Anthropological versus Sociological Approaches to the Study of Soccer Hooliganism: Some Critical Notes

Abstract

It is argued that the anthropological approach, as used by Armstrong and Harris, has not generated any breakthrough in the study of soccer hooliganism. In particular, it is suggested that their use of a commonsense rather than a sociological concept of violence vitiates their analysis in several ways, contributing above all to substantial inconsistencies between some of their own empirical data and their general conclusions concerning levels of soccer-related violence.

It is also contended that their critique of the ‘figurational’ or ‘process-sociological’ approach followed by the Leicester researchers is based on a confused misrepresentation of that approach. Specifically it is argued (i) that Armstrong and Harris fail to recognize the wide range of methods, including extensive participant observation, used by the Leicester group, (ii) that their attempt to cast doubt on the Leicester group's contention that the core football hooligans come predominantly from the ‘rougher’ sections of the working class is based on nothing more than a priori speculation. In this connection, Armstrong and Harris themselves provide no reliable data on the social class of soccer hooligans in Sheffield, and they seem unaware of the fact that several different sources of data appear to confirm the finding of the Leicester group, (iii) they have misunderstood both the terminology and the reasoning of the Leicester group concerning the ‘rougher’ sections of the working class and their relationship to football hooliganism.