













































 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 
JESSE GELWICKS 

On a shady street in a California Central Valley college town stands a tan and 
brown two-story house. Out in front of the carport rises a low basketball 
hoop; beside it lies a square of scruffy grass. Scattered around the house are 
the signs of children: a basketball, a bicycle helmet, some candy wrappers 
and a well-worn skateboard. Two boys aggressively bounce a ball back and 
forth while two others stand nearby. The ball skids past the legs of one boy, 
causing a boy in line to shout, "He's smokin' your butt like cheese macaroni," 
which sends all but one of the boys into shrieks of laughter. The first boy in 
line replaces the boy who missed the ball and the game continues. Unlike 
similar driveway games going on around the neighborhood, this game is not 
played in front of a family home. These boys, whose names I have changed 
to protect their anonymity, live in a group home I will call Redwood Grove. 

From fall of 1999 through the spring of 2000, I worked part-time at 
Redwood Grove. The following summer I increased my hours to full-time. 
As a staff member I cooked and served the boys meals, helped them with 
their homework, read to them, took them to the park, and played with them. I 
also enforced rules, gave "time-outs," and occasionally restrained them. My 
role as researcher was secondary to my role as a caretaker; therefore, I could 
not be a completely neutral observer. Most likely I could never escape the 
relationship of staff to ward. On the other hand, the boys knew I cared for 
them, and they grew to trust me. I was a part of the staff/ ward hierarchy; 
however, my familiarity with the boys enabled me to see their everyday lives 
and behavior, as opposed to the behavior the boys presented to visitors. 

This ethnography examines the seven boys who lived in the group home 
over the course of eleven months (during which time one boy left and another 
filled his slot). The number of participants in the study limits my ability to 
make major generalizations about children's lives in group homes. On the 
other hand, the small number of subjects allowed for informal and formal 
interviews and in-depth observations over the course of a year. My study 
builds on previous studies and research on children in institutions by 
psychologists and folklorists (see, for example: Polsky, Cohen and Eilersten, 
Horan, and Mechling). 

In this paper, after a brief introduction to the group home and the rules 
and structure that govern it, I discuss the way behavior is charted and the way 
the staff imposes hierarchy. I then show that the boys in the group home 
constitute a folk group that creates a social hierarchy of its own in opposition 
to the one created and maintained by the staff. Then I 



 

GELWICKS 

explore the various ways the boys construct frames and how their framed 
relationships create and maintain a social hierarchy. Following that section, I 
present two folk performances—storytelling and teasing—that the boys use 
for maintaining their hierarchy. Then I present two examples of the staff's 
influence on the folk culture. 

In the second half of the paper I present a photography project in which I 
gave the boys the assignment of taking photographs of their important 
material possessions. I detail the process of taking the photographs and then 
situate the boys' photographs and perceptions of their material culture in the 
context of the group home culture and hierarchy. 

This is a case study of male preadolescent and early adolescent folk 
culture. Perhaps because these boys live in a group home and must cope with 
an unusual, stressful living situation, they employ an intensified version of the 
ways children use folklore. Part of the lesson here is that boys sometimes try 
to use folklore and it fails. Those areas of failure are instructive. By looking at 
the successes and failures, adults have the opportunity to monitor the feelings 
and tensions the boys cannot express explicitly. Adults can learn about how 
boys see and react to the world around them and how that affects their male 
friendship group hierarchies. 

REDWOOD GROVE 

Redwood Grove is one of two houses run by a small nonprofit organi-
zation that operates group homes for children between the ages of eight and 
thirteen. The six boys at Redwood Grove were placed there by the California 
juvenile court because their parents used drugs or because the boys were 
abusive sexually, physically, or emotionally (the abuse often accompanies the 
drug use). Some of the boys were born with drugs in their systems. F our of 
them took daily behavior modifying medication. All were first put into foster 
care, which did not last because of behavior problems. 

The facility was designed as a Level 11 group home. The level of the 
group home indicates the degree of supervision and structure provided for the 
children-the levels range from 8 to 15, with the highest being the most 
heavily structured and supervised. This group home aims to put structure into 
the boys' lives by regulating their behavior, providing constant supervision, 
making sure they have regular meals and snacks, and giving them group and 
individual counseling, all within a safe and supportive environment. 

While psychologists such as William Pollack believe that many boys 
experience premature separation from their mothers, the boys at Redwood 

66 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

Grove are the extreme cases; their emotional deficits are much greater than 
normal. The group home staff assists in repairing self-esteem and self-
confidence. They attempt to curb the negative behaviors and self-hate, but 
because the group home is an institution with paid employees, not surrogate 
mothers, the boys must learn on their own as well. One way the boys deal 
with their past and present situations is through their folklore. From the 
games they play with each other and staff, to social hierarchies they create, to 
stories they tell about each other and staff, they are learning to cope with the 
psychological and social stresses in their lives. 

Redwood Grove is similar to what Erving Goffman labels a "total in-
stitution," except that the boys are not completely shut off from the wider 
society. They go to public school, occasionally participate in city sports or 
recreation programs, and (depending on their behavior) go out in the town to 
buy toys, visit friends, or play in the park. Apart from school, all outside 
activities are opportunities that they must earn based on their behavior. Most 
of the time the boys are at Redwood Grove interacting with Redwood Grove 
staff and residents. Each day is tightly structured, "with one activity leading 
at a prearranged time into the next, the whole sequence of activities being 
imposed from above by a system of explicit formal rulings and a body of 
officials" (Goffman 6). The activities, from the type of education to 
counseling to daily interactions, are designed to meet behavior modification 
goals set for the boys. 

Weekdays during the school year are the most heavily structured days. 
From the moment the staff wakes them, the boys follow a tightly scheduled 
routine posted in the hallway, including school, daily chores, tutoring, meals 
and bedtimes. They earn free time in the afternoon if they finish their 
homework. If they have been behaving well, they can play outside. After 
dinner, they have free time until it is time to take a shower and go to bed. 
Bedtime is determined by their level on the behavior chart. Those who are 
behaving well that week stay up later and, consequently, earn more free time. 

Before coming to Redwood Grove the boys had little structure or 
stability in their lives, while at the same time they had limited control over 
their lives. In some cases they took care of younger siblings. In the group 
home, they have both structure and stability, but almost no control. "Children 
are an underclass perpetually in the one-down power position" and "nowhere 
is this more true than in the residential institutions established for children" 
(Mechling 273). Staff create and enforce the rules that the wards live by. The 
boys act out and rebel against the rules and the staff react accordingly. 

67 



 

GELWICKS 

POINTS AND PRIVILEGES 

A central element in molding the boys' behavior is a behavior chart on 
which the staff keep track of the boys' privileges and the amount of super-
vision they require. At any time upon entering Redwood Grove, staff can 
immediately determine each boy's behavior by consulting the chart in the 
dining room. The boys' initials are printed in erasable pen next to their step 
and level, which correspond to certain privileges; the three most important 
deal with supervision, video game time, and bedtime. 

The chart was devised as a series of incentives to entice the boys to try to 
follow the rules. The boys can move up or down the chart each day depending 
on their behavior. The staff record how they behave on a point sheet. The 
boys' behavior is constantly scrutinized. Almost everything they do, from peer 
interaction, to following directions, to going to bed on time, has a 
corresponding point value. If they do their daily chores, they earn three 
points. If they make their beds, they earn one point. If they have good peer 
interactions during dinner, they earn four points. When they go to school, 
they turn in a behavior log to the teacher, who fills out points, grading them 
on their school work, homework, classroom behavior, and recess behavior. If 
they talk back to staff or will not follow directions, they cannot earn all their 
points. 

The boys are often scattered across the behavior chart, although they 
more regularly tend to occupy the bottom half. Occasionally, one boy will be 
a level or two above the rest and enjoying privileges and freedom the others 
are not. At other times, the boys are grouped together closely. The disparity 
between the boys' levels and privileges creates a hierarchy in the group. This 
staff-monitored hierarchy competes with another hierarchy, created by the 
boys, which is based on power rather than good behavior.  Just because a boy 
behaves well does not mean that he has much influence over the other boys; 
in fact, they often resent his superior position. 

The boys' social hierarchy works counter to the staff-monitored hier-
archy, minimizing the privilege of a high position on the behavior chart. The 
group can exclude a boy high on the behavior chart or induce him to 
misbehave in hopes that he will be caught and brought down with the rest of 
the group. While the boys' hierarchy does not directly break the rules, it is 
part of what Mechling describes as the "folk offensive in the political 
struggle over 'whose institution is this, anyway?"'(Mechling 276). 

The social hierarchy created by the boys structures the group home 
culture and frames the social interaction between boys. The boys develop the 
frames in their everyday interactions, such as playing games, arguing, 
sharing, teasing, excluding and including others. Their tacit understanding of 
frames and the manipulation of frames cannot be underestimated. While 

68 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

they may not be able to articulate the behavior, they understand the subtle 
nuances and body language that send the metamessages such as "this is play" 
and "this is a competition that looks like play." 

POGO AND CREATING FRAMES 

One afternoon Jerod, age twelve, and I were outside playing Pogo, the 
boys' version of the classic schoolyard game Two-Square. Although the 
structure of the game was traditional, the boys' names for certain hits and rule 
variations identified Pogo as their own folkgame. After two games, Jerod 
asked if I wanted to keep score. Keeping score was a common device the 
boys used to transform a simple Two-Square game into a more complicated 
and competitive game in which each time one person got the other "out" they 
won a point. They played either to a set number or until one finally gave up. 
The boys could only keep score when nobody stood in line; otherwise, the 
line rotated in with each "out." 

During the first game, Jerod "played on" for my benefit when I made a 
mistake, and in return I "played on" for his, thus establishing the frame of a 
friendly game. I tried to continue that frame by "playing on" some of his 
questionable "scizzards," the boys' name for a fast and low hit that almost 
skids across the ground. He did the same for me. At the same time we were 
playing hard, "scizzarding" and "babying," a common name for the smallest 
hits, all over the court. Our play established that, although this was a friendly 
game frame, it was also competitive. I won a couple of games and got ahead 
of Jerod. As our scores reached the "teens" (near game's end), Jerod stayed 
just two behind me. I tried to tone down my playing a bit, but he would not 
let me lose enough for him to catch up. We both played hard, but we also 
made stupid mistakes to let the other win. We played "the twenties" harder, 
and finally, Jerod pulled ahead when I said I would play only three more 
games. 

I realized Jerod planned out the whole game. Jerod had let me win 
before, but never as cleverly as this. I thought I was playing in a particular 
frame that we had both established, but really Jerod was creating that frame 
and manipulating it as we played. He was playing this game to keep me 
playing as long as I would. He manipulated me through the frame, just as a 
con artist might hustle a sucker; only instead of money, all Jerod wanted was 
one-on-one attention. 

Boys often connect with others through actions such as initiating a game 
with a boy with whom they want to become friends (Pollack 182). Jerod 
sought connection with the other boys and staff through Pogo. For a period of 
eight to nine months the boys played Pogo more than any other 

69 



 

GELWICKS 

game in the house. Jerod often initiated those games, asking another boy or 
staff to come outside with him after he finished his homework. Pogo provided 
a medium for interaction. 

Jake, age eleven, approached Pogo differently than Jerod. Jake was 
extremely competitive. Jerod, who loved to play Pogo, would often try to 
adapt to whomever he was playing—to play at the same level of competi-
tiveness. One afternoon Jake and Jerod were playing Pogo and Jake took 
more advantage of the rules concerning lines, "do-overs" and interference 
than did Jerod. Jake was quick to point out when Jerod's hit was out of 
bounds, and Jerod was willing to go along with that. Jerod did not mention 
when a ball should have been called "interference" or "out back boundary" or 
"liner" or any of the other ways the boys identified when they should "redo" 
the point. Jake manipulated the frame so that he was winning. Jerod 
manipulated the frame so Jake continued to play; Jerod's desire for 
connection superseded his desire to win. 

Play involves a negotiation of frames, and games can be personal or 
impersonal, depending on the frame the players establish. In some cases, the 
play frame extends beyond the single game and is reflective of the players' 
relationship. In the example above, the game was situated in the middle of a 
restructuring of the boys' social hierarchy. Jake was vying for the opening 
position at the top the hierarchy as Joshua, age thirteen, was leaving. Jerod, 
who was older than Jake, did not make any strong attempts at that position. 
Similar to the way he played Pogo, Jerod took a less competitive approach to 
the social hierarchy. Through Pogo, Jerod developed methods of interaction 
he could use outside of the folkgame. 

SYMBOLIC VIOLENCE: JOSHUA AND THOMAS 

The boys maintained and challenged their socially constructed hierarchy 
every day in the way they interacted with each other. In turn, the hierarchy 
framed their interactions. As they stayed within the frames created by the 
hierarchy or reinforced those frames, the hierarchy's structure strengthened. 
In the following examples, the boys construct and maintain those frames 
through a series of interactions. 

One Friday, all the boys, except for Thomas, age eleven, who was 
staying at the house due to his poor behavior, were in the van about to go to 
their weekly counseling group for victims. Before the van could pull out of 
the driveway, Thomas ran out to the van to try to join the group. Thomas and 
Joshua started exchanging words. Joshua, who was sitting in the front seat, 
lunged through the window with his fists clenched and screamed at Thomas 
that he was going to "kick his ass." Joshua knew that 

70 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

he could not attack Thomas (the car door was in the way), but he could make 
a dramatic display by lunging out of the open window at Thomas yelling and 
waving his fists. 

Joshua displayed his power and potential for violence in front of the 
other boys without risking much. He would lose peer interaction points and 
perhaps drop a level for threatening behavior, but he did not actually make 
contact with Thomas. Joshua was playing the role of the "tough guy" without 
actually having to prove it, a behavior characteristic of what Pollack 
describes as the "mask" of masculinity. Joshua's stylized performance of 
aggression may actually be "an invisible shield, a persona to show the outside 
world a feigned self confidence and bravado, and to hide the shame he felt at 
his feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness and isolation."(Pollack 5). 

Joshua's display left the other boys to decide whether it was a bluff or he 
actually was that mean and vicious. Joshua framed the boys' relationship with 
him in terms of his own projected violence, thereby taking the dominant role 
in their future interactions. This frame would help Joshua maintain his 
position at the top of the social hierarchy, rewarding him for his masculine 
image. 

THOMAS AND FRANCISCO 

The week following Joshua's display of aggression, another incident of 
symbolic violence took place. On the way to group, Thomas, who was 
having yet another horrible day, provoked Francisco, age 10, into exchanging 
rapid insults. Before the van had left the home block, the name-calling had 
escalated to the point where Thomas was lunging at Francisco, who was 
sitting in the seat in front of him. I was sitting next to Thomas, so I easily 
held him back, just as the car door had held back Joshua. 

The previous week's events made an impression on Thomas. He tried to 
recreate the dangerous and powerful image that Joshua had created without 
actual physical violence, just as Joshua had done. Thomas followed the same 
pattern by choosing a target lower on the social hierarchy than he and by 
choosing a time when he would be held back from actually making contact. 

The stylized symbolic violence by Joshua and Thomas sent a message to 
the other boys about potential actual violence, as well as a message about the 
structure of the social hierarchy. Joshua demonstrated symbolic violence as 
an effective means of displaying power. When Thomas copied Joshua's 
behavior he did not move up the social hierarchy as much as reinforce 
people's existing positions within the social hierarchy. He solidi- 

71 



 

GELWICKS 

fied his position over Francisco as well as reinforcing Joshua's behavior and 
position. 

MAINTAINING THE HIERARCHY: THOMAS AND THE OLD 
CEREAL 

One of the various ways of maintaining position in the social hierarchy 
at Redwood Grove was teasing. The teasing was structured around the boys' 
fears, which were translated into negative attributes that induced shame, the 
fundamental control mechanism boys use to create and maintain their group 
culture (Pollack 33). Insults about being gay, feminine, weak, contaminated, 
dirty, different, or without friends, were rooted in the boys' fears about 
sexuality, masculinity, safety, inclusion, protection, love, and the shame of 
being identified as having any negative or unmasculine characteristics. 

A reoccurring theme in their teasing was centered on the boys' fear of dirt 
and of being contaminated by their food. This particular fear of contamination 
manifested itself in two ways at the group home. First, the boys were 
uncertain of the purity of their food. They rarely saw it prepared, and they 
were not given a choice about what they would like to eat. They were also 
uncertain about what it would do to them. They had only a vague 
understanding of the cause and effect of eating spoiled food. Second, the boys 
used that uncertainty to control. They exercised control by not eating foods 
they felt were spoiled. 

The control exercised by one boy upon another, exemplified in their 
teasing, is a form of social exclusion. The next few examples trace a particular 
tease from its possible conception and show how that tease was modified over 
time and became absorbed into the boys' folklore. 

One morning, when Thomas was on the highest level and also the last to 
the breakfast table, he poured himself some cereal that was past its expiration 
date, which he did not notice. The other boys had already seen the date and 
avoided the cereal. They waited until Thomas had taken a bite and then 
chimed in together about how he had eaten old rotten cereal. They went on 
and on. "Moldy cereal! How could you eat that?" Thomas left the table crying 
and would not eat breakfast. 

For the rest of the day, the boys continued to tease Thomas, their teasing 
ranging from overt to more cryptic forms in which the boys would merely 
mention a single word that referred to the morning's events. They inserted the 
words "cereal," "mold," and "rotten" at the end of sentences, or they just 
casually said the word alone. The boys manipulated and advanced the tease so 
that it was only apparent to those in the group. A staff 

72 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

person arriving for the afternoon shift might not pick up anything until 
Thomas reacted to the teasing. Only through close observation of the boys' 
behavior could a staff member recognize the teasing. 

The tease ostracized Thomas from the group and in doing so united the 
group against him. While the group as a whole, all six boys, may not have 
grown stronger, the group of five did. Despite any previous conflicts, they 
connected by ostracizing one. They could all agree that he was not worthy of 
being part of the group because the old cereal contaminated him. They were 
also united by level. Thomas was higher on the behavior chart than everyone 
else. He was at the top of the adult-regulated hierarchy. The group reminded 
him that he was not better than the rest. While he might be at the top the 
hierarchy on the behavior chart, he was, at least for that situation, at the 
bottom of the folk social hierarchy. 

As teases, such as the Thomas cereal tease, lasted beyond the incident 
and beyond the day of the incident, they entered the group folklore. Like a 
story that everyone in the group knew, the cereal tease became a tease that 
everyone knew, remembered, and reacted to. As long as they used some 
version of the tease, it stayed alive. Because everyone knew it and because it 
had already been encoded on the first day, it was easy to maintain. When the 
boys teased Thomas about the old cereal, they did not need to recite the 
whole tale, just enough for Thomas to know what they were teasing him 
about. 

THOMAS AND THE NAPKIN 

A perfect example of how this encoded tease was carried on happened 
when the boys were eating dinner a few weeks after the initial event. Joshua 
and Bobby, age 10, were both on the lowest level of privileges and seated on 
the perimeter of the room, while Francisco, Jerod and Thomas were eating at 
the table. Thomas asked for the salt. Joshua and Bobby chimed in asking for 
some too. A staff member gave the salt to Thomas and asked him to pass it 
on to them when he was finished. He walked over and handed it to Bobby. 
Instead of just taking it from Thomas, Bobby held a napkin so as not to touch 
the saltshaker. Jerod and Joshua erupted into laughter, and Thomas ran 
crying out of the room. The effects of the napkin tease were the same as the 
initial event: Thomas left the room crying. But the actual teasing was limited 
to a simple action rather than a barrage of remarks. The tease was just as 
powerful even though it was simplified. 

Thomas later explained what happened. The teasing had begun earlier in 
the week when Joshua started acting as if Thomas were contaminated, and he 
would not touch objects Thomas had touched. Bobby only partici- 

73 



 

GELWICKS 

pated in the teasing for the first time at that meal. At some point the boys had 
made a big deal about Thomas and his contamination, so much so that they 
only had to act out part of it—the napkin grab and the laughter—to send 
Thomas into tears. 

The napkin incident was not completely a direct result of the cereal 
incident. Once the cereal incident became encoded and became part of their 
folklore and folk culture, the boys mixed that event with other similar events. 
The events previous to the cereal incident laid the foundation for the cereal 
tease to be as powerful as it was. The cereal may not have been the beginning 
of the tease, but the spoiled cereal theme became part of an ongoing and 
developing folklore about contamination and Thomas. 

JOSHUA AND STORYTELLING 

Around the same time, a story emerged that Joshua told. It may have 
been told before or may have been created on the spot for the particular 
situation. Its validity is uncertain. Joshua recalled how Thomas had been 
forced to dig in the trash by an older boy when Thomas had first moved in. 
Joshua described Thomas's action with disgust and contempt. As he told it, 
the other boys began to remember the incident and some tried to add details, 
but Joshua kept control of the story, repeating or dismissing what they added. 
Even Bobby, who had not been there, thought he remembered the event. 

Joshua told the story to illustrate Thomas's contamination. The story was 
characteristic of other folklore that had grown out of past events at Redwood 
Grove. Joshua told the most stories or, rather, the most successful stories. He 
was the oldest and had been at Redwood Grove the longest. He was also at the 
top of the group hierarchy. His perspective could not be disputed. Often the 
stories were exclusive. They were a roll call of who was there, unifying and 
empowering those included, a reward for their time spent at Redwood Grove. 
Thus, when Bobby remembered the event, he was ridiculed because he was 
not there and therefore not part of the group that could remind Thomas, 
though he could still laugh at Thomas's behavior. 

The stories would often go back to a time when a few of the boys were  
not there yet, such as the time one of the old residents threw a bike on the roof 
or when all the residents were on the highest level on the behavior chart at 
one point the previous summer. The bike incident would be recalled to make 
comparisons to current behavior, to show that although Francisco punched 
and hit staff, his behavior was not nearly as bad as the behavior of previous 
boys. The "high-point-in-behavior" story would 

74 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

be recalled when they were dealing with difficult times on the behavior chart 
during school. And, of course, there were stories used to tease. The stories 
served Joshua well, reminding the other boys that he was on top in size, age, 
and time served, and that those could not be challenged. 

When Joshua left, storytelling, for the most part, died. Jake tried to 
revive it to help maintain his position at the top of the group hierarchy. While 
Jake was the strongest, he was not the oldest, and he had only come a month 
before Thomas, so his exclusive stories were limited. He never developed his 
storytelling skills, so he resorted to other methods. 

CREATING NEW WAYS TO TEASE 

While the boys were dealing with each other and their social organi-
zation, they also had to deal with the staff, who were constantly observing 
and intervening. The boys' teasing and storytelling had to work around the 
staff. Teasing in general was not condoned and usually punished, but 
impossible to stop. When the staff picked up on teasing, the teasers were 
given appropriate punishments, often separation for a short period of time. 
Staff would also try to squelch continual teases such as the cereal tease and 
negative storytelling, both of which were virtually outlawed by increasing the 
penalties for whoever repeated them. 

Limited by his lack of storytelling ability and outlawed forms of teasing, 
Jake created a new form of teasing. One day at the table during afternoon 
snack, Jake began quizzing the other boys in spelling or mathematics. He 
aggressively questioned Thomas, and brought Thomas down, as he stumbled 
over the answers. The other boys were questioned as well. As they struggled 
to come up with answers, Jake positioned himself at the top of the hierarchy. 

At the time, Jerod and Francisco were both at the bottom of the behavior 
chart and were not allowed to interact with the group, which was fortunate 
for Jake, since they were two of the smarter boys and Jerod was a grade 
ahead of Jake. The second time Jake tried quizzing the boys, Jerod was able 
to participate and Jake's questioning was less effective because Jerod knew 
the answers. 

The new approach stood out in contrast to other forms of teasing because 
it positioned one boy more or less opposed to the rest of the boys. A less 
powerful boy could have the group turn on him, ostracizing him from them. 
As it was, Jake manipulated the situation to put others down and build 
himself up by comparison. Although he was neither the oldest nor (probably) 
the smartest, he was able to make himself seem the smartest by not allowing 
himself to be questioned. As long as he controlled the questions, he always 
had the right answer. 

75 



 

GELWICKS 

UNEQUAL POWER RELATIONSHIPS: "STEVE" FOLKLORE 

The fears the boys dealt with ranged from abstract—such as abandon-
ment—to the immediate fears about particular people and places. The way the 
boys dealt with unequal power relationships was similar to the way they dealt 
with fear; they incorporated it into their folk culture. The following example 
illustrates how the boys of Redwood Grove integrated a power conflict with a 
staff member into their joking and teasing. 

One staff member, Steve, had a very confrontational manner. He con-
stantly displayed his power over the boys by the way he told them to do their 
chores and pick up their things, bossing them around rather than asking. He 
made extra rules, like not letting boys on the lowest behavior levels change 
the television channel. Steve induced fear in the boys, not by hurting them, 
but by wielding his authority punitively. If they came in conflict with him, 
they received harsh consequences, often the extreme consequence for the 
behavior. 

Steve got results, but at the expense of shoving the boys' powerlessness in 
their faces. The boys dealt with Steve by incorporating him into their 
vernacular folklore. The boys talked about Steve when he was not around. His 
name was used most commonly as an insult, aimed at each other as well as a 
staff member. For instance, one boy would tell the other that he was "as fat as 
Steve" when they commented on how much they were eating, which was a 
comical insult most often heard around the table at meals. An awkward 
movement, like hitting a ball poorly, was mocked by saying the person hit the 
ball so badly, he hit it "like Steve." The boys diminished Steve's power by 
making him the object of their jokes and insults. Steve was a negative figure 
that the boys could agree on. When he was on his shift, they might obey his 
orders, but when he was not around, he was mocked. While the boys 
complained when other strict staff came on shift, the other staff were not 
ridiculed the way Steve was. 

Ridiculing Steve, the boys felt powerful. Like all children in institutions, 
the boys at Redwood Grove were able to find power in seemingly powerless 
situations. They found satisfaction in distorting the adult authority. Where 
there was little power available to them, they invented new forms, such as 
when Jake asked a few of the boys seemingly legitimate questions in math 
and spelling, knowing they wouldn't be able to answer them. He might have 
been attempting to recreate the power relationship he felt between the teacher 
and student. 

Storytelling and teasing are time-honored ways children establish a 
social hierarchy outside adult control. The power of them is heightened in a 
group home setting where the boys spend almost all their time together and 
have so few other possibilities for participating in alternative social 
hierarchies. 

76 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

Behind the boys' hurtful teasing, I believe, is their anxiety about the 
behavior-chart hierarchy. The behavior chart draws attention to the boys' 
positions in relation to one another, creating a competitive atmosphere that 
promotes social ranking. They react to the behavior-chart hierarchy 
established by the adults, and in an attempt to undermine it, they create a 
new social organization in its image. Rather than the boy at the top being 
rewarded by his peers for his good behavior, the rest of the group punishes 
him. He is also encouraged to play the role of the victim, for if he stands up 
for himself, responding with anger or aggression towards the teasing, he risks 
dropping on the behavior chart. 

Adults can intervene and impose control based on behavior charts and 
points, but the social hierarchy framed by the boys is also a very powerful 
force in shaping the children's experiences. 

MATERIAL CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

Along with the social frames that regulate the boys' experience is the 
material setting that is the background for their interactions. From the house 
they live in to the coveted Gameboy games in their toy chests, their material 
environment effects their social culture and hierarchies. When I first entered 
the group home, I began to make a list of what seemed to be the important 
items in the boys lives: the round red rubber ball, video games, bicycles with 
shocks, Pokémon paraphernalia, batteries, and other items that could be 
borrowed or traded. The most easily identifiable items of importance were 
those in highest demand. The importance of personal items of comfort and 
pleasure, such as teddy bears and worn action figures, were harder to judge 
since they were largely ignored by all the boys except the owner. 

As I became aware of their material culture at Redwood Grove, I sought 
to answer the question posed by Jon Wagner in a recent edition of the journal 
Visual Sociology, namely, "What aspects of their own material and social 
circumstances do kids notice and why?" For a researcher to answer that 
question, he or she must feel confident in having a child's perspective. To feel 
confident I had the perspective of the boys in the group home, I relied on 
three methods of obtaining information: observation, interviews, and 
photography. The boys' photography allowed me to see through their eyes, 
and the interviews gave the boys an opportunity to explain what they saw. 

The object of my project was to have the boys record the toys, memo-
rabilia, gifts, and mementos that were important using their own camera. 
Rather than observe what toys were played with the most, what objects 

77 



 

GELWICKS 

were the most treasured and valued, I placed the decisions into the hands of 
the children. 

I built upon the questions raised and approaches taken by photographers 
Jim Hubbard, Lauren Greenfield (see Levin), Marjorie Faulstich Orellana, 
Wendy Ewald, and the young photographers they worked with. These 
professional photographers sought to empower youth by giving them control 
of the camera to capture their world on film and speak to people through their 
photographs. Osofu Washington, a young photographer who worked with 
Greenfield on Picture LA, said "if people can understand our landmarks, they 
can see things from our point of view" (Levin 4). The premise of my 
photography project was based on Washington's words. By following the 
steps of seeing the photograph and understanding the photograph, then 
hopefully it is possible to see things from the child's perspective. 

The boys at Redwood Grove faced specific restrictions, which set the 
parameters of the photography project. They faced behavior-level restrictions, 
such as limitations on where they could go, what items were available to 
them, and when they could take the photographs. Items left with their parents 
were unobtainable, as well as items confiscated by staff. The boys on the 
lowest behavior level had most of their toys confiscated. Some of the boys 
could not leave the house or the yard. They were also limited to thirty-six 
photographs. 

The boys may have also decided not to take some pictures because they 
would be sharing these photographs with other people. They may have 
selected their photographs to suit what they thought their audience might want 
to see. They may have been ashamed to identify belongings that they felt were 
not masculine enough, even though those items were important to them, 
similar to the way the boys in Pollack's study felt ashamed of expressing 
emotions and feelings they felt were feminine. 

I explained the project to the boys in short information sessions right 
before giving them the disposable cameras. They were told to focus on 
"stuff," not people, but they could include people as they saw fit. I asked 
them to take photographs of the things that they felt were important to them. 
They were given no extra supervision when they used the cameras and 
possibly even a little more freedom by the staff. When they completed their 
roll of film, they returned the cameras to me, and I took the film in to be 
developed. Before I brought the photographs back to the boys, I went through 
them and made a list of the photographs. Once I had gone over their pictures 
a couple of times and made myself familiar with them, I went back to 
Redwood Grove and interviewed the boys as we looked over their pictures. 
The interviews were taped and then transcribed. After the interviews, the 
boys were given their photographs in a flipbook to keep. I 

78 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

followed up on the project by checking to see how they manipulated their 
booklets. 

TAKING THE PHOTOGRAPHS 

On the day the boys received the cameras, they came into the office in 
twos. Jake and Bobby came first. They listened to the directions and ex-
pectations, and then I asked a couple of different times and in a couple of 
different ways if they understood. I could see their ears turned off as their 
minds started racing with ideas of what they would photograph. When they 
saw the cameras, they became restless and fidgety, their eyes darting about 
excitedly; their complete attention was on the yellow cardboard camera in my 
hand. They immediately wanted to touch the cameras, fool with them, and 
begin taking pictures. Their reaction was similar to the reaction Hubbard 
(Shooting Back) received when he worked with children at a shelter. They 
also wanted to know if they would get to keep the cameras and were 
disappointed when they heard the cameras were disposable. As I explained 
how to use the flash, they were bouncing in their seats, anxious to leave the 
office and take pictures. Finally, I opened the door and they ran out clicking 
and winding through the hallway. 

Nicholas, age 8, and Thomas came in next. Nicholas, who had already 
seen Jake and Bobby run out with cameras, was anxious to get his. Thomas 
came into the office immediately exclaiming that he had not done anything 
wrong. Obviously, sitting in the office with a staff member created a certain 
frame for the situation, possibly augmenting the boys' anxiousness to leave 
and take pictures. Nicholas and Thomas were just as excited as Bobby and 
Jake. The boys did not want to listen to any directions. The power they would 
have with the camera seemed intoxicating. 

Unfortunately, Jerod and Francisco were not on high enough levels to 
receive cameras; both were at the bottom of the behavior chart. It took Jerod 
two days to move up to a high enough level to receive a camera. Unlike the 
other boys, Jerod was much calmer and did not bounce around, and he asked 
questions. Jerod's approach may be reflective of his age and maturity or the 
diminished excitement of the group now that most had completed their roll of 
film. 

It took Francisco two weeks before he raised himself from the bottom 
level and could participate in the project. Unlike Jerod, Francisco wore his 
excitement on his face; his eyes and his grin widened when he saw the 
camera. 

The first four boys finished within the day, three within the first one to 
two hours, one within the first half-hour. When Francisco finally received 

79 



 

GELWICKS 

his camera, he finished it within the day, probably within a couple of hours 
judging from the photographs he took. When I picked up Jerod's roll, five 
days after I initially gave it to him, he still had a couple of pictures left, 
which he promptly took. 

The younger boys finished their rolls of film more quickly than the older 
boys. Nicholas, the youngest, finished his first. Jerod, the oldest, finished 
last. What led the boys to take their photographs so quickly? Jake's roll in 
particular captured a stream of consciousness perspective, as if the viewer of 
his photographs was looking through his eyes for five minutes. The boys' 
excitement and desire surrounding the taking of photographs took on an 
almost libidinal quality—the instant gratification of taking a photograph, 
each one exciting and satisfying in its own right. Rather than seeming in 
competition with one another, the boys seemed to feed off each other's 
energy. After taking a photograph of the toys on his dresser, Nicholas raced 
outside to the bike rack, on the way snapping a photograph of Francisco 
posing holding a Pokemon. 

The desire to snap off as many pictures as possible may also be linked to 
the uncertainty the boys felt about how long they would have the cameras. If 
they dropped to the bottom of the behavior chart, the cameras, along with their 
other toys, could be taken away. If they shot quickly, there would be nothing 
left for staff to confiscate. 

Unlike the other boys, Jerod may have savored the experience, or he 
simply was not caught up in the excitement and forgot about the last few 
pictures. 

During the interviews, which I did individually, a couple of the boys 
behaved differently than usual Two of them used sweet baby voices and 
attitudes while answering the questions. They all demonstrated their best 
behavior, although Bobby became a little silly during parts of his interview. 
Their behavior may reflect their enjoyment of one-on-one attention from a 
staff member as well as feeling safe from ridicule from others when they 
were explaining their photographs. In addition, they knew an unknown 
outside audience would see and hear the results of the project, and they 
wanted to display their best behavior. 

ANALYZING AND INTERVIEWING 

Not surprisingly, none of the boys followed the directions completely. 
Rather than a collection of photographs of toys and other items the boys' 
treasured, their photographs ranged from a dead rat to another boy's "special 
friends" (adults from the community who act as personal mentors), from 
pictures of other boys to pictures' of their toys, from the staff at 

80 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

Redwood Grove to Redwood Grove itself. Surprisingly, the photographs that 
proved the most descriptive about the boys' material culture, their social 
culture, and their experience at Redwood Grove were the photographs that 
fell outside the originally stated guidelines. 

Nicholas took twelve pictures of other people's stuff, their toys, their 
rooms, and their posters. While some of the pictures included those boys who 
owned the stuff, making it unclear as to the focus of the picture, the pictures 
were still of items that did not belong to Nicholas. It is possible that Nicholas 
was merely taking photographs of his environment—the other boys and their 
stuff are major parts of that environment—but the interview revealed 
possibly another motivation. 

When asked why Jake's Red Version Pokémon Gameboy game was 
important to him, Nicholas answered, "Because it is very important to me 
and I'll probably get it. . . for my birthday," which was untrue. Nicholas's 
statement translates to "I want it." Besides the Red Pokémon game's being a 
highly valued item in the house, Jake first took Nicholas under his wing 
when Nicholas moved in, letting him play his Pokémon games and 
Gameboys whenever Nicholas wanted. For Nicholas, the game may have had 
a double importance; it is fun to play, everyone likes playing it, and it also 
symbolizes his friendship or at least connection with Jake, the most powerful 
boy in the house. 

Nicholas similarly describes a photograph of Thomas's radio. "I took a 
picture of that because I want that." He nodded when asked if he wanted 
Francisco and Nathaniel's bikes. This theme continued as he talked about and 
explained the rest of his photographs. Real insight came when he was 
explaining a photograph he took of some of Bobby's toys on Bobby's dresser. 
While listing the items in the photograph, he ended the list by saying "I want 
deodorant" and when asked, "You don't get deodorant?" he responded by 
blurting "Yes, I will!" While obviously Nicholas misunderstood the question, 
his outburst reveals his desire for deodorant goes beyond material desire. The 
deodorant represents more than just another boy's object. Nicholas is the 
youngest in the house. He is smallest, the last to arrive, and at the bottom of 
the social hierarchy. The deodorant represents growing up and becoming 
bigger like Jake and Jerod, who are entering puberty. Deodorant represents 
one of the signs that he is bigger, older, and more powerful. Boys towards the 
top of the hierarchy wear deodorant. 

The boys took over forty percent of their photographs of people. Those 
pictures fall into three categories: those of themselves, those of other boys in 
the house, and those of adults such as staff and special friends. The two boys 
who took the most pictures of other boys in the house were Nicholas and 
Thomas. Eighteen out of twenty-four of Thomas's photographs were 

81 



 

GELWICKS 

photographs of people, and eleven of those eighteen included other boys. 
Nine of Nicholas's photographs were of people, and six of those were of the 
other boys. The rest of the boys only took one picture with other boys in it. 
Jake represents the other end of the spectrum; he took only one photograph of 
other boys out of eleven that were of people. 

The two boys lowest on the hierarchy took the most pictures of the boys, 
and the highest on the hierarchy took the least. Jake may not have felt like he 
had to "suck up" or even show that he liked the other boys because he was at 
the top. He may not have even thought to take pictures of them, although that 
is unlikely since they all were clamoring to be photographed. It did not matter 
if they liked him. He was the strongest and the toughest. Nicholas and 
Thomas, on the other hand, were not particularly tough or strong, and both 
were struggling to move up the social hierarchy. Nicholas and Thomas may 
have been trying to build connections with Jake and the other boys by 
demonstrating their friendship. They may also have admired the other boys 
and wanted the power they had. 

Thomas devoted two of his photographs to Jake and Jake's special 
friends, and then just Jake's special friends alone. While Jake may be im-
portant to Thomas, Jake's special friends are not. They do not spend much 
time around Redwood Grove playing with the other boys; instead, they take 
Jake out somewhere, to their house or the movies. Unless Thomas enjoyed 
Jake's absence, the special friends had no relationship to Thomas. In the 
interview, Thomas could not articulate why he took the photograph beyond 
saying "Jake's special friends are important because they're someone. . . [and] 
every living thing is important." Thomas did not even have a reason why they 
are special to him. 

Why would Thomas take the photographs? Thomas has his own special 
friends. In fact, he has the most special friends of any of the boys in the 
house. Jake and his special friends may be Thomas's picture of the 
relationship between a boy and his special friends, a type of relationship that 
Thomas valued. Jake's special friends represent Thomas's special friends. He 
could have waited until later that week to take a picture of his special friends, 
but decided not to wait. On the other hand, Thomas's photographs may be 
similar to Nicholas's photograph of Jake's Gameboy game; Thomas may have 
been trying to please Jake. 

None of the boys took photographs of traditional folk toys or toys of 
their own creation besides Bobby's photograph of his rock collection and 
Francisco's photograph of a feather. Either they did not value the folk toys 
they played with, or they thought the toys were inappropriate. As Simon 
Bronner notes in his article recalling his own favorite folk toy, the Gropper, 
"For several years, Gropper held an honored place among my other toys-cars, 
Teddy Bears, blocks, and soldiers-but at some point I 

82 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

became self-conscious and a bit embarrassed about my fantasy and discarded 
Gropper, bag and baggage" (251). The boys may simply have been ashamed 
of their folk toys, too ashamed to show anyone. Bronner explains, "Yet often 
such creativity eludes the watchful eye of the parent, no less the curator or 
ethnographer. The child commonly keeps the creation private" (251). The 
boys may also have been taking photographs of items that they thought the 
ethnographer would want to see. 

The boys play with their own creations, often alterations of mass-
produced toys, such as action figures without an arm or a head. Bronner 
explains the importance of that type of folk toy—"Such experiences em-
phasized their control, their personalizing of things around them" (264). The 
boys also reused broken toys as if they were brand new-transformational 
toys, as Bronner would call them. They are also observed playing with 
creations of the imagination, such as in the sandbox or turning a stump into 
an action figure's hideout. These acts of autonomy may not be shared easily. 

Children's folk culture may be too private. The boys have very little 
autonomy in the group home setting and may seek to create separate envi-
ronments in their own imagination, environments that may be shared with 
another boy or kept completely to themselves. Although the group home at 
times seems to be overflowing with people, there are times when the boys are 
expected to play by themselves, especially if they are acting out and their 
toys have been confiscated and their socializing limited. 

If any boys were ashamed of the things that were important to them, 
they might not have taken a photograph of it to avoid ridicule. Pollack 
identifies a rigid "boy code" that leads boys of all ages to hold back emotions 
and behaviors for fear of acting feminine (21). While the boys own stuffed 
animals and other toys that could reveal tenderness, thoughtfulness and 
creativity, they might not feel comfortable sharing that side because they feel 
that those items and emotions make them appear weak. They are afraid of 
others' ridicule. Thomas had a pile of Teddy Bears on his bed most of the 
time, but they were only included in a larger picture of his room. Those 
Teddy Bears might not have been masculine enough to be the focus of a 
picture. They might be very important to him, but he could not reveal that 
importance to the other boys. 

One photographic subject most of the boys were not afraid to take a 
picture of was themselves. Everyone except Jerod took a picture or had a 
picture taken of him. Jake, Bobby, Thomas, and Francisco had multiple 
pictures of themselves. Hubbard provides insight into children's photographs 
of themselves. "On more than one occasion we have found that these kids 
carry the photographs of themselves every day to show others. Though they 
didn't take the pictures, the photographs are important none 

83 



 

GELWICKS 

theless. They proclaim: 'Here I am, I am real, I am of value' to the rest of the 
world"(Shooting Back from the Reservation xiii). Although the children 
Hubbard writes of are Native American, it is not a stretch to apply their 
feelings to the group-home boys. In many ways the two groups are very 
similar. 

All the boys at Redwood Grove come from environments and life cir-
cumstances that destroy children's self esteem. When they enter the group 
home, staff try to continually remind them of their worth, to build them up 
from their negative self-images. The boys have pictures of their families or 
members of their families to remind them. Those photographs are treasured 
because in some cases those are the only connections they have. People in 
photographs are important, and the pictures the boys took of themselves are 
their way of reaffirming their importance. 

One continual theme throughout the interviews with the boys was how, 
practical the object was. For example, Jerod described his photographs of the 
house, "the house, so we have a place to live in," and the washing machine, 
"the washing machine is important 'cause otherwise we couldn't wash our 
clothes and they would be stinky." Francisco also focused on the practicality 
of things, such as the bus; "I took a picture of the bus because it is kind of 
important. So if we didn't have a car we could go on the bus" and one of the 
staff's cars, "I took a picture of Andre's car cause, well, so we can move 
around quickly and so we don't have to walk or ride the bus and without the 
bus we would have to walk." This method of describing objects reflects the 
lack of importance of the object outside of its practical role. 

The practical descriptions continued when the boys talked about their 
Pokémon toys and cards. Jerod, as well as the other boys, were very involved 
with the collecting of Pokémon cards. Jerod took five pictures of his cards, 
but none of them was of a specific card. When asked why he liked them he 
answered, "Cause I like to trade' em." He identified their importance as 
social. They provided entertainment in trading and prestige in having 
particular cards, but the particular card did not matter. His attitude was 
similar to Francisco's description of a photograph of Jerod's Pokémon toys. 
Francisco's description parallels Jerod's perspective on Pokémon; "These two 
are Charzards and Blastoids in Jerod's room 'cause I really like Pokémon." 
When I asked "Are those toys important to you?" he answered, "The 
Pokémon, not the toys. I don't really care about them." To Francisco the 
symbol of Pokémon was important. Pokémon affected the power relations 
within the house as well as at school, as having cards and games provided 
prestige to the owner. 

84 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

AFTER THE INTERVIEWS 

The photography project was not finished when I gave the boys their 
flipbooks with their pictures inside. Bobby, who had the least amount of 
pictures turn out, filled his book with other photographs that he had. At first 
he was a little bashful when I asked him to show his book, possibly since he 
thought I might be offended that he had removed all of the pictures I had 
developed for him. He explained who everyone in the pictures was and 
included a short anecdote with a couple of them. All the photographs Bobby 
added were of his family. A week later Bobby had removed almost all of the 
photographs he had taken and replaced them with all the photographs he 
already owned. Though he did not need the space, he may have been 
ashamed of his photography skills since he was unhappy with the way his 
photographs turned out, many of them dark and blurry. Of course it also 
could have been that the photographs he just took were not as important as 
those of his family. 

Nicholas also added to his flipbook, placing his Polaroid of himself on 
Santa's knee at the back of his book. When Jake, the last boy interviewed, 
finished with the interview, he asked in as sweet a voice as I had ever heard 
him use if he could add pictures to his album. The photographs of the 
important material culture and the books I gave them were becoming material 
culture. 

The boys did not demonstrate an overwhelming desire for material 
possessions. The important material items in their lives were physical links 
between themselves and others, symbolic of the connection they shared. 
Material items were also described in practical terms—cupboards holding the 
snacks or Pokémon to be traded. 

The boys' lack of consuming commodity goods reflects their relationship 
to material culture. Outside the occasional pack of Pokémon cards, the boys 
bought very little. They did not have much disposable income, and they had 
very few opportunities to spend the little they had. Also, the uncertainty that 
surrounded their lives included uncertainty about how long they would 
possess a toy. The toys they had when they lived at home were gone. The 
toys they had at the group home were regularly confiscated, creating an 
uncertainty that may have decreased the desire for material possessions. 

CONCLUSION 

This is a case study of the folk culture of preadolescent and early 
adolescent boys living in a total institution. Although these boys live in an 

85 



 

GELWICKS 

unusual setting, they use the same-but more intensified versions of strategies 
boys employ in resolving their social and psychological tensions. Their 
folklore develops around common childhood experiences, such as when they 
created the game Pogo, and also around their need to deal with specific group 
home situations, such as when they used Steve's name as an insult in response 
to his inappropriate use of power. 

The folklore sometimes creates the solution, as when the boys use a 
game frame to establish contact with a staff person or another boy, and the 
folklore is sometimes the problem, as in teasing. A game frame enables Jerod 
to establish meaningful relationships when his primary relationships have 
been damaged or destroyed, and the experience of connecting and creating 
those connections is empowering. 

Teasing as folklore goes beyond playfulness and allows the boys to 
subvert the intent of the behavior-chart hierarchy established by the staff. The 
amount of energy and creativity that goes into teasing reveals the importance 
of this form of expression to the boys. 

The boys' photographs of their material culture reveal a continual focus 
on each other and each other's possessions. Certainly, the other boys and their 
toys are a significant part of the material setting of the group home for each 
boy, but the items the boys value are also symbolic. They can be symbols of 
friendship or connection to a more powerful boy. In other instances, the 
important material items themselves symbolize age and power, as with the 
deodorant. 

Studies of children's folklore such as this one can be instructive to adults 
working in children's institutions, revealing unintended consequences and the 
success (or failure) of strategies for modifying and shaping behavior. 
Attempting to see the world through children's eyes enables adults to examine 
the role of friendship groups, teasing, and playing beyond whether the 
behavior is obedient or disruptive. Having an awareness of the anxieties 
children experience, such as in response to the adult imposed behavior chart 
hierarchy, may lead adults to reevaluate and redesign the structure of 
children's institutions. 

NOTE 

I would especially like to thank the boys of the Redwood Grove for their participation, 
energy, and hope, and Professor Jay Mechling for his continued guidance and support. 

WORKS CITED 

Bronner, Simon J. "Material Folk Culture of Children." In Children s Folklore: A 

86 



 

REDWOOD GROVE: YOUTH CULTURE IN A GROUP HOME 

Source Book. Ed. Brian Sutton-Smith, et al. Logan: Utah State UP, 1999. 251-71. 
Cohen, David, and John Eilersten. "Folklore and Folklife in a Juvenile Correc- 
 tions Institution." Western Folklore 44 (1985): 1-22. 
Ewald, Wendy. Portraits and Dreams: Photographs and Stories by Children of 
 the Appalachians. London: Writers and Readers Publishing, 1985. 
Goffman, Erving. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients 
 and Other Inmates. New York: Anchor Press, 1959. 
Horan, Robert. "The Semiotics of Play Fighting at a Residential Treatment Cen- 
 ter." Adolescent Psychiatry 15 (1988): 367-81. 
Hubbard, Jim. Shooting Back: A Photographic View of Life by Homeless Chil- 
 dren. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1999. 
______. Shooting Back from the Reservation: A Photographic View of Life by 
 Native American Youth. New York: New Press, 1999. 
Levin, Jeffery, ed. Picture LA: Landmarks of a New Generation. Los Angeles, 
 CA: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1994. 
Mechling, Jay. "Children's Folklore in Residential Institutions: Summer Camps, 

Boarding Schools, Hospitals, and Custodial Facilities." In Children’s Folklore: A 
Source Book. Ed. Brian Sutton-Smith et al. Logan: Utah State University Press, 
1999. 273-91. 

Orellana, Marjorie Faulstich. "Space and Place in an Urban Landscape: Learning from 
Children's Views of Their Social Worlds." Visual Sociology 14 (1999): 73-89. 

Pollack, William. Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood. 
 New York: Random House, 1988. 
Polsky, Howard W. Cottage Six: The Social System of Delinquent Boys in Resi- 
 dential Treatment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1962. 
Wagner, Jon. "Editor's Introduction." Visual Sociology 14 (1999): 3-5. 

87 


	CFR_2002_Part20
	CFR_2002_Part21
	CFR_2002_Part22
	CFR_2002_Part23
	CFR_2002_Part24
	CFR_2002_Part25
	CFR_2002_Part26
	CFR_2002_Part27



