PEACEFUL WARRIORS: CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG ADULT MALE BAR FIGHTERS

• Author: CRAIG J. FORSYTH,ANDY HOCHSTETLER,HEITH COPES
• Date: 01 August 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12019
• Published date: 01 August 2013

PEACEFUL WARRIORS: CODES FOR

VIOLENCE AMONG ADULT MALE BAR

FIGHTERS∗

HEITH COPES

Department of Justice Sciences

University of Alabama at Birmingham

ANDY HOCHSTETLER

Department of Sociology

Iowa State University

CRAIG J. FORSYTH

Department of Sociology

University of Louisiana at Lafayette

KEYWORDS: codes for violence, ethnomethodology, fighting

Considerable theoretical and empirical inquiry has focused on the role

codes for violence play in generating crime. A large part of this work

has examined the attitudes and codes condoning retaliation and violence

as well as the prevalence of these among minorities residing in impov-

erished neighborhoods. Much about the nature of codes remains un-

known, however, and this may in part reflect a narrow interest in beliefs

about provocation and uses of violence among the inner-city poor. In

this study, we elaborate on a code of violence as part of a system of or-

der and honor as articulated by a network of White, working-class males

in a southern U.S. city who participate in bar fights. The findings suggest

that the code these men use prohibits predatory violence, puts exclusive

limitations on situations that warrant violence, and constrains the level

of violence in a fight. We detail the contours of this code (e.g., purpose of

fighting, the rules of honorable fighting, and justifications for violating

these rules) and discuss the code as both a cause and a consequence of

behavior.

∗We thank Mark Berg and Alex Piquero for their comments on earlier drafts. Di-

rect correspondence to Heith Copes, Department of Justice Sciences, University

of Alabama at Birmingham, University Boulevard Office Building, 1201 Univer-

sity Blvd., Room 215, Birmingham, AL 35294 (e-mail: jhcopes@uab.edu).

C2013 American Society of Criminology doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12019

CRIMINOLOGY Volume 51 Number 3 2013 761

762 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

The maturing “cultural turn” in the social sciences has reinvigorated

interest among criminologists in the narratives and lives of offenders

(Agnew, 2006; Presser, 2010; Sandberg, 2009a, 2010). This interest has been

occurring alongside renewed attention to classic works on subculture and

contemporary efforts to sketch beliefs and codes that encourage violence

among certain groups. Reinvigoration of attention to culture and subcul-

ture has included recognition of variation in adherence to behavioral codes

that endorse the application of violence and differing views on the gen-

esis and purpose of these codes. Whether investigators have conceptual-

ized such codes for violence as understandings of the self, situational scripts

for action, or culturally available toolkits, they have concurred that actors’

thoughts on how to behave appropriately in situ intervene between cul-

tural forms and action to determine when, where, and how actors behave.

Most have agreed that subcultural codes contain general understandings of

how to live and provide situational guidelines for action (Anderson, 1999;

Stewart, Simmons, and Conger, 2002; Swidler, 1986).

Although it is apparent that subjective interpretations and meanings play

a prominent part in violent crime commission, and this is clearly so for as-

saults (Athens, 1997), codes for violence are not as well understood as one

might assume. There are exceptions that give thorough theoretical atten-

tion to offenders’ views on the use of violence and what they are trying to

accomplish by it (e.g., Athens, 1997; Katz, 1988). However, most analyses

of codes for violence have focused on those found among minorities living

in large metropolitan areas and typically have contained imprecise connec-

tions between codes and high rates of violent crimes in these locations (e.g.,

Anderson, 1999; Garot, 2010; Horowitz, 1983; Jacobs and Wright, 2006).

Emphasis on the urban underclass belies the importance of codes for all

people, including those living in areas outside the inner city (Jackson-

Jacobs, 2013).

Additionally, despite considerable evidence for the predictive impor-

tance of adherence to a code for violence on subsequent behavior, inves-

tigators have not been in agreement about just what the codes are or how

they constrain behavior. Even within a single work, it often is not clear. In a

critique of Anderson’s work on the code of the street, Wacquant (2002:

1491) wrote that, “The code is variously described as a set of ‘informal

rules,’ an ‘etiquette,’ a ‘value orientation,’ an ‘oppositional culture’ and the

objective regularities of conduct they prescribe, but also as a ‘script,’ a set

of roles and their patterned expectations, a personal identity, a ‘milieu,’ and

even as the ‘fabric of everyday life.’” Questions about whether the code

is a way that inhabitants navigate local cultural context strategically, an

acculturated presentation of self, a set of attitudes about acceptability of

violence, or a resource to aid rationalization after the fact reflect this

ambiguity.

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 763

In this study, we contribute to the growing literature on codes for vio-

lence by examining how one network of adult, White males in a midsized

southern U.S. city make sense of their participation in bar fights. We argue

that examining common narratives in a purposively selected group provides

insight into the structure and content of codes for violence, and into how

actors connect personal identity with subcultural identities. Specifically, we

focus on themes that actors use when discussing their reasons for fighting,

rules that determine whether they cast violence as a respectable and nec-

essary activity, and how understandings that endorse restrictive uses of vi-

olence lead to combat that may or may not fit the ideal form. We reveal

an idealized code of acceptable violence in this group as well as a capacity

to support and endorse the code despite inherent difficulties and evident

contradictions when explaining fights.

Our findings speak not only to a particular code for violence but also to

how codes guide individuals more generally. Our participants are conven-

tional in most aspects and strive to use force in a way that they and their

audiences deem reasonable. We conclude with a discussion of how codes

affect these actors and how they use their code as a resource to construct

meaningful identities. Participants do not consider their code a strict deter-

minant of behavior, a purely practical response to their environment, or a

simple set of attitudes about when to use violence. Rather, they imbue it

with significant meaning as a reflection of inner integrity and honor, and

they cast their fights as more or less successful attempts to follow it.

UNDERSTANDING CODES OF CONDUCT

The study of subcultures that endorse violence has a long history, and

investigators have emphasized different influences on the content and de-

velopment of codes for violence (Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958; Wolfgang and

Ferracuti, 1967). Whereas theoretical explanations of violence that rely on

value systems often have emphasized distinct aspects and origins, investi-

gators have agreed that codes for violence reflect that actors condone, jus-

tify, or legitimize violence as a means of grievance resolution or vengeance

(Anderson, 1999; Berg and Stewart, 2013). In deciding to commit violence,

actors often draw on portrayals of honor as well as on shared understand-

ings of tolerance of provocation to determine the appropriate response to

conflict. Accordingly, far from being senseless and random, aggression is

patterned and expectable when considered in light of the subcultural values

governing its use.

Wolfgang’s (1958) research on the prevalence and incidence of violence

paved the way for subcultural interpretations of violence by highlight-

ing variation in the construction of meanings in confrontational situations