The Saints And The Roughnecks Summary

In the article The Saints and the Roughnecks, Chambliss (1973) details the observations made on the behavior of two groups of students from one school. The two groups were socially and economically diverse but they engaged in crime often. One group, the saints, came from well-off families but were some of the most notorious, although the community, teachers, and peers did not notice since they engaged in deviant activities away in the big city and were clever in disguising their bad habits.
The other group, the roughneck, however, “engaged in equal amount of wild oat sowing” (Chambliss, 1973). Everyone agreed the boys were trouble since they were not well-dressed, well-mannered, or rich; which cements the symbolic interactionist perspective

whereby people label others as deviant thereby lead these individuals to continue breaking the law.
From Monday to Friday, the saints avoided school and went to places where no one knew them.

They frequented a pool hall or a café in the suburbs. In these entertainment areas they often caused trouble but got away with it because they spent money there. During the weekends, they went binge drinking and afterwards drove-drunkenly in the streets where they committed crimes and played pranks. In the midst of all the mischief, they were rarely arrested.
The roughnecks engaged in occasional fights, drinking, and petty stealing, such as siphoning gasoline from cars as well as items from school lockers and automobiles. However, people in the community did not realize that the group’s stealing was more prevalent. The roughnecks believed that the police were unfair and corrupt due to the harassment they received from the police. They were arrested on different occasions and two of them were incarcerated for 6 months.
In school, the saints were very successful academically, popular with the students and held offices. However, they cheated in exams with teachers’ contribution through inclinations. Only one student in the group talked back to teachers although the teachers made excuses for his failures. The local police thought the saints were good boys and were rarely stopped for speeding and if caught, they presented themselves as disciplined to gain

mercy.
The roughnecks were not successful academically but were regular in attending classes. Teachers and students alike viewed them as troublemakers. Their teachers passed them with the hope of improving their behavior to no avail. However, they displayed impeccable sportsmanship.
The author wonders why the community, school, and police held different opinions on these two groups of delinquents. Another question Chambliss (1973) asks is why the boys went on to have different careers after high school. The roughnecks, unlike the saints, were closely supervised, had no money to spend except what they stole from people, engaged in fights. The roughnecks were more visible than the saints and started brawls were most people could see them.
The behavior of the two groups differed tremendously with the saints being apologetic and pertinent when caught while the roughnecks choosing to become hostile and disrespectful. The community and police were biased to saints for their social status and class.
Concerning careers, the boys performed as per people’s expectations, and the saints got good jobs, except only one of them became a used-car salesman but was unemployed thereafter. Most of the roughnecks, however, did not make it in life, although two of them became teachers and coaches while another reportedly became a truck driver. The rest went to jail for criminal activities.
By reinforcing the behavior of the two groups, the community seemed to enforce the symbolic interactionist perspective. The community, teachers, and the police played an integral role in shaping the future of these two groups of individuals. The roughnecks especially were channeled into careers reminiscent of their adolescent behavior.