IntroductionThe article “The code of streets” written by Anderson convinces that the financial differences have formed a line between the poor and rich societies. These differences then lead to the contrast in culture as well while the article written by Veliquette, Anne and Murray depict the reality of a new subculture occurring in the society.AnalysisIn Anderson’s article, the terms “decent” and “street” are used for rich and poor respectively. These labels, used by the people themselves, create the ground for evaluating judgments that talk about status. This labeling is often caused by a social contest among families and the individuals. Decent inhabitants may take themselves to be decent but consider others as street, and vice versa. Some circumstantial behaviors also play a role. These behaviors lead to the exhibition of both street and decent orientations at different times. Though these differences originate from the social and racial discriminations, there are some aspects that describe each class, creating a social typology. Both the families have different dealings with the code of the street. The dynamics of these families is perilous to the subtleties of the code. Understanding the fact that one family is distinct from the one found in the street is important. Street families give a lot of importance to the blood relations. For them, the family comes first. According to them, blood is thicker than mud.In contrast, the article “The new tattoo subculture” gives an ethnographic explanation of signs, symbols, and images by fashion and its prevalence in the culture. In this article, the author explains the four themes or subjects regarding the new culture of the tattoo. These themes discuss the renaissance of the culture, extended self, risk, and addiction. The implications of tattooing are also the main things to note in the article. Humans have an urge to alter their physical appearance to synchronize with their internal identities. Out of many reasons, the one which is noteworthy is the expression of oneself in an image. People who wanted themselves to be tattooed requested for images which depicted their inner self. How the tattoo subculture divides the standard society is also explained in the article. The subculture signifies a way of life of a group of people and is characterized by interaction, continuity, an outsider and insider definitions of distinctiveness. This new subculture is adopted by both upper and lower class families or talking concerning “The code of streets”, both decent and street families. Individuals are attracted towards this culture for the expression of distinction as well as integration. In this context, distinct domains are indicated by the tattoo culture to which its followers belong as it depicts unity and is a source of connection with other domains. No matter what the class is, regardless of background, tattoo served as a common bond.During the ethnographic process, customers were revealed to select tattoos for the representation of who they are in various ways such as for showing the personal self, or for the integration purposes. In both the cases, there is an expression of identity, either personal or social. In case of the representation of personal identity, there’s an example of an informant who allowed himself to be tattooed by 35 different artists and called his tattoos as a scrapbook which represents his life story, and each tattoo indicates towards a person, place or any of his experiences. An artist said that the tattoos are present inside every person who wants to be tattooed, the artist just brings it out.ConclusionHence, this new subculture does not draw a line between the rich and poor as stated in “The code of streets.” In fact, it has been symbolized as means of unity, and bond. An individual or a group of people follow this trend or culture for representation of oneself or their whole community.Works CitedAnderson, Elijah. “The code of the streets.” Atlantic monthly273.5 (1994): 81-94.Velliquette, Anne M., and Jeff B. Murray. “The new tattoo subculture.” Mapping the social landscape: Readings in sociology (1999): 56-68.