Football hooliganism
There is a wide array of explanations for football hooliganism moving beyond the argument that ‘football hooligans fight over football issues’. This essay analyses and synthesises the main theoretical perspectives, focussing especially on social histories, youth culture and class. It suggests that the best explanation consists of a combined theoretical perspective.
There are many theories attempting to explain football hooliganism, but from a certain, reductionist perspective it requires only one explanation: that hooligans are ‘rational agents’ pursuing a pleasurable activity. This position is put forward by Kerr (1994), who does not regard it as necessary to offer broader sociological or cultural explanations. This is made feasible within the specific context of congregations of likeminded individuals, who ‘form a kind of “fight club” where they fight only one another’ (Leeson et al 2011: 1).
Social histories have traditionally emphasised the role of class and youth culture in fuelling violence. Pearson (1983) and other social historians have noted that class-based violence has characterised all periods of football’s history in Britain, and that the fears of the ‘respectable’ classes (those who are ‘propertied’) have always been roughly similar, emphasising the moral degradation of the lower classes and social breakdown. The growth and encroachment of an increasingly lawless, rampant working class has been blamed in particular.
This has been closely tied to youth culture, which has also been a focus of social historians. Pearson (1983) argues that hooliganism through the ages has principally been the province of young, unmarried men, so much so in fact that his suggestions border on sociobiological determinism (a major weakness of his arguments). Others also emphasise youth culture, but they shift the focus to the late 20th century. Spaaij (2006: 94) suggests that ‘The genesis of contemporary football hooliganism lies in the increasingly violent ‘youth end’
There are many theories attempting to explain football hooliganism, but from a certain, reductionist perspective it requires only one explanation: that hooligans are ‘rational agents’ pursuing a pleasurable activity. This position is put forward by Kerr (1994), who does not regard it as necessary to offer broader sociological or cultural explanations. This is made feasible within the specific context of congregations of likeminded individuals, who ‘form a kind of “fight club” where they fight only one another’ (Leeson et al 2011: 1).
Social histories have traditionally emphasised the role of class and youth culture in fuelling violence. Pearson (1983) and other social historians have noted that class-based violence has characterised all periods of football’s history in Britain, and that the fears of the ‘respectable’ classes (those who are ‘propertied’) have always been roughly similar, emphasising the moral degradation of the lower classes and social breakdown. The growth and encroachment of an increasingly lawless, rampant working class has been blamed in particular.
This has been closely tied to youth culture, which has also been a focus of social historians. Pearson (1983) argues that hooliganism through the ages has principally been the province of young, unmarried men, so much so in fact that his suggestions border on sociobiological determinism (a major weakness of his arguments). Others also emphasise youth culture, but they shift the focus to the late 20th century. Spaaij (2006: 94) suggests that ‘The genesis of contemporary football hooliganism lies in the increasingly violent ‘youth end’