Studies of Substance Abuse with Interventions for the Youth of Native American Indian Community #13

[MindMover]

Definitions #8


The subculture of violence theory focuses on the role of ideas in causing criminal behaviors. Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) state: What the subculture of violence formulation suggests is simply that there is a potent theme of violence current in the cluster of values that make up the lifestyle, the socialization process, and the interpersonal relationships of individuals living in similar conditions, (p. 140) This formulation was primarily based on an earlier study of homicide in Philadelphia by Wolfgang (1958).

From the results of this study, Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) concluded that a large number of homicides seemed to result from very trivial events that took on great importance because of mutually held expectations about how people would behave. The authors state: The significance of a jostle, a slightly derogatory remark, or the appearance of a weapon in the hands of an adversary are stimuli differentially 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 or honor of his mother, the virtue of womanhood . . . and to accept no derogation about his race (even from a member of his own race), his age or his masculinity.

When such a culture norm response is elicited from an individual engaged in social interplay with others who harbor the same response mechanism, physical assaults, altercations, and violent domestic quarrels that result in homicide are likely to be common,(pp. 188-89). Again, it is not clear where the origins of these violent cultural norms lie. Numerous sources have contributed to instill them within certain segments of the Native American Indian population. The unique historical circumstances of the Native American Indian population almost certainly play a role—from the brutal extermination and relocation practices of the early Europeans against the Indian population to the near cultural genocide that resulted. Second, the early labeling and confinement processes of the juvenile justice system may also have contributed to these norms. A large proportion of these men were sent to work camps and juvenile detention centers at an early age. During this time, the rewards that were obtained for "masculine prowess" and bravery seem to have played an important role for some in their socialization process. This resulted in attitudes that were not only tolerant but also respectful of violence in response to certain situations. Violence in response to situations where one's honor or esteem is challenged was particularly revered by many of the offenders interviewed for this study.

Attitudes that support a culture of violence may have developed in response to the oppression and discrimination that many of these men experienced throughout their lives. French and Hornbuckle (1977) have noted the similarities between the marginal Indians and the ghetto Blacks observed by Wolfgang and Ferracuti. They state: Excluded from both the traditional subculture and the elite middle-class contingency present on the reservation, the marginal Indians are forced into a stress ridden environment, one which allows for little social or personal autonomy. Instead they are torn between these two cultures following the respective dictates of each whenever possible. But for the most part, they must live in the chaotic world of their weak subculture—one based on retributive violence. Here violence is a common factor resulting from spontaneous eruption of frustrations.

In a world that has offered little economic and political power to the American Indian, overcompensating for this powerlessness in other aspects of their lives that can be controlled (i.e., personal relationships and confrontations) is a logical consequence. Although Wolfgang and Ferracuti believe that subcultural ideas may have originated in general social conditions such as poverty, the cause of violent behavior was said to be the ideas themselves, rather than the conditions that had generated those ideas in the past. Past research seems to have created a false dichotomy between structural and cultural explanations of homicide. The model developed in this research posits that they are not causally separated, but act both alone and in combination to increase levels of violence.