Article

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: [email protected]).

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

764 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

between groups and subcultures and by nesting these meanings in general values and expectations:

The significance of a jostle, a slightly derogatory remark, or the appear- ance of the weapon in the hands of an adversary are stimuli differen- tially perceived and interpreted . . . . Social expectations of response in particular types of social interaction result in differential “definitions of the situation.” A male is usually expected to defend the name and honor of his mother, the virtue of womanhood . . . and to accept no dero- gation about . . . his masculinity. Quick resort to physical combat as a measure of daring, courage or defense of status appears to be a cul- tural expectation, especially for lower socio-economic class males of both races. (Wolfgang, 1958: 188–9)

Examining the cultural origins of violence led to an impressive body of work. However, the cultural perspective fell from favor beginning in the 1970s partly in response to criticisms that the predominant analytic uses of culture were overly deterministic and tautological (i.e., analysts assumed that behaviors occur because people value them; Kornhauser, 1978). The 1990s brought a new wave of theorists espousing refined models of cultural explanations of violence that addressed these critiques (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Sampson and Wilson, 1995; Wilson, 1996). This new work recognized that codes for violence characterize some communities—such as the urban underclass (Markowitz, 2003), inner-city Latino neighborhoods (Horowitz, 1983; Vigil, 1988), African American neighborhoods (Matsueda, Drakulich, and Kubrin, 2006; Stewart and Simons, 2010), and Whites in the American South (Nisbett and Cohen, 1996)—more frequently than others.

Ethnographers with an interest in codes for violence often have empha- sized urban decline, deindustrialization, and inner-city poverty as structural sources of cultural or cognitive landscapes that contribute to high rates of violence in some neighborhoods (Jacobs and Wright, 2006; Sanders, 1994; Vigil, 1988), a finding that also has been borne out in the quantitative research (Piquero et al., 2012). The attitudes and beliefs thought to re- sult from structural disadvantages also seem to influence violent behavior. Those in lower or working classes place greater emphasis on demonstrat- ing courage and the willingness to escalate conflict than those from higher classes (Markowitz, 2003). Additionally, those who commit violence en- dorse some forms of violent crime (Mills, Kroner, and Hemmati, 2004), be- lieve that the use of violence serves important purposes (Stewart, Simmons, and Conger, 2002), perceive violence as a demonstration of admirable char- acter (Felson et al., 1994), emphasize courage and escalation in the face of conflict (Markowitz and Felson, 1998), and endorse a code that calls for violence in the face of disrespect (Berg et al., 2012; Matsueda, Drakulich, and Kubrin, 2006).

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 765

Much of this work has depicted codes for violence as practical devices for navigating an environment (Berg and Stewart, 2013). Where formal means of managing conflict are inaccessible, individuals find codes for vi- olence useful as means to establish familiarity with informal strategies of conflict resolution. Over time, environments where persons commonly im- plement codes for violence impart strong incentives to acquire and abide by expectations (Matsueda, Drakulich, and Kubrin, 2006). The most apparent incentive of violence is the control of threatening persons. In some commu- nities, adherents trust that personal or community abidance to a code that demands resistance in the face of insult deters violence, aggression, and other troublesome behavior (Anderson, 1999; Nisbett and Cohen, 1996). Even where there is no deep personal commitment to codes for violence, proximate persons may perceive that violent reputations and responses to threat prevent interpersonal problems and keep others from marking them as outsiders or targets. Some also believe that severe or intimidating vio- lence incapacitates rivals and instills fear in challengers. In criminally vio- lent environments, to be feared or considered deadly has perceived advan- tages (Jacobs and Wright, 2006).

Despite the common theme of defending one’s honor and establishing a reputation, subcultures of violence are not homogeneous in their proscrip- tions or in people’s level of commitment to them (Anderson, 1999; Athens, 1997). Generally, people use subcultural codes to support violence in de- fense of honor, in the face of slights, or in establishing reputations as will- ing combatants, but codes also contain widely different boundaries on what actions fit into acceptable reasons for violence and the extent and nature of the violence (Athens, 1997; Spierenburg, 1998). For instance, the code of the street as discussed by Anderson (1999) leads some adherents to accept a retaliatory ethic, to condone coercive threats, and to value physical aggres- sion (Brezina et al., 2004; Stewart and Simons, 2010), whereas for others, it is a defensive strategy for use only in threatening company. By contrast, scholars typically have cast the southern culture of honor as more defen- sive and more widely held than the code of the street. This perception is commensurate with relatively narrow allowances for use of force (Lee and Shihadeh, 2009). Adherents of a code prescribing measured responses to insult and placing little value on mere capacity for callous violence typically deride unprovoked aggression or demonstrations of brutality (Nisbett and Cohen, 1996).

The genesis and perpetuation of codes for violence is no less complex than their content. In investigations of their origins, “emphasis often [has been] placed on the isolation of residents from mainstream social networks and mainstream culture” (Harding, 2007: 342). Investigators have portrayed violence as an outcome of a locally negotiated and traditional social or- der that is contingent partially on the reach of the state. Subcultures of

766 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

violence emerge where residents believe officials to be untrustworthy, in- accessible, unresponsive, and lacking authority (Sampson and Bean, 2006). In these places, it is difficult for the state to legitimize a monopoly on use of force (Spierenburg, 1998). Nisbett and Cohen (1996) pointed to the lack of a strong government capable of exerting authority in the American South as a primary reason a do-it-yourself ethic and culture of honor developed and persists there. Anderson (1999) made similar claims about the genesis of the code of the street. Whereas cynicism about the state and legal author- ity theoretically birthed these codes, once established, inhabitants may take them for granted and pass them across generations culturally even when conditions change.

The links between history and culture of a place and individual behav- ior seldom are firm. Inhabitants often are diverse in background and be- liefs, their application of general rules to situations can be complex, and they consider situational contingencies before acting. These are among the reasons that contemporary urban ethnographers have provided nuanced portraits of violent areas. The areas described exhibit a variety of cultural orientations—some conventional and some not. Harding (2010), for exam- ple, suggested that people in disadvantaged communities come into contact with numerous and diverse cultural models, including conventional beliefs and oppositional ones. Young people may draw from these as needed, and when one strategy is not working, they can easily shift course “because an- other option is available—with local approval” (Harding, 2010: 349). Those who perform in some situations in accord with a violent culture or code do so not only as an adaption to structural constraints but also because they model common behaviors in their environment that are useful in local in- teractions (Sampson and Bean, 2006). In sum, cultures and the codes they contain may be a general and soft reality that informs choices, and those who draw on a code are selective, skillful, and purposive (Sampson and Bean, 2006). Recent assessments of the importance of codes on violence have harkened soft determinism. Theorists have asserted that adherence to a code for violence increases the likelihood for violence, but they have given attention to choice, situational considerations and interpersonal con- tingencies, enactment options, and related beliefs and lifestyles (Sampson and Bean, 2006).

If culture and codes propel action directly, then we would expect ad- herents to a code for violence to act in accordance with it in situations where the code is salient, but considerable evidence suggests that even those who espouse the code of the street often do not seek retaliation when wronged and respond in other ways that are inconsistent with their code (Garot, 2010; Topalli, 2005). People do not slavishly follow codes of con- duct (DiMaggio, 1997). Instead, actors choose from available cultural mes- sages and what they know works for them, and they construct lines of action

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 767

strategically rather than by adhering to singular, deterministic, and socially imposed models for behavior (DiMaggio, 1997).

That said, upholding codes is important to individuals. Statistical links of codes to behavior evidence this, as does the fact that when adherents act in discord with their code, they seek to excuse or justify their actions (Copes, Brookman, and Brown, 2013; Rosenfeld, Jacobs, and Wright 2003; Topalli, 2005). Attempts at aligning their behavior with subcultural expectations es- tablish that they embrace the belief system, despite behavioral departures. Careful attention to how adherents portray and apply codes reveals much about the significance of codes, about the mental effort devoted to evaluat- ing proper application, and about complexities and nuances of drawing on a code to make decisions (Topalli, 2005). By examining accounts, investiga- tors can sketch the contours of a code and related beliefs and behaviors— instances when there is disjuncture may be valuable (Maruna and Copes, 2005; Scott and Lyman, 1968).

Codes may be more than causes of behavior. Individuals also may use them after the fact to evaluate and make sense of behavior. This approach has led some to suspect that codes are rationalizing stories that people tell to explain misdeeds, and that codes, therefore, are causally insignificant (Kornhauser, 1978). However, even if offenders use codes after the fact, their use is important for understanding and communicating belief systems. Those who have adapted an ethnomethodological approach to examining codes of conduct have perceived codes as shared conversational devices ac- tors use to account for actions (Wieder, 1974). Investigators in this tradition have examined how actors tell codes to understand their form and to exam- ine functional components of accounts or what individuals are doing when they draw on a code to explain action. Considering codes as retrospective evaluative devices does not preclude the fact that codes and cultures predict and predate individual behavior. Culturally prevalent codes shape actors’ thoughts, decisions, and behaviors to some degree; however, actors also call forth codes when making sense of completed action. As such, “codes are causes and consequences of conduct” (Jimerson and Oware, 2006: 45).

FORMULA STORIES AND BEHAVIORAL CODES

An investigator can observe the form of a code or cultural belief when individuals relay thematically similar stories or refer to patterned behav- ior and thinking among groups with whom they identify. One reason for interviewing offenders is that they use recurring storylines to explain who they are and what they do. That is, actors rely on shared narratives or sto- rylines to situate their actions and selves within larger structures. Loseke (2007) described how formula stories (which exist at a cultural level) are essential for the construction and representation of identities. Formula

768 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

stories refer to “narratives of typical actors engaging in typical behav- iors within typical plots leading to expectable moral evaluations” (Loseke, 2007: 664). They help people perpetuate symbolic codes and reveal what people value, what they know, and how they should behave. By relying on formula stories, actors link personal experiences and behaviors with a culturally meaningful group (one that listeners understand) for effective communication.

For offenders, formula stories can be convenient devices to show that their behaviors are not unusual or are easily understandable, if not benign and honorable, if considered in the proper cultural context. Such stories reflect larger cultural goals and values, and they situate individuals in spe- cific cultures. Thus, street offenders articulate the code of the street to jus- tify violence, real hustling dope fiends separate themselves from incapable sick addicts (Faupel, 1991), and white-collar offenders tell stories of pro- viding middle-class lifestyles for their families when accounting for crimes (Klenowski, Copes, and Mullins, 2011). Brookman, Copes, and Hochstetler (2011) discussed how robbers use the code of the street to plot stories of instrumental violence. They argued that the conversational use of this code allows violent offenders to present themselves in the best possible light and aids in contextualizing acts. By demonstrating that their violence emerged from the disrespect or gullibility of victims, offenders save face, construct identity, and impart a great deal about the contexts and environ- ments where they operate.

As formula stories are general forms, the fit of an individual narrative to a formula story often is something that speakers negotiate and work out as the story unfolds. Whether fitting a narrative to such a story or playing it against the story by explaining and rationalizing unexpected departures, narrators affirm codes relevant to themselves and the audience. Thereby, they depict experiences generally and simultaneously portray themselves as upholders of a pattern of beliefs and related lines of action.

In this study, we use explanations of fights by a small network of working- class, White males residing in the American South to add to our under- standing of codes for violence. By focusing on a group seldom studied when examining violence, we show that such codes are not restricted to the urban underclass and minorities. In addition to detailing the content of a code, we seek to contribute to understandings of how acceptance of codes con- tributes to discrete violent acts and how individuals use codes to make sense of actions retrospectively.

METHODS

We base our findings on the narratives of 23 men who had been in mul- tiple fights with nonfamily members as adults. These individuals lived in or

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 769

near the city of Lafayette, Louisiana (population 120,623 as of 2010). Like most midsized cities in the southern United States, Lafayette has above average crime rates, especially violent crime. The number of assaults per 100,000 people in Lafayette was 579, whereas across the United States it was 254. The city’s population is primarily White (63.5%) and Black (30.9%). The poverty rate is high (19.8% in 2010). The most central industry in the town is oil and gas extraction.

We located interviewees with the help of a lifelong resident who has a his- tory of offenses related to drinking and fighting, and who is known for being a street fighter. He reported being in numerous bar fights (too many to list precisely), and several tavern owners have banned him entry for fighting. Although he has been arrested for disorderly conduct (including fighting), he denied taking part in other illegal activities and had no felony record. The recruiter relied on personal contacts and snowball sampling to locate the sample.

The goal of sampling in qualitative research is to reach a point of satu- ration (i.e., that no new themes are introduced from adding participants). Previous investigations into the number of participants needed have sug- gested that saturation can be reached with as few as 12 with a homogeneous population (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson, 2006). Although no clear numbers are available on what sample size is needed to reach saturation, we believe that we achieved saturation on the concepts under investigation with this sample of 23 men. By interview 20, we no longer had responses that de- parted significantly from existing interview themes. Nevertheless, we asked the interviewer to secure more interviews to ensure saturation.

To be eligible, participants had to be White and male, and they had to have been in at least one nondomestic, physical fight within the past 3 months. The reason for restricting the racial composition of the sample was our hope to delve more deeply into how a particular group of persons (i.e., those inhabiting a social sphere of predominantly White, working-class tav- erns and neighborhoods) thought about fighting and their social world. We did so to act as a counterbalance to the numerous studies that focus on ur- ban, minority youth (see also Jackson-Jacobs, 2013). With such a purposive strategy, generalization to other populations is hazardous.

All the individuals we approached agreed to the interview, but one man never could arrange his schedule for a meeting time and was not inter- viewed. The age range of participants was 22 to 48; the average participant was 33 years of age. All participants feasibly can be classified as working class using their occupations and educational backgrounds at the time of the interview. Twenty were employed. The work these men performed in- cluded various labor jobs, such as plumbers’ assistants, general contractors, and positions related to oil extraction. Two participants owned businesses (one a small restaurant and the other a screen-print shop). All graduated

770 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

high school. Six participants graduated college or community college, but none worked in the white-collar workforce, in their major, or had advanced degrees. Eight participants were married. Whereas nearly all participants had been arrested for behaviors they defined as “little things, nothing seri- ous,” only one served time in prison. The majority identified with a Cajun ancestry, which is common in the area.

When asked how many fights they had been in as adults, all participants had a hard time providing accurate numbers and most provided ranges or estimates instead, which is common when repeat offenders report their crimes (Shover, 1996). The estimated number of fights ranged from 5 to 50. The median range offered by participants was 12 to 15 fights. From their descriptions, participants had a high threshold for counting altercations as fights. They did not consider verbal arguments or quickly interrupted scuf- fles as fights.

We constructed an interview guide based on a consultation with the re- cruiter and prior literature on males who engaged in street fights (e.g., Oliver, 2001). The recruiter also served as the interviewer. We trained him on proper interviewing techniques, such as probing and active listening. In addition, we listened to each of the first five interviews and offered feed- back on how to improve or modify the interviews. Although he followed the same interview guide throughout, we read interviews as they progressed and encouraged him to pursue a few themes that he or we identified.

Qualitative researchers who hire insiders to interview do so to enhance rapport between interviewer and participant. There are limitations when using insiders, however. One primary limitation is that some participants may think it unnecessary to expand on details because they think the in- terviewer already knows the answers, which can leave much unsaid. Lay interviewers also may not perceive things as significant to scholarship, in- teresting, or worthwhile for further probing. Despite these limitations, we believe that having an insider conduct the interviews was beneficial for im- proved rapport and diminished concern that our presence might change the tone or material in the conversation. Also, counteracting the interviewer’s disadvantage of inability to notice themes relevant to a literature is validity gained because a nonacademic is less likely to push participants in a certain direction to support a theoretical perspective.

We opted for semistructured interviews because they allow respondents to answer questions with minimal direction from the interviewer and lead to a more natural description of events. The interviews covered topics about participants’ general thoughts on fighting (e.g., general reasons for fighting, importance of fighting, acceptability of walking away from fights, feelings after fighting, or walking away from a fight). Here, the interviewer also asked about “codes” for fighting, reputations developed from fighting, and the importance of winning and losing fights. Although we refer to them

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 771

as codes, the interviewer used this expression sparingly in the interviews. Instead, he asked participants about such things as whether they have seri- ously injured anyone or been injured in a fight, whether warning should be given before initiating the fight, the differences the participants saw in fair and unfair fights, and acceptable rules for fighting. Although he followed an interview guide, the natural flow of conversation that we encouraged, the liberty to change the wording and order of questions, and the interviewers’ familiarity with the respondents resulted in loosely structured interviews. In addition, the interviewer asked participants to describe their most recent violent encounter (excluding family and friends) that occurred in public.

The interviewer conducted the interviews in private locations such as his home, the home of interviewees, or the homes of others they both knew. When recruiting participants, our contact explained that everything would be kept confidential and that there would be no financial compensation for participation. The interviews lasted between 30 and 45 minutes, and the in- terviewer recorded them with each participant’s permission. We transcribed the interviews verbatim; however, on occasion we edited the text by drop- ping superfluous filler words and sounds, as well as using punctuation for clarity and readability. We also removed identifying remarks and assigned aliases to each.

To ensure interrater reliability in coding, each of us read the excerpts independently to identify relevant and common themes. We coded using strategies consistent with grounded theory, including open coding and axial coding (Charmaz, 2006). We began our open coding by reading electronic versions of the transcripts and marking notes with editing functions in a word processor. We then compared coding and came to agreement on axial codes (theoretical and logical grouping of open codes). On the few cases where we differed on coding, we discussed the discrepancy and reached agreement. We then recoded transcripts using the axial codes we devel- oped, which are reflected in the major themes discussed in the results.

PURPOSES OF FIGHTING

The participants portrayed themselves as “peaceful warriors” who nei- ther sought out violent confrontations nor ran from them. They described acceptable purposes for violence that went beyond the obvious notion of protection, although this was an important reason. Even when they pro- vided protection as justification, the narrator imbued the moral of the ac- count with broader notions of respect and the necessity of standing up against aggressors as a matter of principle. Often, they wove motives for violence together with judgments of honorable behavior and the ability to back up claims, and they presented much of this by referring to appro- priate manly behavior. Fighting also meant solving problems immediately,

772 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

without lingering discussions, and it avoided uncomfortable or emotional negotiations. Participants depicted it as a pragmatic deterrent of future in- sults and altercations: Violence taught lessons to those who insulted and those who might consider insulting in the future.

VERIFYING MASCULINE CHARACTER

Defending and verifying character is a major motivator for violence among urban and rural residents in the United States and abroad (Anderson, 1999; Brookman et al., 2011; Nisbett and Cohen, 1996). Our participants were not exceptions, and many tied this belief directly to mas- culinity. When asked why it was important to fight when confronted, Kevin said:

I think it’s important to show who you are as a man, how you feel about yourself, and how you feel about your friends and loved ones. [To show] that you’re there to protect them. People, even your friends, need to know that you’re there for them, that you’re there for yourself, that you have the strength to stand up for yourself and kinda prove you’re a man.

David said the willingness to fight allows people to “keep their pride in- tact. Just sayin’ that they’re not chumps.” Participants asserted that prin- cipled individuals know that their character is worth defending physically (Jackson-Jacobs, 2013).

They believed that fights were an important part of maintaining self- image. This belief was evident when we asked what they would think of themselves if they did not fight when insulted. In response to this question, David said, “I hate to use the word, but the word pussy comes to mind. . . . That you punked out and you couldn’t handle your own business.” Simi- larly, Kevin answered:

I’d feel guilty. I’d feel weak. I’d feel like I let myself down. I’d feel like I let anybody else that was involved down. I’d feel like the other person involved got the upper hand. I’d feel like I lost something. And most of all I wouldn’t feel like a man.

Eric said that if he did not fight he would think:

That I just wasn’t a man, straight and simple. I feel like if I’m tested and I walk away, if I didn’t fight that person or prove myself, you know, I’d just feel real down on myself and feel like I’m kind of a coward. They ain’t nothin’ more that I hate than feelin’ like a coward. So, if I’m tested, I’m gonna do what I gotta do to not feel like a coward.

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 773

Fighting affirmed a sense of self as a capable and dependable man, but also it fended off powerful negative emotions and shame from refusal to meet the call when provoked.

Being perceived as men who are willing to defend principles was impor- tant for participants’ sense of self. Using violence was more than saving face; it served internalized and private purposes. A desire to uphold their char- acter led several participants to say that at times they were disappointed deeply in themselves for not fighting. Kevin explained:

There’s times when I kicked myself for days for not hurtin’ somebody because I felt they disrespected me in front of people. And just to my- self, I felt less of a man. I felt guilty for not doing anything. I felt like a chump. All around it affected me for a while.

Such statements reflect the idea that regret and damage to self-concept and masculinity may linger longer than the pain caused by being struck or worries about legal consequences of a public fight. The imperative to fight in some situations buttressed notions of courage and the value of principled stances. As Dana put it, “You have to stand up for your principles. You have to stand up. That’s it.” Participants used fighting to reinforce valued identities and considered it part of what it meant to be a man of conviction.

Willingness to fight reportedly is not the same as eagerness to use aggres- sion unprovoked or for felonious purposes (Jackson-Jacobs, 2013). These men condemned those who were set on fighting before they encountered a legitimate conflict. They believed that men should not contrive arguments only to demonstrate fighting prowess, and assault for robbery was inex- cusable. Participants often expressed these sentiments using stereotypes of criminals and brutes for contrast and by emphasizing a generally peaceful demeanor (Hochstetler, Copes, and Williams, 2010). Dennis cast himself as a “peaceful warrior” in contrast to “agro dudes that have something to prove and are just looking for trouble.” Similarly explaining the distinction between the violent and the peaceful, Renee said:

Guys that work out and they just go out to the bars with their tight shirts that show their muscles, and they get drunk, and they go out, they lookin’ for a fight. That’s why they go out that night. You can tell when you see ’em. You know they lookin’ for something. That’s the type of people that I think are like street people, thugs, you know. I consider them violent people.

DETERRENCE

There was a pragmatic reason for a firm and unyielding stance in the face of challenge or insult. Fighters believed that by violently responding

774 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

to affronts they could prevent future insults and deter potential victimizers (Topalli, Wright, and Fornango, 2002). Kelly said that, “Without doing it [fighting], you’d just be a sitting duck. You’d be the one getting beaten up. Incidentally, laying the foundation to get beat up again, picked on, taken advantage of, or exploited later.” Fred indicated that his latest fight was because, “I didn’t want them to think that I was just some pussy. I wanted to show that I could take care of my business.” In short, some violence was motivated by the desire to communicate that aggressors had selected the wrong person to confront.

Beaten rivals from the past also show that violence can be an effective specific deterrent. As Dana said:

[If] you tell somebody not to keep hittin’ on your wife, and they’re not listenin’ there’s gotta be consequences. . . . I told him to back off, and he didn’t so I knocked him out. After that he never fucked with her again. . . . [The police] wouldn’t have solved anything. Really, I solved it. Maybe it wasn’t the way everybody wants it to be handled, but it was handled. I got my point across and it never happened again.

Renee emphasized that his violence was a response to an insult, and for him the important thing was to show aggressors that they cannot insult with impunity:

You give a man a warning, you ask him to respect it, and he doesn’t want to listen to you, that’s almost a sign of disrespect again. And if he already disrespected you once, he’s gonna disrespect you again, and he’s gonna always disrespect you. So you almost have to use physical violence, not to say teach him a lesson, but show him that you’re not playin’ around, and that you are willing to stand your ground and do it every time you see him.

Participants believed that willingness to fight and decisiveness when threatened deterred a great deal of trouble, but winning drove home the message that they could meet infractions with painful consequences. There- fore, it was sometimes important to demonstrate dominance, and not only willingness to engage. Al said, “If you half-ass kick somebody’s ass, they gonna snap and come back and beat the shit out of you or kill you or what- not. There’s no halfway ass kickin’.” In response to a theft, Renee said that he had to teach the culprit a lesson by force and afterward added a verbal reprimand:

He tried talkin’ his way out of it, but I didn’t want to hear his talkin’. So, as soon as he was done talkin’, I just hit him, and I hit him ’til I cut

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 775

his eye, and I stopped. I told him, “Take your ass-beatin’ like a man,” and I walked back to the bar and he left.

By telling his opponent to follow the rule against retaliation for an hon- orable fight, he affirmed that the contest had ended, that the conflict was settled, and that no future violence should follow.

For those who believe in the deterrent value of fighting, the fear of com- bat can be far less worrisome than the lasting effects of failure to respond violently. Participants considered failure to fight when provoked as shame- ful and believed that when a persistent adversary who might respond to per- ceived weakness with increased aggression is not bested or at least fought to conclusion, it could lead to further trouble.

HIERARCHIES AND NATURAL ORDER

Those interviewed portrayed fighting as a natural occurrence and as a means to establish hierarchies of physical dominance. Multiple respondents made reference to primitive man or the animal kingdom to show that phys- ical confrontation and dominance contests are natural. The point was that fighting is what humans do to establish rank. Kelly said:

Defending yourself will expand and trickle through all aspects of your life. It can start with physical defense. To not defend yourself is equal to being defenseless. You would be equal to a sitting duck. The same way sharks smell blood and animals smell fear. People see fear and capitalize on it. You know big fish, little fish kind of thing.

His statement reflects a belief that the assertiveness reflected in a will- ingness to fight leads to other successes in a competitive world. Participants seemed comfortable with the idea that physical dominance is part of the human condition and particularly significant in their social surroundings. According to Fred, “I think it’s part of human nature. Part of people are animals just like any other animal. That’s how you figure out dominance and who’s right and who’s wrong.” Thus, they considered fighting an im- portant part of establishing and challenging a pecking order and of building a social environment where the order of respect is known. Curiously, most participants placed themselves in the middle range of fighting ability and said that they were not particularly tough guys. Their willingness to stand up and fight was sufficient to place them in a relatively respectable position in this order.

Although most of the men said that flaunting the ability and willingness to fight was a mark of immaturity, it was good to make a habit of being strong and at the ready for violence. This demeanor improves one’s social posi- tion, reinforces a manly image, increases confidence in diverse settings, and

776 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

wards off trouble by garnering respect. This is important to those who per- ceive their neighborhood barroom as a setting where aggressors inevitably will try to demonstrate mettle and intimidate if they think they can.

LETTING BAD BLOOD

Most of the men we interviewed considered fighting a likely and reason- able outcome of many exchanges of insults or disputes. They believed that lingering animosities, yelling, shoving matches, and verbal battles served no purpose. Arguing is unproductive, but fighting can bring conflicts to reso- lution and reduce the likelihood of an uncomfortable series of interactions (see Ferguson, 2001). Jason perceived little value in debating foes and as- sumed that most arguments of any duration in public will lead to fist fights. In his words, “What’s the point of arguing back and forth for thirty min- utes or an hour? Just fight and it’s over in a few minutes.” Once disputants established dominance and demonstrated courage, they could consider the matter settled. Fights also prevented prolonged conflict and animosity, and they avoided expression of emotion that audiences will not receive well. Of his decision to fight, Renee said, “A friend just told me, ‘If you feel that you need to do it, just go ahead and do it. Stop stressing out about it. You’re gonna see this person, so you might as well just do it and get it over with.’”

Fighting also was perceived as cathartic. Adversaries can release the stress of tense situations with a flurry of punches. After the violence, emo- tions settle. Even on the losing side of the fight, these men accepted that they could resolve conflicts with violence and that it could prevent lasting conflict. Indeed, most believed that dangerous animosity was unlikely to last beyond the incident. In their circles, fights happen, and in most cases, people get over them. In describing a particular fight, Fred said:

Nobody got seriously hurt. It was just kinda one of those things where we took care of what had to be taken care of. It’s kinda funny ’cause I did end up runnin’ into the guy two days later, and he bought me some drinks, and we kinda just talked for a minute. It’s not like we sat there and made up, but at the same time he was like, “Man, that was stupid,” and I was like, “Yeah, that was stupid.” But at that point in time we did what had to be done, I guess.

To these men, fights were useful voluntary contests for settling disputes and were more likely to resolve conflicts than prolong them. Charlie ex- pressed the idea that fights should not lead to cycles of retaliation or lasting animosity. He said, “I guess after the fight, it’s over. Just the way I grew up, if you got beat up and it’s pretty bad, there’s no reason to press charges.” Such resolutions extended even to situations when the speaker provoked a fight. As Cain said, “If you’re the person who starts it and you end up

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 777

getting your ass handed to you, you get what you deserve. You feel stupid you know, but you know you had it comin’.”

They believed that fighting could settle some problems and onlookers should allow them to conduct their contests without interference, especially from police. Dennis elaborated on his belief that fights allow resolution of conflict by “working out” problems through competition:

It’s a timeless tradition. Two people duking it out goes back to dudes slappin’ people with gloves and challenging them to a duel and prob- ably way before that, cavemen and stuff. That’s what men do. Some things can just be worked out like that.

Many participants thought that police involvement would undermine the purpose of fighting and that witnesses should only call police under strict conditions where fights were not for settling disputes (e.g., robberies or un- fair and merciless attacks).

CONDUCT IN COMBAT

Participants claimed that honorable fighters should follow rules. Almost all said that the point of fighting was not to hurt the other person as severely as possible. Clearly, their intent was to win and cause pain to opponents, but it was not to cause lasting injury or death. For this reason, they attempted to follow specific rules of combat and expected others to do so. They claimed that those who fight honorably stop when their opponent is bested, only fight equally matched opponents, and fight with equal numbers of combat- ants. They believed that failing to do so impugned claims of being peaceful warriors and cast them as violent, a label they avoided.

GIVE QUARTER

Several interviewees said that they took the threat of causing severe and permanent injury seriously and believed that it was the worst possible out- come of a fight. Avoiding tragedy was part of the reason they tried to con- duct fights fairly, put limitations on violence, and stopped once they earned a victory (Jackson-Jacobs, 2013). These offenders said that the level of accepted aggression was high and that fighting aggressively was fine, but they still emphasized the importance of restraint when fighting. As Chris said, “I’m not tryin’ to kill nobody.” Renee said, “I mean, I wouldn’t want to seriously kill somebody, but bones heal. You can get teeth fixed. Bloody nose ain’t gonna kill anybody.” They believed it important to stop when one fighter clearly has bested their opponent, so that combatants land no potentially deadly blow against the defenseless. As Charlie said, “I never

778 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

felt like I inflicted more pain than needed to be inflicted on somebody. I felt like once I did enough damage to ’em, you know, I didn’t do any more.”

Most respondents said that once the winner of a fight was established, the honorable thing to do was desist. The signs that they should cease were when their adversary yielded, went to ground, became too tired to compete, or could no longer defend himself (Jackson-Jacobs, 2013). Charlie elabo- rated:

I think a fist fight in the street or in a bar . . . should be done with when somebody can’t get up, when they can’t defend themselves anymore. If you take it beyond that, where somebody needs to go to the hospital for head injuries or bleedin’ to death, that’s takin’ it way too far.

When asked when fighting should stop, Cain said:

One person just giving up; throwing their hands up saying they’ve had enough. When a person just can’t defend themselves, that’s a sign that they’re done. What constitutes it for me, I guess, is just knowing that if I’ve gotten into it with someone, and they stop throwing back, and they start talking like in between, its kinda like they saying I quit.

Jason relayed two stories that supported this claim: one where he showed mercy and the other where he benefited from mercy. In the first, he dis- cussed landing the first blow that “dropped” his opponent, and then instead of further attacks, he verbally reinforced the demand to yield and not come back. In the second, he said he was tackled and suffered a broken shoulder. Afterward, he threw a punch but the pain from the break brought him to his knees. He said that he was defenseless and grateful that his opponent recognized the proper moment to stop.

EQUAL COMBATANTS

One way to determine a “fair” fight was whether the combatants were matched equally, at least by appearances (see Garot, 2010). As Kelly said, “A fair fight is when [they’re] equally matched in physical stature, strength, age. Unfair would be age, physical stature, intoxication, outnumbered.” Although any touching or attempt to intimidate by invading space during confrontation might set off a fight, participants claimed that they avoided throwing a first blow and would attempt to deescalate conflict when their opponent had lost the chance to win. Exceptions to the dictate to avoid the first blow were when they believed they were far outmatched and the fight was inevitable. They claimed that throwing the first blow in these situ- ations might give a “puncher’s chance” to escape unharmed. Still, several participants said that there is little purpose in fighting when there is no

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 779

chance of winning, such as when a far superior fighter insults you. It is very bad form to bully far outside one’s size and fighting ability; if per- sonal pride allows, then there is little shame in letting it go when it happens. As Chris said, “If you’re definitely gonna get your ass whipped, there’s no point in fightin’. You might as well just walk away.” It is possible to walk away from a fight and avoid humiliation when unquestionably outmatched (Garot, 2010).

We asked participants when they thought it was wrong to fight. Their answers supported the claim that fighting easily outmatched opponents was wrong and did not convey their ideals of honor. David said you should not fight:

Somebody that’s a whole lot smaller than you, that you could easily kick their ass for no reason, you know just to make them look dumb. I guess you would kinda feel a little guilty after that, just to fight, just for that. So I guess I would consider that kinda wrong, an unfair match.

Eric said, “If you can already beat somebody up, it’s not necessary for you to follow through with it.” He explained that it would be acceptable to walk away when provoked by those who clearly were not contenders for victory because they could not have intended insult with a clear head. If insulted parties believe that the aggressor does not comprehend the consequences of an affront or is insincere, then they can forgive slights:

If somebody’s eggin’ you on to fight but you really know they don’t want to fight, then you feel like you could just give ’em exactly what they’re askin’ for. Maybe they want to fight knowing they’re gonna get beat up, and they just want to get beat up. I’m not gonna do that to somebody, I’ll walk away from a fight when I know it’s not worth it. Some people just aren’t worth beatin’ up or fightin’ with because I don’t want to hurt ’em and I know they really don’t want to fight in the first place. They’re just drunk.

Several mentioned that they can detect reluctance from the fearful, out- matched, or unintentional insulter, and in these situations, the right thing to do is to deescalate conflict. Dana indicated that adversaries attempting to deescalate or who have done no significant wrong are among the reasons for deciding not to fight as a conflict begins: “[I]t’s okay to walk away from a fight. Number one, if you know you can’t win. Number two, if the principle isn’t there.” When asked if he thought there are times when it is acceptable to walk away, Charlie responded:

Definitely. A lot of times you walk away when you know you could beat someone up or they’re drunk—too drunk. Or you just feel like

780 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

they really don’t—you can see sometimes in people’s eyes—they really don’t want to get in a fight with you, but they just feel like they have to.

EQUAL NUMBERS

To establish reputations and reinforce the idea that they uphold rules of accepted behaviors, fighters argued that you should go it alone. They framed having friends join the fight as an ineffective way to convey reputa- tions worthy of respect. In fact, having friends join an otherwise fair fight reportedly diminished your reputation. Kevin claimed that he did not ap- prove when a friend came to his aid. As he explained, “[Being] jumped by multiple people is not very fair. And sometimes it’s hard to stay away from that ’cause if you’re with a group of people, friends usually jump in, and it may turn out to be unfair when multiple people are jumpin’ on one guy.” According to Charlie, “I think a fair fight is if it’s one-on-one. Just fists, you know, fighting straight up. If someone has a weapon or if someone has more friends, like if another friend jumps in, I think that’s unfair.” When asked if he would jump in a fight to help a friend, Kevin replied:

I usually see what is happening, try and watch the situation, and if my friend’s handlin’ it’s okay and if nobody else on the other guy’s side is jumpin’ in, I usually watch and make sure nobody else jumps in. If he’s getting hurt bad enough, I’ll jump in to try and help him or stop him.

EXCEPTIONS TO RULES

Although participants articulated rules of combat, they also said that they sometimes abandoned these rules. Several indicated that for some transgressions—a sexual crime or other serious offense against those held close—the injured can cast rules aside. It may be acceptable to approach with stealth, gang up on, blindside, or pull a weapon first when the sole ob- jective is vengeance and inflicting pain on dishonorable and egregious of- fenders who deserve it, but such events were rare among this group. Depar- tures from the code also occurred for less intentional reasons; these events are much more common and received considerably more attention from participants. Here, we elaborate on the situations and circumstances where the participants did not follow the accepted rules of fighting.

LOYALTY

Loyalty to friends or the unprotected can conflict with the imperative that fights be fair. Fighters often recognize that despite the need to let a fight proceed to culmination without interference, they should not let friends be injured severely or humiliated. Louis said that one must assist a friend in

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 781

the fray “if they need it—if they’re getting hurt or losing.” David explained that he is sure to intervene in fights if a friend is outnumbered, but he said also that he would aid as a gesture of friendship and unwillingness to watch a compatriot suffer:

Oh yeah, you jump in to help. Why? Because I guess it’s your friend and it all depends, you know, how many friends they got with ’em. But yeah, I’d jump in for a friend of mine just ’cause it’s your friend. You don’t want to see them get hurt, get beat up.

Onlookers are attentive to how a battle unfolds and whether those with whom they side have the upper hand. If they judge that significant injury to their side is occurring or impending, or that the situation requires a demon- stration of loyalty, then they may violate the abstract belief that people should fight their own battles. They cast such violations as reluctant, how- ever. The following dialogue with Sal reflected his decision-making process for determining when to violate the ethic of fighting fair:

Interviewer: Would you jump in even if it was a fair fight?

Sal: Well, I guess it depends. I guess you’d have to be in the situation, see what it calls for.

Interviewer: Let’s say it’s a fair fight and your friend’s winning, would you jump in?

Sal: No, I wouldn’t jump in. I’d let him handle his business.

Interviewer: But if he was getting beat up?

Sal: I’d probably jump in, yeah.

Jason relied on loyalty to explain the use of a weapon in a fight where he normally would avoid it. He relayed a story of smashing a glass on an antagonist’s head:

This big dude was harassing a guy I knew, who was pretty small. I told him, “don’t worry that dude won’t do nothing.” Right after I said that, the big dude pushed my friend hard against the wall. I was like, “Fuck man, I just told him nothin’ was going to happen to him.” I had to do something. So I smashed my drink over the dude’s head.

The participants were not blind to conflicting imperatives that shape how they should respond to a fight. Reportedly, it is a complicated decision determining when to intervene in an ongoing fight. The decision requires speedily considering the entirety of the situation; a significant part of the calculation is how much punishment one allows a friend who has lost mo- mentum in a fight to take before intervening to assist. Onlookers should

782 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

allow fights to proceed in most cases, but at some point, the beating of a friend must stop.

ALCOHOL AND DRUGS

Many fighters said that they were ashamed of the times they had pro- voked another person because of their own intoxication. When they por- trayed their fights as shameful or immature events, it was typically because they had provoked another needlessly and being drunk was usually the rea- son for it. Eric recalled:

I beat up some guy one night just because I was intoxicated. It had nothing to do with him. It had somethin’ to do with his family member. It had to do with a girl, and if I wouldn’t have been in the state of mind I was in, I would’ve never done that to that person. He didn’t deserve that.

As Kevin noted, when fights occur because of drunkenness, the fighter may experience guilt. It is not the fight that inspires regret, but the realiza- tion that it occurred for “irrational” reasons:

There’s times when I definitely didn’t think it was the right thing to do, and maybe too much alcohol was involved and I had a hot head, and if I was sober that probably wouldn’t have happened. So there’s times I feel guilty for doin’ it when I’m drunk or something.

The fighters noted that drugs and alcohol interfere with decision making and have a great deal to do with why some of their fights occur. However, in several cases, they reconciled this with the belief that they fight in response to insults. Alcohol-induced sensitivity and intolerance to insults probably means only that they might have chosen to ignore real infractions if sober. When asked what instigated his most recent fight, Rob said:

I think it [alcohol] influenced me to the point where I thought I reacted really fast. I mean I got mad quick. It just all happened, and I just did whatever felt like I had to do right away. My adrenaline started pump- ing faster because I was drunk. Had I been calm and had some food in me and somewhat normal I might have tried the situation slightly different. I don’t know how that would’ve ended up. I think overall because I had been drinkin’ so much, it was just a quick reaction and the only way I saw fit to handle it.

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 783

QUICK JUDGMENTS AND OVERWHELMING EMOTIONS

Many fights occurred quickly. Therefore, the fighters often cast the de- cision to fight as a spur of the moment, physiological reaction rather than the result of deliberation. They weighed their decision to fight against a cul- tural backdrop of right and wrong behavior, but also they knew that there was little time to measure guidance for using violence against developing conflicts. They were aware that outcomes often do not fit cultural imper- atives neatly and that sometimes they made mistakes. It usually was after the fight that these fighters measured their actions against the standards of whether it should have occurred and how it should have proceeded. Af- ter such careful examination, many experience regret. Dennis regretted the level of violence he used in a fight that his friend provoked:

So my friend’s all drunk at the bar, bouncin’ around screamin’, and these dudes walk up behind him and start shit with him. He starts fightin’ one of the dudes, and then two of that guy’s friends jumped in. I mean, like I said, my friend was in the wrong, but we all jumped in anyway. It was a couple of us, and that’s when I made the dude’s ear bleed.

Kevin reconciled his beliefs that fights should not include weapons and should end before serious injury with contradictory behavior by referring to fights as charged situations where a person can lose control:

You kinda lose yourself in the moment and codes go out the window. There’s been times when I probably should’ve stopped before I did, or somebody should’ve stopped something, but you kinda lose yourself. You don’t really realize what you’re doing sometimes, and it’s not really about a code at that point.

Emotions often cause bystanders to jump into what were fair fights ini- tially or to escalate more than the situation demands. Jerry explained that he regretted injuring his opponent but that this experience had taught him that fights sometimes progress in this manner. The natural flash of anger that is an emotional response to pain and fear when under attack means that he need not deeply regret exceeding his limitations for violence:

Sometimes, everybody gets their adrenaline pumpin’ and you don’t think too rationally. So, you know, it didn’t bother me afterward. Usually that’s the way things happen. . . . I wasn’t tryin’ to hurt him at all. At first I just felt like I was tryin’ to defend myself. But once I got him on the ground, I hit him four more times with the intent to hurt him, but also with the intent just to keep him from comin’ back at me,

784 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

and when he came back at me, I meant to hurt him that last time and I did hurt him.

Rob said that limits on the injuries one tends to inflict and the level of escalation allowed may be set aside instantaneously when things do not progress as expected:

I don’t want to get in a situation where I put some dude in a coma and spend my days in jail and go through all of that. That’s definitely not the goal. But sometimes it’s hard to go with that idea even if that’s how you feel about it normally. You get in that situation, and somebody takes a swing at you with a baseball bat, and all of a sudden things change. I don’t know that there’s clear cut limits in my head. I hope to have a limit and never do anything too permanent.

In fact, several offenders noted that their personal response to the anger, fear, and associated biochemical arousal that occurs in a fight makes them lose touch completely with personal restrictions and ostensive rules of com- bat. Experience had taught these men that there was a risk that they would lose control when fighting and that the limitations on conduct when fighting were uncertainties even for themselves. Fred said:

I kinda lose touch with myself as a human being when I fight and I just kinda lose my mind for a minute and whatever happens, happens. I don’t even know what happened sometimes. It’s kinda like you just turn into an animal.

Combatants said that they (and others) may lose sight of the rules of com- bat they try to follow but that they still must trust their instinct to fight when provoked. Participants easily cast many fights that do not follow the form of fair contests, as situations that result either from purposive violations, usu- ally by the other side, or from accidental failure to follow the rules. Failure to adhere to rules, although occurring frequently, does not undermine the belief that opponents can, should, and often do perform fights as honorable contests.

DISCUSSION

Ethnographies that focus on singular aspects of a group’s life tend to por- tray the participants as one-dimensional. For instance, Sandberg (2009b) argued that much ethnographic work on violent street offenders highlights their gangster or violent sides and ignores other dimensions of their lives. Because our interviews focused on violence, our findings may lead the reader to overestimate the degree to which fighting was a part of their lives.

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 785

Readers can garner the complexity of participants at times from the quotes we present, but many participants made efforts to construct themselves as not being truly violent in other parts of the interviews that are not included in this article. They engage in violence, endorse some forms of violence, and articulate a code governing such behavior, but other dimensions of their lives having little to do with crime take precedence in defining how they perceive themselves. Fighting is but one aspect of their complicated lives and identities.

Our aims with this research were to explore the content and implemen- tation of codes for fighting among a group of adult, working-class, White males and to determine how they talk about such codes in relation to con- structing identities. In describing the content of their code for violence, par- ticipants said fighting was a means of constructing an identity as someone deserving respect, but only when conducted acceptably. They emphasized how defending honor, seeking quick conflict resolution, and establishing ad- mirable qualities motivated them to fight. They were proud of their willing- ness and ability to oppose adversaries with violence when protecting hon- orable positions or defending character. They thought people should not seek out violence, but they should not back down from it either. They saw value in fighting to defend honor and to establish order. Defending them- selves under the right circumstances enhanced self-respect and confidence that they were men of character and good repute. Failure to fight in appro- priate circumstances led to self-doubt and regret.

They believed that fighting served functions beyond building a reputa- tion, however. To them, fighting bolstered a confident demeanor, gave ad- vantage in daily nonviolent interactions, and warded off future disrespect- ful interactions. They portrayed fighting as a reasonable means for dispute resolution because it ended verbal confrontation, brought conflicts to con- clusion, and brought grudges out in the open. Completed fights settled dis- putes that if left untendered could fester and lead to nastier consequences, including shame associated with feeling cowed, gossip and other harmful talk, or sneaky vengeance. For these reasons and because fighting was an intimidating event, many believed it was the better strategy and found it psychologically easier to charge ahead and be done than to wait or act in hesitation.

They perceived fighting as an indicator of their character, but it was most effective for building a desired reputation when conducted following rules. They frowned on unfair contests, believing that fights should not result from inadvertent insults or when one’s opponent is attempting to deescalate, apologize, or back down. Combatants should grant quarter and avoid per- manent damage to opponents. Participants considered ruthless or extreme escalation of violence in what should be an ordinary fight as unacceptable (Jackson-Jacobs, 2013). Their fights were intended to inflict punishment but

786 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

not to cause long-term damage. In short, they articulated and sought to ad- here to a code that was restrictive in allowances of when to fight and for the acceptable amount of force. None portrayed themselves as innately violent or as generally criminal.

In describing this code for violence, participants referred to the necessity of general and specific deterrence of aggressors and to fighting as a form of self-protection. However, their explanations of it had much more to do with conducting oneself honorably and with maintaining respectable status, reputation, and character than it did with preventing impending physical injury or the desire to keep order. They did not portray their fights as being necessary for survival in their environments. In most instances, they were seeking to defend status and pride more than their bodies. They were proud of fighting for reputation and imbued willingness to defend their character in a physical way with great meaning. Although they described serious repu- tational stakes for responding properly when insult to honor was clear, they also believed that escalating petty disagreements and maintaining grudges call honor into question.

They believed that some confrontational situations require violence but not all. There were allowances in the code for tolerating insults (Garot, 2010). For instance, violence was not necessary when the opponent is weak physically or the insult slight, and participants said people understood if one tolerates insult from a clearly superior fighter. Conversely, an adept fighter who decided to let an affront pass from a foolish or drunken chal- lenger likely gained respect for mercy. Scrutinizers will not always deem walking away from provocations or intimidating encounters as an exhibi- tion of weakness and, therefore, doing so brings neither increased threat nor future challenges. Perhaps calls for violence in response to threats and insults acquired significance in part because these men believed that insults that demand a fight fall within a narrow range.

Despite the vagaries of when and how they draw on the code, willingness to fight is a foundation on which participants construct both accounts of abidance and departures from their code for settling disputes violently but with honor. A general willingness to fight is a primary component of judging action and is foundational for claiming the code and the image these men want to convey. They often try to establish that they generally are willing to fight when describing both conflicts they avoided and those that eventuated in fights. Although seeking fights regularly and proactively is a mark against character, clear demonstrations of cowardice in a confrontation where ob- servers would judge violence justifiable is difficult to excuse.

These men articulated a clear code for violence, but our results also suggest that their application of it is improvisational and spontaneous. A code may fit situations imperfectly, and because it contains few immutable rules, actors may take liberties in application. Often, codes provide only the

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 787

loosest guidance for navigating a series of provisional interactions. One can fight when insulted, but actors have a great deal of freedom in deciding precisely when an insult rises to the level that demands escalation. Once a conflict is underway, violence heightens emotions, and fighters can lose track of acceptable motives and rules. Fights are precarious, uncertain, and emotional interactions that “get out of control,” escalate beyond what was intended, and sometimes elicit unplanned action. An imperfect fit between ideals for applying the code, and their own experiences with errant applica- tion to situations, does not disrupt claims to adhere to the code. The code of honorable fighting is important and valued, but they know that given the complexities of conflicts, they are likely to apply it imperfectly.

Many who have examined subcultural codes recognize that they are not followed precisely or certainly (Garot, 2010; Topalli, 2005), and our partic- ipants knew this as well. Nevertheless, the guilt expressed by participants when acting in discord with the code and the effort they put into making sense of action according to codes evidences its importance. They discussed fights that occurred for the right reasons and that followed the acceptable rules with pride. They expressed guilt and regret when they provoked fights or when they used violence beyond what was seen as honorable. When they engaged in unfair fighting methods, they offered excuses and justifications for why their actions were not acceptable in general but were in this situa- tion. The participants’ need to excuse inconsistent behavior suggests com- mitment to a code in the same way that those committed to conventional values excuse and justify their norm-violating behavior or that persistent street offenders excuse behaviors such as snitching (Rosenfeld, Jacobs, and Wright, 2003; Topalli, 2005).

In addition to detailing the contours of this code for violence, we also be- lieve that our findings speak to larger issues pertaining to why it departs from those codes discussed elsewhere. Previous discussions of codes for violence have located their origins in the historical inaccessibility or un- responsiveness of agents of the law (Anderson, 1999; Nisbett and Cohen, 1996). If the genesis of participants’ belief in pragmatic violence was in these conditions, then they recognized that today legal protection is available to members of their class. In fact, they condoned the use of the formal law for infractions deemed more criminal than their own, such as burglary or robbery.

These men do not need to be on a constant campaign for respect or to establish reputations as extremely dangerous persons to protect them- selves from victimization. In fact, they hold little regard or respect for those who portray themselves as violent or potentially homicidal. They consider persons who flaunt violent potential as immature or as criminals. Partic- ipants here had some access to conventional, formal dispute resolutions and perceived themselves as conventional citizens and as average working

788 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

men. Excessive violence or fighting in ways that fundamentally violate their restrictive code for violence threatened this conventional, nonviolent iden- tity. An identity or reputation that is overly aggressive, quick to fight, and brutal may ward off future insults, but also it may damage social relations. Such reputations, especially if they come with arrests and incarceration, threaten the conventional lives, identities, and outcomes they seek. Broken jaws and teeth may lead to local acclaim for these offenders, and even vic- tims may not consider them significantly consequential, but stabbing, shoot- ing, or severely injuring victims could destroy what these men have. If codes lie on a continuum, then we would expect those with more to lose to per- ceive violence as acceptable in fewer situations and to exhibit greater re- straint, and more marginalized persons with fewer prospects to be quicker to violence and relatively comfortable with dangerous reputations.

The participants in this study presented a code for violence tempered by restraints on acceptable motives and methods. Undoubtedly, the code of violence held by these men shaped how they perceived themselves and how they handled interpersonal conflict. Notions of strength, capability, tra- dition, and honor, which are one aspect of a broader shared identity for these working men, undergird this code. Their identity rests on an ethic of being generally law abiding but rugged and, within bounds, dangerous in some circumstances. Their form of a code for violence might be linked to their region historically, and their views probably are grounded in struc- tural positions tied directly to the blue-collar labor market rather than to the streets, but shared beliefs and ways of understanding violence reinforce and define how they want to be perceived in daily contexts and social life. Their conduct in leisurely settings and enactment of these beliefs reinforced their identity and securely positioned their place locally and among friends. Their code compelled them to action, had a strong influence on how they interpreted situations, and shaped how they made decisions to engage in violence.

Our findings also suggest that codes are accounts or vocabularies of mo- tive fighters used to explain, rationalize, or make sense of their behaviors (Jimerson and Oware, 2006). When their behaviors were inconsistent with their code, the fighters reframed their actions as exceptions or mistakes. By verbally aligning their behavior with behavioral expectations by explana- tions, they show that they remain worthy of respect (Stokes and Hewitt, 1976). In conversation and action, they used codes directly and as a sensi- tizing device to grasp or explain situations. In deeds and words, they loosely improvised and played on codes as they decided either what to do in con- flicts or how to explain their choices.

Codes are not only attitudes that predict action, but also they act as sense-making devices. They affect the way people interpret and respond to situations and are “acculturated linguistic devices that . . . actors use to

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 789

present a consistent image of self when asked to explain behavior” (Brook- man, Copes, and Hochstetler, 2011: 403). Considering codes this way high- lights that people use codes to evaluate actions prospectively and retrospec- tively. Whether done prospectively or retrospectively, this takes interpre- tive or creative effort on the part of the implementer. In short, when actors are “telling the code,” they draw on culturally relevant normative expec- tations, attitudes, and conceptions (i.e., formula stories) to justify their be- havior and to construct meaningful identities (Wieder, 1974). Therefore, we do not perceive codes simply as unidirectional determinants of action. Rather, culturally prevalent codes of behavior shape thoughts, decisions, and actions.

Analyses of the codes that pertain to violence often contrast subcultural codes, which analysts cast as those that condone or allow violence, with those of the dominant culture, which they presume to proscribe violence. Our interviews imply that codes that are conducive to crime in some ways can be prohibitive in others. In some circumstances, a code for violence dissuades violent responses and limits the insults that lead to them. There- fore, a code may be useful to people who live within the law in general and think about the future; our participants defend it thus. Undoubtedly, few persons endorse codes for violence that condone ruthlessness, bru- tality, killing, and long-running cycles of escalating retaliation. Certainly, more individuals, like our participants, believe measured violence is appro- priate when faced with certain insults and in a narrowly defined range of contexts. Restrictive codes for the use of violence may be enthusiastically perpetuated not only by the down-and-out but also by those rungs above on the class structure—say men who are solidly working class or pursuing college educations. Allowances for violence contained in these codes can contribute to violence, or help rationalize it, in situations clearly defined as appropriate and even in situations where misapplication occurs. Fighters often feel no regret when the former applies, as a code provides neat ratio- nale, but in other cases, they may rest on good intentions, understandable mistakes, and circumstantial complexities. Flexibility in the implementation of codes and as a device for framing diverse violent events surely is one rea- son that codes for violence endure in so many contexts. For those avoiding callous or criminal reputations, the code may be durable and defensible not for its allowance but because of the restrictions it contains.

REFERENCES

Agnew, Robert. 2006. Storylines as a neglected cause of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:119–47.

790 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York: Norton.

Athens, Lonnie. 1997. Violent Criminal Acts and Actors Revisited. Cham- paign: University of Illinois Press.

Berg, Mark T., and Eric Stewart. 2013. Street culture and crime. In Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory, eds. Francis T. Cullen and Pamela Wilcox. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.

Berg, Mark T., Eric Stewart, Christopher Schreck, and Ronald L. Simons. 2012. The victim-offender overlap in context. Examining the role of neighborhood street culture. Criminology 50:359–90.

Brezina, Timothy, Robert Agnew, Francis T. Cullen, and John P. Wright. 2004. The code of the street: A quantitative assessment of Elijah Ander- son’s subculture of violence thesis. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:303–28.

Brookman, Fiona, Trevor Bennett, Andy Hochstetler, and Heith Copes. 2011. The role of the “code of the street” in the generation of street violence in the UK. European Journal of Criminology 8:17– 31.

Brookman, Fiona, Heith Copes, and Andy Hochstetler. 2011. Street codes, accounts, and rationales for violent crime. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 40:397–424.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, Albert K. 1955. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Copes, Heith, Fiona Brookman, and Anastasia Brown. 2013. Accounting for violations of the convict code. Deviant Behavior. In press. DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2013.781444.

DiMaggio, Paul. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology 23:263–87.

Faupel, Charles E. 1991. Shooting Dope: Career Patterns of Hardcore Heroin Users. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Felson, Richard B., Allen Liska, Scott J. South, and Thomas L. McNulty. 1994. The subculture of violence: Individual vs. school context effects. Social Forces 73:155–73.

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 791

Ferguson, Ann A. 2001. Bad Boys: Making of Black Masculinity. Ann Ar- bor: University of Michigan Press.

Garot, Robert. 2010. Who You Claim? Performing Gang Identity in School and on the Streets. New York: New York University Press.

Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. 2006. How many inter- views are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 24:59–82.

Harding, David. 2007. Cultural context, sexual behavior, and romantic re- lationships in disadvantaged neighborhoods. American Sociological Re- view 72:341–64.

Harding, David. 2010. Living the Drama: Community, Conflict, and Culture among Inner-City Boys. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hochstetler, Andy, Heith Copes, and Patrick Williams. 2010. That’s not who I am: How offenders commit violent acts and reject authentically violent selves. Justice Quarterly 27:492–516.

Horowitz, Ruth. 1983. Honor and the American Dream: Culture and Identity in a Chicano Community. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Jackson-Jacobs, Curtis. 2013. Constructing physical fights: An interactionist analysis of violence among affluent, suburban youth. Qualitative Sociol- ogy 36:23–52.

Jacobs, Bruce A., and Richard Wright. 2006. Street Justice: Retaliation in the Criminal Underworld. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Jimerson, Jason B., and Matthew K. Oware. 2006. Telling the code: An eth- nomethodological ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35:24–50.

Katz, Jack. 1988. Seductions of Crime. New York: Basic Books.

Klenowski, Paul, Heith Copes, and Christopher Mullins. 2011. Gender, identity and accounts: How white collar offenders do gender when they make sense of their crimes. Justice Quarterly 28:46–69.

Kornhauser, Ruth. 1978. The Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytical Methods. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lee, Matthew, and Edward S. Shihadeh. 2009. The spatial concentration of southern whites and argument-based lethal violence. Social Forces 91:1671–94.

792 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

Loseke, Donileen R. 2007. The study of identity as cultural, institutional, organizational, and personal narratives: Theoretical and empirical inte- grations. Sociological Quarterly 48:661–88.

Markowitz, Fred E. 2003. Socioeconomic disadvantage and violence: Re- cent research on culture and neighborhood control as explanatory mechanisms. Aggression and Violent Behavior 8:145–54.

Markowitz, Fred E., and Richard B. Felson. 1998. Socio-demographic dif- ferences in attitudes and violence. Criminology 36:117–38.

Maruna, Shadd, and Heith Copes. 2005. What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 32, ed. Michael H. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Matsueda, Ross L., Kevin Drakulich, and Charis E. Kubrin. 2006. Race and neighborhood codes of violence. In The Many Colors of Crime, eds. Ruth D. Peterson, Lauren J. Krivo, and John Hagan. New York: New York University Press.

Miller, Walter. 1958. Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues 1:5–20.

Mills, Jeremy F., Daryl G. Kroner, and Toni Hemmati. 2004. The measure of criminal attitudes and associates: The prediction of general and vio- lent recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior 31:717–33.

Nisbett, Richard, and Dov Cohen. 1996. Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Oliver, William. 2001. The Violent Social World of Black Men. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Piquero, Alex, Jonathan Intravia, Eric Stewart, Nicole L. Piquero, Mark Gertz, and Jake Bratton. 2012. Investigating the determinants of the street code and its relation to offending among adults. American Journal of Criminal Justice 37:19–32.

Presser, Lois. 2010. Collecting and analyzing the stories of offenders. Jour- nal of Criminal Justice Education 21:431–46.

Rosenfeld, Richard, Bruce Jacobs, and Richard Wright. 2003. Snitching and the code of the street. British Journal of Criminology 43:291–309.

Sampson, Robert, and Lydia Bean. 2006. Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised theory of community-level racial inequality. In The

CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG BAR FIGHTERS 793

Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America, eds. Ruth Peterson, Lauren Krivo, and John Hagan. New York: New York University Press.

Sampson, Robert, and William J. Wilson. 1995. Toward a theory of race, crime and urban inequality. In Crime and Inequality, eds. John Hagan and Ruth Peterson. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Sandberg, Sveinung. 2009a. A narrative search for respect. Deviant Behav- ior 30:487–510.

Sandberg, Sveinung. 2009b. Gangster, victim or both? The interdiscursive construction of sameness and difference in self-presentations. British Journal of Sociology 60:523–42.

Sandberg, Sveinung. 2010. What can “lies” tell us about life? Notes towards a framework of narrative criminology. Journal of Criminal Justice Edu- cation 21:447–65.

Sanders, William B. 1994. Gangbangs and Drive-Bys: Grounded Culture and Juvenile Gang Violence. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Scott, Marvin B., and Scott M. Lyman. 1968. Accounts. American Sociolog- ical Review 33:46–62.

Shover, Neal. 1996. Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Spierenburg, Pieter. 1998. Masculinity, violence, and honor. In Men Vio- lence: Gender, Honor, and Ritual in Modern Europe and America, ed. Pieter Spierenburg. Athens: The Ohio State University Press.

Stewart, Eric A., and Ronald L. Simons. 2010. Race, code of the street, and violent delinquency: A multilevel investigation of neighborhood street culture and individual norms of violence. Criminology 48:569–605.

Stewart, Eric A., Ronald L. Simons, and Rand Conger. 2002. Assessing neighborhood and social psychological influences on childhood violence in an African-American sample. Criminology 40:801–30.

Stokes, Randall, and John Hewitt. 1976. Aligning action. American Socio- logical Review 41:838–49.

Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51:273–86.

Topalli, Volkan. 2005. When being good is bad: An expansion of neutral- ization theory. Criminology 43:797–836.

794 COPES, HOCHSTETLER, & FORSYTH

Topalli, Volkan, Richard Wright, and Robert Fornango. 2002. Drug deal- ers, robbery, and retaliation: Vulnerability, deterrence and the conta- gion of violence. British Journal of Criminology 42:337–351.

Vigil, James D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern California. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Wacquant, Loic. 2002. Scrutinizing the street: Poverty, morality, and the pitfalls of urban ethnography. American Journal of Sociology 107:1468– 532.

Wieder, D. Lawrence. 1974. Language and Social Reality: The Case of Telling the Convict Code. The Hague, the Netherlands: Mouton.

Wilson, William J. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Knopf.

Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wolfgang, Marvin E., and Franco Ferracuti. 1967. The Subculture of Vi- olence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology. London, U.K.: Tavistock.

Heith Copes is an associate professor in the Department of Justice Sci- ences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. His primary interest is in understanding the decision-making process and identity construction of offenders. His most recent book, with Lynne M. Vieraitis, is Identity Thieves: Motives and Methods (Northeastern University Press, 2012).

Andy Hochstetler is a professor of sociology and criminal justice at Iowa State University. Most of his research is on offender decision making and self-concept. Currently, he is examining the effect of treatment on recidi- vism in a statewide population of paroled offenders controlling for selec- tion effects, background, work history, residential setting, and geographic proximity to community corrections services.

Craig J. Forsyth is a professor of sociology and criminal justice at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He received his PhD from Louisiana State University in 1983, and both his MA and BA from the University of New Orleans. He is the author of more than 200 journal articles, books, and book chapters. His principal research interests are in the areas of deviance, crime, and delinquency.

Copyright of Criminology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.