Beyond the patch: When the brotherhood fails.

By Kira Harris

Police pressure

Law enforcement efforts can work in two ways; cause the group to fragment under pressure, or conversely, increase the cohesiveness of the group strengthening the ‘us against them’ mentality. For Chris*, police pressure did cause him to leave the club, but not in the way one would expect. Still maintaining positive attitudes towards his brothers, he emphasizes the need to leave the state in order to protect the club and maintain his status as ‘a solid guy’. Knowing the police were creating an environment that could potentially put him in a position that would jeopardize club loyalty he turned down the alleged offering of $15,000 to provide information, sold everything he owned and left the state quickly.

While this perspective may be unique, the benefits of leaving in a positive light are significant in this sub-culture. Those that leave while maintaining respect may have the option of returning in a social capacity and do not have to fear reprisals for the groups. Regardless of the exiting status, former members stressed leaving comes at a significant cost by ‘losing everything you have’ through ending relationships, selling all assets and investments then disappearing, or relinquishing everything to the club.

Changing group dynamics

While chapters tend to be small with strong bonds formed in a tight-knit environment, a couple of clubs have begun introducing younger recruits to operate within the club businesses and provide strength if a bikie-war should occur.  Adam* disclosed this rapid recruitment of young males during the expansion stage of the club as detrimental to the brotherhood ethos. This rapid recruitment and the inclusion of non-patched members increases the risk of fragmentation, and dilutes the distinctiveness and exclusivity of the club identity.

Describing these new recruits as ‘born-again rich kids’, the intra-club conflict comes from the generational differences and moderation of hedonism, ‘they think just because they’ve got a patch on their back they’ve got a little bit of power’. While older members are aware public displays of deviant behaviours bring unwanted attention, younger members acting on impulse can create a fanatical environment and spur on in-group biases. The differences in behavioural expectations can be a source of conflict between members, and can reduce identification, as Adam* asks ‘how am I supposed to have this passion for this club when I don’t even like half the people in it?’

External relationships

While the club identity remains positive, dominant and well-integrated, it is unlikely there will be any temptation to leave. However, the very nature of motorcycle clubs requires an intense commitment from members that impacts on multiple facets of their lives and demands a considerable amount of time and resources.  When outside sources grow in personal significance the clubs must compete for dominance.

Firstly, intimate partner relationship can make demands on time and resources that makes balancing multiple commitments unsustainable, particularly when the partner is not involved in that lifestyle. The effect of women negating commitment to the club is a common theme in many autobiographical accounts of former club members; consequently, the role of women is mediated by the overt masculine dominated culture.

Secondly, a shift in reference groups can play a significant role in the questioning of club norms. For example, Mark* began regular martial arts training and adopted the norms of his new training associates. His commitment to training meant reduced involvement in the drug scene, and he started to question the moral aspects of his role as a club ‘debt-collector that doesn’t collect any debt’. The resocialisation into new groups allows a person to adopt new standards to judge their past and/or current behaviours. If these new groups are considered significant to the member, failing to meet these standards can be a motivator to leave the club.

Leaving the club

Despite the myth that the only way to leave a club was in a coffin, in the 1990’s it was estimated the average membership in a 1% club was 6 years. The cultural shift from mainstream rebellion and freedom of the road to the more controversial, fiscal organizations has meant members wishing to leave have to tread carefully.  Leaving comes at a cost with the risks of both physical and fiscal punishment. Consistent with research into extremist groups barriers to leaving include: economic losses, fear of reprisals from the club, the loss of reputation and protection, and the marginal position following the termination of membership. Leaving any social group can have negative repercussions in terms of the loss of identity and community; however, the 1% clubs can produce additional and more severe consequences that need to be considered by the individual. For many members involvement remains the most likely option as the cycle of socio-psychological investments strengthens identification.

 

About the Author

 

Kira Harris is a researcher at Edith Cowan University with interests in the cultural aspects of 1% motorcycle clubs and currently completing a PhD in the disengagement from ideological social groups. For more information contact kira.harris@ecu.edu.au