Sex Roles, Vol. 39, Nos. 11/12, 1998
Dogfigh ting: Sym bolic Exp ression an d
Validation of Masculin ity
Rh on da Evan s
Texas A&M University
DeAn n K . Gau th ier
University of Southwestern Louisiana
Craig J. Fors yth 1
University of Southwestern Louisiana
This study exam in es the issue of m asculinity in dogfighting. Dogfighting is an
illegal gam in g sport centered in the Sou thern United States. The data for this
study were obtain ed via ethn ographic fieldwork over a period of two years.
Interviews were condu cted with 31 dogm en, approxim ately 90% of whom were
white m ales. In add ition the au thors atten ded 14 dogfights an d num erou s
pre-figh t m eetings. We argu e that specific elem ents of this sport represent
sym bolic attem pts at attain ing an d m ain tain ing hon or an d status, which , in
the (predom in an tly white, m ale, workin g-class) dogfigh tin g subcu lture, are
equ ated with m ascu lin e id entity. We furth er argu e that pu rsuit of sym bolic
m asculinity through dogfighting is m ore im portan t to workin g-class m en, who
possess fewer altern ative avenu es for achieving status than do m iddle-class or
profession al m en. The im plications of this research for the larger cultu re of
m asculinity in the United States are also explored.
In all socie tie s, manhood means more than simply being born male. Manhood is a status that must be achie ve d through socially constructe d means.
Gilmore ( 1990, p. 17) state s that...
...true manhood is a precious and elusive status beyond mere malene ss, a hortatory
image that men and boys aspire to and that their culture demands of them as a
measure of belonging.
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Sociology, University of
Southwestern Louisiana, P.O. Box 40198, Lafayette, LA 70504.
825
0360 ¯0025/98/1200 ¯0825$15.00/0
Ó
1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation
826
Evan s, Gau th ier , an d Forsyth
If manhood is see n as precious in all culture s one would expe ct this status
to be eve n more precious in patriarchal systems whe re the conce pt of manhood e mbodie s privile ge and powe r. The Unite d State s is a prime e xample
of such a culture . In particular, the Southe rn region of the U.S., whe re
recent e mpirical re search sugge sts gende r roles have a more marke d tendency toward traditionalism and patriarchy (Hurlbe rt and Bankston, 1998) ,
offers the ide al conte xt in which to study aspirations toward, and expre ssions of, masculinity.
Traditional qualitie s of masculinity in the Unite d State s include a focus
on action: asse rtive ne ss, aggre ssive ne ss, stre ngth, and compe titive ne ss
(O ’Neill, 1982; Hantove r, 1978) . Many of the se traits which are conside red
characte ristic of the ide al man are also characte ristics of the ide al Ame rican
who is expe cted to strive for succe ss. These traits are associate d with the
traditional role s of men as breadwinne r and provide r (Craib, 1987) , though
when these traits were first being defined as “ manly” in the latte r part of
the 19th century, the y ofte n were pe rceive d as virtuous re gardle ss of their
relationship to such utilitarian ge nde r role be haviors. Action, especially in
the form of dange rous or daring competitions, was viewed as an end in
itse lf, synonymous with manhood. Pre vious ide als of manline ss had emphasized rese rve over passion, and inaction over action. But as Rotundo (1993:
239) argue s, the ne w masculine value s came to be inte grate d with the old
through the venue of competitive athle tics:
The significance of sport went beyond its growing popularity as a pastime; it was
also important as a cultural phenonomon. This dimension was what gave athletics
its special significance for the redefinition of manhood at the turn of the century.
Among othe r claims, sports came to be se en as a source of manhood, in
particular, they were vie wed as providing training in the fighting virtue s,
and as a means for building manly characte r. Inde ed, compe tition itself
became a masculine obsession, e xte nding from conte sts directly be tween
men (as in opposing football or base ball te ams) to contests in which animals
represented men (as in horse racing and cockfighting) . O f course , neither
cate gory of contests was ne w to 19th century men (Fische r, 1989; Enquist
and Le imar, 1990) ; rathe r, it was the meaning and importance of the se
conte sts which change d.
Like wise, Gibson ( 1994) argue s convincingly that the recent surge of
inte rest in paramilitary culture is, in part, the re sult of male s continuing
to create social arenas in which they can e xpre ss and validate masculine
identity. They accomplish this through imaginary battle s (such as The National Survival Game , or paintball, as it has come to be known) that obscure
the boundary be tween counte rfeit and ge nuine viole nce by allowing men
to physically “ attack” othe r men without risking real injury to the mselves
Dogfigh ting
827
or their oppone nt. These spe cial contexts allow men, in the safe ty of the
game environme nt, to validate their masculine ide ntitie s while remaining
only on the periphe ry of actual viole nce. Such arenas are important in
building solidarity betwee n men, unite d against a common “ e nemy.” We
argue he re that the mode rn-day dogfight provide s a symbolic battle fie ld
for accomplishing the same.
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: SPORT AND MASCULINITY
Most re search on masculinity and sport has studie d mainstre am activitie s, while othe r sports, which lie outside of the dominant culture , have
bee n ignore d. The sport of dogfighting, which is ille gal in all 50 state s,
continue s to be the sport of choice for thousands of American men (predominate ly Southe rners) most of whom are othe rwise law abiding citizens,
ye t rese archers who study masculinity and sport have ne glected to inve stigate this pote ntially rich data source. The curre nt study se eks to e xplore
the sport of dogfighting as a symbolic are na for de ve loping, e xpre ssing, and
validating masculinity.
Dogfighting can be defined as the act of baiting two dogs against one
anothe r for entertainme nt or gain. It involve s placing two dogs into a pit
to fight until one e ithe r quits or dies. In addition to the dogs, the re are
two handle rs and a re fe re e in the pit, watched by numerous spe ctators,
who be gin be tting on the outcome once the fight be gins. This phe nome non
originate d in the 17th century to te st dogs who would perform as prote ctors
of human life and prope rty (Jone s, 1988) . Although dogfighting originally
arose to se rve a vital function, it quickly progre sse d from utility to e ntertainme nt. In its e arly years, dogfighting se rve d as entertainme nt for all se ctors of society and could not yet be de fine d as a sport by which men gaine d
status (Matz, 1984) .
The transformation of dogfighting from entertainme nt to sport coincide d
with industrialization. In the 19th and 20th centurie s dogfighting came to be
defined as an exclusive male sport in which individual men can earn status
within the dogfighting subculture , through the accomplishme nts of the ir dogs.
Today, a subculture exists (predominantly among the Southe rn, white, working class) which is dedicate d to the continue d survival of the sport of dogfighting. The sport is now highly organize d and elaborate rules have been
constructe d which reflect and re inforce the traditional masculine characteristics of competitive ness, aggre ssion, strength, toughne ss, and courage .
Be cause the de fining characte ristics of and opportunitie s for e xpre ssing
masculinity in the U.S. vary be tween subculture s (Hantove r, 1978) , one im-
828
Evan s, Gau th ier , an d Forsyth
portant context for unde rstanding masculine ide als in this study is the subculture of honor which exists among Southe rn (and pre dominantly white)
males. As Cohen e t al. ( 1996: 946) argue , the Southe rn prope nsity for violence is tied directly to a culture of honor, “ ...in which affronts are met
with viole nt re tribution. ” Male s in the South are e xpe cted to act in this
manne r in orde r to maintain the ir status as men (McWhine y, 1988; WyattBrown, 1982) . Fische r ( 1989: 690) e laborate s: “ Honor in this socie ty
[means] pride of manhood in masculine courage , physical stre ngth, and
warrior virtue .” Dogmen are enme she d in this subculture , and there fore
the ir own attitude s and actions should be shape d and fashione d along similar line s. Placing the sport of dogfighting in its prope r Southe rn manhood
conte xt, then, will be ne cessary before an unde rstanding of dogme n ’s motivations and pe rceive d rewards may be de ve lope d.
A second important conte xt for unde rstanding masculine ide als in this
study concerns the socioe conomic status of dogme n and the perpetuation
of dogfighting in an e ra which no longe r accords the sport the same re putability it once he ld. The baiting sports were first introduce d to socie ty by
royalty and aristocrats (Atyeo, 1979) , and during the 19th century, atte nding
a dogfight came to be conside re d a right of passage into manhood for
wealthy young men (Matz, 1984). It was a re putable activity of the time .
Such a fact is important, whe n conside red in light of Veble n’s theory of
the leisure class, where the standards of worth and manne r of life considere d reputable for “ the le isure class...be come incumbe nt upon all classes
lower in the scale ” ( 1994: 84) . Veblen maintaine d that this is true of sports
as well. Thus, sports favore d by the uppe r classe s be come those which are
held in high re pute among all classes. For example , Veble n (1994: 143)
attribute d the popularity of horse racing among the le isure class to this
notion of e mulation whe n he asserted:
The utility of the fast horse lies largely in his efficiency as a me ans of emulation;
it gratifies the owner ’s se nse of aggression and dominance to have his own horse
outstrip his neighbor ’s. This use be ing not lucrative, but on the whole pre tty consistently waste ful, and quite conspicuously so, it is honorific, and there fore gives
the fast horse a strong presumptive position of reputability.
Though Veble n mentions othe r sports, such as cockfighting, which served
the same purpose s, he doe s not write dire ctly of dogfighting as a means
of emulation. Still, we argue that it is within this same context that dogfighting originally e merge d as a means of adhe rence to the standards of
the leisure class, and as an attempt at emulation, in which the traits of
honor and reputability (as proscribe d by the leisure class of the time ) could
be aspire d to by the lowe r classe s of socie ty.
Furthe rmore , Veble n argue s that throughout history, once the uppe r
classe s of society have dictate d which institutions of society are to be con-
Dogfigh ting
829
sidered reputable , the se institutions be come acce pted into habits of thought
and are re sistant to change . Veble n’s conte ntion that forms of honorific
expe nditure , once accepte d and habitual, are resistant to change is central
to the unde rstanding of the pe rsistance of dogfighting in mode rn socie ty.
Though dogfighting no longe r conve ys the re putability it once did (particularly among the middle and uppe r classe s of modern society, from which
animal rights activists draw most of their support) , and is ille gal in all 50
state s, it has continue d to thrive as a sport. This is especially true in the
South, a region Veble n (1994: 326) characte rized as pre datory (or viole nt)
in temperament, and posse ssing a “ live lier se nse of honour. ” Recent research agre e s that the Southe rn he ritage of viole nce re mains pre se nt to
this day (Nisbett, 1993; Nisbett and Cohen, 1996) , pe rhaps “ ...be cause [it
has] be come embedde d in social role s, e xpe ctations, and share d definitions
of manhood ” (Cohe n et al., 1996: 958) . Thus, although the sport of dogfighting may have its origins in the uppe r classes of pre-mode rn times, its
continue d persiste nce in the mode rn e ra may be e xplaine d as one manife station of the Southe rn subcultural expe ctation of viole nce .
Furthermore, within the large r context of Southe rn viole nce and culture
of honor norms may lie important socioe conomic bases for differences among
dogme n in levels of commitment to the sport. Though today dogme n are
drawn overwhelmingly from the working-class, some participants come from
the middle and uppe r classes as well. Just as the defining characte ristics of
and opportunitie s for expressing masculinity in the U.S. vary between subculture s, so too do they vary between social classes. Thus, while strength and
aggre ssion are the preferred masculine qualitie s in working-class subculture s,
rationality is the value d characte ristic in middle class subculture s (Craib,
1987). Differential constructs, by social class, of masculinity, may be related
to opportunitie s for obtaining masculinity. Research sugge sts that men from
lower-class backgrounds, who lack opportunitie s for expression of masculinity
through occupational success, tend to rely on more accessible routes of expression which emphasize aggre ssion, viole nce, and strength (Toby, 1975).
This is evide nt in the arena of sport where participants in boxing, football,
and wrestling, are disproportionate ly drawn from the working-class sectors of
society (Loy, 1969; Weinbe rg and Arond, 1952). Thus, with the sport of dogfighting, it may be true that there are differences in meanings derived from
participation by men of different socioe conomic statuse s.
METHODOLOGY
The primary data for this study are inte rvie ws with an availability sample of men who fight dogs for sport (N= 31) . The inte rviews range from 2
830
Evan s, Gau th ier , an d Forsyth
to 4 hours e ach, and were held at dog fights, the homes of dogme n, or at
pre -fight mee tings. In addition, primary data include e thnographic observations of all activitie s and participants at 14 dog fights and nume rous prefight meetings. The re se arch locations include seve ral parishe s in Louisiana
and countie s in Mississippi. The racial/e thnic composition of our sample is
approxim ate ly 90% white . Secondary data are take n from historical accounts of dogfighting.
FINDINGS
Sym bolic Mean in g an d the Sou th ern Cultu re of Hon or
Public sporting eve nts provide opportunitie s for ge neration and illustration of characte r, if the conte stants are able to demonstrate value d qualities such as courage , game ne ss, integrity, and composure (Birre ll, 1981) .
We argue that in the sport of dogfighting, the actual combatants serve as
sym bols of the ir respective owners, and there fore any characte r attribute d
to the dogs is also attribute d to the men the y represe nt. Dogfighting is
centere d in the South, a re gion whose inhabitants are well-known for their
love of sports and “ ...any e vent that [promise s] the excite ment of deciding
the inequalitie s of prowe ss among men, or among men and beasts ” (WyattBrown, 1982: 339) . As such, gaming of all sorts (including cards, dice, horse
racing, cockfighting, and dogfighting) qualifie s. But as Wyatt-Brown ( 1982)
note s, these activitie s mean much more than a chance to turn a profit; they
provide for the distribution of honor and status to participants, while nonparticipation signifie s cowardice . For our purpose s, an e ve n more meaningful observation is the one that among Southe rners, “ ...the union of the
individual with the instrume nt of his prowe ss— the horse , cocker, cards,
marksman ’s gun, or dice —[has] a sacre d characte r” (Wyatt-Brown, 1982:
344) . This, we argue , is the case be tween dogme n and the ir dogs. If the
dogs behave as he roe s, then the men must be heroes also. As Porpora
(1996: 211) note s:
...heroes are better conceptualized not as idols of worship, but as an idealize d reference group: one seeks to stand with one ’s heroes rathe r than to be one ’s heroes
in actuality, and he roe s thus are one mechanism we use to tell ourselves what it is
we stand for. For those who have them, then, he roe s are an important inner marker
of identity. They are part of the landscape of the soul.
The he ro in this case is the American Pit Bull Te rrie r, the e xclusive
bre e d employe d in dogfighting today. The dog is e xpe cted to fight unde r
stringe nt rule s and “ take it like a man. ” The rules of the sport are primarily conce rned with pe nalizing any dog (and the owne r of the dog) who
Dogfigh ting
831
be have s cowardly (or as the membe rs of the frate rnity would say, shows
signs of be ing a “ cur ” ). The rule s are furthe r conce rne d with re warding
dogs (and the ir owne rs) who display masculine characte ristics with status
and pre stige .
The te rm “ cur ” is conside red by dogme n to be extremely derogatory.
Their ultimate goal is to prove that their dog posse sse s the most admirable
quality within the sport of dogfighting: game ness. Game ness is defined as:
“ an awesome pe rsiste nce that flows out of an invincible will ” (Jone s, 1988:
249) . The dog who displays game ne ss and is persiste nt in this display will
win and the dog that shows weakne ss or any signs of being a cur will lose .
Jones ( 1988: 293) note s that game ness is an e sse ntial quality of he roism
and that...
...the dogfighters, more than anything e lse, [are] hero worshippers. The y [see k],
through the test of the pit, to find the unstoppable dog...the dog, within which
[dwells] a mighty force , a will which [enables] him to push forward, unbroken and
unbreakable, in spite of pain or injury, to victory or to death. The dogfighters [are]
in the business of creating he roe s. They [are] artists who [sculpt] in flesh, me n who
[aim] , by the application of scientific breeding principles, to produce Sir Lancelot
for re al. Characters in a book [are] fine for timid souls, but not for them. They
[want] heroes that [live] and [breathe] and [walk] on Earth.
O ur research confirms that the dogs e mploye d in the sport of dogfighting do serve as symbols for the traditional masculine ide al of he roism
that exists within the subculture of dogfighte rs and the y are the symbols
through which their owne rs gain status as men. As one dogfighte r puts it,
“ ... the se dogs are a refle ction on the man. Mean and tough guys have the
kind of dogs that [de monstrate ] they are men.” O ur informants re pe atedly
confirme d to us that the sport se rve s an important purpose by validating
the ir masculinity. For e xample , one participant note s the significance of
dogfighting as an arena for gaining status as men, by stating: “ The re ’s an
old saying about this game, that the truth of it is you ’re an hone st and
tough guy. If you ’re faking, the truth come s out in the pit. ” Anothe r owner
state s outright: “ I only e xpe ct a dog to be as good as the man be hind him,
not any more , not any le ss. If a man brings a no good dog to the pit, he ’s
usually not 100 percent either.” Still anothe r fighte r concurs: “ I expe ct the
same thing out of my dog as I e xpe ct out of myself. A dog is only as good
as his master.”
In fact, because fighting dogs are se en by dogme n as re flections of
the ir owne rs, the y are e xpe cted to aspire to mythical ideals of masculinity
within the conte xt of the Southe rn culture of honor. The following meaningful state ment by a dogman vividly e xpre sses these expe ctations:
To us a game dog is one that will try aggressively to beat you and not stop until
he is physically or mentally unable . He tries to fight the other dog by putting out
a frontal assault, not backing up, running, like you some times see in boxing. Whe n-
832
Evan s, Gau th ier , an d Forsyth
ever I was raised up, Saturday night fights with my grandfathe r ... you ne ver saw
them old fighters back up and dodge their opponent. That ’s the kind of dogs we
want. Like Mike Tyson, that’s the kind of bulldog I want. No Sugar Ray Leonards
in our breed.
This comparison betwee n the fighting style s of Tyson and Leonard is indicative of the importance of the symbolic e xpre ssion of a macho identity
in the se dogme n. Mike Tyson is wide ly perceived as tough, aggre ssive , and
fe arle ss. He is a fighte r who is not afraid of punishme nt. Leonard, on the
othe r hand, is known for strate gically trying to avoid punishme nt. Significantly, Southe rn dogme n indicate d to us that they fee l validate d as men
when their dogs behave as Tyson would, ye t they fe ar the scorn associate d
with dogs that fall short of this heroic mark. O ther dogme n echo this sentiment in the following statements:
The dog that stays there and keeps it going regardless of if he ’s getting whipped,
is what I’m talking about.
If the dog is capable of standing on his feet, he should keep fighting and never
quit. I would condemn any dog that choose s to quit.
All responde nts note that they e xpe ct their dogs to display this quality of
gamene ss in e xtre me proportions. Dogs that prove to be curs are considere d poor re flections on the sport, and as such, disposable . The fate of
participants who fail to display the masculine qualitie s which have come
to de fine gamene ss is seve re :
If one of my dogs proves to be a cur, I put him to sleep. I don’t give curs away
or sell them for any amount of money. We don’t want curs be ing bred; it looks
bad on the sport.
Not only are curs conside red to reflect poorly on the sport, but inappropriate resolution of the proble m the y present can damage the man ’s re putation as well.
A true dogman will put a dog that quits (a cur) to sleep, instead of letting someone
else have him [even as a pet]. A person who would take a dog that quit, is not a
true dogman.
Thus, dogs who prove to be curs are kille d, not only be cause of their perceived negative impact on the sport but also because they are perceived
to re fle ct badly on the men who own the m. Status is gaine d by bringing
game dogs to the pit; status is questione d or lessene d for any man who
brings a cur. As one responde nt note s:
No man should come to the pit with a cur dog. He should know what he has before
he enters the pit.
Bringing a dog to the pit who prove s to be a cur, le ads to the humiliation
of the owner. In a sport whe re the dog symbolize s the man, there is no
place for cowards. All responde nts told us that if they e ve r have a dog that
Dogfigh ting
833
quits in the pit, it face s certain de ath. What is striking about this de claration
is that in eve ry fight, the structure d nature of the sport is such that one
contestant must be declare d the lose r. Unle ss that dog has prove n itse lf in
pre vious fights, it will not be give n e ve n one more chance to do so. Losing
dogs with prove n historie s of game ness may gain one , pe rhaps two, additional chance s to re dee m the mselves in the pit, but no more. Ye t, the crucial
sociological que stion is: what is so important to these dogme n that their
cur dogs must be kille d?
The official reason give n by the dogfighte rs for killing cur dogs (to
pre vent the transmission of bad characte r through procreation) se ems incomple te, as neute ring the dog would accomplish the same goal. Sym bolically, howe ve r, it may be im portan t to e xe cute the curs be cause this
provide s an aggre ssive and viole nt end to a nonaggre ssive , nonviole nt (or
at least not sufficie ntly aggre ssive or viole nt) life. It is a symbolic reinstate ment of the (by virtue of his losing dog) falle n man to the masculine ide al.
In this way, status lost via a cur dog is re gaine d via quick and aggre ssive
action to e xtinguish the proble m. In fact, as we note above , failure to dispense with the dog quickly is judge d harshly by onlooke rs as evide nce of
weakne ss of characte r. This is an additional confirmation that the man is
“ no be tter than his dog.” The thre at to the losing dogman, the n, is much
more than a simple loss in the pit; the threat is a loss of masculinity and
status in the eyes of his dogfighting pee rs.
Furthe rmore , since the ove rwhe lming majority of dogfight e rs are
drawn from the working class, we argue that alte rnative opportunitie s (such
as occupational succe ss) for validating masculinity may be perceived by
the se working class men to be le ss acce ssible , thus making a loss in the pit
much more thre atening in terms of their masculine ide ntitie s. These males
may already fee l the y are “ losers” in the game of life , and they may the refore be more incline d to re ly on validating rituals such as the execution of
cur dogs to ke ep from be ing stigmatize d as “ lose rs” in this situation as
well. The ritual of viole nce be comes intelligible when conside re d in conte xt:
in the Southe rn culture of honor, humiliations are met with viole nt re joinders. As one responde nt state s:
I don’t care how long my dog fights, if he is still able to keep going and chooses
to quit, he ’s not coming home with me. He ’s a de ad dog.
SYMBOLIC MEANING AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
O ur sample of dogfighte rs is drawn primarily from the working class,
a fact which le nds some support to the findings of othe r rese archers (Loy,
1969; We inbe rg and Arond, 1952) that participants in aggre ssive, viole nt
834
Evan s, Gau th ier , an d Forsyth
sports are disproportionate ly drawn from the working class. Howe ve r, a
small portion of our sample include s middle class busine ss owners. The se
two groups provide the opportunity to explore a se cond important context
for unde rstanding masculine ideals: the socioe conomic status of dogme n
and the perpe tuation of the sport into the modern e ra. O ur sample allows
us to e xplore possible difference s in the symbolic meaning of this sport to
men of diffe re nt socioe conomic status.
All of our responde nts, regardle ss of class, view the sport of dogfighting as an arena in which they can compete with othe r men for status. Howeve r, the re are notable diffe re nce s betwee n participants from the working
and middle classe s. The most significant diffe re nce lie s in the degree of
importance ascribe d to the sport by each class of men. While working class
men tend to expre ss extreme commitme nt to the sport and describe it as
having a primary role within the ir live s, the response s of middle class participants indicate that they are not nearly as committed to the sport and
view it mere ly as a hobby. To demonstrate the strength of this diffe re nce ,
note the following remark by one married, working class dogman (a construction worke r) who describe s the significance of the sport to him as follows:
I eat, sleep, and drink bulldogs. That ’s the only thing that I live for. This is my
life. My goal is to one day be an old man and have people say this was a gentleman
who had some of the best dogs.
This individual, like many of the othe r dogme n with whom we spoke , hope s
that the actions of his dogs may come to have e nduring symbolic value ;
his dogs may be his only means to display attribute s of his own characte r
unse en in othe r are nas of life . Anothe r working class dogman e xpre sses
his commitment to the sport by saying:
I told my girlfriend that if she ever thinks there will be a day that I won’t fool with
these dogs, then we could just end our re lationship now. That ain ’t happening. I
won ’t give it up. I gave it up once and those were the worst two years of my life.
These re sponse s, and othe rs like the m, sugge st that this sport occupie s a
primary position in the live s of participants. Though winning is always important, it is not the solitary goal of these participants: the camarade rie
among the dogme n is just as important. Being a member of this subculture
allows participants to maintain a sense of be longing and solidarity with
othe r men. They share similar risks, ranging from pote ntial betting losses
to le gal detection (and the ensuing conse quences) of their involve ment in
ille gal activitie s. It is this share d association and sense of group identity
that holds the subculture of dogfighte rs toge ther. It is this same toge therness that cause s dogme n to return when the y have le ft the group, for they
Dogfigh ting
835
report fee ling lost without it. This idea is common among sports competitors in ge ne ral: that be longing is just as, pe rhaps e ven more important,
than winning.
Additionally, working-class dogme n se em to vie w their sport as an ave nue by which the playing field has bee n leveled betwee n men. Here, too,
is an idea that is common among sports competitors in ge neral: wealth has
le ss to do with winning than brute strength and de te rmination. Sports have
long bee n he ralde d as a place whe re rich and poor, black and white, can
mee t and play with some consciousne ss of a leve l playing field. On the
contrary, in othe r areas of social life , working class dogme n corre ctly perceive the fie lds to be tilte d in favor of those with more social weight. O ne
responde nt put it this way:
In this sport I can compe te with someone who is really we althy and whose ancestors
have be en in the sport for 60 or 70 years. I can be at them. If I bring a good dog
to the pit, I stand just as good a chance of winning as they do. I doesn ’t matter if
they are richer than I am.
Winning, in terms of the masculine ideal, is paramount to maintaining
masculine status for working class male s in particular. Though middle class
participants “ e njoy” winning, the y do not focus as strongly on that goal.
While working class participants re pe atedly assert their de dication to the
sport as a part of the ir e ve ryday live s, middle class participants indicate
that the sport is not central to their live s at all, but more an amusing distraction from the se rious busine ss of their live s. The following re sponse of
a middle class busine ss owne r is re pre se ntative of the response s of the othe r
middle class participants with whom we spoke :
I enjoy competing in the sport; but, it’s just a hobby to me. I try not to let it
interfere with my business.
The literature on sports docume nts a conne ction be tween socioe conomic status and the meaning participants attribute to sport (Me ssne r,
1990) . Though baiting sports were once viewed as re putable standards by
the uppe r classes, me anings attribute d to the sport have change d in modern
times. Ye t, as Veblen ( 1994) note d, once standards be come e stablishe d, the y
are highly resistant to change . This may be even more the case whe n the
lower classe s, still in pursuit of status, find ne w standards of repute blocke d
from acce ss. Thus, the diffe rential meaning attribute d to the sport of dogfighting by me n from differe nt socioe conomic ranks sugge sts that, for working class men, re stricted means of asserting masculinity and gaining status
through othe r route s (such as workplace /economic success) may motivate
the m to re ly more he avily on an olde r standard, (such as the sport of dogfighting) as an alte rnate path toward masculine status.
836
Evan s, Gau th ier , an d Forsyth
CONCLUSIONS
The symbolic battle field on which the dogfight is wage d may be the
primary route for some men, entrenche d in a Southe rn culture of honor,
to validate their masculinity without risking physical injurie s to the mselves
or their human adve rsarie s. Gaming, in this context, functions to distribute
honor and status among males who have little access to alte rnate route s
for le gitimate successes which might allow the m to “ measure up ” as “ re al”
men. Inste ad, these men hope to bree d unbre akable he roes of the ir dogs,
who will then be conside re d mere shadows of them as men. Should they
fail in this re gard, the dogme n see k to insure future success by killing all
curs, while simultane ously defending their threatene d honor as men.
The men who participate in this sport face the possibility of legal
prose cution and yet they continue to participate in eve r increasing numbe rs
(Se mencic, 1984) . We maintain their reasons for participation include the
symbolic status they gain from the sport. The sport offers an arena in which
the y can aspire to the masculine ide al through their dogs. The findings of
this study also indicate that there are diffe re nce s in the meaning attribute d
to sport by participants from differe nt socioe conomic status. We suspe ct
the se differences ste m from diffe rential legitimate opportunitie s to achie ving masculine status. Working class men face limite d opportunitie s for masculine e xpre ssion and validation within or through their jobs, and may be
more like ly to see sport as a primary means for validating their masculinity.
Though not a focus of the prese nt research, one avenue for future
study might be to explore the activitie s of participants who play the role
of spectator to these e vents. Most individuals prese nt at the dogfights are
not fighting dogs in the current match, but have in the past, or will be in
the future . In othe r words, individuals rotate betwee n the role s of spe ctator
and handle r. As spe ctators, the primary be havior is one of betting on the
outcome of the fight. Research on horse racing and poke r sugge sts that only
bettors that take chance s are conside re d capable of displaying characte r
(Scott, 1968; Birrell, 1981) . Gee rtz ( 1972) argue s the same is true of Balinesian cockfights, whe re “ de ep play” re fe rs to the custom of be tting more
than one can afford to lose. This practice is not conside red foolish among
the Baline se , but honorable . Future analyse s of dogfight be ttors should e xamine what role, if any, masculine honor plays in guiding betting practice s.
In this pape r, we have argue d that the sport of dogfighting provide s
masculine validation for the men who participate in it. The study of this
sport as an are na for e xpre ssing masculinity offers insight into the le ngths
men will go in order to prove the y are “ re al men.” Furthe rmore, the implications of our findings are not restricte d to the Southe rn, working-class
subculture but extend to the large r culture of masculinity in the United
Dogfigh ting
837
State s. Though viole nce may re ceive he ighte ne d emphasis among Southerners, the e mphasis on viole nce is found to e xist in definitions of masculinity across the nation as a whole . We se e this e mphasis in the viole nt
rite s of passage demande d of male gang members. We se e it in the continue d pe rsistence of rape myths which sugge st that rape is an act of passion
on the part of “ real” men drive n by masculine impulse s. We see it in the
military hazing of young (particularly male ) re cruits as a pre re quisite to
combat training. Certainly, we also se e it in sports such as hocke y (whe re
viole nce is central to the game itself). Eve n the “ non-contact ” sports such
as baske tball and base ball assure e levate d status among their pee rs to men
who “ foul ” their oppone nts with viole nce , or who “ bean ” the batte rs with
the ball. Thus, the code of honor to which dogme n aspire is but a reflection
of a more unive rsal code which exists among men in most walks of life .
Viole nce is viewed as culturally le gitimate , and masculine , and as such it
aids in shaping men ’s ide as about who they are as men. Viole nce as a legitimate e lement of masculinity has succee de d in assuring men as a group
of their re lationship to e ach othe r, to wome n, and to socie ty.
As long as the status of manhood continue s to be “ precious ” (Gilmore ,
1990) and defined as something that must be e arne d, males will continue
to se ek ave nue s by which to validate their status as men. Male s who face
limite d opportunitie s for masculine expre ssion within the boundarie s proscribed by the dominant culture may se ek ave nue s outside of the se boundaries, e ve n if they are ille gal. In U.S. socie ty, failure to achie ve (or e ven
failure to aspire to) the culturally constructe d and de fine d goal of masculinity is often conside red, by many males, far worse than any legal penaltie s
the y might incur in the proce ss.
REFERENCES
Atyeo, D. (1979) . Blood and buts, violence in sports. New York: Paddington Pre ss.
Birrell, S. ( 1981) . Sport as ritual. Social Forces, 60, 354-376.
Cohen, D., Bowdle, B. F., Nisbett, R. E., & Schwarz, N. (1996) . Insult, aggression, and the
southern culture of honor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 945-960.
Craib, I. ( 1987) . Masculinity and male dominance. Sociological Review, 38, 721-743.
Enquist, M., & Le imar, O. (1990). The e vollution of fatal fighting. Anim al Behavior, 39, 1-9.
Fischer, D. H. (1989) . Albion ’s seed: Four British folkways in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Geertz, C. (1972). Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. Daledalus, 101, 1-27.
Gibson, J. W. ( 1994) . Warrior Dreams: Violence and manhood in post-Vietnam America. In
E. Disch (Ed.), Reconstructing gender, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Gilmore, D. D. (1990) . Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven,
CT: Yale Unive rsity Press.
Hantove r, J. P. (1978) . The Boy Scouts and the validation of masculinity. Sociological Issues,
34, 184-195.
838
Evan s, Gau th ier , an d Forsyth
Hurlbert, J. S., & Bankston, W. B. ( 1998) . Cultural distinctiveness in the face of structural
transformation: The “ Ne w” Old South. In D. R. Hurt (Ed.), Social change in the rural
South, 1945-1995 . Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Jones, M. (1988). The dogs of capitalism Book 1: Origins. Cedar Park, TX: 21st Century Logic.
Loy, John W., Jr. ( 1969) . The study of sport and social mobility. In G. S. Kenyon (Ed.),
Aspects of Contem porary Sport Sociology. Chicago: The Athletic Institute.
Matz, K. S. (1984). The pit bull: fact and fable. Sacramento, CA: De Mortmain Publishing.
McWhiney, G. (1988) . Cracker culture: Celtic ways in the Old South. Tuscaloosa: University of
Alabama Press.
Me ssner, M. A. (1990) . Boyhood, organize d sports, and the construction of masculinities. Contem porary Ethnography, 18, 416-444.
Nisbe tt, R. E. (1993). Violence and U.S. regional culture. American Psychologist, 48, 441-449.
Nisbe tt, R. E. & Cohen, D. (1996) . Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South .
Boulder, CO: We stview Press.
O ’Neill, J. M. (1982). Ge nder role conflict and strain in men ’s lives. In K. Soloman & N. B.
Levy (Eds.), Men in transition: Theory and therapy. Ne w York: Plenum Pre ss.
Porpora, D. V. (1996). Personal he roe s, religion, and transcenden tal metanarratives . Sociological Forum , 11, 209-229.
Rotundo, E. A. (1993) . American manhood . New York: Basic Books.
Scott, M. ( 1968) . The racing gam e. Chicago: Aldine.
Seme ncic, C. (1984). The world of fighting dogs. Neptune City, New Je rsey: T. F. H. Publications.
Toby, J. ( 1975) . Violence and the masculine ideal: Some qualitative data. In S. K. Steinme tz
& M. A. Straus (Eds.), Violence in the Fam ily. Ne w York: Dodd Mead.
Veblen, T. (1994). The theory of the leisure class. Ne w York: Penguin Books.
We inberg, S. K., & Arond, H. (1952) . The occupational culture of the boxer. American Journal
of Sociology, 57, 460-469.
Wyatt-Brown, B. (1982) . Southern honor: Ethics and behavior in the Old South. New York:
Oxford Unive rsity Press.