logo

69 pages 2 hours read

Mitchell Duneier

Sidewalk

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1999

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Part 4: “Regulating the People Who Work the Streets”Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Part 4, Chapter 1 Summary: “The Space Wars: Competing Legacies”

At the start of the chapter, Duneier refers to Mayor Giuliani’s political ambitions and the views of academics Kelling and Wilson during the 1990s, stating they pushed for greater control of public spaces due to minor unrest on the streets. But local business owners like Jose Torres also echo their concerns about the drug habits or lack of hygiene of panhandlers and scavengers: “Apart from the nuisance they create […] they sometimes don’t look presentable” (231).

Andrew Manshel, an attorney for the Grand Central Partnership and the 34th Street Partnership, subscribes to the broken-windows theory of policing and believes vendors like Hakim persist in “anti-social” behavior that goes against the norms of society (231). The Grand Central Partnership is a powerful Business Improvement District (BID), which refers to an area in which local business and property owners pay fees for additional quality-of-life services such as street sanitation and security. By hiring such private services, BIDs use the broken-windows theory as a way to curb minor civic unrest on the sidewalks. Duneier speaks with Manshel to understand how Local Law 45, which places restrictions on vendors selling written materials, passed in City Council.

Manshel acknowledges that social scientists may be upset with their work, but defends himself against scholars whom he believes “distort Jane Jacobs” when they accuse BIDs of racism and trying to “Disneyfy downtown and exert fascistic control over public spaces” (234). In their efforts to create reform through Local Law 45, the Grand Central Partnership and 34th Street Partnership recruited Edward C. Wallace to their cause. Ironically, Wallace had been a civil liberties lobbyist who fought for the passage of Local Law 33 in the previous decade, but grew dismayed when he found the law was being used less to protect the First Amendment rights of people distributing pamphlets and more to allow individuals to set up private businesses on the sidewalk.

Wallace defends himself, stating that he isn’t “giving up the free-speech principle” but rather “recognizing how it can be distorted […] for no First Amendment benefit” (235). He contends that the book vendors have produced congestion on sidewalks, preventing firefighters and ambulances from gaining access and creating a situation where pedestrians may be more susceptible to theft—despite there being little evidence to support these claims. In response, others, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and then-Mayor Dinkins, ask that the BID be careful not to trample on the book vendors’ First Amendment rights. So Wallace drafts a law that will protect the constitutional rights of vendors.

The version of the law that ultimately passes will prevent written matter (book and magazine) vendors from selling in areas where food vendors are prohibited from working. Also, the law includes a provision that stipulates the “mandatory number of feet between a vendor’s table and a street corner, the entrance to a building, or a subway entrance” (238). Mayor Dinkins, who is competing in a 1993 election bid against challenger Rudolph Giuliani—whose primary focus during the campaign has been quality-of-life concerns in New York—signs the law on the basis of protecting public safety and health.

Duneier highlights an effect of competing space that results from these laws, specifically involving an incident between black vendor Mudrick and a white comic book vendor, Howard. Howard had threatened to call 911 during a dispute the day before, when vendors would not create space for him. Mudrick took offense, since there is an unofficial rule in place on Sixth Avenue that vendors work out issues amongst themselves. Both enter into a heated argument. Mudrick tells Howard: “You listen to me! Don’t tell the police anything! We have to straighten it out with the people in the street!” (245). But as Duneier notes, Mudrick can’t make claims of shared black consciousness with a white vendor in order to persuade him not to call the police, so instead, he and other vendors must make room for Howard.

Before Local Law 45, black vendors would have been reticent to call police due to informal rules that vendors work out matters between themselves, lest they be called a “snitch” or a “plantation boy” for selling out their fellow black man to law enforcement (239). Although space is legally available to whomever arrives first under the municipal law, they are upending the normal order of how vendors respect each other’s informally-designated spaces. Prior to Local Law 45, this dispute over space would have been unlikely to occur, as there was sufficient space for all vendors to operate. As a result of the law, respect between the vendors breaks down over insufficient space, leading to greater disorder than before.

Following the passage of Local Law 45, another BID called the Village Alliance emerges, wielding jurisdiction over Sixth Avenue in their attempts to clean up Greenwich Village. They plant trees on the sidewalk to cut down on the available space for vendors, indicating another way that social order based on the broken-windows theory makes life harder for those on the streets. Duneier concludes with the words of BID President Honi Klein, who speaks of people on the street in unsparing terms: “Where I think there should be a change in the law is that I don’t think the First Amendment should protect street people. They are not homeless. These people never had homes” (252). 

Part 4, Chapter 2 Summary: “A Christmas on Sixth Avenue”

It’s the holiday season of 1996. Ishmael has a few complaints against the New York City Police Department, who confiscated his belongings earlier in the morning. Ishmael believes that the department wrongly targeted him due to their grievances with scavengers Joe Garbage and Al. The two men placed their merchandise on the ground in violation of local laws, thus prompting the police to clear out all vendors’ goods from Sixth Avenue. This is upsetting for Ishmael as an unhoused man, since he keeps personal possessions in the bags underneath his table, causing him to lose the clothes he had purchased for a date that night. Other men have a similar bag in which they store belongings. As Warren stresses, “That bag is my life […] it had my clothes, my ID, my toiletries, just things that I need to survive on the street” (254).

Duneier includes this incident to demonstrate how a “new model of policing” under then-mayor Rudolph Giuliani impacts unhoused men on the streets of New York (255). The enforcement stems from the belief that areas with minor forms of non-violent disorder—such as panhandling and scavenging—are at greater risk of producing felony crimes. This policing around broken windows spurs police to “clean up” neighborhoods of street dwellers in a so-called “quality-of-life” campaign, leading them to micromanage vendors for the sake of maintaining order (255).

This situation necessitates a working relationship between the police and the vendors, in which the police request compliance from vendors and vendors request that police not abuse their authority. To illustrate how this system works, Duneier accompanies Ishmael to the police station to try and secure the return of his possessions. At the station, Ishmael chats with a desk sergeant that he’s met before. Ishmael cannot recall the name of the policeman who seized his possessions, but recounts for the officer what he recalls of the incident. During their conversation, the desk sergeant tells Ishmael, “I’ve always treated you with the utmost respect and, to tell you the truth, I don’t know why anybody would have a hard time with you, because you’ve always treated me with respect” (257). Nonetheless, the officer doesn’t know who took Ishmael’s belongings and states that there is little they can do at this point to recover them.

When Ishmael and Duneier return to Sixth Avenue, Ron and Marvin chastise Ishmael, who they believe may have brought down this punishment upon himself for being away from his table at the time of the theft. But Ishmael refuses to admit that he left his table, even when his logic is challenged by Ron and Marvin. In his denial, Ishmael reveals his understanding that belongings left alone can and will be seized. Even though this action is not technically legal under municipal ordinances, the vendors recognize it as a legitimate act. Hakim confirms that police officers prey upon vendors’ ignorance: “If you don’t know the law, they abuse you” (270). After this conversation, Ishmael spots a twenty-something Asian woman named Tina standing nearby, whom he possessively refers to as his “wife,” even though they have just begun a romantic relationship (265).

Duneier reads through the local ordinances and confirms that an officer does not have the right to order a merchant to move from a legal vending space. So he conducts a social experiment by setting up a table in the same spot that Ishmael has just left. The purpose of this test is to determine whether a black police officer would treat a white, upper-middle-class male differently from a poor, unhoused black vendor. When the officer returns and orders Duneier to break down his table, Duneier refuses. When the officer commands Duneier again, he asks whether he is in the legally allotted space. The officer repeats his order a third time, to which Duneier responds “Under what law?” (272). The officer seizes the copy of the law from Duneier, who requests its return. The officer points to Ishmael, whom he says complied with his order unlike Duneier. The officer tries to undercut Duneier by telling him that “vending on Sixth Avenue is a privilege bestowed on you guys by this community over here” (273). The officer, known as Officer X, returns the copy of the law to Duneier when his white police partner, Captain Y, tells Duneier that “we decide where you’re allowed to vend and where you’re not. So don’t cop an attitude with the officer”(274).Unlike Ishmael, Duneier does not defer to the authorities, but stands firm in his position.

Despite Duneier’s opposition, the officers ultimately allow him to stay, though it is unclear whether this is due to race, socioeconomic status, or his knowledge of the laws. To try to find a comparison, he cites a letter that Hakim wrote describing how he was treated after the passage of Local Law 45. In compliance with the law’s minimum-space requirements, he located his table twenty feet from the entrance to Balducci’s Supermarket and ten feet from the street intersection. Balducci’s security guard orders him to depart and returns with a police sergeant and two patrol sergeants. Hakim asserts his legal right to occupy the space. Realizing that Hakim is aware of the law, the officers cannot illegally force him to leave and exit the scene. Hakim perceives this event through a racialized lens, describing how members of the public harmfully stereotype his intelligence on the basis of his African-American identity: “Because I am generally regarded as a Nigger, many white folks, even well meaning white folks, think I am stupid. Stupid means: The inability to achieve the tactical intelligence of a white person” (278).

Lastly, Officer X returns to the sidewalk to chat with Ishmael, who records the encounter, unbeknownst to the officer. The officer expresses his frustration with the vendors, whom he says continue to disobey orders by setting up their tables even after their goods have been seized by law enforcement. However, he believes he and Ishmael have an amicable relationship, asking the vendor: “You was upset, but you respect me and I respect you. I never give you any beef out here, do I?” (280).Due to that mutual respect, Officer X says he prefers interacting with Ishmael as opposed to Duneier, and refers to the author derogatively based on his whiteness: “Fuck him. I don’t know Joey White Bread from Adam” (281). The officer concludes the conversation by handing Ishmael $5 to buy a beer—the officer’s way of apologizing because Ishmael demonstrates respect, or what Duneier calls “the lens through which much is seen on Sixth Avenue” (285).The author surmises that Officer X feels humiliated when he is not respected by the vendors, while Ishmael simultaneously feels mistreated by the police but may also be embarrassed for him. Thus, Ishmael defers to the officer’s authority by asking politely if he is able to set up on the sidewalk. 

Part 4 Analysis

One of the key desires that comes across in Part 4 is the will of vendors to maintain their dignity in spite of challenging life circumstances. When referencing his “survival bag” containing toiletries and other necessities, Warren demonstrates the pride that many unhoused men exhibit in maintaining their hygiene and appearance in accordance with the norms of society, despite the beliefs of local business members and Andrew Manshel to the contrary. He says, “Some people out here stay in the same clothes, don’t care about their hygiene. But that’s not me. I wasn’t brought up like that” (254). Beyond just dignity, the vendors implicitly express a desire for recognition of their humanity, which is often stripped from them in the public setting, wherein officers routinely seize their belongings without either consent or legal authority.

This section delves into a running theme in the book, which centers on how race and socioeconomic status impact the way public characters are treated on the sidewalk. The black officer feels some sense of kinship toward his fellow black vendors due to their shared racial history and would rather work with them than a white stranger like Duneier, but the humiliation he feels at their insubordination weakens that bond: “I don’t like to pick on brothers…But these guys, they push me too far, man. How could they get respect if they don’t respect their own kind?” (283). In this statement, Officer X also references a key idea in the book: respect. This term underscores the basic way of conducting business on Sixth Avenue. Vendors need to respect other vendors and pedestrians, and police and vendors must show some basic respect to one another. When this respect breaks down—as we see in the wake of Local Law 45, due to insufficient space producing competition between vendors—so does the free flow of business.

The vendors, on the other hand, feel law enforcement mistreats them due to their status as lower-income black men. Hakim alludes to this sense that black vendors are vulnerable to exploitation due to racial discrimination, and urges any “sane African American” vendor to learn the law for themselves and not take at face value the words of a police officer (278). In doing so, Hakim also expresses another running theme in the book, which is that knowledge can empower individuals to combat systemic forces of oppression. This racial tension can also persist between black and white vendors, such as the knowledge in “The Space Wars: Competing Legalities” that middle-class white comic book vendor Howard might be treated more favorably by the police than lower-income black vendors would be.

“A Christmas on Sixth Avenue” also dissects a new era of policing—both its sociological roots and its impacts on vendors’ ability to conduct business. The incident between Ishmael and Officer X is a common example of broken-windows policing as it affords law enforcement a great deal of discretion in how they “regain control of the street and […] establish orderly, conventional standards of conduct” (260). This kind of policing increases the face-to-face interactions between officers and vendors. When respect between the two entities breaks down, officers are driven to “take the law into their own hands” (260). A lieutenant tells Duneier that instead of issuing tickets, he prefers to confiscate a vendor’s goods, once the vendor has left his table unoccupied. This establishes the officer’s social control as it forces the vendor to stay near his items. It also provides the policeman with a sense of pleasure for punishing vendors who do not obey their authority and thus embarrass them.

As a way of explanation for how this policing arose, Duneier discusses the sociological theorists like George Kelling and Catherine Coles, whose book Fixing Broken Windows enabled policing based on minor disorder to replace “voluntary social control” or informal modes of self-regulation in public places like the sidewalk (286). Although Duneier says that some aspects of their methodology have likely reduced crime, he believes that the portions of the theory targeting “people trying to make ‘an honest living’ on the sidewalks are intellectually the weakest parts of these prescriptions” (287).

Duneier finds little in common between a broken car window or vandalism and a panhandler trying to eke out a living. Duneier breaks from his usual pattern of participant-observation to assert a dissenting opinion based on his research. In doing so, Duneier shows that there is disagreement among sociologists about how best to deal with crime and policing. He demonstrates the shift in the field since the days of Jane Jacobs, who argued that “eyes on the street” made the sidewalk safer. For Jacobs, these eyes on the street were public characters. For those who subscribe to the broken-windows theory, the eyes are those of law enforcement.

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text