Going to Court: Strategies of Dispute Management in an American Urban Neighborhood

Merry’s article “Going to Court: Strategies of Dispute Management in an American Urban Neighborhood” described the use of the court, the police, and other methods of handling issues among an urban housing project. The author begins by outlining the races of the population of the project, as well as their education and social class. Her analysis of the way people in the neighborhood handled disputes indicated that people with power were likely to resort to violence, especially in crime-initiated disputes and interpersonal conflicts; likewise, people with less physical strength and experience in violence were more likely to consult the police. Of the dispute processing moves, eleven females used the court and none employed violence, while four males used the court and seventeen employed violence. Merry also explored across racial lines, finding that blacks were as likely to use the courts as they were violence, while whites were three times as likely to use the courts than they were to use violence; the Chinese population, however, did not consult the courts and resorted to violence in four instances. In experience with the law, of those with criminal records, seven resorted to violence, while none used the courts. This is explained further when Merry suggests that one’s prior criminal offenses hurt their credibility in court, often resulting in skepticism of innocence and, subsequently, harsh punishments. Merry also indicates that formal controls (court, police), as opposed to informal controls (gossip, avoidance) were less likely used by people with potential long-term investment in the community, the relationships in question, and a combination of the two. In particular, the Chinese population in the neighborhood did not seek the power of the court, as they had ties to the community, sometimes completely dependent on the English-speaking Chinese, and were unwilling to risk losing the support.

What struck me in this article was the way that violence played a role in the neighborhood. For one, it was a method to “settle” a dispute (often resulting in one party moving away, unwillingly or not). But, in the case of Renee and George, in which he publicly struck her after she left him, the violence played a different role. The author intimated that though violence had characterized their relationship in the past, George’s insult led to legal action because, as the two were no longer seeing each other, “he no longer had the same rights to hit her” (Merry 909). Also, that he committed this offense in public was another reason for Renee’s chagrin. To me, violence is a way of gaining respect in this community. It is a method through which disputes can be settled – through fear and intimidation – and in an urban community, this surprises few people. Though the courts can be powerful, they are clearly unproductive in settling disputes in the neighborhood in the study. The main power that is recognized, then, is violence. In this case, George’s violence against Renee resulted in greater violence directed at his person, which led to his exodus from the project. Public violence against another can gain respect, but it can also guarantee danger to one’s person. It seems an ineffective and foolish way to settle disputes, because there is always someone bigger, with more friends and/or weapons; all that is needed, of course, is for a powerful ally to align with the powerless. The cowboy-like, vigilante justice system in the community is reckless, volatile, and indicates that the courts have far less impact on the neighborhood – short of blaming, shaming, and intimidation – than can be hoped. Given the failure of the courts to attribute sufficient weight to the cases brought before them, as well as a slant against those with previous criminal records, it is not certain that further legal action would prove productive in managing disputes in this neighborhood.