Street Corner Society A review of William Foote Whyte’s book on “the social structure of an Italian slum” (1943) Pavel Borecký Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Tallinn University Introduction On February 4, 1937, a young student of sociology made his first field research interview in Boston’s slum district North End, in the book referred to as „Eastern City” and “Cornerville.” After almost four years he was leaving a place he felt home as a trained anthropologist with an immense knowledge of local social structure. Nowadays, along with Chicago school of urban sociology (see Thomas and Znaniecki 1958, Anderson 1961, Thrasher 1963), „Street Corner Society“ is referred to as one of the pioneering efforts in use of anthropological approach in urban setting (Hannerz 1980, Anderson 2014). The main aim of William Whyte (1943) was to „ward off chaotic nature of Cornerville“ by the in- depth study of social groups and local institutions with decisive influence over individual social mobility. Using participant observation as a means of delineating connections in between of „corner boys,“ „college boys“ and main fields of power struggle – politics and racketeering, Whyte (1943) suggestively asks “what makes a man a big shot and by what means is he able to dominate little guys.” In my review, I will exemplify main claims of the book and their current relevancy in urban anthropological research. “Corner boys” vs. “College boys” Befriending with one of Cornerville’s street corner gangs, Nortons, we are meeting with an informal leader called Doc. Throughout the book, he is presented as an appealing character of a struggling socially skillful, yet conventionally uneducated, young man who maintains his leading position in the group of „corner“ acquaintances by everyday interactions. Regular bowling sessions are thus more than just Saturday entertainment of a few unemployed men. As long as a leader and lieutenants, those closest to the leader, are “out to beat followers,” Whyte (1943) claims that “results should reflect social position within a group.” In my opinion, it is with Doc when the reader encounters one of the most ethnographically vivid and theoretically telling moments of the book. As Doc decides not to compromise his local prestige and influence by collection of loans previously given to friends and, by doing so, financially secure his upcoming political campaign, he eventually refuses to „climb up“ from the street corner into Democratic politics. As I show later, these events serve as contradictory evidence for Whyte’s main conclusion.