This concluding chapter considers the value of social field analysis, my application of it to the street gang and my overarching theoretical proposition of street capital. In so doing, it explores further the utility of this framework and the policy implications of the findings. Finally, we return to the metaphor of the casino to answer the question of why violence has increased in SW9.

What is new here?

Throughout this book, I have shown how social field analysis, and its methodological application to gang research, provides not only a critical platform permitting in-depth analysis of gang dynamics and behaviours, but also a theorising perspective allowing identification of new changes in the gang's social field. This valuable methodology becomes a generative perspective offering the following advantages:

• • the social field and its players can be viewed holistically;

• • inter- and intra-gang relationships are exposed;

• • general theories of behaviour may be generated;

• • underlying structures may be identified, such as the binding concepts of doxa and illusio.

I propose that social field analysis is therefore a useful diagnostic for investigating the gang domain and its internal dynamics. It facilitates deeper exploration of many assumptions commonly misrecognised or even erroneously made about gangs, for example, that they have ‘messy structures’ (Aldridge et al, 2008); that they are disorganised, messy and rhyzomatic (Hallsworth and Silverstone, 2009); that they are an obsessive media invention, moral panic or myth (Hallsworth and Young, 2008; Hallsworth and Duffy, 2010); that they are not organized (Hallsworth, 2013); that no recruitment takes place (Aldridge and Medina, 2008; Hallsworth, 2013); that gang activity is driven solely by drugs and minor disrespect (Toy, 2008); that there are ‘gang set spaces’ (Ralphs et al, 2009); that guns are mostly used within illegal drugs markets (Hallsworth and Silverstone, 2009); and that those involved are ‘psychologically unpredictable’ (Hallsworth and Silverstone, 2009). My findings are a powerful counterpoint to such views.

My approach further contests some contemporary beliefs that merely discussing gangs reinforces labelling theory (Aldridge et al, 2008: Ralphs et al, 2009) or defines the researcher as a ‘control agent’ of an ‘emergent gang industry’ (Hallsworth and Young, 2008; Hallsworth, 2011). In contrast, I argue that my perspective is firmly grounded in the reality and experience of the social field.