California............................... 20
Figure 1.4 Private residential parking space,
Santa Monica, California............................................................. 21
Figure 1.5 Parking advertisement near the Los Angeles
Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California
(enhanced).................................................................................... 22
Figure 1.6 Directional mark on bike lane indicating five
kilometer turning point, Ballona Creek,
Los Angeles, California (enhanced) ............................. 22
Figure 1.7 Street locator indicating the direction of a
36 inch gas line, Los Angeles, California
(enhanced).................................................................................... 23
Figure 1.8 Privately owned residential trash can with
address written in a common graffiti font,
Inglewood, California.................................................................... 24
Figure 1.9 Cinergi building, Santa Monica, California..;.......................... 26
Figure 1.10 Van with writing by owner. Riverside, California ....... 27
Figure 1.11 House painted by owner. Riverside, California....................... 27
Figure 1.12 Warning painted on residential fence.
Culver City, California (enhanced).............................................. 28
Figure 1.13 Loyola crew logo, Ballona Creek, Los Angeles,
California........................................................................................ 29
Figure 1.14 Sign indicating ownership of Ballona Creek
property, Ballona Creek entrance, Playa Del Rey,
California........................................ 29
Figure 1.15 Ballona Creek tagging, Los Angeles, California...................... 30
Figure 1.16 Sanctioned Building painting, Los Angeles,
California (enhanced).................................................................. 31
Figure 1.17 Sanctioned street writing indicating a private
use of public property, twelve inch gas line
direction marker on street, Los Angeles, California
(enhanced)..................................................................................... 31
Figure 1.18 Gang graffiti in concrete beside Southern
California Gas Company impression on a
city sidewalk, Los Angeles, California (enhanced)....................33
IX
Figure 1.19 Tagging on Downey Avenue off-ramp sign,
91 freeway. Long Beach, California............................................ 36
Figure 1.20 Guerrilla art by Robbie Conal depicting US
senator Jesse Helms, posted in Exposition Park,
Los Angeles, California................................................................... 37
CHAPTER TWO
Figure 2.1 Principal areas of data collection in Los Angeles
County............................................................................................ 48
CHAPTER THREE
Tagging perseveration of CTR along the
northbound 405 freeway, Los Angeles, California.................. 74
Tagging behind a business along the 10 freeway,
Los Angeles, California (enhanced)..............................................76
Freeway perseveration by TAZER beside
605 freeway fast lane, Norwalk, California
(enhanced).................................................................................... 77
JENS throw-up beside 605 freeway fast lane,
Norwalk, California (enhanced)................................................... 77
IFK piece beside 10 freeway fast lane,
Los Angeles, California................................................................... 78
MEAN piece in the heavens, 110 freeway
overpass, Los Angeles, California............................................... 79
Tagging piece book....................................................................... 80
CBS and KTE piece, behind a business
along the 10 freeway, Santa Monica,
California....................................................................................... 82
Tag by PHAME, Los Angeles, California.................................. 90
Tag by OGER, Culver City, California........................................ 92
Tag by DREX of the crew NBC,
Santa Monica, California ...................................................... 93
Tag by DREXER, Los Angeles, California................................. 93
TNT and UBK throw-ups, Los Angeles,
California........................................................................................ 97
Piece by SACRED of the CULT crew.
Culver City, California................................................................... 100
LMK crew with copyright symbol on bus stop
wind screen, Los Angeles, California
(enhanced) ........................................................................ 101
FROD throw-up and NEWER tag with
copyright symbol, Ballona Creek,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 101
BISER throw-up and three crew memberships,
Los Angeles, California (enhanced)........................................... 104
Eyeball as an O, Santa Monica, California............................... 106
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
Figure 3.9
Figure 3.10
Figure 3.11
Figure 3.12
Figure 3.13
Figure 3.14
Figure 3.15
Figure 3.16
Figure 3.17
Figure 3.18
Figure 3.19 Skull character, Santa Monica, California................................ 109
Figure 3.20 Man character, Santa Monica, California................................. 109
Figure 3.21 "BUENO" and "SERK" tag, Ballona Creek,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 110
Figure 3.22 BUENO, SERK, and BONES "1992" tag,
Ballona Creek, Los Angeles, California..................................... 110
Figure 3.23 ARCH perseveration, 91 freeway,
• Bellflower, California..................................................................... 111
Figure 3.24 Tagging cross-outs, back of business
along the 10 freeway, Santa Monica,
California (enhanced).................................... ............................... 117
CHAPTER FOUR
Figure 4.1 Plaça written by Chepe of the Condors
clique of the Big Hazard gang,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 138
Figure 4.2 Varrio Big Hazard graffito, Los Angeles,
California........................................................................................ 139
Figure 4.3 Varrio Big Hazard, Ramona Gardens
Clique, Number O ne!, Los Angeles,
California........................................................................................ 139
Figure 4.4 Harpys roster graffito, Los Angeles,
California............................. .......................................................... 140
Figure 4.5 Harpys Graffito in Old English font,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 140
Figure 4.6 West Side 18th Street gang graffito
including gang members Flaco,
Goose and Shy-Boy, Los Angeles,
California....................................................................................... 141
Figure 4.7 Big Hazard graffito including Frank! of the
Sevens and Moosel of the Jokers,
Los Angeles, California............................................................... 142
Figure 4.8 Hazard gang graffito indicating a central
location in the Hazard gang, Los Angeles,
California....................................................................................... 143
Figure 4.9 Three 18th Street gang-name-only
graffiti indicating a gang border,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 144
Figure 4.10 Big Hazard cross-out of Varrio West
Grape Street invasion graffito and Big
Hazard gang location graffito, Los Angeles,
California........................................................................................ 146
Figure 4.11 Partial memorial graffito for Smokey,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 147
XI
Figure 4.12 Memorial graffito for Veneno of the
Santa Monica 17th Street gang who died
on December 25, 1991, Santa Monica,
California........................................................................................ 147
Figure 4.13 Memorial for Tank! of the Big Hazard
Tiny Dukes clique written by Demon!,
also of the Tiny Dukes, Los Angeles,
California........................................................................................ 148
Figure 4.14 Big Hazard graffito written by Lencho
in 1977 indicating marijuana for sale,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 149
Figure 4.15 Sur component of a larger Chicano gang
graffito, Santa Monica, California
(enhanced)..................................................................................... 149
Figure 4.16 Gang-name-only graffito of the 18th Street
gang, beginning with 13, ending with 1!,
Los Angeles, California................................................................. 150
Figure 4.17 Proclamation of love between Sololl
and Josiel! of the Hazard gang,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 151
Figure 4.18 Varrio 35th Street Intruders graffito,
Los Angeles, California (enhanced)........................................... 152
Figure 4.19 Varrio 35th Street Intruses graffito,
Los Angeles, California................................................................. 153
Figure 4.20 The letter 6 in a Box font............................................................ 155
Figure 4.21 The letter 6 in a Triangle font.................................................... 155
Figure 4.22 Big Hazard graffito written in Block font,
Los Angeles, California................................................................. 156
Figure 4.23 Big Hazard graffito written in Old English
font, Los Angeles, California........................................................ 156
Figure 4.24 Varrio Big Hazard is Number One graffito,
Los Angeles, California................................................................. 157
Figure 4.25 Graffito by Cucuy, Los Angeles, California............................... 157
Figure 4.26 Graffito by Jokester, BHIst, Los Angeles,
California........................................................................................ 157
Figure 4.27 Graffito by Ese Monstriol, including Termitel,
Varrio Big Hazard Rifa, #1, Los Angeles,
California (enhanced)................................................................... 158
CHAPTER FIVE
Figure 5.1 West Side 18th Street cross out,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 184
Figure 5.2 Santa Monica gang graffito by the
Hooterz clique abbreviated in
spelled-out Spanish, Santa Monica,
California............... ....................................................................... 186
XII
Figure 5.3 Easyriders gang center graffito,
Los Angeles, California................................................................ 189
Figure 5.4 Easyriders long form graffito,
Los Angeles, California (enhanced)............................................ 189
Figure 5.5 Culver City Gang boundary marker
graffito. Culver City, California.................................................... 190
Figure 5.6 Component graffito indicating 187,
subsequently crossed out by a rival
gang member, Los Angeles, California.............................. ....... 196
Figure 5.7 Gang graffito using apostrophe to
separate names, Los Angeles, California................................. 197
Figure 5.8 Condors clique roster with R surrounded
by punctuation marks, Los Angeles,
California........................................................................................ 199
Table 5.1 Twelve Chicano gang fonts of the letters
B, S, F, And R ............................................................ 202
Figure 5.9 Grey Throw-up turned sideways on a
telephone support, San Francisco,
California........................................................................................ 203
Figure 5.10 Grey on telephone support in original
orientation, San Francisco, California........................................ 204
XIII
CHAPTER ONE
1 Introduction
W hile n o t u n ive rsa l, g ra ffiti^ are n o t o n ly com m onplace
phenom ena in m ost m ajor citie s in the U nited States, th e y are also
found th ro u g h o u t the w o rld . From the G reat W all to the London Tube,
th e y have a long h is to ry spanning m any countries and cu ltu re s. In the
n e a rly 6000 year h is to ry o f w ritin g (Stubbs 1980), g ra ffiti have been
arou n d fo r a t least the la s t 2000 (Reisner 1971). Some a u th o rs on the
su b je ct have even suggested th a t p re h isto ric cave w ritin g is a fo rm o f
g ra ffiti (Bonuso 1976, R eisner & W echsler 1974).
One reason fo r p u ttin g the longevity o f g ra ffiti a t a t le a st 2000
years is because o f g ra ffiti (such as anti-governm ent in s c rip tio n s)
fo u n d in a n cie n t Rome (D eiulio 1978, Reisner 1971). F u rth e r
com pelling evidence fo r such an old tra d itio n is the w ritin g found in
the c ity o f Pom peii (Varone 1990, Varnedoe & G o p n ik 1990). In A.D.
79, the volcano V esuviu erupted, com pletely covering Pom peii w ith
b u rn in g ash. Consequently, the c ity was preserved as it was in th a t
year on the day o f the e ru p tio n . E xcavations o f Pom peii, beginning in
1748, have revealed th a t the c ity w a lls were covered w ith a ll kin d s of
in s c rip tio n s w h ich in clu d e d nam es, obscenities, oaths, p ictu re s,
le tte rs o f the alphabet, prayers, h is to ric a l references, and so on. Such
w ritin g s have u n ive rs a lly been referred to as g raffiti.
^The term graffiti is plural; graffito, singular. In general, graffito is used to
represent a single graffiti text and graffiti, to represent many texts. The word graffiti is
also used in the singular to represent a system or categoiy of writing, as a genre (and
consequently, as a non-count noun).
G ra ffiti is w ritin g th a t is unsanctioned by the ow ner or the
proper stew ard o f a canvas. A canvas is the p rop e rty on w h ich p rin t
appears. However, there are a b u n d a n t te xts w h ich appear to have
g ra ffiti-lik e ch a ra cte ristics regardless o f the canvas. For exam ple, in
the m odem era, g ra ffiti-lik e in s c rip tio n s have appeared as b o th
background and foreground su b je ct m a te ria l in a rtw o rk. Vam edoe &
G opnik (1990), in th e ir w o rk on high and low a rt, docum ent th a t
g ra ffiti have appeared in W estern a rt over the la s t 200 years, and,
w ith in the la s t century, have served as the m ain focus o f a n u m b e r o f
a rt m ovem ents. The affichistes a rtis ts , fo r instance, welcom ed g ra ffiti
va n d a lism on th e ir a rtw o rk as p a rt o f th e ir a rtw o rk (p.90).
A ny phenom enon th a t is so pervasive w a rra n ts study. It is
a ppropriate to probe the m any aspects o f g ra ffiti as prod u cts o f
d iffe re n t w ritin g practices th a t c u t across cu ltu re s and h is to ry and fa ll
w ith in the dom ain o f w ritte n discourse analysis. T his chapter w ill
exam ine the questions o f w h a t m akes a g ra ffito a te x t and w h a t m akes
a te xt g raffiti, i.e., w h a t co n stitu te s the g ra ffiti genre.
2 Graffiti as Genre and Register
A lth o u g h it is u n fo rtu n a te ly often la ckin g in sch o la rly w o rk on
the subject, in ve stig a tio n s o f g ra ffiti re qu ire th a t the specific k in d o f
g ra ffiti being discussed be id e n tifie d in a d d itio n to any s itu a tio n a l
features and com m unicative fu n ctio n s. T h is is because g ra ffiti va ry
g reatly across b o th s itu a tio n s and f u n c tio n s .^ Though the term s genre
2Graffiti literature frequently fails to suggest that, for example, the graffiti in a
medical school bathroom might be substantively different from the graffiti in a public
park bathroom, or that there are clear conventional differences in the graffiti of
different graffiti-writing cultures. Abel & Buckley (1977), for example, should be
and re g iste r w ill be defined in m ore d e ta il in C hapter 2, such
concepts are necessary a t the o u tse t o f any discussion o f g ra ffiti. In
o ther w ords, in analyzing a g ra ffito , it m u st be established firs t th a t the
piece o f w ritin g is a g ra ffito ; next, the k in d o f g ra ffito it is — th a t is the
re giste r to w h ich it belongs— m u st be determ ined.
Genres are b a sica lly classes o f com m unicative or expressive
a c tiv itie s realized (created, em ployed, and m ain ta in e d ) b y d is tin c t
lin g u is tic co m m u n itie s (Swales 1990). They are com m unicative form s
w h ich m ay va ry across social groups. T h a t is, a p a rtic u la r genre m ay
be used in the social practices o f a p a rtic u la r group o f people, b u t th a t
same genre m ig h t n o t be used by another. A d d itio n a lly, re aliza tion s o f
the same genre m ig h t va ry from one social group to another.
G ra ffiti c o n s titu te a w ritte n genre; the genre is used extensively
by some social groups and n o t a t a ll b y others. D iffe re n t groups o f
people w rite g ra ffiti in d iffe re n t social s itu a tio n s a n d /o r fo r d iffe re n t
purposes. T h a t is, the specific situ a tio n a l, lin g u is tic , te xtu a l, and
com m unicative features o f the expression o f th is genre m ay va ry
greatly.^ T h is is to say th a t there are d iffe re n t registers o f the genre.
Registers are the lin k in g o f specific lin g u is tic form s w ith
specific social s itu a tio n s (T ru d g ill 1974). R egisters are d is tin c t fro m
genres in th a t th e y in d ica te m ore specific lin g u is tic features as w e ll as
m ore specific social roles and fu n ctio n s. T h a t is, w ith in the genre o f
commended for at least limiting their study to a specific canvas. Le., bathroom walls;
however, they can be faulted in that they have not constrained their study to specific
kinds of bathroom walls— on which similar kinds of people would be apt to write
similar kinds of graffiti— making a more precise study possible.
^One of the primary purposes of this introductory chapter is to explore the
characteristics which distinguish graffiti from other w ritten genres.
3
g ra ffiti d iffe re n t social groups m ig h t p la y d is tin c t social roles and
pe rfo rm d is tin c t acts w hen w ritin g g ra ffiti, and the features correlated
w ith these roles and acts co n stitu te g ra ffiti registers. M oreover,
w ith in the p ractices o f specific g ra ffiti-w ritin g groups, there m ig h t be
d is tin c t classes o f g ra ffiti (sub-registers) w ith in w h ich d iffe re n t roles
or com m unicative purposes are being played out. S uch sub-register
roles and purposes are in d ica te d b y d is tin c t features o f the g ra ffiti.
T hus in a discussion o f g ra ffiti, one w ould expect some reference to
b o th genre and re g iste r specific features.
3 Text
S tudies o f text (for review s, see V ita co lo n n a 1988 and Grabe
1985) have in clu d e d a w ide va rie ty o f phenom ena in the past 20 years
[cf. Lemke 1988). In the fie ld o f lin g u is tic s , texts can cover a diverse
range, from a sim ple phonem e to a large colle ctio n o f essays. O ther
fie ld s also use the te rm quite broadly; text has been used to cover a
w ide range o f a rtifa c ts in d iscip lin e s such as art, cultural criticism,
and literature. So studies o f texts can cover a vast a rra y and can even
in clu d e n a tu ra l [i.e., n o t m an-m ade) phenom ena w h ich are in te rp re te d
o r “read” (encoded/decoded w ith m eaning), such as stars to an
astronom er and rive rs to a kayaker. T his s tu d y w ill incorporate a
lin g u is tic approach to te xt, fo r g ra ffiti are lin g u is tic te xts m ade up o f
lin g u is tic features— decodable w ords a t the v e iy least. In th is section,
some w o rk on te x t in lin g u is tic s w ill be sum m arized.
H a llid a y & H asan’s (1976) w o rk Cohesion in English is a sem inal
stu d y o f text and texture [textualitg). In th e ir study, th e y m ake m any
d a im s a b o u t linguistic texts th a t m e rit discussion here [cf. S toddard’s
(1991) sum m ary). One such cla im is th a t there are no size
re s tric tio n s on te xts fo r th e y can va ry “ ...fro m a m om entary c ry fo r
help to an a ll-d a y discussion in com m ittee” (p .l). Hence, th e y are n o t
confined to the boundaries o f the sentence; th a t is, th e y can be less
th a n a clause (“H elp!”)^ or num erous sentences (as in a novel).
H a llid a y & H asan c la rify th is n o tio n b y e x p lic itly s ta tin g th a t texts are
semantic units, n o t gram m atical ones; th e y are n o t u n its o f language
per se, b u t ra th e r u n its o f m eaning w h ich are encoded in language
(S teiner & V eltm an 1988). Thus, a te x t can be regarded as any
stre tch o f language w h ich has a unified meaning (P h illip s 1985).
In discussing te x t and te xtu re , H a llid a y & Hasan a d d itio n a lly
im p ly th a t, despite the fa ct th a t there can be m istakes or confusion,
m em bers o f a speech (discourse) co m m u n ity n o rm a lly know if
som ething is a te x t in th e ir com m unity: “We know , as a general ru le ,
w h e th e r any specim en o f o u r language co n stitu te s a TE X T o r n o t ”
(p .l). The paradigm th e y adopt fo r the stu d y o f texts is s im ila r to the
paradigm used in the stu d y o f syntax. In such a paradigm , m em bers o f
a speech co m m u n ity m ake ju d g m e n ts as to the g ra m m a tica lity o f
sentences. H a llid a y & Hasan, w o rkin g in the tra d itio n o f lin g u is tic s ,
b o rro w aspects o f th is m ethod. Cohesion in English is fille d w ith
language data exam ples th a t a ffirm o r violate the cohesive devices
H a llid a y and Hasan suggest are used in creating te xtu re . (It is assum ed
th a t th e speech co m m u n ity th a t th e y are appealing to in clu d e s readers
"^Here it is assumed that this is the transitive form of the verb help with the
obligatory object dropped. Other examples of expressions smaller than the clause
would include such expressions as “Hey!” “ Yes,” “ Wow,” “ Peace,” etc.
5
o f E n g lish w ho are com petent in m eta-gram m atical analysis, such as
lin g u is ts and E n g lish m ajors.)
In lik e m anner, th is stu d y relies upon the in tu itio n s o f m em bers
o f g ra ffiti-w ritin g co m m unities as to w h e th e r o r n o t c e rta in g ra ffiti are
te x tu a l. Features o f g ra ffiti te x tu a lity are described in C hapters 3 and
4. Aspects o f the social practices o u t o f w h ich specific features are
generated also are exam ined there.
T h is chapter exam ines p ro to typ ica l g ra ffiti features. It also
provides m a rg in a l exam ples about w h ic h readers (p a rtic u la rly N o rth
A m erican ones) w ill use th e ir own ju d g m e n ts to decide i f a piece o f
w ritin g fa lls in to the categoiy o f g ra ffiti o r not. Because readers are
m em bers o f d iffe re n t discourse com m unities, some d iffe re n t fro m the
a u th o r’s, u n ifo rm agreem ent as to w h a t is or is n o t g ra ffiti— th o u g h
hoped fo r— is n o t expected.
A problem th a t arises w hen u sin g in d iv id u a l (yet co m m u n ity-
based) ju d g m e n ts o f te x tu a lity is seen in S toddard’s co n te n tio n th a t
p h ysica l te xts produce d iffe re n t in te rp re ta tio n s , n o t o n ly across and
w ith in com m unities, b u t w ith in in d ivid u a ls : “ ...if we reread passages,
we ra re ly in te rp re t them exactly the same w ay the second tim e , or
even the th ir d ” (1991:9). C onsequently, there is a d is tin c tio n m ade
betw een the s ta tic ph ysica l te x t and the dynam ic te x t produced in the
m in d . The te xts th a t S toddard is concerned about are the va rio u s
“m e n ta l m o d e ls” [cf. Jo h n so n -L a ird 1983) th a t correspond to some
p h ysica l te xt. Such m entalistic texts fu rth e r H a llid a y & H asan’s n o tio n
o f a te x t as a sem iotic u n it realized in gram m ar. In a d d itio n , the idea
th a t there are d iffe re n t sorts o f in te rp re ta tio n s of a p h ysica l te x t
suggests th a t te x t types can be classified d iffe re n tia lly b y d iffe re n t
groups o f people and w ith in groups o f people, even fo r the same te xt.
It is argued here th a t g ra ffiti are often classified in to d iffe re n t
categories o f texts, depending on the social group doing the
cla ssifica tio n .
In a n o th e r in ve stig a tio n o f te xt. V an D ijk & K in ts c h (1977)
discuss tw o aspects: the m eaning o f the p a rts o f the te x t and the
m eaning o f its m acro structu re . Texts can be th o u g h t o f as u n its b u ilt
o f o th e r u n its . The com ponents are te xts in and o f them selves, b u t
together provide a la rg er m eaning in the m a cro stru ctu re . For
exam ple, im agine three d iffe re n t texts: the firs t is the
decontextualized w ords “In God We T ru s t” ; the second, “In God We
T ru s t” p rin te d on the image o f a d o lla r b ill; and the th ird , the same
d o lla r b ill im age in c lu d in g the firs t te x t p rin te d on to ile t paper. A ll
three texts have separate possible m eanings. W hen there are
com ponent texts, each is in te rp re te d d iffe re n tly based on the la rg er
m a cro stru ctu re o f the te x t (context) in w h ich each is embedded.
M acrostructure has been described as the “ synergism ” o f te x t
(Stoddard 1991): the category o f m eaning th a t comes o u t o f the
co m bina tio n o f (often d issim ila r) p a rts. (P h illip s (1985) labels th is
aspect o f te x t ’ahoutness.’) The synergism o f g ra ffiti te xts is c ru c ia l to
the analysis o f com ponent g ra ffiti texts and g ra ffito -in te rn a l features.
T h is is dem onstrated and discussed m ore fu lly in C hapters 3-5.
From a n o th er perspective, S teiner & V e ltm a n define te x t as a
“p ro d u c t o f language a c tiv ity encoded in w ords and delivered in to the
w o rld in the substance o f speech, w ritin g or sig n in g ” (1988:3). Here
there are a t least tw o stro n g p o ssib ilitie s fo r w h a t is m eant b y
“language a c tiv ity .” In one sense, it is m erely the p ro d u c tio n o f
language. In another, it is the larger m a cro stru ctu re referred to above.
It is the class o f a c tiv ity th a t m akes up the sem antic u n its th o u g h t o f as
texts.^ H a llid a y & H asan’s in itia l exam ples o f texts, a lb e it used to
co n tra st sizes, were classes o f a ctivitie s. A cry fo r help and a
committee meeting are b o th kin d s o f classifia b le lin g u is tic events—
social occasions in w h ich language plays a p a rt (D u ra n t! 1985, Hymes
1974). C ategorizing texts in th is w ay has p o ssib ly led researchers
such as Grabe (1985) and de Beaugrande & D ressier (1981) to define
texts as com m unicative occurrences. The language te x t is
categorizable in to a m eaningful u n it o f a c tiv ity in the m inds o f
co m m u n ity m em bers w ho produce them .
Regardless o f the various approaches ta ke n tow ards te x tu a lity ,
fro m S teiner & V e ltm a n ’s lin g u is tic p ro d u c tio n c rite rio n to de
Baugrande and D ressler’s “ standards o f te x tu a lity ” (cohesion;
coherence; in te n tio n a lity ; a cce p ta b ility; in fo rm a tiv ity ; s itu a tio n a lity ;
in te rte x tu a lity ), the g ra ffiti exam ined in th is s tu d y fa ll w ith in the range
o f n a tu ra l language texts. Furtherm ore, o f the num erous po in ts made
about te x t in H a llid a y & H asan’s w o rk, there are three basic ideas
w h ich are integrated in to th is stu d y o f g ra ffiti. F irs t, texts are n o t
re stricte d b y size; second, texts are m eaning based, n o t g ram m a tically
based; and th ird , te x tu a lity is co n stitu te d b y specific speech or
discourse com m unities. The kin d s o f g ra ffiti stu d ie d here can and do
va ry in size a great deal and they are ce rta in ly n o t constrained b y the
^The concept of Language activity is more fully developed in Chapter 2.
8
gram m ar o f standard E n g lish syntax: indeed, they ra re ly have verbs.®
B u t th e ir in te rp re ta tio n s (te xtu a lity) depend upon the com m unities to
w h ich th e y belong: th e y have com m unity-based m eaning
(m a cro stru ctu re )— as w e ll as e xtra-com m unity-based in te rp re ta tio n s
w h ich w ill be explored below — and th e y fo llo w com m unity-based
conventions (m icro stru ctu re ) (A tkinson 1991, Swales 1990). The two
d is tin c t g ra ffiti-w ritin g com m u n itie s are described (C hapters 3 and 4)
and com pared and contrasted (C hapter 5).
Oral vs. Written Modes
L in g u is tic te xts generally fin d th e ir expression th ro u g h o ra l or
w ritte n m edia— or in sign language, w h ich w ill n o t be addressed here.
There have been a b u n d a n t studies th a t exam ine the differences oral
and w ritte n modes generate or re qu ire and th a t s itu a te the tw o modes
in s im ila r or d is tin c t dom ains (see Chafe & T annen’s 1987 survey).
There have been q u ite co n tra d ic to ry conclusions re ga rd in g the
n a tu re s o f speech and w ritin g , the d iffe re n t consequences o f speech
vs. w ritin g , the p rim a cy o f speech or w ritin g , etc. One stu d y th a t trie s
to synthesize the co n tra d ic to ry fin d in g s is B ib e r’s (1988) V ariation
across speech and writing, w h ich com pares and co n tra sts m u ltip le
genres o f b o th speech and w ritin g across d iffe re n t s itu a tio n a l and
fu n c tio n a l dim ensions o f the lin g u is tic occurrences. B ib e r sum m arizes
h is fin d in g s in th is way:
There is no single, absolute difference between speech
and w ritin g in E ng lish ; ra th e r there are several
dim ensions o f va ria tio n , and p a rtic u la r types o f speech and
®However, in that this study examines the conventions of tagging and Chicano
gang graffiti, grammars for those two registers are implied.
w ritin g are m ore or less s im ila r w ith respect to each
d im ension, (p. 198)
In o th e r w ords, ra th e r th a n separating speech and w ritin g in to
d iffe re n t categories, B ib e r has inte g ra te d them , lo o kin g (using the
s ta tis tic a l to o l fa cto r analysis) a t aspects o f the n atures o f the
com m unicative events (dim ensions) in w h ich h is lin g u is tic data
occur. ^ B ib e r’s re su lts prove fa scin a tin g w ith regard to the
re la tio n s h ip , w h ich w ill be explored th ro u g h o u t th is w o rk, between
the lin g u is tic and p a ra lin g u is tic features o f g ra ffiti and the s itu a tio n a l
and fu n c tio n a l variables w h ich generate such form s.
T hough B ib e r’s w o rk in d ica te s th a t, along ce rta in dim ensions,
there are some form s o f speech th a t are m ore lik e some form s o f
w ritin g (and vice versa)— as w e ll as some form s th a t are very
d is s im ila r— g ra ffiti present a d iffe re n t so rt o f problem : there are no
o ra l form s analogous to the kin d s o f g ra ffiti a t the h e a rt o f th is study.
T h is fa ct suggests th a t there can be specific s itu a tio n a l and fu n c tio n a l
param eters o f lin g u is tic expression th a t are b e tte r served b y one o f the
various modes available.
A long these lines, S tubbs (1980), fo r exam ple, has suggested
th a t o ra l and w ritte n form s can (or should) b o th be th o u g h t o f as
m a nife sta tio n s o f language ra th e r th a n m anifestations o f each other;
th a t is, w ritin g is n o t m erely w ritte n speech, n o r is speech m erely
spoken w ritin g : w ritin g and speech are products o f language and,
th o u g h th e y can, and often do, influence each other, th e y are p rim a rily
connected to each o th e r th ro u g h th e ir u n d e rlyin g lin g u is tic nature.®
^For another example of this approach, see also Finegan & Biber (1986).
1 0
There are d iffe re n t genres and registers, d iffe re n t discourse acts
(c u ltu ra lly constrained a ctivity), realized in b o th w ritin g and speech,^
and th u s the lin g u is tic features th a t emerge in lin g u is tic expressions
va ry according to the s itu a tio n a l and fu n c tio n a l co n stra in ts th a t govern
the k in d s o f genres and registers th a t the expressions fa ll u n d e r
(B ru th ia u x 1996).
There seems to be, then, some e xp re ssive/com m unicative
fu n c tio n s w h ich can o n ly be served th ro u g h speech, ju s t as there are
fu n c tio n s w h ich can o nly be served th ro u g h w ritin g . For exam ple, the
phonological features o f sounding sexy are n o t necessarily transferable
in to a w ritte n form . S im ila rly, it is ha rd to im agine a transferable oral
fo rm w h ic h captures the purposes g ra ffiti fre q u e n tly serve.
G raffiti is, in general, a k in d o f unsanctioned w ritin g ; it is,
however, d iffe re n t fro m o th e r unsanctioned (illegal) form s o f w ritin g
such as forgery and lib e l, a n d it is the n a tu re o f its n o n -co n fo rm ity
th a t is n o t re a lly represented b y a precise o r approxim ate o ra l
correlate. T h is is because g ra ffiti has la rg ely to do w ith p ro p e rty
rig h ts over spaces on w h ich w ritte n m a te ria l occurs, i.e., th e w ritin g
canvas. L in g u is tic spaces o f w ritin g and speaking can be va stly
d iffe re n t, especially w ith regard to g ra ffiti.
®Stubbs suggests that the next determination that needs to be made is whether
writing and speech represent the same linguistic structure. (In his study, he concludes
that they are not autonomous, but are connected to the same core linguistic system.)
^There are also genres and registers in speech and writing that are sim ilar.
^^Some illegal written forms do have oral correlates: libel has the
corresponding oral form slander.
1 1
In the U nited States, there are few o ra l speech re s tric tio n s th a t
are related to property rights, oth e r th a n lim ita tio n s on loudness. A
crim e based on the presence o f oral language on someone else’s
p ro p e rty appears to be d iffe re n t in n a tu re fro m g ra ffiti because o f the
canvas difference. A n exam ple o f a s im ila r (g ra ffiti-lik e ) use o f
a n o th e r’s o ra l space m ig h t be the use o f th a t person’s telephone code.
Such a crim e, however, w ould be su b sta n tive ly d iffe re n t fro m g ra ffiti,
as w ill be show n, because o f the va stly d iffe re n t purposes behind the
lin g u is tic acts.
P robably the o n ly o ral form w h ich approxim ates the fu n c tio n s of
c e rta in registers o f g ra ffiti is heckling, w hen in d iv id u a ls speak over
an o th er speaker’s voice— a form o f interruption, u s u a lly w hen the
legitim ate speaker is addressing an audience o f m ore th a n one person.
It is ty p ic a lly the legitim a te d speaker’s tu rn to speak and n o t the
h e ckle r’s. O n these occasions, the rig h tfu l “a ir-tim e ” is being
com m andeered b y a n o th e r (or others) w ith o u t th e a p p ro p ria te
a u th o rity or rig h t. T h is is ty p ic a lly done w ith th e goal o f disrespecting
o r disagreeing w ith the le g itim a te d speaker, or s im p ly to d isa llo w the
e xp re ssio n /co m m u n ica tio n o f h is message. ^ ^
It is quite possible th a t an analysis o f such in te rru p tio n s m ig h t
yie ld s im ila ritie s in features to specific k in d s o f g ra ffiti such as
political protest graffiti, b u t such g ra ffiti registers are n o t studied
h e r e . 1 2 The specific form s classified, tagging and Chicano gang
11 There still seems to be obvious differences between the linguistic spaces
utilized in heckling and in graffiti. Consider, for example, the differences required to
cover up both forms.
Heckling and graffiti might also both be found to be examples of economy
registers as described by Bruthiaux (1996).
1 2
graffiti, th o u g h u tiliz in g spaces le gitim ated to others (by ow nership or
a u th o rity ) do n o t appear to p a ra lle l the features and purposes o f typ ica l
kin d s o f hecklin g , as is seen in th e ir ch a ra cte ristic contents described
in C hapters 3 and 4.
W ith in the broad category o f graffiti, there are num erous classes
and num erous kin d s o f possible messages. The great m a jo rity o f
purposes behind these num erous in s ta n tia tio n s o f language, w ith the
possible exception o f hecklin g , generally diverge fro m those used in
o ra l language. B u t m ore im p o rta n tly , as noted above, there are
d iffe re n t k in d s o f g ra ffiti w ith th e ir own d iffe re n t purposes w ith in and
across social groups.
C onsequently, in order to tru ly stu d y g ra ffiti, one needs to stu d y
e th n o g ra p h ica lly the p a rtic u la r groups th a t produce them . C om paring
d iffe re n t g ra ffiti-w ritin g groups and th e ir d iffe re n t g ra ffiti form s
expands o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f lin g u is tic issues such as w h a t lite ra c y is,
w h a t the re la tio n o f w ritin g to external contextual variables is, and so
on. The tw o g ra ffiti-w ritin g groups th a t w ill be analyzed here, as
m entioned earlier, are taggers and Chicano gang members, w hose
g ra ffiti w ill be the p rin c ip a l topics o f C hapters 3 and 4 respectively.
4 Defining Graffiti
Before exam ining d iffe re n t g ra ffiti-w ritin g groups and
uncovering the va rio us purposes fo r w h ich they w rite g ra ffiti, the
s itu a tio n a l variables s u rro u n d in g th e ir w ritin g , the lin g u is tic and
p a ra lin g u is tic features w h ich are produced, etc., it is necessary to
exam ine vario us dim ensions inolved in defin in g g raffiti. D espite the
13
fa ct th a t g ra ffiti is a com m on te rm fo r m ost u rb a n dw ellers in N o rth
A m erica, its lim its are n o t re a d ily fixed. The problem is th a t
d e fin itio n s o f the te rm g ra ffiti are re la tive to d is tin c t c u ltu ra l groups,
and th u s cannot be defined except b y reference to the w ritin g
practices and values o f those specific social groups.
The g ra ffiti genre should n o t be rem oved fro m its c u ltu ra l
em beddings because w h a t is g ra ffiti in one place m ay n o t be g ra ffiti in
ano th er. A ty p ic a l “lite ra te ,” n o n -g ra ffiti-w ritin g N o rth A m erican
w o u ld n o t necessarily be able to d is tin g u is h the g ra ffiti-w ritin g
practice s fro m com m on m ainstream w ritin g practices in a n o th er
co u n try. In M exico, fo r exam ple, it is com m on fo r p o litic a l candidates
to have th e ir nam es and p o litic a l parties painted on c ity w a lls and
bridges (Figure 1.1). T h is com m on w ritin g practice o f m a in stre a m
social groups in M exico shares s im ila ritie s in co n te n t (the
re p re se n ta tio n of groups— PjRD— and in d ivid u a ls— ARMENTA) and
appearances (reduced le n g th and abbreviations) to the g ra ffiti-w ritin g
practices o f ce rta in groups in the U nited States, th o u g h the p rod u cts
are perceived d iffe re n tly across the cu ltu re s.
1 4
Figure 1.1 Political advertisement, Ensenada, B.C., Mexico
(enhanced).
The N orth A m erican m ainstream ty p ic a lly associates the term
g ra ffiti w ith im ages o f c ity w alls covered w ith sp ray-p a in te d w ritin g .
Yet these in tu itio n s are n o t the best guides fo r d e te rm in in g w hether a
piece o f w ritin g is a g ra ffito , because there are m any legitim ate w a ll
p a in tin g s, and g ra ffiti is h a rd ly lim ite d to w a lls (Figure 1.2).
T h ro u g h o u t Los Angeles one can fin d g ra ffiti on sidew alks, curbs,
trees, street signs, road dividers, buses, bus benches, b illb o a rd s, and
m ore— th o u g h som etim es the te rm w a ll is used to m ean a generic
object on w h ich g ra ffiti is pain te d (i.e., a canvas or p rin t receptor).
N early a n yth in g th a t can hold p a in t (w riting) can be a g ra ffiti canvas.
F u rth e rm o re , g ra ffiti can be w ritte n w ith n e a rly a ll types o f w ritin g
m a te ria ls such as in k , lead, chalk, and s u rfin g w ax. S cratching in to
p a in t (i.e., rem oving p a in t ra th e r th a n applying it) is also a com m on
g ra ffiti p ractice, especially am ong bathroom w a ll w rite rs (Abel and
B u ckle y 1977). N early a ll w ritin g m edia m ig h t in c e rta in contexts
m eet the c rite ria o f g ra ffiti w ritin g . One m ig h t even be tem pted to
15
ca ll some form s o f com puter h a ckin g — by m eans o f w h ich unw anted
w ords appear on a m o n ito r, road sign, or score b o a rd — g ra ffiti.
Figure 1.2 Graffiti on rock, Riverside County, California
(enhanced).
Etym ologies o f g ra ffiti have included m eanings such as ‘little
scra tch in g s’ fro m th e Ita lia n w ord graffiare, to scra tch ’ (Abel and
B u ckle y 1977) and to ‘w rite ’ or draw ’ from the G reek w ord graphein
(Bonuso 1976). B a sica lly g ra ffiti is w h a t is to the m ainstream
‘u n sa n ctio ne d w ritin g ’ (R om otsky & R om otsky 1974), b u t the factors
w h ich co n stitu te and d is tin g u is h w h a t Vam edoe & G opnik describe as
“lic it and illic it m a rkin g s” (1990:69) are va rio u s, especially
co nsidering the va st a rra y o f w ritin g practices th a t e xist in the
m odem u rb a n w orld. There are m any features
(s itu a tio n a l/c o n te x tu a l, or te xtu a l) th a t pu sh a piece o f w ritin g to be
labeled, or prevent a piece o f w ritin g from being labeled, as g ra ffiti.
S alm an R ushdie’s The Satanic verses, fo r exam ple, is “u n sa n ctio ne d ”
in m any co untries, b u t it is n o t considered g raffiti. T h is re su lts from
th e role o f the canvas in the cla ssifica tio n o f th a t p a rtic u la r text.
There are num erous oth e r exam ples o f w ritte n expression th a t are n o t
so cle a rly delineated as g ra ffiti or not graffiti. A t tim es it is the
v io la tio n or the preservation o f on ly one feature (in the m in d o f the
1 6
beholder) w h ic h forces th e cla ssifica tio n o f g ra ffiti or other, even if the
ju d g m e n t m ig h t be reversed a t a la te r tim e w ith a d d itio n a l
in fo rm a tio n .
In general, the g ra ffiti w rite r is the one w ho know s w h e th e r or
n o t he is w ritin g g ra ffiti. He know s if he owns a p a rtic u la r canvas or
has been given the a u th o rity to so m a rk it. However, the reader o f
p o te n tia l g ra ffiti is n o t p riv y to the in fo rm a tio n th a t the w rite r has.
A nd it is th e problem o f the reader’s ju d g m e n t th a t th is discu ssio n
exam ines. In m ost figures displayed in th is chapter, the facts o f
w h e th e r o r n o t the p a rtic u la r pieces o f w ritin g were a u th o rize d are
n o t sup p lie d fo r th e reader. T h is is because the exam ples are m eant
to te s t the reader’s in tu itio n s about w he th e r the te xts are g ra ffiti or
n o t. If th e y are authorized, they are n o t g ra ffiti, and vice versa. Some
cases displayed below are cle a rly g ra ffiti b u t are s till m a rg in a l cases
because o f p a rtic u la r ch a ra cte ristics o f the texts; and some are n o t, b u t
lo o k lik e g ra ffiti based on o th e r ch a ra cte ristics.
The m odel fo r d e te rm in in g w h e th e r or n o t w ritin g is g ra ffiti,
besides being inexact, is m u lti dim ensional, w ith tw o broad
dim ensions h a n d lin g the m a jo rity o f g ra ffiti cla ssifica tio n . T h a t is to
say, features o f a piece o f w ritin g fa ll along d iffe re n t co n tin u a , each
suggesting th a t the te x t is m ore or less g ra ffiti-lik e , ra th e r th a n
su p p lyin g an in c o n tro v e rtib le designation. Below, d iffe re n t
dim ensions o f w ritin g are described, each o f w h ich prejudices a te x t
as m ore or less g ra ffiti-lik e . Texts th a t load on the g ra ffiti side o f a
n u m b e r o f these dim ensions are m ore lik e ly to be considered g ra ffiti.
1 7
Even so, there are dim ensions w h ich ca rry m ore w eight th a n others in
g ra ffiti d e te rm in a tio n .
As stated above, the p rin c ip a l fa cto r w h ich designates the
cla ssifica tio n o f g ra ffiti is w hether or n o t the canvas is owned b y the
w rite r o r has the a u th o riza tio n o f the ow ner or the proper a u th o rity .
G enerally, if there is n o t a question w ith regard to th is dim ension, the
cla ssifica tio n o f g ra ffiti is a stra ig h tfo rw a rd problem . However, in
cases w here issues o f ow nership or a u th o riz a tio n are n o t clear,
w h e th e r th e w ritin g follow s a m ainstream p ractice or n o t is the
secondary consid e ra tio n . The d e te rm in a tio n o f m ainstream p ractice
can be in fluenced b y other factors such as the p a rtic u la r canvas, the
w ritin g con te n t, th e w ritin g in s tru m e n t, the w ritin g purpose, the fo n t
used, the process th ro u g h w h ich the w ritin g was done, and m ore.
Below are some o f the factors, based on the core dim ension o f
m a in stre a m vs. non-m ainstream practices, th a t push a piece o f w ritin g
tow ards or away from the label graffiti. Though th e y are s lig h tly
d iffe re n t, there are m any aspects o f the factors in com m on.
Specific Canvases and Writing Contents
T hough g ra ffiti can be painted on ju s t about a nything, the canvas
on w h ich a g ra ffito is found can be a s ig n ific a n t determ iner in the
g ra ffito ’s cla ssifica tio n . F urtherm ore, g ra ffiti fre q u e n tly cover a v a rie ty
o f su b je ct m a tte rs, the m ost com m on being i) obscenities o r ii) nam es
or nicknam es (Abel & B u ckle y 1977, R eisner & W echsler 1974).
S pecific contents, however, do depend upon the specific registers in
w h ich th e y are found. For exam ple, whereas obscenities are th e m ost
com m on co n tents o f bathroom w ritin g (Abel & B u ckle y 1977) -w h ich
1 8
n a tu ra lly im p lie s a specific canvas (bathroom w a lls)— nam es are the
contents o f choice fo r taggers, and nam es and loca tio n s fo r C hicano
gang m em bers.
S im ila r contents (i.e., nam es and locations/addresses) are also
fo u n d in n o n -g ra ffiti, m ainstream w ritin g p ractices. W ith the
m ainstream , the practice o f w ritin g nam es or addresses on a rtifa c ts is
prevalent on c e rta in objects. It is n o t uncom m on, fo r exam ple, to p u t
one’s personal nam e or address (in Los Angeles) on a tra s h can (Figure
1.3), a duffel bag, a basketball, a toolbox, etc. Possessions th a t are
lik e ly to be picked u p b y others or need to be id e n tifie d am ong oth e r
s im ila r objects, and so on, fre q u e n tly have nam es and lo ca tio n m arkers
w ritte n on them . Because th is is a com m on m ainstream w ritin g
practice, g ra ffiti th a t in d ica te nam es painted on item s th a t ty p ic a lly
receive nam es (such as d u ffe l bags) m ig h t be h a rd to id e n tify. Though
the ow nership/ a u th o rity p rin cip le m ay be violated, and th u s the
w ritin g m ay be g ra ffiti, because such canvases receive s im ila r w ritin g
contents, the assessm ent o f g ra ffiti b y a m ainstream society m em ber
m ig h t be im paired. Hence, the tw o dim ensions o f canvas and contents
often w o rk together in te x t cla ssifica tio n w hen the genre o f g ra ffiti is
in question.
13in other graffiti registers, such as political protest graffiti writing, names may
be used less frequently than they are in tagging or gang writing.
1 9
ai
Fig 1.3 Privately owned residential trash cans with addresses,
Santa Monica, California.I"!
Writing Instrument
There are ce rta in types o f in stru m e n ts th a t, w hen used in
w ritin g , com m only denote g ra ffiti w ritin g or a t le a st suggest the
g ra ffiti end o f the co n tin u u m . G enerally, p rin t w ritte n w ith knives or
spray cans is g ra ffiti, th o u g h n o t necessarily in every case: the wood
sign engraved w ith a kn ife or the “no p a rkin g ” message painted w ith a
spray can (Figure 1.4) is n o t th o u g h t o f as g ra ffiti (because o f
ow nership or a le g itim a te purpose). Nonetheless, in the m a jo rity of
cases, g ra ffiti is w ritte n w ith spray cans, sharp objects (knives, razors,
keys...), or large m a rkin g p e n s.i^
l^Note that “12 ST” (12th Street) is similar to gang names that employ street
names such as “18th St.”
1 ^ 1 have not encountered writing with surfboard wax that was not graffiti
(obviously, written by surfers). It might also be noted that surfboard wax on porous
surfaces is quite long-lasting and not readily removed.
2 0
Figure 1.4 Private residential parking space, Santa Monica,
California.
Writing Purpose
W hether o r n o t a practice is accepted (m ainstream ) m ig h t also
depend upon the k in d o f purpose the w ritin g represents. For
exam ple, near the C oliseum in Los Angeles, an e n te rp risin g in d iv id u a l
attem pted to m ake some m oney b y p ro vid in g p a rk in g on h is fro n t
la w n fo r a fee o f five dollars. He advertised th is b y p a in tin g the five
d o lla r price on the c ity tree in the roadside adjacent to h is yard
(Figure 1.5). Though m ainstream society m em bers m ig h t n o t sanction
th is m ethod o f advertisem ent, m ost w ould n o t ca ll it g ra ffiti, precisely
because advertisem ent and legal business ventures are accepted, even
valued, social practices. C onsequently, despite the fa ct th a t, on the
ow nership dim ension, the te x t fa lls along the g ra ffiti side, it is along
the sanctioned side o f the w ritin g purpose dim ension (see also w ritin g
purposes behind Figures 1.6 and 1.7).
21
Figure 1.5 Parking advertisement near the Los Angeies Memoriai
Coiiseum, Los Angeies, Caiifornia (enhanced).
Figure 1.6 Directional mark on bike lane Indicating five kilometer
turning point, Baiiona Creek, Los Angeies, Caiifornia (enhanced).
2 2
Figure 1.7 Street locator Indicating the direction of a 36 Inch gas
line, Los Angeles, California (enhanced).
Font
Though it is d iffic u lt to describe, and perhaps lies beyond the
scope o f th is project, the kin d s o f fo n ts used can m a rk a piece o f
w ritin g as g ra ffiti. Because the in s tru m e n t o f choice fo r outdoor
g ra ffiti w rite rs is a p a in t can, p rin t th a t looks spray p ainted (such as
le tte rs w ritte n in single strokes, d rip p in g in spots, etc.) m ay in flu e n ce
the perception o f g ra ffiti. D u rin g the 1992 N ational B a ske tb a ll
A ssociation season, NBC occasionally p u t on h a lf-tim e shows u sin g a
backdrop o f an in n e r-c ity b a ske tb all co u rt. In the title cre d its o f those
shows, th e y em ployed p rin t th a t looked as i f it were p a in te d w ith a
spray ca n --a ctu a lly w ritte n w ith a com puter. Though it was n o t
g ra ffiti, fo r a v a rie ty o f possible reasons w h ich w ill n o t be explored
here, it was m eant to look lik e g ra ffiti.
i^chicano gang print styles and tagging styles will be described and contrasted
in chapters 3-5.
l^NBC has done what Fiske (1989a and 1989b) suggests is done with artifacts of
popular culture: the products are legitimized and commodified by mainstream
institutions.
23
In th e same vein, there is a g ra ffiti group th a t fre q u e n tly w rite s
the le tte rs “ STP” (the nam e o f th e ir group). However, w hen “STP” is
w ritte n in th e style used on th e p ro d u cts o f the com pany nam ed STP
(in c lu d in g w h ite on red), such w ritin g m ig h t be assum ed to represent
the autom otive p ro d u ct com pany. W hen it is w ritte n w ith spray p a in t
in a know n g ra ffiti style, it is m ore lik e ly assum ed to be g ra ffiti such as
th a t o f the g ra ffiti “ crew ” STP.
F igure 1.8 below m ig h t confuse a reader seeking to determ ine if
the w ritin g is g ra ffiti. The tra s h can has th e street address o f the
ow ner w ritte n on it, “3 0 7 ,” b u t the 307 is w ritte n in a com m on
g ra ffiti style fo n t (i.e., ta g g in g -like ).
Figure 1.8 Privately owned residential trash can with address
written in a common graffiti font, Inglewood, California.
Authorization
The w ritin g of g ra ffiti along freew ay w alls is, fo r m any, an
in to le ra b le b lig h t. However, there are often sponsored m u ra l projects
slated fo r Los Angeles C ounty freew ay w a lls th a t do n o t receive the
24
same k in d o f response, even th o u g h the fin a l projects are n o t to ta lly
d iffe re n t (in appearance) fro m the kin d s o f p ro d u cts g ra ffitis ts m ig h t
do. In 1992, along freeway 101 near dow ntow n Los Angeles, “DARE to
keep k id s o ff d rug s” was painted in large red le tte rs. T his w ritin g was
n o t g ra ffiti fo r a n um ber o f reasons, tw o being the com bination o f its
“p o sitive ” message and the fa m ilia r and w id e ly approved o f acronym
DARE. However, the m a in reason, it is argued, th a t such w a ll p a in tin g
is accepted is because the a u th o rity governing the freew ay there (the
c ity o f Los Angeles, C altrans, the federal governm ent) granted
perm ission, it is assum ed, fo r the w o rk to be done.
O ccasionally g ra ffiti w rite rs are com m issioned to p a in t w alls, and
in these cases th e ir w ritin g is accepted as leg itim a te , n o t g ra ffiti, even
th o u g h the same w ritin g on another w a ll w ould be considered g ra ffiti.
T h is is because the proper a u th o rity granted the perm ission necessary
fo r the w ritin g . Such an example can be seen on the C inergi b u ild in g
in S anta M onica (West Los Angeles), on the corner o f C loverfield and
Broadw ay Avenues, where g ra ffiti w rite rs know n as piecers have
com pletely covered the w a lls w ith th e ir w o rk (Figure 1.9). W hen
m ainstream respondents are asked to m ake a g ra ffiti ju d g m e n t
regarding such exam ples in w h ich g ra ffitis ts were allow ed to w rite
w h a t th e y w anted, the decisions are u n ifo rm ly th a t the w ritin g is
le g itim a te (not g ra ffiti), even if the interview ees do n o t p a rtic u la rly
appreciate (or m ay loathe) the p a in tin g style. T hus, along th is core
dim ension (a uth o riza tio n ), it is n o t necessarily the w ritin g w h ich
determ ines w h a t is or is n o t g ra ffiti, b u t a m ore a b stra ct n o tio n o f
25
ow nership, a u th o rity , or havin g gone th ro u g h the p rop e r (legal)
process to have th e w ritin g occur.
HU I I II n il jw # ' * % ^ < '« ir
) l f l $ l I " I J
Figure 1.9 Cinergi building, Santa Monica, California.
Ownership
A la ck o f ow nership o f (or stew ardship o f/a u th o rity over) the
canvas, again, is the essential fa cto r w h ich defines g ra ffiti. There are
num erous w riters w ho p a in t on cars, tru cks, and buses (such as
M ichael Faye, who was caned as p u n ish m e n t in Singapore in 1994),
and unless the car belongs to the w rite r, the p a in tin g is g ra ffiti.
N evertheless, d u rin g the late 1960s and early 1970s, it was n o t
uncom m on fo r w a r protesters in the U nited States to p a in t w ords lik e
peace or slogans such as make love not w ar on th e ir cars. Though th is
m ay have been d is tu rb in g to m any other m em bers o f US society, the
w ritin g on th e cars was n o t considered g ra ffiti (even th o u g h g ra ffiti
m ig h t be the closest w ord to describe it) because the w rite rs owned
the cars they w rote on (cf.. Figure 1.10). O w nership often overrides
26
in tu itio n s o f deviance or g ra ffiti (because one can do w h a t he w ants
w ith h is possessions so long as it does n o t in frin g e upon oth e rs’
rig h ts — see Figures 1 . 10 - 1. 12).
sum
Figure 1.10 Van with writing by owner, Riverside, California.
Figure 1.11 House painted by owner. Riverside, California.
^®House painting is often regulated by cities and home-owner associations.
27
Figure 1.12 Warning painted on residential fence, Culver City,
California (enhanced).
Mainstream Institutional Practice and Representation
T h is stu d y exam ines g ra ffiti found over a tw o year period in a
n u m b e r o f places in Los Angeles, yet it concentrates on tw o specific
locations. One is B allona Creek, w h ich ru n s southw est th ro u g h S outh
C e n tra l Los Angeles and m eets the ocean on the w est side o f Los
Angeles a t M a rin a D el Rey. W here the creek lets in to the h a rb o r the
w a te r ru n s deep and is u s u a lly quite s till because o f the large concrete
banks on b o th sides o f it. C onsequently, crew (rowing) team s fro m
local u n iv e rs itie s (Loyola M arym ount, UCLA, USC) practice and have
co m petitions a t the end o f th a t n a rro w body o f w ater. However, in
a d d itio n to the row ing in B allona Creek, the crew team s a n d /o r
supporters also have had the banks p ainted w ith crew logos: the
p a in tin g s say th in g s such as “Loyola M a rym o u nt Crew 1991,” as
p ic tu re d in Figure 1.13 (see also Figure 1.14).
28
«
m . .
Figure 1.13 Loyola crew logo, Ballona Creek, Los Angeles,
California.
Figure 1.14 Sign indicating ownership of Ballona Creek property,
Ballona Creek entrance, Playa Del Rey, California.
F u rth e r up the bank, g ra ffiti groups also w rite th e ir logos. For
exam ple, the g ra ffitis t BUENO from the g ra ffiti group NFL has w ritte n
h is 1992 logo (Figure 1.15). C itizens w a lkin g and rid in g along B a llon a
Creek, w hen asked, re g u la rly describe th e ir d isg u st w ith the g ra ffiti
such as B ueno’s b u t never m ention the m arks such as those le ft by
29
representatives o f Loyola M a rym o u nt U nive rsity. T h is is largely due to
the (accepted, m ainstream ) in s titu tio n s th a t th e la tte r represent.
Figure 1.15 Baiiona Creek tagging, Los Angeies, Caiifornia.
In dow ntow n Los Angeles, m any b u ild in g s are used b y large
corpo ra tio n s fo r the purpose o f advertisem ent. The shoe and
sportsw ear com pany, Nike, fo r exam ple has pain te d large p o rtra its o f
Bo Jackson and A ndre Agassi, tw o o f th e ir spokesm en, on the sides o f
b u i l d i n g s . 13 The large p a in tin g s o f “ N ike” on the b u ild in g w a lls do n o t
appear to be considered g ra ffiti, th o u g h they appear on a com m on
g ra ffiti canvas ra th e r th a n a ty p ic a l advertising canvas such as a
b illb o a rd . It is assum ed th a t N ike eith e r owns the b u ild in g s on w h ich
th e ir advertisem ents appear or has paid a fee to the ow ner fo r the
purpose o f advertisem ent. One m ig h t also expect th a t N ike has
received perm ission from the c ity co u n cil o f Los Angeles to do such a
p rom o tio n or has n o t violated any codes w h ich re s tric t such
advertisem ent. However, even if N ike had violated the la w w ith its
ads, the ads w ould n o t be considered g ra ffiti, n o t o n ly because they are
l^One can also find portraits of other cultural icons/personalities such as
prominent musicians (Figure 1.16) and advertisements of other companies such as
Unocal [cf.. Figure 1.17).
30
advertisem ents o f a legal business (a valued practice), b u t because they
represent an in s titu tio n w h ich has m ainstream prom inence.
Figure 1.16 Sanctioned Buiiding painting, Los Angeies, Caiifornia
(enhanced).
Figure 1.17 Sanctioned street writing indicating a private use of
pubiic property, twelve inch gas iine direction marker on street,
Los Angeies, Caiifornia (enhanced).
In a n o t d is s im ila r fashion, m any com panies such as Corona (a
beer producer) have p a in te d th e ir logos along highw ays in M exico on
large ro cks (these p rod u cts often dem onstrate excellent s k ill in b o th
colors and p rop o rtio n s, as if th e y were on b illb o a rds). S uch exam ples
are n o t m eant to raise the issue o f w h a t g ra ffiti is in M exico, b u t ra th e r
31
to ca ll in to question w h a t the in tu itio n s w ould be fo r N orth A m ericans
if such a practice occurred n o rth o f the border.
It is ha rd to im agine th a t N o rth A m ericans today w ould tolerate
com panies u sin g n a tu ra l resources such as trees and rocks to ca rry
th e ir advertisem ents, even if it were approved b y a governm ent
agency. 1^ The preservation and m aintenance o f ce rta in aesthetic
n a tu ra l resources is too strong a value in US society to have such item s
resym bolized as in s tru m e n ts fo r the p rom o tio n o f p rod u cts. However,
w ith regard to the p a in tin g o f ads b y established com panies on rocks,
it is hypothesized th a t N orth A m ericans, th o u g h offended b y such an
act, w ould n o t la b e l the ille g a l advertisem ent g rq ffitt^^ T h is is because
the com panies such as Corona, Nike, and Loyola M a rym o u nt are
legitim ate in s titu tio n s in the eyes o f the m ainstream ; g ra ffiti-w ritin g
groups such as gangs and tagging crews are n o t. F urtherm ore, the
p rom o tio n o f a le g itim a te in s titu tio n ’s nam e is an accepted practice
(purpose); the p rom o tio n o f in s titu tio n s such as tagging crews and
gangs is not. In the w ords o f Kohl:
I t is d iffe re n t fo r the ric h and p ow erful w ho express th e ir
te rrito ria l claim s and social id e n titie s in m ore durable form s. A
gang can p a in t its name on the w alls o f its tu rf, b u t th a t is
n o th in g com pared to a co rpo ra tio n th a t stam ps its em blem on
its b u ild in g s or a ric h m an’s club th a t em bodies in stone its
cla im to pow er and im portance. (1969:37)
Yet even w hen gang m em bers use m ore durable form s such as w ritin g
in concrete, th e ir w ritin g is g ra ffiti because o f the in s titu tio n s th e y
is true, however, that schools (high schools, colleges, and universities) and
students across the states regularly use a variety of media such as chalk powder and
rocks to m ark hillsides with their schools’ initials.
^^Advertisement appears to be a genre distinct from graffiti.
32
represent. T hough I w ould contend th a t n e ith e r deserves
repre se n ta tion on a city-ow ned sidew alk, the m a rkin g s o f Dopey o f the
C razy R iders gang in Figure 1.18 is g ra ffiti, b u t the S outhern C a lifo rn ia
Gas Com pany’s logo is not. The dim ensions o f in s titu tio n a l
repre se n ta tion and m ainstream in s titu tio n a l p ra ctice are strong
factors, especially w hen w o rkin g together, in im p re ssin g an in tu itio n
o f g ra ffiti te x tu a lity .
Figure 1.18 Gang graffiti in concrete beside Southern California
Gas Company impression on a city sidewalk, Los Angeles,
California (enhanced).
Reinterpreting Graffiti
W ith the elem ents concerning the n a tu re o f g ra ffiti described so
fa r, a q u a lific a tio n has to be made w ith regard to the pervasiveness o f
g ra ffiti th ro u g h o u t the w o rld and th ro u g h o u t recorded h isto ry.
Because defin in g g ra ffiti is a c u ltu ra lly relative act, 21 and because
w ritin g practices va ry fro m c u ltu re to c u ltu re , one does n o t know if
2 iNotions of ownership, mainstream institutions, accepted writing purposes,
etc. vary from culture to culture.
33
p o te n tia l sam ples o f g ra ffiti were or are regarded as such unless the
c u ltu re s in question so specified or specify the w ritin g sam ples u nder
in ve stig a tio n . In Pom peii, fo r exam ple, it is n o t clear w h e th e r the
w ritin g covering the w a lls was c u ltu ra lly sanctioned or n o t. The fa ct
th a t uncovered Pom peian w a lls were found to be laden w ith w ritin g
does n o t e n ta il th a t the w ritin g was necessairily graffiti. It m ay have
been a sanctioned practice to w rite on p u b lic (or perhaps private)
w a lls, and it m ay or m ay n o t m a tte r w hether one was giving his
o p in io n o f the governm ent, p ra c tic in g h is le tte rs, o r m a kin g a
p ro cla m a tio n o f love. If Los Angeles were covered w ith ashes fro m a
great volcano, and th e n uncovered 2000 years la te r, it is n o t to ta lly
clear w h ich w ritin g practices h is to ria n s in the fu tu re w ould consider
as sanctioned w ritin g practices. W ould b illb o a rd s, m ovie posters, or
store w indow ads q u a lify as sanctioned practices to a fu tu re cu ltu re ?
Though some w ould consider cave w ritin g to be e arly exam ples
o f g ra ffiti, I w ould hypothesize th a t cave w ritin g is not, for, th o u g h it is
m erely speculative, it is assum ed th a t m ost a n cie n t cave w ritin g s were
c u ltu ra lly sanctioned a t the tim e of th e ir c r e a t i o n such in s c rip tio n s
w ould be classified as another k in d o f w ritin g a c tiv ity e n tire ly. The
affichistes a rtis ts m entioned in the In tro d u c tio n o f th is ch a p te r are
said to welcom e g ra ffiti on th e ir a rtw o rk. If th is is so, th e y are giving
perm ission to a ll p o te n tia l vandals and w rite rs , th e re b y m a kin g the
c o n trib u tio n s th a t the p u b lic m akes to th e ir a rtw o rk n o t g ra ffiti. It is
would hypothesize that the cave owner, if one existed, authorized the writing
or did not object to it.
34
s im ila r to the oxym oronic designation o f g ra ffiti w alls b y some c ity
governm ents. 23
Graffiti and Social Semiotics
Hodge and Kress (1988) suggest th a t a th e o ry o f social
semiotics, am ong oth e r th in g s, is concerned w ith the p ro d u c tio n and
re p ro d u ctio n o f m eanings in a ll form s, n o t Just lin g u is tic ones. S uch a
th e o ry is relevant to studies o f g ra ffiti because w hen g ra ffiti occur in
p u b lic spaces (and private ones too), the p u b lic is faced w ith a new
perception o f those p u b lic a rtifa c ts . C onsequently, as was noted above,
a large p a rt o f the m ainstream abhorrence o f g ra ffiti is the p a rt it plays
in resym bolizing a r t i f a c t s 2 4 and spaces.
In the m a jo rity o f the g ra ffiti exam ined fo r th is study, the
canvases were s till able to serve the fu n ctio n s fo r w h ich th e y were
created. The w a lls s till held u p the b u ild in g s; the sidew alks could s till
be w alked upon; the road dividers s till divided. In o n ly a fra c tio n o f
the cases was som ething’s m a in fu n c tio n altered such as the m a rrin g
o f a m irro r o r a sign’s being rendered ille g ib le (Figure 1.19). The
m a jo rity o f canvases, nonetheless, were altered in a m ore sym bolic
w ay. T h e ir existence in society as o rd in a ry a rtifa c ts m ade them
sym bols o f society itse lf. These societal m eanings were vio la te d as the
23in an effort to reduce graffiti, some cities throughout Southern California
have designated walls on which citizens are allowed to paint whatever they want. The
reasoning is that by having a channel of expression, the graffitists w ill not write in
unsanctioned places. This bold step, unfortunately, does not work for reasons that will
become apparent in Chapters 3-5.
24]V[any of Marcel Duchamp’s famous art works involved the resymbolizing of
society’s artifacts. He used artifacts that were sacred and artifacts that were banal, both
producing strong reactions from observers for their symbolic alteration. His famous
painting “ L.H.O.O.Q.,” in which the Mona Lisa sports a mustache and goatee, is an
example of symbolic alteration by way of graffiti (see Vamedoe & Gopnik 1990:77-78).
35
sym bols o f o th e r societies— those o f taggers and gang m em bers— were
transposed upon them .
mmm
Figure 1.19 Tagging on Downey Avenue off-ramp sign, 91
freeway, Long Beach, California.
G ra ffiti is th re a te n in g to a society’s m ainstream because it
represents a n o th e r society’s (a c o u n te r-c u ltu re ’s) resym bolizing th e
a rtifa c ts th ro u g h w h ich the m em bers in tu it th e ir society’s existence
(see Taussig 1992, 1980 D u rkh e im 1915, and the hegemonic theory
o f C hapter 2). F or exam ple, echoing a com m on perception o f m any
m ainstream society m em bers, Glazer notes th a t w hen rid in g the
g ra ffiti-rid d e n subw ays o f New York,
...w h ile 1 do n o t fin d m yself consciously m aking the connection
between the g ra ffiti-m a k e rs and the c rim in a ls w ho occasionally
rob, rape, assault, and m u rd e r passengers, th e sense th a t a ll are
p a rt o f the w o rld o f u n co n tro lla b le predators seems inescapable.
Even if the g ra ffitis ts are the least dangerous o f these, th e ir
ever-present m a rkin g s serve to persuade the passenger th a t,
indeed, the subw ay is a dangerous place.... (1979:4)
Yet there are c e rta in ly m em bers o f New Y ork society w ho do n o t share
G lazer’s view s. C onsequently, the social sem iotics (Hodge & Kress
1988, H a llid a y 1978) o f g ra ffiti in clu d e n o t o n ly the la b e lin g o f the
social acts perform ed w ith in g ra ffiti-w ritin g groups, b u t the la b e lin g o f
the e n tire form outside o f the independent g ra ffiti-w ritin g societies.
One m ig h t w onder w h e th e r Robbie C onal’s a n ti-g o ve rn m e n t posters
[e.g.. F igure 1.20) w h ich have been sp o ra d ica lly p u t up th ro u g h o u t
36
m a jo r citie s in the US from the m iddle 1980s to the p re s e n t--in an
u n a u th o rize d fa sh io n — should be called g ra ffiti (Conal 1992).
< X .*vKnn*^Nn X-X%nnX<% .
Figure 1.20 Guerrilla art by Robbie Conai depicting US senator
Jesse Helms, posted in Exposition Park, Los Angeles, California.
5 Summary: Graffiti and Sociolinguistics
T h is chapter has provided an in tro d u c tio n to the stu d y o f g ra ffiti.
It has suggested th a t g ra ffiti are found th ro u g h o u t the w o rld , present
and past. In order to stu d y g ra ffiti, tw o th in g s m u s t be specified: the
genre and the register. A genre is a class o f com m unicative activitie s.
25conal calls this work guerrilla art I would label this practice (genre)
propaganda. This is because the writer promotes ideas without advertising particular
products, and the writer owns the canvas. However, the canvas on which this particular
form is placed is then illegitimately placed on another space - - a form not unlike the
leaflets dropped over cities by invading armies.
37
and g ra ffiti is one o f m any possible w ritte n genres available to — b u t n o t
necessarily used b y— a c u ltu re . S till, there are d iffe re n t k in d s o f
g ra ffiti, and so the specific type o f g ra ffiti, o r the register, needs to be
determ ined. Registers are b a sica lly specific lin g u is tic form s
perform ed by specific agents fo r specific purposes u n d e r specific
co n d itio n s.
G ra ffiti p rod u cts are also considered to be w ritte n texts. Texts
are sem antic u n its , th e y are co m m u n ity based, and are syn e rg istic in
nature.
The g ra ffiti genre is defined as being unsanctioned (often illegal)
w ritin g . It is unsanctioned b y the fa c t th a t the ow ner o f the canvas did
n o t do o r a u thorize the w ritin g . A n o th e r aspect o f g ra ffiti— especially
w hen ow nership o r a u th o riz a tio n is n o t clear— is w hether or n o t the
g ra ffiti fo llo w an accepted m ainstream w ritin g practice. T h is can be
determ ined b y num erous factors in c lu d in g b u t n o t lim ite d to the
canvas, the m edium , the m essage/content, the fo n t style, the
in s titu tio n being represented, etc. Specific features can fa ll on these
dim ensions as m ore or less g ra ffiti-lik e . These features can also be
im p o rta n t in d e te rm in in g to w h ich g ra ffiti register a g ra ffito belongs.
One in te re s tin g feature o f g ra ffiti is th a t, because th e ir canvases
are n o t b la n k pieces o f paper, b u t ra th e r are e xistin g a rtifa c ts in b o th
p u b lic and priva te dom ains, th e y can give new m eanings to the
a rtifa c ts and spaces on w h ich th e y are found. The m eanings, however,
are varia ble across society. A nd th is h in ts a t another problem in
cla ssifyin g g ra ffiti: where w ritin g is g ra ffiti to one c u ltu re , it m ay n o t
be so c ro s s -c u ltu ra lly , even w ith in the U nited States.
38
T hus, the discussion o f w h a t co n stitu te s g ra ffiti positio n s g ra ffiti
as a so cio lin g u istic issue in the broadest sense. For exam ple, in h is
tre a tise on so cio lin g u istics, H udson (1980) suggests th a t
so cio lin g u istics is the stu d y o f language in re la tio n to society. A nd as
claim ed above, any discussion o f g ra ffiti requires its re la tio n to society
to p o sitio n it w ith in the g ra ffiti genre and w ith in a g ra ffiti register. In
o th e r w ords, there are c u ltu ra lly specific features th a t co n stra in
w h e th e r som ething is classified as g ra ffiti or n o t (extra-com m unity),
th a t co n stra in the class o f g ra ffiti to w h ich the in s ta n tia tio n s belong
(in te r-co m m u n ity), and th a t co n stra in the kin d s o f acts the features
in d ica te (in te r- and in tra -co m m u n ity). A s o cio lin g u istic analysis w ould
exam ine the social factors w h ich c o n trib u te to and co n stra in the
com m unicative and expressive modes available to a com m unity, and in
th is p a rtic u la r case, the mode o f g ra ffiti.
The fo llo w in g ch a p te r reviews concepts d etailed in the
lin g u is tic s lite ra tu re th ro u g h w h ich g ra ffiti can be m ore sp e cifica lly
classified. It provides a th e o re tica l background and vocabulary from
w h ic h d iffe re n t g ra ffiti registers can be com pared and contrasted. It
also exam ines some possible explanations fo r w h y the g ra ffiti genre is
u tiliz e d by va rio us g ra ffiti-w ritin g groups. F urtherm ore, it explains
how the data was e licite d from the tw o specific g ra ffiti-w ritin g groups
o f th is study, taggers and Chicano gang members.
39
CHAPTER TWO
1 Explanations of Graffiti
In C hapter 1, it was suggested th a t the s tu d y o f g ra ffiti requires
an ethnographic approach. T his is because very d iffe re n t groups and
in d iv id u a ls u tiliz e the genre o f g ra ffiti in th e ir social practices, and fo r
such groups and in d iv id u a ls , the mode o f expression serves d iffe re n t
fu n c tio n s (registers). W ith in groups, there can be d iffe re n t g ra ffiti
form s (sub-registers), the fu n ctio n s o f w h ich vary. C onsequently,
agents have q u ite divergent reasons fo r u tiliz in g the g ra ffiti genre as
w e ll as specific g ra ffiti registers and sub-registers.
G ra ffiti is a form o f unsanctioned w ritin g w h ich occurs on
u n a u tho rize d spaces, the m a jo rity being p u b lic. The p ro d u ctio n o f any
k in d o f g ra ffiti, then, is an unsanctioned (often illegal) act w h ich
fre q u e n tly has features o f p u b lic e xh ib itio n ism . C onsequently, one
could select fro m num erous theories o f deviance already in c irc u la tio n
to e xp la in w h y people choose to u tiliz e the g ra ffiti genre— to express
them selves in an unsanctioned way.
There are a va rie ty o f p o te n tia l problem s in p ro vid in g
explanations fo r the occurrence of a ll g ra ffiti. One general th e o ry o f
g ra ffiti w ould have to explain w hy a ll groups and in d iv id u a ls produce
g ra ffiti a t the genre level. Because the expressions o f genres va ry in
th e ir form s and fu n c tio n s from one co m m u n ity to another, it is
probable th a t explanations fo r the p ro d u c tio n /u s e o f the genre w ill
also vary. F urtherm ore, the m otivatio n s fo r u sin g p a rtic u la r registers
also can va ry from one register to the other, n o t o n ly across groups b u t
w ith in groups. Thus, a satisfa cto ry explanation fo r the u tiliz a tio n o f
40
one re giste r o f a genre can be an inadequate explanation in the case of
another.
A n exam ple o f a possible explanation as to w h y groups and
in d iv id u a ls use g ra ffiti is w h a t I label the hegemonic theory fro m Fiske
(1989a & 1989b). Though Fiske does n o t w rite s p e cifica lly a b o u t
g ra ffiti, he discusses the w ay in w h ich p o p u la r c u ltu re ^ struggles to
create m eanings o f its own vis-a-vis the dom ina n t c u ltu re arou n d it
and the a rtifa c ts the d o m in a n t c u ltu re p ro d u c e s .2 From Fiske (1989a),
the fo llo w in g exp la n a tio n could be constructed:
A ll com m odities can be used by the consum er to c o n s tru c t
m eanings o f self, o f social id e n tity and social re la tion s.
(p. 11)
[G ra ffiti] is an exam ple o f a user n o t sim p ly consum ing a
com m odity b u t re w o rkin g it, tre a tin g it n o t as a com pleted
object to be accepted passively, b u t as a c u ltu ra l resource
to be used. (pp. 10-11)
[W ritin g g ra ffiti] is a re fu sa l o f com m odification and an
assertion o f one’s rig h t to m ake one’s own c u ltu re o u t o f
the resources provided b y the com m odity system , (p. 15)
Then, fro m a F iskia n perspective, in an analysis of, say, g ra ffiti on
freew ay dividers, the g ra ffitis t w ho p a in ts over a freew ay d iv id e r is
u sin g the d ivid e r as a resource w ith w h ich to create h is own p ro d u ct
(com m odity) w h ich reflects h is own c u ltu re . He is d is tin g u is h in g h is
c u ltu re from th a t o f those— the m ainstream — who w o u ld ju s t
“consum e” the d ivid e r as is w ith o u t question.
^Fiske describes popular culture as the disempowered group: popular culture is
made up of the groupings of people who are not in control of the means of production.
^These ideas posed by Fiske are used in Chapter 1 to explain the reaction of
people who loathe graffiti. Their reaction is based on the fact that some of the
commodities (or artifacts, texts, canvases,...) from which meanings of self, social
identity and social relations are made have been altered.
41
The hegem onic th e o ry is fa scin a tin g , yet it does n o t appear to
have adequate explanatory capacity. It does not, fo r exam ple, explain
w e ll enough w h y some people choose to express th e ir love fo r others
b y carving expressions o f devotion in to trees or benches. A g ra ffito
such as “Jo h n loves M ary” carved in to an oak tree does, in a sense,
create a new m eaning o u t o f th a t p a rtic u la r oak tree, b u t it does n o t
s trik e a b lo w against any c o m p licity w ith the hegem onic pow er w h ich
created th a t tree in the firs t place.
A hegem onic th e o ry o f g ra ffiti m ig h t be b e tte r su ite d fo r ce rta in
k in d s o f g ra ffiti produced b y groups (and in d ivid u a ls) such as BUGAUP
(B illb o a rd U sing G ra ffitis ts A gainst U n h e a lth y Prom otions). Hodge &
Kress (1988:8) provide an exam ple o f the w o rk o f BUGAUP in w h ich
th e y have altered a cigarette advertisem ent on a b illb o a rd . BUGAUP
altered the ad’s form er message “New. M ild . A nd M a rlb o ro .” to read
“New. V ile. A nd a bore.” Resistance against hegem onic dom inance is
w ith o u t question a p rim a ry explanation of th is g ra ffiti register. ^
From a n o th er p o sitio n , Abel & B u ckle y (1977) provide an id
expression theory to explain the occurrence o f g ra ffiti. They approach
g ra ffiti fro m a p rim a rily F re u d ia n (1950a, 1950b) perspective. In th e ir
vie w p o in t, the bathroom g ra ffiti th a t th e y exam ine are exam ples o f id
expression, the m anife sta tio n and sa tisfa ctio n o f basic in s tin c ts such as
sex and aggression. It is in the privacy o f a bathroom s ta ll, w here one
is tru ly separated from the repressive forces o f society, th a t one can
e xh ib it/e xp o se such basic desires.
^That is, it provides an explanation of the motivations of the group members as
well as the kinds of forms their graffiti take.
42
As w ith the hegem onic theory, the id expression th e o ry is a
fa scin a tin g e xplanation o f w h y ce rta in people w rite ce rta in k in d s o f
g ra ffiti. U n fo rtu n a te ly, the perspective is e sse n tia lly directed tow ards
bath ro o m w rite rs . F u rth e rm o re , if one were to dig deeper in to the
bathroom g ra ffiti data detailed in Abel & B u ckle y’s w ork, it w ould
become apparent th a t m ore th a n one k in d o f bathroom register
exists.4 Though A bel and B uckley’s view is in te re stin g , th e ir th e o ry
does n o t have adequate power fo r e xp la in in g even the d iffe re n t
va rie ties o f b athroom w ritin g , m uch less o th e r k in d s o f g ra ffiti.
In a d d itio n to engaging g ra ffiti theories such as Abel and
B u ckle y’s, m ore p o p u la r explanations o f g ra ffiti could be included,
such as those heard on the airw ays o f the news m edia n e a rly every
tim e a g ra ffiti sto ry breaks. U su a lly it is the g ra ffitis t explaining th a t
he is m erely sa tisfyin g h is need fo r a rtis tic expression (and ju s tify in g
h is behavior as a firs t am endm ent rig h t) o r the hom eow ner e xp la in in g
th a t, lik e a dog on a tree, the g ra ffiti w rite rs are m erely m a rkin g th e ir
te rrito rie s . N either explanation is adequate, b u t th e y do have some
v a lid ity , especially in lig h t o f specific g ra ffiti registers. The piecers,
w ho are described in C hapter 3, do w rite w ith the m o tiva tio n o f
expressing and p u b lic iz in g th e ir a rt (to o th e r piecers p rim a rily ); m any
gang w rite rs , described in C hapter 4, do w rite to show w here th e ir
gang boundaries are. These are, however, ju s t sm all p a rts o f the larger
puzzle o f g ra ffiti behavior. In the la tte r exam ple, fo r instance, th o u g h a
"^Bathroom writers often partake in different “games:” writing poetry,
obscenities, racist statements, sexual advertisements, etc.
43
gang member m ight w rite to m ark his gang boundary, it is probably
the least frequent m otivation for gang g raffiti w ritin g . Moreover,
m arking territories is Just one act in gang graffiti w riting.
To explain w hy g raffiti occur (across com m unities) is d iffic u lt
because, w ith in the different graffiti registers (different com m unities),
there are different reasons for graffiti production. A general theory of
graffiti would have to accommodate the fact th a t each register can
(and for the m ost part, does) have a different modus operandi and a
different rationale to go w ith it. Such a graffiti theory w ould also have
to explain w hy different forms of g raffiti are used w ith in a register to
achieve different purposes. Moreover, a general theory of graffiti
should also be capable of explaining w hy one culture uses the graffiti
genre and another not.
No general theory of graffiti w hich explains w hy all graffiti occur
is provided here because none is thought to be conceivable. Instead,
this research takes an ethnographic approach to understand the
c u ltu ra l models (explanations) of specific g ra ffiti-w ritin g groups; it
attem pts to uncover the factors w hich m otivate two specific graffiti-
w ritin g groups— taggers and Chicano gang m em bers— to w rite graffiti
(D’Andrade 1992). It examines th e ir views of the w orld and how they
act accordingly.
In general, however, p a rt o f Fiske’s theory is accepted. As
stated in Chapter 1, a byproduct of graffiti is th a t they do appear to
resymbolize canvases, whether the acts of th e ir production are m eant
to be counter-hegem onic or not. The acts are counter-
cultural/counter-m ainstream to some extent because this is a
44
requirem ent by definition of the g raffiti genre. And in the Fiskian
viewpoint, graffiti are, at the least, a reworking of cu ltu ra l objects
(belonging to another culture) into objects w hich reflect one’s own
cu ltu ra l meanings. A closely related perspective w hich m ight
characterize this function of m uch of the graffiti in the landscape can
be adopted from Campbell (1990).
In a lecture on the function of m ythology entitled “Where People
Lived Legends: Am erican Indian M yths,” from the series
Transform ations o f M yth Through Time, Campbell describes the
Icelandic tra d itio n of naming [land-nam for ‘land-claim ing’ or ‘land-
ta kin g ’). Naming is essentially the practice of using names from
landm arks of the homeland and from the m ythology and histo ry of the
hom eland for landm arks on newly acquired property (conquered lands
and colonies). This practice is not ju s t Icelandic, b u t cuts across
cultures as its use can be observed in, of all places, the colonization of
the U nited States. New York, New England, Carmel, the Olympic
Mountains, etc. are ju s t a handful of examples of th is practice.
Cam pbell explains th a t this practice represents a m ajor function of
mythology, w hich is to relate m an to his surrounding environm ent.
Nam ing landm arks around oneself w ith names from one’s m ythology
or h isto ry (or from one’s core culture) puts one “in accord ” w ith those
surroundings. One’s existence is ju stifie d by the reflection of one’s
culture on the surrounding objects.
A fter six years of looking at the use of graffiti in the lives of
taggers and gang members, I cannot help b u t see graffiti as a way of
nam ing the environm ent for these marginalized cultures. Both taggers
45
and gang members w rite th e ir names and th e ir social groups on the
surrounding physical landm arks. Though the two groups do not share
world views w hich look at the physical space around them in the same
m anner (see Chapter 5), the re sult of the graffiti production of both is
to see th e ir cultures exhibited throughout the landscape. The land
reflects th e ir way of being in it. Though it is doubtful th a t graffiti
form s are necessarily w ritte n w ith this function in m ind, they can be
seen to situate the w riters in a congruous existence in the w orld,^
despite the idiosyncratic differences of both groups.
2 Graffiti/Ethnographic Data Collection
Taggers and Chicano gang members were interviewed about
th e ir own reasons for producing graffiti (as well as other aspects of
th e ir behavior and w orld views) and examples of th e ir w ork were
collected to elucidate th e ir respective c u ltu ra l models. Observations
were also made of individual and group behavior and th e ir artifacts.
This w ork relies upon these interviews and observations to explain
in dividual and group m otivations for graffiti production (as w ell as
th e ir w ith in group registral choices) and g raffiti consum ption
(literacy). The differences and sim ilarities between the groups (their
products, behavior, beliefs, etc.] are discussed in Chapter 5.
The data on w hich th is study is based were collected over a two
year period, from Spring 1991 through sum m er 1993. The tagging
^Another way of saying this is that taggers and Chicano gang members alter
their environment to reflect elements of their culture. The typical graffiti of Chicano
gang members, for example, indicate the positions of specific gang members in the
Chicano gang world. The graffiti thereby puts them in harmony with their physical
surroundings because those surroundings affirm their positions in gang society.
46
data consist of photo and video docum entation of graffiti products in
Los Angeles County (Figure 2.1) w ith consistent docum entation over
the two year period of tagging (and some gang) g raffiti in West Los
Angeles, in Culver City, and along Ballona Creek, a frequently painted
tagging canvas ru nn ing through Culver C ity and M arina Del Rey. Over
the two year period, interviews w ith taggers from both the “West-
Side” and downtown Los Angeles (as well as other parts of Los
Angeles) were collected in a variety of contexts— from inform al
interviews in the tagging environm ent to paid interview s away from
the tagging context.
Chicano gang graffiti were also documented photographically
throughout the county of Los Angeles, w ith a specific focus on the
Ramona Gardens Housing Project in East Los Angeles— home of the Big
Hazard gang. Hazard gang graffiti were photographed less consistently
during th a t tim e period than the tagging graffiti due to the threatening
nature inherent in such an invasive act.® A t one point in the study,
however, a survey (with escorts) of the entire housing project was
undertaken, and a m ajority of all of the g raffiti in “the projects” at the
tim e was photographed. Paid interviews of both gang members and
non-gang members from Ramona Gardens were conducted over the
two year period. Inform al interviews were also performed through
weekly volunteer tu to rin g at the Ramona Gardens gym through the
East Los Angeles Youth Activities Foundation.
®Gang members generally consider prolific photographing of their graffiti by an
unknown outsider as an attempt to catalog their membership for the purposes of
prosecution or some other undesirable intent.
47
VENTURA COUNTY
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1 1 0
Ramona Gardens
Culver City
Ballona Creek
ORANGE COUNTY
PACIFIC OCEAN
W
405
S
Figure 2.1 Principal areas of data collection in Los Angeles
County.
In the data collection, authentic graffiti texts were gathered
(through photographs and video) th a t had been produced on walls
w ith o u t any outside influence. In addition to this, in interviews,
copious graffiti samples were produced on paper by inform ants to
elucidate specific points.^ Inform ants also interpreted, criticized.
^Graffiti texts reproduced here have been formatted in black and white using
Adobe Photoshop. Most examples were altered in brightness (i.e., lightening all shades
48
explained, and guessed about samples of graffiti or other w ritte n forms
brought to the interview.
Interviews were invaluable to this research, for it was through
the encounters th a t inform ants would not only decode g raffiti
products, b u t also would b u ild w orld views of both the tagger and the
Chicano gang member. As w ill be demonstrated, it is only through an
understanding of the w riters’ value systems and practices th a t one can
not only come to understand g raffiti cu rre n tly produced, b u t also to
understand g ra ffiti in the process of evolving, and to predict graffiti
types not yet used. The producers of these graffiti form s provided
m otivations for th e ir practices th a t not only answered the question of
w hy graffiti is produced, b u t also answered more m icro-level questions
about specific registral features.
3 Sociolinguistic Concepts
This study employs a sociolinguistic approach. It examines a
variety of ling u istic texts w ritte n by taggers and gang members, and it
seeks to describe the social constitution and perpetuation of such
texts. In describing and analyzing the production and consum ption of
these lin g u istic texts, a variety of concepts developed in linguistics
and related fields are used.
Linguistic Activity
M uch of the discussion to follow is concerned w ith “a ctivity”
a n d /o r “fu n ctio n ” in lin gu istic production, term s employed in the
discussion of genre and register in Chapter 1. The field of
of gray) and/or contrast (lightening light colors while darkening dark colors). Graffiti
that were enhanced were made sharper by clustering dark and light points.
49
sociolinguistics is not concerned w ith the structure of language used
alone, b u t w ith how th a t structure is constrained by or dictates the
kind of activity a n d /o r function surrounding its use. It is an
assum ption of sociolinguistics th a t using language involves some kin d
of social activity a n d /o r function.
Because the w ritin g of graffiti is a form of language use, w ritin g
g raffiti thereby involves perform ing at least one of m any possible acts—
more than one of w hich may be occurring sim ultaneously. For
example, earlier it was suggested th a t graffiti was a kind of
unsanctioned w ritin g . A w rite r of g raffiti is therefore involved in
certain kinds of acts in his discourse production, the very least of
w hich is breaking the law (or m ainstream mores). For each culture
th a t utilizes the graffiti genre, the kinds of acts and functions for
w hich the genre is employed are critical to understanding each
cu ltu re ’s g ra ffiti-w ritin g practices.
W ittgenstein (1953) coined the term language game to
represent “ ...language and the actions into w hich it is woven” (p.5e);
according to W ittgenstein, “the speaking of language is p a rt of an
activity...” and such activities can be classified into “countless kin d s”
of language games, examples of w hich Include giving orders, reporting
an event, m aking a Joke, and thanking (lle -1 2 e ). A ll of these are
categories of language use, and thus, the m eaning of a linguistic
expression is in trica te ly bound to the type o f a ctivity being performed.
A u s tin ’s (1962) notion of the speech act also specifically
examines meaning, as above, not ju s t in the words used, b u t in the
type of act being performed during the utterance. That is, producing
50
language is perform ing an act. To say, “It sure is hot in here,” could
be interpreted in num erous ways such as a request for someone to
tu rn down the heat (in winter), an apology for failed air-conditioning
(in summer), an acknowledgm ent of an em barrassing moment, etc.
A ustin calls these acts th a t occur in the production of language
illocutionary acts.
Searle (1971) sees th is notion of the speech act as crucial to the
field of linguistics.
It is essential to any specimen of ling u istic com m unication
th a t it involve a linguistic act. It is not, as has generally
been supposed, the symbol or word or sentence, or even
the token of the symbol or word or sentence, w hich is the
u n it of lin guistic com m unication, b u t rather it is the
production of the token in the performance o f the speech
act th a t constitutes the basic u n it of linguistic
com m unication. To p u t this point more precisely, the
production of the sentence token under certain conditions
is the illocutionary act, and the illocutionary act is the
m inim al u n it of lin gu istic com m unication, (p.39)
In other words, Searle sees the classification of the lin g u istic
production (in its context) on a par w ith the language token itself.
The conditions of language production are the contexts, w hich w ill be
addressed below.
U nderstanding the type of act(s) performed, therefore, is
im perative to understanding the intentions of the actors in language
production. According to Searle, meaning is found in the im plied
intention in the com m unicative event. An example Searle gives is the
case in w hich, during WWII, an undercover Am erican soldier is
captured by Italian troops who do not speak German. The Am erican
uses some of the little German he knows in order to sound/appear
German to the Italians. It is not a literal m eaning of the German
51
words th a t the Am erican uses th a t is crucial to the com m unication, it
is the illocutionary force w hich is im portant. In using German, and
th u s attem pting to deceive, the Am erican intends for the Italians to
in te rp re t the language as m eaning “I am a German officer.”
In the above example, the use of German was a cue for the Italian
soldiers to interpret one of the meanings of the Am erican's language
(speech acts such as proclaim ing Germanhood, chatting about the
w eather (probably the lite ra l meaning), lying, etc.). These cues for
interpretation are w hat Goffman (1974) calls keys. Keys are “the set
of conventions by w hich a given activity, one already m eaningful in
term s of some p rim a ry fram ework, is transform ed into som ething
patterned on this activity b u t seen by the participants to be something
quite else” (pp.43-4). The key is a cue (and a clue) to the participants
on how to inte rpret the language and the activity taking place in the
face of other possible interpretations. If an utterance such as “It sure
is hot in here” can function as a move in a d istin ct language game (or
possibly a m u ltip lic ity of language games), the interlocutor m ust then
rely on other features, linguistic a n d /o r non-linguistic, to disambiguate
the potential illocutionary acts. In reading graffiti, it is necessaiy to
understand w hich keys are utilized in placing the graffiti in a specific
register (for a specific discourse com m unity) and in a more specific
registral function (a specific functio n --illo cu tio n a ry a ct--w ith in the
specific discourse com m unity).
Searle's claim th a t the speech act is found in “the production of
the sentence token under certain conditions” h in ts at the need for a
thorough understanding of the context of utterance (or w riting) or in
52
M alinow ski's (1923, cited in D u ra n ti 1985) term s, the context o f
situation. The context is the frame (Goffman 1974) in w hich the
lin g u istic event is couched. B u t identifying and delim iting context is
d iffic u lt in num erous ways because it is hard to say w hat constitutes a
context (what is included in the context? where does it begin? where
does it end? etc.). Separating text from context and vice versa is not a
straightforw ard problem in th a t m uch of w hat the text is is dependent
upon the context. As claimed above, contextual keys often guide
proper interpretations of texts, the absence of w hich w ould lim it the
range of potential meanings of an illo cu tio n a iy act. Additionally, the
text its e lf creates a context (Ochs 1992, Giddens 1984, 1982, and
1979), fu rth e r b lu rrin g the division between text and context.
Contexts can also include a wide variety of phenomena. A
diverse range of elements such as linguistic features, historical facts,
m ental states, and physical spaces can have an influence on the way
the text is interpreted. In looking at graffiti, for example, the distance
of a graffito from the ground m ight be a significant contextual feature,
one w hich is not com m only considered in w ritte n discourse analysis.
Contextualization is relating language to its context. Gumperz
describes th is as the process by w hich the interlocutors use “verbal
and nonverbal signs to relate w hat is said at any one tim e and in any
one place to knowledge acquired through past experience, in order to
retrieve the presuppositions they m ust rely on to m aintain
conversational involvem ent and assess w hat is intended” (1992:230).
Though the emphasis of the above quotation is on oral language, the
same can be said for w ritten language: contextualization is necessaiy
53
to make the rig h t inferences and interpretations of the in te n tio n the
author displays in the w riting.
Contextualization, then, plays an im portant role in reading
w ritte n texts. In the field of psycholinguistics, for example, prim ing
effects (Neely 1991), in w hich associations are able to both facilitate
and in h ib it lexical and sentential processing (Foss & Speer 1991),
have been assumed since the early 1970s. O rdinary readers rely on
associative networks in w hich a m ultitude of both linguistic and non-
lin g u istic elements are related in the m ind. The associative networks
or schem ata are utilized in language processing (parsing) and sense
m aking at a m u ltitud e of levels in listening and reading, from
phonological discrim ination (van Bergem 1993, M cClelland et a l
: 1986) to macro-level text interpretations (Anderson & Pearson 1988).
This use of schemata is an example of contextualization.
Gumperz (1982a) synthesizes the notions of contextualization
and speech act discussed thus far in the comments below on speech
activity:
A speech activity is a set of social relationships enacted
about a set of schemata in relation to some com municative
goal. Speech activities can be characterized through
descriptive phrases such as “discussing p olitics,”
“chatting about the weather,” “tellin g a story to someone,”
and “lecturing about linguistics.” Such descriptions im ply
certain expectations about them atic progression, tu rn
taking rules...and outcome of the interaction, as well as
constraints on content. In the activity of discussing, we
look for sem antic relationships between subsequent
utterances, and topic change is constrained.... (p. 166)
Again, though the quotation above focuses p rim a rily on the oral mode,
it is descriptive of w ritte n expression as well in th a t content
constraints, them atic progression, and outcomes are issues of w ritte n
54
speech activities also. Speech activity, like the language game, can be
thought of as a larger u n it of language made up of one or more speech
acts.
O ther authors, in the ir descriptions of u n its larger than the
speech act, have employed the term s speech event or com m unicative
event The speech/com m unicative event is a social event, or a social
activity, bounded by spatial-tem p oral constraints in w hich language
plays a role (D uranti 1985, Hymes 1974). Speech events, like speech
activities (or speech acts for th a t matter), are categories of lin g u istic
expression or social interaction. In the interaction,® participants
u tilize th e ir knowledge of the unfolding com m unicative event in both
th e ir understanding and perpetuation of the action taking place.
In Gumperz’ description of the speech activity, elements such as
tu rn taking-rules, content constraints, etc. are more or less defined.
It is the specific roles, tu rn taking rules, content constraints,
lin g u istic features, etc. w hich constitute a register. T ru d g ill defines
the term register as “a rather special case of a p a rticu la r kin d of
language being produced by the social situ a tio n ” (1974:101). Hudson
sim ila rly describes register as a linguistic “variety according to use”
(1980:48). Given th a t there are a great m any possible social situations
and uses of language, the “use” involves m ultiple dim ensions of the
context of the speech event. These dim ensions include the identities
of the participants, the mode of com m unication, the purpose of th e ir
interaction, and the relationships of the participants (M artin 1992,
H alliday 1978). Thus, register can be conceived of as either the
®This interaction may include a single agent’s linguistic expression.
55
category of expression (i.e., w hat one is doing) below the genre level
(in th is case, the kin d of graffiti) or the roles (and identities)
participants assume (i.e., w hat one is being) in specific kinds of
com m unicative/expressive events, and hence, the lin g u istic variety
associated w ith those events and roles. The m anifestations of the
roles depend on the rules and resources (defined below) the agents
bring to the interaction, as well as the rules and resources created in
the interaction. This knowledge constrains (to the p o in t the actors
w ill let it) aspects of the linguistic activity such as those cited in
Gumperz (1982a) above: rules for tu rn taking, content, them atic
progression, etc.
G raffitists who belong to g ra ffiti-w riting social groups, such as
taggers, do not w rite arbitrarily, b u t have regularized practices to
follow. Their graffiti w ritin g is a patterned speech activity in w hich
they rely upon vast cu ltu ra l knowledge to participate in th e ir
discourse, producing th e ir registers and sub-registers.
A concept often associated w ith register is genre. Like register,
genre is connected to the social situation and social purpose of the
interaction or expression— besides, nearly the same examples are
given for both categories. Swales defines genre as a “class of
com m unicative events” sharing “some set of com m unicative
purposes” (1990:58). Furtherm ore the purposes (M artin 1989),
rationale, content, schematic structure, etc. are know n by the
members of the discourse com m unity th a t utilize the genre in
question. Kress explains th a t
genres have specific form s and meanings, deriving from
and encoding the functions, purposes and m eanings of the
56
social occasions. Genres therefore provide a precise index
and catalogue of the relevant social occasions of a
com m unity at a given time. A few examples of genre are:
interview, essay, conversation, sale, tu to ria l, sports
com mentary, seduction, office memo, novel, p o litica l
speech, editorial, sermon, joke, in structio n . (1985a: 19)
Thus, the characteristics of p a rticu la r genres depend upon the
occasions (including spatial-tem poral features) of p a rticu la r kinds of
com m unicative events in a speech com m unity.^ For different speech
com m unities, these characteristics can and do diverge; therefore, the
p a rticu la r features of the genre’s expression in a p a rticu la r speech
com m unity are often assigned to register and the broader categoiy,
genre (Atkinson 1993). The categories of the expression, i.e., the
genre and register, can be and often are labeled the same way [e.g.,
“sports com m entary’’). There often are, however, m any registers of a
p a rticu la r genre w ith in a discourse. That is, the genre is expressed
w ith different role relations of participants, different purposes, etc. all
w ith in the same speech com m unity [e.g., radio sports commentary,
television color commentary about basketball, etc.).
Because of the in stitu tio n a l nature of the expression of genres
w ith in speech com m unities as specific registers, they are expected to
acquire strong conventions over time. As Hodge & Kress argue,
“genres only exist in so far as a social group declares and enforces the
rules th a t constitute them ’’ (1988:7). However, genres do change
w ith the years [e.g., A tkinson 1993) resulting from the power of
agents to bring about change in the constitution of systems.
^Hudson (1980) discusses the difficulty of defining a speech community. As with
the uncertainty of defining cultural groups (with regard to who is in and who is out),
speech communities can be defined by linguistic criteria, social criteria, attitudinal
criteria, etc.
57
Concepts From Giddens’ Social Theorv^ Q
The term in stitu tio n (sim ilar to culture) is used to describe an
organized netw ork of social roles/identities, rules, and resources.
Though the term “in s titu tio n ” im plies a large num ber of participants
over a large spatiotem poral span, the lim its constraining the
in s titu tio n can be as m inim al as two agents acting w ith in two events of
the same genre. Giddens views institution as “structured social
practices th a t have a broad spatial and tem poral extension” (1982:9).
T hat is, social actions th a t m aintain sim ilarities through tim e and
space are in stitu tio n a l. However, structure is constantly reconstituted
w ith each instantiation and thus inevitably changes.
The term action indicates “a stream of actual or contem plated
causal interventions of corporeal beings in the ongoing process of
events-in-the-w orld” (Giddens 1979:55). Action, or agency, depends
on the intervention of actors/agents in events, and thus results in
effects. P articipation in any com m unicative (expressive) event involves
action (agency).
A system corresponds to the notion of speech event developed
earlier and thereby resembles aspects of register (and genre). “Social
systems involve regularised relations of interdependence between
individuals or groups, th a t typically cam be best analyzed as recurrent
social practices” (1979:65-6). These recurrent social practices im p ly
concepts described in this section come from Giddens* (1984, 1982, 1979)
work on social theory. They are useful concepts to include in a sociolinguistic study of
this type.
^ ^As with the term culture, institution can imply both a grouping of people as
well as rules and resources.
58
“reproduced interdependence of action,” (1979:73) and thus, depend
upon the participation of agents. W ithout action there can be no
interdependence.
Structure is the pattern of social relationships. These patterns
are (structural) properties in the form of organized rules and
resources. System is a “defining characteristic of stru ctu re ”
(1979:61) and is thus a part of the rules and resources on w hich
actors rely in the direction, maintenance, and creation of structure.
Rules and resources include both the individual and m utual
knowledge necessary for any interaction to take place. These rules
and resources include a great m any things including norms,
in stitu tio n s, ideology, experience, etc. Rules and resources play an
im portant role in structuration, w hich is the stru ctu rin g of structure,
the creation of system patterns.
D uality is the notion th a t as structure is utilized to guide activity,
new structure is created. In the d u a lity of structure, “rules and
resources are draw n upon by actors in the production of interaction,
b u t are thereby reconstituted through such interaction” (1979:71).
S tru ctu ra l characteristics are often based upon historical resources,
and yet the very action th a t occurs based on historical precedents
creates a new history. The new history, if different or interpreted as
different in any way, creates the potential for a new structure (and
thus, featural change).
Power is observed in the potential a b ility of an actor to achieve
intended outcomes. Intention is not a necessary condition for power
to exist, b u t rather power exists in the potential for an agent to cause
59
effects (whether desired or not). Furtherm ore, power is also
m anifested in an actor's capabilities “to enact or resist sanctioning
processes” (1979:83). Power is often “structured into social systems”
because of the social roles structured into in stitu tio n s.
Convention, Markedness. Discourse, and Ideology
S tru ctu ra l features w hich are institutionalized [le ., they become
rules and resources) are conventional. Atkinson defines a w ritte n
discourse convention as a “ ...socially ratified solution to a past or
present coordination problem o f w ritten com m unication” (1991:61).
Socially ratified here means institutionalized as a recurrent structure.
A coordination problem indicates a problem atic com m unicative or
expressive situation in w hich the resolution of the problem (for the
benefit o f the participant(s)) requires a coordinated effort.
The kinds of com m unicative or expressive problem s th a t speech
com m unities encounter can be various, as can be the conventions th a t
are created to meet the p a rticu la r needs of the com m unity. The
analyses of tagging and Chicano gang graffiti in Chapters 3 and 4 w ill
detail registral conventions of the respective graffiti and address the
p a rticu la r coordination problems the conventions resolve. The
conventions w ill be compared and contrasted, especially w ith regard
to the specific needs they satisfy, in Chapter 5.
One aspect of a convention is th a t it can be more or less marked.
M arkedness generally im plies increased lin g u istic com plexity w ith
regard to linguistic features. The increase of lin g u istic com plexity is
typically associated w ith less fam iliar and less variable com m unicative
or expressive situations (Moravcsik & W irth 1986). As Comrie argues,
60
there is often “ ...a correlation between lin g u istic markedness and
situational markedness, i.e. th a t those constructions th a t involve less
form al m arkedness lin g u istica lly correspond to those extralinguistic
situations w h ich — in fact or in our conceptualization of those
situ a tio n s— are more expected” (1986:104). And conversely, the
conventions of less common situations typically include more complex
lin g u istic forms.
Conventions are revealed in discourse, w hich is the
m anifestation of an in s titu tio n (Kress 1985a); th a t is, members of
specific in stitu tio n s (cultures, speech com m unities) m anifest
themselves through discourse (Macdonell 1986). Gee describes th e ir
(in s titu tio n a l/cu ltu ra l) membership as “involving ways of talking,
acting, interacting, valuing, and believing, as well as the spaces and
m aterial ‘props’ the group uses to carry out its social practices”
(1992:107): the dem onstration of this in s titu tio n a l m em bership is
through discourse. In the m ajority of linguistic studies, however,
discourse is lim ited to linguistic m anifestations alone of an in s titu tio n
or speech com m unity.
The use of discourse is referred to as a discourse act. The
com m unicative/expressive act, indicating group m embership, both
uses discourse, and is positioned w ith in a discourse. Generally,
whereas discourse, as a non-count noun, is used to mean the
m anifestation of an in stitu tio n /c u ltu re , discourse, as a count noun, is
m erely another term for th a t in s titu tio n or cu ltu re —i.e., the p a rticu la r
social p r a c t i c e s . ^ 2 Because graffiti (non-count) is a w ritte n genre.
61
g raffiti (count) are w ritte n discourse (non-count). Nearly all graffiti,
especially those examined in this work, follow in s titu tio n a l
conventions and thereby— in the cases of tagging and Chicano gang
g ra ffiti— indicate m em bership in specific speech com m unities. The
p a rticu la r in stitu tio n s (with th e ir social practices, knowledge, physical
spaces, etc.) are also discourses.
One aspect of the knowledge th a t is p a rt of an in s titu tio n is the
ideology. Ideology in its sim plest conception is a belief system or
w orld view (Gee 1991, Kress 1985b). An ideology indicates ways in
w hich the w orld is perceived in term s of its dichotom ies and
continua, hierarchical categories, as well as its cosmologies,
mythologies, theologies, histories, etc. As stated above, ideology is an
aspect of the rules and resources used in social systems, so
consequently, a goal of the interview data was to unveil m uch of the
ideology w hich m otivates the two groups to partake in th e ir p a rticu la r
discourses.
It should be noted, however, before descriptions of aspects of
tagging culture and Chicano gang culture, th a t ideologies, though
seemingly consistent to the owners, are riddled w ith inconsistency.
Deconstruction has come to mean a technique of dism antling ideology
in texts, and m aking the dichotomies, hierarchical categories, etc.
explicit as w ell as dem onstrating their gross inconsistencies (Harris
1992, Argyros 1991, C uller 1982). Taggers and Chicano gang
members often contradict themselves, as anyone w ould to an outsider,
in explaining elements of th e ir practices.
fact, this dual use of the term is not unlike the way in which the names of
languages are used: English is used for both a language and culture.
62
Social Meanings
A tkinson’s w ork on convention takes an approach to language
w hich “ ...is based on the assum ption, common among sociolinguists,
th a t language in use is m ultifunctional; th a t is, th a t language in situ
indexes a variety of social meanings in addition to the referential
meanings th a t are m ost obviously represented by language” (1991:63).
That is to say, there are generally two kinds of meanings: one is social
and the other is referential or logical, the non-contextual decoded
content. Lyons, for example, claims th a t “it is universally accepted
th a t few, if any, of the utterances of eveiyday language behavior are
free of the property of indexicality” (1982:102-103). Indexing
generally im plies the use of linguistic features to indicate social
meanings of the language as distinct from the referential meaning, and
in the case of the Lyons citation, specific inform ation about the
id e n tity of the speaker.
D istinguishing between referential m eaning and social meaning,
however, is problem atic in several ways w hich w ill not be fu lly
enumerated here. Yet the essence of the problem can be summarized
in th is way: in the context of linguistic production, referential or
logical m eaning is socially constituted; th a t is, in a different social
space, a logical m eaning can change. Nonetheless, distinguishing
between referential and social m eaning can be essential to some of the
m ajor premises o f sociolinguistics : linguistic features in context are
capable of indexing social meanings such as class and ethnicity, and
such meanings m ight be lost in a decontextualized situation (such as
m aking gram m aticality judgm ents in a linguistics class).
63
M aintaining the distinction between social m eaning and logical
meaning, Ochs summarizes indexing in this way:
Sociolinguistic studies tend to relate p a rticu la r structures
to p a rticu la r situational conditions, or clusters of
structures to such conditions. The meanings so indexed
are referred to as social meanings, in contrast to purely
referential or logical meanings expressed by lin g u istic
structures. Hence two or more phonological variants of
the same word m ay share the identical reference b u t
convey different social meanings, e.g., differences in social
class or ethnicity of speakers, differences in social
distances between speaker and addressee, differences in
affect. In every com m unity, members have available to
them lingu istic resources for com m unicating such social
meanings at the same tim e as they are providing other
levels of inform ation. This system of m ultifarious signaling
is h igh ly efficient. Competent members of every
com m unity have been socialized to interpret these
meanings and can w ith o u t conscious control orchestrate
messages to convey social meanings. (1992:338)
Nonetheless, as is seen in the earlier example provided by Searle, it is
quite possible th a t in any given com municative event, it is a social
m eaning (such as proclaim ing Germanhoodj th a t carries the p rim a ry
focus for one or more of the participants; if the in te rlocu to r’s
in te n tio n is a social meaning, then the logical-social m eaning
d istin ctio n is somewhat blurred.
As w ill be demonstrated, m uch of the meaning literate graffitists
make of graffiti has to do w ith social meanings they attach to the
w ritin g . In fact, it is often not the decoded referential m eaning th a t
taggers and Chicsino gang members emphasize both in reading and
w ritin g graffiti texts, because there are a num ber of ways in w hich
in terpreting graffiti obfuscates the distinction between the two kinds
of meanings. For example, m uch of the referential m eaning of tagging
and gang graffiti has to do w ith identity. And besides that, there are
64
other non-referential indices of id e n tity in g raffiti texts. Yet, to
confuse the m atter more, w ith tagging and Chicano gang graffiti, the
very use of no n-identity referential content is itse lf an index of other
social meanings. Nevertheless, even though the distinction between
social and logical meanings has some possible drawbacks, m aking the
distinction seems both appropriate and achievable.
Ochs describes a variety of potential social meanings, and of the
various social meanings available, identity is assumed to be a property
of practically any utterance (Lyons 1982). An example of this
presupposition is Gumperz’ edited volume Language and social
identity, w hich is entirely devoted to dem onstrating the ways in w hich
social id en tity and ethnicity are “established and m aintained through
language” (1982b:7). In linguistic production, the message, should
one exist, is packaged in inform ation about who the interlocutors are.
4 Summary
G raffiti are unsanctioned w ritte n discourse. D ifferent individuals
and groups w rite graffiti for a variety of reasons. Because of the vast
variety of m otivations, no general theory of graffiti is proposed— though
the hegemonic and id expression theories are briefly described.
Explanations of the occurrence of graffiti are best examined register
by register, case by case. It is suggested, however, th a t all g raffiti do
have the effect of resymbolizing the canvases on w hich they are found,
and for m any discourses, this can serve to support the existence o f the
social groups.
65
This study attem pts to examine the cu ltu ra l models (folk
theories) of two social groups, taggers and Chicano gang members,
who have graffiti w ritin g as a common practice (core for taggers) of
th e ir discourses. Taggers and Chicano gang members from Los
Angeles county were interviewed both form ally (paid and tape
recorded) and info rm a lly during the years 1991-1993. Also, examples
of th e ir g raffiti were documented photographically and w ith video.
G raffiti-like samples were also created during the i n t e r v i e w s .
In describing th e ir practices and products, th is study relies
upon the constructs of m uch sociolinguistic work. Language game,
speech act, speech activity, speech event, register, and genre are all
categories of social interaction, the focus of each being slightly
different in nature a n d /o r m agnitude. O ther concepts w hich are
utilized in this analysis of the graffiti and practices of taggers and
Chicano gang members include keys, context, institution, convention,
markedness, discourse, and ideology, as well as the concepts
developed by Giddens in his w ork on social theory.
This research unveils the social meanings indexed in graffiti
texts. Texts are resources of an in s titu tio n /c u ltu re . Texts are created
and recreated in the acting out of social behavior. In order to make
correct interpretations of texts, one needs to be fa m ilia r w ith the
registers, ideologies, discourses, etc. of the participants of an event as
one perceives the situation of the use of the texts being negotiated.
^^hese examples were not truly graffiti because they were requested and they
were written on the requester’s paper.
66
CHAPTER THREE
1 Sources
Though academic descriptions and analyses are lacking, a
handful of valuable sources on tagging graffiti exist. Castleman's
(1982) description of tra in g raffiti in New York, for example, has
provided a significant resource for this work, especially because it
docum ents tagging and, more specifically, piecing (a high form of
tagging) on the east coast of the US in the early 1980s, a tim e when
tagging had not yet inundated the streets of Los Angeles in the way
th a t it does now in the m id 1990s.^ Lachm ann’s (1988) research on
the g raffiti “subculture,” exam ining New York tra in g raffiti six years
later, is an excellent supplem ent to Castleman’s book (see also
C halfant & Prigoff 1987 and Cooper & Chalfant 1984). In a sense,
m uch of the w ork of both Castleman and Lachman is affirm ed and
replicated by m any voices (both oral and painted) throughout Los
Angeles (see Sells & S m ith 1992).
Tagging is not an uncom m on topic in the popular media;
unfortunately, the media have seldom had m uch of substance to say as
far as the foci of this research are concerned. Nevertheless,
newspapers and TV news occasionally have had valuable insights to
report, m ost often when they have quoted taggers or other graffiti
“experts.” Such quotations, as well as the occasional o p in io n /e d itoria l
piece, have had an influence on this research and are cited where
relevant.
^ Stewart's (1989) dissertation on subway graffiti documents the trends of early
tagging in New York city.
67
The objective data th a t this paper presents and analyzes come
p rim a rily from the streets and walls of Los Angeles County. A ll video
stills and photographs reproduced here were taken by the author. In
some cases, the docum entation has been enhanced for cla rity (as
noted) using the ‘unsharpen m ask’ feature of Adobe Photoshop.
2 Tagging Society
Taggers are graffiti w riters who w rite tags. Tags are the
nicknam es of the w riters in question, and the w ritte n product is often
a stylized form th a t serves as a signature of the w riter. O ther graffiti
registers also include stylized nicknam e graffiti, b u t tagging graffiti
entails participation in a social practice w hich approxim ates the
g ra ffiti-w ritin g practices described in th is chapter. In addition to the
nicknam e, a tagger m ight also w rite the names of the g raffiti groups to
w hich he belongs. Taggers generally do not w rite alone, b u t instead
create g ra ffiti in association w ith other g raffiti w riters th a t they know.
These tagging groupings are called crews.
The ranks of tagging society can be divided in three ways. There
is a distinction made between ordinary taggers and the more advanced
tagging graffitists mentioned above know n as piecers. Tagging
graffitists th a t are u n fit for the tagging discourse—i.e., inadequate
taggers or piecers— are known as toys. A later distinction th a t has
arisen in the m id 1990s is the distin ctio n between ordinary taggers
and bombers. Bombers are basically piecers who partake in prolific
p ainting of g ra ffiti th a t are interm ediate to piecing and tagging (called
throw-ups). F urther divisions could be made among taggers and
68
piecers based on other criteria, such as the places they like to h it
(write on), b u t any additional distinctions have little significance to
tagging culture and practice.
Despite the division of true tagging society members into
piecers and taggers, all are members of the general discourse of
tagging. Even though piecers are members of the more prestigious
sub-group in tagging society, they are referred to by the general
designation of tagger. This way of nam ing th e ir m em bership is
analogous to the labels given to members of congress in the United
States government. Though there is a separate designation for
members of the more prestigious division, senator, the generic term
congressman is bestowed upon members of both houses.
Demographic Makeup
As a group, taggers, also known as writers, tend to have age and
sex in common more than any other feature. Though there is no social
taboo against allowing women to enlist in tagging crews, m ost taggers
are male. Taggers are m ost com monly in th e ir teen years, possibly
beginning th e ir tagging careers as early as ten years old and ending as
late as th e ir early 20s. The m ost common hypothesis for taggers'
relatively short association w ith tagging is th a t penalties (when they
are apprehended) increase w ith the age of the w riters; m any taggers
q u it w ritin g at the specific age range of 16 to 18 years because, if they
are convicted at an age beyond this range, they w ill be sentenced as
adults (Accinelli 1993, Castleman 1982).
A nother hypothesis for the typical early exit from tagging is th a t
w riters begin to take on other responsibilities, such as jobs or families,
69
w hich take up th e ir tim e and energy. The responsibilities associated
w ith jobs and fam ilies can be in direct com petition w ith the tagging
lifestyle: the m ajority of tagging graffiti is painted late at nig h t or in
the pre-dawn hours and m uch of it m ay involve a variety of dangers
such as hanging from bridges and invading gang territories. When
taggers have q u it tagging, they sometimes claim th a t they have
“m atured” or “grown out o f’ g ra ffiti w riting.
W ith the exception of age and gender, taggers represent an
eclectic group. Members cross racial, socio-economic, and
neighborhood lines (Accinelli 1993, Castleman 1982). Donnan & 1
Alexander, for example, praise the diversity exhibited in tagging
groups: “G raffiti crews are living the m u lti-c u ltu ra l dream of racial
harm ony and peace” (1992:B-5). As the tagger CJ puts it: ^ _____ j
If you're up on the walls, and if you w ant to get into [the
graffiti crew] ROG, and you're black, and you know how to
w rite, you're in; if you're Hispanic, and you w ant to get in,
you're in; and if you're white, you're in too: it doesn't
m atter.
Despite th e ir heterogeneity (in term s of race and SES^), taggers
s till function as a clear social group. They are social in the sense th a t
they have shared norm s and mechanisms for interaction. The
production of their g raffiti is not only a core rite for th e ir continuance
in the tagging com m unity, it is also a m ajor genre used in the
transm ission of some of th e ir norm s of behavior and the knowledge
th a t they consider standard. Taggers also have other regularized
^Taggers can certainly cross socio-economic status (SES) boundaries as well,
te., the SES of their parents. Many of the taggers interviewed for this research come
from the west side of Los Angeles, from typically upper-middle-class residential areas.
Some came from poor communities in downtown Los Angeles or Culver City’s housing
project (which is one of the few poor communities on the west side of LA).
70
practices of interaction. They have ways of identifying each other,
ways of dressing, ways of greeting each other, and common m eeting
places; they also have inform al journals--personal sketchbooks w hich
they circulate among individuals and sm aller groups (such as crews)—
and published journals, such as Can Control, w hich are circulated
throughout the country. As a culture, they share m any values w hich
bind them together in th e ir practice.
Achieving Fame
Probably the greatest value for taggers is to clim b the ranks of
celebrity w ith in the tagging com m unity. Taggers gain prestige by
in d ivid u a lly being “know n” or having “fame.” It m ight appear
b la ta n tly obvious th a t being know n gives one prestige, or th a t taggers,
as w ith members of alm ost any social group, w ant to be recognized by
the other members of their group. B u t w ith taggers, it is more basic:
one, in a sense, has to be known to be a tagger. When the tagger CA
was asked to evaluate pictures of the tag of an unfam iliar w riter, his
response typified those of other taggers asked to do the same: “1
don’t know ‘cause 1 haven’t seen him up.” Such a response is
interesting in its im plications for tagging literacy (addressed in
Chapter 5) and for the way in w hich tagging graffiti are evaluated.
Being “u p ” means having num erous graffiti in the tagging landscape.
Thus, having recognition is practically a requirem ent before one’s
w ritin g can even be considered for other m erits in the tagging
discourse. Consequently, taggers pursue goals and partake in tagging
rites w hich give them notice.
71
As im plied by CA above, the principal activity in the tagging
com m unity for attaining fame is the production of graffiti.
Nevertheless, there are other social practices in the tagging
com m unity, and one m ight expect th a t fame could be attained from
these other practices. For example, it is extrem ely d iffic u lt for taggers
to acquire paint in Los Angeles County. Some stores require photo
identification before they sell a customer spray paint, and most stores
keep th e ir pa in t under lock and key. Add to this th a t taggers claim
th a t they rack up (steal)^ nearly all of their paint, and one m ight
hypothesize th a t the tagger w ith vast supplies of spray paint m ight
achieve fame.^ JC, for example, described the effort required to
acquire pa in t supplies:
This is w hat I used to do when I used to tag on the street.
It's kin d of hard to get paint. So I would go, I would take
m y big jacket, baggy pants. This guy, he w ould tru s t me.
Because I would always go and buy spray paint, ju s t one,
and the rest, I w ould rack them. I w ould p u t them in my
pockets. He would tru s t me, he w ould give me the keys,
and I would rack them . And some people w ould go to
West Covina, Pomona, all those places far from downtown
because they know what's up downtown for the spray
paint. So when you go out to those places, they're like,
they don't care, you know; they don't th in k w hat's up.
You're ju s t going down there to rack spray paint.
Yet, the proficient racker does not attain fame m erely from racking.
Rather, a tagger's fame is equated alm ost exclusively w ith the graffiti
he produces. These graffiti are judged on th e ir salience, and thus on
^In the tagging discourse, racking refers to stealing paint exclusively.
'^Furthermore, stealing requires risk taking which is also highly valued in the
tagging community.
72
the features th a t make graffiti salient. The m ost common categories of
salience in tagging ideology include: ubiquity, danger, and style.
■ U ip iq u ity
A tagger can become know n by the sheer num ber of times his
g raffiti appear in the environm ent. O ther taggers are thought to
notice a w rite r if his graffiti are ubiquitous. Castleman (1982) reports
th a t a num ber of g raffiti w riters have become famous by the fact th a t
they are prolific rather than talented.^ Such w riters avoid the label of
toy by im pressing other w riters w ith the abundance of th e ir graffiti.
Because fame can be achieved by creating vast quantities of
g raffiti w hich other w riters cannot help b u t notice,® taggers m ight
perseverate at a tagging scene (Figure 3.1). Perseveration is the
persistent production of the same item, be it a sound, a morpheme, a
word, a subject, a theme, etc. Perseveration has been studied as a
characteristic feature in the language of subjects suffering from
diseases w hich cause brain dysfunction such as schizophrenia and
Alzheim er's disease (Bayles 1982, H u n t 1990). Bean (1991), on the
other hand, has framed perseveration as a linguistic resource utilized
by speakers w ith no cognitive im pairm ent. That is to say, there are
functions served by repeating words, sentences, etc. in the “norm al”
inform ation flow between interlocutors— and in the case of taggers,
w riters and readers.
®This is true in LA as well only if the tagger is participating in the discourse of
tagging and not the more exclusive discourse of piecing.
®This assumption proves correct when one examines the extent to which taggers
spend time reading graffiti on the landscape.
73
#
Figure 3.1 Tagging perseveration of CTR along the northbound
405 freeway, Los Angeles, California.
This m ight fly in the face of w hat one w ould expect to be the
case in an exchange of inform ation. Grice, in his cooperative
principles of conversation, states the follow ing regarding the q u a n tity
of inform ation:
1. Make your contribution as inform ative as is required
(for the cu rre n t purposes of the exchange).
2. Do not make you contribution more inform ative than is
required. (1975:45)
Perseveration, then, would appear to be abnorm al [te., too m uch
inform ation) in language production (both w ritte n and spoken).
However, Grice leaves open the possibility th a t people m ight be more
inform ative (or less inform ative) than is necessary, depending on th e ir
purposes.
Because repetition is optional, and is regularly employed. Bean
classifies it as an “independent linguistic resource.” In her analysis of
the discourse of a young Latino boy in Los Angeles, she sees the
general function of perseveration as a tool “for attention-getting,
assertion, and control as compared w ith other lin guistic resources
used for the same purpose” (p.210). It is for the firs t class of social
functions, attention-getting, th a t taggers regularly employ
perseveration tactics. One tagger suggested th a t perseveration tended
7 4
to be utilized p rim a rily by new crews attem pting to become know n or
crews engaged in tagging battles. This is not entirely so, however,
because perseveration occurs across tagging. Tagging social practice
entails w ritin g one’s name and crew name as m uch as possible—being
up.
Cooper and C halfant (1984:29), for example, display a sample of
tagging in w hich a tagger has painted his m ark 18 tim es in an area of
roughly nine square feet.^ Such perseveration can make the tagger's
name quite noticeable when one considers th a t the w all m ight have
lite ra lly hundreds of other m arks on it [e.g., Figure 3.2). The name is
more salient if it occurs over and over and over. In Los Angeles
tagging, perseveration m ost often occurs along freeways [e.g., Figure
3.1) or very busy streets.® To the tagger, the salience of freeway
perseveration derives m ost from the obvious ris k involved. As JC
suggests, “It’s risky to go ou t there and get know n.”
^This example from Cooper and Chalfant (1984) is also connected with a cross-
out.
®This is partially a result of the practice of tagging with a crew in a car.
75
Figure 3.2 Tagging behind a business along the 10 freeway,
Santa Monica, California (enhanced).^
Danaer/Risk
Another way in w hich a tagger achieves fame is by producing
graffiti at a ris k to his own com fort and safety [e.g., Figures 3.3-3.6)—
i.e., through bravery. Perseverating is a (physically) high ris k w ritin g
act if it is done near a driving lane in w hich cars regularly pass at high
speeds [e.g.. Figure 3.3). For example, tagging crews regularly “h it”
the 405 freeway at the tim e of this research in West Los Angeles (Hunt
^This text appears as an example of how a wall can be literally covered with
tagging. This specific wall displays the names of taggers as well as tagging crews (which
will be more fully described later). One particularly interesting feature is that, with the
exception of a handful of crossed-out graffiti, the writing does not occupy the same
spaces; writers, in general, have not written over each other. Furthermore, much of the
graffiti is written by different individuals, likely over an extended period of time
(possibly a month). Such an example of tagging will be more fully described below, but a
brief description of the top portion of the photo might make the picture more readable.
At the top of the wall, the tagger MAZE 21, has written the name of his crew, CMK,
before his moniker. Immediately to the right, the tagger EGOE, has written his name
surrounded by exclamation points. Below lEGOE!, the tagger PESTs name is written.
The tagging to the far right is not readable due to the angle and distance from the
camera when this photo was taken.
76
1993); the tagging crews ALT and BRSK were quite noticeable in th e ir
perseverated painting in th a t region during the early 1990s. On at
least one occasion, ALT (or a member of ALT) painted over 20
consecutive ALTs on the m iddle freeway divider, im m ediately adjacent
to the fast lane [te., w ith no shoulder lane), from the top of the divider
to the bottom : “ALTALTALTALTALTALT....” BRSK sim ila rly painted
next to the slow lane along the northbound 405, also w ith no shoulder,
in sm aller p rin t (about 1 /5 of the height of the divider)
“BRSK'BRSK'BRSK'BRSK’BRSK'BRSK...,” nearly 40 times. In these two
cases, the ALT graffiti was more prized in th a t it involved more ris k to
paint: next to the fast lane and w ith large letters. Yet, in either case,
to the question “W hat do you th in k when you see tagging crew names
repeated along a freeway divider?” the tagger CA responds, “It's like,
man, th a t dude's crazy.” And being called crazy is quite a com plim ent
from a tagger.
Figure 3.3 Freeway perseveration by TAZER beside 605 freeway
fast lane, Norwalk, California (enhanced).
y
Figure 3.4 JENS throw-up beside 605 freeway fast lane, Norwalk,
California (enhanced).
77
Figure 3.5 IFK piece beside 10 freeway fast lane, Los Angeles,
California.
Even when graffiti is not perseverated, it has in some sense
involved risk ju s t by the sheer fact th a t it is illegal. For a w rite r to stay
in the same place and make his graffito 10, 20, even 40 tim es
demonstrates a willingness to ris k the possibility of being caught (if
not h it by a car). In th a t sense, features th a t increase a tagger's
potential for being captured entail bravery: the larger the size of the
graffito, the greater the danger in its production. (Larger g raffiti are
also more salient in relation to other graffiti.) The greater the
v is ib ility to the public, the greater the danger; the greater detail
required in the painting, the greater the tim e constraints and, thus,
the greater the danger.
As a result of the illegal nature of graffiti and the high v is ib ility
characteristic of painting in public, m ost graffiti is w ritte n at night as
quickly as possible to avoid notice and capture by law enforcement
agents. Yet, because bravery is highly valued in tagging culture, it
m ight be expected th a t painting during the day w ould confer more
prestige upon a w riter. Day-tim e hits are not revered, however,
possibly because they are not indexed as such in the graffiti. Taggers
utilize other textual and contextual features to index bravery in th e ir
graffiti.
78
Frequently, taggers demonstrate th e ir bravery by painting hard
to reach places, often high above the ground. When painting the
heavens, as taggers call high dangerous targets, a tagger w ill often have
to balance him self d r even suspend him self w ith one hand w hile
painting w ith the other. Figure 3.6, for example, shows MEAN'S tag
w ritte n over the north bound 110 freeway ju s t north of downtown Los
Angeles. The overpass on w hich his tag is painted is at least 30 feet
off of the ground over one of the freeway lanes. When shown this
p a rtic u la r piece, one w rite r responded w ith the m ajor com plim ent,
“T hat dude’s dow n."
Figure 3.6 MEAN piece In the heavens, 110 freeway overpass,
Los Angeles, California.
When evaluating a tagging graffito for features w hich bring
prestige to its author, w riters note the d iffic u lty or danger of creating
the w ork such as if it is “w ritte n in the heavens.” The greater the
danger involved, the greater the probability th a t other w riters w ill
a ttrib u te respect or fame to the graffito's author.
Style
Taggers also gain notoriety by creating th e ir own unique styles of
graffiti. Though it is hard to verbalize w hat exactly a person's style is.
79
it is an essential aspect of a w riter's w orth in tagging society J®
Taggers, for example, have notebooks (sketchbooks) in w hich are
found num erous examples of other w riters' w ork. These piece books
(Figure 3.7) are not only collections of the owner's w o rk ;ii they are
collections of the styles of other w riters. M any of the graffiti in a piece
book w ill not be the actual signature graffiti of the other w riters;
rather, they are more often the name of the piece book's owner
w ritte n in the styles of the other w riters. (For example, the w rite r
SKAM w rites “SACRED” in SACRED s piece book, b u t he w rites it in
his (SKAM's) own personal style.)
Figure 3.7 Tagging piece book.
A person's style can be critical because, abstract though it is, it is
his possession. If a g raffiti w rite r copies (or bites) another's style, he
^®Style is extremely important to graffiti writers who intend to do more than
just tag. Good style is necessary to climb the ranks of the tagging world to the
distinction of tagging artist (piecer) rather than mere tagger.
1 piecer might use his piecebook for practicing a particular style,
documenting well done pieces (highly stylized works), innovating new styles, and
planning future pieces. Photographs of pieces may be glued into piecebooks to
document work done by an artist. Piecers often have more than one piecebook, each
used for these different purposes.
80
w ill be sanctioned by the copied w rite r and possibly b y the copied
w riter's crew(s). O f the ways to fame in graffiti w riting, achieving it
through style is the m ost revered.
There are m any aesthetic aspects to w hat constitutes good style
th a t exceed the scope of th is essay and the expertise of its author.
Nevertheless, there are some rather obvious features th a t constitute
good style: clean color blending and contrast, application sensitivity
(te., no dripping), unique yet decodable (with possibly some effort on
the reader's part) lettering, peripheral pictures (called characters),
etc.
Very stylized graffiti nearly always have two or three dim ensional
(3D) lettering (i.e., the letters are broad or outlined) and contain more
than one color. These fancy works, known as pieces (short for
masterpiece), are also called burners because the p a in t (often bright),
as taggers claim, appears to be “on fire” or “b u rn in g ” (Figure 3.8).
81
Figure 3.8 CBS and KTE piece, behind a business along the 10
freeway, Santa Monica, California.
Pieces also require a great deal of tim e to produce because they
require more paint and more concentration--anywhere from one to
four hours on average. Hence, despite the fact th a t pieces are
p rim a rily admired on aesthetic criteria, they are also adm ired for the
danger or ris k involved in th e ir production. A stylized b u rn e r painted
on a narrow overhang over a freeway is quite a feat in the tagging
world. Figure 3.6 is a superb specimen, for example, because it has
the q u a lity of being m ulti-dim entional, m ulti-colored (albeit only black
and white), and in the heavens.
Tagging style distinguishes tagging from other types o f graffiti,
more so than the other features discussed thus far. A thorough
description of the painting strokes and the letter shapes could be
sufficient in deciphering whether or not a graffito is a tag.
U nfortunately, taggers and tagging researchers are not always able to
82
explain exactly w hy they can distinguish two different g raffiti codes
based on the p rin t s t y l e s
Despite the fact th a t piecers cannot always describe the critica l
p rin t features, and explain w hy styles are unique to each w riter, there
is a sense in w hich the w ritin g com m unity shares stylistic
conventions J® As suggested, however, these conventions appear to be
unconscious to w riters and not available for explication. For example,
not always know ing why, taggers who have been participating in the
tagging practice for a num ber of years can often date a graffiti piece by
its style. When shown pictures of pieces two and three years old at
the tim e of the interview, g raffiti piecers note th a t they are older, or
no longer in style. Experienced w riters can do this even when they do
not recognize the author of the older p ie c e .D e s p ite a lack of cla rity
on the issue of w hat constitutes style, it is clear th a t stylistic features
can vary across a num ber of identifiable domains. For example, the
type of spray cap used, the w idths of the letters, the num ber of
acceptable angles, etc. change over the years.
The Piecing Distinction
Piecers are a class of taggers th a t produce pieces; they are
advanced ta g g e rs .T h e y have achieved a status th a t only very
connectionist processing model (see Gee 1992) provides a possible
explanation for the unconscious ability to distinguish distinct pattern schema.
^®The similarities amongst tagging graffiti might be thought of as what
Wittgenstein calls “ family resemblances” (1953:3le-32e). There is not one common
characteristic that connects all of them, but there are networks of similarities amongst
all of them that tie them together.
^'^If one were familiar with a piecer's work, one would know of the evolution of
that piecer's style over the past few years.
83
experienced, a rtistica lly talented taggers can attain. Piecers are also
referred to as artists, though less experienced, less talented w riters
m ight also th in k of themselves (especially when ta lkin g to outsiders)
as artists resulting from tagging ideology, i® The term piecer,
however, is reserved only for those who can create pieces.
On the other hand, as mentioned previously, in tagging society,
all w riters are taggers. That is to say, piecers are taggers too, and
even they w rite their tags. B ut not all taggers p a in t th e ir tags as
pieces. Most taggers are w orking towards having the fame of a tagging
artist, b u t only the piecer paints his tag w ith m ultip le colors and w ith
zig-zagging (called w ild-style) three-dim ensional letters; only the
a rtis t w ill p a in t non-orthographic pictures (characters) in addition to
his w riting. The apprenticing tagger, on the other hand, begins his
clim b up the tagging scale using other means to attain notoriety w ith in
his potential--i.e., num erous hits and conspicuous, dangerous graffiti
placem ent— despite the fact th a t the m ost prestigious way to gain
notoriety is by piecing rather than by other means.
The distinction between the ordinary tagger and the piecer is
not always clear, and the criteria are not always consistent. When such
a d istin ctio n is made, however, the relationship between the two in a
tagging crew is th a t of novice to superior, resem bling the dynamics of
an apprentice and a master: both individuals partake of the same sorts
^®Stewart (1989) argues that piecing arose when graffitists learned how to
infiltrate train yards in order to work undisturbed.
^®A tagger can be like an apprentice who, though not independent, considers
himself to be a craftsman in his field, much as a first year medical student might think
of himself as a doctor or in the medical profession. Though taggers do not consider
themselves piecers, they still might consider themselves artists because of the way in
which they conceptualize their entire social practice: that it is artistic in nature.
84
of practices, though the m entor is able to do more because o f his
greater experience (knowledge) and skill. Furtherm ore, the m entor
does not partake in the more m undane practices of his discourse as
often. The more triv ia l w ork requiring less skill (tagging) is
perform ed by the apprentice. The piecers also often take more of a
leadership role in tagging crews: they often direct painting activities,
decide who can jo in th e ir crews, etc. And because the piecers' views
carry more weight, they can guide more ju n io r members in th e ir
acquisition of and involvem ent in the social practice of tagging and
piecing. They m ight take a teaching role when advising beginners as
to how they m ight improve th e ir craft.
Despite the fact th a t taggers lum p piecing and tagging together
under the um brella of tagging, some piecers have conveyed a stronger
distinction. One Chicano piecer from downtown LA fa m ilia r w ith
Hispanic gangs uses the analogy of gang members and veteranos
(veterans). The veterano is a retired gang member who does not
actively participate in gang activities [gang banging), yet he is revered
in the gang com m unity (partly for having lived so long, maybe to 30
years of age), and is considered a leader; he does not need to
participate actively to m aintain membership, though he w ill
occasionally participate when it is w arranted (Vigil 1988). Likewise,
the piecer can enjoy the highest status in the tagging com m unity by
p articipating in little graffiti production. This is to say th a t a piecer
has to piece occasionally to m aintain his piecing status, b u t he does
^^One well-crafted piece can give one more fame than a multitude of ordinary
tagging hits.
85
not have to be “u p ” as m uch as a tagger does to m aintain his status as a
tagger.
Echoing a strong tagging-piecing distinction, one piecer gave up
tagging to appease his girlfriend and to bring him self into accord w ith
the values of his recently acquired C hristianity. Apparently, he now
feels th a t tagging is crim inal and should be avoided. Piecing, however,
is s till acceptable. To him , piecing is producing art, and being an
a rtis t could not or should not be wrong or illegal. Besides, piecing is
m uch closer to m ainstream painting practices; th a t is, it approximates
m u ra l painting (m ulti-colored, character additions, etc.) m uch more
than tagging does. Some businesses, for instance, hire piecers to
decorate the outside walls of th e ir shops in an effort to have the
painting on th e ir buildings approxim ate m ainstream acceptability
w hile keeping other w riters from h ittin g th e ir businesses (see Figure
1.9 in Chapter 1). Even some city-sponsored m ural projects
occasionally showcase piecers (but not taggers). In these examples,
the piecer walks between two discourses and could possibly achieve
fame in both: taggers s till admire his w ork and give him fame, and at
the same time, the public, though possibly disapproving of the
products, is not outraged enough to have them stopped or covered (or
made illegal by a city ordinance).
It is not uncom m on for some taggers and piecers to see tagging
and piecing as quite d istin ct practices. A west side piecer described
his movement into piecing as “a get-away from tagging.” For him , the
ris k of being caught or shot was too great in tagging, w hile piecing was
86
m uch safer, and more respectable and wholesome; they were not
perceived to be the same kin d of act.
Because of the degree of d ifficu lty and s k ill required, piecing is
the more desirable, more adm ired choice for the attainm ent of fame.
B u t not everyone can make the tra n sitio n to piecing. W hen asked if he
planned to become a piecer, the tagger JAKOL responded in the
negative: “I w ould have to practice, a lo t.” If a tagger attem pted to do
a piece and failed, he w ould be ridiculed as a toy. Piecing takes more
th a n ju s t bravery; it requires talent th a t is developed over a long
period of time. CA echoes th is sentim ent when asked about tryin g out
new styles w ith o u t practice:
It's m y pride, you know. I'm w ritin g out there, and if I
messed up, ah dude, it's a toy, you know; you're a toy who
doesn't know how to w rite. So I don't w ant to ris k it.
Hence, when w riters read and evaluate a tagging text, they m ust
categorize it into at least two classes of w riting. It m ust be deciphered
as a piece or a tag, and thus, the w rite r and reader m ust have acquired
the criteria th a t accompany such a classification (which are derived
from the social practice).
In th is work, however, both taggers and piecers are referred to
as m erely taggers. The two tagging sub-groups are distinguished when
th e ir social practices diverge in significant ways.
3 Taaaing Contents
Though a tagging graffito can have a wide variety of contents, it
is m ost often found to contain one or two core elements. The range of
additional item s it m ight have include num bers, dates, characters,
87
messages, and more; nevertheless, the average tag in Los Angeles
county either is a tagger's m oniker, the name of his crew, or both.
Moniker
A tagger's nicknam e, as stated earlier, is also known as his tag.
The tagger's m oniker is the name by w hich he is know n in the tagging
com munity.^® The fundam ental item th a t a tagger w rites is his tag, for
his personal fame is lite ra lly the extent to w hich people know it.
In a large num ber of cases, a particu la r m oniker (in this case,
the lexical choice) can distinguish a tagger from another type of
graffiti w rite r such as a gang member: not only is it the way the name
is w ritten, b u t the kin d of name it is. A tagger (like a gang member) in
Southern C alifornia w ill almost never have a standard birth-given name
as his tag. If he does use a common b irth name, it w ill no doubt be
w ritte n w ith a novel spelling such as FILLIP for Philip. In m ost cases,
the name is a common noun (usually an abstract one), verb, or, less
frequently, an adjective. Common tag-like names include: FOCUS,
SANE, WORTH, SACRED, SNATCH, MAZE, PROVE, etc.
One curious (and 1 th in k counter-intuitive) kin d of name choice
taggers employ is the root forms of verbs. One m ight expect th a t m ost
names (which taggers both choose for themselves and for others)
would be used as descriptors: such descriptors w ould include
adjectives (possibly derived from verbs) and stative passives. One
m ight expect IMPRESSIVE or IMPRESSED instead of IMPRESS,
is not uncommon for taggers not to know the birth names of their fellow
taggers.
^^Castleman's (1982) report, however, mentions many New York train painters
that used birth names as their tags in the early 1980s.
88
PROVEN instead of PROVE. Though taggers occasionally use
adjectives, it is not a common practice.20 Instead, taggers choose
names that:
(1) have a p a rticu la rly nice “look” to them (depending on
the w riter's style);
(2) approxim ate the m oniker of another respected tagger;
(3) have a p a rticu la rly interesting (salient) inventive
spelling;
(4) represent a tagging m etaphor of violence, destruction,
or resistance;
(5) sound like a tagging nicknam e— i.e., follow tagging
m orphophonem ics.
It is hard to say w hich tags are chosen based solely on their
aesthetic appeal, or on th e ir approxim ation to another tagger's name,
or merely on their tagging ring when pronounced.21 W ith o u t the
w riter's origin story, it is impossible to know exactly how he came up
w ith his name. KRES, for example, co-chose his m oniker w ith his
close friend and m entor RES. (I am not aware of how RES got his
name, b u t it does follow the m orphophonem ics of tagging names.)
The tag KRES worked for him for m any of the above reasons: the look,
reference, and sound. Nonetheless, merely from reading the walls,
one is n o t sure how KREN and KRAD got th e ir names.
Another typical way in w hich a tagger creates a nicknam e is by
creating a unique spelling of an existing English word or name.
20Cang members, on the other hand, frequently use descriptors as nicknames.
Common gang names are GRUMPY, BLACKIE, JOKER, TINY, BOXER, and GRIZZLY.
21 Aesthetic criteria and the maintenance of English pronunciation rules are
critical to all tagging nicknames. (Note, however, that an initial string may be chosen
as a tag, such as TV, or a partial initial string, such as TVEE.)
89
Examples include: PHAME (Figure 3.9), XPRESS, PHOR, POLOE,
PJAY, HALOE, CHEKS, PHABLE, KARE$$, FUNIE, FROD.22 KRAM,
KRASH, TENCE, etc. It would appear th a t these names are chosen for
the salience th a t is characteristic of such names because they require
more elaborate decoding. Taggers take pleasure in decoding a cryptic
tag, as does th is researcher, because it is a linguistic puzzle, the
resolution of w hich is satisfying.23 Like an advertising company, the
tagger seeks to make his product more salient to the consumer, and
an inventive spelling is another tactic to th a t end. However, it is
always possible th a t some of the novel spellings are m erely
m isspellings. The m ajority, nonetheless, appear to be intentional
deviations (such as the PH for F, or the K for C.)
«« W xs-ÿX s
Figure 3.9 Tag by PHAME, Los Angeles, California.
Taggers also frequently choose m onikers th a t are m etaphorically
loaded w ith im plications of violence and resistance, despite the fact
th a t m ost taggers claim to be ideologically opposed to the values of
social groups such as gangs w hich demonstrate a willingness or desire
22This has the same pronunciation as fraud in most Southern California
dialects.
23xag names are often reminiscent of vanity license plates which employ novel
spellings or non-standard symbol to sound correspondences.
90
to utilize violent means in problem resolution;24 DESTROY, VENOM,
POISON, REBEL, SLASH, ASSASSIN, PROWL, VILE, etc. are common
tagging nicknam es. Even the common alternative spellings th a t they
create can carry an intensified sense of nonconform ity and dissension
th a t term s of violence in trin sica lly carry.25
Another way in w hich tagging nicknam es produce a tagging ring
to them is the addition of the morpheme -ER. The -ER often indexes
a tagger, such as ONER, NEWER, THRASHER, and OGER (Figure
3.10). The m eaning taggers usually attach to the -ER ending is
somewhat sim ilar to its common use as a noun-form ing suffix. In
standard English, as a noun-form ing suffix, -ER im plies the person
who does X, where X represents the stem. In tagging discourse, -ER
indexes a person, b u t it is not so m uch th a t the person does w hat the
root of the tag suggests.26 it w ould not make sense for a tagger to call
him self ONER, because to be a tagger, one m ust w rite more than once.
Neither is ONER only suggesting th a t his tags or his m oniker are more
one (the best) than anyone else's (nor more new or op— where og
stands for original). Instead, the -ER im plies a tagger, and the root, a
tagging sentim ent. For example, it is revered in tagging ideology to be
24% e rise of tag-bangers, however, can be likened to the development of a
hybrid culture between gang and tagging culture: they share values of both groups.
26interestingly, this is counter to the nomenclature of military devices; such
devices are inherently destructive, but their names [e.g.., smart bombs, clean bombs,
etc.) tend to sound less violent (Cohn 1987).
26rhe stems of most standard English nouns with -ER are verbs (and sometimes
nouns). As in some of the examples given, the stem is not necessarily a noun or verb.
One might think of NEWER (which uses an adjective stem) in tagging discourse, not
necessarily as a comparative, but rather as a person with a tagging morpheme index. As
will be argued, the selection of IVEWconforms with tagging values— i.e., to have a new
(unique) style is important.
91
the firs t to use a specific tagging m oniker. If, say, PHAM is the firs t
person to use th a t p a rticu la r m oniker, he sometimes w rites O G PHAM.
Thus the tags ONER, O G E R , 27 and NEWER are capitalizing on the
value of originality.28 Again, the tag NEWER is not only suggesting th a t
the person's w ritin g is more new than th a t of others; instead, th a t tag
means th a t the w rite r is a tagger, and the NEW pa rt of the tag is
salient based on the value it represents.
Figure 3.10 Tag by OGER, Culver City, California.
Evidence for th is m anner in w hich -ER is applied is seen in the
practice of using -ER w ith tags th a t come from nonsensical (in term s
of standard English) roots. M onikers such as ZERK and DREX (Figure
3.11) have become commonplace tagging names. It is not uncom m on
for a tagger to add -ER to one of these established nicknam es
producing new tags such as ZERKER and DREXER (Figure 3.12).
These names, besides indexing tagging, display salience in their
closeness to other popular tagging names.2^
27Note that OGER is also a possible variant spelling of ogre.
28ironically, ONER is an extremely common, widely plagiarized tag.
2^Because the original ZERK and DREX are renowned taggers as well, creating a
name similar to theirs is an attempt also to borrow some of their fame.
92
Figure 3.11 Tag by DREX of the crew NBC, Santa Monica,
California.
Figure 3.12 Tag by DREXER, Los Angeles, California.
Crew
Taggers in Los Angeles County--and throughout North Am erica
and. W estern Europe (Chalfant & Prigoff 1987)--frequently w rite in
groups know n as tagging crews. These groups can vary in size—
apparently from two to more than 200. The average crew size
encountered in this study ranged from approxim ately five to 15
w rite rs.
A crew name nearly always has the potential for having m ultiple
meanings. In nearly every case, the name is a two-, three-, or four-
letter string (usually three). These letters can be thought of as
abbreviations for a m u ltitud e of potential word strings. The following
are examples of some Southern C alifornia crew names and long forms
given by taggers in association w ith the letter-strings:
A W R -A rt Work Rebels;
CBS--City Bomb Squad;
N FL-N o Fucking Lim it;
93
D T K -D ow n To K ill;
SOK-Sons O f Kings;
KO S-Kings O f Style;
U S A -U nited Street A rtists;
FM A-Fam ous Mexican A rtists;
T IK -T h in k I Kare;
LO K-Loked Out Kings (see Figure 3.2);
FTL-Fuck The Law;
ROG-Respect Our G ra ffiti
Despite the appearance of an abbreviation-to-w ord-string
correspondence, the in itia ls of a tagging crew are more basic th a n the
fu ll-le n gth version because the surface realizations of a crew's
abbreviation vary. CBS, or City Bomb Squad, has also been w ritte n as
Can't Be Stopped (Treacy 1993:19). In this case, the w rite r m ight
intend to add an additional message [le ., th a t the C ity Bomb Squad
cannot be stopped) and is playing on the redundancy of the crew's
name in the message. However, in nearly a ll cases, crews im p ly th a t
th e ir in itia ls have m ultiple surface-level realizations. The crew name
LOK, for example, m ay be interpreted as Loked Out Kings as well as
Loked Out Krim inals;^^ ARC, as Acting Real Crazy, or A rtists Running
Crazy; NFL as No Fucking Lim it or Notorious For Life; HAL as H a rd
Ass Latinos, Hispanics A t Large, Hell A fter Life, Having A ll Ladies, or
H orny A fter Love [LA Times, J u ly 14, 1993, E-1).
C alling crew names abbreviations, then, is really misleading.
Crew names are letter strings, and the variation th a t comes from th e ir
use is in th e ir longer forms. In other words, the letter strings are not
sim plified longer forms, b u t the basic form. If the longer form s have a
tagging rin g (sentiment) to them, they are an acceptable long form of
Loked is slang for crazy, drunk, or drugged.
94
the crew name. That is, any longer form th a t could represent a
tagging value and employs the letter order of the crew name is an
acceptable novel name for the crew, even if given by an outsider. As
one w rite r p u t it: “Yeah, whatever you want, whatever yo u 'll get for
[the in itia ls ].”
The only occasions where crews vary th e ir so-called abbreviated
form s are when a num ber is used to replace a letter. This is generally
done w ith the num bers 2 and 4 (for the letters T and F respectively)
because “tw o” and “fo u r” are homonyms of “to ”/ “too” and “for”
respectively. Examples include the crew names DTD or D2D, Down
To Destroy and GTI or G2I, Groove To Impre$$. in w hich the m iddle
T could be replaced by a 2 to represent the phonetic equivalent of
/ t u w / . 6 i Thus, when the middle element is 2, in a longer form of the
crew name, the longer form could be TO or TOO. W hen words replace
the oth e r elements of the crew name letter string, the word choice is
s till open. As long as those words hold a tagging sentim ent, D TD /D 2D
and GTIJG2I could have a great m any possibilities: Down To Dis, D e f
To Destroy, Dudes Too Deadly, Going To Insanity, Great To Idolize,
etc. Crews such as NFL can use N4L w ith a longer form such as
Notorious For Life.
Abbreviation and Economy Register
One reason taggers and piecers have w hat appear to be
shortened (or simple) form s for th e ir crew names is th a t taggers need
^^Note that the use of $ in the place of S is yet another stylistic variation
producing salience.
95
to have a subject they can reproduce quickly yet elegantly. Three-
le tte r-string words appear to resolve th a t problem .
The need for quick yet elegant applications is seen in tagging
products th a t fall between tagging and piecing know n as throw -ups or
bubble w ritin g [e.g.. Figure 3.13). Throw -ups are r o u t i n i z e d , ^ ^ one
color, outline-like drawings th a t a w rite r/p ie ce r can “th ro w u p ” w ith
as little effort as signing a piece of paper. However, asked if he would
pa in t a novel long form of his crew's name in the bubble style, one
piecer claimed th a t he would not because “It w ould be too risky.”
This ris k resides in the fact th a t it is too easy to make a m istake in
p ainting a novel form in bubble style, rather than the mere tim e and
space ris k factors. In addition, throw -ups are u su a lly rehearsed a great
deal before they are p u t on public display, and novel form s w ould not
demonstrate the m astery th a t highly practiced form s do.^^ As KRES
claimed, “A throw -up is like fancy; its easy and you know w hat you’re
d o in g .”
32Tags are also routinized, but pieces tend to vaiy from product to product.
^^As stated earlier in this chapter, bombers are the piecers who specialize in
prolific throw-ups. The verb to bomb is to paint prolifically in a particular area,
whether the texts be tags, throw-ups, or pieces.
96
Figure 3.13 TNT and UBK throw-ups, Los Angeles, California.
Despite the need for elegance, the spatial-tem poral lim ita tio n s
suggest th a t tagging/piecing g raffiti should be classified as an economy
repister.34 B ruthiaux's (1996) study of classified advertisem ents
demonstrates th a t economy registers, because of real w orld
constraints th a t push for brevity, often have features of apparent
sim plification. B ru th ia u x points out, however, th a t sim plification is
not an appropriate conceptualization of w hat is going on: there is no
long form ; rather, the surface form is (or is becoming) the underlying
form , resulting from the constraints w hich force the register into an
economy classification in the firs t place. Based on the discourse
problem s of a lack of both tim e and space in tagging practice, crew
names have as the ir basic form letter strings rather than word
strings. 3 5
^4Examples of economy registers in which brevity is required (based on time
and/or space constraints) include, among others, telegraph messages, headlines, lecture
notes, and classified ads (Bruthiaux 1996).
83it is possible that, with tagging and other economy registers, longer forms
were the underlying forms in the beginnings of the practices utilizing them. However,
because of the nature of language change and language acquisition, over time, speakers
(listeners, writers, and readers) appear to acquire reduced forms without acquiring the
longer forms. Hence, there is not necessarily any knowledge of the longer form (or an
earlier form). Furthermore, the acquired forms, in Bruthiaux's (1996) terms, are simple
97
It is not really clear w hy longer forms are given by taggers at all.
It is possible th a t longer form s only appear w ith contact between
tagging and other m ainstream discourses (outsiders).W ithin the
tagging com m unity, a string such as KOS, once it is established to be a
crew (which could be indexed by punctuation such as K*0*S), is not
cryptic at all. Taggers never refer to other crew names in a longer
form . They m erely spell out the letter strings. W ith in the tagging
culture, there is no need for the letter strings to stand for anything
else [cf., W agner 1986).
If crews do not need longer forms, the question to be answered
is w hy there are any long forms at all. One hypothesis is th a t the
practice of tagging is s till in its infancy. It very well m ight be th a t
there has not been enough tim e to lose the long form s completely. In
Castleman's (1982) study, he describes the piecing crew The Fabulous
Five w hich was abbreviated as Fab 5. This abbreviation appears to be
an interm ediary step to a shorter abbreviation such as F5 or FF, the
kin d of crew name (string) one can fin d in Los Angeles in the 1990s.
If longer form s represent a window into a historical process occurring
in an economy register, possibly in another ten years, taggers w ill
never give a longer form to a crew letter string, for none w ill exist.
and not simplified. (However, as Bruthiaux points out, brevity certainly does not entail
simplicity.)
^®When researchers ask what letters stand for (because a referenceless short
form is counter-intuitive to them), then taggers refer to a longer name.
67This appears to also follow a practice which occurs in the mainstream, as well
as possibly with all languages that utilize abbreviations. With time, abbreviated forms
become lexemes in their own right, and the elaborated references can be lost to the
average native speaker. Such acronyms might include: UNESCO, UNIX, SCUBA, AIDS,
ROTC, CB, PA, PR, PC, YMCA, RADAR, SONAR, and so on (Pyles & Algeo 1982).
98
Another hypothesis includes the possibility th a t taggers s till hold
ties to m ainstream cultures in w hich abbreviations are seldom ever
thought not to contain a longer form. D éfinitionally, an abbreviation
entails a long form from w hich to reduce (abbreviate). Despite the fact
th a t the letter strings never function as abbreviations w ith in tagging
culture, such strings s till m ight be assumed to have longer forms
because of the outside (mainstream) practice of using letter strings
and other kinds of abbreviations for longer forms. A tagger's
knowledge of m ainstream culture may make him produce a longer
form for a crew name, even if he never uses the longer form in his
own social practice.
Crew Name Salience/lndexino
W hen taggers choose letter strings for th e ir crew names,
sometimes names such as NFL, CBS, IBM, STP, and USA are chosen
based on the notoriety such strings of in itials already enjoy in larger
s o c i e t y . S u c h choices of letter strings can serve a crew in achieving
fame through the b u ilt-in saliency of such highly recognized letter
com binations.
When w ritten, crew in itia ls, to indicate a crew name, are
com m only w ritte n w ith periods (bullets) between them,^^ and these
in itia ls frequently do not have an English pronunciation other than
spelling (sounding) out the letters. That is, they frequently have
68one also might note that such familiar letter-string names have longer forms
that are not always known by the mainstream society members that use them
regularly.
^^aggers also write crew names occasionally with Xs as superscripts or
subscripts (Figure 3.14) between the elements of the crew name, indicating a crew name.
99
nonsensical spellings if they were to be pronounced w ith standard
English phonem ic decoding rules [e.g.., AWR or CBS). W ith the
occasional crews th a t have possible English pronunciations such as
BAT, LOD, and LOK, they are spelled out when referred to (see Figure
3.14). That is, BAT is pronounced /b iy *e y *tiy /.
a!;!::###:
Figure 3.14 Piece by SACRED of the CULT crew, Culver City,
California.
In addition to separating periods and abstruse phonological
realizations, crew names can be identified by letters such as C and K.
Both C and K can be w ritten at the end of a crew name to stand for
Crew or Krew, though this is not a very common practice. The letter
K is a telling letter for a tagging crew— or m oniker for th a t m atter—
because it is often used to represent the words King [Kings) or K ill
[Kills). To be King and to K ill means to be the best or to pa in t well,
respectively. For this, taggers prefer to use the letter K in places
where / k / is the norm al pronunciation of C. K is a salient letter in the
tagging w orld because of the potential associative meanings.
Crews (Figure 3.15) and taggers (Figure 3.16) sometimes add
the symbol “©” at the end of th e ir crew names. This serves them in
two ways: “©” identifies them as a crew and it symbolizes a sentim ent
in tagging ideology: specifically, th a t taggers believe vehem ently in the
ownership of w o rd s/le tte r strings and the ownership of style. This, of
course, flies in the face of the notion of the ownership of property
1 0 0
im p lic it in the legal concept copyright, w hich is norm ally invoked by
the symbol a value taggers seem to violate by w ritin g on surfaces
th a t m ay belong to other people or in stitutions. This symbol is used
w ith taggers names as well.
m m A
Figure 3.15 LMK crew with copyright symbol on bus stop wind
screen, Los Angeles, California (enhanced).
î ' K n 'S S
Figure 3.16 FROD throw-up and NEWER tag with copyright
symbol, Ballona Creek, Los Angeles, California.
101
Joining Crews
Taggers jo in crews for different reasons. The social rewards
seem to be the m ost compelling. M any taggers have acknowledged
th a t it was a specific circle of friends who brought them into the
tagging world. The possibility of m aking friends was a great
m otivating factor for KRES to jo in a crew:
I didn’t have any friends. And w hat could I do? So I was
by myself. So I didn’t have any friends around. And then I
met this guy, RES, he was from ARC. A few m onths before,
I found this spray can on the street in this garbage by my
house— I found it. And I used to skate, skate around. So I
got this spray pa in t w ith m y friend and said let’s go do
som ething w ith th is spray paint. Then I started w riting,
you know, eind I liked it. I started w ritin g on the walls
everywhere. So m y friend, I met m y friend at the video
games, he said, ‘We’re from the same country.’ So we’re
ta lkin g and he said, ‘Oh, so you’re the one whose been
w ritin g around?’ And I said, ‘Yeah, yeah.’ And he said. Oh
you’re down dude. A lot of m y friends, you know we. I’m
from ARC and I like to w rite a lot too, you know .’ And I
said, all rig h t dude.’ And he said. I’ll get you in. I’ll get
you in ARC. And you’re gonna meet a lo t of people from
there dude.’ And I was like I’m gonna meet these people
and I’m gonna have friends.’ B u t he said. You know, we
meet next week, and I’ll take you down there.’ They have
meetings all the tim e to see w hat they w ant to do, if they
w ant to go racking, they w ant to go freeways, or whatever
they w ant to do, or if they’re gonna battle someone else.
Some taggers jo in specific crews for the types of activities they
undertake. For example, taggers who like to drive (or have cars) and
do freeway “h its ” jo in crews th a t specialize in th a t p a rticu la r sub
register. Piecers generally jo in (or make) crews th a t specialize in
piecing. Some crews draw members because they specialize in hits in
the heavens. This is not to say th a t a graffiti crew is lim ited in the
kin d of graffiti it produces; it is ju s t th a t certain crews tend to
produce certain kinds (sub-registers) of graffiti.
102
By jo in in g a crew, a tagger can also cover more ground— and
w alls. His w ritin g is associated w ith his crew name, w hich is w ritte n
by m any people. Thus, he reaps the benefits of having his personal tag
associated w ith a prolific crew name. This could backfire if some of
the crew members were sloppy, b u t quality is generally controlled by
the fact th a t the crew is selective about the taggers they allow into the
practice. U sually before a tagger is allowed into a crew, he has to
demonstrate his proficiency and style by painting the crew's name and
his tag for the members, especially the m ainhead (leader), if one
exists. He is allowed in if his w ork is up to par. Hence, because of the
crew's selectivity, a tagger’s (piecer’s) fame should not be hindered by
other crew members (though they ru n the ris k of this), b u t rather
helped. LOD, for example, is one of the most prestigious Los Angeles
piecing crews. If a tagger wrote his tag and included the fact th a t he
was a member of LOD (which is not required), his fame w ould increase
by the m erits and saliency of LOD.
A tagger can also have his name propagated by being in a crew.
A fellow crew member m ight include the tagger's name w hen doing a
h it. When this happens, the tagger's name increases in u b iq u ity (and
any of the other features of salience th a t the w ritin g tagger cares to
incorporate) w ith o u t having to do any w riting. W hen an entire crew is
w ritin g each other's names, the names are being spread m any-fold.
In general, the emphasis on fame is more for the individual than
the group; the emphasis on fame for a crew is im p o rta n t in so far as it
reflects upon the individual. A tagger can be a m ember of any num ber
of crews because the more crews the tagger belongs to, the more
103
potential for achieving fame for th a t individual. In Figure 3.17, for
example, BISER has listed three crews to w hich he belongs.
r.
Figure 3.17 BISER throw-up and three crew memberships, Los
Angeles, California (enhanced).
Dates/Numbers
On occasion, taggers date their graffiti (see Figure 1.15 in
Chapter 1). Only very rarely do they p u t a m onth or even a day in their
graffito. Instead, they p u t the year, usually only the tens and ones
colum n [e.g., 92 for 1992).
It is not altogether clear w hy they date their m aterial, b u t it has
been suggested by w riters th a t the purpose is to chart the evolution of
a w rite r's style and works. M ost w riters consider themselves to be
artists, and thus they are following a tra d itio n th a t m any (mainstream)
artists partake in: dating th e ir m aterial. Even if a m ainstream artist
does not date his w ork (as m any taggers do not), his w ork, when being
exhibited, is nearly always dated. When taggers keep records of their
104
w ork w ith photographs or in notebooks/piece books, they also
frequently date the record as welL^o
A w rite r m ight also use num bers to distinguish him self from
other taggers w ith the same or a sim ilar m oniker. Castleman (1982)
and Cooper & C halfant (1984) report taggers' adding the num bers of
th e ir street addresses to th eir tags. This practice has ceased in New
York and does not appear to have ever started in Los Angeles because
adding a street address to a tag makes a w rite r too vulnerable to being
identified or captured by law enforcement agents.
Generally, the num bers taggers employ w ith th e ir m onikers (or
as morphemes w ith in their m onikers) are chosen for their looks
alone. In other words, taggers often feel th a t th e ir names are more
aesthetically pleasing w ith the addition of a num ber or series of
num bers on either side of their m onikers (i.e., num bers can contribute
to a tag's salience). When num bers are used, the vast m ajority are
placed to the rig h t of the m oniker. Figure 3.2 above showcases a w all
covered w ith tags in w hich the tag MAZE 21 occurs. It is highly
probable th a t MAZE chose 21 because he (or his friends) thought it
looked nice w ith MAZE. One w rite r said about his num ber, “It doesn’t
mean anything; it ’s m y num ber.’’ He suggested th a t one chooses a
num ber when he can “get it cool. ” Sometimes num bers are spelled
out in the tagging landscape. For example, the piecer GK also w rites
his name as GKone. This appears to be the only variation in m oniker
realizations.
46a date can also establish the extent of a writer's tagging experience. However,
most public tags are not veiy permanent (because they are covered up), and are thus,
unless photographed, not a good record of tagging longevity.
105
It has also become popular to m ix num bers w ith other shapes or
letters. Taggers m ight w rite num bers such as 8 in the center of the
letter O, m aking it look like a billiards 8-ball, again p rim a rily on
aesthetic (and thus, salient) grounds. (In Figure 3.18 below, the letter
O is made to look like an eyeball.)
Figure 3.18 Eyeball as an O, Santa Monica, California.
Taggers have also been known to num ber th e ir tags to keep a
record of the num ber of times they “get u p .” Because u b iq u ity is a
fundam ental value of taggers, having a running count of his num ber of
tags brings a tagger status. P-JAY 982 for example m ight bring P-JAY
status in the one graffito because of the history and w ork it im plies
(specifically, th a t he has w ritten P-JAY in 981 other places). Counting
tags is also im po rta nt during a “tagging w ar” or “battle” in w hich two
rival crews or two taggers are having a contest over who can produce
more. However, the practice of num bering tags has been going ou t of
106
practice due to the rise in p opularity of num ber-string additions to
m onikers.
Taggers can also use num bers to send messages. If a tagger is
severely angry w ith another tagger, he m ight w rite 187 next to the
despised tagger’s tag. 187 is police code for m urder. The message is
th a t the tagger wants to k ill the other (m etaphorically— in battle).
(W ith gang members and tag-bangers, J87 is a quite literal threat.) A
common tagging dispute involves the use (possession) of a m oniker.
Taggers also use num bers to date how long they have been in the
practice. If a m oniker is in contention, the two taggers w ith the same
m oniker m ight have a disagreement through messages on the city
walls. In arguing over who was the original (the OG), the painted
dialogue m ight go som ething like this: RES sees someone else's RES
on the wall. RES crosses out the impostor's name and supplies a fresh
OG RES. The im postor then m ight respond OG RES 93 96. This
w ould date the im postor's tenure in tagging at three or four years,
from 1993 to 1996 (the present). The original RES then m ight
respond w ith his tagging age, OG RES 91 94. The im postor now has
to get a new name or alter his current name by adding some num bers
[e.g., RES285) or a morpheme [e.g., RESER). He m ight also continue
to call him self RES and face sanctions or a possible battle over the
rights to RES.
In such cases as the hypothetical RES case above, the im postor
RES, in order to avoid a confrontation, m ight m erely call him self RES
2. W ith the addition of one element, a name becomes different. (The
plagiarism of style, on the other hand, is not so clearly defined.) M any
107
taggers employ the num ber 1, 2, 3, 4..., not on aesthetic grounds
alone, b u t because they are indicating where they belong in the order
of use of th e ir particular tag.^i O f these hypothetical cases, JC stated.
If he dies, or whatever happens to him , or if he quits, he
doesn’t have a name. He’s gonna get another name. He’ll
give [his tagging name] to me.
Characters
As m entioned earlier, characters--non-orthographic pictu re s—
are sometimes painted next to elaborate tags (or, in rare cases, by
themselves). The addition of characters nearly always indexes tagging
rather than some other graffiti register, and more specifically, piecing.
For piecers, characters are an open set. In fact, a w rite r should not
pain t anything b u t unique characters of his own.
D rawing characters, again, is a piecing practice and not a
generic tagging practice. Nearly every non-piecing tagger interviewed
claimed th a t he would never consider adding a character to his w ork
unless he had perfected his craft, for the production of a low quality
character could be detrim ental to his rise in fame. Character
examples are seen in Figures 3.19 and 3.20 below.
4lTaggers can also assume the exact same tagging name, as long as it is done
serially. That is, when one tagger retires, another practicing tagger can use his name
without violating the former tagger’s rights in tagging society. Thus, one particular tag
may have been used for a period of many years by different taggers at different times.
108
Figure 3.19 Skull character, Santa Monica, California.
Figure 3.20 Man character, Santa Monica, California.
Punctuation Marks
Taggers often use quotation m arks, b u t their use is not always
consistent across taggers. In general, quotation m arks are used
around tagging m onikers (Figure 3.21) and long form s of crew names;
however, they are optional, and taggers m ay use them in other ways
such as around dates (Figure 3.22) and simple form s of crew names.
109
....
Figure 3.21 “BUENO” and “SERK” tag, Ballona Creek, Los
Angeles, California.
1
\ V k . J . • • r . -
Figure 3.22 BUENO, SERK, and BONES “1992” tag, Ballona
Creek, Los Angeles, California.
Exclam ation points are also used by taggers but, as w ith
quotation m arks, th e ir use is not always consistent. Taggers are most
like ly to use exclam ation points as additional (diacritic) aesthetically
pleasing aspects of th e ir names. Furtherm ore, an exclam ation poin t is
intended to increase saliency based on the urgency or excitement b u ilt
into the general use of exclam ation points in standard w ritte n English.
Though exclam ation points are not used in the m ajority of cases, when
taggers utilize them (see Figure 3.2 above), they are oriented in the
vertical plane perpendicular to the ground (while gang exclam ation
points are w ritte n diagonally).
As mentioned above, bullets are regularly employed by taggers
(and piecers). B ullets are used to separate the letters of a crew name
or separate tagging or crew names being perseverated (Figure 3.23).
110
Figure 3.23 ARCH perseveration, 91 freeway, Bellflower,
California.
By-lines
Piecers often reproduce the names w ritte n in a piece in a more
legible form in the lower rig h t hand side of the piece. This
convention follows the m ainstream practice in w hich artists sign their
paintings, usually in the lower rig h t hand comer. In addition, the
practice is a convention created to guarantee th a t a w riter's name is
known, especially if his lettering is d iffic u lt to decipher. In Figure 3.8
above, the crew name, CBS, is displayed. To the left of the piece (not
pictured) stood the piecer’s m oniker, XPRESS. To make the
authorship (and crew membership) clear, he has included a by-line to
the rig h t of the piece.
4 Conflicts
Though taggers tend not to be violent, they s till have conflicts
w ith in tagging society. The conflicts can be both at the level of
in d ivid u a l to individual and crew to crew. There are a num ber of
reasons w hy taggers have conflicts w ith each other, such as a
disagreement over the use of a specific name. One way in w hich
conflicts are resolved is in tagging battles.
Battles
The tra d itio n of b a ttlin g comes from New York tagging on tra in
lines. G raffitists would compete w ith each other to find out who was
111
the best on a p a rticu la r tra in line, m aking the w inner the king o f the
lineA^ The king of the line usually painted the most, or the m ost
m asterfully, on th a t line. CA described a typical pre-battle negotiation
w ith another w riter. He m ight say.
Okay well w hat you w ant to do? Do you w ant to get the
RTDs? This or this line or th a t line? You know front
windows, the describer, get on the bum per of the grills.
C urrently in Los Angeles, there are m any possible reasons w hy a
crew or an in d ivid u al m ight have a tagging battle w ith another crew or
individual. A t times, it is due to friction; at others, it is merely
com petition. Taggers m ight battle for the rights to a name; they
m ight battle to resolve an issue of disrespect; they m ight battle,
follow ing the New York tradition, for bragging rights of a p a rticu la r
area— such as a bus route or a freeway; they m ight ju s t battle for the
mere pleasure of it.
When tagging crews are battlin g w ith other crews, there are
several possibilities for engagement. If bragging rights of a p a rticu la r
area are at issue, they m ight sim ply w rite as m uch as possible in th a t
specific area to see who produces the m ost; or they m ight see who
produces the m ost elaborate piece. Or they m ight w rite along another
(undisputed) area such as a bus route— or even on and in an actual bus-
-to see who can do the most damage. Sometimes, it is the m ost
daring h it th a t kills the com petition. If a w riter, when h ittin g a bus,
paints the fro n t window, the destination board, or the g rill when the
42Los Angeles public transportation is primarily made up of bus lines of the
Rapid Transit District (RTD). “Doing the RTDs” implies painting the landscape on a bus
route or painting a bus or busses.
112
bus pulls up to a stop, he gains fame because of his bravery and may
w in his tagging war.^s
Sanctions
A tagger also m ight battle because another tagger has shown him
disrespect. Disrespecting involves a violation of one or more of some
tagging mores enumerated below. A w rite r who has disrespected
idissed) another crew or tagger m ight also face sanctions, rather than
a battle, from th a t crew or th a t w rite r and his crew(s), w hich could
u ltim a te ly be resolved in a battle. The sanctions, w hich come in two
basic forms, are given for at least three reasons: ineptitude; overlaps
{backgrounding) and cross-outs; and plagiarism {biting). The latter
two infractions are considered acts of vandalism and theft,
respectively, and, in a sense, involve a victim . Ineptitude does not
violate any other tagger’s rights in tagging society, b u t does receive
ju d g m e n t from the keepers of the discourse.
W riters whose w ork is not respected are labeled toys.
Occasionally, w ak is used as a variant of toy, b u t it is used for the
w rite r alone. The term toy applies to both incom petent w riters and
unattractive g ra ffiti—i.e., unattractive to the tagging population. Being
labeled a toy im plies th a t a w rite r is not achieving m erit in any of the
valued ways: his control of the paint (paint can) is weak; his style is
n ot in spiring or unique; his w ritin g is not adequately prolific; his
w ritin g is not in hard to reach or highly visible places. The w rite r is,
therefore, considered a novice, or is not partaking in the values of the
discourse and is thus ostracized as a toy. As JC claimed, “If you were a
"^^Again, he might earn the right to use a specific moniker.
113
tagger and you don’t go out there and write, you’re a toy.” Once again,
the term toy can sim ply apply to a graffito th a t is a failed attem pt at
being a throw -up or a piece--that is to say, the graffito uses more than
one color or is three-dim ensional, b u t neither of these features is
adequately proficient to ju s tify the attempt.
W riters also receive sanctions for w hat is called backgrounding
or going over another w riter's w ork. Though the entire practice of
tagging is about w ritin g on public and private canvases (i.e., belonging
to other individuals), it is an u tte r violation of tagging etiquette to
w rite on another w riter's piece or tag w ith o u t any provocation or
perm ission. A w riter's p a in t is respected m uch as members of the
m ainstream respect personal property. Consequently, one m ight find
a w all completely covered by hundreds of tags, none of w hich overlap
(see Figure 3.2 above).
However, there are cases in w hich w riters are allowed to
in te n tio n ally overlap (or cross out) the w ork of another w ith o u t
receiving sanctions. If a w rite r is not known, or if his tag is thought to
be out-dated, or if the w rite r is no longer tagging, another w rite r is
allowed to p a in t over his work. Furtherm ore, some w riters m ight
choose to cross out or background someone's w ritin g as a result of
some previous injustice {e.g., “He crossed out m y w o rk”), in w hich
case the backgrounding or cross-out is a sanction. Taggers are also
allowed to go over another’s w ork if the new graffiti are superior in
q u a lity or task: throw -ups go over tags; pieces, over throw -ups.
Copying someone's style, or biting, is another very serious
offense. The criterion for w hat constitutes plagiarism is quite d ifficu lt
114
to understand, m uch less describe. As m entioned earlier in th is
paper, taggers regularly borrow from the styles of others to create
some sort of abstract standard for w hat is acceptable tagging or
piecing at any m om ent in time. M ost piecers concede th a t they came
up w ith th e ir signature piecing styles by borrowing aspects of the
styles of other w riters. In fact, some piecers in Castleman's (1982)
study adm it th a t they are honored when other w riters use features of
th e ir styles. However, there seems to be some tolerance threshold
past w hich a w rite r can pass from borrowing to biting. U nfortunately it
is n o t clear w hat th a t threshold is, or exactly how m uch borrow ing is
allowed.
The piecer KRES described how he had used Can Control in
both developing his style and m irroring stylistic conventions in vogue.
His narrative offers a picture of how novel styles are sim ila r across
w rite rs.
W hen 1 started piecing, like 1 said 1 would get [Can
Control] at my house, like this one ((pointing to a copy on
the interview table)); 1 got it from different people. And
somehow, you know, I would p u t this magazine backwards,
like this ((turns the jo u rn a l upside down)), and I w ould get
like th is one ((points to a letter)), you can get an L, you can
get a different style S rig h t here ((points to another
letter)), and you see, there's a different--1 w ould ju s t copy
it; 1 w ould get the U, 1 like th is U, I'm gonna get it; 1
would w rite it out, and then for m y name, I w ould get a K,
you know, different.
A nother form of plagiarism is the use of another’s referential
content. As mentioned earlier, not only do taggers own styles, they
own names. If one uses the exact tag— i.e., the same letters in the
same order--of another, regardless of style, he can expect sanctions.
115
The strongest form of sanctions is the painting of toy or w a k on
another w riter's work. This is m ost often done by a more experienced
w rite r to an in fe rior for the inferior's incompetence. This act is like
the giving of a failing grade to a student (of the discourse) by the
instructors (gatekeepers). The label toy is also used between taggers
of the same level, and to have either oneself or one's w ork labeled as
such is the ultim ate in s u lt in tagging culture. The toy in s u lt or
sanction is performed by painting “toy” next to the graffito in
question.
A cross-out is made most frequently w ith a single line of paint
through the tag or piece [e.g., Figure 3.23). Occasionally a tag or piece
is crossed out w ith a large X; less frequently does a w rite r scribble
over another's w ork w ith paint. The cross-out is used in the same way
th a t the toy label is used, Le., as a judgm ent and an insult, b u t its
message is less intense.
1 1 6
é
Figure 3.24 Tagging cross-outs, back of business along the 10
freeway, Santa Monica, California (enhanced).^^
O verlapping or going over the w ork of another w rite r is m erely
p ainting one’s own graffiti on top of another’s. This is the least
in su ltin g form of sanction, for there are m any legitim ated form s of
covering up in tagging discourse, w hich are enumerated a b o v e . ^5 if a
w rite r backgrounds another w ith o u t apparent ju stifica tio n , sanctions
follow.
The two principal form s of sanctions, labeling a graffito or author
as a toy and crossing-out/covering-up, are themselves types of insults.
Thus, ironically, labeling something a toy or doing an overlap or a
cross-out are grounds for retaliation of the same type. Consequently,
'^'^Note that the large vertical black line is not paint put a pole that was in the
way of the picture (see Figure 3.2 for a different angle).
45% is hypothesized that legitimate forms of covering up arise from both the
need for writing space and the ideology behind the overall practice of such a discourse
as tagging, which involves writing on the property of others.
117
tagging cross-outs or toy labeling m ay increase exponentially as a
result of one insu lt, or one m istaken background.
5 Summary
In this chapter, a b rief sketch of tagging society is outlined.
Taggers make up a racially and economically eclectic group of m ostly
male teenagers. Though taggers interact in num erous ways, their
m ost im portant rite of interaction is through tagging.
The greatest m otivating force in tagging society is to be well
know n w ith in tagging culture. Taggers achieve th is alm ost exclusively
through th e ir g raffiti production. Consequently, taggers w rite graffiti
w hich are salient to other taggers based on elem entary values of
tagging society. Taggers attem pt to produce g raffiti th a t are prolific,
hard to produce (in term s of physical obstacles), and highly stylized.
In tagging society, there are three basic groups in to w hich
taggers fall. They are either piecers (those who produce the highest
form of tagging— in clu d in g bombers), taggers (those who m erely w rite
th e ir names and crews in one simple form), and toys (inadequate
piecers or taggers).
Tagging graffiti is usually made up of two features: either the tag
a n d /o r the crew. Tagging graffiti m ight also have some additional
elements such as characters, dates, and numbers, as well as a variety
of punctuation marks.
Tagging culture provides for the ownership of tagging names and
styles. Names or styles are not to be copied. Furtherm ore, in tagging
society, despite the fact th a t canvases do not belong to the taggers,
118
once a tagging graffito occupies a physical space, th a t graffito’s canvas
has in a sense become transferred to the property of the graffito’s
author and it is not to be w ritten upon.
W riters who violate tagging norms are usually sanctioned. The
m ost common sanctioning practices are performed p u b licly through
cross-outs and the application of the labels toys or waks.
A dditional elements of reading and w ritin g tagging w ill be
discussed in Chapter 5, where a comparison w ith gang g ra ffiti w ill be
discussed, and tagging and gang literacy w ill be evaluated. Chapter 4
w ill outline aspects of Chicano gang graffiti.
119
CHAPTER FOUR
1 Sources
This research has been influenced by a num ber of sources, from
personal contacts to professional and popular publications on the
topic. U nfortunately, as w ith studies of tagging, there are not a great
m any academic ethnographic studies of Chicano gangs in Southern
California. Joan Moore’s Homeboys: Gangs, Drugs, and Prison in the
Barrios o f Los Angeles (1978) and Diego V ig il’s Barrio Gangs (1988),
published at about the tim e this research began, are excellent
references. The news media do cover w ith frequency aspects of
Chicano gang life, b u t all too often do not portray accurately the gang
viewpoint. (The w ork of KABC reporter M ark Brown m ay be a notable
exception.) M ost news reporting is concerned w ith the m ainstream
reaction to and perception of gang phenomena.
Edward James Olmos has done an excellent docum entary on
Chicano gangs [Lives in Hazard). This w ork was born out of Olmos’
general research (and recruitm ent of actors) for his film Am erican Me.
The docum entary examines aspects of life in a few East Los Angeles
neighborhoods, one of w hich is Ramona Gardens, the m ain source of
this data.
Ramona Gardens is a Los Angeles Housing project located
roughly four m iles East of downtown Los Angeles (near C ounty/U SC
M edical Center). The cost of rent in Ramona Gardens, as in other Los
Angeles housing projects, is calculated as a percentage of a renter’s
income after a deduction for dependents. The rent Ramona Gardens
tenants pay is th e ir net income, less $480 per non-wage-earning
120
m in o r dependent and less $400 per non-wage-earning senior
dependent, tim es 30% (0.3). Project tenants generally have low
incomes, for, as the theory goes, as one’s income rises to a certain
level, it is more affordable to move out of the projects where m arket
forces provide fo r cheaper accommodations. ^
The population of Ramona Gardens fluctuates from about 2000-
3000 people (2076 in Januaiy, 1996). Ramona Gardens is a 610 u n it
complex, w ith 488 of those u n its designated fa m ily dwellings. The
population of Ramona Gardens is almost exclusively H ispanic—
estimated at >99% by Ramona Gardens adm inistrators over the last
ten years (10 non-H ispanic residents in January, 1996— 99.5%
Hispanic). 2
The Ramona Gardens housing project is home to the Chicano
gang called Big Hazard or Hazard Grande, a gang of approxim ately 150-
400 members. Estim ates of membership num bers vary from gang
m ember to gang member, b u t an accurate count is d ifficu lt due to the
vast num ber of inactive or peripheral members. The H azard name is
derived from Hazard Park, located approxim ately one h a lf m ile west of
the project. Though Hazard gang members th in k of th e ir gang name
as only meaning a great danger [Peligro Grande), the name comes
from the surnam e of a prom inent character in Los Angeles history
d uring the second h a lf of the 19th century. Hazard Park is named
after Henry T. Hazard, a successful businessman, developer, and
^One might also argue that the set Income percentage guarantees low rent and
thereby is an incentive to not work— and have children.
^Hispanic, here, is meant to imply descendent from a Spanish speaking country
in Central or South America.
121
lawyer, who served as mayor from 1889 to 1892. Hazard was the firs t
elected m ayor of Los Angeles under its first state-authorized charter
(W orkm an 1935).
A great m ajority of the gang graffiti analyzed in th is study comes
from Ramona Gardens and the outlying area. D uring guided tours of
Ramona Gardens, gang m ember escorts interpreted the g raffiti and
offered insights into the g ra ffiti’s geneses, purposes, etc. Photographs
of these g raffiti as well as those of other Chicano gang g raffiti were
utilized in form al interviews w ith 15 Ramona Gardens residents, of
whom approxim ately 10 were hard-core gang members.
From th is point onward, the term gang member w ill occasionally
be used to im ply Chicano gang member. There are certainly m any
kinds of ethnic gangs, and m any different Hispanic gangs th a t would
n ot consider themselves Chicano (such as m any Salvadoran gangs).
The g raffiti of these other gangs are also interesting, b u t the gang
g raffiti th a t w ill be analyzed here is lim ited to Chicano gang graffiti. A
m ajor reason the graffiti of Chicano gang members is analyzed here (as
a distinguishable graffiti register) is because, of all the Southern
C alifornia gang w riters, the Chicano gang members are the m ost
prolific (Los Angeles County S heriffs Departm ent 1993).
2 Gang Society
In the Chicano gang culture of Southern California, a gang is
typically equated w ith the neighborhood in w hich it is located. This is
not true in all cases such as w ith Chicano prison gangs^ whose
122
members are exiled from th e ir neighborhoods and mixed w ith
members from previously (before prison) riva l neighborhoods. It Is
also not true w ith extremely large gangs, such as Eighteenth Street,
w h ich extend beyond norm al neighborhood lines. Nevertheless, the
connection of a neighborhood to a gang is never lost on Chicano gang
members. The term varrio (a variant of the Spanish term barrio),
m eaning neighborhood, is regularly placed before the gang name.
Thus, in the case of the gang in the Ramona Gardens housing project,
the gang is called Varrio Big Hazard (in addition to Big H azard or
sim ply Hazard).
O ther Chicano gang names may be the exact (mainstream)
names of the neighborhoods such as Culver City, the name of the gang
in the Culver C ity housing project.4 In cases such as the Hazards,
though, the gang name [Big Hazard) and the sanctioned (mainstream)
neighborhood name (Ramona Gardens) are different. Both Ram ona
Gardens and Big Hazard are neighborhoods: it is when the term varrio
is used as a title in the name th a t it indicates a gang. In other words,
one m ight call Ramona Gardens a varrio sim ply to denote a poor
(Hispanic) neighborhood, b u t if one were to call it Varrio Ramona
Gardens, one w ould be talking about a gang, in th is case, either the
Hazards or some different gang called Ramona Gardens.
5Chicano prison gangs are still delineated geographically— albeit in exile— but
the geographic regions are more vast extending beyond the normal neighborhood
boundaries.
4 Some East LA gang members have scoffed at gangs which utilize city names as
their gang names because the city lim its would logically extend beyond normal
neighborhood borders, so the gang is not from a true neighborhood and has no true
rivals with adjacent boundaries.
123
Gang members often profess gang allegiance by indicating where
they are from. Rather than saying “1 belong to the Big Hazard gang,” a
Hazard member w ould say “I’m from Varrio Big Hazard” or simply,
“Fm from Hazard.” The question “c^De dônde?” or “Where are you
from ?” is used by gang members to challenge someone whom they
suspect of being a member of another gang. It is a challenge because it
is possible th a t the declaration of allegiance to another gang very well
m ight produce a physical confrontation due to a history of inter-gang
riva lry or the simple fact th a t representatives of two different gangs
are in contact. FA recounted an encounter w ith another gang:
A long tim e ago in 1977, I used to hang around w ith those
homeboys from Avenue 43rd. And one tim e 1 was kicking
back w ith them and these guys from another gang came
over and told me, you know they h it up those guys over
there and they told them, “Where are you from ?” And
they say, “Avenues.” So they brought out some shotguns
and all that. And then one guy came up to me and told me,
“Where are you from, ese?” And 1 say “I’m from Ricardo
Street Locos, you know, RSL” And he goes, “Oh, and
w hat’s that?” And 1 say, “That’s a real Big Hazard” And
they go “Fuck Hazard.” And I say, “W ell fu ck you back.” So
the guy came up to me, he had a bat. And this guy came up
to bat w ith me, and 1 didn’t know w hat to do. 1 was like, 1
had to fight m y way out. I h it h im — I h it th a t guy and
dropped him . And the other came up w ith a bat and h it
me rig h t in the back of m y head and cracked m y head
open. And after th a t I was knocked down and another guy
stabbed me in m y back. And the other one had a shotgun
at m y head, and from there on...well let’s p u t it th a t way,
th a n k God th a t the cops came...before they killed me. He
was going to blow my head off.
A youth not affiliated w ith a gang fam iliar w ith this gang culture
parlance--or a gang member fearing confrontation— w ould respond,
“I’m from now here.”5
124
Demographic Makeup: Aae. Gender. Ethnicity, and SES
M any gang members claim to begin th e ir gang affiliations in the
age range of about nine to 12 years. Those who become gang initiates
at such an early age, in a m ajority of cases, had planned on becoming
gang members at s till younger ages, some, for as long as they can
remember (Olmos 1993). Gang members jo in in g at a later age often
cite specific events such as m oving into the neighborhood, m oving
from m iddle school to high school, or the m urder of a friend or
relative as m otivating factors. V igil (1988) suggests th a t some of these
la tte r cases are often examples of temporary or situational
m em bership.
Though gang membership is considered a life-long association,
serious involvem ent in the gang usually ends in the gang member’s
early to m id 20s. Gang members end their hard-core com m itm ent to
the gang for a variety of reasons. In interviews w ith some veteran
Hazards, the older gang members suggested th a t th e ir gang activities
waned as a result of such things as tim e spent in ja il, the death of a
loved one, relocation, or the responsibilities of a job or parenting.
There are sm all sub-groups [cliques/klikas) w ith in the gang
made up of girls, b u t true gang membership appears to be divided by
gender lines (for a different view, see H arris 1988). The hard-core
^Gang members suggested in interviews that the question “ Where are you from?”
to an obvious non-gang member would be a question of geographic identity alone and
not a challenge for another to proclaim allegiance to a gang. However, indicating where
I am from by stating “ I am a USC Trojan” could also be an appropriate response to the
question. Geographic identity and gang alliance are. to the gang member,
equivalent/inseparable memberships. This will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
125
gang members who regularly partake in crim inal and violent behavior,
w ith relatively few exceptions, are male [cf. V igil 1988:100-102).®
It m ight seem obvious th a t Chicano gangs are made up of
Chicano members. This holds true in a m ajority of cases w ith gangs
such as the Hazards, in w hich more than 99% of the members are of
M exican-Am erican descent or from other Central or even South
Am erican countries. There have been, however, a few exceptions.
Sometimes African-Am erican or Asian-Am erican fam ilies successfully
make residence in a Southern C alifornia barrio, and occasionally the
youth of such families gain entry into the gangs. This was very rare in
the 1980s and before, for such fam ilies encountered d iffic u lty residing
in neighborhoods such as Ramona Gardens. As JL claimed, “We ran
them ou t of here.”
In the 1990s, the trend for Chicano gangs to be exclusively
Chicano is changing as new im m igrant groups such as Vietnamese
move into th e ir neighborhoods.^ The prevalence of H ip-H op culture
taking root in a variety of ethnic com m unities constitutes a blending of
different gang cultures.® For example, performers of Hip-H op
Gangs ta -Rap (a popular m usic form) generally display a dress style
w hich has traces of prison dress and the dress of both Chicano and
Black gangs. This style is being embraced by youth of all ethnic
5Girls, however, do take part in criminal and violent behavior . This was the
case in a September 1995 incident at Mission Viejo High School (in Orange County) in
which a non-gang girl was assaulted and held captive for the better part of a day for
allegedly wearing gang clothing.
^It is also a recent phenomenon for Spanish speaking ethnic Chinese to migrate
from Latin American countries to Southern California.
®Hip-Hop is a popular (youth) cultural style of music, dress, and lifestyle, dating
from the late 1980s to at least the mid 1990s
1 2 6
backgrounds in America. The adoption of Cholo style dress^ and
Chicano style graffiti by Arm enian gangs in Glendale, north of
downtown Los Angeles, are examples of this cu ltu ra l blending across
the gangs.
Gang members from Hazard clearly come from low SES
households. As suggested above, only low income fam ilies live in the
Ramona Gardens housing project. Across Southern California, Chicano
gang members tend to come from low income households. V igil
(1988) hypothesizes th a t the m arginal economic subsistence of the
fam ilies of gang members is b u t one aspect of the “m ultiple
m arginality,” in cluding elements such as broken fam ilies, poor school
success, etc., th a t m any Chicano youth experience th a t propels them
in to gang membership.
Types of Membership
V igil (1988:99) has categorized four types of gang membership:
regular, peripheral, temporary, and situ a tio n a l He includes the
follow ing characteristics of such m emberships:
REGULAR PERIPHERAL TEMPORARY SITUATIONAL
14 18 14-18 14-18
20+ 18-20 16-20
ALL SOME
Joining Age 10-14
Leaving Age 22+
Vioience Invoivement a l l
Criminai Behavior m o s t m a n y
Gang Identification p a o f o u n o s t r o n g
SOME
ALMOST
NONE
ALMOST
NONE
M AR GINA L MARGINAL
^Cholo style typically Includes ironed khaki pants, ironed white T-shirts and
head adornments such as dark knit caps and bandannas (Vigil 1988:110-112).
127
Regular gang members are sometimes called hard-core gang
members. They have the m ost profound attachm ent to the gang and
often consider it as th e ir fam ily. Regular members are active; they
participate in such notorious activities as fighting rivals, stealing,
taking drugs a n d /o r d rin kin g excessively, or w ritin g graffiti. They
rem ain in the gang the longest, and they are the m ost like ly to have
gang tattoos and exhibit the gang/Cholo lifestyle (dress, dialect, etc.).
Peripheral members are not readily distinguishable from regular
members. If anything, they exhibit the same features of the regular
members, only to a slightly lesser extent. In m y interviews, those
gang members I w ould label peripheral seemed to have other
im portant attachm ents such as families or sports interests.
Temporary and situational members generally do not have a very
strong attachm ent to the gang. They jo in the gang for a fa irly short
period of tim e for a variety of possible reasons such as merely w anting
to tiy it out, having close friends who are regular members, or having a
hard tim e in school. Members 1 have met who w ould fall into these
categories have had little to no taste for the notorious activities of gang
members (save getting d ru n k and taking drugs). They are, however,
extrem ely proud of and dedicated to th e ir neighborhoods. They do
not necessarily seek out confrontation w ith rival gangs, b u t if a
situation warranted, they w ould “back up” the neighborhood. As LG
describes them, “They are dow n for the neighborhood.”
These four categories of gang attachm ent are not used by gang
members. Gang members typically slice up th e ir neighborhood into:
(1) people who are from the neighborhood b u t not in the
gang (“from here”);
128
(2) wannahes (gang initiates or kids who w ill eventually
enter the gang when old enough- lite ra lly kids who “w ant
to be” gang members);
(3) gang members;
(4) veteranos (Spanish for veterans); and
(5) gangsters 1 4 {Mexican M a fia members or initiates or
members of another Chicano organized crime group such
as Nuestra Familia).
O f all the distinctions between different gang affinities, the
distin ctio n between veteran and gang member is the m ost curious,
especially considering th a t there are two different kinds of veterans:
older active gang members and retired gang members. According to
these and V ig il’s data, even regular, hard-core gang members m ight
term inate th e ir m ost profound alliances w ith the gangs in th e ir early
20s. A t th is age of less stringent gang com m itm ent, a gang member
has roughly three options. He can continue the gangster lifestyle by
ta kin g it to the next step: m embership in the Mexican M afia (for
Hazard members) or some other crim inal organization; he can leave
the gang entirely; or he can “retire” as a veterano.
The age at w hich a gang member chooses to be considered a
retired veterano--no longer hard-core--generally occurs in the range
of about 22-26 years (likely from the responsibilities th a t come w ith
marriage, a job, or som ething other). Veteranos are respected gang
l^Sometimes distinctions are made between gang members and hard-core gang
members, but the distinction could be based on a variety of quite distinct elements: the
hard-core member is “Choloed out” (dressed in prototypical Cholo dress often), has
many tattoos, or is a “ vato loco” (crazy dude).
^ ^The term gangster is ambiguous because it is also used for a regular gang
member.
129
members and, though they--i.e., the retired ones— do not regularly
partake in gang activities (drive-bys, graffiti, etc.), they are sought out
for advice and guidance by the younger active gang members.
In another sense, a veterano is any older or more experienced
gang member. A ju n io r gang member is always expected to look up to
and be w illin g to take advice from a more senior gang member, a
veterano. Thus, w ith in the ranks of gang members, the veterano is
given the m ost respect, even if he is no longer active. B u t the non
active veterano w ill s till back up the neighborhood (participate in
notorious activities) if it is warranted.
Cliques/Klikas
Chicano gangs (and other large ethnic gangs for th a t matter)
create sub-groups w ith in them for the m aintenance of the gang. In
Chicano gangs, these sub-groups are called cliques or klikas. Cliques
are typically made up of age cohorts who have some kind of a ffin ity
towards each other. In larger gangs, there can be more than one
clique of a given age group, b u t sm aller barrios tend to have single
cliques of a p a rticu la r age r a n g e . Gang members typically stay w ith
one clique during th e ir entire gang association, b u t can sw itch cliques
for a num ber of possible reasons. Cliques sometimes get reputations
for p a rticu la r characteristics. For example, maybe they do num erous
drive-bys or all carry knives or some other feature. (A gang member
m ight, for example, change cliques— especially if the age difference is
not too extrem e— for the “specialty” of the clique.)^®
^^Within Hazard, the clique sizes ranged from 5 (usually a pre 1970s clique or a
brand new clique) to 25 members.
130
The im portance of belonging to a clique cannot be over
emphasized w ith regard to gang membership: one cannot be a
member of a Chicano gang w ith o u t being a member of a clique.
Because gang m em bership only comes w ith clique m embership, one
w ith o u t a clique who professes gang m embership is either a wannabe,
someone m erely backing-up the neighborhood, or an im postor.
The Big Hazard gang in Ramona Gardens has a recognized
process for groups of youths to enter the gang as a clique. All young
initiates, ages 9-12 years, are in the broad, poorly defined clique
know n as Ramona Gardens (RG). Factions of the broad RG clique form
th e ir own separate cliques w ith their own clique names in order to
exit the RG clique and thus become true gang members. In Hazard, it
is possible for more than one clique at a tim e to emerge out of the
entry level RG clique, b u t it is more often the case th a t young
gangsters together create one clique of age cohorts.
Entrance into the gang at such a young age typically does not call
for rigorous m onitoring by older gang members (veteranos) because
not m uch is required of such young apprentices, and furtherm ore,
young members tend to be eager to fall in line w ith the veterans.
Older initiates jo in in g a clique already in existence have to prove
themselves before they are accepted. When a clique adds a new
member, he m u st firs t endure its in itia tio n rite [Jumping in) w hich
consists of a severe beating from other clique members or some other
kind of challenge such as stealing something or attacking a rival gang
^®Another common reason given for changing cliques was the desire to be with a
close friend of another clique.
131
m e m b e r This, it is said, demonstrates th a t the in itia te w ill be a
reliable member of the clique.
It should be noted th a t not all members jo in a clique, and thus,
the gang, by th e ir own free w ill. Some kids are jum ped in because
they are considered to be useful to the clique for some reason (good
fighter, good graffiti w riter, etc.). These members u su a lly fall in to the
tem porary or situational members category.
Gang members, while living in one neighborhood, do not hold
m embership in more than one gang or more than one clique at a time.
These m emberships are typically lifelong and though transferring is
possible, it is fa irly rare. In gang culture, the profound dedication to
and ide n tity w ith gang and clique membership th a t a gang member
feels makes dual membership v irtu a lly inconceivable.
Clique Names
It is quite common for clique names to begin w ith little, tiny,
peeivee, or midget. This, in large part, is due to the fact th a t cliques
create th e ir names often before the members are in th e ir teen age
years (in the case of Big Hazard, when breaking out of the RG clique).
Because gang members characteristically rem ain in the same clique
for life, it is not uncom m on to encounter a member of the Tiny Dukes
or L ittle Locos in his 40s or older.
There are a great variety of clique names. Those encountered in
the Hazards have included such names as the Sevens, the Jokers, the
Condors, and the M idget Locos. The clique name is always in the
^^Gang members leaving a clique are Jumped out, which nearly always involves
a physical beating.
132
p lu ra l because, logically, cliques have more than one member (around
5-25). The pluralized clique name usually makes it distinguishable
from the name of the gang, w hich is typically the name of a location
[e.g., West Varrio Grape Street, Eighteenth Street, El Sereno). There
are some gang names th a t do not designate a location (such as Big
Hazard) and some th a t are pluralized, such as the Harpys, a Chicano
gang located northwest of the USC campus in Los Angeles. Pluralized
gang names are rare, however, so for the m ost part, the p lu ra l
indicates a clique.
Gang Member Names
As w ith taggers, gang members typically have two names: th e ir
b irth names and their gang names. A great variety of gang names are
possible, b u t there are a few regularities in the names gang members
choose for themselves or are given.
The most common gang name is adjectival in nature. The name
often denotes some characteristic of the person. Blacky, Smokey,
Shady, Negro (Spanish for black or dark), Blanco [white), Flaco
[skinny), Gordo [fat). Shorty, and Chico [small) are all names th a t gang
members use th a t are somewhat descriptive of aspects of the gang
m embers’ physical characteristics. O ther adjectival names are used to
describe some personality characteristic: Grumpy, Sleepy, Bashful,
Shy-boy, etc. (The d w a rf names from Snowwhite and the Seven
D w arfs are quite popular.)
15ln Ramona Gardens, gang members who joined the gang in the mid 1970s or
later have separate gang names as opposed to birth names, in a majority of cases. Gang
members from the early 1970s or earlier might only be known by single names, usually
their birth names or a variant thereof.
133
o th e r common gang names are anim al names such as Grizzly,
Moose, B lackbird and Goose. It is not always clear w hether the name
is chosen due to correlated characteristics of the anim al and gang
member, sym bolic or revered characteristics of the anim al, or
som ething other.
Sometimes, a gang member m ight have a certain gang name
because he resembles or admires another gang member w ith th a t
name. One m ight be given a name because it is used in his fam ily [e.g.,
three generations of Chico in the Hazards).
It is also common for gang members to use the suffix -er in
deriving gang names. The suffix is used exclusively in the fashion in
w hich it is used in standard English: to mean the person who does X,
where X represents the stem. Gang members choose stems th a t
represent a s kill th a t provides respect in the gang culture such as Box
[Boxer], Shoot [Shooter] and Fight [Fighter].
There are also a variety of names such as Cartoon, a common
gang name across Chicano gangs, th a t do not follow the pattern of
physical or personality characteristics, or any of the other categories
of gang names. It is possible, however, th a t Cartoon got his name from
a passion for cartoons, thus, denoting a personality q u irk —i.e., if he
does not look like a cartoon character. Tank may be so called because
he is large; he could also have a brother named Tank or maybe he
loves tanks, or maybe he ju s t likes the name. There is not a steadfast
rule for the choice of a name.
Because names are often repeated in gang culture, there arc two
practices w hich differentiate two gang members w ith the same name.
134
Gang members who share the name of another w ill often take a Roman
num eral to indicate th e ir position in a series of gang members w ith
th a t name. Chico IV, for example is the fo u rth in his fam ily to be given
the name Chico. Gang members need not be related to take on a
Roman num eral designation when distinguishing themselves from
others of the same name.
For the m ost part, Roman num eral designations are not needed
for distinguishing gang members because they are generally
distinguished by the clique to w hich they belong. Grumpy from the
Condors is obviously not the Grumpy from the Sevens since clique
m embership is singular. Besides, it is very rare for members of the
same clique to have the same gang name, usually because the clique
members create the clique (and thus establish th e ir perm anent gang
names) at the same time. If one is jum ped into a clique th a t already
has a member w ith the same nickname, a Roman num eral designation
w ill like ly be given to one of the two.
In addition to the specific gang name, all gang members are also
referred to as homeboys. Homeboy functions like a pronoun form
indicating male gang m e m b e r.V a ria tio n s of homeboy are also used:
homes (generally used in the second person singular) and homie. A
gang member can also use the phrase my homeboy (our homeboy,
your...) to refer to a gang member in his clique or gang, depending on
the status of the interlocutor. That is, if the interlocutor is in the
same gang, my homeboy refers to a colleague in the same clique; if the
^^Homegirl is used for gang girls.
135
in te rlocu to r is not in the gang, it could refer to a fellow gang member
not in the same clique.
Achieving Respect
As w ith taggers, gang members are greatly concerned about
th e ir own personal notoriety. Rather than fa m e (in tagging society),
gang members seek respect above all else. In interview s w ith gang
members, getting respect seemed to be one of the highest m otivating
forces behind th e ir notorious behavior. The gang m ember wants
respect, and disrespect {dissing) requires re trib u tio n . Am ong other
things, a frequent ju stifica tio n for a gang m ember’s fighting, or doing a
drive-by, or even w ritin g graffiti was to sustain respect, or to combat
disrespect.
Gang members are also more profoundly concerned than taggers
are about the reputation of the larger group w ith w hich they associate.
Le., th e ir gang and th e ir clique. Any disrespect of one’s clique or
gang is equivalent to a personal attack on a gang m ember’s own
character. Furtherm ore, standing up for the gang and clique are
considered key to deserving respect.
In tagging culture, a tagger or piecer can only gain notoriety by
w ritin g graffiti. This is not the case in Chicano gang culture because a
gang member is not required to create graffiti in order to participate
homeboy might even refer to a non-gang member who is a close friend.
l^It is hypothesized here that one of the reasons gang members were so willing
to be interviewed for this research was that the mere process of researching their
personal lives and society showed them respect.
am not suggesting that this deeper devotion on the part of gang members to
the larger groups (cliques, gangs, or crews) is a quantifiable comparison: the stronger
attachment to the larger groups seems apparent in the narratives of gang members and
taggers and in their behavior, such as graffiti writing {cf., Chapter 5).
136
in his culture or achieve respect. W riting graffiti is certainly a widely
practiced rite of Chicano gang m embers--especially vis-a-vis other
ethnic gangs. However, there are m any com m itted gang members
who do not partake in the practice, some never producing g ra ffiti
throughout th e ir entire gang association.
One can achieve notoriety (and thus, respect) in the gang by
w ritin g graffiti, b u t graffiti w ritin g is m ost com monly used for such
ends at the entry level of gang association/m em bership. Instead, gang
members m ostly w rite graffiti for other purposes, w hich are described
below.
3 Chicano Gang Graffiti
W ith in the Chicano gang graffiti register, there are a variety of
sub-registers. Gang members can serve different purposes in th e ir
g raffiti w riting, and the graffiti exhibit a variety of features to index
such aims. The m ost common form of gang graffiti is know n as the
plaça (also referred to as placaso or plaquiaso).
Plaça is Spanish for plaque or badge, thought of alm ost as a name
plate. The plaça is the identification m arker of a gang member (like a
tag for a tagger). The plaça generally consists of tliree elements: the
gang name, the clique name, and the gang member name. The term
plaça, however, can also refer to any graffiti w ritin g or tattooing by a
gang member, b u t it is used more specifically for the graffito or tattoo
w ritte n w ith only the author’s name along w ith the name of the gang
and clique. Though w ritin g a plaça is the most common form of
137
Chicano gang graffiti, the plaça can serve different functions,
depending on external contextual variables or internal variation.
Forms can vary, b u t there is a basic pattern to moat plaças.
Plaças generally have the name of the gang, usually in an abbreviated
form , in large letters. Next to the gang name, typically on the top or
bottom rig h t side and often abbreviated, a gang member w rites the
name of his clique. Below or above the name of the clique, he w rites
his gang name (Figure 4.1).
i A . . • ■
Figure 4.1 Plaça written by Chepe of the Condors clique of the
Big Hazard gang, Los Angeles, California.
The above elements in the p a rticu la r arrangem ent described is
the m ost common plaça form. The plaça form variation, however,
m any tim es includes additional features such as location designators
(such as Sur, indicating the gang is from Southern California),
punctuation and diacritics, messages (such as statements of love or
threats), and the names of other cliques and gang members. The
plaça can be reduced as well, having only the gang and gang member
name. The variation of the plaça can index a variety of social
meanings, as do text external/contextual features.
Graffiti Types and Functions
Initiation
In the Hazard gang, it is in the RG clique th a t a gang initiate
begins his gang graffiti w riting. Generally speaking, a young gang
138
wannabe begins w ritin g graffiti to display th a t he considers him self in
the RG clique and a future gang prospect (though graffiti w ritin g is not
required). Often w ith m issionary zeal, the new gang m ember w rites
the name of the gang all over the neighborhood out of affection for and
pride in his new relationship to the gang and to dem onstrate th a t he
is tru ly gang m aterial (because of the bravery and open display of
devotion). The common graffiti forms are either anonymous graffiti
displaying a variant of the Hazard name (Figure 4.2), or a plaça
including the name of the RG clique (Figure 4.3).
Figure 4.2 Varrio Big Hazard graffito, Los Angeles, California.
Figure 4.3 Varrio Big Hazard, Ramona Gardens Clique, Number
One!, Los Angeles, California.
Gang members have suggested th a t it is the wannabes who do
m ost of the w ritin g in a gang neighborhood, b u t the photographic
docum entation of graffiti in Ramona Gardens did not support the
claim . Nevertheless, the wannabe Tike w ritin g (i.e., anonym ous
139
representations of the gang) were estimated to make up approxim ately
10% of the Ramona Gardens graffiti (during the survey).
Rosters/Roll-Calls
It is quite common across Chicano gangs to periodically w rite
roll-call or roster graffiti. On these occasions, one or more gang
members list all the members of th e ir clique. When exhaustive rosters
are w ritten, it is not uncom m on to have one of the more talented
w riters w rite the roll-call such as in Figure 4 .4.20 The context of
Figure 4.4 is observed in Figure 4.5.21
Figure 4.4 Harpys roster graffito, Los Angeles, California.
iYC' 1 !
Figure 4.5 Harpys Graffito in Old English font, Los Angeles,
California.
M any gang graffiti take the roster form in th a t more than one
gang member is listed. In such cases where non-exhaustive lists of
gang members are found in the graffiti, the graffiti are either
20rhough no gang-taggers were interviewed, it has been claimed by gang
members that some taggers get jumped into the gang for their graffiti writing skills to
do graffiti such as rosters.
2lThe clique name is written between the A and R of HARPYS. A telephone pole
blocks one half of the text making the clique name undecodable in Figure 4.5.
140
com m em orating some occasion on w hich the listed gang members did
som ething together, indicating a special group of friends, or listin g
who happened to be present at the g ra ffiti’s inception.
On occasions where more than one name is listed, the general
convention is for the author of the graffito to w rite his name first. One
gang member suggested th a t if the author is in danger of getting in
trouble for some reason [e.g., he m ight be on probation) and w ants to
hide his authorship, he puts the name of another first. That is, he
conceals his authorship in the perceived convention— though in this
case, it is violated.
In some cases of graffiti listin g more than one gang member, the
gang members represent more than one clique. Gang w riters deal
w ith th is in two ways. They either p u t the gang name w ith no clique
name (Figure 4.6), or they lis t the clique names of all the members as
w ell (Figure 4.7).
iv-iS-S
Figure 4.6 West Side 18th Street gang graffito including gang
members Flaco, Goose and Shy-Boy, Los Angeles, California.
141
Figure 4.7 Big Hazard graffito including Franki of the Sevens and
Moosei of the Jokers, Los Angeles, California.^ ^
In Figure 4.7 above, the 7s represents the Big Hazard clique, the
Sevens, and the Js represents the Big Hazard clique, the Jokers.
Boundaries
Gang members m ark their territories in two different ways. One
way is w ith arrows (Figure 4.8), w hich are b latant boundary m arkers.
When the gang name has arrows on both sides of it pointing in
opposite directions, it indicates th a t the gang neighborhood is on both
sides of the graffito; these graffiti are typically in the gang centers. A
gang may p u t a graffito on a gang border w ith an arrow on only one
side of the gang name pointing in the direction of the gang territory.
It is more likely, however, th a t a gang member w ould p u t arrows on
both sides of the graffito to suggest, if anything, th a t his gang controls
more area than it can realistically claim or to challenge a neighboring
gang whose members m ight th in k otherwise.
^^This is one of the few cases in which an Arabic numeral was used as an
ordinal designation on a moniker. Arabic numerals greater than 1 are not used this
way in Chicano gang graffiti.
142
Figure 4.8 Hazard gang graffito indicating a centrai location in tfie
Hazard gang, Los Angeles, California.
A nother less blatant b u t seemingly obvious way in w hich gangs
m a rk th e ir territories is sim ply by the kind of graffiti th a t prevails in
certain areas. If a city park is controlled by the Hazards (such as
Hazard Park is), one w ill find th a t Hazard graffiti predom inate in th a t
p ark (as they actually do in and around Hazard Park). The te rrito ry
claim resulting from an abundance of gang graffiti is certainly one of
the strongest functions graffiti serve for gangs. Asked w hat he th in ks
of the graffiti of his gang, GR, pointing at a Knudson’s m ilk tru c k
answered, “It’s like th a t sign on the tru c k over there: it says who we
are; it says w hat’s ours.’’ The graffiti of a neighborhood, ju s t by their
existence, indicate who the neighborhood belongs to or who controls
it.
Gang members often w rite graffiti on gang borders w ith o u t
arrows to indicate the presence of their gang. These g ra ffiti are often
anonymous (i.e., they are not plaças) indicating only the gang name. It
is in these areas th a t the m ajority of anonymous graffiti are found, and
if the area is in contention, the most num erous cross-outs are found.
In Figure 4.9, for example, the three instances of Eighteenth Street
143
gang graffiti are indicating the gang’s presence, w hich happens to be
on a H arpy border.
Figure 4.9 Three 18th Street gang-name-only graffiti indicating a
gang border, Los Angeles, California.
Cross-outs
Gang members regularly cross out the graffiti of other gangs, b u t
such practices are certainly not always death threats as is frequently
reported in the news media. The way in w hich a gang member
crosses out the g raffiti of another gang depends on a num ber of text
internal and text external contextual variables.
A typical cross-out th a t a gang member m ight do w ould take
place in an area not controlled by a gang or an area whose control is
not under dispute between any gangs. In these no-m an’s regions, gang
members typically w rite th e ir gang names alone. If they encounter the
name of another gang, it is the ir duty to cross the name of the other
gang out when w ritin g their own gang’s name. This is not a threat to
fig h t b u t is rather a norm al g ra ffiti-w ritin g practice in the larger gang
144
g raffiti register. As GZ claimed, “If they didn’t cross it out, they
w ouldn’t get no respect.” A physical confrontation could take place if
representatives of both gangs were present during the crossing out,
b u t a physical confrontation is ju s t as possible w ith o u t any graffiti
w ritin g at all.
Crossing out also takes place inside of gang controlled areas
w ith o u t foreshadowing m urder (though it is more dangerous and
threatening than the scenario described above). Gang members
frequently go inside other neighborhoods and cross out the rival
gang’s g ra ffiti and replace it w ith th e ir own. V igil (1988:115) likens
this to the practice of counting coup, a practice th a t the Cheyenne
(Hoebel 1978) and other plains Indians carried out, w hich is a
generally non-lethal act of bravery involving an encounter w ith an
enemy. In the m ajority of cases of these graffiti hits, the gang
member, as above, crosses out his rival gang’s name and replaces it
w ith his own gang’s name. The in tru d e r m ight cross out the names of
gang members and cliques on his rampage, b u t the m ost common
purpose is m erely to cross out the other gang’s name and leave th a t of
his own. If he leaves a complete placa, w ith his gang nicknam e (and
clique), he has done a braver act because he now has singled him self
(or his clique) out for possible retribution.
For the gang th a t is invaded, it is the responsibility of any gang
m ember w ith p a in t to cross out the in tru d e r’s graffiti. This is not an
act of bravery for the w rite r in his own neighborhood. A ll gang
members, even those who do not regularly w rite graffiti, would w ant to
see a rival gang’s name removed.
145
In Figure 4.10 below, a member of the V arrio W est Grape Street
gang had entered Hazard te rrito ry and crossed out a num ber of graffiti.
The B H of Figure 4.16, for example, was crossed out by this gang
member. A Hazard gang member subsequently crossed out the West
Grape Street graffito and added a gang-name-only graffito w ith arrows
to indicate th a t the space was in the Hazard gang center.
Figure 4.10 Big Hazard cross-out of Varrio West Grape Street
invasion graffito and Big Hazard gang location graffito, Los
Angeles, California.
Cases in w hich gang graffiti cross-outs are potentially life
threatening are those in w hich names are singled out on plaças to be
crossed out (and then possibly replaced by a specific name). These
cross-outs indicate a specific threat against th a t person, and the threat
can be appended w ith additional messages such as “dead” or “ 187”
(police code for murder). Furtherm ore, the threat in a cross-out is
more severe the closer the crossed out graffiti is to the crossed out
gang m ember’s neighborhood. That is to say, a cross-out of a singled
out placa is less of a realistic threat if it is done in a neutral territory.
If it is done in the singled out gang member’s neighborhood, it is
more serious because it indicates th a t the rival doing the crossing out
146
is “after” th a t gang member by being w illin g to go into his
neighborhood.
Memorials
Gang members recognize dead comrades in th e ir g raffiti in two
ways. One way is to w rite up a formalized placa of the colleague w hich
indicates th a t he has passed away. M emorial indexes such as “In
m em ory of..” or “En m emoria de...” function as w hat A tkinson (1991)
calls schema-enabling cues or keys of the form al m em orial graffiti.
These form al g raffiti form s (sub-registers) are typically produced
du ring a short period of tim e after the fallen homeboy’s death (Figure
4.11 and Figure 4.12). They are form al in th a t they are more m arked
w ith lin g u istic features such as prepositions and adjectives.
Figure 4.11 Partial memorial graffito for Smokey, Los Angeles,
California.23
V < ■ ..s
Figure 4.12 Memorial graffito for Veneno of the Santa Monica
17th Street gang who died on December 25, 1991, Santa Monica,
California.
33The BHCondors indicating Smokey’s gang and clique have been cropped in
Figure 4.11.
147
The m ost common (unmarked) way in w hich a homeboy is
recognized after his death is his inclusion in roster graffiti. Gang
members close to the deceased member regularly include his name in
th e ir g raffiti to keep his memory alive. GR described th is practice:
It’s like m y hom eboy--it’s like he’s s till here. He’s s till
w ith me.
W hen they w rite the gang m ember’s name, they include the letters
RIP, to the rig h t of the name, standing for rest in peace (Figures 4.12
and 4.13).
Figure 4.13 Memorial for Tanki of the Big Hazard Tiny Dukes
clique written by Demonl, also of the Tiny Dukes, Los Angeles,
California.
Drug Advertisement
Though it is not a very common practice, gang members have
been know n to include inform ation in th e ir plaças w hich indicates
th a t they sell certain kinds of drugs. The only graffito of this kin d
observed in this research was done in wet cement during the late
1970s, Figure 4.14. The M the graffitist used indicated m arijuana fo r
sole.
148
Figure 4.14 Big Hazard graffito written by Lencho In 1977
indicating marijuana for sale, Los Angeles, California.
In some sense, a vast num ber of typical Chicano gang graffiti
have traces of drug advertisem ent w ith in them. It was suggested
b riefly above th a t gang members w rite additional location m arkers in
th e ir graffiti. In the case of Chicano gang members from Southern
California, there are two elements th a t are used to indicate th a t their
gangs are from Southern California and th a t they are Chicano. One
element w ritte n is the word Sur, Spanish for south (Figure 4.15). The
other way to indicate a Southern Californian (and Chicano) base is the
use o f the num ber 13 (Figure 4.16), or Roman num eral X III.
Figure 4.15 Sur component of a larger Chicano gang graffito,
Santa Monica, California (enhanced).
149
Figure 4.16 Gang-name-only graffito of the 18th Street gang,
beginning with 13, ending with 1!, Los Angeles, California.
The reason, gang members claim, th a t the num ber 13 is used to
indicate Southern C alifornia is th a t the letter M is the 13th letter of
the alphabet. M represents m arijuana, a drug whose d istrib u tio n is
supposedly controlled by Southern C alifornian channels. The use of
the num ber 13 in graffiti is supposed to either indicate a Southern
C alifornia base^^ or m arijuana fo r sale. W ith the predominance of the
num ber 13 in graffiti across gangs (even non-Chicano gangs), across
cliques (even used by the RG clique of Hazard), and across gang
members, one could logically conclude, however, th a t it is used
exclusively to indicate a Southern C alifornian origin.
Love Proclamation
As do members of other cultures, gang members w rite graffiti
w hich proclaim th e ir love for others of the opposite s e x . 25 The
graffito is b u t one mode of expression available to this end. W hat is
curious about the gang version of this tim e honored graffiti tra d itio n is
th a t they frequently have a placa-Chicano gang flavor to them.
Especially if the girl is a member of the gang (in an all girl clique), it is
24Northem California gangs write Norte or the number 14-the 14th letter being
N for either North or Norte-to indicate the location of their varrio s.
25in the same vein, it is not uncommon for a gang member, or members of other
cultures for that matter, to have a lover’s name tattooed on his body somewhere.
150
not uncom m on for the author of the graffito to make reference to the
gang or even his clique in his proclam ation of love (Figure 4.17).
Figure 4.17 Proclamation of love between So loll and Josiell of the
Hazard gang, Los Angeles, California.
The Ingrained Habit of Graffiti Writing
Though the functions (registers) listed above cover the m ajority
of functions graffiti serve in Chicano gang culture, there are a vast
num ber of instances where gang members w rite th e ir plaças or gang
names w ith o u t serving a clear purpose. D uring interviews w ith gang
members it was quite common for interviewees, w ith o u t being asked
to do so and before the conversation had turned to the topic of graffiti,
to pick up the paper and pens on the interview table and begin
doodling th e ir gang’s name (and abbreviation) and th e ir plaças while
answering questions and telling stories. Considering, as V igil (1988)
suggests, th a t the gang, for many, serves as a surrogate family, it is no
wonder th a t when given the opportunity to w rite something, a gang
member w rites his placa. For example, the common functions of gang
graffiti are not generally served by gang graffiti in a bathroom stall;
151
however, if a gang member has a pen and tim e in a bathroom stall,
there is little doubt th a t his gang’s name, among other things, w ill be
one of the item s he expresses.
4 Chicano Indexing
There are a few prom inent linguistic and para-linguistic features
of Chicano gang graffiti w hich index the Chicano gang g raffiti register.
Language
A somewhat obvious index of a Chicano gang is the use of
Spanish in the graffiti. The code sw itching between (code m ixing of)
Spanish and English is apparent in most of the graffiti displayed in
th is chapter. For example. Figure 4.11 states “In loving m emory de
Arturo....” The love proclam ation of 4.17 above uses both English and
Spanish titles: “M r. Solo” and “La Josie." Clearly, if V represents the
w ord varrio, and nearly all gang graffiti utilize th is V, then nearly all
Chicano gang graffiti utilize Spanish [Calo]. Chicano gangs often have
Spanish and English variants of th e ir gang names (Figures 4.18 and
4.19).
f * t t w
i V i i
I \
A ,
Figure 4.18 Varrio 35th Street Intruders graffito, Los Angeles,
California (enhanced).
2®There are some interesting fonts used in this graffito. Among other features,
note the backwards N in INTRUDERS and the number 1 written into the D.
152
m TR V Trr,'% } " '
Figure 4.19 Varrio 35th Street Intrusos graffito, Los Angeles,
California.
Words
The use of the letter V is the m ost obvious element th a t indexes
Chicano gang graffiti (see Figure 4.2). The word varrio as a lexical
choice for a title, albeit represented by an in itia l in the m ajority of
cases, can only represent a Chicano gang. Yet the V is not necessarily
sufficient in and of itse lf as a gang marker. There are also other
paralinguistic features and linguistic encoding features— idiosyncrasies
of a literacy (such as diacritics)— th a t indicate a gang representation.
In Figure 4.2, the graffito does not only illu stra te a V for varrio;
additionally, it occurs as a superscript to the rem aining text, BH,
representing the gang Big Hazard. This graphem ic feature w orks in
unison w ith the lexical choice of varrio to index a gang. The two co
occurring features function as a schema-enabling cue.
It is a common practice, furtherm ore, to include a diacritic w ith
the letter V indicating th a t the V represents the word varrio only.
The diacritic m arking (seen in Figure 4.3) can be described as an
underline w ith a vertically oriented cuiwed (elongated S shape) line
connected to the left or rig h t hand side. Gang members describe th is
diacritic as a stand “holding up the V."27
153
Fonts
A nother graphem ic aspect of Chicano gang graffiti th a t indexes
Chicano gangs is the font used. Chicano gangs utilize a m inim um of 12
different fonts w hich distinguish their graffiti from tagging and th a t of
other gangs. Though they cannot always explain why, taggers and gang
members im m ediately identify w hether a graffito is tagging or gang
g ra ffiti based on, among other things, the style of lettering used. They
accomplish this, even though the gang members have such a large
num ber of fonts from w hich to choose. Curiously, Chicano gang
members do not have specific names for each font even though they
m ight be quite proficient at using a large num ber (or all) of them.
Examples of a variety of fonts and some names for them, though the
m ajority are not standard, appear in Chapter 5.
Figure 4.2 above is an example of a common font (which Tolford
(1986) calls Square) th a t indexes a Chicano gang . The letter B, w hich
I have reproduced below by m y own hand in Figure 4.20, is w ritte n in
a recognized pattern of straight lines. Note how the bottom and top
portions of the B are w ritte n in the shape of boxes w ith the top
w ritte n slightly sm aller and slightly raised above the bottom . The two
boxes are connected at the bottom left hand corner o f the top box and
the top left corner of the bottom box. In order to connect the boxes
in th is way, the top box is not perfectly square; its left vertical line is
longer than the rig h t one and the bottom horizontal line runs on a
slight diagonal down to the bottom left corner:
^^This specific diacritic marking can also be seen in Figure 4.16 “holding up”
the title La. It is also used in Chicano gang graffiti without the V as a punctuation mark
analogous to dash (see Chapter Five).
154
Figure 4.20 The letter B In a Square font.
This kin d of B is w ritten by Chicano gangs across Southern California
and is nearly universally a m arker of a Chicano gang graffito.28
A nother common variation of B is a font I call Triangle. The B is
w ritte n in the same m anner as above, only the top portion is w ritte n
as a triangle rather than a quadrangle:
Figure 4.21 The letter 6 in a Triangle font.2 9
Two and three dim ensional lettering is also used in gang
w riting, b u t it is usually very straight, called Block, (Figure 4.22)--as
opposed to the piecing styles--or is w ritte n in a specific style called
Old English (Figures 4.4, 4.5, and 4.23). These styles are less
com m only used font variants. When they are used, they can give the
author a certain prestige, b u t the a bility to create such elaborate works
does not appear to be a highly sought after skill in the gang
com m unity— though as stated earlier, it is claimed th a t piecers are
280ne reason the B is written in this manner is that it resembles the number 13,
which is a symbol for a Southern California gang (in the generic sense), usually
Chicano.
2^There are many variations on these fonts. Figure 4.3, for example utilizes a
triangle top, but a circle bottom for B (which 1 call Round font).
155
sometimes employed (forced) to w rite these stylized g ra ffiti on behalf
of gangs.
............. .
IK ;
Figure 4.22 Big Hazard graffito written in Block font, Los Angeies,
Caiifornia.
Figure 4.23 Big Hazard graffito written in Old English font, Los
Angeies, Caiifornia.
Punctuation
Another additional element gang members use in th e ir g ra ffiti is
the exclam ation point. When using exclam ation points, gang members
typically w rite them at an angle of about 45-60 degrees from the top
rig h t to the bottom left of the w ritin g surface (Figures 4.16 and 4.24).
These exclam ation points also m ight employ Xs rather than periods at
the base of the point (Figure 4.25). Exclam ation points are m ost often
w ritte n w ith the gang name alone and not in th e ir plaças— though they
do end up in plaças as well from tim e to tim e (also Figure 4.25). The
message the exclam ation point is m eant to convey is that the gang is
156
the best. Such punctuation is synonymous w ith the message, “We’re
num ber one!” w hich is another common element in gang-nam e-only
graffiti, w ritte n m erely as i (Figure 4.24) or # i (Figure 4.25) or 1st
(Figure 4.26) or #ONE (Figure 4.27).
Figure 4.24 Varrio Big Hazard Is Number One graffito, Los
Angeies, Caiifornia.
Figure 4.25 Graffito by Cucuy, Los Angeies, Caiifornia.
Figure 4.26 Graffito by Jokester, BH1st, Los Angeies, Caiifornia.
Titles
In gang graffiti, there are certain features th a t are not regularly
employed, and when they are, they appear to give the graffiti a more
form al frame. An example of such features is the use of t it le s . G a n g
members use articles as titles w ith th e ir gang names— only Spanish
articles, el and la (Figure 4.17) were observed in th is research— as well
^^One could include such things as block or Old English lettering and non
abbreviation as formalizing features.
157
as Mr. (Figure 4.17), Sir (Figure 4.7) and Ese [Dude] (Figure 4.27).
Hence, the gang m ember by the name of Demon also has the variant El
Demon (or Mr. Demon or Ese Demon) available to him ; Popeye, Sir
Popeye; Cisco, E l Cisco, etc.^^
Figure 4.27 Graffito by Ese Monstri'oi, Including Termitel, Varrio
Big Hazard Rifa, Los Angeles, California ( e n h a n c e d ) . 3 2
Cases in w hich the articles are used are the less typical graffiti.
The examples above of m em orial and love proclam ation graffiti (Figure
4.11 and 4.17, respectively) are less common, more m arked forms.
They are more unusual and emotional cases than the ordinary placa in
the center of the barrio and call for a more form al fram ing--as a doctor
m ight use his title in a more form al situation [cf. Finegan & Biber
1994).
Additional Messages
There is generally no lim it to the num ber of messages th a t a
gang m ember could include in his graffiti (w ithin the bounds of the
functions described above). Two extremely common messages th a t
bear discussion are Qué? (Figure 4.17) and R ija/R ifam os (Figures
4.22 and 4.27)
^^The English titles Sir and Mr. were most often observed with gang member
names in formal gang graffiti, but no female titles in English were observed, only the
Spanish article La.
^^Note that the number 1 is spelled out, ONE.
158
The expression Qué? basically means “And w hat are you going
to do about it? ” (literally And what?]. lY Que? is a challenge to
another gang. It is most com m only used in graffiti th a t is outside of
the barrio boundaries, the m ajority of w hich are gang-name-only, b u t is
found w ith in the neighborhood as well. Another sim ila r term used is
Con Sqfos m eaning same to you or “anything you do to this, twice to
you” (Vigil 1988:116). Con Safos serves the same purpose as ^Y Qué?
R i/a --th ird person singular--(and E i/a m o s-first person plural)
means rules (or we rule] or is the best (or we are the best). This also
is used more in gang-name-only graffiti, b u t also finds itse lf in nearly
all gang g raffiti forms. Controlla (Spanish for controls) is another
message equivalent to Rifa. Viva is also used and im plies sim ila r
meanings to rifa and #1.
These additional messages generally convey the a u th o r’s pride in
his neighborhood and come in the form of a challenge to others to
prove o th e rw is e .A s w ith all gang graffiti, they are born out of gang
society. In gang society, the greatest goal is to be respected, and to be
respected, one m ust stand up for his neighborhood and his position in
it.
5 Summary
In this chapter, aspects of Chicano gang social structure and
Chicano gang graffiti are described. The prim ary source of these data
is the Big Hazard (Hazard Grande) gang from the Ramona Gardens
33rhese messages also have abbreviated forms such as R for rifa and C/S for Con
Safos.
159
housing p ro je ct in E ast Los Angeles, a low incom e housing p ro je ct
u n d e r the Los Angeles H ousing A u th o rity .
Besides com ing from low incom e fa m ilie s, C hicano gang
m em bers are p rim a rily m ales o f M exican decent— b u t in clu d e
e th n ic itie s fro m th ro u g h o u t the S panish speaking Am ericas. The gang
m em bers have m a rg in a l m ainstream ties in a m u ltitu d e o f c u ltu ra l
areas, in c lu d in g such th in g s as education and fu n c tio n a l fa m ily life
(V igil 1988). A ctive gang m em bers range from adolescents to young
m en, fro m nin e years to the m id 20s.
Gang m em bers classify them selves in to three basic categories:
wannabes are young gang in itia te s ; gang members (or gangsters-
th o u g h gangsters can refer to tru e m obsters) are active gang m em bers;
and veteranos are re tire d gang m em bers - - th ough the label can m erely
in d ica te an older gang m em ber as w ell. N on-gang m em bers w ho
s u p p o rt the gang are said to “back u p ” or be “dow n fo r” the
neighborhood, th o u g h there is no special n o u n to represent such
people.
F or gang m em bers, respect is the num b e r one value. Gang
m em bers ju s tify n o to rio u s acts as ways o f e ith e r g e ttin g respect or
responding to a la ck thereof.
C hicano gangs are made up o f sm aller u n its o f m em bers called
cliques o r klikas (u su a lly about 5 to 25 people) o f ro u g h ly the same
age. Though one can change clique m em bership by going th ro u g h a
leaving [jum ping out) a n d /o r jo in in g [jumping in) rite , w h ich u s u a lly
involves a severe beating, clique m em bership is s in g u la r a t any given
tim e and life -lo n g fo r com m itted m em bers. The cliques fu n c tio n
160
som ew hat in dependently in term s o f the d a ily in s and outs o f gang
liv in g , b u t cliques take d ire ctio n from veteran cliques.
C lique nam es are w ritte n in the p lu ra l and often, th o u g h n o t
necessarily, begin w ith an adjective such as tin y or little. T his is
la rg e ly because clique nam es are re g u la rly chosen by the fo u n d in g
m em bers before th e y are teenagers.
W ith the exception o f gang m em bers 40 years or older a t the
tim e o f th is research, m ost gang m em bers have gang nam es separate
fro m th e ir given b irth nam es. The m ost com m on gang nam es denote
some a ttrib u te o f the gang m em ber’s physical appearance or
p e rso n a lity.
In gang g ra ffiti--a n d n o t a ll gang m em bers w rite g ra ffiti— three
basic elem ents tend to dom inate. In a ll gang g ra ffiti is the gang nam e-
-otherw ise it is n o t gang g ra ffiti. The other tw o com m on elem ents are
the clique nam e and the nam e o f the gang m em ber doing the w ritin g .
C lique and gang nam es are often abbreviated. The com bination o f a ll
three o f these elem ents is called a plaça, m eaning plaque or badge.
The plaça is an id e n tific a tio n m a rk /s ig n a tu re o f a gang m e m b e r . ^4
A gang m em ber can va ry elem ents o f his g ra ffiti— adding a v a rie ty
o f d iffe re n t elem ents a ls o --in d iffe re n t contexts fo r d iffe re n t social
fu n ctio n s. A com m on a p p lica tio n o f gang g ra ffiti is its use b y wannabes
pledging th e ir allegiance to the gang. In the H azard gang, wannabes
w rite e ith e r the gang nam e or the gang name w ith the clique nam e
Plaça/placaso/plaquiaso are also used to indicate gang writing, whether it be
graffiti or tattooing, pictures or letters.
161
R am ona G ardens (RG) to dem onstrate th e ir new com m itm ent to the
gang.
A n o th e r com m on use o f g ra ffiti is the roster, w h ich is a lis t o f a ll
o f the m em bers o f a clique. A v a ria tio n o f the ro ll-c a ll is a g ra ffito
w h ic h in clu d e s tw o or m ore gang m em bers, b u t n o t a ll o f the clique
m em bers. The liste d hom eboys do n o t necessarily a ll come from the
same clique in g ra ffiti o f th is k in d . These are generally g ra ffiti o f the
com m em orative type used to rem em ber some occasion th a t the
m em bers shared.
Gang m em bers also have bou n d ary g ra ffiti. These use arrow s to
in d ica te w here the gang te rrito ry stands. One could also argue th a t
the sheer predom inance o f g ra ffiti from a specific gang are b o u n d a ry
in d ic a to rs [cf.. C hapter 5).
C ross-outs are also com m on g ra ffiti-w ritin g form s. C ross-outs
have a va rie ty o f fu n ctio n s depending on specific co n te xtua l features.
The m eanings generally depend upon (1) w here the g ra ffiti is found,
w ith in the cro ssin g -o u t gang m em ber’s neighborhood, o utside o f it, or
in a riv a l’s, and (2) who is crossed o u t and w ho is added, a gang nam e,
a clique nam e, or a gang m em ber’s.
Gang m em bers also use g ra ffiti to publicize other in te n tio n s .
They p a in t g ra ffiti to m em orialize fa lle n com rades, to advertise drugs
fo r sale, and to proclaim th e ir devotion to a loved one. In these less
ty p ic a l form s, there m ay be a d d itio n a l features, such as the d e fin ite
a rtic le , th a t can m a rk the g ra ffiti as form al. These m ore fo rm a l
features can be used in the other fu n ctio n s described above as w ell.
162
In gang g ra ffiti there are features used th a t n o t o n ly index the
fu n c tio n o f the g ra ffiti, b u t also th a t d is tin g u is h them from other
g ra ffiti registers. Gang m em bers use a va rie ty o f d ia c ritic s and
p u n c tu a tio n th a t are n o t in s titu tio n a liz e d conventions in the g ra ffiti
registers o f oth e r cu ltu re s. The m ost obvious feature o f C hicano gang
g ra ffiti is the type o f fo n t used, o f w h ich C hicano gang m em bers have
m ore th a n 12 to select from .
D espite the va rie ty o f uses gang g ra ffiti serve, a ll re fle ct the
p rid e a gang m em ber feels fo r h is neighborhood. The w ritin g o f h is
gang’s nam e and h is own personal gang name illu s tra te s the devotion
he holds fo r h is surrogate or second fam ily, h is gang.
163
CHAPTER FIVE
1 Literacy and Contextualization
T h is stu d y arose o u t o f m y tu to rin g a num b e r o f veteran gang
m em bers having a great va rie ty o f lite ra c y s k ills in the Ram ona
G ardens H ousing Project. W hat s tirre d m y in te re s t in the gang g ra ffiti
around the project was the a b ility o f a couple o f veterans to read gang
g ra ffiti despite having little to no basic phonics s k ills . These gang
m em bers could read and w rite g ra ffiti in w h a t was fo r them a
fu n c tio n a l w ay w h ile th e y could n o t decipher o th e r k in d s o f te xts from
o th e r discourses 1 in an adequately m eaningful way. It was apparent to
me th a t in the eyes o f the m ainstream , these veterans w o u ld be
considered illite ra te , ye t in the eyes o f gang m em bers, th e y were
to ta lly lite ra te — and, m oreover, I was not.
, A fa irly co n siste n t tenet o f a w ide range o f researchers o f the la s t
tw o decades on the su b je ct o f lite ra c y is th a t lite ra c y is a c u ltu ra lly
re le va n t a b ility (Gee 1992, F reire & Macedo 1987, F reire 1988,
S crib n e r 1988, S m ith 1988, de Cas te ll et al. 1986, H eath 1983,
S treet 1984, etc.). M ost w ould agree w ith de Cas te ll and Lu ke ’s
p o s itio n th a t “being ‘lite ra te ’ has alw ays referred to havin g m astery
over th e processes b y m eans o f w h ich c u ltu ra lly s ig n ific a n t in fo rm a tio n
is coded ” (1988:159). F u rth e rm o re , the processes o f a cq u irin g
lite ra c y and any psychological benefits o f lite ra c y are tie d to the social
practice s in w h ich the p a rtic u la r lite ra c y is em bedded (S cribner &
^These individuals had difficulty understanding a variety of texts such as a
California driving manual prepared by the Department of Motor Vehicles--which they
needed to understand in order to take a written driving test— newspapers, and children’s
stories. They even encountered difficulties reading transcribed gang member
narratives.
164
Cole 1988). Literacy, then, depends upon the c u ltu ra l e n viron m e n t in
w h ic h it is being em ployed, and th u s , lite ra c y in one c u ltu re is n o t
necessarily lite ra c y in another.
S treet (1984), am ong others, has developed a stro n g argum ent
fo r lite ra c y paradigm s w h ic h consider c u ltu ra l know ledge and
practices. He d istin g u ish e s betw een ideological m odels o f lite ra c y and
autonomous m odels. In general, autonom ous m odels view lite ra c y as
decontextualized s k ills devoid o f any c u ltu ra l u n d e rp in n in g s, except
th a t o f th e basic w ritin g : le tte r-to -s o u n d correspondences, phonem ic
ru le s, p u n c tu a tio n rules, etc. S treet argues th a t autonom ous m odels
are in c o rre c t because there are no neutral lite ra cie s: lite ra cie s are
em bedded w ith in th e ideological s tru c tu re s and social p ractice s o f the
c u ltu re in question, and S treet dem onstrates th is b y exam ining the
a ssum ptions o f researchers adhering to autonom ous m odels and
u n ve ilin g th e ir own c u ltu ra l presu p p o sitio n s and biases. T h e ir own
biases a b o u t w h a t counts as lite ra c y and any benefits th a t come from
lite ra c y illu s tra te th e a rb itra rin e s s o f w h a t is considered lite ra c y in
th e ir own p a rtic u la r cu ltu re s, w h e th e r it be such th in g s as th e use o f
decontextualized language, the use of a s c ie n tific m ethod o f th o u g h t,
o r te ch n o lo gica l advancem ent.
In lin e w ith the ideological m odels. Gee describes lite ra c y as a
k in d o f social id e n tity or group m em bership “in vo lvin g w ays o f ta lk in g ,
acting, in te ra c tin g , va lu in g , and believing, as w e ll as the spaces and
m a te ria l ‘props’ the group uses to ca rry o u t its social
p ra ctice s...[in te g ra tin g ] w ords, acts, values, beliefs, a ttitu d e s , social
id e n titie s , as w e ll as gestures, glances, body positio n s, and clothes ”
165
(1992:107). Gee calls these id e n titie s Discourses, and the re s u lt o f
a cq u irin g a new (non-prim ary) D iscourse is lite ra cy. Lite ra cy is a type
o f group m em bership in th a t a lite ra te person know s how to be a
ce rta in kind o f person [e.g., a linguist, a bird-watcher, a policeman,
etc.).
Literacy, then, can be th o u g h t o f as closely related to the
concept o f register. As w ith registers, lite ra c y is related to the roles
being played and the language used (among o th e r sym bolic system s) in
ce rta in social s itu a tio n s . To be able to operate w ith in a re giste r is to
be lite ra te in th a t register, w hatever it m ig h t be: policeman talk,
personal advertisements, motherese, Chicano gang graffiti, etc.
If lite ra c y involves the m anner in w h ic h c u ltu ra l in fo rm a tio n is
encoded, th e n there are a t le a st tw o ways o f approaching lite ra c y th a t
can be d istin g u ish e d . One k in d o f lite ra c y — w h ic h is d iffe re n tia te d in
th is section w ith the convention o f OMtltaed le tte rs — involves being
able to pass as a m em ber o f a p a rtic u la r social group (Gee 1992). A
tagger is literate if the tagging w o rld accepts h im as a tagger; h is
tagging literacy involves p a in tin g g ra ffiti— fo r one ca n n o t be a tagger
w ith o u t a c tu a lly tagging. In order to tag, one m u s t dem onstrate a
p a rtic u la r set o f values (ideology) w h ich allow s fo r p a in tin g on p u b lic
spaces o r p riva te p ro p e rty n o t belonging to the p a in te r and h is
associates. The literate tagger passes as being a tagger.
The o th e r k in d o f lite ra c y — he n ce forth dem arcated w ith n o rm a l
[Bookman fo n t) low er-case le tte rs — is the k in d o f lite ra c y th is
researcher has and th is docum ent em bodies. It is th e a b ility to
u n d e rsta n d the perspective o f the m em bers o f o th e r in s titu tio n s in
16 6
th e ir decoding and encoding o f “c u ltu ra lly s ig n ific a n t in fo rm a tio n .’’
B u t it does not necessarily involve doing the a ctu a l encoding. The
a n th ro p o lo g ist doing ethnographic w o rk is g a in in g lite ra c y . He is
le a rn in g the perspectives o f a cu ltu re , b u t it is u s u a lly done by
observation, n o t b y p a rtic ip a tio n as a m em ber.
D espite having a fa irly good und e rsta n d in g o f tagging c u ltu re and
C hicano gang c u ltu re , I do n o t p a rticip a te in e ith e r o f those discourses
because o f differences in m y values and the values o f taggers and gang
m em bers. I w o u ld n o t w rite on p u b lic spaces in the w ay th a t taggers
do; n o r w ould I p a rticip a te in m ost o f the n o to rio u s a ctivitie s o f gang
m em bers. I am n o t tagging or gang lite ra te , b u t 1 have sought tagging
and gang lite ra c y in order to u nderstand th e ir ways o f being in the
w o rld . In oth e r w ords, I have investigated th e ir ideologies fo r the
purpose o f enlightenm ent, b u t I have n o t adopted them fo r roles to
p la y o r personal id e n titie s .
In considering the pow er o f ideology and social practice in
reading and w ritin g , one realizes th a t, as S treet suggests, there is v e iy
little to an autonom ous lite ra c y w h ich one can re ly upon fo r m aking
the rig h t in te rp re ta tio n s a bout the in te n tio n s be h in d te x t p ro d u ctio n
because such in te n tio n s are too in tim a te ly tie d to the h is to ry , ideology,
a rb itra ry conventions, social practice (knowledge dom ains), etc. o f the
discourse in question. The p ro d u ctio n and con su m p tio n o f g ra ffiti
represents lite ra cie s (in th a t there are d iffe re n t g ra ffiti registers)
re q u irin g c u ltu ra lly specific knowledge dom ains (knowledge about
tag g in g /g a n g social practice, h isto ry, and ideology in a d d itio n to the
coding system ). W hat is m ore, the knowledge dom ains, the social
167
p ractices, and th e ideologies o f taggers and gang m em bers are v a s tly
d iffe re n t fro m those o f m ost m em bers o f m ainstream society. T h is
socia l know ledge, fu rth e rm o re , is needed to enable
in te rlo c u to rs /re a d e rs to p ro p e rly contextualize. C o n te xtu a liza tio n
involves b o th ta k in g a lin g u is tic te x t and fittin g it in to a discourse and
fittin g it in to its environ m e n t in order th a t the te x t can be in te rp re te d
c o rre c tly .
M uch o f the in fo rm a tio n presented in th is paper is m eant to
serve in the co n te xtu a liza tio n o f g ra ffiti in s ta n tia tio n s in to specific
discourse acts o f tagging g ra ffiti o r C hicano gang g ra ffiti. F or exam ple,
in order to evaluate a tagging g ra ffito co rre ctly (£.e., in te rp re t i t in lin e
w ith the intention(s) o f th e g ra ffito generator), it m u s t be
contextualized in term s of, am ong o th e r th in g s, a ttrib u te s o f the
su rro u n d in g p h ysical spaces^— th is , because taggers value o r are
co nstrained b y ce rta in aspects o f p h ysica l spaces. The te x t increases
in value if it is a t the top o f a w a ll ra th e r th a n a t the bottom , near a
d riv in g lane ra th e r th a n a protected shoulder, in an open space ra th e r
th a n be h in d a hedge, etc. The g ra ffito , fu rth e rm o re , could be
d istin g u ish e d fro m o th e r g ra ffiti form s b y these co n te xtu a lizin g
features.
In u n iso n w ith external features, a te x t is contextualized b y its
in te rn a l (content) features. As an allophone m ig h t be used to ind e x
c e rta in k in d s o f m eanings in speech, a le tte rin g style m ig h t be used to
convey a v a rie ty o f m eanings in g ra ffiti. Even in sta n d a rd form s today.
^Among other things, physical spaces do not only concern location on a wall,
but what kind of wall— as opposed to another canvas entirely— and where in a city the
wall is located.
168
graphem ic styles can ca rry shades o f m eaning. For exam ple, the use o f
elaborately stylized le tte rs (m uch like the Old English fo n t C hicano
gang m em bers use) in the beginning o f a te x t can in d ica te th a t the
prose, a tte m p tin g to appear lik e some M iddle E n g lish te xt, is a s to ry —
perhaps a c h ild re n ’s sto ry— in w h ich there are elem ents o f m ake-
believe; som etim es m agazine a rticle s use a stylized firs t le tte r a t the
b e ginning o f a paragraph to in d ica te a new section. G ra ffiti le tte rin g
(fonts) contextualizes a g ra ffito as gang w ritin g or tagging or a nother
re g iste r e n tire ly. In the tagging discourse, the le tte rin g style can
in d ica te a t least three k in d s o f possible discourse acts (piecing,
bom bing, o r tagging) am ong o th e r possible acts o f the discourse.
In te rn a l and external conventional features are c ritic a l to
co n te xtu a lizin g , especially across registers w h ic h share features, as do
tagging and gang w ritin g . A ll features o f a g ra ffiti register can serve a
conventional fu n ctio n , even the vocabulary. As A tkin so n states.
W ritte n discourse conventions a t the le xica l level m ay serve
va rio us functio n s...T e ch n ica l vocabulary item s can be th o u g h t o f
as classic coordination-problem so lu tio n s, in th a t they
co n ve n tio n a lly s ig n ify concepts v ita l to e fficie n t co m m unication
w ith in specific discourse co m m u n itie s. (1991:68)
In gang w ritin g , the le xica l choice of varrio, in a d d itio n to graphem ic
and o th e r d ia c ritic features, serves several fu n ctio n s. It is an in d e xica l
key w h ich fram es the te x t as a gang g ra ffito . It also meets
com m unicative needs o f C hicano gang m em bers to, am ong o th e r
th in g s, express th e ir allegiances to a la rg er com m unity, in d ica te a
gang nam e, locate and provide gang boundaries, etc. G ra ffiti features
can o n ly be contextualized p ro p e rly b y reference to the b e lie f system s
169
and practices o f the c u ltu re s th a t produce such conventions, fo r th e y
are so lu tio n s to c u ltu re specific co o rd in a tio n problem s.
2 Ideology and Social Practice
Taggers and C hicano gang m em bers have created d is tin c t g ra ffiti
codes th a t re fle c t differences and s im ila ritie s in the tw o groups.
D ifferences in the g ra ffiti p rod u cts o f each group re s u lt fro m d iffe re n t
beliefs and p ractices o f the m em bers. These differences also
d is tin g u is h th e w o rk o f those m em bers in the co n te xt o f s im ila r
p ractices. R egarding those differences, the tw o groups are divided
along a n u m b e r o f co n tin u a , and th u s, th e ir conventions vary, from the
lo ca tio n s in w h ic h th e y w rite to the fo n ts th e y use. The differences
are so a p parent to w rite rs th a t it seems th a t there is a deliberate
a tte m p t to create g ra ffiti th a t are n o t lik e th a t o f the o th e r g ra ffiti-
w ritin g groups.
B o th taggers and gang m em bers profess to have ideologies q u ite
d is tin c t fro m one a n o th er’s. T h is is seen in th e ir view s o f them selves:
the tagger sees h im s e lf as an a rtis t and the gang m em ber sees h im s e lf
as a w a rrio r. M em bers o f b o th groups fre q u e n tly suggest a distaste fo r
o r a la c k o f u n d e rsta n d in g o f the behavior o f m em bers o f the other
group. The firs t w ords o u t o f m any taggers interview ed fo r th is stu d y
w ere “I’m n o t a gang m em ber.” Taggers often do n o t see them selves
as crim in a ls;^ n o r do th e y see them selves as v io le n t, a tra it w h ich is
^Despite the fact that they do not consider themselves as gang members or
criminals, gangs are defined as youth groups that commit crimes (Los Angeles County
Sheriffs Department 1990) and tagging is considered a crime which is punished by
fines, community service and even incarceration.
170
a ttrib u te d to gang m em bers w ith frequency. O n the o th e r hand, gang
m em bers are often baffled b y the m o tivatio n s w h ich drive taggers to
do the th in g s th e y do. As JG stated about w ritin g g ra ffiti in the tw o
discourses,
[In gang g ra ffiti,] the gang name is the m ost
im p o rta n t because th e y know w h a t neighborhood yo u ’re
from . See, it don’t re a lly m a tte r w h a t clique yo u ’re from ,
b u t th a t you’re from a gang. So the gang nam e is w h a t
counts. I f you don’t got the gang name, w h y p u t the clique.
Taggers Just p u t th e ir nam e. It w ould be odd fo r you
to see someone p u t th e ir name w ith no gang.
Taggers ju s t lik e to w rite on the w a lls. I t don’t m ake
no sense. J u s t p u ttin g y o u r nam e and n o th in g else, ju s t
y o u r nam e, y o u r nam e, y o u r nam e. 1 guess th e y ju s t w a n t
to be know n. 1 don’t u n d e rsta n d it either.
The values o f taggers and gang m em bers g re a tly d iffe r. They see
th e w o rld and landscape in q u ite divergent ways. H aving d iffe re n t
w o rld view s and values, th e y have d is tin c t ways o f being in th e w o rld ;
th e y deviate fro m one a n o th er in th e ir social practices, o n ly one o f
w h ic h is th e ir g ra ffiti w ritln g — w h ich in tu rn breaks dow n in to m any
w ritin g practices. D ifferences and s im ila ritie s in th e ir specific g ra ffiti
w ritin g and o th e r practices re fle ct these va rio u s w ays in w h ic h th e y
see the w o rld and are exam ples o f how th e ir respective w o rld s
separate and collide.
Register Justification
In th is research, taggers were ro u tin e ly asked w h y th e y w rote
g ra ffiti, a question w h ich was m eant to uncover the values and beliefs
w h ic h drove the practice . The tw o m ost com m on re p lie s were e ith e r
“I d o n ’t kn o w ,” o r “I t ’s freedom o f expression.” The fir s t response
uncovers the extent to w h ic h g ra ffiti w ritin g is an unquestioned ritu a l.
171
The w rite rs had no conscious exp la n a tio n fo r th e ir actions^ w hen
questioned b y an outsid e r. The second appeals to the assum ed values
o f the in te rro g a to r: th a t a ll A m ericans have free speech rig h ts . Yet
n e ith e r answ er satisfies the query. The problem is th a t w ritin g on
p u b lic spaces is a value o f tagging ideology, and taggers, therefore,
operating w ith in th e ir discourse, do n o t ask such questions. W hen
asked w ith in the discourse b y o th e r taggers, the question has m ore to
do w ith choices the tagger made in h is g ra ffiti p ro d u ctio n ra th e r th a n
a ju s tific a tio n fo r the e n tire practice.®
W hen gang m em bers were asked w h y th e y w rote g ra ffiti, there
were tw o o r three ty p ic a l replies. “I don’t know ; we ju s t do it , ” as A V
responded, was fa irly com m on. As w ith taggers, fo r m any gang
m em bers, q u e stio n in g w h y one w o u ld w rite g ra ffiti is n o t an o rd in a ry
th o u g h t; th e problem does n o t arise in the d a ily social practices th a t
gang m em bers pa rta ke in . Also s im ila r to tagging c u ltu re , the ritu a l
seems to be so basic o r obvious to m ost gang m em bers th a t th e y are
unable to e xp la in th e m o tiva tio n fo r doing it.
O ther explanations gang m em bers give are sum m arized b y
G ru m p y’s “ It’s o u rs ,” and “It says w ho we a re.” These responses
underscore th e ideology th ro u g h w h ich gang m em bers produce and
read g ra ffiti. To gang m em bers, gang w ritin g is n o t a b o u t defacing the
^Gee (1992) argues that cultural models (especially primary ones) are thought of
as “ordinary” or “ normal” (unquestioned) and are therefore inexplicable except on the
basis of ideology. Ideology and cultural models are the arbitrary relationships of
elements of the world to a culture.
®The answer w ithin the discourse of tagging is different from the above two
prototypical responses given to outsiders. It is when two taggers are discussing the
merits, purposes, etc. of their painting practices that they expose values which motivate
their action. The values suggest the world views shared within their group.
172
p ro p e rty o f others. Instead, it is m aking p ro p e rty re fle ct, in th e ir
view p o in t, th e real ow ners. F urtherm ore, gang social practices
re g u la rly involve asserting s e lf w ith regard to one’s p o s itio n w ith in the
la rg e r com m unity. W ritin g g ra ffiti (and th is p rim a rily refers to the
plaças found th ro u g h o u t a gang te rrito ry ) is a m eans to th a t end, and
one w o u ld need to adopt an ideology th a t is n o t in lin e w ith th a t o f the
gang in order to question such a practice.
Eam.e. and Respect
Taggers and gang m em bers generally seek s im ila r ye t d iffe re n t
p rim a ry goals: respectively, fam e and respect. These tw o values are
q u ite s im ila r in th a t n o to rie ty, o r fame, can be the same fo r a gang
m em ber as respect--r.e., gang m em bers feel in m ost cases th a t fame
e n ta ils respect. Taggers and gang m em bers w a n t to be know n w id e ly
b y o th e r m em bers o f th e ir social groups. As a re s u lt, taggers perfect
th e ir c ra ft o r p a in t p ro fu se ly o r do both . Gang m em bers, on the oth e r
hand, often take p a rt in c rim in a l acts such as ta k in g drugs, stealing, or
fig h tin g in order to gain n o to rie ty — g ra ffiti w ritin g is ty p ic a lly a m eans
fo r g a in in g respect fo r m ore Ju n io r m em bers. In the m a jo rity o f cases,
fam e and respect are a t the same end o f a n u m b e r o f d iffe re n t
c o n tin u a w h ic h are used in d e te rm in in g prestige in the tagging and
C hicano gang w orlds.
Bravery
B o th taggers and gang m em bers achieve n o to rie ty b y p ra ctic in g
d is tin c t acts o f brave ry (H u n t 1993). The m ore b rave ry each act
requ ire s, the m ore prestige a ttrib u te d to the actor. However, the
k in d s o f brave acts m em bers o f each group value and pe rfo rm vary.
173
E a rlie r it was noted th a t taggers claim to rack (steal) the p a in t th e y
use in th e ir g ra ffiti exploits. R acking ce rta in ly involves ris k , and th u s
bravery, ye t taggers do n o t a ttrib u te fame to p ro lific rackers. A gang
m em ber, on the oth e r hand, w o u ld achieve n o to rie ty from b u rg la ry
such as p a in t racking.
The bravery th a t counts fo r a tagger is o n ly th a t w h ich relates to
h is g ra ffiti w ritin g . Taggers achieve fam e w hen tagging the heavens,
w hen tagging operating buses, w hen tagging freew ay d ivid e rs, w hen
tagging p ro lific a lly , etc., a ll from the bravery in h e re n t in such g ra ffiti
p ro d u c tio n .G Gang m em bers w ho w rite fo llo w in g the above practices
also gain some n o to rie ty fro m the acts, b u t such acts are ra re ly
perform ed. For exam ple, in the tw o years I traveled to Ram ona
G ardens to tu to r and in te rvie w gang m em bers d u rin g th is study, only
once (early in the study) was the Soto S treet off-ram p o f the in te rsta te
10 freew ay— less th a n a m ile from Ram ona G ardens--m arked by a
H azard gang m em ber.^ R egarding the g ra ffiti, responses such as TO’s
“Is n ’t th a t cool?” were com m onplace. The w rite r o f the g ra ffito was
praised fo r h is brave w o rk. B u t gang m em bers were m ore ta ke n b y the
th o u g h t o f having an off-ram p fo r th e ir gang th a n by the p a rtic u la r
a ctio n ta ke n b y a p a rtic u la r associate. The p ro d u ct was appreciated
b u t the producer was n o t praised in any e xtra o rd in a ry way. In o ther
w ords, th is k in d o f g ra ffiti-w ritin g bravery is n o t h ig h ly respected by
^Castleman (1982) describes a tagger who gained fame for his prolific writing on
high-priced automobiles. Though his painting style lacked artistic m erit, he still
garnished prestige by the frequent number of hits he regularly made on salient targets.
^Note that a freeway off-ramp sign is high, near the freeway, and visible,
making it a dangerous target.
174
gang m em bers. The act was never repeated d u rin g the tw o years o f
study.
Group Memberships
A tagger can be a m em ber o f any num b e r o f crews. M em bership
in m u ltip le crews benefits a tagger because the m ore crews a tagger
belongs to, the m ore p o te n tia l fo r achieving fam e fo r th a t in d iv id u a l.
Piecers also can be m em bers o f num erous crews, b u t it appears th a t
piecers are less lik e ly to be m em bers o f m u ltip le crews, p o ssib ly
because o f th e prestige th a t comes w ith m em bership in one fam ous
pie cin g crew o r because th e y tend to need few er associations in th e ir
h ig h p o sitio n s in tagging society.®
The d u a l o r m u ltip le associations o f taggers in m ore th a n one
crew m ystifie s gang m em bers m ore th a n a n yth in g else about tagging
society. M em bership in m ore th a n one gang is inconceivable or
c o n tra d ic to ry to a gang m em ber. Because lo y a lty to the gang is one o f
the greatest d eterm iners o f w h e th e r one is w o rth y o f respect, it
baffles gang m em bers th a t taggers are able to s p lit such lo ya ltie s. W hat
gang m em bers often do n o t realize is th a t the association w ith the
crew is n o t analogous to a gang m em ber's w ith h is clique o r gang.
Taggers are accepted in to crews if th e y can w rite /p a in t w e ll, n o t if
th e y can w ith s ta n d a h a rsh beating. The tagger's association is n o t
n e a rly so sin g u la r, profound, o r severe.
Gang m em bers also are confused b y the m u ltip le m em berships
o f taggers because there is a n im o sity between m ost gangs. They fa ll to
realize th a t coexisting h a rm o n io u sly is the ru le and n o t th e exception
®Piecers are usually the older, more practiced members of tagging culture.
175
o f m ost tagging crews.® Tagging crews do n o t have te rrito rie s in
co n te n tion . W hen taggers w rite on w a lls, th e y generally do n o t cross
o u t o th e r g ra ffiti, and th e y do n o t w rite on to p o f someone else's
w ritin g (see F igure 3.2 o f C hapter 3). G enerally, there is no reason to
“have a beef' as CA p u ts it, w ith oth e r taggers and piecers. W rite rs
m eet new w rite rs from d iffe re n t crews a ll o f th e tim e a t piecing lots,
abandoned ru in s a t w h ich one can p a in t w ith o u t fear o f capture, and a t
p a in tin g p arties, w h ich u s u a lly take place in vacant w arehouses where
taggers can also p a in t freely. These m eetings are ra re ly antagonistic.
I f a n yth in g , a tagger hopes to m eet a fam ous w rite r fro m another crew
so th a t he can get th a t w rite r to w rite in h is piece book. C onversely,
w hen gang m em bers m eet m em bers o f o th e r gangs, a fig h t is a logical
p o s s ib ility fo r it is lik e ly th a t there is a score to be settled between the
tw o gangs som ewhere in th e ir h isto rie s and th e ir extensive fa m ily
n e tw o rks.
Landscape and Spaces
In C hapter 3, it was discussed th a t m any New Y o rk g ra ffitis ts
used to w rite th e ir addresses (street num bers) on th e ir tags d u rin g
the e a rly 1970s. The practice does n o t appear to have ever begun in
Los Angeles. It is n o t clear w h y th e practice began in New Y ork C ity in
th e firs t place, o r w h y it d id n o t in Los Angeles. One p o s s ib ility is th a t
b y th e tim e tagging spread to Los Angeles, New Y o rk w rite rs had
already stopped th is p ractice because o f an increase o f city-w id e
g ra ffiti w ritin g and a corresponding e ffo rt b y la w enforcem ent to stop
it, m a kin g stre e t addresses a wise feature to drop fo r taggers n o t
®This, unfortunately, appears to be changing with the advent of tag-banging.
176
w a n tin g to be arrested. Yet, a m ore in te re s tin g reason taggers do n o t
c u rre n tly address th e ir tags is th a t reference to a tagger's hom e or
neighborhood is n o t s ig n ific a n t in th e w o rld view o f th e tagger— th o u g h
it m ay have been in th e e a rly 1970s w hen th e p ractice was in place. It
is the tagger’s in d iv id u a l tagging id e n tity and the fam e o f h is crew th a t
is m ost im p o rta n t, n o t th e la rg e r neighborhood fro m w h ic h the w rite r
comes. T h is is in sharp co n tra st to the discourse act o f g ra ffiti w ritin g
fo r a C hicano gang m em ber w ho sees the reference to th e co m m u n ity
fro m w h ich he comes as a fu n d a m e n ta l rite o f a ll gang m em bers.
T h e fa ct th a t varrio m eans b o th gang and neighborhood is
suggestive o f how gang m em bers are fu n d a m e n ta lly attached to the
regions o f a c ity fro m w h ic h th e y come. The n o tio n o f
neighborhood/varrio n o t o n ly ind ica te s the sm a lle r society o f people
w ith w hom a person lives, b u t the p h ysical elem ents and boundaries
o u t o f w h ic h it is c o n s titu te d ; neighborhoods are re ifie d b y p h ysica l
boundaries, and th u s , th e gang te rrito ry is a v is u a l re pre se n ta tion o f
the gang. Hence, there is a m b ig u ity in u sin g the w ord neighborhood,
because it m eans b o th the gang and th e s u rro u n d in g p h ysica l space.
Because gang m em bers see the neighborhoods a rou n d them as
extensions o f them selves as gang m em bers, there is n o t a re al
difference between the gang and th e la n d around them . The
neighborhood, b o th gang and streets, is the object o f a gang m em ber's
devotion, and sta n d in g u p fo r it is the m ost im p o rta n t feat to
pe rfo rm .!®
!®It is curious that gang members feel such a strong need to “ protect the
neighborhood” when “ the neighborhood” is typically not a hotly contested piece of real
estate, especially in the eyes of the mainstream.
177
Gang g ra ffiti reflects the fa c t th a t the la n d is deeply tie d to a
gang m em ber’s id e n tity . In a sense, plaças are the addresses o f gang
m em bers th a t s itu a te them w ith in th e U n ite d States. B y w ritin g 13 or
sur, a gang m em ber is id e n tify in g h im s e lf as fro m S outhern C a lifo rn ia .
B y adding th e nam e o f h is v a rrio — w h ic h is o b lig a to ry— he is in d ic a tin g
w h ich neighborhood in S outhern C a lifo rn ia he is from . The clique and
m o n ike r place h im in h is p o sitio n w ith in the gang. I t w o u ld n o t be too
d iffic u lt fo r a lite ra te gang m em ber to fin d a nother gang m em ber in
th e U n ite d States if given a com plete plaça as a resource.
Taggers, on the oth e r hand, view a ll neighborhoods as a m ass o f
connected canvas(es) on w h ich th e y could p o ssib ly p a in t. T h is is n o t
to say th a t th e y do n o t und e rsta n d th e concept o f a gang
neighborhood: th e y are fu lly aware o f th e dangers in h e re n t in e n te rin g
a b a rrio . B u t as w ith th e ir views regarding a ll p u b lic and p riva te lands,
it is n o t th e ow nership o f the properties th a t is a t issue, b u t the
p o te n tia l fo r m a rkin g them . A nam e and p a in tin g style are th in g s th a t
a person owns and m u s t fig h t (fig u ra tive ly fo r the m ost pa rt) to
p rote ct, n o t the canvas on w h ich th a t nam e is w ritte n ; it is also the
tro u b le th a t a person m u st go to to w rite (elegantly) h is nam e on a
given canvas th a t is o f value.
W hen e valuating a landscape, a tagger looks a t w here danger
spots are. A tagger considers such th in g s as w here he can w rite safely
aw ay from gangs b u t a t a p h ysica l ris k , or w here he can w rite
elaborately, o r w here h is w o rk w ill be seen the m ost. W rite rs — such as
the renow ned C haka— lo o k a t the environm ent as an enorm ous canvas
in w h ich th e y can achieve fam e b y m a rk in g it th ro u g h o u t. The extent
178
to w h ich the landscape can be w ritte n upon, fro m d is ta n t extrem es
(from one end to the o th e r such as fro m San Diego to San Francisco)
to the d e ta il w ith w h ic h th e y cover a specific area, are considerations
taggers take in to account w hen sizing u p the p a in tin g environm ent.
The w orld view o f the tagger en ta ils a tagging specific w ay o f observing
the ph ysica l environm ent. O n m any occasions, 1 have id e n tifie d
taggers on the streets, n o t b y the k in d o f c lo th in g th e y wore, b u t b y
n o tic in g the m anner in w h ic h th e y read the environm ent. W hen 1
observed enough young m en reading g ra ffiti on w a lls, lo o kin g
re sp e c tfu lly a t w e ll-w ritte n w orks, and lo n g in g ly eyeing p o te n tia l
targets, it became a fa irly s tra ig h tfo rw a rd problem to id e n tify a tagger.
Though there are occasions w hen taggers b a ttle over w ho is k in g
o f tagging in a p a rtic u la r area, taggers generally do n o t see the
landscape in term s o f so cio -p o litica l boundaries. T h is is n o t so fo r
gang m em bers. T h is fa ct was never m ore apparent th a n on the few
occasions w hen 1 to o k gang m em bers fro m B ig H azard on errands
around and east o f dow ntow n Los Angeles. These gang m em bers knew
th a t th e y were outside o f th e ir neighborhood and could n o t afford to
relax. They co n sta n tly gazed around them selves fo r any danger sign o f
th re a t. They did n o t re la x u n til back in to the fa m ilia r te rrito ry o f
Ram ona G ardens. The p h ysical space around them is governed by
so cio -p o litica l pow ers b a sica lly u n kn o w n to the m ainstream . ! !
Seeing the landscape in such d iffe re n t w ays, it is no w onder th a t
taggers and gang m em bers do n o t fu lly u n d e rsta n d each o th e r and
! ! lt is surprising to find how little most regular gang members have traveled
outside of their neighborhoods. Two young adult regular gang members interviewed in
this study had never been outside of Los Angeles county.
179
have v e iy d iffe re n t p a in tin g practices. The m a jo rity o f gang g ra ffiti
occurs in gang neighborhoods. C onsequently, the p u b lic o u tc iy about
gang g ra ffiti p u b licize d in newspapers generally comes fro m ow ners o f
business establishm ents in gang areas— w ho lik e ly do n o t live in those
com m u n itie s. The co m p la in ts rendered ag a in st taggers come fro m a ll
com ers o f the p u b lic , fo r the e n tire p u b lic landscape is, p o te n tia lly , a
tagging target.
Location?
Gangs have specific g ra ffiti to m a rk gang boundaries (C hapter 4,
F igure 4.8-10) These specific g ra ffiti serve a co m m unicative fu n c tio n
o f the gangs th a t is n o t a logical need o f taggers based on th e ir
practice s and w o rld v i e w s .!2 Taggers, fu rth e rm o re , do n o t have
special b o u n d a ry m a rkin g g ra ffiti because th e y have no la n d to claim .
B u t there is a sense in w h ich tagging g ra ffiti, lik e gang g ra ffiti, m a rk a
tagging crew 's te rrito ry . P art o f the appeal o f crew m em bership is
th a t it offers a n e tw o rk o f frie n d s fo r a tagger to spend tim e w ith . A ny
place w here crew m em bers spend a lo t o f tim e together is called a
kick-back. As one w o u ld expect, the area s u rro u n d in g a kic k -b a c k
receives an in o rd in a te a m ount o f g ra ffiti, sim p ly because so m any
w rite rs spend so m uch tim e in th a t p a rtic u la r place. A ccordingly, the
dense g ra ffiti m arks an area as a tagging hangout. Taggers do n o t view
th e k ic k -b a c k as gang m em bers do th e ir gang neighborhoods; th e y do
n o t feel any devotion to p ro te ctin g the la n d and its people. I t is
sim p ly one o f m any possible places w here th e y spend tim e. The
!2The gang boundary graffiti utilize straight arrows. Taggers use arrows in their
graffiti as well, but the two forms look nothing alike. Tagging arrows are never
straight, but are curvy or angled (wild style) instead (Figure 3.8)
180
excessive g ra ffiti around it m arks it as a kick-b a ck, b u t no special
k ic k -b a c k -in d ic a tin g g ra ffiti are used.
Piecers also spend tim e a t places away fro m the p u b lic eye called
piecing lots. A piecing lo t is a vacant lo t th a t offers rem ains o f
b u ild in g s o r w a lls b ig enough to do pieces. The piecing lo t is a n o th er
p ie cin g (tagging) h a n g o ut w h ich piecers (taggers) v is it in o rde r to
p ractice th e ir p a in tin g , m eet o th e r piecers, look a t and evaluate (and
le a m from ) the w o rk o f o th e r piecers, o r s im p ly socialize w ith others
in the p ie cin g /ta g g in g discourse.!® Piecing lots, lik e o th e r k ic k backs,
are n o t te rrito rie s protected as gang neighborhoods are.
Ownership
T hough gang m em bers are ty p ic a lly n o t p ro p e rty ow ners, there
is a sense in w h ich th e y ow n th e ir neighborhoods. Taggers and
piecers do n o t own la n d , b u t do have claim s to ce rta in styles and
w ords and le tte r strin g s. There is also a sense in w h ic h th e y
te m p o ra rily ow n the w ritin g th e y produce. T h e ir g ra ffiti are n o t
supposed to be w ritte n upon unless th e y are outdated or some
s u p e rio r w o rk w ill cover them .
C astlem an (1982) re po rts a fa scin a tin g in c id e n t in vo lvin g the
pe rception o f ow nership in the piecing discourse. A crew o f g ra ffiti
a rtis ts were caught p a in tin g a piece on a tra in in New Y o rk C ity. One
o f the young apprentice w rite rs could n o t believe th a t he was being
arrested w ith the others because he was n o t the p rin c ip a l a u th o r o f
the piece. R ather, he was Ju st “fillin g in ” the background shades o f
th e le tte rin g .
!®Vacant warehouses offer the same conveniences as piecing lots.
181
T h is exam ple illu s tra te s the pow er o f the tagger's ideology in h is
p e rce p tio n vs. th a t o f the m ainstream citize n w ith regard to the
apprentice's w ritin g acts. P a in tin g on a tra in w ith o u t the a u th o rity o f
some tra n s it o ffic ia l is g ra ffiti w ritin g and va n d a lism to the
m a instream . To th e apprentice, however, th is k in d o f p a in tin g does
n o t co u n t: th e piece belongs to h is m entor; h is m e nto r achieves the
fam e in the w ritin g ; h is assistance counts fo r little m ore th a n the
o rd in a ry (m undane) practices im p lic it in an a p p re n tice sh ip w ith a
piecer. H is in te rp re ta tio n o f h is e n tire w ritin g practice, b o th the
p ro d u c tio n (in c lu d in g the roles being played and the elem ents th a t are
painted) and co n su m p tio n (how the piece is evaluated), is affected b y
the c u ltu re th ro u g h w h ich he view s it.
Perseveration
Because o f the d iffe re n t p rim a ry goals o f taggers and gang
m em bers, it is understandable th a t th e y have d iffe re n t g ra ffiti-w ritin g
practices. F or exam ple, th o u g h b o th taggers and gang m em bers
perseverate (repeat g ra ffiti), th e ir perseveration varies in co n te xt and,
in d iffe re n t s itu a tio n s , content. Tagging perseveration happens on
n e a rly a ll g ra ffiti canvases because the perseveration is to advance the
fam e o f the w rite r. The m ore v is ib le he is, the m ore know n he is.
A n o th e r com m on fo rm o f tagging perseveration is done on and a b o u t
freeways (C hapter 3, Figures 3.1 and 3.3). T h is perseveration is
com m only— th o u g h n o t necessarily— crew nam es alone and
dem onstrates bravery.
Gang perseveration happens in d iffe re n t contexts. W annabes are
kn o w n to perseverate around the center o f the gang to dem onstrate
182
th e ir gang lo ya ltie s. T h is g ra ffiti can be gang-nam e-only g ra ffiti, or in
th e case o f the Hazards, could in clu d e plaças fro m th e Ram ona
G ardens clique. A ro u n d gang borders a t w h ich the g ra ffiti o f other
gangs are u s u a lly found, gang-nam e-only g ra ffiti is often perseverated
(Figure 4.9 o f C hapter Four). Gang m em bers also perseverate cross-
outs w hen th e y enter in to another gang's te rrito ry and th e gang nam e
o f the in tru d in g gang m em ber m ay also be perseverated. R egular gang
m em bers, however, w o u ld n o t perseverate th e ir ow n plaças m erely to
advance th e ir ow n nam es fo r personal re cog n itio n .
Cross-cuts
W hen crossing o u t th e w o rk o f a nother in tagging society, o n ly
one stro ke th ro u g h the tag or piece is a ll th a t is necessary to ru in its
s ty lis tic effect, despite th e fa ct th a t it is s till legible. C onsequently,
taggers cross o u t w ith a s o lita ry lin e (C hapter 3, F igure 3.24). A gang
m em ber m ay also do a cro ss-o u t w ith a single lin e . Single lin e cross
cu ts are com m on in the cases in w h ich a gang m em ber has invaded a
riv a l gang's te rrito ry and the gang m em ber needs to w o rk q u ickly. In
F igure 4.17, fo r exam ple, and in va d in g gang. W est V a rrio Grape Street,
crossed o u t o n ly th e B H o f Solo’s love p roclam a tio n . Nonetheless, the
ty p ic a l gang cro ss-o u t is done w ith m ore th a n one lin e (Figure 5.1). It
is n o t a question o f a rtis tic style th a t is being violated w ith a gang
cross-o u t, b u t th e person h im s e lf is being disrespected o r threatened
and h is gang is being discounted; he is being rem oved fro m the area
w here h is g ra ffiti are found. I f a gang m em ber is crossing o u t a gang
nam e, he w o u ld ra th e r it be com pletely erased th a n s im p ly scarred.
183
m
:
Figure 5.1 West Side 18th Street cross out, Los Angeles,
California.
T hough the practice o f leaving unsigned cross-outs is com m on
am ong b o th taggers and gang m em bers, th e ir m o tiva tio n s fo r doing
these com m on g ra ffiti form s are q u ite d iffe re n t. In the case o f
taggers, the m ost fre q u e n t cro ss-o u t is done to the g ra ffiti Judged to
be a rtis tic a lly inadequate, toy g ra ffiti. These cross-outs are unsigned.
The com m on anonym ous gang cross-out, however, is n o t done on
a rtis tic grounds b u t m erely on the g ra ffito ’s presence. Gang w rite rs
ro u tin e ly cross o u t the g ra ffiti o f other gangs Just because th e y are
there and th e y do n o t represent th e ir gangs.
C u rio u sly, gang m em bers do n o t cross o u t tags and taggers do
n o t cross o u t plaças. Though gang m em bers alm ost u n iv e rs a lly d islike
tagging, th e y do n o t feel threatened b y tags in th e ir neighborhoods.
However, if th e y were to catch taggers tagging in th e ir neighborhoods,
it is ve ry lik e ly th e y w o u ld p u n is h those taggers fo r d isrespecting th e ir
spaces.
Because taggers are re a lly p la yin g a d iffe re n t game w ith very
s im ila r lin g u is tic and n o n -lin g u is tic resources (the crossing o u t o f a
nam e), th e y do n o t cross o u t gang w ritin g . They generally do n o t see
them selves as v io le n t in d iv id u a ls and w ould n o t w a n t any v io le n t
184
co n fro n ta tio n s w ith gang m em bers. Even w hen a tagger signs a cross-
o u t o f a n o th e r tagger's g ra ffito , th o u g h he is offending th e g ra ffito 's
a u th o r, the in s u lt is n o n -vio le n t. Instead o f the oth e r's p h ysica l w e ll
being being threatened, it is h is nam e or style th a t is u s u a lly in
Jeopardy. Gang m em bers, on the o th e r hand, im p ly a p h ysica l th re a t
w hen th e y p e rso n a lly sign crossed-out g ra ffiti. Hence, signed g ra ffiti
are m ore severe personal in s u lts in the co n tin u u m o f offenses in b o th
tagging and gang life , b u t they are backed up by d iffe re n t m eans.
A n o th e r reason taggers do n o t cross o u t gang g ra ffiti is th a t they
do n o t evaluate them a rtis tic a lly — and a cross-out is a fo rm o f
evaluation. They know th a t such g ra ffiti belong to a d iffe re n t code
w ith a d iffe re n t value system fro m w h ic h to Judge th e ir m e rit.
Language Usage
A som ew hat obvious difference between C hicano gang g ra ffiti,
tagging and g ra ffiti fro m o th e r non-S panish speaking e th n ic gangs is
th a t, w ith the exception o f s u r,!4 C hicano gang m em bers use S panish
in th e ir g ra ffiti and others do n o t. In the H azard gang, gang m em bers
can w rite th e ir g ra ffiti in e ith e r S panish o r E n g lish o r a m ix tu re o f
b o th languages because the gang has recognized nam es in b o th
languages: Big Hazard, Peligro Grande, o r Hazard Grande. Code
m ix in g is com m on because m any gang nam es are a blend o f S panish
and E n g lish , such as Varrio Eighteenth Street^^ and Los Harpy s.
!4Non-Chicano gangs from throughout Southern California use sur or J3 to
indicate a Southern California base, but the practice is not done with great frequency.
!®Note that Varrio Eighteenth Street retains Spanish word order, for its English
counterpart is Eighteenth Street Gang and, furthermore, it is not called Eighteenth
Street Varrio.
185
C hicano gang m em bers ty p ic a lly have m astery o f b o th S panish
and E n g lish , o r Calo, a C hicano E ng lish d ia le ct th a t blends S panish
and E n g lish (P okinhom et a l 1983, Puentes & Lopez 1974, and c./.,
Baquedano-Lopez 1995). Plaças (u su a lly stylized form s) re g u la rly m ix
th e title s E l Ese, Sir, or M r. in fro n t o f gang m em ber nam es. M any
C hicano g ra ffiti requ ire basic Spanish lite ra c y — th o u g h gang m em bers
cou ld sig h t read o r w hole-w ord read these fo rm s— fo r it is n o t
uncom m on to fin d S panish le tte rs p honem ically spelled out. In Figure
5.2, m em bers o f th e Santa M onica Seventeenth S treet Gang have
w ritte n the in itia ls o f Santa M onica in S panish as Ese Eme, the
S panish w ords fo r the le tte rs S and M. C hicano gang m em bers can
fo llo w th is p ra ctice w ith o th e r elem ents o f th e ir g ra ffiti as w e ll, such
as u sin g Ere, the S panish w ord fo r the le tte r R, to represent Rifa.
: :
Figure 5.2 Santa Monica gang graffito by the Hooterz ciique
abbreviated in speiied-out Spanish, Santa Monica, Caiifornia.
^®Many gang members claim that they do not speak Spanish. When they are
pressed as to why they make this claim, it is usually because their parents or
grandparents do not think they speak well enough to claim mastery of the language—
often due to a lack of vocabulary.
186
Writing Letter Names of Abbreviations
The above practice separates C hicano gang g ra ffiti fro m o th e r
k in d s o f g ra ffiti, n o t o n ly in th a t Spanish w ords are used, b u t th a t the
nam es o f le tte rs are w ritte n o u t. Tagging crew nam es are le tte r
strin g s th a t are spelled o u t w hen read, one le tte r nam e a t a tim e. T his
is done because th e s trin g o f le tte r nam es, re a d /w ritte n consecutively,
is the crew nam e ra th e r th a n the s trin g ’s being an a b b re via tio n o f a
longer nam e. However, in tagging, the le tte rs are never spelled o u t
p h o n e m ica lly.
W ith gang nam es, on the oth e r hand, the abbre via tio n s represent
longer gang nam es w h ich are the a ctu a l gang nam es. B H in H azard
g ra ffiti represents th e gang Big Hazard. Yet gang m em bers fro m
Ram ona G ardens do n o t claim to be m em bers o f the B H gang, b u t
ra th e r, the Big H azard gang. However, m em bers o f the H azards could
w rite th e ir gang as be ache— th o u g h th is has n o t been observed— the
a b b re via tio n o f the gang w ritte n , in Spanish, as the le tte r nam es. T h is
practice is n o t done in E nglish. Santa M onica gang m em bers, fo r
exam ple, do n o t w rite ess em fo r the abbreviation o f th e gang.
Register Specific Gontextualization
W hen reading tagging g ra ffiti, in a d d itio n to the m in d set o f the
tagger w ith w h ich to contextualize it, there are some o th e r
co n te xtu a lizin g features w h ich have n o t been described to th is p o in t.
A tagging g ra ffito fre q u e n tly m u s t be contextualized w ith the g ra ffiti
around it. As already m entioned, a perseverated g ra ffito is n o t
necessarily looked a t as an in d iv id u a l g ra ffito b u t is valued fo r the
n u m b e r o f tim es it is repeated (the gestalt) and the b rave ry th a t th a t
187
re flects. Some g ra ffiti, however, are n o t s u ffic ie n tly d isce rn ib le except
b y co n te xtu a l features w h ich reside elsewhere in the te x tu a l
landscape.
As taggers cover a landscape w ith th e ir w ritin g , th e y often va ry
th e te xts th a t th e y produce. One tagger described h is firs t encounter
w ith g ra ffiti w ritte n as BAT. The tagger d id n o t kn o w if he were
enco u n te rin g a new crew, o r a new tagger because o f the a m b ig u ity o f
BAT.
There was a BAT dow n there; th e y sta rte d bom bing a ll
a round w ith no nam es. BAT, BAT, everywhere. A nd th e y
were like , ‘W hat is th a t? BAT, is th a t a hood? A g uy w ho
was w ritin g BAT, Bat? O r is it a crew? W hat is it? ’ We
d id n 't know cause it was h ard. Then we saw, th e y d id th is
piece on the street, on th is p a rk in g lo t, BA T w ith a ll the
nam es on it, a ro ll-c a ll, th e y ca ll it ro ll-c a ll. So, oh th a t's a
crew dude.
He had to s tu d y the e n tire su rro u n d in g s fo r clues as to how to decode
BAT. W ith a w ide sam pling o f the v a ria tio n in the la rg er p h ysica l site,
a tagger becomes m ore com petent a t reading the g ra ffiti landscape
because im p o rta n t co n te xtu a liza tio n clues can reside on separate
g ra ffiti.
As w ith tagging, it is often necessary to contextualize C hicano
gang g ra ffiti w ith o th e r C hicano gang g ra ffiti. In C hicano gang g ra ffiti,
m u ch abb re via tio n is used. T hus, w hen one is n o t fa m ilia r w ith
a bbre via tio n s used, one m u s t scan the p rin te d e nvironm ent to fin d
o th e r g ra ffiti th a t perhaps spell o u t the abbreviated form s. Then one
17in tagging practice, taggers constantly read the entire surroundings. Taggers
are not only interested in examining other writers work (as well as their own); they also
know where the most likely places are to find graffiti. A common way taggers identify
each other as taggers is by observing others reading the landscape.
188
can le a m w h ich gangs o r cliques the abbreviations refer to. Figures
5.3 and 5.4, fo r exam ple, refer to the same gang, the Easyriders.
Figure 5.3 Easyriders gang center graffito, Los Angeles,
Caiifornia.
Figure 5.4 Easyriders long form graffito, Los Angeles, California
(enhanced).
W ith o u t oth e r g ra ffiti from w h ich to contextualize, gang
m em bers can m ake co rre ct inferences based on o th e r co n te xtu a l
features. T h is researcher, fo r exam ple, has been able to decipher gang
nam e abbreviations w ith o u t the help o f o th e r g ra ffiti or gang m em bers.
The firs t tim e I discovered a large CxC g ra ffito in a Circle fo n t n e xt to
the C ulver C ity H ousing Project (see F igure 5.5), it was n o t very
d iffic u lt to guess w h a t the abbreviation stood fo r (i.e.. Culver Ciiy).
C hicano gang m em bers contextualize gang nam e abbreviations based
on th e ir know ledge o f the su rro u n d in g area and its gangs.
189
Figure 5.5 Cuiver City Gang boundary marker graffito, Cuiver City,
Caiifornia.
W ith C hicano clique abbreviations, C hicano gang m em bers
fre q u e n tly contextualize based on the kin d s o f cliq u e nam es w ith
w h ich th e y are already fa m ilia r. Because cliques are fre q u e n tly
preceded by adjectives such as little o r tiny, gang m em bers can re a d ily
p re d ic t w h a t abbreviations such as lil stand fo r [Le., little). The noun
p a rt o f th e clique nam e is open, b u t nam es are borrow ed re g u la rly
across gangs. W hen in te rvie w in g GZ, I tw ice gave h im w h a t were to
me novel abbreviations to see w h a t k in d o f clique nam es he w ould
come up w ith to a nonsensical (again to me) le tte r s trin g . B o th tim es,
GZ produced possible clique nam es th a t he was fa m ilia r w ith th a t were
possible.
3 Graffiti Contents
Because conventions o f each g ra ffiti re g iste r serve to in d ica te
specific fu n ctio n s (sub-registers) o f the g ra ffiti a t th e same tim e as
in d e xin g the p a rtic u la r g ra ffiti code (register), s trik in g differences
e xist in the contents o f tagging and gang g ra ffiti.
190
Required Elements: Names
B o th C hicano gang g ra ffiti and tagging have elem ents necessary
to m ake them re g is tra lly correct, i.e., in -lin e w ith th e conventions o f
the C hicano gang g ra ffiti and tagging registers. Gang g ra ffiti m u st
m ake reference to a p a rtic u la r gang or they are n o t gang g ra ffiti.
M erely in d ic a tin g a gang m em ber’s nam e o r clique nam e alone is
inadequate. For a ll B ig H azard g ra ffiti, BH — or an acceptable v a ria n t
such as non-abbreviated form s lik e Hazard Grande, Peligro Grande,
and H a za rd — w ill appear som ewhere on each g ra ffito . Gang m em bers
cla im th a t w ritin g one’s nam e w ith o u t one’s gang’s nam e is v irtu a lly
inconceivable: it w o u ld n o t m ake sense to w rite on the w a ll w ith o u t
m a kin g reference to the gang; it w ould be tagging. A ll o f the fu n c tio n s
th a t g ra ffiti serve gang m em bers revolve around gang m em bership; in
a ll cases o f gang w ritin g , allegiance to th e gang is an elem ent. T h a t is
to say, o f the possible com m unicative/expressive acts served b y gang
g ra ffiti, one is always the expression o f gang allegiance.
Taggers, on the o th e r hand, m ay or m ay n o t w rite th e nam e o f
th e ir crews. They can w rite th e ir nam e alone or a crew nam e alone,
depending on th e k in d o f g ra ffiti w ritin g th e y are doing— and
depending on th e context o f w h a t th e y have already w ritte n as w e ll as
o th e r possible c o n stra in ts such as the ch a ra cte ristics o f the p a rtic u la r
canvas th a t th e y are h ittin g . The issue o f allegiance to a la rg e r group is
n o t a problem needing re s o lu tio n in every g ra ffiti-w ritin g a ct o f a
tagger o r piecer. It is the w rite r’s in d iv id u a l tagging id e n tity and
^®Besldes, a gang member who left out the gang’s name would be reproached for
his mistake, that is, if such a mistake were ever to happen.
191
p o ssib ly the fam e o f h is crew th a t is im p o rta n t, n o t the la rg er
neighborhood fro m w h ic h he comes. However, despite the fa ct th a t a
tagger can w rite e ith e r h is tag and crew nam e alone, or b o th together,
he m u s t w rite a t le a st one o f them . A g ra ffito w ith o u t a tagger’s nam e
and w ith o u t a crew nam e is n o t tagging. F u rth e rm o re , the tagger and
crew nam es m u st have tagging ch a ra cte ristics such as those described
in C hapter 3.^®
C u rio u sly, some o f the same nicknam es are possible fo r b o th
taggers and gang m em bers [e.g., SPECKLES), b u t th is is u n u s u a l based
on the c o n tra s tin g ch a ra cte ristics o f tagging and gang nam es detailed
in C hapters 3 and 4. Perhaps the tra it in w h ich th e y are m ost
s trik in g ly d iffe re n t is the use o f a b stra ct nouns or verbs b y taggers.
N icknam es such as FEAR, DENY, and, PROTECT are tagging n a m e s .
B o th tagging and gang nam es in clu d e those th a t end w ith -ER.
Taggers, however, use -ER a fte r stem s w h ic h do n o t n o rm a lly take-E R
in sta n d a rd E n g lish . Exam ples in clu d e DREXER, ONER, and
ORIGINALER. These nam es use stem s th a t are tagging nam es o r are
im p o rta n t tagging concepts. Gang m em bers also use -ER a fte r w ords
representing concepts valued b y the gang, such as BOX, b u t these are
ty p ic a lly verbal stem s w h ich are used in lik e m anner in standard
E ng lish .
l^For example, the graffito JOHN would not be tagging because it is not a
tagging-like name (such as XPRESS or CUTZ\.
2®It is not completely clear why abstract nouns and verbs are used as
nicknames, but it is hypothesized that the terms are more salient for the emotional
response which could be evoked by such concepts as fear, deny, and protest
192
Van6 K
In C hapter 4, it was stated th a t the use o f V fo r varrio is a
schem a enabling key fo r the C hicano gang g ra ffiti register. C hicano
gangs re g u la rly precede the nam es o f th e ir gangs w ith V, especially if
the m em bers are w ritin g outside o f th e ir neighborhoods in areas
w here a sim ple abbre via tio n o f the nam e o f the gang (eg., BH) w ould
n o t be recognizable. In a m a jo rity o f g ra ffiti, gang nam es and crew
nam es are w ritte n and read as le tte r s trin g s— w h ic h are abbreviations
fo r gang nam es; th e y are n o t read as acronym s. A sim ple BH, la ckin g a
V, could be m istaken fo r a crew name.
Taggers ve ry seldom choose crew nam es th a t begin w ith V
because o f the gang association. Figure 3.13 in C hapter 3, fo r exam ple,
shows a three le tte r s trin g th a t appears to begin w ith V. However, it
is m ore lik e ly th a t the s trin g begins w ith U --taggers and piecers
develop styles th a t are n o t re a d ily decodable. The in itia l le tte r o f the
b o tto m s trin g o f F igure 3.13, however, even if it is a V, ca n n o t stand
fo r varrio because the le tte rs are w ritte n in bu b b le style. The g ra ffito
is a throw -up, a q u ic k ly w ritte n o u tlin e form o f w ritin g in the
ta g g in g /p ie cin g discourse, and, therefore, ca n n o t be gang w ritin g .
To k ill and be king m eans to do w ell in tagging society, and
consequently, taggers use the le tte r K, the firs t le tte r o f b o th w ords,
w ith above average frequency. K is used to the p o in t th a t it could be
construed as a schem a enabling cue o f tagging. There are, however,
m any crews and m any taggers th a t do n o t have Ks in th e ir names.
These w rite rs m ay never w rite the le tte r K d u rin g th e ir e n tire tagging
association because it is n o t re q u ire d — ju s t as gang m em bers are n o t
193
re q u ire d to in c lu d e V in th e ir g ra ffiti. K, nonetheless, is s till a sa lie n t
feature o f tagging. 21
Messages
B o th taggers and gang m em bers w rite messages in a d d itio n to
th e ir nam es and la rg er groups in th e ir g ra ffiti, b u t n e ith e r group does
th is very often. In the case o f gang m em bers, the a d d itio n o f prose in
the g ra ffiti m a rks (form alizes) those g ra ffiti. Gang g ra ffiti ra re ly have
a d d itio n a l messages, and w hen th e y do, it is u s u a lly in th e co n te xt of
less ty p ic a l g ra ffiti such as the memorials (C hapter 4, F igure 4.11),
love proclam ations (C hapter 4, Figure 4.17), and specific threats.
Piecers w rite messages in th e ir g ra ffiti w ith the greatest
re g u la rity . T h e ir messages, as w ith the re st o f th e ir g ra ffiti, are u s u a lly
novel (m a xim a lly m arked). Piecing fam e comes fro m style and n o t
abundance m a kin g the novelness o f the messages and o th e r aspects
s a lie n t fe a tu re s.22
A great difference between the tw o registers w ith regard to the
messages is th a t S panish is n o t used in the messages o f piecers. It is
possible to use Spanish tagging nam es, such as BUENO. B u t because
crew nam es are le tte r strin g s and are n o t abbreviations o f w ords o r
w ord strin g s, th e y are n o t considered to be Spanish, or E n g lish
necessarily. B o th S panish and E ng lish u tiliz e n e a rly id e n tic a l scrip ts,
so th e language choice in crew nam es is n o t discernible. S panish is
2lThis research does not examine the graffiti of African-American gangs. It
should be noted, however, that the Bloods, rivals of the Crips, avoid the letter C -
because they do not want to be associated with the Crips— using the letter K in its place.
K, devoid of other indexing features, can also indicate Blood graffiti.
^'^Bombers are piecers who specialize in abundance.
194
n o t suspected in crew nam es because the S panish-only le tte r, N, has
n o t been observed in any crew nam es; besides, the S panish le tte rs CH
and LL w o u ld n o t be d istin g u ish a b le as n o n -E n g lish le tte rs if S panish
w ere being used.
Numbers
Gang g ra ffiti varies and m ixes a t least tw o d iffe re n t scrip ts
available fo r representing num erals: A rabic and Roman. The XV3 of
F igure 4.9 o f C hapter 4 indexes a gang (or gang m em ber), and m ost
lik e ly a C hicano gang m e m b e r . 23 Taggers m ig h t also use Rom an
n um erals a fte r a n a m e . 24 DREXER TV w ould suggest a tagger (because
o f the name) w ho is the fo u rth in a lin e o f DREXERs or has sim p ly
chosen the n u m b e r fo u r as a p a rt o f h is n a m e -o r the le tte rs I and V
fo r th a t m a tte r. T his, however, w ould be extrem ely rare because
taggers avoid Rom an num erals in general because o f the gang in d e xin g
p o te n tia l.
Taggers, on the oth e r hand m ay va ry and m ix th e ir n u m e ric
scrip t, n o t b y u sin g Rom an num erals, b u t by em phasizing p a in tin g
style. To in d ica te style in p a in tin g num bers, a tagger m ig h t produce
th e n u m b e r 8— w h ich is w ritte n by the E ighteenth S treet Gang as 8,
V3, and VIII— in the p ic tu re fo rm o f a b illia rd s 8 - b a l l . 25 Though it is
m ost com m on fo r a tagger to create h is own d is tin c t (novel) style o f
23chicano gangs regularly mix Roman and Arabic numerals. African-
American gangs do this as well, albeit less frequently. For example, members of a crip
gang located around 83rd Street of South Central Los Angeles refer to themselves as
Eight-Trey Crips, with Trey being Latinate form for Third.
24Flgure 4.7, as was noted, is an unusual exception.
2^He might also use his own personal font in which the 8 has its own particular
appearance characteristic of that tagger's style.
195
A ra b ic num erals, the 8 -b a ll is an acceptable v a ria tio n to represent the
num b e r 8.26
B o th taggers and gang m em bers use the n u m b e r 187 in th e ir
w ritin g (Figure 5.6). Though th e y use the same form , th e expression
o f 187 has a d iffe re n t com m unicative in te n tio n along a co n tin u u m o f
threatening fo r b o th discourses. W hen taggers use 187, th e y are
in d ic a tin g th a t th e y have a c o n flic t w ith another tagger o r crew. A
gang m em ber, on the oth e r hand in te n d s the fu ll m eaning o f the
section o f the penal code th a t 187 represents: he in te n d s to k ill the
a u th o r o f the g ra ffito so m arked.
Figure 5.6 Component graffito Indicating 187, subsequently
crossed out by a rival gang member, Los Angeles, California.
Though b o th taggers and gang m em bers u tiliz e num bers in th e ir
w ritin g , a tagger very ra re ly uses only a num ber as h is tag.27 Gang
m em bers whose gangs can be w ritte n as num bers such as i 8 fo r the
Eighteenth Street Gang w rite n u m b e r o n ly g ra ffiti w hen th e y are
w ritin g gang-nam e-only g ra ffiti.2 ®
26raggers might also paint an 8-ball to represent 0 based on the round quality
of the 8-ball.
27xhe use of numbers in tagging to represent individuals and tagging groups
appears to be on the rise, though it is still much more common for gang members to use
numbers for the names of gangs (but not individual names), including African-
American gangs such as the Rolling 60s Crips who write their graffiti frequently as 60s.
2®Many gang names are tied to street names, including Crip and Blood (African-
American) gangs. In Los Angeles, as in any larger city, numerous streets are designated
by ordinal numbers.
196
Gang m em bers also use the nu m b e r 13 w ith re g u la rity to
in d ica te th a t th e ir gangs are fro m S outhern C a lifo rn ia [cf.. C hapter 4).
Taggers generally avoid u sin g the nu m b e r 13 in th e ir w ritin g because
o f th e stro n g gang association.
Punctuation
Taggers and gang m em bers u tiliz e p u n ctu a tio n in th e ir g ra ffiti.
The d iffe re n tia l use o f th e p u n c tu a tio n m akes it som ew hat in d e xica l,
b u t there are m any s im ila r uses o f d iffe re n t p u n c tu a tio n m arks. For
exam ple, b o th taggers and gang m em bers use b u lle ts and apostrophes
in a lik e m anner. Apostrophes and b u lle ts are u s u a lly used to separate
d iffe re n t item s o f a g ra ffito (Figure 5.7, gang g ra ffiti). They are also
used to separate le tte rs in abbreviations, though th is tends to be m ore
o f a gang g ra ffiti phenom enon [e.g.. C hapter Four, Figure 4.16).
iiilT" ~
Figure 5.7 Gang graffito using apostrophe to separate names, Los
Angeles, California.
Gang m em bers separate le tte rs in abbreviations w ith o th e r
p u n c tu a tio n m arks as w ell. A large X is a com m on le tte r separator,
and som etim es an a ste risk— ra re ly used in tagging— is used. On one
occasion, I w itnessed the use o f q u o ta tio n m arks to separate le tte rs.
F igure 5.3, b u t in general, q u o ta tio n m arks are u tiliz e d in
ta g g in g /p ie c in g practice only. Taggers and piecers often use q u o ta tio n
1 9 7
m arks arou n d w hole nam es: in d iv id u a l taggers (Figure 3.20) or crews.
T h is was also observed once in gang g ra ffiti, b u t the g ra ffito was a
h ig h ly u n u s u a l m em orial piece. C hapter 4, Figure 4.11, discussed in
the n e x t section.
E xclam ation p o in ts can be used in b o th tagging and gang w ritin g
and, consequently, are n o t alw ays d istin g u ish a b le across practices; in
general, however, taggers tend to use sta n d a rd E n g lish v e rtic a l
exclam ation p o in ts whereas gang m em bers tend to w rite them a t
ab o u t a 45° angle (C hapter 4, Figures 4.16 and 4.24).29
The fu n c tio n o f the exclam ation p o in t is s lig h tly d iffe re n t in the
m in d s o f taggers and gang m em bers. Though b o th groups appear to be
u sin g exclam ation p o in ts as an assertion o f pride, taggers appear to be
a tte m p tin g to m ake th e ir w o rk m ore sa lie n t. Gang m em bers, on the
o th e r hand, appear to be challenging o th e r gangs in th e ir claim s o f
being the best. F urtherm ore, taggers tend to use exclam ation p o in ts
fo r th e ir in d iv id u a l nam es (self) and gang m em bers fo r th e ir gangs
(group).
O ccasionally, gang m em bers use the p u n c tu a tio n m a rk dash
(hyphen) w h ic h is often placed arou n d the single le tte r R, sta n d in g fo r
rifa [the best], or around 13, or S panish sur, representing Southern
C alifornia [te ., -R--, --13-, a n d --sur-- re sp e ctive ly). Taggers ve ry
ra re ly use dashes, b u t th e y do fre q u e n tly use a d d itio n a l lin e s in th e ir
tags, lik e the waves in Jo h n H ancock's signature, to add style to th e ir
w ritin g .
29cang members can also dot exclamation points— and I and V as well— with Xs
(rather than periods. Figure 4.25); taggers do this also, but it is much less often.
198
C hicano gangs also use a slash (/) in th e ir g ra ffiti. T his
p u n c tu a tio n m a rk is used alm ost exclusively w ith the le tte rs C and S,
th a t is, C /S , m eaning Con Sqfos or Same To You. Taggers do n o t use
th is p u n ctu a tio n .
Symbols
There are also a va rie ty o f a d d itio n a l sym bols or d ia c ritic s
w h ic h are used d iffe re n tia lly in tagging and gang w ritin g . The
co p yrig h t sym bol, ©, described in C hapter 3, F igure 3.15 is used
exclu sive ly in tagging; th e d ia c ritic w ritte n u n d e r th e V, fo r varrio,
described in C hapter 4, Figure 4.3 is used solely in gang w ritin g . It
sho u ld be noted th a t th is d ia c ritic m a rk is occasionally used—
som etim es placed on its side— as a p u n c tu a tio n m a rk and n o t a
d ia c ritic . Figure 5.8; the p u n c tu a tio n m a rk it em ulates is a dash (see
above).
Figure 5.8 Condors clique roster with R surrounded by
punctuation marks, Los Angeles, California.
A n o th e r elem ent w id e ly used in piecing g ra ffiti is the character.
C haracters are n o n -lin g u is tic p ictu re s th a t piecers add on th e sides o f
th e ir crew nam es or personal (piecing) nam es. C haracters are used in
piecing alone, and fo r a tagger to a tte m p t to draw a character is to
a tte m p t to be a piecer.
Gang m em bers alm ost never draw characters in th e ir g ra ffiti.
On the rare occasions th a t th e y do, the characters are, in general, n o t
199
novel (i.e., outside a defined set o f com m only used n o n -le tte r figures).
F or exam ple, a few gangs have characters th a t represent th e nam es o f
th e ir gangs. These em blem s are draw n the same n e a rly every tim e —
and piecers ra re ly repeat the exact same chara cte r p ic tu re s.
B o th gang m em bers and taggers use the sym bol #, follow ed by 1.
As w ith the exclam ation p o in t, # i as an assertion o f prid e m a kin g
tagging m ore s a lie n t and gang w ritin g m ore th re a te n in g to o th e r
gangs.
Fonts
In th is section, I use the w ord fo n t to describe d iffe re n t letter o r
p rin t styles. The va rie ty o f fo n ts used b y C hicano gang m em bers
appears to be the m ost d o m in a n t feature u tiliz e d b y gang m em bers and
taggers in d e te rm in in g w h ic h register a g ra ffito belongs to. For
taggers and piecers, there is an open set o f le tte rin g styles th a t a
w rite r can draw upon in w ritin g , and these novel fo n ts —nooel because
each w rite r m u st have h is own personal style — m u s t conform
som ew hat to ch a ra cte ristics o f le tte rin g styles in vogue a t a given
tim e — even if the specific features o f the style are n o t conscio u sly
understood.
Gang m em bers, on the oth e r hand, have a p p ro xim a te ly 12
d iffe re n t fo n ts to choose from . Below, fo u r le tte rs fro m a dozen o f the
com m only used le tte rin g styles are draw n. Gang m em bers w ho w rite
in these fo n ts do n o t always have names fo r each in order to
d is tin g u is h them . Nonetheless, a ll o f them im m e d ia te ly m a rk a
g ra ffito as C hicano gang. O f the 12 fo n ts described here, th e nam es
Diamond, H a lf Diamond, Block, and Old English are fa irly sta n d a rd
2 0 0
across C hicano gang m em bers. The nam es Circle, Square, Backw ards,
Wavy, and Loop are taken fro m T o lfo rd (1986).
Two q u a lifica tio n s m u s t be made, however, about the C hicano
gang fon ts. F irs t, the fonts are n o t reproduced co n siste n tly across
gang m em bers. The Diam ond fo n t o f tw o gang m em bers w ill lik e ly
have obvious differences, ju s t as the p rin tin g styles o f any tw o lite ra te
A m ericans w ill d iffe r— in fact, it could be argued th a t any tw o w ords
w ritte n b y th e same person w ill have s lig h t s ty lis tic differences.
N onetheless, the gang m em bers are try in g to em ulate a fo n t style and
are n o t a tte m p tin g to create th e ir own u n iq u e fonts.
Second, gang m em bers re g u la rly m ix th e ir fo n ts w ith in a given
g ra ffito . Figure 4.6 o f C hapter 4, fo r exam ple, uses m any d iffe re n t
fo n ts such as Circle and Triangle. A nd yet, o nly the F o f the nam e
Flaco is w ritte n in the Upsidedown fo n t. T h is m akes it h a rd to have a
clear la b e lin g o f d iffe re n t fo n ts since th e y are m ixed so fre q u e n tly.
2 0 1
Table 5.1 Twelve Chicano gang fonts of the letters B, S, F, and R.
FONT “B” “S ” “F” R
Round
Circle
Square
Triangle
Half Diamond
Diamond
Backmards
Upsidedomn
LUauy
Loop
Block
Old English
9
R,
6
s
6
R _
F
5
B
6 ■ F
5
>5
^5
9
$
v J I
q -
s
n i
S a
î t
_ 5
2 0 2
Though a detailed d e scrip tio n o f tagging le tte rin g is n o t m ade
here— because o f the enorm ous v a rie ty o f le tte rin g styles taggers u s e -
one p a rtic u la r style fea tu re is w o rth m entioning. W hen piecers and
bom bers w rite in o u tlin e (bubble, throw -up) form , th e y have a
p ra c tic a lly open set o f le tte rin g ch a ra cte ristics to d raw fro m w hen
cre a tin g th e ir own novel styles. However, one com m on fea tu re is used
in tagging discourse w h ich indexes p ie cin g /b o m b in g . Piecers
fre q u e n tly crop the to p — and p o ssib ly the b o tto m — p o rtio n o f th e ir
w ritin g (Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10). This feature is em ployed
p rim a rily on surfaces th a t have a physical edge to them , as on a sh o rt
w a ll, b u t the le tte r tops can be om itte d on large surfaces as w ell.
Figure 5.9 Grey Throw-up turned sideways on a telephone
support, San Francisco, California.
203
Figure 5.10 Grey on telephone support In original orientation,
San Francisco, California.
4 Simple registers
A n o th e r in te re s tin g aspect o f tagging (and piecing) and gang
w ritin g is the e xte n t to w h ich the conventional features are
constrained b y dim ensions o f the s itu a tio n a l features. Finegan &
B ib e r (1994) argue th a t conventions are p rod u cts o f the lin g u is tic
204
e nvironm ent, in c lu d in g the experiences o f the in te rlo c u to rs , such as
th e extent to w h ic h th e y p a rticip a te in d iffe re n t k in d s o f in s titu tio n s
w ith d iffe re n t k in d s o f lite ra cie s. The conventions th a t arise o u t o f the
context o f s itu a tio n are co n stitu te d b y such aspects as tim e and space
c o n stra in ts, fo rm a lity , the lite ra te practices o f the p a rtic ip a n ts , and a
vast a rra y o f s itu a tio n a l dim ensions (such as those o u tlin e d in K aplan
1992:78-82 and B ib e r 1988).
There are a t least three k in d s o f w h a t B ru th ia u x (1996, 1993)
labels simple registers. The three types fa ll u n d e r the fo llo w in g broad
categories: i) handicap registers; ii) economy registers; iii) avoidance
registers.
B ru th ia u x proposes
th a t h um an beings are in n a te ly capable o f syste m a tica lly keeping
th e ir p ro d u c tio n free o f w hatever m ay stand in the w ay o f
successful com m unication. Pressures to s im p lify in order to
com m unicate w ith a lin g u is tic a lly handicapped in te rlo c u to r o r to
save tim e or space encourages the language user to fa ll back on
an un m a rke d lin g u is tic core com m on to a ll sim ple registers.
(1 9 9 3 :1 7 )
He d istin g u ish e s between handicap and econom y registers in a t
le a st the aspect th a t there is a “loss o f re fe re n tia l pow er” (p. 13) in
handicap registers (such as foreigner talk). Econom y registers are
re s tric te d b y tim e and space where handicap registers are re s tric te d
b y the very code being used a n d /o r the processing ca p a b ilitie s
available to a t le a st one side o f the in te ra c tio n between in te rlo c u to rs .
C hicano gang g ra ffiti and tagging appear to fa ll u n d e r the economy
register cla ssifica tio n in th a t th e y are m ost often produced u n d e r tim e
and space co n stra in ts, though fo r some gang m em bers a t least, the
handicap register m ig h t seem to be a m ore a p p ro p ria te cla ssifica tio n .
205
B ru th ia u x ’s d e fin itio n o f simple register is the follo w in g :
...the label o f sim ple re giste r m ay be applied to language
produced u n d e r co n d itio n s in w h ic h one or m ore c o n stra in ts
re qu ire th a t lin g u is tic fo rm m ay be ke p t w e ll s h o rt o f the degree
o f ela b o ra tio n com m only associated w ith re giste rs o f a m ore
lite ra ry n a tu re . Sim ple language is th u s m a xim a lly a ppropriate
discourse in th a t it offers the best fit o f a ll possible lin g u is tic
responses to specific fu n c tio n a l dem ands w ith in the lim its o f
w h a t b o th encoder and decoder can jo in tly handle. (1993:6)
A n im p o rta n t tenet o f B ru th ia u x ’s thesis is th a t the econom y
dem onstrated in classified advertisem ents is n o t s im p lific a tio n b u t
s im p lic ity . T h a t is, B ru th ia u x argues th a t there are no elaborated
v a ria n ts o f the form s dem onstrated in classified ad re g iste r (CAR).
T h a t is, the re giste r its e lf is an econom ical re giste r w ith features o f
re d u ctio n , th o u g h there is no elaborated (c o m p le x /m a rk e d /...) form
fro m w h ic h re d u ctio n takes place. ‘T h e y e x h ib it degrees o f
elabo ra tio n [and s im p lic ity ] w h ic h can be related, n o t to some absolute
stan d a rd , b u t to the set o f fu n c tio n a l param eters th a t co n stra in s the
p ro d u c tio n o f each u tte ra n ce ” (1993:159).
In the m a jo rity o f tagging and C hicano gang g ra ffiti, B ru th ia u x ’s
th e sis o f simple rather than sim plified w ould app ly as w ell. For
exam ple, w hen the tagger PHAME w rite s “Pham e” on a w a ll, it is a
com plete form . M ore elabo ra tio n is possible in ta g g in g /p ie cin g , b u t
there is no m ore (basic) elaborated fo rm o f the discourse a ct realized
w ith “Phame. ” F or exam ple, m ore elaborated form s su ch as “Phame
was here” or “Phame is a tagger” or “ Phame e xists” never appear in
tagging discourse. In fact, if such form s occur, th e y in d ica te a register
o th e r th a n tagging.
206
C hicano gang g ra ffiti is sim ple in m uch the w ay tagging is. For
exam ple, n e ith e r re giste r u tiliz e s verbs in th e va st m a jo rity o f th e ir
realiza tion s. However, because C hicano gang g ra ffiti uses tru e
a b b re via tio n w ith gang and clique nam es, as w e ll as o th e r shortenings
such as R fo r Rifa, there are m ore elaborated gang g ra ffiti form s
possible w h ich ca rry the same basic m eanings as the shortened form s.
T h is is n o t tru e in tagging, fo r as has been claim ed th ro u g h o u t th is
d isse rta tio n , taggers do n o t use abbreviation in th e ir crew nam es:
le tte r s trin g s are the basic form s.
Chicano Gang Graffiti Elaboration
W hen a C hicano gang m em ber w rite s g ra ffiti, the o n ly o b lig a to ry
ite m is the gang’s nam e. E verything else is o p tio n a l, so one could
consider the gang nam e alone as the sim p le st va rie ty and the plaça
and o th e r arrangem ents as elaborated form s. Thus, w hen one
com pares the C hicano gang g ra ffiti re giste r w ith o th e r sim ple
registers, it appears to be m uch sim p le r th a n the others. In general,
there are tw o k in d s o f w ords th a t are used in the m a jo rity o f cases,
p rin c ip a lly : p roper nouns, and to some extent, m arkers o f lo ca tio n .
One could argue q u ite co n vin cin g ly th a t the d ire ctio n w ords are e ith e r
a p a rt o f the gang proper nouns (e.g.. South Side), o r are them selves
p rop e r nouns: Southern C alifornia signified w ith sur.
A d m ittin g th a t there are n o t a great v a rie ty o f features in
C hicano gang g ra ffiti in term s o f p a rts o f speech is n o t to say th a t a lo t
o f in fo rm a tio n is n o t conveyed in it, despite its s im p lic ity . As th is
research has show n, very m uch is im p lie d in an o rd in a ry plaça.
N o tw ith sta n d in g , th is in fo rm a tio n is tra n s m itte d in general w ith o u t
207
the use o f verbs and fu n c tio n w ords. Thus, C hicano gang g ra ffiti is
g re a tly reduced; in the w ords o f Finegan & B iber, it is “ ...in the
d ire c tio n o f m in im a l expression o f m eaning” (1986:391).
There are cases w ith in the C hicano gang g ra ffiti re giste r in
w h ich m any m ore lin g u is tic features are u tiliz e d . As Labov (1972) and
Finegan & B ib e r (1994) argue, th is increase in e la b o ra tio n by w ay o f
a d d itio n a l lin g u is tic features is a w ay o f in d e xin g increased levels o f
fo rm a lity , seriousness, etc. Two such exam ples o f C hicano gang g ra ffiti
are provided below o f m ore elaborated/ lite ra te form s in w h ich there is
an increase o f lin g u is tic features: a m em orial. Figure 4.11, and a
profession o f love. F igure 4.17.
Gang m em bers die so fre q u e n tly as a re s u lt o f th e ir v io le n t
lifestyles,^® th a t it is com m on to m em orialize m em bers w ho are no
longer present. A com m on technique is showcased in the Tiny Dukes
exam ple. C hapter 4, Figure 4.12. In th is g ra ffito , the gang m em ber
Tank o f the B ig H azard T in y D ukes is rem em bered. As a su p e rscrip t
a fte r T a n k’s nam e, th e le tte rs RIP, Rest In Peace, are w ritte n .
O ccasionally, however, there is a death th a t rocks th e gang society.
F or exam ple, on A u g u st 3, 1991, A rtu ro Jim enez o f the Hazards,
arm ed w ith a beer b o ttle , was shot b y Los Angeles C ounty S h e riffs
D eputies. The co m m u n ity was outraged and called fo r a G rand J u ry
in ve stig a tio n o f the in c id e n t. Im m ediately a fte r th e shooting, g ra ffiti
appeared a ll around the housing project. Today a w a ll o f one o f the
®®T/ie Los Angeles Times, March 3, 1996, reports that there were more than 7000
gang related deaths in Los Angeles County in the period of 1979-1996.
208
Ram ona G ardens a p artm ent b u ild in g s has a m u ra l dedicated to
A rtu ro ’s m em ory.
These m em orial g ra ffiti are in te re s tin g in m any regards: th e y
use p u n c tu a tio n and cursive le tte rin g , th e y code s w itc h /m ix , th e y
in clu d e a date, etc. B u t w h a t is m ost in te re stin g because o f the ra rity
is th a t th e y have p rep o sitio n s (in, de) and an adjective [loving). The
m em orials are s till reduced— fo r there are no verbs— b u t th e y are m ore
elaborated th a n o th e r types o f C hicano gang g ra ffiti. These a d d itio n a l
e la b o ra te d /lite ra te features in d e x a m ore fo rm a l com m unicative
situ a tio n .
The g ra ffito labeled F igure 4.17 is a p roclam a tio n o f love
betw een the m ale gang m em ber Solo, the Second and the fem ale gang
m em ber Josie, the Second. A gain there is code s w itc h in g /m ix in g .
Like the m em orials above, th is elaborated form uses fo rm a l title s : Mr.
Solo II, and (a lb eit a d e fin ite a rticle ) La Josie II. M erely p u ttin g a m ale
gang m em ber’s nam e and a fem ale’s nam e together in d ica te s some
k in d o f special re la tio n sh ip , b u t th is g ra ffito is g rea tly elaborated fo r
C hicano gang g ra ffiti. Not o n ly are the tw o from the gang B ig Hazard,
B *H (punctuated w ith a bullet), th e y are puro (Spanish fo r pure) fu cke n
(reduced exp le tive /in te n s ifie r) Big Hazard. The expression Y que?
(here p u n ctu a te d w ith an a d d itio n a l b u lle t) m eans ro u g h ly “W h a t are
you going to do a b o u t it ” (lite ra lly A nd what?). The a d d itio n o f putos!
m akes the challenge, Y*QUE, even stronger. Puto has m any possible
m eanings, none o f w h ich is very u p liftin g . In th is case, it has the
approxim ate m eaning o f the slang te rm pussy.
209
D espite the fa ct th a t C hicano gang g ra ffiti appears to be a sim ple
register, there are some in te re s tin g in co n g ru itie s th a t sh o u ld be
p ointed out. F irs t o f a ll, w ith in m ost gang neighborhoods, gang
m em bers have few er tim e and space co n stra in ts th a n do o rd in a ry
taggers because th e y are w ritin g in th e ir neighborhoods. They w o u ld
n o t necessarily encounter any m ainstream sa n ctio n in g fo r w ritin g on
w a lls; there sh o u ld be less pressure to sim p lify.
A n o th e r in te re s tin g in c o n g ru ity is th a t gang m em bers w rite the
nam es o f S panish le tte rs used in abbreviation. The abbreviation is a
sh o rte n in g o f the gang nam e; w ritin g o u t the le tte r nam es in
phonem ic sp e llin g is a lengthening o f the abbreviations. It is n o t
com pletely clear w h a t fu n c tio n th is practice serves or o u t o f w h a t
co n d itio n s it evolved.
Tagging Elaboration
M ost v a ria tio n in tagging is s ty lis tic — a valuable subject fo r fu tu re
research n o t addressed here.®^ O ther com m on tagging v a ria tio n
comes in the fo rm o f crew nam e va ria tio n , and th is appears to be
affected b y tim e and space re s tric tio n s as w ell. T h a t is, longer form s
are, in general, w ritte n in less visib le places w h ic h have adequate
space fo r a ll o f the a d d itio n a l le tte rs. W rite rs s till p refe r to w rite crew
nam es in th e ir regular, sh o rte r form s. In places w ith o u t great tim e
and space c o n stra in ts (th a t is, w here one is n o t lik e ly to get caught),
such as on th e banks o f B allona Creek in W est Los Angeles, the vast
m a jo rity o f crew p ro d u cts are in the le tte r-s trin g form . It appears th a t
Stylistics can still be thought of as marked and unmarked, with the more
marked variants being produced under fewer time and space limitations.
2 1 0
it serves tagging values m ore to get the crew nam e o u t w ith o u t the
ris k o f the crew nam e being lo s t in the message th a t a longer name
can carry. For exam ple, the crew CBS fre q u e n tly w rite s “C an’t Be
Stopped” w ith the crew nam e, b u t the crew nam e is p rim a ry. T h a t is,
in m ost cases “C an’t Be Stopped” w ill be w ritte n insid e o f o r adjacent
to a la rg er “CBS” ; 1 have n o t seen exam ples o f “C an’t Be Stopped”
w ith o u t “ CBS ”. Nonetheless, one could s till do a lin g u is tic analysis on
the features o f the longer va ria n ts o f crew nam es. However, such a
stu d y w o u ld n o t be a stu d y o f re d u ctio n because the elaborate form s
are constrained by the specific le tte rs o f the crew nam e.
The v a ria tio n th a t taggers dem onstrate comes in the fo rm o f i)
a d d itio n a l tagger nam es th e y m ig h t in clu d e in th e ir w ritin g , ii) the
p o s s ib ility o f w ritin g a nam e phrase (long form ) fo r th e ir crew nam es
(w hich cou ld be com pletely novel), iii) a d d itio n a l characters, iv)
a d d itio n a l num bers, and v) a d d itio n a l messages.
W ith the a d d itio n o f o ther elem ents, it is h a rd to say how the
a d d itio n a l item s are a re s u lt o f the forces o f tim e, space, fo rm a lity ,
serious topics, etc. A gain, a tagger is less lik e ly to w rite m any
d iffe re n t taggers’ nam es in a h ig h ly visib le p u b lic space because o f the
ris k involved. Yet in the same vein, it is precisely th a t elem ent o f ris k
th a t is extrem ely im p o rta n t to a tagger (H u n t 1993). As the item s
increase, so does the ris k , and th is ris k is determ ined b y ve ry variable
s itu a tio n a l ch a ra cte ristics (in clu d in g the bravery o f the in d iv id u a l
taggers). A fu tu re tagging stu d y could co u n t specific tagging features
u tiliz e d in d iffe re n t p u b lic spaces such as buses, freew ay signs, freeway
d ivid e rs, etc.
2 11
The ric h e s t area o f v a ria tio n and re d u ctio n in tagging is the
w ritin g o f a d d itio n a l messages. A d d itio n a l messages are ve ry rare
(m arked) and come alm ost exclusively w ith very elaborate pieces
(“m asterpieces”), in the fo rm o f dedications to others, p ro cla m a tio n s
o f m astery, o r generic messages to the w o rld . D edication messages
m ig h t be as s h o rt as “For Josie” to “D edicated to the e n tire FC
m assive;” exam ples o f proclam ations o f m astery in clu d e “G ra ffiti h a ll
o f fam e” and “The M ecca o f style ;” generic messages to the w o rld
w o u ld in c lu d e “Is anyone ever re a lly free?” and “H appy H allow een”
(cf. Treacy 1993). These a d d itio n a l messages appear in piecing, an
already s ty lis tic a lly elaborated form . T h a t is to say, the a d d itio n a l
messages appear w ith extrem ely elaborate g ra ffiti. These pieces
em ploy m u lti dim e nsion a l and m u lti-c o lo re d le tte rin g and characters,
and fo r a piecer to in clu d e those features im p lie s th a t th e w o rk was
n o t co nstrained b y tim e — fo r some o f them can take h o u rs to produce
{cf., S tew art 1989 and C astlem an 1982).
The k in d s o f messages in clu d e d in piecing s till appear to show
re d u ctio n . , In n e a rly a ll o f the dedications and p roclam ations o f ta le n t,
th e subjects and copula are rem oved. Though no recoverable
elaborated fo rm necessarily exists, possible elaborated form s o f the
d edications and proclam a tio n s could be “T h is is fo r Jossie,” “T h is is
dedicated to ...,” “T h is should be in the g ra ffiti h a ll o f fam e,” and “T h is
is the Mecca o f style .” If a sizable data set o f such a d d itio n a l
expressions existed (because they are re la tive ly rare, 1 do n o t have
m any exam ples), th e ir features could be m easured and com pared w ith
o th e r econom y registers. 1 w o u ld hypothesize th a t the reduced
2 1 2
presence o f BE w o u ld be a clear In d ica tio n th a t piecing messages are
reduced w hen com pared to o th e r n a tu ra lly -o c c u rrin g sim ple registers
such as those in B ru th ia u x ’s (1993) study. F u rth e rm o re , the absence
o f any deictics suggest n o t o n ly re d u ctio n (the absence o f a subject)
b u t in fo rm a lity (H atch 1992:219-220), despite th e fa c t th a t the
messages are already extrem ely elaborate, fo rm a l realizations.
5 Summary
T h is ch a p te r com pares and contrasts m any d iffe re n t aspects o f
tagging and C hicano gang g ra ffiti. It begins by review ing research on
lite ra cy. Literacy, it is argued, involves va st c u ltu ra l knowledge,
in c lu d in g the ideology, h isto ry , and social practices o f the discourse in
question. T hus as one in te rp re ts g ra ffiti produced b y the d is tin c t
social groups taggers and C hicano gang m em bers com prise, one needs
to in co rpo ra te tagging and gang ways o f th in k in g .
The ideologies and social practices o f taggers and gang m em bers
are com pared and contrasted. Taggers seek fam e and gang m em bers
respect, w h ich are s im ila r concepts along a n u m b e r o f dim ensions.
T hough taggers come by fam e o n ly w ith g ra ffiti p ro d u ctio n , gang
m em bers can achieve respect th ro u g h a v a rie ty o f m eans. Fame and
respect are often a tta in e d b y m em bers o f b o th groups b y p e rfo rm ing
acts o f bravery, y e t taggers m u st o n ly re ly on g ra ffiti p ro d u ctio n fo r
th is , w h ile gang m em bers cannot.
B o th groups use g ra ffiti in th e ir social practices, b u t n e ith e r
group is able to co n siste n tly explain in a sa tisfa cto ry w ay w hy th is is so.
G ra ffiti w ritin g appears to be a basic ritu a l to b o th groups— th o u g h n o t
213
a ll gang m em bers do it. It appears th a t w ith in b o th discourses,
ju s tify in g the practice is n o t required.
Gang m em bers and taggers have quite d iffe re n t ways o f
perceiving space. Gang m em bers see th e ir neighborhoods as
representative o f th e ir gangs whereas taggers lo o k a t p h ysica l spaces
fo r p a in tin g p o te n tia l. U n like gang m em bers, taggers, th o u g h th e y
have places to socialize know n as k ic k backs, do n o t tie th e ir
id e n titie s to these specific places and feel no need to p ro te c t them .
B o th gang m em bers and taggers perseverate, th a t is, repeat the
g ra ffiti th a t th e y w rite . Gang m em bers appear to do it o u t o f repeated
affe ctio n fo r th e ir neighborhoods or fo r m a rkin g gang te rrito rie s .
Taggers perseverate to show b ravery and to in te n s ify salience.
B o th groups u tiliz e cross-outs. Tagging cross-outs re g u la rly
involve a single lin e to ru in the style o f the g ra ffito being crossed out.
Gang m em bers, on the o th e r hand, tend to com pletely eradicate the
g ra ffiti they are crossing o u t. B oth groups can leave cross-outs
anonym ous or sign them . The anonym ous tag th a t is crossed o u t
im p lie s th a t the g ra ffito is substandard; the anonym ous gang cross-out
is done by a gang m em ber because the g ra ffito m erely represents
a nother gang. Signed cross-outs in b o th groups are in d iv id u a l th re a ts,
b u t the signed gang cross-outs tend to be o f a m ore serious n a tu re and
can lead to physical co n fro n ta tio n s and k illin g s .
The g ra ffiti o f taggers and gang m em bers are n o t alw ays
in te rn a lly s u ffic ie n t and re qu ire external co n te xtu a l varia bles to
decode them . Tagging nam es and crews m ay be am biguous u n til read
w ith oth e r p u n ctu a te d form s th a t clear u p the a m bigu ity. Gang name
214
abbre via tio n s are often unrecoverable u n til contextualized w ith other
neighborhoods o r o th e r g ra ffiti w h ich disam biguate them .
C hicano gang g ra ffiti re g u la rly m ix Spanish and E nglish. W ith
the exception o f some tag nam es in Spanish, tagging and piecing are
g e n e ra lly E n g lis h -o n ly enterprises.
Tagging and C hicano gang g ra ffiti contents have general
s im ila ritie s and differences. B o th co n sist o f nam es a t th e ir cores:
gang g ra ffiti m u st have the gang’s nam e; tagging m u st have a crew or
tagger’s nam e. W ith such n a rro w requirem ents, b o th g ra ffiti system s
are classifiable as sim ple registers. In cases in w h ich th e y are m ore
elaborated, denoting fo rm a l features, th e y in clu d e o th e r lin g u is tic
features such as prepositions.
Ind e xica l features o f b o th form s in clu d e a n u m b e r o f
ch a ra cte ristics. The le tte r V is used m ore b y gang m em bers; K by
taggers. B o th groups m ay in clu d e messages, specific sym bols (and
d ia c ritic s in C hicano gang g ra ffiti), p u n ctu a tio n , and num bers. W here
the tw o form s are m ost d istin g u ish a b le is in the fonts th e y use.
C hicano gang g ra ffiti has a t least 12 d iffe re n t k in d s o f fo n ts w h ic h gang
m em bers m ix th ro u g h o u t th e ir w ritin g . Taggers have an open num b e r
o f fo n ts in th a t each w rite r is to have h is own unique style.
Nevertheless, there is alw ays some set o f styles in vogue fro m w h ic h
taggers are n o t to deviate too fa r w h ile m a in ta in in g th e ir uniqueness.
215
CHAPTER SIX
1 Summary
The g ra ffiti genre has been em ployed th ro u g h o u t the w o rld fo r
a t least the la s t 2000 years. D espite the pervasiveness o f g ra ffiti,
researchers o f the subject have fre q u e n tly failed to recognize th a t
g ra ffiti are produced by d iffe re n t social groups and th a t the form s va ry
across those groups. W ith in groups, g ra ffiti form s also va ry re fle ctin g
d is tin c t g ro u p -in te rn a l fu n ctio n s.
The s tu d y o f g ra ffiti is aided b y so cio lin g u istic concepts. One
such concept is register, w h ich in d ica te s specific lin g u is tic form s
produced by specific agents u n d e r specific co n d itio n s fo r specific
purposes. The separate g ra ffiti produced b y d iffe re n t g ra ffiti w ritin g
groups are referred to as registers, and the clu ste rs o f d is tin c t form s
and fu n c tio n s used w ith in groups, sub-registers.
The te rm genre is also extrem ely im p o rta n t to the analysis o f
g ra ffiti. Genres are classes o f com m unicative a ctivity, g ra ffiti being one
o f m any possible w ritte n genres available to c u ltu re s th a t use w ritin g .
These classes o f com m unicative a c tiv ity are used d iffe re n tia lly across
com m unities in tw o ways. F irst, a genre m ay be used by one c u ltu re ,
b u t m ay n o t be needed by another. Second, the expression o f the
same genre often takes d iffe re n t form s fro m one co m m u n ity to
another, the re b y in d ic a tin g d is tin c t registers.
The g ra ffiti genre is defined as being unsanctioned (u su a lly
ille g a l) w ritin g . The m a jo r fa cto r d e te rm in in g w hether w ritin g is
u nsan ctio ne d or n o t involves ow nership or a u th o riza tio n o f the
p a rtic u la r canvas on w h ich the w ritin g appears. If the ow ner o f the
216
canvas generates the w ritin g , or if proper a u th o riz a tio n is given fo r the
w ritin g , the w ritin g is n o t g ra ffiti. However, there are often
b o rd e rlin e cases w h ich cannot be re a d ily classified.
A piece o f w ritin g can be determ ined to be g ra ffiti b y e x h ib itin g
features th a t fa ll along the g ra ffiti side o f a num b e r o f possible
dim ensions. The poles of these dim ensions generally p o s itio n w ritin g
as e ith e r m ore g ra ffiti-lik e o r fo llo w in g m a in stre a m practices and
conventions. These dim ensions in clu d e such elem ents as the k in d o f
canvas used and the g ra ffiti contents, the p rin t m edium , the p rin t
style, the in s titu tio n being represented, etc.
In th is research, a general th e o ry o f g ra ffiti, w h ich w ould explain
w h y a ll groups th a t use g ra ffiti do so, is n o t proposed. Instead, the
m o tiva tio n s fo r p ro d u cin g g ra ffiti are studied ethn o gra p h ica lly, on a
case b y case basis. One ch a ra cte ristic o f a ll g ra ffiti is th a t its
expression alte rs the perception o f the o rig in a l canvas; the canvas is
re-sym bolized in th a t fo rm e r m eanings it carried are lo s t or changed,
a n d /o r new m eanings are added to it. The g ra ffiti w ritin g practices o f
taggers and C hicano gang m em bers involve w ritin g g ra ffiti contents
w h ich re fle ct s tru c tu re s o f th e ir respective societies. C onsequently,
canvases w ith tagging o r C hicano gang g ra ffiti re fle ct tagging c u ltu re or
C hicano gang c u ltu re .
Tagging and C hicano gang g ra ffiti were stu d ie d in Los Angeles
C ounty d u rin g the years 1991-1993. G ra ffiti sam ples were recorded
p h o to g ra p h ica lly and via video th ro u g h o u t Los Angeles C ounty, w ith
careful s c ru tin y given to B allona Creek, a com m on tagging canvas on
the Los Angeles W estside, and to Ram ona G ardens, an E ast Los Angeles
217
housing project, hom e to the C hicano gang B ig H azard. Taggers from
th ro u g h o u t Los Angeles C ounty and gang m em bers from H azard were
interview ed fo rm a lly and in fo rm a lly d u rin g th a t tim e period.
Taggers and C hicano gang m em bers have m uch in com m on, b u t
there is m uch th a t separates them . The va st m a jo rity o f b o th taggers
and gang m em bers are m ales in th e ir teenage years o r in th e ir early
20s. W hereas m any taggers stop tagging com pletely in th e ir late teens
or e arly 20s, m any gang m em bers— i.e., the h ard-core ones— continue
to have a life -lo n g gang a ffilia tio n e ith e r in a “re tire d ” capacity
[veteranos] or as M exican M afia m em bers (or as m em bers o f oth e r
organized crim e groups); b u t gang m em bers in these categories
generally do n o t take p a rt in regular gang practices such as g ra ffiti
w ritin g .
Taggers are an econom ically and ra c ia lly diverse group. Chicano
gang m em bers, on the o th e r hand, are hom ogeneously C hicano from
p re d o m in a te ly poor neighborhoods [barrios). D espite the fa c t th a t
taggers have num erous social practices, th e ir core rite is tagging. In
co n tra st, n o t a ll C hicano gang m em bers w rite g ra ffiti, and th u s th a t
p a rtic u la r social practice, though com m on, is n o t so ce n tra l to gang
c u ltu re .
Taggers seek to be w e ll-kn o w n w ith in tagging c u ltu re , and they
achieve th is exclusively th ro u g h th e ir g ra ffiti p ro d u ctio n ; C hicano gang
m em bers seek to be respected. M uch o f the n o to rio u s behavior o f
gang m em bers is a m eans o f gaining respect and re b u ffin g disrespect.
Taggers, s im ila rly , are concerned about disrespect, fo r it is considered
to be the opposite of Jame.
218
Gang m em bers are also m otivated by devotion to th e ir la rg er
neighborhoods [backing it up), because being dow n fo r the
neighborhood is a re qu ire m en t fo r respect. Because taggers do n o t
necessarily have neighborhoods in com m on, th e y do n o t h o ld a
neighborhood above them selves. N either do th e y hold social netw orks
[crews) above them selves, and th is is reflected in th e ir g ra ffiti in th a t
th e y often w rite th e ir tagging nam es alone. The m ain p o in t o f a
tagger’s g ra ffiti is to increase h is personal fam e, and th is does n o t
re q u ire w ritin g a crew nam e in the g ra ffiti. Gang m em bers, on the
o th e r hand, m u s t m ake reference to th e ir gangs in th e ir g ra ffiti o r else
th e y w ill lose respect fo r appearing to hold them selves above th e gang.
In the p u rs u it o f fame, taggers w rite g ra ffiti w h ich are s a lie n t to
oth e r taggers based on elem entary values o f tagging society. Taggers
generate g ra ffiti th a t are p ro lific , ha rd to produce (in term s o f p h ysica l
obstacles), and h ig h ly stylized. F u rth e rm o re , taggers w rite crew
nam es in th e ir g ra ffiti because crew nam es are an a d d itio n a l ro u te to
fam e re s u ltin g from a tag’s being associated w ith a crew nam e th a t
fre q u e n tly enjoys a w id e r d is trib u tio n . As a re s u lt o f th is fu n c tio n o f
th e crew and a tagger's casual com m itm ent to it, taggers can be
m em bers o f num erous tagging crews. Gang m em bers, on the o th e r
hand, belong to one gang alone, and o n ly one sub-group [klika/clique)
o f the gang.
Tagging society u tiliz e s three basic cla ssifica tio n s o f its
m em bership: piecers (in clu d in g the bombers), taggers, and toys.
Gangs have s im ila r d ivisions w ith veteranos at the top, th e n basic gang
219
m em bers, and wannabes a t the bottom . Basic gang m em bership is
fu rth e r divided in to regular, peripheral, and tem porary m em bers.
The bottom w rungs o f b o th groups are s im ila r in th a t b o th are
try in g to be accepted in to the larger discourses. B u t w annabes are
m erely too young; otherw ise, th e y are accepted as m em bers o f the
neighborhood, or even gang m em bers. Toys are less fo rtu n a te in th a t
th e y are rejected b y the la rg er tagging society despite seeing
them selves as taggers. The designation o f toy can eventually be
transcended, so a tagging or piecing sta tu s is possible fo r those once
labeled toys. Taggers, however, w hen labeled as toys, are essen tia lly
being to ld n o t to w rite g ra ffiti u n til th e ir c ra ft im proves. W annabes, on
the o th e r hand, are n o t discouraged from w ritin g g ra ffiti and m ay even
produce m uch o f the g ra ffiti in a b a rrio .
Tagging and gang g ra ffiti have s im ila ritie s and differences
th ro u g h o u t a n u m b e r o f dom ains. The core contents o f b o th are,
generally, in d iv id u a l and group nam es; b o th ty p ic a lly la ck fu n c tio n
w ords or verbs; b o th have elaborated form s; b o th u tiliz e a va rie ty of
p u n c tu a tio n m a rks; b o th are w ritte n w ith a v a rie ty o f m edia; etc.
There are num erous differences as w ell, la rg e ly having to do w ith the
k in d s o f acts and in te n tio n s each group perform s w hen w ritin g th e ir
vario us sub-registers.
B eing lite ra te in e ith e r tagging or gang g ra ffiti involves
know ledge o f the ideologies and practices o f each group. For exam ple,
the fam e taggers seek and the respect gang m em bers desire can b o th
be a tta in e d b y perform ing acts o f bravery. However, taggers m u s t re ly
220
on th e ir g ra ffiti p ro d u ctio n o n ly fo r th is , w hereas gang m em bers
achieve respect b y o th e r m eans.
Reading gang and tagging g ra ffiti requires co n te xtu a liza tio n in
term s o f m any specific a ttrib u te s o f b o th cu ltu re s. C o n te xtu alizin g
d iffe re n t discourse acts w ith in the d is tin c t c u ltu re s provides in s ig h ts
in to form and fu n c tio n va ria tio n . One example o f the w ay discourse
acts va ry across groups in form and fu n c tio n is the discourse act of
crossing o u t g ra ffiti. C rossing o u t g ra ffiti is m ore re g u la rly practiced
b y gang m em bers because it im plies su p p o rt o f one’s own
neighborhood. Signed cross-outs are also in te rp re te d d iffe re n tly
across groups in th a t the cross-out th a t is signed b y a gang m em ber
im p lie s a p h ysical th re a t w hile nea rly the same form done b y a tagger
does not. Even the a ctu a l cross-out form s v a iy as a re s u lt o f the
d is tin c t w o rld views o f each discourse: taggers cross o u t w ith one lin e
(destroying style); gang m em bers u s u a lly add m ore th a n one
(m e ta p h o rica lly d estroying riva ls).
Based on differences and s im ila ritie s in the ways in w h ich the
tw o discourses view the w o rld and practice in it, one can unde rsta n d
w h y each group uses the g ra ffiti genre and w hy th e ir registers and
su b -re g iste rs b o th diverge and converge w ith regard to form s and
fu n ctio n s.
2 Conclusions
There are num erous conclusions suggested b y th is research.
There are also a n u m b e r o f hypotheses generated b y o th e r a u th o rs th a t
221
th is s tu d y su b sta n tiate s; the g ra ffiti genre provides an excellent
resource w ith w h ich to te st claim s a bout w ritte n discourse.
A n im p o rta n t conclusion is th a t the recognition o f g ra ffiti as a
genre having m any d iffe re n t re giste r re aliza tion s is necessary in its
study. M any studies of g ra ffiti do n o t p u t the g ra ffiti genre in its
p roper context. They a ll too often fa il to d is tin g u is h the d iffe re n t
form s o f g ra ffiti th a t are generated b y d iffe re n t social groups in
d iffe re n t com m unicative situ a tio n s, and consequently m iss im p o rta n t
d iffe re n ce s.
G ra ffiti has been show n to be a w ritte n genre. U n like other
genres, w h ich often have m ore th a n one mode of expression, g ra ffiti
does n o t have a corresponding o ral form .
I have argued th a t the g ra ffiti genre is best defined as w ritin g
th a t is (a) n o t authorized b y the ow ner or proper a u th o rity o f a canvas
a n d /o r (b) does n o t fo llo w m ainstream practices. For th e reader,
d e te rm in in g w h e th e r or n o t w ritin g is m ainstream can be
accom plished b y exam ining a n u m b e r of dim ensions of the w ritin g
th a t are m ore or less g ra ffiti-lik e . In so fa r as w ritin g does n o t fo llo w
m a in stre a m practices or does n o t receive consent fro m a canvas
ow ner or a u th o rity , g ra ffiti is unsanctioned.
It has been dem onstrated th a t d e term ining w h a t is or is n o t
g ra ffiti {unsanctioned) is a so cio p o litica l issue. To deem someone or
som ething the rig h tfu l owner or a u th o rity o f a space, one m u st
determ ine w h ich powers are le g itim a te . F u rth e rm o re , to determ ine a
pra ctice as m ainstream or n o t (involving the dim ensions o f acceptable
222
w ritin g practices vs. g ra ffiti-lik e practices) e n ta ils a designation o f
leg itim a te c u ltu ra l practices, as w ell as leg itim a te c u ltu ra l powers.
T his s tu d y helps to explain w hy there is no consensus regarding
w h a t is and w h a t is n o t graffiti. D iffe re n t people have d iffe re n t beliefs
a bout w ho leg itim a te owners and powers are, and w h a t practices can
be considered leg itim a te . F urtherm ore, it is hypothesized th a t
d iffe re n t dim ensions o f texts ca rry m ore w eight fo r some th a n fo r
others in te x t cla ssifica tio n . T his is a re s u lt o f the d is tin c t ideologies
th ro u g h w h ic h te xts are filte re d . For exam ple, a profe ssio n a lly painted
N ike advertisem ent on a ro ck in Yosem ite m ig h t be g ra ffiti to some, or
a transgression o f another k in d to others, based on the values readers
p u t on such dim ensions as the canvas used or the institution
represented.
It has fu rth e rm o re been show n th a t the cla ssifica tio n o f g ra ffiti
also varies fro m c u ltu re to c u ltu re (nation to natio n ). F or exam ple,
some o f the n o n -g ra ffiti p u b lic w ritin g practices in M exico (i.e., they
are n o t g ra ffiti to M exicans) do n o t fo llo w accepted w ritin g practices
in the U n ite d States. Exam ples in clu d e the practice o f p a in tin g
p o litic a l advertisem ents on c ity w a lls and com m ercial advertisem ents
on n a tu ra lly o ccu rrin g canvases such as rocks. T h is variance suggests
differences in the ways in w h ich dim ensions o f m ainstream -like vs.
g ra ffiti-like are w eighted. It is conceivable th a t a c u ltu re w ith w ritin g
exists in w h ich no g ra ffiti genre is possible— th a t is, there is no
ow nership, or a ll w ritin g practices are accepted.
The fa ct th a t w ritin g practices arc in tim a te ly tie d to social
practices is evidenced b y the stu d y o f graffiti. L ite ra te m em bers o f the
223
m ainstream generally tend to th in k o f lite ra c y as the a b ility to m erely
decode graphem es in to th e ir corresponding phonem es, and tend n o t
to consider the k in d s o f social situ a tio n s in w h ich p a rtic u la r k in d s o f
w ritin g are em bedded. Those same lite ra te society m em bers are
g enerally n o t able to decipher the codes u tiliz e d b y taggers and
C hicano gang m em bers, and if they could, they w ould lik e ly la ck an
adequate u n d e rsta n d in g o f the w o rld views and practices o f taggers
and gang m em bers to m ake sense o f the g ra ffiti in lin e w ith the sense-
m a kin g o f taggers and C hicano gang m em bers.
It has also been show n th a t tagging and C hicano gang g ra ffiti
repre se n t tw o d is tin c t lite ra cie s. L ite ra cy is generally re g iste r
specific, and to be lite ra te is to understand the re a liza tio n s o f a
re giste r. The lite ra te person is able to in te rp re t re g iste r re a liza tio n s
in the same w ay as m em bers o f the social group th a t uses the register. ^
C om paring and c o n tra stin g these tw o registers o f g ra ffiti also
dem onstrates th a t lite ra c y is in tim a te ly tied to c u ltu ra l know ledge,
values, and practices. F or exam ple, the ways in w h ic h taggers greet
taggers u n kn o w n to them , and gang m em bers, gang m em bers
u n kn o w n to them , re fle ct differences in ideology w h ic h are played o u t
in th e ir g ra ffiti w ritin g practices. Taggers ask, “W hat do you w rite ? ”
w h ile gang m em bers ask, “W here are you from ?” These questions
re fle ct th e ir ce n tra l values. F or taggers, it is fam e; fo r gang m em bers,
it is respect, the respect owed th e ir neighborhood. These values are
in s ta n tia te d in th e ir g ra ffiti: taggers w rite th e ir tagging nam es a n d /o r
crew nam es (w hat th e y w rite ), and gang m em bers alw ays w rite th e ir
^The literate person is able to produce the register realizations.
224
n e ig h b o rh o o d /g a ng nam es (where th e y are from ), and generally th e ir
gang nicknam es and cliques as w e ll (w hich, in a sense, is also w here
th e y are fro m considering the gang n o tio n th a t gang=neighborhood).
It sh o u ld be noted, fu rth e rm o re , th a t these differences reflected in
th e ir know ledge, values, and practices m ake b o th lite ra cie s exclusive.
In o th e r w ords, taggers and gang m em bers cannot necessarily read
each o th e r’s g ra ffiti.
T h is stu d y has dem onstrated th a t tagging and C hicano gang
g ra ffiti are lin g u is tic texts. In b o th registers, the g ra ffiti are w ritte n
repre se n ta tion s o f w ords. However, the w ords th e y represent are n o t
governed b y the ru le s o f E ng lish syntax. Instead, the conventions
w h ic h c o n s titu te gang or tagging g ra ffiti te xts— b o th th e ir registers and
su b -re g iste rs— are tie d to the social groups w h ich create them , and
th u s the specific features ce n tra l to th e ir te x tu a lity have in te re s tin g
c u ltu ra l connections. T h a t is, these conventions are created to m eet
the needs o f the d iffe re n t discourse com m unities and consequently
va ry accordingly. F urtherm ore, these conventions are often non-
lin g u is tic o r p a ra -lin g u is tic features w h ic h co n trib u te to the
illo c u tio n a ry force o f tagging and C hicano gang g ra ffiti.
It has also been show n how g ra ffiti features pla y an im p o rta n t
role in indexing. The kin d s o f m eanings garnished fro m such features
v a ry fro m prop e rtie s o f the w rite r’s id e n tity to the la b e lin g o f th e act
being perform ed. C urio u sly, in C hicano gang and tagging g ra ffiti, the
core co n tents o f each re giste r re fe r to the id e n tity o f the w rite rs
(when th e y are n o t anonym ous).
225
We have also seen th a t tagging and C hicano gang g ra ffiti e x h ib it
features o f elabo ra tio n and s im p lic ity . M ore elaborated form s generally
coincide w ith less ty p ic a l discourse acts. F u rth e rm o re , the s im p lic ity
e xh ib ite d in these registers supports B ru th ia u x ’s (1996) clciim th a t the
sim ple form s in s im ila r econom y registers are th e basic form s, fro m
w h ich no elaborated va ria n ts can be recovered.
T h is s tu d y also shows th a t ce rta in claim s made about genres are
supported b y an exam ination o f tagging and C hicano gang g ra ffiti and
tagging and C hicano gang social practices. Hodge and Kress (1988),
fo r exam ple, argue th a t the existence o f p a rtic u la r genres is
dependent up o n p a rtic u la r social groups’ e nforcing the ru le s b y w h ich
the genres are co n stitu te d . Likewise, in Genre Analysis, Swales argues
th a t genres are prod u cts o f discourse co m m unities and th a t discourse
com m unities have m echanism s fo r in te rco m m u n ica tio n (various
genres), fo r p ro vid in g in fo rm a tio n and feedback. W ith in the tagging
and C hicano gang discourses, in stru m e n ts and m echanism s fo r the
m aintenance o f the g ra ffiti genre exist.
Piece books and piecing lots, fo r exam ple, have been show n to
p la y a p a rt in (tagging) genre m aintenance. D iscourse a ctivitie s such
as crossing o u t g ra ffiti and la b e lin g g ra ffiti as toys, in a d d itio n to being
g ra ffiti form s in and o f them selves, also m a in ta in the tagging g ra ffiti
re giste r standards.
The g ra ffiti jo u rn a l Can Control has also been show n to have a
role in (tagging) genre m aintenance. T his is seen in the w ay g ra ffitis ts
use it to develop th e ir own styles. W hat is n o t in clu d e d in the body of
th is te x t is the role the Can Control in te rview s p la y in genre
2 2 6
m aintenance. Below is an unedited in te rvie w — i.e., it is tra n scrib e d in
n e a rly an id e n tic a l form to the o rig in a l— p ublished in the Can Control
Bomber 95 issue o f Can Control. The in te rvie w excerpt appears here
because it sum m arizes one o f the m any ways in w h ich tagging
knowledge and values are d is trib u te d and standards are m aintained.
The in te rvie w b y Can C o n tro l is w ith the bombers SABER, TOOMR,
and GK:
[ C o n Control:] You guys picked an HI (sic) city to run. LA.,
is big, with so many writers, & gangsters, how is the e f f o r t
kinging, (sic)
SABER: H ectic.
TOOMR: V ery hectic. There’s a llo t (sic) o f people rig h t
now , it ’s h a rd to be on top because th e re ’s always someone
to knock you back down.
[Can Control:] Is that kids coming up or Toys dissing. (sic)
SABER: A llo t (sic) o f Toys dissing.
GK: Toys and new kid s. A llo t (sic) o f jealousy.
TOOMR: We need to police o u r own. The one’s (sic) w ho
get up, the one’s (sic) w ho know should check the Toys.
There should be no m ore D issing (sic) in the fu tu re . T h a t
crossing o u t s h it has to go. They have to know . The ru le s
are sim ple: a T hrow Up goes over a Tag, a Piece goes over
a th ro w up. There should be no cryin g over it.
[Can Control:] Can Control works on schooling that
evolution, but it seems people are just lost. How can we
get back to that.
TOOMR: We need people, (sic) w ho W rite rs w ill respect
to te ll the little k id s th a t you can’t cross each o th e r out.
You can’t go over W rite rs th a t are established. There (sic)
going over W rite rs th a t live G ra ffiti, (sic) T h a t w o rk on it
day and n ig h t. They cross o u t someone because th e y feel
lik e it th a t day. (1995:7)
Can Control in te rview s are m erely one m ethod b y w h ic h th is
‘ jo u rn a l’ exercises discourse m aintenance. Though th e n o n -sta n d a rd
conventions o f the above Can Control in te rvie w are fa scin a tin g , w h a t is
even m ore in te re s tin g is the degree to w h ich the p u b lic a tio n o f the
in te rvie w is m eant to be in s tru c tiv e to readers. C learly, the in te n tio n
227
is to teach p ra c tic in g and prospective taggers the norm s o f behavior
and values o f tagging cu ltu re . A d d itio n a lly, Can Control showcases
g ra ffiti in vogue in the tagging com m u n ity. M oreover, it refuses to
provide an arena fo r sub standard form s. B y so doing, as do academ ic
jo u rn a ls . Can Control endorses ce rta in styles as correct"^
A n o th e r cu rio u s feature exh ib ite d in th is in te rvie w is th a t the
interview ees seem to la m e nt the changes in tagging fro m some g lo ry
years past. T hus another conclusion o f th is research is th a t despite
the efforts o f a jo u rn a i such as Can Control, taggers them selves— and
gang m em bers fo r th a t m a tte r— have u ltim a te co n tro l over the
conventions in vogue in the genres o f th e ir discourses.
T h is conclu sio n is supported b y a n u m b e r o f concepts developed
b y G iddens and described in C hapter 2. Am ong h is ideas, the n o tio n
o f the d u a lity o f structure is discussed: th a t is, agents create a new
structure and h is to ry in perfo rm ing discourse acts, even w hen
fo llo w in g s tru c tu ra l and h is to ric a l precedents. B y being agents,
w rite rs have pow er to cause effects (create stru ctu re s) despite the
in s titu tio n a l powers established in the specific discourse th a t m ig h t
co n stra in in d iv id u a l powers. N onetheless, because the p ra c tic in g gang
m em bers and the taggers w ho w rite g ra ffiti have pow er in th e ir
p a rtic ip a tio n in discourse acts such as w ritin g g ra ffiti, th e y the re b y
have the u ltim a te pow er in creating the form s and fu n ctio n s o f the
g ra ffiti registers o f th e ir c u ltu re s.
intentionally label Can Control ajournai rather than a magazine because its
characteristics appear to fit the description of the journal genre better.
228
3 Future Research
T h is w o rk com pares o n ly tw o d is tin c t g ra ffiti registers. There
are a m u ltitu d e o f ways in w h ich the g ra ffiti genre is em ployed b y
num erous diverse social groups. Each deserves study. Separate lines
o f research are ju s tifie d because a single, general th e o ry o f g ra ffiti is
n o t possible: the m o tiva tio n s fo r producing g ra ffiti va ry across g ra ffiti
w ritin g cu ltu re s and g ra ffiti w ritin g in d iv id u a ls .
O ther discourses w a rra n tin g stu d y in clu d e o th e r e th n ic gangs
w h ich w rite g ra ffiti. T h e ir practices should be com pared to and
contrasted w ith those o f the C hicano gangs. C rips and Bloods (A frican-
A m erican gangs), fo r exam ple, have been presum ed to w rite fewer
g ra ffiti th a n C hicano gangs (Los Angeles C ounty S h e riffs D epartm ent
1990). One m ig h t w a n t to discover if and w h y th is is so.
F u rth e rm o re , one m ig h t w a n t to com pare and co n tra st the
ch a ra cte ristics o f these g ra ffiti, especially as th e y relate to the d is tin c t
social practices and w o rld view s o f the c u ltu re s in question.
E xa m in in g the social practices o f other registers such as those
o f bathroom writers, political activists, and adolescent athletes w ould
c o n trib u te to a w id e r u n d e rsta n d in g o f g ra ffiti w ritin g behavior.
C om paring features o f g ra ffiti registers such as gang w riting vs.
bathroom w riting w ill e n lig h te n o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f elem ents such
as the effect o f context. Junction, and audience on g ra ffiti features; it
w o u ld broaden o u r u n d e rsta n d in g o f the fundam entals o f these
d iffe re n t lite ra c ie s.
One m ig h t also s tu d y genres other th a n g ra ffiti th a t share
ch a ra cte rsistics o f g ra ffiti such as heckling. It w ould be in te re s tin g to
229
fin d o u t w h ich g ra ffiti registers diverge from and converge w ith other
n o n -g ra ffiti registers, and w hy they do so.
A c ro s s -cu ltu ra l (in tern a tio n a l) analysis o f g ra ffiti is also in order.
The tw o p u b lic w ritin g practices o f p o litic a l and com m ercial
advertisem ent in M exico described above suggest th a t m any m ore
studies o f w ritin g tra d itio n s in oth e r countries are required. Cross-
c u ltu ra l data w ould fu rth e r illu m in a te the extent to w h ich d iffe re n t
lite ra cie s and the cla ssifica tio n o f g ra ffiti are tie d to c u ltu ra l practices
and w o rld views.
F u tu re com parisons should also inclu d e d iffe re n t spaces. For
exam ple, one w ould w a n t to know w hy the subways o f New Y ork
receive a great deal o f g ra ffiti whereas those o f W ashington D.C. receive
re la tiv e ly little . Spaces w h ich receive su b sta n tive ly d iffe re n t g ra ffiti—
e.g., road dividers vs. b illb o a rd s — should also be com pared and
contrasted based on th e ir co n te xtua l features as th e y relate to g ra ffiti
w ritin g practices.
T his g ra ffiti stu d y accounts fo r a large database o f g ra ffiti
(ro u g h ly 400 pictures), b u t does n o t apply s ta tis tic a l m ethods in th e ir
analysis. The developm ent o f m ethods o f analysis is needed fo r the
stu d y o f g ra ffiti. D ocum enting g ra ffiti in th e ir e n tire ty a t a given p o in t
in tim e in w hole gang neighborhoods, w hole bus lines, and tagging
freeways could be a s ta rtin g p o in t fo r such an analysis th a t could
e ve n tu ally u tiliz e s ta tis tic a l tools. T his m ig h t allow fo r accurate
assessm ents (counting) of su b -re g iste r types as w e ll as in te r-re g is te r
and e xtra -re g iste r com parisons.
230
G ra ffiti databases could also be u tiliz e d to augm ent the g ra ffiti
dim ensions proposed in th is research. A m ore extensive lis t o f
elem ents (in a d d itio n to canvas, institutional representation, etc.)
m ig h t be com piled, and fu rth e rm o re , w eightings o f those dim ensions
could be tested e m p irica lly from c u ltu re to c u ltu re and person to
person.
C u rre n tly , g ra ffiti databases are being generated in , fo r exam ple,
an in te rn e t w ebsite (on a rt crimes) developed fo r the purpose o f
c h ro n ic lin g g ra ffiti a rt.^ U n fo rtu n a te ly, enterprises such as a rt crimes
are lim ite d b y a num ber o f shortcom ings suggested b y th is research.
B asically, the g ra ffiti docum entation lacks adequate co n te xtu a liza tio n
in to such elem ents as discourse acts and other conte xtua l features.
S tudies o f the em erging trends in the tagging and C hicano gang
g ra ffiti registers are also appropriate. These registers change ra p id ly ,
and d ocum entation o f th e ir change w o u ld in d ica te the processes by
w h ich those registers change. They w o u ld also describe the contexts
o f fu tu re fu n c tio n s in these g ra ffiti w ritin g discourses w h ich shape the
new g ra ffiti form s. New conventions w ill arise, new m edia w ill be
used, new w o rld view s w ill be developed, etc.
F u tu re research should also te st some basic p red ictio n s th is
research in d ica te s. It is hypothesized, fo r exam ple, th a t tagging w ill
evolve m ore ra p id ly th a n gang w ritin g . T h is is due in large p a rt to the
d iffe re n t values b o th groups have regarding g ra ffiti uniqueness.
Because taggers appreciate u nique styles, it is predicted th a t th e ir
^The art crimes address at the time of this research is
http: / / www.gatech.edu/desoto/graf/Index.Art_Crimes.html.
231
form s w ill change m ore ra p id ly to accom m odate th is value. Tagging
in n o va to rs w ill fin d fam e in p rod u cin g new le tte r form s, perhaps w ith
d iffe re n t m edia, on d iffe re n t surfaces, etc.
A d d itio n a l research should also address o th e r w ritte n genres
used by g ra ffiti w ritin g groups. For instance, w h ile tagging groups use
genres such as jo u rn a ls in th e ir social practices, C hicano gang
m em bers re g u la rly em ploy genres such as the ta tto o genre in th e ir
social practices. The ta tto o in g re giste r o f C hicano gang m em bers is
som ew hat related to the g ra ffiti register, and th is connection should
be explored fu rth e r. C om parisons and contra sts are needed o f the
m any genres u tiliz e d by these social groups.
T atto o in g is a good exam ple of a genre w a rra n tin g fu tu re stu d y
because its stu d y also requires contexts w id e r th a n th a t of
so cio lin g u istics, for, as w ith m uch g ra ffiti, ta tto o in g is fre q u e n tly
w ritte n w ith o u t lin g u is tic form s. Analyses o f these d iffe re n t form s are
ju s tifie d as w e ll. Hence, the stu d y o f g ra ffiti— and o th e r w ritte n genres
fo r th a t m a tte r— w o u ld b e n e fit from in te r-d is c ip lin a ry research.
F in a lly, the lite ra c y required fo r va rio us g ra ffiti genres should be
stu d ie d and com pared. To fu n c tio n in tagging society, fo r exam ple,
one needs a specific k in d o f lite ra c y in order n o t o n ly to decode oth e r
tags, b u t also to p o sitio n them as discourse acts o f tagging cu ltu re .
F u rth e rm o re , a specific k in d o f lite ra c y is re qu ire d to successfully
negotiate oth e r genres o f the tagging discourse such as the jo u rn a ls
u tiliz e d . The Can Control in te rvie w reproduced above is lik e ly to be
in com prehensible to m a in stre a m society m em bers la c k in g know ledge
o f tagging w o rld view s, concepts, and social practices. M any gang
232
m em bers w ith phonem ic decoding s k ills w ould n o t be able to m ake
sense o f the in te rvie w e ith e r because o f the differences in th e ir g ra ffiti
lite ra cie s. Nevertheless, taggers and gang m em bers w ith some basic
graphem ic-phonem ic decoding s k ills w ould lik e ly be able to
com prehend oth e r texts, such as those produced b y m any su b
registers o f bathroom graffiti. F u tu re research should explore w h y th is
difference in lite ra c y requirem ents exists.
233
REFERENCES
Abel, E. L. & B uckley, B. E. 1977. The handw riting on the w all:
Toward a sociology and psychology o f g rq ffitt W estport, CT:
G reenwood Press.
A ccin e lli, L. 1993, J a n u a ry 31. W ho's doing th is : The taggers w ho
tra s h y o u r streets a re n 't ju s t som ebody else's kid s. D aily Breeze.
Anderson, R. C. & Pearson, P. D. 1988. A schem a-theoretic view o f
basic processes in reading com prehension. In P. L. C a rre ll, J.
D evine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second
language reading. (37-55). New Y ork: C am bridge U n ive rsity
Press.
A rgyros, A. J. 1991. A blessed rage fo r order: Deconstruction,
evolution, and chaos. A nn A rbor: The U n ive rsity o f M ichigan
Press.
A tkin so n , D. 1993. A historical discourse analysis o f scientific
research w riting fro m 1675-1975: The case c f the philosophical
transactions o f the Royal Society. U n p u b lish e d doctoral
d isse rta tio n . U n ive rsity o f S outhern C a lifo rn ia .
A tkin so n , D. 1991. D iscourse analysis and w ritte n discourse
conventions. In W. Grabe et al. (Eds.), A nnual review o f applied
linguistics, 11. (57-76). New Y ork: C am bridge U n iv e rs ity Press.
A u s tin , J. L. 1962. How to do things w ith words. Cam bridge, MA:
H arvard U n iv e rs ity Press.
Baquedano-Lopez, P. 1995. On C hicano languages and C hicano life:
A n in te rvie w w ith O tto Santa A na A. Issues in Applied
Linguistics. 6 (l):6 5 -8 4
Bayles, K. A. 1982. Language fu n c tio n in senile dem entia. B rain and
Language. 16:265-80.
Bean, M. 1991. Getting heard: Perseveration in the speech o f a young
Latino learner. U npublished doctoral d isse rta tio n . U n iv e rs ity of
S outhern C alifornia.
de Beaugrande, R. & D ressier, W. 1981. Introduction to text
linguistics. New Y ork: Longm an.
van Bergem, D. R. 1993. A coustic vowel re d u ctio n as a fu n c tio n o f
sentence accent, w ord stress, and w ord class. Speech
Communication. 12:1-23.
234
B iber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and w riting. New York:
C am bridge U n iv e rs ity Press.
Bonuso, C. A. 1976. G ra ffiti. Today's education. 65(3):90-1.
B ru th ia u x , P. 1996. The discourse o f classified advertising: Exploring
the nature o f linguistic sim plicity. New Y ork: O xford U n ive rsity
Press.
B ru th ia u x , P. 1993. Linguistic sim plicity and the language o f classified
ads. U npublished d octoral d isse rta tio n . U n iv e rs ity o f S outhern
C alifornia.
C am pbell, J. 1990. Transform ations o f m yth through time. New Y ork:
H a rp er & Row.
de C astell, S. & Luke, A. 1988. D efining “lite ra c y ” in N o rth A m erican
schools: Social and h is to ric a l conditions and consequences. In
E. R. K intgen, B. M. K ro ll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on
literacy. (159-74). C arbondale: S outhern Illin o is U n ive rsity
Press.
de C astell, S., Luke, A., & M acLennan, D. 1986. On d e fin in g literacy.
In S. de C astell, A. Luke, & K. Egan (Eds.), Literacy, society, and
schooling: A reader. (3-14). New York: C am bridge U n ive rsity
Press.
C astlem an, C. 1982. Getting up: Subway g ra ffiti in New York.
C am bridge, MA: The M IT Press.
Chafe, W. & Tannen, D. 1987. The re la tio n between w ritte n and
spoken language. A nnual review o f anthropology. 16:383-407.
C h alfant, H. & Prigoff, J. 1987. Spraycan art. New Y ork: Tham es and
Hudson.
Cohn, C. 1987. Sex and death in the ra tio n a l w o rld o f defense
in te lle c tu a ls . Signs. 12(4):687-718.
C om rie, B. 1986. M arkedness, gram m ar, people, and the w orld. In F.
R. Eckm an, E. A. M oravcsik, & J . R. W irth (Eds.), M arkedness.
(85-106). New Y ork: Plenum Press.
C onal, R. 1992. A rt attack: The m idnight politics o f a guerrilla artist.
Hong Kong: H arper Perennial.
235
Cooper, M. & C halfant, H. 1984. Subway art. New Y ork: H enry H o lt
and Company.
C u lle r, J . 1982. On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after
structuralism . Ithaca, NY: C ornell U n ive rsity Press.
D A ndrade, R. G. 1992. A fterw ord. In R. D 'Andrade & C. S trauss
(Eds.), Hum an motives and cultural models. (225-32). New
Y ork: C am bridge U n ive rsity Press.
D e iu lio , A. M. 1978. O f adolescent c u ltu re s and su b cu ltu re s.
Educational Leadership. 3 5 (7 ):5 1 7 -2 0 .
van D ijk , T. A. & K intscb, W. 1977. Cognitive psychology and
discourse: R ecalling and su m m arizing stories. In W. D ressier
(Ed.), Current trends in linguistics. (61-80). B e rlin : de G ru yte r.
D onnan, 8. G. & A lexander, D. 1992, December 14. S pray cans d o n 't
k ill. The Los Angeles Times, p.B 5.
D u r a n ti, A. 1985. S o cio cu ltu ra l dim ensions o f discourse. In T. A. van
D ijk (Ed.), Handbook o f discourse analysis. Vol. 1: Disciplines o f
discourse. (193-229). New Y ork: Academ ic Press.
D u rkb e im , E. 1915. The elementary form s o f religious life. (J.W .
Sw ain, Trans.). London: George A lle n & U nw in.
Finegan, E. & B iber, D. 1994. Register and social d ia le ct v a ria tio n : A n
integrated approach. In D. B ibe r & E. Finegan (Eds.),
Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. (315-47). New Y ork:
O xford U n iv e rs ity Press.
Finegan, E. & B iber, D. 1986. Tow ard a u n ifie d m odel of
so cio lin g u istic prestige. In D. S ankoff (Ed.), D iversity and
diachrony. (391-7). P hiladelphia: Jo h n B enjam ins.
Fiske, J. 1989a. Understanding popular culture. Boston: U nw in
Hym an.
Fiske, J. 1989b. Reading the popular. Boston: U nw in H ym an.
Foss, D. J . & Speer, S. R. 1991. G lobal and local context effects in
sentence processing. In R. R. H offm an & D. S. Palerm o (Eds.),
Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological
perspectives. H illsd a le , NJ: Lawrence E arlbaum .
236
Freire, P. 1988. The a d u lt lite ra c y process as c u ltu ra l action fo r
freedom and education and conscientizaçào. In E. R. K intgen, B.
M . K ro ll, & M . Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy. (398-409).
C arbondale: S outhern Illin o is U n ive rsity Press.
Freire, P. & Macedo, D. 1987. Literacy: Reading the word and the
world. S outh Hadley, MA: B ergin & G arvey P ublishers.
Freud, S. 1950a. Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. (J.
Strachey, Trans.). London: H ogarth.
Freud, S. 1950b. Totem and taboo. (J. Strachey, Trans.). London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fuentes, D. & Lopez, J. 1974. Barrio language dictionary: First
dictionary ofCalô. La Puente, CA: S u n b u rst E nterprises.
Gee, J. P. 1992. The social mind: Language, ideology, and social
practice. New Y ork: B ergin & Garvey.
Gee, J. P. 1991. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in
discourses. London: The Falm er Press.
G iddens, A. 1984. The Constitution o f society. Berkeley: U n ive rsity
o f C a lifo rn ia Press.
G iddens, A. 1982. Profiles and critiques in social theory. Berkeley:
U n ive rsity o f C a lifo rn ia Press.
G iddens, A. 1979. Central problems in social theory: Action,
structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley:
U n ive rsity o f C a lifo rn ia Press.
G lazer, N. 1979. On subw ay g ra ffiti in New Y ork. The Public Interest.
5 4 (W in te r):3 -l 1.
G offm an, E. 1974. Frame analysis: A n essay on the organization o f
experience. New Y ork: H arper & Row.
Grabe, W. 1985. W ritte n discourse analysis. In R. B. Kaplan et al.
(Eds.), A nnual review o f applied linguistics, volume 5. (101-23).
New Y ork: Cam bridge U n ive rsity Press.
G rice, H. P. 1975. Logic in conversation. In P. Cole & J, L. M organ
(Eds.), Syntax and semantics, volume 3: Speech acts. (41-58).
New Y ork: Academ ic Press.
237
G um perz, J. J. 1992. C ontextualization and un d e rsta n d in g . In A.
D u ra n ti & C. G oodw in (Eds.), R ethinking context. (229-252).
C am bridge: C am bridge U n ive rsity Press.
G um perz, J. J. 1982a. Disourse strategies: Studies in interactional
sociolinguistics 1. C am bridge: Cam bridge U n iv e rs ity Press.
G um perz, J. J. 1982b. In tro d u c tio n : Language and the
com m unication o f social id e n tity . In J. J. G um perz (Ed.),
Language and social identity. (1-21). C am bridge: C am bridge
U n iv e rs ity Press.
H alliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: A rnold.
H a llid a y, M. A. K. & H assan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. New York:
Longm an.
H a rris, M . G. 1988. Cholas: Latino girls and gangs. New Y ork: AMS
Press.
H a rris, W. V. 1992. D ictionary o f concepts in literary criticism and
theory. New Y ork: Greenwood Press.
H atch, E. 1992. Discourse and language education. New York:
C am bridge U n iv e rs ity Press.
H eath, S. B. 1983. Ways w ith words: Language, life, and w ork in
communities and classrooms. New Y ork: C am bridge U n ive rsity
Press.
Hodge, R. & Kress, G. 1988. Social semiotics. Ith a ca , New York:
C o rn ell U n iv e rs ity Press.
Hoebel, E. A. 1960. The Cheyennes: Indians o f the great plains. New
Y ork: H o lt, R in e h a rt and W inston.
H udson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cam bridge: Cam bridge
U n iv e rs ity Press.
H u n t, M. B. 1993. C ontextualization in reading: B ravery in tagging and
Latino gang g ra ffiti. In J. A. Nevis, G. M cM enam in, & G.
T hurgood (Eds.), Papers in honor o f Frederick H. Brengelman.
(41-44). Fresno: C a lifo rn ia State U n ive rsity, Fesno.
H u n t, M. B. 1990, N arrative in m ild and m oderate d im e n tia o f the
A lzheim er type. U n p u b lish e d m aster’s screening paper.
L in g u istics D epartm ent, U n ive rsity o f S outhern C a lifo rn ia .
238
Hym es, D. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic
approach. P hiladelphia: U n ive rsity o f Pennsylvania Press.
Jo h n so n -L a ird , P. N. 1983. M ental models. C am bridge, MA: H arvard
U n iv e rs ity Press.
K aplan, R. 1992. W hat is re a lly involved in reading and w ritin g .
L^nguas M odem as. 19:77-87.
K ohl, H. 1969. Names, g ra ffiti, and cu ltu re . The Urban Review.
3 (5 ):2 4 -3 7 .
Kress, G. 1985a. Linguistic process in sociolinguistic practice. N ew
York: O xford U n ive rsity Press.
Kress, G. 1985b. Ideological s tru c tu re s in discourse. In T. A. van D ijk
(Ed.), Handbook o f discourse analysis. Vol. 4: Discourse analysis
in society. (27-42). New Y ork: Academ ic Press.
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. P hiladelphia: U n iv e rs ity of
Pennsylvania Press.
Lachm ann, R. 1988. G ra ffiti as career and ideology. Am erican Journal
o f Sociology. 94(2):229-50.
Lem ke, J. L. 1988. Text s tru c tu re and te xt sem antics. In E. H.
S te in e r & R. V eltm an (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text:
Some system atically inspired approaches. (158-70). London:
P in te r.
Los Angeles C ounty S h e riff s D epartm ent. 1990. S treet gangs o f Los
Angeles: A w h ite paper. Los Angeles C ounty S h e riff s
D epartm ent O peration Safe Streets Gang D etail.
Lyons, J. 1982. D iexis and su b je ctivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In R. J.
J a rve lla & W. K lein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in
deixis and related topics. (101-24). New York: J o h n W iley &
Sons.
M acdonell, D. 1986. Theories o f discourse: A n introduction. O xford:
B a sil B lackw ell.
M a lin o w ski, B. 1923. The problem of m eaning in p rim itiv e languages.
In C. K. Ogden & 1 . A. R ichards (Eds.), The meaning o f meaning
(Supplem ent 1). (296-336). New York: H a rco u rt, Brace &
W orld.
239
M a rtin , J. R. 1992. English text: System and structure. P h ila d e lp h ia :
Jo h n B enjam ins P ublishing Company.
M a rtin , J. R. 1989. Factual w riting: Exploring and challenging social
reality. Hong Kong: O xford U n ive rsity Press.
M cC lelland, J. L., R um elhart, D. E. & H in to n , G. E. 1986. The appeal
o f p a ra lle l d is trib u te d processing. In D. E. R um elhart, J . L.
M cC lelland, & the PDP Research G roup (Eds.), Parallel
distributed processing: Explorations in the m icrostructure o f
cognition. Volume 1: Foundations. (1-46). C am bridge, MA:
The M IT Press.
M oore, J. M . 1978. Homeboys: Gangs, drugs, and prison in the
barrios o f Los Angeles. P hiladelphia: Tem ple U n ive rsity Press.
M oravcsik, E. A. & W irth , J. R. 1986. M arkedness— an overview. In F.
R. E ckm an, E. A. M oravcsik, & J. R. W irth (Eds.), Markedness.
(1-11). New Y ork: Plenum Press.
Neely, J. H. 1991. Sem antic p rim in g effects in v is u a l w ord
re cog n itio n : A selective review o f c u rre n t fin d in g s and theories.
In D. Besner & G. W. H um phreys (Eds.), Basic processes in
reading: Visual word recognition. H illsd a le , NJ: Lawrence
E rlbaum .
Ochs, E. 1992. Indexing Gender. In A. D u ra n ti & C. G oodwin (Eds.),
R ethinking Context. (335-58). C am bridge: C am bridge
U n iv e rs ity Press.
O lm os, E. J. 1993. Lives in Hazard. [Film ]. Olm os P roductions, Inc.
P h illip s, M. 1985. Aspects o f text structure. O xford: N o rth-H o lla n d .
P okinhorn, H ., Velasco, A., & Lam bert, M . 1983. El libro de Calô:
Pachuco slang dictionary. San Diego: A ttic u s Press.
Fyies, T. & Algeo, J. 1982. The origins and development o f the
English language (3rd ed.). San Diego: H a rco u rt Brace
Jovanovich.
R eisner, R. 1971. G raffiti: Two thousand years o f w a ll writing. New
York: Cowles Book Co.
Reisner, R. & W echsler, L. 1974. Encyclopedia o f graffiti. New York:
Galahad.
240
R om otsky, J . & Rom otsky, S. 1974. Plaças and m u ra ls. Arts in
Society. 11(2)2 8 6 -9 9 .
S cribner, S. 1988. Literacy In three m etaphors. In E. R. K intgen, B.
M . K ro ll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy. (71-81).
C arbondale: S outhern Illin o is U n ive rsity Press.
S cribner, S. & Cole, M. 1988. U npackaging lite ra cy. In E. R. K intgen,
B. M. K ro ll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy. (57-70).
C arbondale: S outhern Illin o is U n ive rsity Press.
Searle, J. R. 1971. W hat is a speech act? In J. R. Searle (Ed.), The
Philosophy o f language. (39-53). O xford: O xford U n iv e rs ity
Press.
Sells, S. & S m ith, C. 1992. G raffiti wars: A m atter o f pride. [F ilm ].
M aster’s thesis, U n ive rsity o f S outhern C a lifo rn ia .
S m ith, F. 1988. Joining the literacy club: Further essays into
education. P ortsm outh, NH: H einem ann.
S teiner, E. H. & V eltm an, R. 1988. In tro d u ctio n . In E. H. S teiner &
R. V e ltm a n (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text: Some
system atically inspired approaches. (1-12). London: P inter.
S tew art, J. 1989. Subway graffiti: An aesthetic study o f g ra ffiti on the
subw ay system o f New York city 1970-1978. U np u b lish e d
d o cto ra l d isse rta tio n . New Y ork U n ive rsity.
S toddard, S. 1991. Text and texture: Patterns o f cohesion. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Street, B. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice. C am bridge:
C am bridge U n ive rsity Press.
S tubbs, M. 1980. Language and literacy: The sociolingutstics o f
reading and writing. New Y ork: Routledge.
Swales, J. M . 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and
research settings. Cam bridge: C am bridge U n iv e rs ity Press.
Taussig, M. 1992. The nervous system. New York: R outledge.
Taussig, M. 1980. The devil and commodity fe tish ism in South
America. Chapel H ill: The U n ive rsity o f N orth C aro lin a Press.
T olford, D. 1986. G uide fo r reading yo u th gang g ra ffiti. U npublished
m a n u scrip t. R iverside C ounty Juvenile Gang Program .
241
Treacy, T. 1993. Can control: G raffiti magazine. Issue five. W in te r
1992-93.
T ru d g ill, P. 1974. Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and
society. New Y ork: The Penguin G roup.
Vam edoe, K. & G opnik, A. 1990. High & low: M odem art and
popular culture. New Y ork: The M useum o f M odern A rt, New
York.
Varone, A. 1990. Voices o f the ancients: A s tro ll th ro u g h p u b lic and
p riva te Pom peii. In “L .’E .” d i B re tsch n e id er (Ed.),
Rediscovering Pompeii: Exhibition by IBM-ITALIA New York
City, IB M gallery o f Science and Art, 12 J u ly -15 September,
1990. (26-41). New York: IBM .
V ig il, J. D. 1988. Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in
Southern California. A u stin : U n ive rsity o f Texas
Press.
V ita co lo n n a , L. 1988. ‘Text’/ ‘discourse’ d e fin itio n s. In J. S. Petofi
(Ed.), Text and discourse constitution: Em perical aspects,
theoretical approaches. New Y ork: W alter de G ruyter.
W agner, R. 1986. Symbols that stand fo r themselves.
Chicago: The U n ive rsity o f Chicago Press.
W orkm an, B. 1989. The city that grew. Los Angeles: The S outhland
P ublishing Co.
W ittg e n ste in , L. 1953. Philisophical Investigations. New Y ork: The
M acM illan Com pany.
242
APPENDIX A: TAGGING GLOSSARY
background: to cover another w rite r’s g ra ffito .
battle: a contest between two taggers or crews in w h ich th e y have to
w rite m ore g ra ffiti o r w rite b e tte r q u a lity g ra ffiti.
bite: to steal another w rite r’s style (or tag).
bomb: to w rite p ro lific a lly; to perseverate.
bomber: a piecer w ho w rite s /p a in ts p ro lific a lly .
bubble: a ro un d , o u tlin e form o f w ritin g .
buffed (buffed-out): cleaned; w hen g ra ffiti has been rem oved.
burn: to do w e ll (w riter); to look good (g ra ffiti).
burner: a m u lti-co lo re d piece.
character: n o n -o rth o g ra p h ic, p ic to ria l g ra ffiti w ritin g .
crazy: w illin g to ris k ; brave.
crew: a group o f taggers w ho w rite and socialize together and use a
specific nam e fo r the group.
cross-out: a lin e or lines draw n th ro u g h a g raffito .
d e f: skille d .
describer: a bo a rd — u s u a lly e le ctro n ic— on a bus in d ic a tin g the bus
route or bus num ber.
destination board: a b o a rd --u su a lly electronic--on a bus in d ic a tin g the
bus route or bus num ber.
destroy: to p a in t large q u a n titie s o f g ra ffiti in a p a rtic u la r place.
dis: disrespect.
to be down: to be in accord w ith gang values; to have done som ething
adm irable in gang cu ltu re .
dude: ‘guy;’ m an.
fam e: renow n in the tagging w orld.
243
fa t cap: a spray can cap w h ich em its a w ide p a in t spray.
go over: to cover a n o th er’s graffito .
g rill: the m esh panel on the side, back o r backside o f a bus p ro te ctin g
the engine w h ile a llow ing access and a ir c irc u la tio n .
heavens: h ig h places in w h ich to w rite g ra ffiti.
hit: to w rite g ra ffiti in a p a rtic u la r spot.
kick-back: a tagging hangout.
kill: to do w e ll in tagging c u ltu re .
king: the best g ra ffitis t in an area.
Krylon: a p o p u la r brand o f spray p a in t used in tagging.
landm ark: a g ra ffiti ta rg e t w h ich rem ains uncleaned [unbuffed) fo r a
long period o f tim e.
loked (loked out): crazy; brave; d ru n k o r drugged.
m ainhead: a leader o f a tagging crew.
OG: ‘o rig in a l;’ the firs t to w rite a p a rtic u la r g ra ffito tag or style.
piece: ‘m asterpiece;’ a g ra ffito w h ich displays m ore th a n one color,
a d d itio n a l dim ension in the le tte rin g , or a d d itio n a l characters.
piece book: a personalized sketch book used fo r p ra c tic in g pieces,
p la n n in g pieces, docum enting pieces (w ith photos), and
re cord in g sam ples o f the g ra ffiti o f o th e r w rite rs .
piecer: a tagger w ho produces pieces.
piecing lot: a rem ote lo ca tio n where taggers practice piecing and
socialize.
rack: to steal spray p a in t.
roll-call: a g ra ffito in d ic a tin g m ore th a n one crew m em ber; a g ra ffito
lis tin g a ll o f the m em bers o f a p a rtic u la r crew.
l(^9noun’ a g ra ffito w h ich indicates a tagging nicknam e, crew, o r both .
244
tcLQverb- to w rite g ra ffiti w h ich follow s the conventions o f tagging
society.
throw -up: bubble w ritin g ; w ritin g th a t is w ritte n in one color in
o u tlin e form .
toy: an inadequate tagger o r graffito .
to be up: to have a b u n d an t g ra ffiti in the environm ent.
w ild-style: w ritin g th a t incorporates m any a d d itio n a l angles in the
le tte rin g .
w rite: to produce tagging g ra ffiti.
w rite r: tagger.
245
APPENDIX B: GANG GLOSSARY
back up: to su p p o rt the gang; to fig h t fo r the gang, a clique, or a gang
m em ber.
calô: a C hicano dialect; a d ia le ct o f Chicano gang m em bers and
m em bers o f C hicano organized crim e groups.
cholo: a C hicano c u ltu ra l style often in co rp o ra tin g dress w h ich m ay
in clu d e (for males) ironed T -s h irts , baggy k h a k i pants,
P endleton s h irts (buttoned at the top), w ide bandanna head
bands or d a rk k n it caps, and shined b la ck le a th e r shoes.
clique (clika /klika): a sub-group o f the larger gang m ade u p o f age
cohorts who socialize and perform gang a ctivitie s together.
con sqfos: ‘same to yo u .’
cross-out: one or m ore lines covering a g ra ffito .
de donde?: ‘W here are you from ?’ a request fo r another to id e n tify h is
gang m em bership.
dis: disrespect.
to be down: to be in accord w ith gang values; to have done som ething
adm irable in gang cu ltu re .
ese: dude.
hard-core: dem on stra tin g serious gang com m itm ent b y w ay o f dress,
g ra ffiti w ritin g , ta tto o in g , o r oth e r gang-like a ctivitie s.
homeboy (homie/homes): a fellow gang m em ber.
Jump in: to take p a rt in a clique in itia tio n rite in vo lvin g a b e a tin g —Le.,
receiving one--or some o th e r fo rm o f bravery in accord w ith
gang values.
Jump out: to take p a rt in a rite o f q u ittin g a clique in vo lvin g a b e a tin g —
the e x -p a trio t is beaten.
loco (locos): crazy; brave; d ru n k or drugged.
neighborhood (hood): a gang or gang te rrito ry .
ôrale: ‘hey.’
246
plaça (placaso/plaquiaso): a personalized g ra ffito or ta tto o o f a gang
m em ber in d ic a tin g h is gang’s name, h is cliq u e ’s nam e, and h is
gang nicknam e; any gang g ra ffiti or ta tto o w ritin g o r draw ing.
puto: ‘pussy.’
rank out: n o t su p p o rt one’s neighborhood.
raza (rasa): the C hicano or M exican race.
rifa (rifamos): ‘ru le s ;’ is the best (we are the best.
roster: a g ra ffito in d ic a tin g m ore th a n one gang m em ber; a g ra ffito
lis tin g a ll o f the m em bers o f a p a rtic u la r clique.
varrio (barrio): a gang; a poor C hicano neighborhood.
vato: dude.
veteran (veterano): an older gang m em ber; a re tire d gang m em ber.
viva: ‘live s;’ ru le s or is the best.
que?: ‘A nd w h a t are you going to do about it? ’
247

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Women's autobiography and national identity: Natalia Ginzburg, Anna Banti and Renata Vigano

PDF

Aspects of the tension complex in the life and works of Jakob Wassermann

PDF

Madame de Stael: The significange of her Weimar period

PDF

Mme. de Stael: Her Russian-Swedish Journey

PDF

Fate in the novels of Zola and Couperus; a comparison with the Greek concept of fate

PDF

Madame de Stael: Her English period

PDF

Outside the Whale: Reading the American Political Novel in the Age of Reagan

PDF

David of Sassoun: The Armenian folk epic

PDF

The critical technique of Sainte-Beuve considered in its relationship to the modern biography as exemplified by Lytton Strachey and Andre Maurois

PDF

Family-based risk and protective mechanisms for youth at-risk of gang joining

PDF

Lafcadio Hearn and French literature

PDF

Mexican mirage a study of the Belletristic literature based upon the Maximilian Empire in Mexico, 1864-1867

PDF

Critical crossroads: Narrative, rhetoric and ideology in critical essays of the Chicano renaissance.

PDF

The Prometheus myth: A study of its literary vicissitudes

PDF

The sentential structure of Arabic

PDF

Of "briddes and beestes": Chaucer's use of animal imagery as a means of audience influence in four major poetic works

PDF

A comparative study of poetic elements in selected plays by John Millington Synge and by Federico Garcia Lorca

PDF

The effect of cooperative and individualistic goal structures on the preferences and attribution of field-dependent and field-independent students

PDF

Don Pedro Calderon de la Barca's "Comedia del Astroidgo Fingido" an edition

PDF

Psychologists' perceptions of older clients: The effect of age, gender, knowledge, and experience

Asset Metadata

Creator Hunt, Matthew Busby (author)

Core Title The sociolinguistics of tagging and Chicano gang graffiti

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag language, literature and linguistics,OAI-PMH Harvest,Social Sciences

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c37-74595

Unique identifier UC11632084

Identifier DP71563.pdf (filename),usctheses-c37-74595 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP71563.pdf

Dmrecord 74595

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hunt, Matthew Busby

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA