Slipping the Line: The Embodied and Affective Materiality of Gang Territories by Amelia Curran A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario ©2020, Amelia Curran Abstract In both popular and academic accounts, one of the defining features of gangs is their strong attachment to turf—the home territory under the control of a gang. However, the concept of gang territory often remains narrowly defined as a static and bounded region claimed, defended, and controlled by gang members; a view that fails to account for versions of space beyond settler colonial models. In contrast, this dissertation uses a new materialist lens to attend to the ways gang territories are made, maintained, and disrupted through the daily practices of a variety of actors. I draw on multi-sited qualitative fieldwork in Winnipeg, Manitoba, a city referred to as the gang capital of Canada. Through interviews with gang and non-gang-affiliated residents, police, and administrators working or living within gang territories, I show that gang territories are made material through various embodied practices that enact these spaces in affective, emergent, mobile, and multiple forms. I argue that central to the materialization of gang territories are embodied regularities that contribute to the multiplicity and mobility of boundaries, to gang space that takes shape as new mobilities and conditions of the body, and as territory that spatializes as the racialized body. This project expands gang research by highlighting gang behaviours and processes outside the scope of criminal enterprise, and by showing territorialization as a process that implicates a broad range of actors. Recognizing the role of multiple actors encourages a relational ethics of accountability between bodies, practices, and place that challenges the often-naturalized connections between race, space, and crime. Understanding gang space as enacted through embodied material practices provides an alternative way to think through, trace, and disrupt these associations. i Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the guidance and support provided by my supervisory committee. My co-supervisors Aaron Doyle and William Walters stood patiently by me throughout the duration of this project. Aaron, your unflagging support, enthusiasm, and pragmatism made the completion of this project possible. William, your incisive theoretical insights enriched my analyses, strengthened my academic standards, and encouraged creative risk-taking. Bruce Curtis, your breadth and depth of theory have long been a source of awe and inspiration for me. Michael Mopas, thank you for your keen analytic assessment and thoughtful questioning. A sincere thank you to my doctoral examiners, Dr. Blomley and Dr. Hamilton, for lending their valuable time and expertise to this project. I am grateful to the Department of Sociology and Anthropology’s administrative staff, especially Paula Whissell, Darlene Moss and Patricia Lacroix for steering me through applications, deadlines, and policies with patience, kindness, and skill. This research would not have been possible without the generous participation of all the respondents. I have particular appreciation for the young people who shared their stories with me, and I am humbled by the maturity, intelligence, and humour they used to express their experiences of violence, fear, and discrimination. I have worked with a community of incredible colleagues. I would like to acknowledge Seantel Anaïs, Mya Wheeler, Sarah Zell, and Bronwyn Dobchuk-Land for making academia a collaborative and supportive experience. Sarah, thank you for being my steadfast ally and guide through this and everything. Thank you to my family: my mother, Michael, Dawn, Jim, Lisa, Debra, Ed, and Ruth and especially Adrien, Nieve and Ellie, for your continued support and encouragement through the ups and downs of this undertaking. This research was undertaken on Treaty 1 territory, traditional territory of Anishinaabeg, Cree, Oji-Cree, Dakota, and Dene Peoples, and the homeland of the Métis Nation. This work received financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Carleton University, and The Government of Ontario. The analysis and opinions expressed in this dissertation, as well as any oversights or inaccuracies, are my own. ii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... iii Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Gang Territories as Material Spaces ................................................................................. 6 1.3 Structure of the Dissertation ............................................................................................ 17 Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ................................... 19 2.1 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 19 2.1.1 The Chicago School’s Ecological Theory ............................................................. 21 2.1.1.1 Social Disorganization Theory ................................................................... 24 2.1.1.2 Intervention ....................................................................................................... 25 2.1.1.3 Policing ................................................................................................................. 26 2.1.2 Group Processes ............................................................................................................ 27 2.1.3 Structural Analysis ........................................................................................................ 28 2.1.4 Globalization .................................................................................................................... 30 2.1.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 33 2.2 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................. 34 2.2.1 Actor-network Theory ................................................................................................ 39 2.2.2 Nonrepresentational Theory .................................................................................... 41 Chapter 3: Methodology ...................................................................................................... 47 3.1 Introduction and Research Questions .......................................................................... 47 3.2 Locating the Field ................................................................................................................... 48 3.2.1 Winnipeg Gang Territories ........................................................................................ 48 3.2.2 Getting There................................................................................................................... 56 3.2.3 Leaving Room For That Which Cannot Be Found ........................................... 59 3.3 Relational Ethnography ...................................................................................................... 61 3.3.1 Multi-site, Multi-actor.................................................................................................. 63 3.4 Positionality ............................................................................................................................. 65 3.5 Method of Inquiry .................................................................................................................. 66 3.5.1 Polymorphous Engagement ...................................................................................... 66 3.5.2 Residents ........................................................................................................................... 68 3.5.3 Ex-gang Members .......................................................................................................... 75 3.5.4 Administrators ............................................................................................................... 76 3.5.5 Criminal Justice System Employees ...................................................................... 76 3.6 Data Analysis............................................................................................................................ 80 iii Chapter 4: Despite Straight Lines..................................................................................... 82 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 82 4.2 City Spaces ...............................................................................................................................