Violent pasts: collective memory and footballhooliganism

Anthony King

Abstract

Since the 1970s, the sociological analysis of football hooliganism has focused on theprocesses which lead to violence between fans. This has been a reasonable researchstrategy since the incidence of violence is a striking phenomenon and violent fansthemselves look upon violence as the objective. However, this focus on the causes ofviolence has cast other important aspects of football violence into the shade. Inparticular, there has been a lack of consideration of the way in which violence hasbeen used as a resource by violent fans for the creation and re-creation of theirhooligan gangs. In particular, there has been no discussion of the way in which thecollective memory of violence, established in discussions between group members,affirms the solidarity of these groups. In exploring the way that shared memory isemployed by violent fans to sustain their relations with each other, this article widensthe focus of the sociological study of hooliganism but also makes a contribution tothe understanding of how social groups are constituted more generally through theempirical example of hooliganism.

Introduction^

On the evening of 19 October, 1999, Manchester United fans were gathered inthe north-eastern corner of the Stade Velodrome to watch their team play in aChampions League match against Olympic Marseilles. The corner consisted ofa steeply rising, uncovered triangular terrace which narrowed as it descendedtowards the pitch and onto the steps of which hard plastic seats were bolted.Although tickets and seats were numbered, as with almost all European games,the seats themselves were never used as individuals stood wherever they wantedthroughout the game. The entire terrace was partitioned off from Marseillessupporters in the adjacent standing area at the northern end of the ground byfencing and high netting, reaching up to about forty feet, which was intendedto catch any missiles thrown by either home or away supporters. Orange-bibbed stewards lined the fence which separated the United terrace from theMarseilles end.

On their arrival at this corner. United fans were subjected to standard tauntsfrom Marseilles supporters to which suitable responses were made by some

t The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001. Published by Blackwell Publishers,108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 lJF. UK and 350 Main Street, Maiden, MA 02148, USA.

Violent pasts

United fans. As the game started, a steady stream of objects began to be hurledinto the area where the United fans were standing, over the fencing designed tocatch it, mainly from the northern end, but also from the stand which ran alongthe pitch to the United fans' left. The objects included batteries, bottlescontaining a liquid (which looked like water but which many United fans saidwas urine), coins, plastic seats which had been ripped from the Marseillesterrace and beer-bottle tops which had been specially loaded with lead. Anumber of these missiles struck United fans, several of whom had gashes ontheir heads and faces, and one of whom lost an eye, as a result. While thisbombardment was annoying in itself for United fans, their frustration wasexacerbated by the fact that while Marseilles fans were seemingly free to throwobjects, even though there was a large number of stewards lining their terrace,the stewards in the United section were trying to stop United fans returningobjects which had been thrown at them. The frustration of United fans becamemore marked in the second half, especially after Marseilles had scored (whatwould be the winning goal). After the goal. United fans near the bottom of theterrace became angrier with the stewards there, ostensibly because thesestewards were being more aggressive in trying to stop United fans returningmissiles into the Virage Nord. Finally, the stewards tried to extract a Unitedfan who had thrown an object back at Marseilles fans in front them.

At this moment, Sean, who has been an extremely prominent figure inUnited hooligan Tirm' for some twenty years, arrived from higher up on theterrace where the rest of United's hooligan group were gathered.' Sean who is adistinctive individual began walking prominently between the United fans andthe Marseilles stewards, trying to separate the stewards from the United fans.He walked up and down the steps of the terrace on the seats, pushing thestewards back towards the fencing, shouting Tuck off and 'Get out of it' tothe stewards. Quite suddenly, in response to some provocation by the stewards.United fans (and it may have been Sean initially) started throwing punches atthe stewards and a brawl developed, involving about twenty United fans.During this brawl, Sean was struck on the head by a plastic seat hurled by asteward, which resulted in a large cut on his right temple and copious bleeding.He was immediately taken to hospital where he was given eleven stitches. Thebrawl between the United fans and stewards ended rapidly on the arrival oflarge numbers of riot police, from whom the United fans retreated up theterrace, and who replaced the stewards lining the fencing.

The conventional paradigm

Since its beginnings in the early 1970s, the sociological analysis of footballhooliganism has focussed on the causes of inter-group violence between footballsupporters. These studies explain violence by reference to the motivations, self-understandings and social positions of violent fans. This analytical strategy iscertainly justified because the event of violence is so striking that it demands

© The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 569

Anthony King

explanation. Moreover, hooligans will often plan fights carefully and look upona confrontation as an objective. Since hooligans themselves often see violence asthe endpoint of their social practice, it is not unreasonable that sociologistsshould similarly view it in this way. Thus, the now classical studies of footballhooliganism by Ian Taylor, Peter Marsh et al. and the Leicester School (eg,Taylor, 1971; Marsh et al., 1978; Dunning et al, 1988; Williams et al., 1990;Murphy et al., 1990), as well as more recent contributors from Armstrong, Stottand Reicher and myself (Armstrong, 1990,1994,1998; Stott and Reicher, 1998;King, 1995,1999) all seek to explain how and why violence occurs. In line withthis now conventional paradigm, it would be possible to analyse the fight at theVelodrome in terms the interactional dynamic highlighted by Clifford and Stottand myself or by reference to the masculine self-understandings of the fans,following Taylor, Marsh, the Leicester School and Armstrong, There would benothing intrinsically wrong with this approach but focussing on the processeswhich cause violence casts other aspects of violent fandom which are equallyinteresting and just as important into shadow. Although the highpoint of thehooligan's existence, fighting itself constitutes a negligible length of time in thelives of these fans. For all the discussions of violence, confrontations likethe fight in the Velodrome are almost invariably quick and indecisive. Bycontrast, discussions of fights are lengthy. The imbalance between the timespent actually fighting and the time spent talking about it suggests that theconventional analytic orientation to hooliganism might be inverted. Instead ofexplaining how and why these groups fight, it might be usefully asked how theviolence in which these groups engage sustains group solidarity since thediscussion of violence is the predominant social practice. The question is notwhy hooligans fight, then, but what role does their discussion of violence play inaffirming the group. These discussions of past fights, often elaborated uponyears after the original incident, are important to group solidarity because,through them, a shared understanding of the significance of the past fight forthe group is created. Through the discussion of past fights, a collective memoryis established which promotes certain forms of practice to group members whichare consistent with group interests. Group alliance is sustained by the collectivememories of violence, therefore, rather than automatically by the violence itselfand, consequently, analysis should focus on the sociological significance ofthese collective memories,^ Weber's famous comments about the formation ofstatus groups provide a useful starting point for this analysis of collectivememory.

Status groups

For Weber, status groups monopolise certain 'ideal and material goods oropportunities' by excluding others who are not part of the group (Weber,1968: 935), That exclusion takes place through the selection of certain arbitrarycritera such as lifestyle, skin-colour, language, or gender which distinguish

570 t The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

ytoieni pasts

group members from non-group members. While the criteria of groupmembership are important, the role of 'intercourse which is not subservientto economic or any other purposes' is, according to Weber, critical to thecreation and maintenance of status groups (Weber, 1968: 932). Unfortunately,as Barnes has highlighted, the sociological import of this non-economicintercourse is often overlooked (Barnes, 1995: 141; also 1992), even though itssignificance can hardly be understated. Exclusive social intercourse is not amatter of supererogation, status groups already existing before this socialintercourse has taken place. Rather, this exclusively social intercourse, whenindividuals seek no extrinsic returns from their interactions, is the prime factorin group creation. Status groups do not emerge automatically from priorobjective factors but come into being only through exclusive social intercoursebetween individuals who gradually form a coherent solidarity. In these periodsof exclusive social interaction dedicated to the affirmation of social relations,communal interests are recognised. Neither social solidarity nor communalinterests exist before this interaction has taken place. Moreover, the criteria ofexclusion which are usually taken to be the defining feature of status groups areestablished and applied only in these moments of exclusive social intercourse.

These periods of exclusive social interaction bind the group together byinculcating shared lifestyles and interests. However, this unity is achieved only ifthe individuals engaging in this form of exclusive interaction come to anagreement upon the significance of this social intercourse. A consensus must bereached about the significance of this interaction for the group and the kinds ofpractices and lifestyles which it enjoins. Without public recognition of the specialsignificance of this social interaction shared by members of the group, no socialsolidarity would arise because exclusive intercourse would be interpretedindividualistically and would not enjoin collective action. Without a recognitionof the communal significance of interaction, individuals would necessarily pursuepersonal interests away from the group; they would have no understanding ofcollective action, nor be inclined to pursue it. Without discussion, the intercoursewould have no more significance than the encounter of commuters who happento share the same carriage each morning. In order for exclusive social intercourseto create and sustain group solidarity in the way Weber describes, thesignificance of this interaction for the members of the group must be established.Individuals must recognise the kinds of behaviour which their interactionsdemand. This communal recognition of the kind of practices enjoined byexclusive intercourse is established when the group agrees upon a collectivememory; that is, when all the individuals in the group agree on the sharedsignificance of their past interactions and the kinds of values which those pastinteractions highlight as appropriate for group members. The shared memory ofpast intercourse and its significance is a manual of group membership. Onceinteraction between certain individuals is mutually established as a collectivememory, that memory demands collective action later.

Weber's emphasis on the importance of exclusive social intercourseis relevant to hooligan gangs. For hooligans, violence constitutes the

C The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 5 7 1

Anthony King

compelling form of social intercourse out of which their social group arise.Yet, fights do not automatically promote group unity. A fight is open todiffering interpretations, some of which may not enjoin collective action orgroup solidarity. A common understanding of the meaning of a fight to thegroup has to be established as a collective memory for the hooligan firm tosustain itself. Without a common agreement on the meaning of a fight andits implications for the group as a whole, the group is simply a randomsample of individuals who happened to have been in the same place at thesame time, like pedestrians on a busy street who witness an accident.Collective memory transforms the potentially random event like a fight intoa powerful method of sustaining group solidarity because by agreeing upona common version of events, individuals necessarily highlight communalinterests and appropriate ways of acting in the future. Groups fail to emerge,when individuals do not establish a collective memory of an event or whenindividuals' understandings and interests are so divergent that no communalagreement of the significance of an event can be reached. At that point, thegroup fissures into factions with their own specific interests and their owncollective memories. Collective memory is critical to the creation andmaintenance of social groups and is a key aspect of social intercourse notsubservient to economic interests, though Weber does not explicitly describeits role.

Status honour

Weber defines the specific lifestyles and practices which arise out of exclusivesocial intercourse and which are publicly established in the collective memoryas the 'status honour' of the group. By status honour, Weber refers not onlyto the standard of appropriate behaviour in any status group but also to thepowerful sanction which enforces this behaviour. While individuals gainhonour when they abide by group standards which further communalinterests, they are shamed when they act against these interests. Althoughhonour and its codification in collective memory is a general feature of statusgroups, the specific standards of honour cannot be assumed in advance (Pitt-Rivers, 1966: 10). There are as many collective memories, enjoining as manykinds of collective action, as there are groups and we have to recognise theparticular concept of honour drawn upon by hooligan gangs. As the varioussociological accounts of hooliganism have highlighted (eg. Marsh et al., 1978;Dunning et al., 1988; Armstrong, 1998), one of the key elements ofhooliganism is the assertion of masculine honour by fans, which the fansthemselves often call 'pride' and which is earned by the ability to fight. Thus,in his recent work on Sheffield United's hooligan firm, the 'Blades',Armstrong describes an incident which illuminates the role of honour (andshame) among hooligans. A group of Blades were gathered outside a pub inwhich some rival Sheffield Wednesday fans (known as Owls) were drinking

572 r The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

and whom the Blades were intent upon attacking. With a nice sense of irony,Armstrong notes that:

Normally the police would arrive at such a city-centre incident in a minute;but this time they took nearly five. This caused problems, for after throwingmissiles and chanting, the Blades did not really know what to do; and sincethe Owls would not come out there was not much point in hanging around.However, because the police had not yet arrived, the Blades did not have anexcuse to run away. (Armstrong, 1998: 33)

Usually the intervention of the police would allow the Blades to claim honourfrom this purely symbolic threat against the Owls but the slowness of the policeto arrive inconveniently demonstrated that the Blades did not have the courageto enter the pub. The fans could not retreat since that would be an admission ofcowardice and so, caught between being unable either to attack or retreat, theywere reduced to extending a symbolic threat until it became hollow.Armstrong's empirical vignette demonstrates the central role of honour inthe encounters between hooligans. For hooligans, masculine honour refers totheir wilhngness to engage in violence against other hooligans.

In this way, the fans' notion of honour echoes that which is found in variouscultural and historical contexts (Pitt-Rivers, 1966: 11), such as ruralMediterranean societies (Black-Michaud, 1975), among the nobility in feudaland early modern Europe (Keen, 1984; Stewart, 1994; Kean, 1978) or indeed ininner-city gang culture in the United State (Foot Whyte, 1993; Horowitz, 1974;Shakur, 1993; Anderson, 1978,1990,1999). Since the hierarchy of honoursocieties is enforced by violence, these cultures display distinctive socialstrategies which are cross-culturally similar. While a man will lose face if he isunprepared to fight an equal, men will avoid confrontation with inferiors sincesuch a confrontation would denote that the man of honour is, in fact, only ofequal status to his subordinate (Horowitz, 1974: 240; Pitt-Rivers, 1974: 31).Similarly, although the rules of honour and their application to particularincidents are always negotiable, among hooligan groups there are broaddefinitions of how honour can be lost and won echoing these other honoursocieties. For instance, honour can be earned if a fight is won between equalnumbers of combatants or when the victor is outnumbered. However, althoughthere are 'rules' about fighting and what constitutes a 'victory' theoretically, inpractice the appeal to 'victory' is deeply contested as violence is usuallycurtailed by the police and the level of violence, normally involving punchingand kicking, is simply not enough to establish definitively who has won.Moreover, even when a fight is won decisively, defeated groups appeal tovarious mitigating circumstances to redeem their honour - at least in their owneyes. However, although the definitions of correct conduct and the outcome ofany particular fight are often unclear, there are certain motifs upon which fansregularly draw to denigrate their rivals. Chief among these is the claim thatopposition fans attack or threaten women, children or non-violent male fans.

C The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 573

Anthony King

To attack unequals is to unman oneself unilaterally for it demonstrates that asupposed hooligan is afraid to attack proper opponents, simultaneouslyequating himself with inferiors over whom he finds it necessary to establish hissuperiority through violence; his superiority over these people is not automatic(see Armstrong, 1998: 55). The accusation that opposition fans attack women,children and non-violent fans is convenient because not only does it demandretaliation but it also legitimates any assault on 'unmanly' hooligan groups,even if the latter are outnumbered or surprised and, therefore, when the attackmight be potentially dishonourable.

Crucially, a group's status honour is estabhshed when the group agreesupon the significance of their exclusive social intercourse and the kinds ofcollective practices it demands. Consequently a group's status honour isestablished in its collective memory when the members of the group publiclyconsent to a shared account of past intercourse. Hooligan gangs agree upon acollective account of their past acts of violence which establishes the standardsof honour by which individuals in the group should abide. This collectivememory highlights that honour is won through violence against other hooligangroups and individuals must protect this honour, even at risk of personalinjury, if they are to enjoy the benefits which come from membership of thegroup. The meaning which the group invests in past fights instructs eachindividual about appropriate conduct in the future.

The creation of collective memory

The incident in the Stade Velodrome was minor, lasting no more than a coupleof minutes. Nevertheless, it was the most notable event during this trip and thefollowing day after the game, the fight became the main topic of conservationamong members of United's hooligan firm gathered in a bar in Marseilles,which discussions lasted for hours, in contrast with the incident itself SinceSean was the only one in this group who had been involved in the fight and wasuniversally recognised as the central figure among those fans, Sean held centre-stage in the discussions about the previous night's incidents. Sean's account ofthe incident at the Velodrome was wrapped up in a series of narratives aboutother memorable and often very funny events in which he had been involved.For instance, Sean had been standing prominently on his own drinking outsidea bar by the ground under the gaze of some dozens of riot police before thegame as United fans entered the ground and he was seen by many United fansin this pose. He repeatedly told the story of how he had eventually beenarrested by police before the game outside the ground. He described how hewas then taken to a station, where the police had held him for a few minutes.He did not know what was going on but a policeman who spoke English hadsaid, 'They don't know why you are here but keep quiet and in two minutesyou will be released'. He was subsequently bundled quickly back into a policecar which skidded to a halt outside the main gates of the Velodrome - Sean

5 7 4 C) The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

made much of the way in which the car had stopped - practically throwing himout on the pavement as the door flew open. Sean's narrative was amusing buthis confrontation with the police where they had singled him out, denoted hisstatus as one of United's most important hooligans. In addition, he described avery serious confrontation with Feyenoord's hooligan firm in 1997 at length.Interestingly, Sean described how the Feyenoord hooligans, who were 'bigDutch blokes' in large groups had been beating up 'members in ones and twos'around Rotterdam throughout the day of the game. By 'members', Seanreferred to male United supporters who are not part of the hooligan firm andwho are not interested in fighting. Ostensibly in retaliation for these assaults,the United firm travelled from Amsterdam together by train and then madetheir way inconspicuously to the bars where the Feyenoord hooligans wereknown to drink, mounting a surprise assault on them in which Feyenoord'shooligans were thoroughly beaten. After the assault, United's firm had beenallowed to walk through police hnes unhindered because, according to Seanand as the ultimate vindication of their assault, the police were pleased thatFeyenoord's hooligans had finally been punished for their various misdemea-nours against innocent victims. In describing this fight, Sean not onlyestablished his own credentials as a very senior member of the firm buthighlighted the status honour of United's hooligan firm; this group sustaineditself through engaging in violence against equals in order to assert itssuperiority. Sean's narratives framed his interpretation of the incident at theVelodrome in terms of hooligan honour.

In discussing the fight in the Velodrome, Sean repeatedly insisted that theMarseilles stewards were not legitimate officials - 'they weren't stewards, theywere thugs' - and he compared them with the stewards at Liverpool FootballClub in the 1980s who, according to Sean, became stewards in order to be ableto taunt opposition fans under the protection offered by their official status.The adoption of an official role to improve one's ability to abuse opponentswhile providing a degree of protection not afforded to ordinary fans and notdesired by true hooligans stripped these individuals of all honour. They had nohonour but were mere 'thugs' who cowardly employed their official position tobully the opposition. Sean did not make the connection but the attribution of'thug' hnked these individuals to those equally unmanly fans who attackwomen, children and 'members'. Sean went on to claim that the stewards at theVelodrome were also spitting at United fans. Although they were certainlypushing United fans at certain moments in the game, it was unclear from myposition on the terrace whether they had actually spat at the United fans.Nevertheless, the spitting claim was significant because it constituted a furtheraffront to the fans and certainly it was accepted by the group in the bar, noneof whom questioned it.

Not only were the stewards thugs and, therefore, the legitimate target ofattack but Sean repeatedly emphasised throughout his various discussions ofthe incident that the Marseilles stewards had 'taken liberties with United fans'.He added: 'I can't stand people taking liberties with United fans'. The concept

€ The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 575

Anthony King

of 'taking liberties' is important and is intimately linked with the notion of'pride' or 'honour' of hooligan groups. Opposition fans 'take liberties' byacting in a way which suggests that they are not frightened by the threat ofviolence which the United firm poses. They, therefore, impugn the masculinityof United hooligans by questioning their ability to fight. In this, Sean's notionof 'taking liberties' parallels the concept of 'dissing' (disrespecting) someonewhich is now universally employed to describe the denigration of an individualor group's standing among gangs in America. By 'dissing' a group orindividual, the member of another gang suggests that he or his group aresuperior because they are not frightened by the threat of violence which the'dissed' group poses; they can be 'dissed' because they are weak and retaliationis not feared. In the case of English hooligan groups, however, the affront doesnot have to be directed specifically at the hooligan firm but can be moregenerally directed, as in this case, to other fans of the club. Although there aretimes when the hooligans would dissociate themselves from other United fanswhen it comes to the commercialisation of the club, for instance, in thisparticular case where United fans as a whole were subject to abuse andviolence, Sean appealed to solidarity between all United fans. The stewards,had acted in a way which affronted the honour of United fans, in general, andof the hooligan firm, in particular; they did not treat United fans with respectand did not fear the violence of United's hooligan firm. On Sean's account, hisintervention re-asserted the status of United fans and the hooligan firm,demonstrating that liberties could not be taken. It was not coincidental thatSean arrived at the bottom of the terraces just as the stewards were imposingthemselves on United fans most forcefully, trying to extract a United fan fromthe crowd. As Sean said, they were thugs who had started to take liberties andhis intervention was intended to rectify the affront.

Sean's interpretation suggested that United hooligans had to protect theirhonour by engaging in certain forms of violent collective action against thestewards and opposition fans who would thereby be forced to recognise theirstatus. Moreover, his interpretation legitimated the hooligan firm absolutelybecause their violence was not simply a matter of choice. Given the presence of'thugs' at other clubs who would always attack United fans whether the latterwere violently disposed or not, the existence of the hooligan firm was essential.Without the threat of retaliation from the hooligan firm, 'liberty-takers' wouldabuse and assault United fans at will. In his discussion of street-gangs inAmerica, Anderson has similarly noted that youths in the inner-city are not atliberty to eschew violent battles for status. If they do not try to assert theirstatus through violence, they will merely open themselves to assault 'as anunworthy person' (Anderson, 1999: 74). Sean's story explained his interventionon the previous evening in terms of the status honour of United's firm,promoting his own action as honourable and highlighting the necessity of thegroup's existence. Moreover, his interpretation illustrated the behaviourexpected of someone who wanted to be a member of this group. No onelistening could have failed to recognise the specific status honour of United's

576 © The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

firm and the appropriate course of action demanded of individuals if they wereto consider themselves part of this group. 'Thugs' and 'liberty-takers' had to beconfronted, even at the cost of personal injury, if a hooligan was to protect hisown honour and that of the firm's. Sean established a collective memory whichenjoined a particular kind of collective action on behalf of those hstening aswell as demonstrating that his own actions were consistent with this statushonour.

The interpretation which Sean promoted seems to have been accepted bythose listening. Significantly, in the only notable intervenfion by the membersof Sean's audience, various younger fans added that when the riot policearrived on the terrace, several of them had beaten a couple of the stewards withtruncheons. This intervention not only provoked much amusement but alsoprovided the ultimate vindication of Sean's interpretation that the stewardswere indeed thugs. Even the police, who were supposedly their allies, viewedthem as trouble-makers. Sean proposed an interpretation of the fight at theVelodrome in line with the United's firm's status honour. The fans in the baraccepted this interpretation as the appropriate collective memory for this eventand supported Sean's elaborate and energetic narratives by laughing andmaking small comic interventions which buttressed the line which Sean wastaking. Although they were subordinate to Sean, the individuals in the baractively contributed to the collective memory which Sean wanted tocommunicate.

The brief intervention of Sean's subordinates in the bar highlights animportant social process which is integral to the creation of collective memory.The meaning of exclusive social intercourse must be established in collectivememory if future collective action is to be enjoined but the process ofestablishing a collective memory is itself an important form of exclusive socialinteraction. More specifically, the discussion in the bar constituted aGoffmanesque 'Interaction Ritual' in which an emotional charge was createdbetween Sean and the other fans. As Collins has noted, in the course ofinteraction rituals, 'the mutual focus of attention and shared moodcumulatively intensify. Bodily motions, speech acts, and vocal micro-frequencies become attuned into a shared rhythm' (Collins, 2000: 22-23). Asa result of this effervescence, the participants' 'relationship becomessymbolized by whatever they focused on during the ritual interaction' andthese 'symbols are charged with social meaning' (Collins, 2000: 23). In theincreasingly euphoric exchanges in the bar, Sean's interpretation of the fightwas invested with intense social significance. The collective memory of theprevious evenings fight became inseparably fused with the social solidarityestabhshed between the individuals in the bar and was inscribed powerfullyinto the minds and, indeed, the bodies of those present. This new collectivememory embodied the intensity of interaction ritual in which it was established,viscerally symbolising the social relations between the members of the group inthat bar. As a result, to act against the principles of hooligan honourestablished by Sean in the collective memory of this group was not merely to

Cv The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 5 7 7

Anthony King

renege on an abstract code of honour but directly to betray those otherindividuals in the bar who had participated in a powerful ritual. Since thecollective memory was inseparable from the social group which had created it,this memory inculcated a tangible sense of honour and shame which was apowerful inducement to collective action.

The negotiation of collective memory

The collective memory which Sean successfully established in the barhighlighted the theme of hooligan honour. However, since his version ofevents was accepted immediately by those who heard him, it provides asimplified account of the way in which collective memory is usually established.Given Sean's status, individuals in the bar accepted his interpretation of theincident at the Velodrome, contributing in important though minor ways tothis interpretation. Typically, the creation a collective memory is morecomplex, involving negotiation between individuals of similar status ratherthan imposition from above and consent from below. In particular, bypromoting their interpretation of past intercourse as the collective memory,individuals make important status claims, where they try to assert or promotetheir position in the group's hierarchy. Different versions of past fights haveimplications for the status of individuals in the group hierarchy. Consequently,there is negotiation and contestation between different accounts whichpromote certain individuals above others. This negotiation between alternativeinterpretations determines which collective memory will be finally accepted bythe group.

Bourdieu's discussion of honour among the Kabyle of Algeria is pertinentin this context. In a pregnant phrase, Bourdieu has noted that Kabylianhonour is established not by reference to objective a priori rules but merely'by calls to order from the group' (Bourdieu, 1977: 15). The group agrees ineach individual case what constitutes honourable action by reference to broadshared understandings. These broad understandings highlight certain generalpractices as honourable but, in the final instance, honour is defined onlythrough public agreement when the group calls individuals to order. Honouris established by public agreement between the men of the Kabyle and isnever any more than this temporary agreement. Bourdieu emphasises thispoint in his discussion of gift exchange. There, he argues that individuals arenot cultural dupes fulfilling systemic requirements but virtuosi whoconsistently manipulate group norms in line with their own interests(Bourdieu, 1977: 9). Consequently, the system of exchange never takes theform of an inexorable mathematical equation as Levi-Strauss wronglyassumed but is never more than an uncertain web of negotiable andunfinished political relations between skilled individuals. Similarly, a group'sstatus honour, established in the collective memory, is only ever a temporarypolitical consensus between virtuosos. In the bar, this intersubjective

578 © The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

negotiation was foreshortened because no individual present was of sufficientstatus to challenge Sean's interpretation. The other fans actively consented tohis interpretation and a collective memory was easily agreed upon which wasin line with Sean's interpretation.

In other discussions of the fight, consent to Sean's interpretation was not soforthcoming and, at that point, the role of public negotiation betweenindividuals in the creation of collective memory became especially clear. Then,the uncertain process of negotiation between individuals which Bourdieuhighlighted became apparent. Over breakfast, Sean and a well-known hooliganfrom Salford discussed the previous evening's events. The Salford hooliganasked Sean who else had been involved in the fight and whether Sean had beenknocked down when he had been hit by the seat. These were apparentlyinnocuous questions but their implications were serious. Significantly, at theVelodrome, the firm, with the Salford hooligan prominent among them, didnot become involved in the scuffle with the stewards but gathered moodily indark jackets, higher up the terrace. Interestingly, unlike the masculine fans atthe bottom of the terrace, they had ignored the obscene gestures of theMarseilles fans and had not even attempted to throw any missiles back at them,presumably because they thought it dishonourable to exchange in ultimatelyhollow challenges which could not be decided through direct physicalconfrontation. They wanted to avoid the potentially emasculating gesturesinto which the Blades accidentally fell when they 'attacked' the pub in whichcertain Owls were drinking without having any real intention of entering it.Significantly, Sean had left this group unilaterally, descending the terrace aloneto separate the stewards from the United fans. Somewhat uncertainly Seanreplied to the Salford hooligan that he was the only recognised hooliganinvolved in the fight and he said that the others with him were 'barmies', that ismasculine fans who are not a committed part of the hooligan firm thoughwilhng to engage in violence if necessary. This admission was problematicbecause it questioned Sean's involvement in the fight. It was potentiallydishonourable for a serious hooligan to become involved with non-hoohgans ina confrontation of this scale; it was not serious enough to merit their attentionand was potentially equivalent to assaulting women and children. Moreover,Sean also had to admit that when he had been hit on the head he had beenknocked down, though he reduced the damage of this confession by claimingthat it was not the blow itself but the steep steps of the terrace which hadunbalanced him.

The Salford hooligan framed the incident in terms of group's status honourwhich highlighted the necessity of legitimate violence against equals in order toprotect the integrity of the group. However, his interpretation of the event wasnotably different. For him, Sean had potentially unmanned himself by hisinvolvement in the fight. It was not a serious enough confrontation to merit theattention of the firm and Sean had been knocked out in it. Sean had notdefended his own honour nor that of the firm by violently imposing himself onthe stewards but, on the contrary, they, who were not of sufficient status to

C) The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 5 7 9

Anthony King

merit assault, had successfully attacked him. On the Salford hooligan'sinterpretation, Sean had not embodied the central values of the hooligan firmbut substantially breached them and, if the firm were to remember theVelodrome at all, the fight there did not vindicate their values but onlyhighlighted that this was the kind of confrontation from which no honourcould be won. The question of whether any other members of the firm hadbeen involved in the fight illustrates Bourdieu's point that honour is notestablished by a priori principle but by intersubjective agreement - by 'calls toorder' from the group. The final tribunal of honour among United hooliganfirm is not determined by the logic of some formal rules but rather by theagreement reached by members of a firm, as individuals. In the course of thisnegotiation, individuals of greater status are likely to have a greater influenceover the decisions of this tribunal. In particular, the definition of correct actionwill normally and conveniently refiect what senior members of the firm haveactually done. If they were involved in a certain kind of practice, then thepractice is likely to be established in the collective memory as honourable but ifthey were not, then it is likely to be seen as shaming. Even though he was anindividual of very high status in the group, acting alone and without others ofsimilar status, Sean had to be called to order in this particular case because heacted alone. Yet, Sean's actions were not wrong per se. There is no formulawhich automatically defines honourable or dishonourable action and, in thebar, he could provide a convincing rationale for them. However, in the contextof the non-involvement of the rest of the hooligan firm, his actions becamedishonourable and inappropriate. The Salford hooligan promoted a verydifferent interpretation as the appropriate collective memory of the fight at theVelodrome,

Significantly, in a later discussion Sean more or less admitted that theinterpretation, at which the Salford hooligan had hinted, was the 'correct'one. On a subsequent trip to Benidorm in March 2000, when I raised the topicof the Velodrome, Sean quietly and briefly confided to me that he shouldhave taken 'more people' down with him to the fight; he should have solicitedthe support of other recognised members of the hooligan firm. Theimplication was that in this way he would probably have avoided injurybut, more importantly, he would also have legitimated his actions as well.Even if he had been injured, the injury would not have been dishonourablygained in a demeaning scuffle but an honourable badge of courage earnedalongside his peers and in defence of them. Although it cannot be taken asincontrovertible proof, it seems that for all his efforts in the bar, Sean hadfinally agreed upon an interpretation of events which accorded with the moresenior members of the hooligan firm like the Salford hooligan. He hadrenegotiated his own individual memory in hne with the interpretations ofother the senior members of the hooligan firm. Moreover, corroborating theSalford hooligan's interpretation of the Velodrome incident and hisacceptance of it, Sean repeatedly denied that the wound had hurt him. Giventhe severity of the blow and the size of the cut and bruising, this could not

580 ® The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

have been true and it was clear that Sean was employing the typical strategyof incident-denial which Goffman famously noted (Goffman,1972: 12,16, 17,18). He maintained a fiction about the wound in order tominimise the threat it posed to his face.

Sean's altered interpretation of the Velodrome incident demonstrates thesusceptibility of individual memory to collective pressure for Sean's claim thathe should have taken others down with him strongly suggests that even he, anindividual of the highest status in this group, re-formulated the meaning of hisown original interpretation of the events in line with the group's collectivememory. There are clear practical reasons why an individual, like Sean, wouldwant re-configure his own memory in this way. If an individual wishes toremain a member of a group it is simply pointless clinging to a version of eventswhich is at odds with wider group understandings. Even if they are factuallycorrect, an individual will be shamed and finally excluded from the group ifthey persist publicly in holding antithetical versions of events since alternativememories enjoin different social action with serious implications for the group.Thus, Sean could have maintained that he had acted appropriately but if hisequals in the hooligan firm rejected this line, he was threatened with loss of facefor the very reason that he no longer operated according to the notions ofhonour recognised by the wider group. In order to sustain his position in thisgroup, it was actually necessary for him to consent to the collectiveunderstanding which emerged and to accept that on this occasion he mighthave acted inappropriately.

The dominance of collective memory over individual memory is not simply amatter of political expediency, however. Individual memories are ontologicallysusceptible to re-interpretation in line with emergent collective accountsbecause memories exist only at the level of the imagination. Memories areinternal mental phenomenon with no external existence. Consequently,memories can be recalled only in the light of present circumstances whichnecessarily alters their significance. Memories do not remain pristine, therefore,but undergo permanent transformation as they are drawn upon in differentways in alternative circumstances. Since they must be drawn upon in differentways and they have no external referent to fix them, the original memory cannever be recovered. Even if the original image remains, it will be impossible torecover its original significance. Crucially, the social group of which anindividual is part overwhelmingly provides the framework in which anymemory is given meaning. As Halbwachs argues, collective memory makesindividual memory stable and 'real'.

There is no point in seeking where they [memories] are preserved in my brainor in some nook of my mind to which I alone have access: for they arerecalled to me externally, and the groups of which I am a part at any timegive me the means to reconstruct them, upon condition, to be sure, that Iturn toward them and adopt, at least for the moment their way of thinking.(Halbwachs, 1992: 38)

t The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 581

Anthony King

The contemporary social relations in which individuals find themselves finallydetermine the specific meaning of any particular memory. AlthoughHalbwachs does not discuss the process by which a collective memorydominates over individual memories, the interaction ritual plays a key rolehere. In the intense discussions about the meaning of social interaction, certainmemories are invested with weighty social significance. These collectivememories become sacred and compelling for the individual because they areintimately associated with the social relations between the individuals in thegroup. The intensity of the interaction ritual overwhelms individual recollec-tion with the collective memory which is infused with the communaleffervescence produced in these periods. Thus, in the bar individual memoriesof the fight at the Velodrome were subordinated to the collective memory whicharose out of visceral social exchange between Sean and the other fans. Similarly,Sean's own individual memory was finally susceptible to the same interactiveprocess because the negative emotional power of his exchange with the Salfordhooligan impelled him to recreate a new memory for himself. His personalmemory was embarrassing and, consequently, Sean renounced that shamefulpersonal recollection, committing himself to the honourable collective one.

Conclusion

The establishment of common memories about fights like the one at theVelodrome by hooligan groups are socially necessary. If an interaction wereinterpreted only individualistically, each silently deciding on a private meaning,no communal understanding would be established nor would future collectiveaction be engendered. Violence as a form of exclusive social intercourse wouldnot serve the critical role which Weber highlighted. Social intercourse createsgroup solidarity only when a group recognises the importance of this socialintercourse to itself. If no collective memory is publicly established about aform of social intercourse, this intercourse would be irrelevant to groupsolidarity and, if collective memories ceased to be invoked in relation to thisintercourse, the group would begin to fragment into a mere collection ofindividuals whose interactions are ultimately meaningless. In order to affirmthe solidarity of the group with a communal code of conduct, individuals haveto establish a common memory whereby the meaning of their social intercourseand the practices it prescribes are recognised.

However, even though individuals are highly susceptible to group pressureand will almost automatically assent to the collective version of any memory,as Sean's recognition that he should have taken others down with him reveals,in their profane existence, the collective version of the memory will necessarilyfade and will be re-interpreted according to that individual's particular socialcircumstances away from the group. Consequently, as Durkheim famouslydemonstrated (1964), because of the erosion of the collective memory asindividuals pursue their profane activities away from the group, the group must

5 8 2 <: The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

periodically gather together and re-affirm their collective memory. At thispoint, the process begins again and individuals proffer interpretations of thepast which promote their own status. At the end of this process of negotiationbetween virtuosi a genuinely collective memory emerges that rectifies theprocess of individualistic fission which will have occurred in the profaneperiod. After an interaction ritual, individuals will be infused with the collectivememory (estabhshed by heightened exchanges between individuals) but, themoment that interaction ritual ends, individual ideas arising from differencesocial positions away from the group can immediately corrupt that 'sacred'object. Although the fight of the Velodrome is likely to be completely forgottenby the hooligan firm because of its small-scale, since the periodic recreation ofcollective memory is inevitable, Sean's acceptance of the Salford hooligan'sinterpretation is not final. Were the fight to be discussed again, Sean might beable to establish the interpretation of the fight which he promoted in the bar asthe collective memory. In different circumstances, Sean might be able todemonstrate that he had, in fact, acted honourably and that, by contrast, hispeers were dishonoured by their failure to descend the terrace to support Sean'sinitiative. Collective memory must be periodically re-affirmed and each newaffirmation presents opportunities to the virtuosi in the group to re-interpretthe past in line with their interests.

The examination of the role of collective memory among violent fans has, ofcourse, much wider sociological relevance. In order to maintain theircoherence, all social groups must establish collective memories about theirinteractions. Thus, shared memories may be very different from Sean'sdescription of the United fans' fight with the stewards since different groupsmay have very different forms of status honour but the process whereby socialgroups publicly establish a common memory is general, if not universal. Thestory-telling which follows a violent confrontation by hooligans parallels thedissections which follow on the morning after parties, where groups of friendsaffirm their relationships by establishing common memories of their ecstaticexperiences. Indeed, the same attempt to establish a common memory in theminds of the social group is enacted in the most formal settings. Thus, thelaying of wreaths at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday constitutes arecognisably similar social phenomenon in which individuals who considerthemselves to be British establish a common understanding of the significanceof past wars to this society.'^ The establishment of common memories is crucialto all social groups but it is not automatic. Memories must be called forthpublicly but since they can only be re-lived through contemporary conscious-ness they also undergo constant though often slow transformation, as theirperiodic resurrection is inevitably influenced by new circumstances. AsGadamer has noted (1975), it is through this re-creation of past-memorieswithin the horizon of the present that the future is formed for the future is theoutcome of those actions which individuals perform in the present informed byshared understandings, embedded in memory. The future of hooligan gangsand the form which their violence will take is substantially determined by the

f The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 583

Anthony King

common values upon which they agree and which they establish through theirpublic affirmation of shared memories in their interactions with each other.

University of Exeter Received 12 April 2000Finally accepted 19 July 2001

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the ESRC for funding the research project, 'Football and Post-National Identity inthe New Europe', which provided the material for this article and to Keith Hart, Barry Barnes,Randall Collins. Frederic Vandenberghe and the Brunei Social Theory group, two anonymousreferees and Sharon Macdonald at The Sociological Review for their comments on an earlier draftof it.

Notes

1 This account is based on fieldwork carried out among Manchester United supporters as part of awider ESRC-funded project, entitled 'Football and Post-National Identity in the New Europe'which involved a series of fieldtrips to European destinations from September 1999 to November2000. This article is based on one of those trips.

2 Sean's name has been changed to protect his identity. However, he is well-known individual bothat United and among other hooligan firms. Having travelled to Marseilles, Bordeaux, Benidormand Brussels with his group for European trips, I have built up a relationship with him. However,this relationship with Sean does present formal methodological problems because it would beinappropriate for me to record our discussions by tape or with a notepad while he is talking sincethis would undermine my credibility with him. The brief quotations from him are taken fromfieldnotes.

3 In a recent work, Garry Robson has briefly discussed the role of collective memory amongMillwall fans (Robson, 2000: 9) but, drawing on Bourdieu's concept ofthe habitus, he argues foran essentialist account of collective memory which is directly opposed to the arguments proposedhere.

4 Providing an interesting parallel to the hooligan firm, Weber argues that a nation is a socialgroup which is unified by common memory of war (Weber, 1968: 923).

References

Anderson, E., (1978), A Place on the Corner, London: University of Chicago Press.Anderson, E., (1990), Streetwise, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Anderson, E., (1999), Code ofthe Street, New York: W.W. Norton and Co.Armstrong, G., (1998), Knowing the Score: Football Hooliganism, Oxford: Berg.Armstrong, G., (1994), 'False Leeds: the construction of hooligan confrontations', in Giulianotti,

R. and Williams, J. (eds), (1994), Game without Frontiers, Aldershot: Arena.Armstrong, G., (1991), 'Football Hooliganism: theory and evidence'. The Sociological Review, 39

(3): 427-458.Barnes, B., (1992), 'Status Groups and Collective Action', Sociology 26 (2): 259-2270.Barnes, B., (1995), The Elements of Social Theory, London: University College London.Black-Michaud, J., (1975), Cohesive Force, Oxford: Biackwell.Bourdieu, P., (1977), Outline ofa Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

584 t The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

Collins, R., (2000), The Sociology of Philosophies, London: Belknap Press.Dunning, E., Murphy, P. and Williams, J., (1988), The Roots of Football Hooliganism, London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.Durkheim. E., (1964), The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: George Allen and

Unwin.Foote Whyte, W., (1993), Street Comer Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum, London:

University of Chicago Press.Gadamer, H-G., (1975), Truth and Method, London: Sheed and Ward.Giulianotli, R. and Williams, J., (eds), (1994), Game without Frontiers, Aldershot: Arena.Goffman, E., (1967), Interaction Ritual, New York: Pantheon Books.Halbwachs, M., (1992), On Collective Memory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Horowitz, R. and Schwartz, G., (1974), 'Honour, Normative Ambiguity and Gang Violence",

American Sociological Review 39 (2): 238-251.Kean, J., (1978), The Face of Battle, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Keen, M., (1984), Chivalry, New Haven: Yale University Press.King, A., (1999), 'Football Hooliganism and the Practical Paradigm", Sociology of Sport Journal,

16 (3): 269-273.King. A., (1995), 'Outline of Practical Theory of Football Violence". Sociology, 29 (4): 635-641.Marsh, P., Rosser, E. and Harre, R., (1978), The Rules of Disorder, London: Routledge.Murphy, P., Williams, J. and Dunning, E., (1990), Football on Trial, London: Routledge.Peristiany, J., (ed.), (1974), Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Pitt-Rivers, J., (1974), 'Honour and Social Status", in Peristiany, J. (ed.). Honour and Shame: The

Values of Mediterranean Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Robson, G., (2000), No One Likes Us, We don't Care: The Myth and Reality of Millwall Fandom,

Oxford: Berg.Shakur, S., (1994), Monster: The Autobiography of an LA Gang Member, London: Pan.Stewart, F., (1994), Honor, London: Chicago University Press.Stott, R. and Clifford, S., (1998), 'How Conflict Escalates: the inter-group dynamics of collective

crowd violence". Sociology, 1998, 32 (2): 353-377.Taylor, L, (1971), 'Soccer and Soccer Consciousness", in Cohen, S. (ed.). Images of Deviance,

pp. 134-164, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Williams, J., Dunning, E. and Murphy, P., (1990), Hooliganism Abroad, London: Routledge.

The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001 585