- Email: [email protected]
The subculture of violence and ethnicity
Journal of Criminal Justice Vol, 15, pp, 461-472 (1987) All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
(XM7-2352/87 $3.(10 + .00 Copyright © Pergamon Journals, Ltd.
T H E S U B C U L T U R E OF V I O L E N C E A N D E T H N I C I T Y
DONALD J. SHOEMAKER
Department of Sociology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
J. SHERWOOD WILLIAMS
Department of Sociology and Anthropology Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia 23284
ABSTRACT Using data from the General Social Surveys, this article examines the subculture of violence thesis as it relates to three ethnic groups--blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. The data suggest that blacks and American Indians have had more violence experiences (hitting and firearms) than have the general population. Contrary to what would be predicted from the thesis, the data indicate that blacks and Hispanics had lower tolerance of violence than the general population. Only American Indians, on all factors considered, appeared to support the thesis. Even this support, however, took on less significance when regression results were examined. Demographic and residential variables explained more of the variance in violence tolerance and experiences with violence than did ethnic background. These findings suggest that the influence of ethnicity on the subculture of violence is minor and indirect.
tion to certain environmental stimuli. The term "subculture" is used to denote the presThe study of human violence has a long ence of shared traits among those thought to history and, consequently, has produced exhibit the behavior. The distinguishing feamany causal explanations. One suggestive ture among those individuals is their orientatheory concerning the etiology of violence is tion to violence. As Wolfgang and Ferracuti known as the "subculture of violence." For- have suggested, a "jostle or derogatory remulated by Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967), mark" may elicit a violent response from this theory proposes that much violent activ- "subcultural actors" (1967:153). These shared traits include attitudes as ity among humans is responsive to specific sets of circumstances, that the behavior is well as behaviors. Specifically, the theory learned and shared in a cultural setting, in posits that a "counternorm" to nonviolence which violence becomes the expected reac- exists within the subculture. That is, nonvio461 INTRODUCTION
462
DONALD J. SHOEMAKER and .I SHERWOOD WILLIAMS
lent reactions to typically violence-provoking situations likely result in negative sanctions from others. In addition, those who react violently to problcms, threats, insults, and the like are not apt to view their actions as illegal, nor are they likely' to feel guilty or ashamed about their behavior (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967:160-161), Although the subculture of violence theory has some predictive features, it is largely explanatory in nature. In essence, the theory is an attempt to explain violence among specific categories of people who are thought to exhibit particularly high rates of homicide, rape, assault, domestic quarrels, and so forth. Thus, Wolfgang and Ferracuti have suggested that a subculture of violence is likely to exist among the following: late adolescent to middle-aged males; lower-class neighborhoods (especially in large, urban areas); nonwhites (male and female); societies that are characterized by "machismo," or the equation of maleness with aggression (Latin cultures, for example); and societies that are characterized by "frontier mores," where the rule of the "gun and fist" supersedes that of law and bureaucratic regulation, such as in the southern and far western regions of the United States and in rural locations (1967:152-163). Conceptually, the theory has several limitations, many of them recognized by its developers. The following discussion is largely based on Nettler's (1978:252-256) analysis. First, there is no adequate explanation, within the theory, of how the subculture of violence began. It is essentially a learning theory and, as such, is limited to explanation of the transmission of values and attitudes, not of their origin(s). Second, there is the strong hint of circularity resulting from the fact that the theory attempts to explain existing rates of violence among certain groups. Third, Wolfgang and Ferracuti, as well as others, have suggested that the subculture of violence is a variant of lower social class values. Although ethnic and geographical influences are certainly implicated in the theory, many of the characteristics of presumedly violent populations may be related to class position and values (see, for example, Mil-
lcr, 1958 and Lewis, 1965). Fourth, the subculture of violence theory, like any culturally-based explanation, must demonstrate the influence of the cultural aspect under investigation. Specifically, the theory must address the question, Does culture 'cause' behavior? Attempts to test the theory have produced mixed results. The research of Ball-Rokeach (1973), for example, failed to locate any significant associations among attitudes, values, and violent behavior in a sample of middleand lower-class adult males and females and male prison inmates in Michigan. Similarly, Erlanger (1974) reported relationships inconsistent with predictions generated from the subculture of violence theory among lowerand upper-income adult males and white and black males in Milwaukee, with respect to fighting and feelings of respect, acceptance by others, and happiness. Other research has provided more support for the thesis. In a retest of the BallRokeach study, for example, Austin (1980) concluded that there is support for a subcultural explanation of violent attitudes and behavior among California adolescents. However, Austin suggested that other factors, such as attachments to conventional institutional patterns in society, may better explain violence than do subcultural associations, particularly those associations with class ties. Also, Hartnagel (1980) provided limited support for a subcultural explanation of violence within a sample of adolescents in Maryland. Support for the subculture of violence thesis was especially evident for a more serious form of violence (one boy knifing another), with approval being highest among lower-class black males. Other researchers have tended to support the subcultural explanation of violence, but with modifications. Erlanger (1979) argued that the effect of "machismo" on gang violence is greater when there exist structurallyinduced "estrangements" for Hispanics, especially males. The "estrangements" Erlanger was concerned about pertained to education, economics, and (indirectly through adults in Hispanic communities) politics. The theme of discrimination as a major factor in the ex-
The Subcuhurc of Violcncc and Ethnicity
planation of violence among Chicanos has also been discussed by Alvarez (1973). Discrimination against blacks and other minorities has also been proposed as an explanation of violence among those people, both within the groups and against those outside the groups (Curtis, 1975; Hagan, 1985). Curtis (1975:34-37) suggested that'discrimination can contribute to subcultural violence when there is a critical mass of people in a particular location who interpret their situation similarly, a position partially supported by Sampson (1985). Curtis argued that cultural contexts intervene in the relationship between inequality and violence, either exacerbating or dampening the effects of the former on the latter (1975:18,45). Still others have posited a subculture of violence based on regional location rather than on race or social class. In particular, a Southern culture of violence (especially as expressed in homicide) has been described, which was somewhat predicted by Wolfgang and Ferracuti (Hackney, 1969; Gastil, 1971). This hypothesis has been challenged (Loftin and Hill, 1974), but Messner (1983) argued that both regional and racial variables are related to homicides within standard metropolitan statistical areas. Specifically, Messner concluded that percent black is strongly associated with homicide rates in nonsouthern cities but not in southern urban centers. Thus, he argued that regional effects are relevant to the explanation of violence. Much of the recent modification of the subculture of violence theory has focused on intervening factors between a suspected causal force, such as discrimination or poverty, and violence. A central issue in the present article is the effect of ethnicity on violent attitudes and behavior. Of particular interest is Silberman's contention (1978: 117-23) that blacks were much more violent than Mexican-Americans or Hispanics in New York and California. This analysis is contrary to the popular image of Chicano gangs (Moore, 1978:42-47) and the conceptualization of Wolfgang and Ferracuti. Silberman's data, however, were based on arrest and prison information, which may not reflect typical patterns of behavior. In
463
addition, although Moore acknowledged that "all Chicano gangs are fighting gangs" (1978:36), she made it clear that the motivations for, and levels of, violence among Chicano gangs have been unevenly distributed among gang youth, historically and geographically (Chapter 3). The purpose of the present article was to analyze violence among people of various ethnic backgrounds in the United States. Three measures of violence were used, and selected demographic variables were inserted into the analysis in an effort more clearly to specify the influence of ethnicity on violence. Based on the literature review presented, it was hypothesized that attitudes toward and experience with violence would vary by ethnicity and that this variance would be at least equal in importance to that of demographic factors. The specific direction of ethnic influence on violence, however, was not predicted.
METHODOLOGY
Sample The data used for this study were collected by the National Opinion Research Center as part of its General Social Surveys. Data from the surveys conducted in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1983, and 1984 were combined in order to obtain enough cases in each of the ethnic groupings to justify analyses. The sampling procedures used in the various surveys varied somewhat. However, in each case a multi-stage probability procedure was used, at least to the block level. All surveys focused upon the same universe, that is, "Englishspeaking persons eighteen years of age or older, living in noninstitutional arrangements within the continental United States ''2 (Davis and Smith, 1984:1). For more details on the sampling design used, see Davis and Smith's (1984) Appendix A.
Variables Combining the data made it possible to identify 475 persons of African descent, 390 persons of Hispanic descent (that is, Mexi-
464
D O N A L D J. S H O E M A K E R and J. S H E R W O O D W I L L I A M S
can, Puerto Rican, Spanish, and Spanish West Indian), and 279 persons who identified themselves as American Indians. All other ethnic identities 3 (Caucasians) were combined and used as a comparison group. It was recognized that there was likely to be great variation in culture within each of these ethnic groupings. For this reason, several control variables were introduced in an effort to determine any variation in violence tolerance and experiences between the various ethnic groupings and the general population comparison group, The indicator of violence tolerance was based upon a summated scale consisting of five items. The items measured the respondents' approval or disapproval of a man punching an adult male stranger under the following conditions: (1) if the stranger was in a protest march showing opposition to the other man's views; (2) if the stranger was drunk and bumped into the man and his wife on the street; (3) if the stranger had hit the man's child after the child accidentally damaged the stranger's car; (4) if the stranger was beating up a woman and the man saw it; and (5) if the stranger had broken into the man's house. Using the Guttman procedure, these items were combined to form a unidimcnsional scale (coefficient of reproducibility = .927 and coefficient of scalability = .600). For purposes of contingency analysis, this scale was recoded into three categories--low (24.8 percent), moderate (68.4 percent), and high (6.7 percent). Two indicators of violence experiences were used. The first focused upon the number of times the respondents had been punched or beaten up by other persons. The responses were distributed as follows: never (66.8 percent), once (7.4 percent), two-three times (11.7 percent), and more than three times (14.0 percent). The second violence experience indicator focused upon the number of times a respondent had been threatened or shot at with a gun. The overall response distribution to this question was never (81.7 percent), once (10.8 percent), two-three times (4.5 percent), and more than three times (3.0 percent). Since no time frame was suggested on these items, it might be expected that
older persons would tend to have had more of these experiences by virtue of the fact that they had lived longer. This issue was examined. at least partially, by controlling for age. Several other control factors, suggested by previous researchers (Ball-Rokeach, 1973: Hagan, 1985), were introduced. These included age (18-39, 40+), family income (less than $10,000, $10,000 to $19,999, and more than 19,999), region of residence (South, West and remaining areas in the United States), type of community (urban, nonurban), and sex?.
Analyses Two types of analyses were used. The first, contingency analysis, examined the relationship between each ethnic grouping (compared to the general population category) and the three violence variables. The strength of association was determined by Goodman and Kruskal's Gamma. A second statistical technique, regression analysis, was used to assess the relative influence of ethnicity and the control factors on each of the violence variables. Given the limited range of these variables, it was expected that the multiple coefficients of determination would be low. The nominal classifications used for ethnicity, region, urban vs. nonurban residence, and sex were treated as dummy variables for the regression analysis.
FINDINGS
Tolerance of Violence Blacks were found to be less tolerant of violence than the general population. It was possible to reduce the prediction error almost twenty-five percent by predicting that the black person will have lower tolerance than his/her counterparts. This relationship was maintained in all the conditions under which it was examined. Contrary to what might have been expected based on the subculture of violence thesis, the relationship was strongest among persons under the age of forty, for persons with higher incomes, in
The Subculture of Violence and Ethnicity
465
TABLE l RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TOLERANCE OF VIOLENCE AND ETHNIC GROUP COMPARISONS WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION, ZERO-ORDER AND CONDITIONAL GAMMAS
Ethnic Groups Conditions Age 18-39 40 + Income LT $10K $10-19.9K $20K + Region South West Other Residence Urban Nonurban Sex Male Female Zero-Order N
Blacks
Hispanics
American Indians
.307* .207*
.231' .266*
-.151" -.110"
.172" .281" .351"
.080 .183" .425*
-.078 -.343* -.171
.415" .213"
.268* .495* .174"
-.180 -.047 -.096
.263* .153
.180" .264*
-.083 -.250*
.315" .186" .245* 475
.221" .187" .203* 390
-.150" -.153" -.149' 279
NO TES
Ethnic groups coded 0, General Population coded 1. *Statisticallysignificant at the .05 level.
the South, in urban areas, and among males. When all of these factors were controlled, blacks expressed lower tolerance of violence. These results are the opposite of what would be expected based on the thesis. When the Hispanics were compared to the general population, they too were significantly less tolerant of violence. The conditional analyses basically replicated the zeroorder relationship under conditions of age and sex. The strongest relationships were observed among upper income persons, nonurban residents, persons residing in the western part of the United States, and those over forty years of age. Again, these observations
are contrary to what would have been suggested from the subculture of violence thesis. Weak support for the thesis was found when American Indians were compared to the general population. In this case, the associations were in the direction that Wolfgang and Ferracuti might have hypothesized; that is, American Indians were significantly more tolerant of violence than were their counterparts in the other ethnic groups (Gamma= - . 149). The basic relationship was replicated under conditions of age and sex. The strongest associations were observed in the middle income grouping and in the nonurban residence category.
466
DONALD J. SHOEMAKER and J. SHERWOOD WILLIAMS
TAI~t.L 2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EXPERIENCES OF BEING PUNCHED OR BEATEN AND ETHNIC GROUP COMPARISONS WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION, ZERO-ORDER AND CONDITIONAL GAMMAS
Ethnic Groups Conditions Age 18-39 40 + Income LT $10K $10-19.9K $20K + Region • South West Other Residence Urban Nonurban Sex Male Female Zero-Order N
Blacks
Hispanics
American Indians
-.076 -.137"
.126" -.068
-.213" -.163"
-.141" -.146" -.231"
.031 -.024 .001
-.324" -.225" -.123
-.069 - . 151 *
-.038 -.031 .003
.194' .108 .292*
.117" .050
.014 .024
.237* .260*
.055 -.347* -.124" 475
.015 .(/82 -.003 390
.205* .373* .240* 279
NO TES:
Ethnic groups coded 0, General Population coded 1. *Statistically significant al the .05 level.
Punched or Beaten Experience A weak but statistically significant relationship with ethnicity was found for experiences of being punched or beaten when blacks were c o m p a r e d with the general population. Blacks reported more such experiences than did the general population. The relationship remained significant only for persons over thirty-nine years of age, when age was controlled. It was strong a m o n g persons who had family incomes of $20,000 a year or more. No significant differences were found between blacks and the general population when their ages were under forty, they resided in the south or nonurban areas, and only males were considered. The strongest relationship
was found among women. It was possible to reduce the prediction error by nearly thirtyfive percent by predicting that black w o m e n would have had more experience with being hit than would women in the general population. It generally appeared that the subculture of violence thesis was supported, relative to blacks having had more experiences with being punched or beaten than the general population. Even so, in most cases the strength of the association was quite low and, thus, ethnicity explained little variance in this experience. The only significant difference observed when Hispanics were compared with the general population on hitting experiences was among younger persons. In this situation, the
467
The Subculture of Violence and Ethnicity
TABLE 3 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EXPERIENCES OF BEING THREATENED OR SHOT AT WITH A GUN AND ETHNlC GROUP COMPARISONS WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION, ZERO-ORDER AND CONDITIONAL GAMMAS
Ethnic Groups Con ditions Age 18-39 40 + Income LT $10K $10-19.9K $20K + Region South West Other Residence Urban Nonurban
Blacks
Hispanics
American lndians
.200* .256*
.001 -.133
-.368* -.211"
.282* .203* .238*
.061 -.078 .022
-.397* -.377* -.199
.104 .302*
-.058 -.199 .043
-.161 -.053 -.412
.207* .281"
.021 -.220*
-.309* -.400*
.185" .359* .235* 475
-.132" .068 -.076 390
-.341" -.437* -.335*
Sex
Male Female Zero-Order N
279
NO TES:
Ethnic groups coded 0, General Population coded I. *Statistically significant at the .05 level.
general population was more likely to have been punched or beaten than Hispanics. A moderate and significant relationship was found when American Indians were compared to the general population. The American Indians were consistently more likely than the general population, under most conditions, to have reported that they were punched or beaten, thus supporting the subculture of violence thesis.
Firearms Experience Compared to the general population, blacks were significantly more likely to have had negative experiences with firearms. This relationship was consistent regardless of the
conditions under which it was examined, except in the South, where there was no difference between blacks and the general population in the amount of experience with being threatened or shot at with firearms. In general, Wolfgang and Ferracuti's thesis was supported by these comparisons. The same conclusion, however, could not be drawn from comparisons of Hispanics and the general population with respect to firearms experiences. Although the relationships suggested that Hispanics tended to have had more negative experiences with firearms than the general population, these relationships were not statistically significant. The only two exceptions involved comparisons in which residence and sex were con-
468
D O N A L D J. S H O E M A K E R and J. S H E R W O O D WILLIAMS
trolled. Hispanics in nonurban areas and male Hispanics had significantly more experience with being threatened or shot at with a gun than did their counterparts in the general population. Except in the upper income grouping and when region of residence was controlled, American Indians had significantly more negative firearms experiences than did persons in the general population. This finding is consistent with the subculture of violence thesis.
Regression Results It is clear from the regression analysis presented in Table 4 that the eight-variable model was a poor predictor of tolerance of violence. The model accounted for only 2.1 percent of the variance. Over two-thirds of that figure was accounted for by age and income, with younger persons and higher income persons being more likely to score higher on the tolerance of violence variable. The ethnicity variables each accounted for less than one-fifth of one percent of the explained variance. Over fifteen percent of the variance in experiences with being punched or beaten was explained by the regression model. Most of the explained variance was accounted for by sex, age, urban vs. nonurban residence, and region of residence. Persons who were younger, male, who resided outside of the southern region of the U.S. and in urban areas tended to have more experience with being hit than did their counterparts. These variables accounted for over ninety-seven percent of the variance explained. None of the ethnic grouping variables accounted for as much as one-fifth of one percent of the explained variance. The model accounted for 9.4 percent of the variance in firearms experiences. Ninety-five percent of this amount was attributed to sex, age, and urban vs. nonurban residence. Younger persons, males, and persons residing in urban areas of the country had had significantly m o r e experience with being threatened or shot at with a gun. Although
the American Indians and black classifications individually contributed little to the explained variance, both groups were significantly higher on this type of experience than were persons in the general population.
CONCLUSIONS The experiences of blacks and American Indians with being hit or with having had negative experiences with firearms appeared to be consistent with the subculture of violence thesis. The data, however, did not support the thesis when Hispanics were compared to the general population. Even where support was found, it was not very strong. The regression results suggest that factors such as sex, age, and urban vs. nonurban residence were better predictors of the two experience variables. When tolerance of violence was considered, both blacks and Hispanics had lower tolerance than the general population. This, of course, is just the opposite of what would be predicted from the Wolfgang and Ferracuti thesis. The comparison of American Indians with the general population, for this factor, yielded results consistent with the thesis. Even this consistency, however, had less significance when the regression results were examined. The respondents' sex, age, and place of residence explained more of the variance in tolerance than did their racial/ethnic background. The finding that blacks and Hispanics expressed less tolerance of violence than other population groups is important and should be addressed further. The responses could be reflecting experiential identification with those who participate in demonstrations or protests Or with those who are involved in domestic disputes. Consequently, these respondents may not have seen a "stranger" in the same way as others did and could conceivably have pictured themselves as the stranger in the circumstances presented. Separate analyses were conducted to provide additional information on this issue. First, bivariate relationships were computed
469
Thc Subcutturc of Violencc and Ethnic@,'
Z ,1 -1
o_ >
t'-,
o
•
°
Z
o
O II
I
~ll
I I I d E
,..1
8 •
r~
II~
.
I l l
H u.h
°
111
d < II
z~ eN ~9 u.,l
I l l
I l l
l
< II
a.l
T Z
I I I .=-.~
o
r,
r, "E "E "~
#
470
DONALD J. SHOEMAKER and J. SHERWOOD WILLIAMS
in which blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and others were compared relative to each of the five specific situations comprising the tolerance of violence scale (see page 464). Significant differences among the ethnic categories appeared in all situations except one, when a drunk man bumped into the stranger's wife, in which nearly all respondents expressed little approval for a violent response. Of the other situations, the onc involving hitting a stranger who was in a protest march is of interest to the present discussion. In this case, blacks and Hispanics were more tolerant of violence than American Indians or others. The situations in which blacks and Hispanics were clearly less tolerant than all other groupings involved a stranger beating up a woman and a stranger having hit a man's child after the child had accidentally dan> aged the stranger's car. With respect to tolerance or approval of violence, therefore, the pattern was one of blacks and Hispanics being less tolerant than other groups in most situations, but not in patterns that yielded clear interpretations of this attitude. In an attempt to explore this situation further, the regressions presented in Table 4 were run separately for the time periods in the 1970s and in the 1980s. With respect to approval of violence, the results indicated a larger beta coefficient for blacks and Hispanics in the 1970s than in the 1980s, but the differences were not striking. Among blacks, the coefficients were - . 0 4 9 and - . 0 3 5 , and among Hispanics they were - . 0 5 7 and -.031 for the two time periods, respectively. Furthermore, both hitting and firearms experiences among blacks yielded larger coefficients in the 1980s than in the 1970s. For Hispanics, hitting experiences declined in importance in the 1980s, while the beta coefficients for firearms experiences changed from - .020 in the 1970s to +.020 in the 1980s. In most cases, the coefficients for ethnicity were low and of less importance than other factors such as gender and age. Regardless of time frame, therefore, ethnicity explained less of the variations in violent attitudes and experiences than did demographic factors. Of course, it is possible that blacks and
Hispanics were reluctant to admit being tolerant of violence, perhaps feeling sensitive to stercotypes in the United States. This hypothesis is plausible, but it fails to account for the higher self-reported experiences of blacks, in particular, relative to being hit or punched or to having negative experiences with firearms. Nor does this suggestion explain why other ethnicgroups, such as American Indians, reported both higher levels of tolerance for and experiences with violence. Presumably, these minorities might also feel sensitive to stereotypes of their participation in violence and thus respond in ways that would minimize involvement in violence. Furthermore, recent self-report studies of American youth have suggested a higher level of participation in violent crimes among blacks than among whites (Elliott and Ageton, 1980), although some question the accuracy of self-report surveys among blacks and other minorities (Hindelang et al., 1981). The anomaly concerning tolerance of and experiences with violence, especially among blacks, may actually reflect a divergence of attitudes and behavior. It is this attitudinal dimension that has proven difficult to establish consistently within a subculture of violence framework. Even though people may not give verbal approval to the use of violence, their lives may reflect greater exposure to and contact with violence than is characteristic of the general population. At the least, this situation reflects the complexitv of violence, both in attitudes and behavior. What might appear to be methodological artifacts may actually represent people's attempts to manage violence in their lives. In conclusion, the data suggest that blacks and American Indians have had more violence experiences than the general population. Blacks and Hispanics were less tolerant of violence than the general population, although the fuller contexts of these experiences were not available from the surveys being analyzed. Only American Indians, on all factors considered, appeared to support the subculture of violence thesis. Although ethnicity was considered to be an important factor in the subculture of violence thesis, Wolfgang and Ferracuti did not
The Subculture of Violence and Ethnicity
471
explain why. By itself, it does not appear to rural (such as social class and sex) influences be a strong predictor of either tolerance of on violence. or experiences with violence. The support for the thesis has generally been found when factors other than ethnicity were considAcknowledgements ered. The tie between ethnicity and culture This article is a revision of a paper presented at is not direct. This is particularly true in the the annual meeting of the American Society of CrimiUnited States, where socioeconomic factors nology, San Diego, California, November, 1985. cut across most ethnic groupings and are closely associated with American subculture NOTES groupings. Although ethnicity exerted an important influence on some of the measures The terms Hispanic, Chicano, and MexicanAmerican are used interchangeably in this article beof violence examined in this article, the influcause various publications dealing with these groups ence was not consistent, either within ethnic use one term or another. categories or in support of the subculture of It is recognized that exclusion of nonEnglishviolence thesis. It seems increasingly clear speaking people from the sample might contribute to that cultural factors, partly reflected by raan under-representation of some subgroups, such as less educated Hispanics. The theory being examcial and ethnic status, and structural condiined, however, does not predict major differences in tions, as exemplified by sociodemographic attitudes on the basis of command of the English variables, operate jointly, although not in language. Although another test of the subculture theory might involve studying only those who speak uniform proportions, in their influence on their native language, the focus of this investigation behavior and attitudes (see, for example, was upon the relative influence of ethnicity within a Bankston et al, 1985). culture predominated by white, English-speaking people. It is easy to fall into stereotypical thinking regarding ethnic characteristics of people, Although the authors recognize anthropological differences between race and ethnicity, "ethnicity" is and perhaps this has been done in some of the used in this article to refer generally to cultural comliterature concerning the subculture of vioponents of behaviors and attitudes. lence. Often one hears the term "machismo" South = Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, in connection with the presumed heightened Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolevel of violence among Hispanics. Yet the lina, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana. Oklahoma, and present research, and that of others, suggests Texas. that violence is not more typical of Hispanics West = Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New than of blacks, American Indians, or AngloMexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California. Americans. In fact, Hispanics were the least Urban = All cities, suburbs, and unincorporated arviolent of the three ethnic groups analyzed in eas of cities with populations exceeding 50,000. the present study. Moreover, several studies Nonurban = All areas with populations less than 50,000. of Mexican-American culture have pointed out that machismo refers to values of loyalty and companionship within the family and REFERENCES community, not to the personal concerns Alvarez, R. (1973). The psycho-historical and sociowith "manhood (Alvarez, 1973; Moore, economic development of the Chicano community in the United States. Soc Sci Q 53:920-42. 1978:53; Erlanger, 1979). All of this is not to say that cultural, or Austin, R. L. (1980). Adolescent subcultures of violence. Sociol Q 21:545-61. subcultural, propensities to violence do not exist. Most probably they do. The emphasis BalI-Rokeach, S. J. (1973). Values and violence: A test of the subculture of violence thesis. A m Sociol R on racial and/or ethnic influences on such 38:736-49. tendencies or experiences, however, is inacBankston, W. B.; St. Pierre, R. L.; and Allen, H. D. curate. Rather, it would appear to be more (1985). Southern culture and patterns of victimaccurate to argue that ethnicity serves to enoffender relationships in homicide: A study of prihance or diminish the effect of numerous mary and nonprimary homicide in Louisiana. Sociological Spectrum 5:197-211. situational (such as discrimination) and struc-
472
I)ONALD J. SI IOEMAKER aad J. SI IEI~,WOOI) WILLIAMS
Curtis, L. A. (1975). Violence. race. and culture. Lexington, MA: D. C. Hcath.
Lewis, O. (1965). La Vida. New York: Random House.
Davis. J. A., and Smith, T. W. (1984). General ,social surveys. 1982-1984: Cumulative codebook Chicago: National Opinion P,cscarch Ccntcr.
Loftin, C.. and Hill, R. H. (1974). Regional subculture and homicide: An examination of the GastilHackney thesis. Am Sociol R 39:714-24.
Elliott, D., and Ageton, S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in sclf-rcportcd and official cstimatcs of delinquency. Am Sociol R 45:95-110.
Messner, S. F. (1983). Regional and racial effects on the urban homicide rate: The subculture of violence revisited. Am J Soc 88 51:997-1007.
Erlanger, H. S. (1974). The empirical siatus of the subculture of violencc thcsis. Social Prob 22:280-92.
Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. J Soc Issues 14:519.
--(1979). Estrangement, machismo and gang violcncc. Soc Sci Q 60:235-48. Gastil, R. D, (1971). Homicide and a regional culture of violence. A m Sociol R 36:412-27. Hackney, S. (1969). Southern violence. A m HistRev 74:906-25. Hagan, J. (1985). Toward a structural theory of crime, race, and gender: The Canadian case. Crime Delin 31 : 129-46. Hartnagcl, T. F. (1980). Subculturc of violcncc: Further evidence. Pac Soc Rev 23:217-42. Hindelang, M.; Hirschi, T.; and Weiss, J. (1981). Measuring delinqueno,. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moore, J. W. (1978). Homeboys. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Nettler, G. (1978). Explaining crime. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sampson, R. J. (1985). Race and criminal violence: A demographically disaggregated analysis of urban homicide. Crime Delin 31:47-82. Silberman, C. E. (1978). Criminal violence, criminal justice. New York: Random House. Wolfgang, M. E., and Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence. London: Tavistock.
(XM7-2352/87 $3.(10 + .00 Copyright © Pergamon Journals, Ltd.
T H E S U B C U L T U R E OF V I O L E N C E A N D E T H N I C I T Y
DONALD J. SHOEMAKER
Department of Sociology Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
J. SHERWOOD WILLIAMS
Department of Sociology and Anthropology Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia 23284
ABSTRACT Using data from the General Social Surveys, this article examines the subculture of violence thesis as it relates to three ethnic groups--blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. The data suggest that blacks and American Indians have had more violence experiences (hitting and firearms) than have the general population. Contrary to what would be predicted from the thesis, the data indicate that blacks and Hispanics had lower tolerance of violence than the general population. Only American Indians, on all factors considered, appeared to support the thesis. Even this support, however, took on less significance when regression results were examined. Demographic and residential variables explained more of the variance in violence tolerance and experiences with violence than did ethnic background. These findings suggest that the influence of ethnicity on the subculture of violence is minor and indirect.
tion to certain environmental stimuli. The term "subculture" is used to denote the presThe study of human violence has a long ence of shared traits among those thought to history and, consequently, has produced exhibit the behavior. The distinguishing feamany causal explanations. One suggestive ture among those individuals is their orientatheory concerning the etiology of violence is tion to violence. As Wolfgang and Ferracuti known as the "subculture of violence." For- have suggested, a "jostle or derogatory remulated by Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967), mark" may elicit a violent response from this theory proposes that much violent activ- "subcultural actors" (1967:153). These shared traits include attitudes as ity among humans is responsive to specific sets of circumstances, that the behavior is well as behaviors. Specifically, the theory learned and shared in a cultural setting, in posits that a "counternorm" to nonviolence which violence becomes the expected reac- exists within the subculture. That is, nonvio461 INTRODUCTION
462
DONALD J. SHOEMAKER and .I SHERWOOD WILLIAMS
lent reactions to typically violence-provoking situations likely result in negative sanctions from others. In addition, those who react violently to problcms, threats, insults, and the like are not apt to view their actions as illegal, nor are they likely' to feel guilty or ashamed about their behavior (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967:160-161), Although the subculture of violence theory has some predictive features, it is largely explanatory in nature. In essence, the theory is an attempt to explain violence among specific categories of people who are thought to exhibit particularly high rates of homicide, rape, assault, domestic quarrels, and so forth. Thus, Wolfgang and Ferracuti have suggested that a subculture of violence is likely to exist among the following: late adolescent to middle-aged males; lower-class neighborhoods (especially in large, urban areas); nonwhites (male and female); societies that are characterized by "machismo," or the equation of maleness with aggression (Latin cultures, for example); and societies that are characterized by "frontier mores," where the rule of the "gun and fist" supersedes that of law and bureaucratic regulation, such as in the southern and far western regions of the United States and in rural locations (1967:152-163). Conceptually, the theory has several limitations, many of them recognized by its developers. The following discussion is largely based on Nettler's (1978:252-256) analysis. First, there is no adequate explanation, within the theory, of how the subculture of violence began. It is essentially a learning theory and, as such, is limited to explanation of the transmission of values and attitudes, not of their origin(s). Second, there is the strong hint of circularity resulting from the fact that the theory attempts to explain existing rates of violence among certain groups. Third, Wolfgang and Ferracuti, as well as others, have suggested that the subculture of violence is a variant of lower social class values. Although ethnic and geographical influences are certainly implicated in the theory, many of the characteristics of presumedly violent populations may be related to class position and values (see, for example, Mil-
lcr, 1958 and Lewis, 1965). Fourth, the subculture of violence theory, like any culturally-based explanation, must demonstrate the influence of the cultural aspect under investigation. Specifically, the theory must address the question, Does culture 'cause' behavior? Attempts to test the theory have produced mixed results. The research of Ball-Rokeach (1973), for example, failed to locate any significant associations among attitudes, values, and violent behavior in a sample of middleand lower-class adult males and females and male prison inmates in Michigan. Similarly, Erlanger (1974) reported relationships inconsistent with predictions generated from the subculture of violence theory among lowerand upper-income adult males and white and black males in Milwaukee, with respect to fighting and feelings of respect, acceptance by others, and happiness. Other research has provided more support for the thesis. In a retest of the BallRokeach study, for example, Austin (1980) concluded that there is support for a subcultural explanation of violent attitudes and behavior among California adolescents. However, Austin suggested that other factors, such as attachments to conventional institutional patterns in society, may better explain violence than do subcultural associations, particularly those associations with class ties. Also, Hartnagel (1980) provided limited support for a subcultural explanation of violence within a sample of adolescents in Maryland. Support for the subculture of violence thesis was especially evident for a more serious form of violence (one boy knifing another), with approval being highest among lower-class black males. Other researchers have tended to support the subcultural explanation of violence, but with modifications. Erlanger (1979) argued that the effect of "machismo" on gang violence is greater when there exist structurallyinduced "estrangements" for Hispanics, especially males. The "estrangements" Erlanger was concerned about pertained to education, economics, and (indirectly through adults in Hispanic communities) politics. The theme of discrimination as a major factor in the ex-
The Subcuhurc of Violcncc and Ethnicity
planation of violence among Chicanos has also been discussed by Alvarez (1973). Discrimination against blacks and other minorities has also been proposed as an explanation of violence among those people, both within the groups and against those outside the groups (Curtis, 1975; Hagan, 1985). Curtis (1975:34-37) suggested that'discrimination can contribute to subcultural violence when there is a critical mass of people in a particular location who interpret their situation similarly, a position partially supported by Sampson (1985). Curtis argued that cultural contexts intervene in the relationship between inequality and violence, either exacerbating or dampening the effects of the former on the latter (1975:18,45). Still others have posited a subculture of violence based on regional location rather than on race or social class. In particular, a Southern culture of violence (especially as expressed in homicide) has been described, which was somewhat predicted by Wolfgang and Ferracuti (Hackney, 1969; Gastil, 1971). This hypothesis has been challenged (Loftin and Hill, 1974), but Messner (1983) argued that both regional and racial variables are related to homicides within standard metropolitan statistical areas. Specifically, Messner concluded that percent black is strongly associated with homicide rates in nonsouthern cities but not in southern urban centers. Thus, he argued that regional effects are relevant to the explanation of violence. Much of the recent modification of the subculture of violence theory has focused on intervening factors between a suspected causal force, such as discrimination or poverty, and violence. A central issue in the present article is the effect of ethnicity on violent attitudes and behavior. Of particular interest is Silberman's contention (1978: 117-23) that blacks were much more violent than Mexican-Americans or Hispanics in New York and California. This analysis is contrary to the popular image of Chicano gangs (Moore, 1978:42-47) and the conceptualization of Wolfgang and Ferracuti. Silberman's data, however, were based on arrest and prison information, which may not reflect typical patterns of behavior. In
463
addition, although Moore acknowledged that "all Chicano gangs are fighting gangs" (1978:36), she made it clear that the motivations for, and levels of, violence among Chicano gangs have been unevenly distributed among gang youth, historically and geographically (Chapter 3). The purpose of the present article was to analyze violence among people of various ethnic backgrounds in the United States. Three measures of violence were used, and selected demographic variables were inserted into the analysis in an effort more clearly to specify the influence of ethnicity on violence. Based on the literature review presented, it was hypothesized that attitudes toward and experience with violence would vary by ethnicity and that this variance would be at least equal in importance to that of demographic factors. The specific direction of ethnic influence on violence, however, was not predicted.
METHODOLOGY
Sample The data used for this study were collected by the National Opinion Research Center as part of its General Social Surveys. Data from the surveys conducted in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1983, and 1984 were combined in order to obtain enough cases in each of the ethnic groupings to justify analyses. The sampling procedures used in the various surveys varied somewhat. However, in each case a multi-stage probability procedure was used, at least to the block level. All surveys focused upon the same universe, that is, "Englishspeaking persons eighteen years of age or older, living in noninstitutional arrangements within the continental United States ''2 (Davis and Smith, 1984:1). For more details on the sampling design used, see Davis and Smith's (1984) Appendix A.
Variables Combining the data made it possible to identify 475 persons of African descent, 390 persons of Hispanic descent (that is, Mexi-
464
D O N A L D J. S H O E M A K E R and J. S H E R W O O D W I L L I A M S
can, Puerto Rican, Spanish, and Spanish West Indian), and 279 persons who identified themselves as American Indians. All other ethnic identities 3 (Caucasians) were combined and used as a comparison group. It was recognized that there was likely to be great variation in culture within each of these ethnic groupings. For this reason, several control variables were introduced in an effort to determine any variation in violence tolerance and experiences between the various ethnic groupings and the general population comparison group, The indicator of violence tolerance was based upon a summated scale consisting of five items. The items measured the respondents' approval or disapproval of a man punching an adult male stranger under the following conditions: (1) if the stranger was in a protest march showing opposition to the other man's views; (2) if the stranger was drunk and bumped into the man and his wife on the street; (3) if the stranger had hit the man's child after the child accidentally damaged the stranger's car; (4) if the stranger was beating up a woman and the man saw it; and (5) if the stranger had broken into the man's house. Using the Guttman procedure, these items were combined to form a unidimcnsional scale (coefficient of reproducibility = .927 and coefficient of scalability = .600). For purposes of contingency analysis, this scale was recoded into three categories--low (24.8 percent), moderate (68.4 percent), and high (6.7 percent). Two indicators of violence experiences were used. The first focused upon the number of times the respondents had been punched or beaten up by other persons. The responses were distributed as follows: never (66.8 percent), once (7.4 percent), two-three times (11.7 percent), and more than three times (14.0 percent). The second violence experience indicator focused upon the number of times a respondent had been threatened or shot at with a gun. The overall response distribution to this question was never (81.7 percent), once (10.8 percent), two-three times (4.5 percent), and more than three times (3.0 percent). Since no time frame was suggested on these items, it might be expected that
older persons would tend to have had more of these experiences by virtue of the fact that they had lived longer. This issue was examined. at least partially, by controlling for age. Several other control factors, suggested by previous researchers (Ball-Rokeach, 1973: Hagan, 1985), were introduced. These included age (18-39, 40+), family income (less than $10,000, $10,000 to $19,999, and more than 19,999), region of residence (South, West and remaining areas in the United States), type of community (urban, nonurban), and sex?.
Analyses Two types of analyses were used. The first, contingency analysis, examined the relationship between each ethnic grouping (compared to the general population category) and the three violence variables. The strength of association was determined by Goodman and Kruskal's Gamma. A second statistical technique, regression analysis, was used to assess the relative influence of ethnicity and the control factors on each of the violence variables. Given the limited range of these variables, it was expected that the multiple coefficients of determination would be low. The nominal classifications used for ethnicity, region, urban vs. nonurban residence, and sex were treated as dummy variables for the regression analysis.
FINDINGS
Tolerance of Violence Blacks were found to be less tolerant of violence than the general population. It was possible to reduce the prediction error almost twenty-five percent by predicting that the black person will have lower tolerance than his/her counterparts. This relationship was maintained in all the conditions under which it was examined. Contrary to what might have been expected based on the subculture of violence thesis, the relationship was strongest among persons under the age of forty, for persons with higher incomes, in
The Subculture of Violence and Ethnicity
465
TABLE l RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TOLERANCE OF VIOLENCE AND ETHNIC GROUP COMPARISONS WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION, ZERO-ORDER AND CONDITIONAL GAMMAS
Ethnic Groups Conditions Age 18-39 40 + Income LT $10K $10-19.9K $20K + Region South West Other Residence Urban Nonurban Sex Male Female Zero-Order N
Blacks
Hispanics
American Indians
.307* .207*
.231' .266*
-.151" -.110"
.172" .281" .351"
.080 .183" .425*
-.078 -.343* -.171
.415" .213"
.268* .495* .174"
-.180 -.047 -.096
.263* .153
.180" .264*
-.083 -.250*
.315" .186" .245* 475
.221" .187" .203* 390
-.150" -.153" -.149' 279
NO TES
Ethnic groups coded 0, General Population coded 1. *Statisticallysignificant at the .05 level.
the South, in urban areas, and among males. When all of these factors were controlled, blacks expressed lower tolerance of violence. These results are the opposite of what would be expected based on the thesis. When the Hispanics were compared to the general population, they too were significantly less tolerant of violence. The conditional analyses basically replicated the zeroorder relationship under conditions of age and sex. The strongest relationships were observed among upper income persons, nonurban residents, persons residing in the western part of the United States, and those over forty years of age. Again, these observations
are contrary to what would have been suggested from the subculture of violence thesis. Weak support for the thesis was found when American Indians were compared to the general population. In this case, the associations were in the direction that Wolfgang and Ferracuti might have hypothesized; that is, American Indians were significantly more tolerant of violence than were their counterparts in the other ethnic groups (Gamma= - . 149). The basic relationship was replicated under conditions of age and sex. The strongest associations were observed in the middle income grouping and in the nonurban residence category.
466
DONALD J. SHOEMAKER and J. SHERWOOD WILLIAMS
TAI~t.L 2 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EXPERIENCES OF BEING PUNCHED OR BEATEN AND ETHNIC GROUP COMPARISONS WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION, ZERO-ORDER AND CONDITIONAL GAMMAS
Ethnic Groups Conditions Age 18-39 40 + Income LT $10K $10-19.9K $20K + Region • South West Other Residence Urban Nonurban Sex Male Female Zero-Order N
Blacks
Hispanics
American Indians
-.076 -.137"
.126" -.068
-.213" -.163"
-.141" -.146" -.231"
.031 -.024 .001
-.324" -.225" -.123
-.069 - . 151 *
-.038 -.031 .003
.194' .108 .292*
.117" .050
.014 .024
.237* .260*
.055 -.347* -.124" 475
.015 .(/82 -.003 390
.205* .373* .240* 279
NO TES:
Ethnic groups coded 0, General Population coded 1. *Statistically significant al the .05 level.
Punched or Beaten Experience A weak but statistically significant relationship with ethnicity was found for experiences of being punched or beaten when blacks were c o m p a r e d with the general population. Blacks reported more such experiences than did the general population. The relationship remained significant only for persons over thirty-nine years of age, when age was controlled. It was strong a m o n g persons who had family incomes of $20,000 a year or more. No significant differences were found between blacks and the general population when their ages were under forty, they resided in the south or nonurban areas, and only males were considered. The strongest relationship
was found among women. It was possible to reduce the prediction error by nearly thirtyfive percent by predicting that black w o m e n would have had more experience with being hit than would women in the general population. It generally appeared that the subculture of violence thesis was supported, relative to blacks having had more experiences with being punched or beaten than the general population. Even so, in most cases the strength of the association was quite low and, thus, ethnicity explained little variance in this experience. The only significant difference observed when Hispanics were compared with the general population on hitting experiences was among younger persons. In this situation, the
467
The Subculture of Violence and Ethnicity
TABLE 3 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EXPERIENCES OF BEING THREATENED OR SHOT AT WITH A GUN AND ETHNlC GROUP COMPARISONS WITH THE GENERAL POPULATION, ZERO-ORDER AND CONDITIONAL GAMMAS
Ethnic Groups Con ditions Age 18-39 40 + Income LT $10K $10-19.9K $20K + Region South West Other Residence Urban Nonurban
Blacks
Hispanics
American lndians
.200* .256*
.001 -.133
-.368* -.211"
.282* .203* .238*
.061 -.078 .022
-.397* -.377* -.199
.104 .302*
-.058 -.199 .043
-.161 -.053 -.412
.207* .281"
.021 -.220*
-.309* -.400*
.185" .359* .235* 475
-.132" .068 -.076 390
-.341" -.437* -.335*
Sex
Male Female Zero-Order N
279
NO TES:
Ethnic groups coded 0, General Population coded I. *Statistically significant at the .05 level.
general population was more likely to have been punched or beaten than Hispanics. A moderate and significant relationship was found when American Indians were compared to the general population. The American Indians were consistently more likely than the general population, under most conditions, to have reported that they were punched or beaten, thus supporting the subculture of violence thesis.
Firearms Experience Compared to the general population, blacks were significantly more likely to have had negative experiences with firearms. This relationship was consistent regardless of the
conditions under which it was examined, except in the South, where there was no difference between blacks and the general population in the amount of experience with being threatened or shot at with firearms. In general, Wolfgang and Ferracuti's thesis was supported by these comparisons. The same conclusion, however, could not be drawn from comparisons of Hispanics and the general population with respect to firearms experiences. Although the relationships suggested that Hispanics tended to have had more negative experiences with firearms than the general population, these relationships were not statistically significant. The only two exceptions involved comparisons in which residence and sex were con-
468
D O N A L D J. S H O E M A K E R and J. S H E R W O O D WILLIAMS
trolled. Hispanics in nonurban areas and male Hispanics had significantly more experience with being threatened or shot at with a gun than did their counterparts in the general population. Except in the upper income grouping and when region of residence was controlled, American Indians had significantly more negative firearms experiences than did persons in the general population. This finding is consistent with the subculture of violence thesis.
Regression Results It is clear from the regression analysis presented in Table 4 that the eight-variable model was a poor predictor of tolerance of violence. The model accounted for only 2.1 percent of the variance. Over two-thirds of that figure was accounted for by age and income, with younger persons and higher income persons being more likely to score higher on the tolerance of violence variable. The ethnicity variables each accounted for less than one-fifth of one percent of the explained variance. Over fifteen percent of the variance in experiences with being punched or beaten was explained by the regression model. Most of the explained variance was accounted for by sex, age, urban vs. nonurban residence, and region of residence. Persons who were younger, male, who resided outside of the southern region of the U.S. and in urban areas tended to have more experience with being hit than did their counterparts. These variables accounted for over ninety-seven percent of the variance explained. None of the ethnic grouping variables accounted for as much as one-fifth of one percent of the explained variance. The model accounted for 9.4 percent of the variance in firearms experiences. Ninety-five percent of this amount was attributed to sex, age, and urban vs. nonurban residence. Younger persons, males, and persons residing in urban areas of the country had had significantly m o r e experience with being threatened or shot at with a gun. Although
the American Indians and black classifications individually contributed little to the explained variance, both groups were significantly higher on this type of experience than were persons in the general population.
CONCLUSIONS The experiences of blacks and American Indians with being hit or with having had negative experiences with firearms appeared to be consistent with the subculture of violence thesis. The data, however, did not support the thesis when Hispanics were compared to the general population. Even where support was found, it was not very strong. The regression results suggest that factors such as sex, age, and urban vs. nonurban residence were better predictors of the two experience variables. When tolerance of violence was considered, both blacks and Hispanics had lower tolerance than the general population. This, of course, is just the opposite of what would be predicted from the Wolfgang and Ferracuti thesis. The comparison of American Indians with the general population, for this factor, yielded results consistent with the thesis. Even this consistency, however, had less significance when the regression results were examined. The respondents' sex, age, and place of residence explained more of the variance in tolerance than did their racial/ethnic background. The finding that blacks and Hispanics expressed less tolerance of violence than other population groups is important and should be addressed further. The responses could be reflecting experiential identification with those who participate in demonstrations or protests Or with those who are involved in domestic disputes. Consequently, these respondents may not have seen a "stranger" in the same way as others did and could conceivably have pictured themselves as the stranger in the circumstances presented. Separate analyses were conducted to provide additional information on this issue. First, bivariate relationships were computed
469
Thc Subcutturc of Violencc and Ethnic@,'
Z ,1 -1
o_ >
t'-,
o
•
°
Z
o
O II
I
~ll
I I I d E
,..1
8 •
r~
II~
.
I l l
H u.h
°
111
d < II
z~ eN ~9 u.,l
I l l
I l l
l
< II
a.l
T Z
I I I .=-.~
o
r,
r, "E "E "~
#
470
DONALD J. SHOEMAKER and J. SHERWOOD WILLIAMS
in which blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and others were compared relative to each of the five specific situations comprising the tolerance of violence scale (see page 464). Significant differences among the ethnic categories appeared in all situations except one, when a drunk man bumped into the stranger's wife, in which nearly all respondents expressed little approval for a violent response. Of the other situations, the onc involving hitting a stranger who was in a protest march is of interest to the present discussion. In this case, blacks and Hispanics were more tolerant of violence than American Indians or others. The situations in which blacks and Hispanics were clearly less tolerant than all other groupings involved a stranger beating up a woman and a stranger having hit a man's child after the child had accidentally dan> aged the stranger's car. With respect to tolerance or approval of violence, therefore, the pattern was one of blacks and Hispanics being less tolerant than other groups in most situations, but not in patterns that yielded clear interpretations of this attitude. In an attempt to explore this situation further, the regressions presented in Table 4 were run separately for the time periods in the 1970s and in the 1980s. With respect to approval of violence, the results indicated a larger beta coefficient for blacks and Hispanics in the 1970s than in the 1980s, but the differences were not striking. Among blacks, the coefficients were - . 0 4 9 and - . 0 3 5 , and among Hispanics they were - . 0 5 7 and -.031 for the two time periods, respectively. Furthermore, both hitting and firearms experiences among blacks yielded larger coefficients in the 1980s than in the 1970s. For Hispanics, hitting experiences declined in importance in the 1980s, while the beta coefficients for firearms experiences changed from - .020 in the 1970s to +.020 in the 1980s. In most cases, the coefficients for ethnicity were low and of less importance than other factors such as gender and age. Regardless of time frame, therefore, ethnicity explained less of the variations in violent attitudes and experiences than did demographic factors. Of course, it is possible that blacks and
Hispanics were reluctant to admit being tolerant of violence, perhaps feeling sensitive to stercotypes in the United States. This hypothesis is plausible, but it fails to account for the higher self-reported experiences of blacks, in particular, relative to being hit or punched or to having negative experiences with firearms. Nor does this suggestion explain why other ethnicgroups, such as American Indians, reported both higher levels of tolerance for and experiences with violence. Presumably, these minorities might also feel sensitive to stereotypes of their participation in violence and thus respond in ways that would minimize involvement in violence. Furthermore, recent self-report studies of American youth have suggested a higher level of participation in violent crimes among blacks than among whites (Elliott and Ageton, 1980), although some question the accuracy of self-report surveys among blacks and other minorities (Hindelang et al., 1981). The anomaly concerning tolerance of and experiences with violence, especially among blacks, may actually reflect a divergence of attitudes and behavior. It is this attitudinal dimension that has proven difficult to establish consistently within a subculture of violence framework. Even though people may not give verbal approval to the use of violence, their lives may reflect greater exposure to and contact with violence than is characteristic of the general population. At the least, this situation reflects the complexitv of violence, both in attitudes and behavior. What might appear to be methodological artifacts may actually represent people's attempts to manage violence in their lives. In conclusion, the data suggest that blacks and American Indians have had more violence experiences than the general population. Blacks and Hispanics were less tolerant of violence than the general population, although the fuller contexts of these experiences were not available from the surveys being analyzed. Only American Indians, on all factors considered, appeared to support the subculture of violence thesis. Although ethnicity was considered to be an important factor in the subculture of violence thesis, Wolfgang and Ferracuti did not
The Subculture of Violence and Ethnicity
471
explain why. By itself, it does not appear to rural (such as social class and sex) influences be a strong predictor of either tolerance of on violence. or experiences with violence. The support for the thesis has generally been found when factors other than ethnicity were considAcknowledgements ered. The tie between ethnicity and culture This article is a revision of a paper presented at is not direct. This is particularly true in the the annual meeting of the American Society of CrimiUnited States, where socioeconomic factors nology, San Diego, California, November, 1985. cut across most ethnic groupings and are closely associated with American subculture NOTES groupings. Although ethnicity exerted an important influence on some of the measures The terms Hispanic, Chicano, and MexicanAmerican are used interchangeably in this article beof violence examined in this article, the influcause various publications dealing with these groups ence was not consistent, either within ethnic use one term or another. categories or in support of the subculture of It is recognized that exclusion of nonEnglishviolence thesis. It seems increasingly clear speaking people from the sample might contribute to that cultural factors, partly reflected by raan under-representation of some subgroups, such as less educated Hispanics. The theory being examcial and ethnic status, and structural condiined, however, does not predict major differences in tions, as exemplified by sociodemographic attitudes on the basis of command of the English variables, operate jointly, although not in language. Although another test of the subculture theory might involve studying only those who speak uniform proportions, in their influence on their native language, the focus of this investigation behavior and attitudes (see, for example, was upon the relative influence of ethnicity within a Bankston et al, 1985). culture predominated by white, English-speaking people. It is easy to fall into stereotypical thinking regarding ethnic characteristics of people, Although the authors recognize anthropological differences between race and ethnicity, "ethnicity" is and perhaps this has been done in some of the used in this article to refer generally to cultural comliterature concerning the subculture of vioponents of behaviors and attitudes. lence. Often one hears the term "machismo" South = Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, in connection with the presumed heightened Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolevel of violence among Hispanics. Yet the lina, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana. Oklahoma, and present research, and that of others, suggests Texas. that violence is not more typical of Hispanics West = Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New than of blacks, American Indians, or AngloMexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California. Americans. In fact, Hispanics were the least Urban = All cities, suburbs, and unincorporated arviolent of the three ethnic groups analyzed in eas of cities with populations exceeding 50,000. the present study. Moreover, several studies Nonurban = All areas with populations less than 50,000. of Mexican-American culture have pointed out that machismo refers to values of loyalty and companionship within the family and REFERENCES community, not to the personal concerns Alvarez, R. (1973). The psycho-historical and sociowith "manhood (Alvarez, 1973; Moore, economic development of the Chicano community in the United States. Soc Sci Q 53:920-42. 1978:53; Erlanger, 1979). All of this is not to say that cultural, or Austin, R. L. (1980). Adolescent subcultures of violence. Sociol Q 21:545-61. subcultural, propensities to violence do not exist. Most probably they do. The emphasis BalI-Rokeach, S. J. (1973). Values and violence: A test of the subculture of violence thesis. A m Sociol R on racial and/or ethnic influences on such 38:736-49. tendencies or experiences, however, is inacBankston, W. B.; St. Pierre, R. L.; and Allen, H. D. curate. Rather, it would appear to be more (1985). Southern culture and patterns of victimaccurate to argue that ethnicity serves to enoffender relationships in homicide: A study of prihance or diminish the effect of numerous mary and nonprimary homicide in Louisiana. Sociological Spectrum 5:197-211. situational (such as discrimination) and struc-
472
I)ONALD J. SI IOEMAKER aad J. SI IEI~,WOOI) WILLIAMS
Curtis, L. A. (1975). Violence. race. and culture. Lexington, MA: D. C. Hcath.
Lewis, O. (1965). La Vida. New York: Random House.
Davis. J. A., and Smith, T. W. (1984). General ,social surveys. 1982-1984: Cumulative codebook Chicago: National Opinion P,cscarch Ccntcr.
Loftin, C.. and Hill, R. H. (1974). Regional subculture and homicide: An examination of the GastilHackney thesis. Am Sociol R 39:714-24.
Elliott, D., and Ageton, S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in sclf-rcportcd and official cstimatcs of delinquency. Am Sociol R 45:95-110.
Messner, S. F. (1983). Regional and racial effects on the urban homicide rate: The subculture of violence revisited. Am J Soc 88 51:997-1007.
Erlanger, H. S. (1974). The empirical siatus of the subculture of violencc thcsis. Social Prob 22:280-92.
Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. J Soc Issues 14:519.
--(1979). Estrangement, machismo and gang violcncc. Soc Sci Q 60:235-48. Gastil, R. D, (1971). Homicide and a regional culture of violence. A m Sociol R 36:412-27. Hackney, S. (1969). Southern violence. A m HistRev 74:906-25. Hagan, J. (1985). Toward a structural theory of crime, race, and gender: The Canadian case. Crime Delin 31 : 129-46. Hartnagcl, T. F. (1980). Subculturc of violcncc: Further evidence. Pac Soc Rev 23:217-42. Hindelang, M.; Hirschi, T.; and Weiss, J. (1981). Measuring delinqueno,. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Moore, J. W. (1978). Homeboys. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Nettler, G. (1978). Explaining crime. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sampson, R. J. (1985). Race and criminal violence: A demographically disaggregated analysis of urban homicide. Crime Delin 31:47-82. Silberman, C. E. (1978). Criminal violence, criminal justice. New York: Random House. Wolfgang, M. E., and Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence. London: Tavistock.