Hooliganism: battling social differences
With less than 50 days left until the World Cup in Japan and Korea, the discussion on hooliganism is more than ever a hot subject. Thousands and thousands of militaries will protect stadiums, and even high-tech aircrafts will be used to protect the fans, officials and players. The Japanese government has already warned the world (and in particular England-home of the world’s most feared hooligans-) that all fans that will make the trip will be intensely screened. Everyone known as a ‘possible hooligan’ will be send back immediately to their country of origin. Zero-tolerance will be the magic word for nearly a month in the Far East.
Although hooliganism has become a word closely related to sporting vents –mainly football- I will show in this research paper that it is in fact a problem of society. By looking at the behaviour of hooligans from a sociological point of view –an interactionist view and conflict-theory view, and to lesser extent a functionalist view- the conclusion one will be able to draw at the end, is that what might seem as a battle between the brainless can actually be explained as ‘regular ’ deviant sociological behaviour, if one looks at it from an objective point of view. We will be able to break down the subject in small sociological categories like gender, deviance, groups, and social stratification, as we get more information on the topic. And that is exactly what a sociologist should do. Take a step back, don’t let personal beliefs affect their studies, and try to get a better inside look into the subject.
Before looking at the parallels between society and hooliganism, I will first try to show why hooliganism is so closely related to sports; in particular football, or as the Americans call it, soccer.
It is clear that some form of deviant behaviour has occurred in virtually every country in which football is played. We can even consider it a cultural universal. Disorder of some kind is seemingly inevitable to the game, whether the game is played in Europe, Southern Asia or the Middle East. Football-related disorder is not, however, necessarily of the same nature, or influenced by the same factors, in all of the cultures in which it occurs.
There is a wide array of cross-cultural variations that might be the sociological background of these disturbances. Football-related violence is influenced by different historical, social, economic, political and cultural factors in different countries. Social class has been a significant factor in England, for example, religion in Scotland and Northern Ireland, sub-nationalist politics in Spain, etc. There are, however, significant similarities in the development of the problem. Most countries experienced an initial stage of sporadic violence directed mainly at referees and players, followed by a second stage involving violence between opposing groups of fans and against police/security officers inside the stadium, and a third -and current- stage involving an increase in violent encounters between these groups outside the stadium.
Another main factor in football’s link to hooliganism brings us directly to our first sociological insight into the subject. The next quote will give see how hooliganism was looked upon at its earliest stages, and it’s links with society.
“Although football hooliganism only became recognised by government and the media as a serious problem in the 1960s, hooligan behaviour at football has a long history. 'Roughs' were regularly reported as causing trouble at matches in the professional game's early years at the end of the nineteenth century. Some clubs which were sited in particularly tough areas, have long records of spectator disorderliness. In the game's earliest days, local 'derby' matches often provoked the worst problems but, in the absence of visiting fans, home 'roughs' on occasions attacked and stoned referees as well as the visiting players, sometimes chasing them out of town!” (Richard Giulianotti, Football, a sociology of the global game, page 64, 1999)
In many ways, football is seen as the right place for aggressive confrontations, partly because of the working class roots and traditions of the game, but also because of the territorial battle and masculine instincts that come along with it. A game of football is like a symbolic struggle between working class male communities. Hooliganism goes beyond this symbolic representation and transforms it into a 'real' struggle between young men who have strong masculine territorial feelings towards their own areas, teams and friends (their own peer group), and a strong desire to defend them in a 'manly' way when confrontations (with an out group) happen.
“Most of the evidence on hooligan offenders suggests that they are generally in their late teens or their 20s (though some 'leaders' are older), that they are mainly in manual or lower clerical occupations or, to a lesser extent, are unemployed or working in the 'grey' economy, and that they come mainly from working class backgrounds.” (University of Leicester, Sir Norman Centre of Football Research, 2001)
The reason that it is mostly males who are involved in hooliganism can also be brought back to a social reason. We teach our boys, from their earliest childhood, to be brave and strong, and fight (in lower classes of society literally) for their rights and beliefs. We don’t want our kids to be pushovers and crybabies. Fights against the police can be seen – by Conflict-theorists- as a small revolution against the standards and rules of society. Hooliganism is most definitely a counter-culture. It is seen as something that mainly occurs between lower-class males with hardly any future opportunities to move up on the social ladder. They only see themselves slip away even further on the social stratification ladder, instead of making upward intergenerational social mobility. Hooliganism is like a drug that helps them escape reality. In their group they are finally someone, those without any valuable ascribed statuses end up seeking for achieved statuses in different – violent- ways. Together they look for an intense, emotional experience not usually found in everyday life. This shared eruption of joy or sadness, adds to a strengthening of a common social identity. They find their satisfaction –their escape from boring and unpleasant reality- in deviant behaviour. Much of the behaviour, which is commonly, described as 'hooliganism' is actually non-violent, and almost like a ritual between two rival tribes. This involves: verbally abusing rival fans, threatening them with attack, and ridiculing the other. Hard-core hooligans, however, do seem more interested in fighting or 'running' rival groups who are, in their eyes, like themselves and who are also on the warpath’. They get a kick out of ‘running opposing fans’, causing all sorts of troubles, and ending up in massive fights. Just as all other counter-cultures they look for some way to get society’s attention.
“On the one hand, we have the `group mind' accounts that stress the occlusion of the individual self and the emergence of `group mind' through processes of 'submergence' within the crowd (Le Bon, 1895, trans. 1947). The `group mind' is understood to occlude the rational control of an individual's behaviour and allow casual influence and the dominance of primitive drives. Thus, the 'riot' is understood as irrational and normless and a natural consequence of gathering in large groups. This account has subsequently been undermined in crowd theory primarily because of its inability to explain the normative limits found in crowd behaviour (McPhail, 1991; Nye, 1975; Reicher, 1984, 1987), normative limits that are evident in football crowd disorder (Armstrong, 1998; Marsh, Rosser, & Harre, 1978; Stott & Reicher, 1998a).” (The British Journal of Social Psychology; Leicester; Sep 2001)
Hooligans look, as so many people in society, towards their instrumental leaders. A fight between rival groups of hooligans can be seen as one between an in-group and an out-group. Just as ‘normal’ people look for political parties, or religion to find support and feel apart of something, hooligans have the same idea about their group. They might be complete outcasts of society, but in there hooligan-group they find people with the same beliefs and interests. Some people, who might not even enjoy violence, but like the camaraderie of a group, find themselves drawn into violence by following their leaders. This is the interactionist part of hooliganism. Groupthink is very common in hooligan-groups. There are a few leaders, and a lot of ‘blind’ followers, who want to be part of something. It is easy to lose self-control in a group. People play roles in social groups. The pressure to come across as tough men who will defend their group with everything they have. The presentation of self and role-playing is these peer groups plays an enormous role in leading to behaviour that most of these hooligans would never even consider if they didn’t feel the pressure of an entire group counting on them. So the group influence works both ways: people feel more freedom to do whatever they want, since they have an entire group backing them up. On the other hand the pressure of the group can be so enormous that it can lead to excessive deviant behaviour on the part of a, normally balanced, individual.
In conclusion we can say that, eventough hooliganism has strong roots in the football world, and will always be attached to it, it is -if one looks at it from a sociological point of view- a completely independent (sub- and counter-) culture. We see all sorts of factors and influences that we also find in our own ‘regular’ society and environment. The way we teach our male children to be tough, together with inequalities in social stratification, lead to deviant –and most of the time violent- countercultures. Interactionism plays a significant role inside the hooligan peer group. Hooliganism has it’s own language, it’s own rules and values, and it’s own group behaviour. Eventough most acts of hooliganism might still have some relationship to football, we have seen that it’s become a mere platform. Hooliganism, and hooligans are very much a creation of society, and form a part of it. Hooliganism might be better considered in the context of the more general rise in juvenile crime and delinquency in many countries and the emergence of new deviant sub-cultures.
With less than 50 days left until the World Cup in Japan and Korea, the discussion on hooliganism is more than ever a hot subject. Thousands and thousands of militaries will protect stadiums, and even high-tech aircrafts will be used to protect the fans, officials and players. The Japanese government has already warned the world (and in particular England-home of the world’s most feared hooligans-) that all fans that will make the trip will be intensely screened. Everyone known as a ‘possible hooligan’ will be send back immediately to their country of origin. Zero-tolerance will be the magic word for nearly a month in the Far East.
Although hooliganism has become a word closely related to sporting vents –mainly football- I will show in this research paper that it is in fact a problem of society. By looking at the behaviour of hooligans from a sociological point of view –an interactionist view and conflict-theory view, and to lesser extent a functionalist view- the conclusion one will be able to draw at the end, is that what might seem as a battle between the brainless can actually be explained as ‘regular ’ deviant sociological behaviour, if one looks at it from an objective point of view. We will be able to break down the subject in small sociological categories like gender, deviance, groups, and social stratification, as we get more information on the topic. And that is exactly what a sociologist should do. Take a step back, don’t let personal beliefs affect their studies, and try to get a better inside look into the subject.
Before looking at the parallels between society and hooliganism, I will first try to show why hooliganism is so closely related to sports; in particular football, or as the Americans call it, soccer.
It is clear that some form of deviant behaviour has occurred in virtually every country in which football is played. We can even consider it a cultural universal. Disorder of some kind is seemingly inevitable to the game, whether the game is played in Europe, Southern Asia or the Middle East. Football-related disorder is not, however, necessarily of the same nature, or influenced by the same factors, in all of the cultures in which it occurs.
There is a wide array of cross-cultural variations that might be the sociological background of these disturbances. Football-related violence is influenced by different historical, social, economic, political and cultural factors in different countries. Social class has been a significant factor in England, for example, religion in Scotland and Northern Ireland, sub-nationalist politics in Spain, etc. There are, however, significant similarities in the development of the problem. Most countries experienced an initial stage of sporadic violence directed mainly at referees and players, followed by a second stage involving violence between opposing groups of fans and against police/security officers inside the stadium, and a third -and current- stage involving an increase in violent encounters between these groups outside the stadium.
Another main factor in football’s link to hooliganism brings us directly to our first sociological insight into the subject. The next quote will give see how hooliganism was looked upon at its earliest stages, and it’s links with society.
“Although football hooliganism only became recognised by government and the media as a serious problem in the 1960s, hooligan behaviour at football has a long history. 'Roughs' were regularly reported as causing trouble at matches in the professional game's early years at the end of the nineteenth century. Some clubs which were sited in particularly tough areas, have long records of spectator disorderliness. In the game's earliest days, local 'derby' matches often provoked the worst problems but, in the absence of visiting fans, home 'roughs' on occasions attacked and stoned referees as well as the visiting players, sometimes chasing them out of town!” (Richard Giulianotti, Football, a sociology of the global game, page 64, 1999)
In many ways, football is seen as the right place for aggressive confrontations, partly because of the working class roots and traditions of the game, but also because of the territorial battle and masculine instincts that come along with it. A game of football is like a symbolic struggle between working class male communities. Hooliganism goes beyond this symbolic representation and transforms it into a 'real' struggle between young men who have strong masculine territorial feelings towards their own areas, teams and friends (their own peer group), and a strong desire to defend them in a 'manly' way when confrontations (with an out group) happen.
“Most of the evidence on hooligan offenders suggests that they are generally in their late teens or their 20s (though some 'leaders' are older), that they are mainly in manual or lower clerical occupations or, to a lesser extent, are unemployed or working in the 'grey' economy, and that they come mainly from working class backgrounds.” (University of Leicester, Sir Norman Centre of Football Research, 2001)
The reason that it is mostly males who are involved in hooliganism can also be brought back to a social reason. We teach our boys, from their earliest childhood, to be brave and strong, and fight (in lower classes of society literally) for their rights and beliefs. We don’t want our kids to be pushovers and crybabies. Fights against the police can be seen – by Conflict-theorists- as a small revolution against the standards and rules of society. Hooliganism is most definitely a counter-culture. It is seen as something that mainly occurs between lower-class males with hardly any future opportunities to move up on the social ladder. They only see themselves slip away even further on the social stratification ladder, instead of making upward intergenerational social mobility. Hooliganism is like a drug that helps them escape reality. In their group they are finally someone, those without any valuable ascribed statuses end up seeking for achieved statuses in different – violent- ways. Together they look for an intense, emotional experience not usually found in everyday life. This shared eruption of joy or sadness, adds to a strengthening of a common social identity. They find their satisfaction –their escape from boring and unpleasant reality- in deviant behaviour. Much of the behaviour, which is commonly, described as 'hooliganism' is actually non-violent, and almost like a ritual between two rival tribes. This involves: verbally abusing rival fans, threatening them with attack, and ridiculing the other. Hard-core hooligans, however, do seem more interested in fighting or 'running' rival groups who are, in their eyes, like themselves and who are also on the warpath’. They get a kick out of ‘running opposing fans’, causing all sorts of troubles, and ending up in massive fights. Just as all other counter-cultures they look for some way to get society’s attention.
“On the one hand, we have the `group mind' accounts that stress the occlusion of the individual self and the emergence of `group mind' through processes of 'submergence' within the crowd (Le Bon, 1895, trans. 1947). The `group mind' is understood to occlude the rational control of an individual's behaviour and allow casual influence and the dominance of primitive drives. Thus, the 'riot' is understood as irrational and normless and a natural consequence of gathering in large groups. This account has subsequently been undermined in crowd theory primarily because of its inability to explain the normative limits found in crowd behaviour (McPhail, 1991; Nye, 1975; Reicher, 1984, 1987), normative limits that are evident in football crowd disorder (Armstrong, 1998; Marsh, Rosser, & Harre, 1978; Stott & Reicher, 1998a).” (The British Journal of Social Psychology; Leicester; Sep 2001)
Hooligans look, as so many people in society, towards their instrumental leaders. A fight between rival groups of hooligans can be seen as one between an in-group and an out-group. Just as ‘normal’ people look for political parties, or religion to find support and feel apart of something, hooligans have the same idea about their group. They might be complete outcasts of society, but in there hooligan-group they find people with the same beliefs and interests. Some people, who might not even enjoy violence, but like the camaraderie of a group, find themselves drawn into violence by following their leaders. This is the interactionist part of hooliganism. Groupthink is very common in hooligan-groups. There are a few leaders, and a lot of ‘blind’ followers, who want to be part of something. It is easy to lose self-control in a group. People play roles in social groups. The pressure to come across as tough men who will defend their group with everything they have. The presentation of self and role-playing is these peer groups plays an enormous role in leading to behaviour that most of these hooligans would never even consider if they didn’t feel the pressure of an entire group counting on them. So the group influence works both ways: people feel more freedom to do whatever they want, since they have an entire group backing them up. On the other hand the pressure of the group can be so enormous that it can lead to excessive deviant behaviour on the part of a, normally balanced, individual.
In conclusion we can say that, eventough hooliganism has strong roots in the football world, and will always be attached to it, it is -if one looks at it from a sociological point of view- a completely independent (sub- and counter-) culture. We see all sorts of factors and influences that we also find in our own ‘regular’ society and environment. The way we teach our male children to be tough, together with inequalities in social stratification, lead to deviant –and most of the time violent- countercultures. Interactionism plays a significant role inside the hooligan peer group. Hooliganism has it’s own language, it’s own rules and values, and it’s own group behaviour. Eventough most acts of hooliganism might still have some relationship to football, we have seen that it’s become a mere platform. Hooliganism, and hooligans are very much a creation of society, and form a part of it. Hooliganism might be better considered in the context of the more general rise in juvenile crime and delinquency in many countries and the emergence of new deviant sub-cultures.
