Violent pasts: collective memory and football

hooliganism

Anthony King
Abstract
Since the 1970s, the sociological analysis of football hooliganism has focused on the
processes which lead to violence between fans. This has been a reasonable research
strategy since the incidence of violence is a striking phenomenon and violent fans
themselves look upon violence as the objective. However, this focus on the causes of
violence has cast other important aspects of football violence into the shade. In
particular, there has been a lack of consideration of the way in which violence has
been used as a resource by violent fans for the creation and re-creation of their
hooligan gangs. In particular, there has been no discussion of the way in which the
collective memory of violence, established in discussions between group members,
affirms the solidarity of these groups. In exploring the way that shared memory is
employed by violent fans to sustain their relations with each other, this article widens
the focus of the sociological study of hooliganism but also makes a contribution to
the understanding of how social groups are constituted more generally through the
empirical example of hooliganism.

Introduction^
On the evening of 19 October, 1999, Manchester United fans were gathered in
the north-eastern corner of the Stade Velodrome to watch their team play in a
Champions League match against Olympic Marseilles. The corner consisted of
a steeply rising, uncovered triangular terrace which narrowed as it descended
towards 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 wanted
throughout the game. The entire terrace was partitioned off from Marseilles
supporters in the adjacent standing area at the northern end of the ground by
fencing and high netting, reaching up to about forty feet, which was intended
to catch any missiles thrown by either home or away supporters. Orangebibbed stewards lined the fence which separated the United terrace from the
Marseilles end.
On their arrival at this corner. United fans were subjected to standard taunts
from 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 hurled
into the area where the United fans were standing, over the fencing designed to
catch it, mainly from the northern end, but also from the stand which ran along
the pitch to the United fans' left. The objects included batteries, bottles
containing a liquid (which looked like water but which many United fans said
was urine), coins, plastic seats which had been ripped from the Marseilles
terrace and beer-bottle tops which had been specially loaded with lead. A
number of these missiles struck United fans, several of whom had gashes on
their heads and faces, and one of whom lost an eye, as a result. While this
bombardment was annoying in itself for United fans, their frustration was
exacerbated by the fact that while Marseilles fans were seemingly free to throw
objects, even though there was a large number of stewards lining their terrace,
the stewards in the United section were trying to stop United fans returning
objects which had been thrown at them. The frustration of United fans became
more marked in the second half, especially after Marseilles had scored (what
would be the winning goal). After the goal. United fans near the bottom of the
terrace became angrier with the stewards there, ostensibly because these
stewards were being more aggressive in trying to stop United fans returning
missiles into the Virage Nord. Finally, the stewards tried to extract a United
fan who had thrown an object back at Marseilles fans in front them.
At this moment, Sean, who has been an extremely prominent figure in
United hooligan Tirm' for some twenty years, arrived from higher up on the
terrace where the rest of United's hooligan group were gathered.' Sean who is a
distinctive individual began walking prominently between the United fans and
the 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 the
stewards back towards the fencing, shouting Tuck off and 'Get out of it' to
the stewards. Quite suddenly, in response to some provocation by the stewards.
United fans (and it may have been Sean initially) started throwing punches at
the 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 a
steward, 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. The
brawl between the United fans and stewards ended rapidly on the arrival of
large numbers of riot police, from whom the United fans retreated up the
terrace, and who replaced the stewards lining the fencing.

The conventional paradigm

Since its beginnings in the early 1970s, the sociological analysis of football
hooliganism has focussed on the causes of inter-group violence between football
supporters. These studies explain violence by reference to the motivations, selfunderstandings and social positions of violent fans. This analytical strategy is
certainly 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 upon
a confrontation as an objective. Since hooligans themselves often see violence as
the endpoint of their social practice, it is not unreasonable that sociologists
should similarly view it in this way. Thus, the now classical studies of football
hooliganism 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, Stott
and 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 with
this now conventional paradigm, it would be possible to analyse the fight at the
Velodrome in terms the interactional dynamic highlighted by Clifford and Stott
and myself or by reference to the masculine self-understandings of the fans,
following Taylor, Marsh, the Leicester School and Armstrong, There would be
nothing intrinsically wrong with this approach but focussing on the processes
which cause violence casts other aspects of violent fandom which are equally
interesting and just as important into shadow. Although the highpoint of the
hooligan's existence, fighting itself constitutes a negligible length of time in the
lives of these fans. For all the discussions of violence, confrontations like
the fight in the Velodrome are almost invariably quick and indecisive. By
contrast, discussions of fights are lengthy. The imbalance between the time
spent actually fighting and the time spent talking about it suggests that the
conventional analytic orientation to hooliganism might be inverted. Instead of
explaining how and why these groups fight, it might be usefully asked how the
violence in which these groups engage sustains group solidarity since the
discussion of violence is the predominant social practice. The question is not
why hooligans fight, then, but what role does their discussion of violence play in
affirming the group. These discussions of past fights, often elaborated upon
years after the original incident, are important to group solidarity because,
through them, a shared understanding of the significance of the past fight for
the group is created. Through the discussion of past fights, a collective memory
is established which promotes certain forms of practice to group members which
are consistent with group interests. Group alliance is sustained by the collective
memories of violence, therefore, rather than automatically by the violence itself
and, consequently, analysis should focus on the sociological significance of
these collective memories,^ Weber's famous comments about the formation of
status groups provide a useful starting point for this analysis of collective
memory.

Status groups
For Weber, status groups monopolise certain 'ideal and material goods or
opportunities' by excluding others who are not part of the group (Weber,
1968: 935), That exclusion takes place through the selection of certain arbitrary
critera 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 group

membership are important, the role of 'intercourse which is not subservient
to economic or any other purposes' is, according to Weber, critical to the
creation and maintenance of status groups (Weber, 1968: 932). Unfortunately,
as Barnes has highlighted, the sociological import of this non-economic
intercourse is often overlooked (Barnes, 1995: 141; also 1992), even though its
significance can hardly be understated. Exclusive social intercourse is not a
matter of supererogation, status groups already existing before this social
intercourse has taken place. Rather, this exclusively social intercourse, when
individuals seek no extrinsic returns from their interactions, is the prime factor
in group creation. Status groups do not emerge automatically from prior
objective factors but come into being only through exclusive social intercourse
between individuals who gradually form a coherent solidarity. In these periods
of exclusive social interaction dedicated to the affirmation of social relations,
communal interests are recognised. Neither social solidarity nor communal
interests exist before this interaction has taken place. Moreover, the criteria of
exclusion which are usually taken to be the defining feature of status groups are
established and applied only in these moments of exclusive social intercourse.
These periods of exclusive social interaction bind the group together by
inculcating shared lifestyles and interests. However, this unity is achieved only if
the individuals engaging in this form of exclusive interaction come to an
agreement upon the significance of this social intercourse. A consensus must be
reached about the significance of this interaction for the group and the kinds of
practices and lifestyles which it enjoins. Without public recognition of the special
significance of this social interaction shared by members of the group, no social
solidarity would arise because exclusive intercourse would be interpreted
individualistically and would not enjoin collective action. Without a recognition
of the communal significance of interaction, individuals would necessarily pursue
personal interests away from the group; they would have no understanding of
collective action, nor be inclined to pursue it. Without discussion, the intercourse
would have no more significance than the encounter of commuters who happen
to share the same carriage each morning. In order for exclusive social intercourse
to create and sustain group solidarity in the way Weber describes, the
significance of this interaction for the members of the group must be established.
Individuals must recognise the kinds of behaviour which their interactions
demand. This communal recognition of the kind of practices enjoined by
exclusive intercourse is established when the group agrees upon a collective
memory; that is, when all the individuals in the group agree on the shared
significance of their past interactions and the kinds of values which those past
interactions highlight as appropriate for group members. The shared memory of
past intercourse and its significance is a manual of group membership. Once
interaction between certain individuals is mutually established as a collective
memory, that memory demands collective action later.
Weber's emphasis on the importance of exclusive social intercourse
is relevant to hooligan gangs. For hooligans, violence constitutes the
C The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

571

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 to
differing interpretations, some of which may not enjoin collective action or
group solidarity. A common understanding of the meaning of a fight to the
group has to be established as a collective memory for the hooligan firm to
sustain itself. Without a common agreement on the meaning of a fight and
its implications for the group as a whole, the group is simply a random
sample of individuals who happened to have been in the same place at the
same time, like pedestrians on a busy street who witness an accident.
Collective memory transforms the potentially random event like a fight into
a powerful method of sustaining group solidarity because by agreeing upon
a common version of events, individuals necessarily highlight communal
interests and appropriate ways of acting in the future. Groups fail to emerge,
when individuals do not establish a collective memory of an event or when
individuals' understandings and interests are so divergent that no communal
agreement of the significance of an event can be reached. At that point, the
group fissures into factions with their own specific interests and their own
collective memories. Collective memory is critical to the creation and
maintenance of social groups and is a key aspect of social intercourse not
subservient to economic interests, though Weber does not explicitly describe
its role.
Status honour
Weber defines the specific lifestyles and practices which arise out of exclusive
social intercourse and which are publicly established in the collective memory
as the 'status honour' of the group. By status honour, Weber refers not only
to the standard of appropriate behaviour in any status group but also to the
powerful sanction which enforces this behaviour. While individuals gain
honour when they abide by group standards which further communal
interests, they are shamed when they act against these interests. Although
honour and its codification in collective memory is a general feature of status
groups, the specific standards of honour cannot be assumed in advance (PittRivers, 1966: 10). There are as many collective memories, enjoining as many
kinds of collective action, as there are groups and we have to recognise the
particular concept of honour drawn upon by hooligan gangs. As the various
sociological accounts of hooliganism have highlighted (eg. Marsh et al., 1978;
Dunning et al., 1988; Armstrong, 1998), one of the key elements of
hooliganism is the assertion of masculine honour by fans, which the fans
themselves 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 (and
shame) among hooligans. A group of Blades were gathered outside a pub in
which 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 throwing
missiles and chanting, the Blades did not really know what to do; and since
the 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 an
excuse to run away. (Armstrong, 1998: 33)
Usually the intervention of the police would allow the Blades to claim honour
from this purely symbolic threat against the Owls but the slowness of the police
to arrive inconveniently demonstrated that the Blades did not have the courage
to enter the pub. The fans could not retreat since that would be an admission of
cowardice and so, caught between being unable either to attack or retreat, they
were reduced to extending a symbolic threat until it became hollow.
Armstrong's empirical vignette demonstrates the central role of honour in
the encounters between hooligans. For hooligans, masculine honour refers to
their wilhngness to engage in violence against other hooligans.
In this way, the fans' notion of honour echoes that which is found in various
cultural and historical contexts (Pitt-Rivers, 1966: 11), such as rural
Mediterranean societies (Black-Michaud, 1975), among the nobility in feudal
and early modern Europe (Keen, 1984; Stewart, 1994; Kean, 1978) or indeed in
inner-city gang culture in the United State (Foot Whyte, 1993; Horowitz, 1974;
Shakur, 1993; Anderson, 1978,1990,1999). Since the hierarchy of honour
societies is enforced by violence, these cultures display distinctive social
strategies which are cross-culturally similar. While a man will lose face if he is
unprepared to fight an equal, men will avoid confrontation with inferiors since
such a confrontation would denote that the man of honour is, in fact, only of
equal status to his subordinate (Horowitz, 1974: 240; Pitt-Rivers, 1974: 31).
Similarly, although the rules of honour and their application to particular
incidents are always negotiable, among hooligan groups there are broad
definitions of how honour can be lost and won echoing these other honour
societies. For instance, honour can be earned if a fight is won between equal
numbers of combatants or when the victor is outnumbered. However, although
there are 'rules' about fighting and what constitutes a 'victory' theoretically, in
practice the appeal to 'victory' is deeply contested as violence is usually
curtailed by the police and the level of violence, normally involving punching
and kicking, is simply not enough to establish definitively who has won.
Moreover, even when a fight is won decisively, defeated groups appeal to
various mitigating circumstances to redeem their honour - at least in their own
eyes. However, although the definitions of correct conduct and the outcome of
any particular fight are often unclear, there are certain motifs upon which fans
regularly draw to denigrate their rivals. Chief among these is the claim that
opposition 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 a

supposed hooligan is afraid to attack proper opponents, simultaneously
equating himself with inferiors over whom he finds it necessary to establish his
superiority 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 demand
retaliation but it also legitimates any assault on 'unmanly' hooligan groups,
even if the latter are outnumbered or surprised and, therefore, when the attack
might be potentially dishonourable.
Crucially, a group's status honour is estabhshed when the group agrees
upon the significance of their exclusive social intercourse and the kinds of
collective practices it demands. Consequently a group's status honour is
established in its collective memory when the members of the group publicly
consent to a shared account of past intercourse. Hooligan gangs agree upon a
collective account of their past acts of violence which establishes the standards
of honour by which individuals in the group should abide. This collective
memory highlights that honour is won through violence against other hooligan
groups and individuals must protect this honour, even at risk of personal
injury, if they are to enjoy the benefits which come from membership of the
group. The meaning which the group invests in past fights instructs each
individual about appropriate conduct in the future.
The creation of collective memory
The incident in the Stade Velodrome was minor, lasting no more than a couple
of minutes. Nevertheless, it was the most notable event during this trip and the
following day after the game, the fight became the main topic of conservation
among members of United's hooligan firm gathered in a bar in Marseilles,
which discussions lasted for hours, in contrast with the incident itself Since
Sean was the only one in this group who had been involved in the fight and was
universally recognised as the central figure among those fans, Sean held centrestage in the discussions about the previous night's incidents. Sean's account of
the incident at the Velodrome was wrapped up in a series of narratives about
other memorable and often very funny events in which he had been involved.
For instance, Sean had been standing prominently on his own drinking outside
a bar by the ground under the gaze of some dozens of riot police before the
game as United fans entered the ground and he was seen by many United fans
in this pose. He repeatedly told the story of how he had eventually been
arrested by police before the game outside the ground. He described how he
was 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 had
said, 'They don't know why you are here but keep quiet and in two minutes
you will be released'. He was subsequently bundled quickly back into a police
car which skidded to a halt outside the main gates of the Velodrome - Sean
574

C) The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

made much of the way in which the car had stopped - practically throwing him
out on the pavement as the door flew open. Sean's narrative was amusing but
his confrontation with the police where they had singled him out, denoted his
status as one of United's most important hooligans. In addition, he described a
very serious confrontation with Feyenoord's hooligan firm in 1997 at length.
Interestingly, Sean described how the Feyenoord hooligans, who were 'big
Dutch blokes' in large groups had been beating up 'members in ones and twos'
around Rotterdam throughout the day of the game. By 'members', Sean
referred to male United supporters who are not part of the hooligan firm and
who are not interested in fighting. Ostensibly in retaliation for these assaults,
the United firm travelled from Amsterdam together by train and then made
their way inconspicuously to the bars where the Feyenoord hooligans were
known to drink, mounting a surprise assault on them in which Feyenoord's
hooligans were thoroughly beaten. After the assault, United's firm had been
allowed to walk through police hnes unhindered because, according to Sean
and as the ultimate vindication of their assault, the police were pleased that
Feyenoord's hooligans had finally been punished for their various misdemeanours against innocent victims. In describing this fight, Sean not only
established his own credentials as a very senior member of the firm but
highlighted the status honour of United's hooligan firm; this group sustained
itself through engaging in violence against equals in order to assert its
superiority. Sean's narratives framed his interpretation of the incident at the
Velodrome in terms of hooligan honour.
In discussing the fight in the Velodrome, Sean repeatedly insisted that the
Marseilles stewards were not legitimate officials - 'they weren't stewards, they
were thugs' - and he compared them with the stewards at Liverpool Football
Club in the 1980s who, according to Sean, became stewards in order to be able
to taunt opposition fans under the protection offered by their official status.
The adoption of an official role to improve one's ability to abuse opponents
while providing a degree of protection not afforded to ordinary fans and not
desired by true hooligans stripped these individuals of all honour. They had no
honour but were mere 'thugs' who cowardly employed their official position to
bully the opposition. Sean did not make the connection but the attribution of
'thug' hnked these individuals to those equally unmanly fans who attack
women, children and 'members'. Sean went on to claim that the stewards at the
Velodrome were also spitting at United fans. Although they were certainly
pushing United fans at certain moments in the game, it was unclear from my
position on the terrace whether they had actually spat at the United fans.
Nevertheless, the spitting claim was significant because it constituted a further
affront to the fans and certainly it was accepted by the group in the bar, none
of whom questioned it.
Not only were the stewards thugs and, therefore, the legitimate target of
attack but Sean repeatedly emphasised throughout his various discussions of
the 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' by
acting in a way which suggests that they are not frightened by the threat of
violence which the United firm poses. They, therefore, impugn the masculinity
of United hooligans by questioning their ability to fight. In this, Sean's notion
of 'taking liberties' parallels the concept of 'dissing' (disrespecting) someone
which is now universally employed to describe the denigration of an individual
or group's standing among gangs in America. By 'dissing' a group or
individual, the member of another gang suggests that he or his group are
superior because they are not frightened by the threat of violence which the
'dissed' group poses; they can be 'dissed' because they are weak and retaliation
is not feared. In the case of English hooligan groups, however, the affront does
not have to be directed specifically at the hooligan firm but can be more
generally directed, as in this case, to other fans of the club. Although there are
times when the hooligans would dissociate themselves from other United fans
when it comes to the commercialisation of the club, for instance, in this
particular case where United fans as a whole were subject to abuse and
violence, Sean appealed to solidarity between all United fans. The stewards,
had acted in a way which affronted the honour of United fans, in general, and
of the hooligan firm, in particular; they did not treat United fans with respect
and did not fear the violence of United's hooligan firm. On Sean's account, his
intervention re-asserted the status of United fans and the hooligan firm,
demonstrating that liberties could not be taken. It was not coincidental that
Sean arrived at the bottom of the terraces just as the stewards were imposing
themselves on United fans most forcefully, trying to extract a United fan from
the crowd. As Sean said, they were thugs who had started to take liberties and
his intervention was intended to rectify the affront.
Sean's interpretation suggested that United hooligans had to protect their
honour by engaging in certain forms of violent collective action against the
stewards and opposition fans who would thereby be forced to recognise their
status. Moreover, his interpretation legitimated the hooligan firm absolutely
because 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 latter
were violently disposed or not, the existence of the hooligan firm was essential.
Without the threat of retaliation from the hooligan firm, 'liberty-takers' would
abuse and assault United fans at will. In his discussion of street-gangs in
America, Anderson has similarly noted that youths in the inner-city are not at
liberty to eschew violent battles for status. If they do not try to assert their
status through violence, they will merely open themselves to assault 'as an
unworthy person' (Anderson, 1999: 74). Sean's story explained his intervention
on the previous evening in terms of the status honour of United's firm,
promoting his own action as honourable and highlighting the necessity of the
group's existence. Moreover, his interpretation illustrated the behaviour
expected of someone who wanted to be a member of this group. No one
listening 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 were
to consider themselves part of this group. 'Thugs' and 'liberty-takers' had to be
confronted, even at the cost of personal injury, if a hooligan was to protect his
own honour and that of the firm's. Sean established a collective memory which
enjoined a particular kind of collective action on behalf of those hstening as
well as demonstrating that his own actions were consistent with this status
honour.
The interpretation which Sean promoted seems to have been accepted by
those listening. Significantly, in the only notable intervenfion by the members
of Sean's audience, various younger fans added that when the riot police
arrived on the terrace, several of them had beaten a couple of the stewards with
truncheons. This intervention not only provoked much amusement but also
provided the ultimate vindication of Sean's interpretation that the stewards
were indeed thugs. Even the police, who were supposedly their allies, viewed
them as trouble-makers. Sean proposed an interpretation of the fight at the
Velodrome in line with the United's firm's status honour. The fans in the bar
accepted this interpretation as the appropriate collective memory for this event
and supported Sean's elaborate and energetic narratives by laughing and
making small comic interventions which buttressed the line which Sean was
taking. Although they were subordinate to Sean, the individuals in the bar
actively contributed to the collective memory which Sean wanted to
communicate.
The brief intervention of Sean's subordinates in the bar highlights an
important social process which is integral to the creation of collective memory.
The meaning of exclusive social intercourse must be established in collective
memory if future collective action is to be enjoined but the process of
establishing a collective memory is itself an important form of exclusive social
interaction. More specifically, the discussion in the bar constituted a
Goffmanesque 'Interaction Ritual' in which an emotional charge was created
between Sean and the other fans. As Collins has noted, in the course of
interaction rituals, 'the mutual focus of attention and shared mood
cumulatively intensify. Bodily motions, speech acts, and vocal microfrequencies become attuned into a shared rhythm' (Collins, 2000: 22-23). As
a result of this effervescence, the participants' 'relationship becomes
symbolized by whatever they focused on during the ritual interaction' and
these 'symbols are charged with social meaning' (Collins, 2000: 23). In the
increasingly euphoric exchanges in the bar, Sean's interpretation of the fight
was invested with intense social significance. The collective memory of the
previous evenings fight became inseparably fused with the social solidarity
estabhshed between the individuals in the bar and was inscribed powerfully
into the minds and, indeed, the bodies of those present. This new collective
memory embodied the intensity of interaction ritual in which it was established,
viscerally symbolising the social relations between the members of the group in
that bar. As a result, to act against the principles of hooligan honour
established by Sean in the collective memory of this group was not merely to
Cv The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

577

Anthony King

renege on an abstract code of honour but directly to betray those other

individuals in the bar who had participated in a powerful ritual. Since the
collective memory was inseparable from the social group which had created it,
this memory inculcated a tangible sense of honour and shame which was a
powerful inducement to collective action.
The negotiation of collective memory
The collective memory which Sean successfully established in the bar
highlighted the theme of hooligan honour. However, since his version of
events was accepted immediately by those who heard him, it provides a
simplified account of the way in which collective memory is usually established.
Given Sean's status, individuals in the bar accepted his interpretation of the
incident at the Velodrome, contributing in important though minor ways to
this interpretation. Typically, the creation a collective memory is more
complex, involving negotiation between individuals of similar status rather
than imposition from above and consent from below. In particular, by
promoting their interpretation of past intercourse as the collective memory,
individuals make important status claims, where they try to assert or promote
their position in the group's hierarchy. Different versions of past fights have
implications for the status of individuals in the group hierarchy. Consequently,
there is negotiation and contestation between different accounts which
promote certain individuals above others. This negotiation between alternative
interpretations determines which collective memory will be finally accepted by
the group.
Bourdieu's discussion of honour among the Kabyle of Algeria is pertinent
in this context. In a pregnant phrase, Bourdieu has noted that Kabylian
honour 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 in
each individual case what constitutes honourable action by reference to broad
shared understandings. These broad understandings highlight certain general
practices as honourable but, in the final instance, honour is defined only
through public agreement when the group calls individuals to order. Honour
is established by public agreement between the men of the Kabyle and is
never any more than this temporary agreement. Bourdieu emphasises this
point in his discussion of gift exchange. There, he argues that individuals are
not cultural dupes fulfilling systemic requirements but virtuosi who
consistently manipulate group norms in line with their own interests
(Bourdieu, 1977: 9). Consequently, the system of exchange never takes the
form of an inexorable mathematical equation as Levi-Strauss wrongly
assumed but is never more than an uncertain web of negotiable and
unfinished political relations between skilled individuals. Similarly, a group's
status honour, established in the collective memory, is only ever a temporary
political 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 sufficient

status to challenge Sean's interpretation. The other fans actively consented to
his interpretation and a collective memory was easily agreed upon which was
in line with Sean's interpretation.
In other discussions of the fight, consent to Sean's interpretation was not so
forthcoming and, at that point, the role of public negotiation between
individuals in the creation of collective memory became especially clear. Then,
the uncertain process of negotiation between individuals which Bourdieu
highlighted became apparent. Over breakfast, Sean and a well-known hooligan
from Salford discussed the previous evening's events. The Salford hooligan
asked Sean who else had been involved in the fight and whether Sean had been
knocked down when he had been hit by the seat. These were apparently
innocuous questions but their implications were serious. Significantly, at the
Velodrome, the firm, with the Salford hooligan prominent among them, did
not become involved in the scuffle with the stewards but gathered moodily in
dark jackets, higher up the terrace. Interestingly, unlike the masculine fans at
the bottom of the terrace, they had ignored the obscene gestures of the
Marseilles fans and had not even attempted to throw any missiles back at them,
presumably because they thought it dishonourable to exchange in ultimately
hollow challenges which could not be decided through direct physical
confrontation. They wanted to avoid the potentially emasculating gestures
into which the Blades accidentally fell when they 'attacked' the pub in which
certain Owls were drinking without having any real intention of entering it.
Significantly, Sean had left this group unilaterally, descending the terrace alone
to separate the stewards from the United fans. Somewhat uncertainly Sean
replied to the Salford hooligan that he was the only recognised hooligan
involved in the fight and he said that the others with him were 'barmies', that is
masculine fans who are not a committed part of the hooligan firm though
wilhng to engage in violence if necessary. This admission was problematic
because it questioned Sean's involvement in the fight. It was potentially
dishonourable for a serious hooligan to become involved with non-hoohgans in
a confrontation of this scale; it was not serious enough to merit their attention
and 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 been
knocked down, though he reduced the damage of this confession by claiming
that it was not the blow itself but the steep steps of the terrace which had
unbalanced him.
The Salford hooligan framed the incident in terms of group's status honour
which highlighted the necessity of legitimate violence against equals in order to
protect the integrity of the group. However, his interpretation of the event was
notably different. For him, Sean had potentially unmanned himself by his
involvement in the fight. It was not a serious enough confrontation to merit the
attention of the firm and Sean had been knocked out in it. Sean had not
defended his own honour nor that of the firm by violently imposing himself on
the stewards but, on the contrary, they, who were not of sufficient status to
C) The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

579

Anthony King

merit assault, had successfully attacked him. On the Salford hooligan's

interpretation, Sean had not embodied the central values of the hooligan firm
but substantially breached them and, if the firm were to remember the
Velodrome at all, the fight there did not vindicate their values but only
highlighted that this was the kind of confrontation from which no honour
could be won. The question of whether any other members of the firm had
been involved in the fight illustrates Bourdieu's point that honour is not
established by a priori principle but by intersubjective agreement - by 'calls to
order' from the group. The final tribunal of honour among United hooligan
firm is not determined by the logic of some formal rules but rather by the
agreement reached by members of a firm, as individuals. In the course of this
negotiation, individuals of greater status are likely to have a greater influence
over the decisions of this tribunal. In particular, the definition of correct action
will normally and conveniently refiect what senior members of the firm have
actually done. If they were involved in a certain kind of practice, then the
practice is likely to be established in the collective memory as honourable but if
they were not, then it is likely to be seen as shaming. Even though he was an
individual of very high status in the group, acting alone and without others of
similar status, Sean had to be called to order in this particular case because he
acted alone. Yet, Sean's actions were not wrong per se. There is no formula
which automatically defines honourable or dishonourable action and, in the
bar, he could provide a convincing rationale for them. However, in the context
of the non-involvement of the rest of the hooligan firm, his actions became
dishonourable and inappropriate. The Salford hooligan promoted a very
different interpretation as the appropriate collective memory of the fight at the
Velodrome,
Significantly, in a later discussion Sean more or less admitted that the
interpretation, at which the Salford hooligan had hinted, was the 'correct'
one. On a subsequent trip to Benidorm in March 2000, when I raised the topic
of the Velodrome, Sean quietly and briefly confided to me that he should
have taken 'more people' down with him to the fight; he should have solicited
the support of other recognised members of the hooligan firm. The
implication was that in this way he would probably have avoided injury
but, more importantly, he would also have legitimated his actions as well.
Even if he had been injured, the injury would not have been dishonourably
gained in a demeaning scuffle but an honourable badge of courage earned
alongside his peers and in defence of them. Although it cannot be taken as
incontrovertible proof, it seems that for all his efforts in the bar, Sean had
finally agreed upon an interpretation of events which accorded with the more
senior members of the hooligan firm like the Salford hooligan. He had
renegotiated his own individual memory in hne with the interpretations of
other the senior members of the hooligan firm. Moreover, corroborating the
Salford hooligan's interpretation of the Velodrome incident and his
acceptance of it, Sean repeatedly denied that the wound had hurt him. Given
the 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 strategy
of incident-denial
which
Goffman
famously
noted
(Goffman,
1972: 12,16, 17,18). He maintained a fiction about the wound in order to
minimise the threat it posed to his face.
Sean's altered interpretation of the Velodrome incident demonstrates the
susceptibility of individual memory to collective pressure for Sean's claim that
he should have taken others down with him strongly suggests that even he, an
individual of the highest status in this group, re-formulated the meaning of his
own original interpretation of the events in line with the group's collective
memory. There are clear practical reasons why an individual, like Sean, would
want re-configure his own memory in this way. If an individual wishes to
remain a member of a group it is simply pointless clinging to a version of events
which is at odds with wider group understandings. Even if they are factually
correct, an individual will be shamed and finally excluded from the group if
they persist publicly in holding antithetical versions of events since alternative
memories enjoin different social action with serious implications for the group.
Thus, Sean could have maintained that he had acted appropriately but if his
equals in the hooligan firm rejected this line, he was threatened with loss of face
for the very reason that he no longer operated according to the notions of
honour recognised by the wider group. In order to sustain his position in this
group, it was actually necessary for him to consent to the collective
understanding which emerged and to accept that on this occasion he might
have acted inappropriately.
The dominance of collective memory over individual memory is not simply a
matter of political expediency, however. Individual memories are ontologically
susceptible to re-interpretation in line with emergent collective accounts
because memories exist only at the level of the imagination. Memories are
internal mental phenomenon with no external existence. Consequently,
memories can be recalled only in the light of present circumstances which
necessarily alters their significance. Memories do not remain pristine, therefore,
but undergo permanent transformation as they are drawn upon in different
ways in alternative circumstances. Since they must be drawn upon in different
ways and they have no external referent to fix them, the original memory can
never be recovered. Even if the original image remains, it will be impossible to
recover its original significance. Crucially, the social group of which an
individual is part overwhelmingly provides the framework in which any
memory is given meaning. As Halbwachs argues, collective memory makes
individual memory stable and 'real'.
There is no point in seeking where they [memories] are preserved in my brain
or in some nook of my mind to which I alone have access: for they are
recalled to me externally, and the groups of which I am a part at any time
give me the means to reconstruct them, upon condition, to be sure, that I
turn 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 finally

determine the specific meaning of any particular memory. Although
Halbwachs does not discuss the process by which a collective memory
dominates over individual memories, the interaction ritual plays a key role
here. In the intense discussions about the meaning of social interaction, certain
memories are invested with weighty social significance. These collective
memories become sacred and compelling for the individual because they are
intimately associated with the social relations between the individuals in the
group. The intensity of the interaction ritual overwhelms individual recollection with the collective memory which is infused with the communal
effervescence produced in these periods. Thus, in the bar individual memories
of the fight at the Velodrome were subordinated to the collective memory which
arose out of visceral social exchange between Sean and the other fans. Similarly,
Sean's own individual memory was finally susceptible to the same interactive
process because the negative emotional power of his exchange with the Salford
hooligan impelled him to recreate a new memory for himself. His personal
memory was embarrassing and, consequently, Sean renounced that shameful
personal recollection, committing himself to the honourable collective one.
Conclusion
The establishment of common memories about fights like the one at the
Velodrome by hooligan groups are socially necessary. If an interaction were
interpreted only individualistically, each silently deciding on a private meaning,
no communal understanding would be established nor would future collective
action be engendered. Violence as a form of exclusive social intercourse would
not serve the critical role which Weber highlighted. Social intercourse creates
group solidarity only when a group recognises the importance of this social
intercourse to itself. If no collective memory is publicly established about a
form of social intercourse, this intercourse would be irrelevant to group
solidarity and, if collective memories ceased to be invoked in relation to this
intercourse, the group would begin to fragment into a mere collection of
individuals whose interactions are ultimately meaningless. In order to affirm
the solidarity of the group with a communal code of conduct, individuals have
to establish a common memory whereby the meaning of their social intercourse
and the practices it prescribes are recognised.
However, even though individuals are highly susceptible to group pressure
and 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 necessarily
fade and will be re-interpreted according to that individual's particular social
circumstances away from the group. Consequently, as Durkheim famously
demonstrated (1964), because of the erosion of the collective memory as
individuals pursue their profane activities away from the group, the group must
582

<: The Editorial Board of The Sociological Review 2001

Violent pasts

periodically gather together and re-affirm their collective memory. At this

point, the process begins again and individuals proffer interpretations of the
past which promote their own status. At the end of this process of negotiation
between virtuosi a genuinely collective memory emerges that rectifies the
process of individualistic fission which will have occurred in the profane
period. After an interaction ritual, individuals will be infused with the collective
memory (estabhshed by heightened exchanges between individuals) but, the
moment that interaction ritual ends, individual ideas arising from difference
social positions away from the group can immediately corrupt that 'sacred'
object. Although the fight of the Velodrome is likely to be completely forgotten
by the hooligan firm because of its small-scale, since the periodic recreation of
collective memory is inevitable, Sean's acceptance of the Salford hooligan's
interpretation is not final. Were the fight to be discussed again, Sean might be
able to establish the interpretation of the fight which he promoted in the bar as
the collective memory. In different circumstances, Sean might be able to
demonstrate that he had, in fact, acted honourably and that, by contrast, his
peers were dishonoured by their failure to descend the terrace to support Sean's
initiative. Collective memory must be periodically re-affirmed and each new
affirmation presents opportunities to the virtuosi in the group to re-interpret
the past in line with their interests.
The examination of the role of collective memory among violent fans has, of
course, much wider sociological relevance. In order to maintain their
coherence, all social groups must establish collective memories about their
interactions. Thus, shared memories may be very different from Sean's
description of the United fans' fight with the stewards since different groups
may have very different forms of status honour but the process whereby social
groups publicly establish a common memory is general, if not universal. The
story-telling which follows a violent confrontation by hooligans parallels the
dissections which follow on the morning after parties, where groups of friends
affirm their relationships by establishing common memories of their ecstatic
experiences. Indeed, the same attempt to establish a common memory in the
minds of the social group is enacted in the most formal settings. Thus, the
laying of wreaths at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday constitutes a
recognisably similar social phenomenon in which individuals who consider
themselves to be British establish a common understanding of the significance
of past wars to this society.'^ The establishment of common memories is crucial
to all social groups but it is not automatic. Memories must be called forth
publicly but since they can only be re-lived through contemporary consciousness they also undergo constant though often slow transformation, as their
periodic resurrection is inevitably influenced by new circumstances. As
Gadamer has noted (1975), it is through this re-creation of past-memories
within the horizon of the present that the future is formed for the future is the
outcome of those actions which individuals perform in the present informed by
shared understandings, embedded in memory. The future of hooligan gangs
and 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 their
public affirmation of shared memories in their interactions with each other.
University of Exeter

Received 12 April 2000

Finally accepted 19 July 2001

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the ESRC for funding the research project, 'Football and Post-National Identity in
the 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 anonymous
referees and Sharon Macdonald at The Sociological Review for their comments on an earlier draft
of it.

Notes
1 This account is based on fieldwork carried out among Manchester United supporters as part of a
wider 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 November
2000. 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 both
at United and among other hooligan firms. Having travelled to Marseilles, Bordeaux, Benidorm
and 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 be
inappropriate for me to record our discussions by tape or with a notepad while he is talking since
this would undermine my credibility with him. The brief quotations from him are taken from
fieldnotes.
3 In a recent work, Garry Robson has briefly discussed the role of collective memory among
Millwall fans (Robson, 2000: 9) but, drawing on Bourdieu's concept ofthe habitus, he argues for
an essentialist account of collective memory which is directly opposed to the arguments proposed
here.
4 Providing an interesting parallel to the hooligan firm, Weber argues that a nation is a social
group 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