A lot has been written and opined about how hooliganism affects society as if it were an organic force exiting independently of the societies in which it occurs. Most of the time, these editorials focus on the degrading effects of violence in sport and the damage that said violence does to a society.
However, I would argue that rather than being an actor upon society, hooliganism and violence in sport are symptoms of that society's dysfunction; a reflection of the tensions and frailties therein. Happy, stable, well-adjusted, cared for members of society don't pick up brick bats and knives and fight in the streets after soccer matches. It's only when a person somehow feels left out of the conversation or attacked by it that they seek the sort of release and belonging that tribal violence provides.
If you look at the most famous and violent soccer firms, there is always a political, economic, or sectarian binary at play. If both Rangers and Celtic were Protestant clubs, would they have such a violent past? Everton and Liverpool are famous clubs from the same city in England and they are massive rivals, but their rivalry carries with it almost none of the vitriol of that accompanies, for instance, the rivalry between Boca Juniors and River Plate. With the Liverpool/Everton derby, supporters from both clubs come from the same town, often the same family, and share near identical demographics socially and economically. They support Liverpool and Everton, but first and foremost they're all Liverpudlians. Boca v River is a very much a poor v rich binary. Real Madrid v Barcelona is very much a political/regional binary.
Therefore, it seems logical to suggest that rather than hooliganism having an effect on society, society affects hooliganism. As long as there are people who feel outside of the system or other than their rivals, and the opportunity exists to express that tension, hooliganism will exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment