fulfilled therapeutic functions in a different, and sometimes, complementary way from candomblé. As such
it also contributed to the reproduction of the labour force. Hence capoeira movements per se were not seen
as prejudicial by the elites, but rather the underlying principles of its practice, which undermined work ethics
and questioned the monopoly of state violence.
Capoeira was associated with street violence for a wide range of reasons, both in and outside the roda.
There could be many reasons for the outbreak of violence. Male competition, in particular for women,
resulted in insults or what was perceived as an attack on one’s honour. Violence also was the result of larger
group conflicts, opposing capoeira gangs, political clienteles, or even different corporations, for instance the
police against the army or cart-drivers against stevedores. Violence was more likely to occur, however,
outside the spiritual space delimited by the roda. If we can therefore identify an important connection
between a sub-culture of violence and the universe of capoeira, no absolute overlap existed. ‘Tough guys’ were
young, and the most notorious troublemakers constituted only one segment of the capoeira universe, which
was also inhabited by overexploited workers rather happy to avoid direct physical confrontation, be it with
tough guys or police officers. Malandragem also consisted in avoiding conflict unless one was in a clear
advantage. Elderly capoeiras, on the other hand, typically showed more interest in the ritual aspects of the art.
Thus age provided an additional factor for the diversity of style and purposes in capoeira.
The amalgamation of various combat traditions and the different contexts of its use further contributed to
the diversity of practice, modalities and ultimately, the meaning of capoeira. Capoeira as a ritual, capoeira
as gymnastics, capoeira as a rhythmic game and capoeira as a weapon were not mutually exclusive, and
there might have existed some overarching, but relatively vague consensus about what linked all of them.
Yet individual emphasis on each modality ultimately diluted the meaning of its divergent practices apart.
Since no central authority ruled over its practice, individual styles developed freely even within the
capoeira-as-a-game modality. Thus the vadiação provided Bahian men with a wide range of options. Not
every capoeira liked to play for money in front of a bar; not every capoeira loved fighting more than
courting women. The existence of these different modalities of how to play or fight reinforces the point
made by Muniz Sodré that there were ‘diverse factions of angoleiros in Bahia’.^124 The diversity of
individual styles in return expanded the possibilities for innovation by just emphasizing or developing some
aspects within this multi-layered and not always coherent tradition.
As the violent confrontations between the ‘tough guys’ provoked increasing public outrage in the 1910s
and 1930s, mestres more rooted in the rituals of the art began to realize that reform was needed in order to
split both worlds. Most of them agreed that only separation between the different modalities could save the
art. And that is precisely what reformers such as Bimba and Pastinha did from the 1930s onwards.
THE CAPOEIRA SCENE IN BAHIA 123