STRUCTURAL POSITION AND VIOLENCE: DEVELOPING A CULTURAL EXPLANATION*

• Date: 01 August 1989
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb01040.x
• Published date: 01 August 1989
• Author: DANIEL P. DOYLE,DAVID F. LUCKENBILL

STRUCTURAL POSITION AND VIOLENCE:

DEVELOPING A CULTURAL

EXPLANATION*

DAVID

F.

LUCKENBILL

DANIEL

P.

DOYLE

Northern

Illinois

University

Research assessing the capacity of a cultural explanation

to

account for

the relationship between certain structural positions and high rates of

criminal violence has ignored a signijkant intervening variable. That

variable

is

disputatiousness-the likelihood of being offended by a negative

outcome and seeking reparation through protest. This article develops a

cultural model of disputatiousness and aggressiveness.

It

hypothesizes that

individuals who occupy positions featuring high rates of violence are more

likely than their counterparts to be offended by a negative outcome, to

protest the injury, and to use force when the protest fails.

It

also hypothe-

sizes that differential disputatiousness and aggressiveness are most pro-

nounced when the negative outcome involves an attack

on

the self by an

equal in a public setting. Testing these hypotheses calls for individual-

level data bearing

on

behavioral dispositions under a variety of circum-

stances.

A

methodological procedure

for

collecting such data is proposed,

and suggestions for future research are discussed.

In the United States, as in other nations, members of certain groups engage

in a disproportionate amount of criminal violence. Urban and southern resi-

dents, for example, have higher rates of violence than rural and northern resi-

dents; young adults and males have higher rates of violence than older adults

and females; and blacks and lower-income persons have higher rates of vio-

lence than whites and middle- and upper-income persons (Curtis,

1974;

Net-

tler,

1982:

14-41).

These facts raise interesting questions about the

relationship between structural position and criminal violence. What is there

about residing in an urban or southern area that generates a high rate of

violence? What is there about being young or male or black or low-income

that generates a high rate of violence?

CULTURAL

AND

STRUCTURAL EXPLANATIONS

OF

CRIMINAL VIOLENCE

Sociologists have adopted two generic models in responding to these kinds

*An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the

American Society of Criminology,

1987.

We are grateful for comments by Joel Best and

several anonymous reviewers.

CRIMINOLOGY

VOLUME

27

NUMBER

3 1989

419

420

LUCKENBILL AND DOYLE

of questions (Rosenfeld, 1986:116). The cultural model maintains that crime

is a product of conformity to a distinctive culture. The basic idea is that

crime stems from normative conflict:

A

complex society contains many

groups, some with cultures sanctioning lawful behavior and some with cul-

tures sanctioning unlawful behavior; through intimate contact with groups

organized in favor of crime, individuals associate with definitions favorable to

unlawful behavior; given extensive association with such definitions, individu-

als are likely to act in terms of them, committing crime (Kornhauser,

1978:181).

A

number of scholars have developed theories of violence that

embrace this idea (e.g., Brearley, 1970; Curtis, 1975; Gastil, 1971; Silberman,

1978; Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967). These theories differ with respect to

the source, diffusion, and structural location of a culture of violence, the com-

ponents of culture that sanction violence, and the degree to which culture

shapes behavior. Despite their differences, these theories generally propose

that certain structural positions are characterized by high rates of violence

because a significant proportion of their occupants subscribe to and act in

terms of a culture that sanctions violence. This may be regarded as the core

of a cultural explanation of the relationship between structural position and

violence.

The structural model maintains that crime is a product of structural dis-

continuity. The most influential version of this model says that crime stems

from inequality, the uneven distribution of resources. Inequality entails the

deprivation of some relative to others; the perception of relative deprivation

engenders feelings of resentment and hostility; and resentment and hostility

stimulate impulses that are ultimately expressed as crimes (Messner and

Tardiff, 1986:299).

A

number

of

scholars also have developed theories of vio-

lence that embrace this idea (e.g., Blau and Blau, 1982; Braithwaite, 1979;

Coser, 1963; Danziger and Wheeler, 1975; Hawkins, 1983). These theories

differ with respect to the form of inequality that is causally related to vio-

lence, the source of inequality, and the conditions under which inequality

creates the sense of relative deprivation that leads to violence. Still, they gen-

erally propose that certain structural positions are characterized by high rates

of violence because a significant proportion of their occupants experience

great relative deprivation. This may be regarded as the core of a structural

explanation of the relationship between position and violence.

In recent years, a multitude of researchers have assessed the capacity of

these explanations to account for the link between structural position and

criminal violence. By and large, they have used aggregate data to determine

whether cultural or structural variables best explain the distribution of homi-

cide. Their results have been contradictory. Some researchers report that a

southern culture of violence effectively explains the higher rates of homicide

in southern cities and states (Gastil, 1971; Hackney, 1969; Huff-Corzine et

al., 1986), and that a black contraculture of violence effectively explains the