Football Hooliganism Revisited: A Belated Reply to Patrick Murphy, Eric Dunning and Joseph Maguire

Abstract

In the light of the republication of my original article on ‘Football hooliganism in England before 1914’ in the volume Sports History: Critical Concepts, edited by Wray Vamplew and published by Routledge in 2014, I offer here a belated reply to the counter-critique of my arguments given by Patrick Murphy, Eric Dunning and Joseph Maguire in their article in the International Journal of the History of Sport in 1998. I regard this debate as still relevant to the academic discussion of the history of association football, particularly the concern about the social and historical origins of football hooliganism within an English context, despite the topic being rather less fashionable than it once was. I believe that my original article, and this reply to Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, make a contribution to the ongoing debate within sports history over the relevance of using particular forms of sociological theory (in this case, Norbert Elias' concept of a ‘civilising process’ operating in European history from the middle ages) to explain historical phenomenon. This paradigm, it is argued, distorts the historical interpretation of sport by the use of such a priori sociological arguments.

(Sportgeschichte: kritische Konzepte), herausgegeben von Wray Vamplew und veröffentlicht von Routledge im Jahr 2014, führe ich hier eine verspätete Antwort auf die Gegenkritik an, die Patrick Murphy, Eric Dunning und Joseph Maguire in ihrem Artikel im ”International Journal of the History of Sport“ im Jahr 1998 zu meinen Argumenten gegeben haben. Ich halte diese Debatte noch immer für relevant für die akademische Diskussion über die Geschichte des Fußballs, insbesondere das Interesse an den sozialen und historischen Ursprüngen des Fußball-Hooliganismus in einem englischen Kontext, obwohl das Thema weniger in Mode ist, als es einmal war. Ich glaube, dass mein Original-Artikel und diese Antwort an Murphy, Dunning und Maguire einen Beitrag zur laufenden Debatte in der Sportgeschichte über die Relevanz der Verwendung bestimmter Formen der soziologischen Theorie (in diesem Fall Norbert Elias’ Konzept eines “zivilisatorischen Prozesses”, der in der europäischen Geschichte seit dem Mittelalter verkehrt) zur Erklärung historischer Phänomene leisten. Dieses Paradigma, so wird argumentiert, verzerrt durch die Verwendung eines solch vornehmlich soziologischen Arguments die historische Interpretation des Sports.

A raíz de la reedición de mi artículo sobre “Hooliganismo en el fútbol en Inglaterra antes de 1914” en el libro Sports history: critical concepts, editado por Wray Vamplew (Routledge, 2014), presento aquí una respuesta tardía a la crítica que hicieron a mis argumentos Patrick Murphy, Eric Dunning y Joseph Maguire en el artículo que publicaron en 1998 en el International Journal of the History of Sport. Considero que este debate todavía es académicamente para la historia del fútbol, en especial la cuestión de los orígenes sociales e históricos del hooliganismo en el fútbol en el contexto inglés, a pesar de que el tema no esté tan de moda como tiempo atrás. Creo que mi artículo, y esta respuesta a Murphy, Dunning y Maguire, suponen una contribución al debate que se está desarrollando actualmente en la historiografía del deporte sobre la importancia de determinadas formas de teoría sociológica (en este caso, la idea de Norbert Elias de que la historia europea desde la Edad Media estaría marcada por un “proceso civilizatorio”) para explicar fenómenos históricos. Mi punto de vista es que este paradigma distorsiona la interpretación histórica del deporte, al utilizar argumentos sociológicos apriorísticos de ese tipo.

A la lumière de la réédition de mon premier article sur ‘Le hooliganisme dans le football en Angleterre avant 1914’ dans l'ouvrage Histoire des sports: concepts critiques, dirigé par Wray Vamplew et publié par Routledge en 2014, j'adresse ici une réponse tardive à la critique de mes arguments faite par Patrick Murphy, Eric Dunning et Joseph Maguire dans leur article paru dans l'International Journal of the History of Sport en 1998. J'estime que ce débat est encore pertinent aujourd'hui pour l'étude universitaire de l'histoire du football, en particulier l'intérêt que l'on porte aux origines historiques et sociales du hooliganisme en Angleterre, même si ce sujet est moins d'actualité qu'à une certaine époque. Je crois que mon article original et cette réponse à Murphy, Dunning et Maguire apportent une contribution au débat actuel en histoire du sport, sur la pertinence de certaines théories sociologiques (dans ce cas, le concept de « processus de civilisation » de Norbert Elias tout au long de l'histoire européenne depuis le Moyen-âge) pour expliquer un phénomène historique. Nous soutenons ici que ce paradigme déforme l'interprétation historique du sport par l'usage de tels a priori sociologiques.

Devido à republicação de meu artigo original sobre “O hoologanismo no futebol na Inglaterra antes de 1914”, no volume Sports History: critical concepts, organizado por Wray Vamplew e publicado pela Routledge em 2014, ofereço aqui uma resposta tardia às réplicas a meus argumentos dadas por Patrick Murphy, Eric Dunning e Joseph Maguire em seu artigo no International Journal of the History of Sport em 1998. Considero esse debate como ainda sendo relevante para a discussão acadêmica sobre a história do futebol, especialmente no que se refere às origens históricas e sociais do hooliganismo no contexto europeu, ainda que o tema esteja menos em voga do que em outros tempos. Acredito que meu artigo original, e esta resposta a Murphy, Dunning e Maguire, sejam uma contribuição ao debate em andamento na história do esporte, sobre a relevância do uso do formas particulares de teoria sociológica (nesse caso, o conceito de Norbert Elias de um “processo civilizador” em operação na história europeia desde a Idade Média) para explicar o fenômeno histórico. Esse paradigma, é argumentado, distorce a interpretação histórica do esporte pelo uso de tais argumentos sociológicos a priori.

2014 年由乌雷·范普鲁编辑并由劳特利奇出版的新书《体育历史：批判的概念》收录了作者之前的论文“ 1914 年前的英格兰足球流氓”。本文中作者对帕特里克·墨菲、埃里克·邓宁和约瑟夫·马奎尔发表于 1998 年国际体育史杂志上的论文中针对作者之前批判观点所进行的反批判给予了回应。尽管这些主题已经远不如当初那么时尚，但作者仍将这场辩论视做与足球历史有关的学术讨论，特别是对英国足球流氓的社会和历史起源的关注。作者相信，他的原作和此次给墨菲、邓宁和马奎尔的回复，将对这场关于在体育史领域运用独特的社会学理论解释历史现象的辩论做出贡献（在这里，指运用诺伯特·埃利亚斯的“文明的进程”概念分析从中世纪以来的欧洲历史）。但也有人质疑，这种范式使用先验的社会学论证扭曲了对体育进行史学阐释的本意。

拙稿「１９１４年以前のイングランドにおけるサッカーのフーリガニズム」が、２０１４にラウトレッジ社から刊行されるレイ・ヴァンプリュー編『 Sport History: Critical Concept 』に再録されるのを期に、１９９８年の International Journal of the History of Sport 誌の論文で、パトリック・マーフィ、エリック・ダニング及びジョセフ・マグワイアが行った拙稿への再批判に対する返答を遅ればせながら行う。この議論は、サッカーの歴史に関する学術論議にとって今でも重要であると考える。とりわけ、イングランドの文脈におけるサッカーフーリガニズムの社会的歴史的発生に対する関心は、かつてほど流行のトピックではなくなったにしろ、未だ重要である。私の原論文及びマーフィ、ダニング、マグワイアの三人に対するこの返答は、歴史的現象を説明する上である種の社会学的理論（この場合は、中世以降のヨーロッパ史を舞台としたノルベルト・エリアスの『文明化の過程』の概念）を用いることの意義をめぐる、スポーツ史研究の中で今も続く議論に寄与するであろう。本稿は、このパラダイムがそうしたアプリオリな社会学的議論を用いることで、スポーツの歴史的解釈を歪めていることを主張するものである。

Keywords::

• association football
• soccer
• hooliganism
• England
• Leicester school
• civilising process

Notes

^1.Lewis, “Football Hooliganism in England”; Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder”; Dunning, Murphy and Williams, The Roots of Football Hooliganism, (hereafter Roots), chapters 1–4; Murphy, Williams and Dunning, Football on Trial, chapter 3; Maguire, “The Limits of Decent Partisanship”; Maguire, “The Emergence of Football Spectating”; Dunning et al., “Football Hooliganism in Britain”; Tranter, Sport, Economy and Society, 47; Taylor, The Association Game, 153; and Giulianotti, Football, 44, 47.

^2.Vamplew, Sports History.

^3.Lewis, “The Development of Professional Football”; Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 141.

^4.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 141; Dunning, Murphy and Williams, Roots, 1.

^5.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 141, 148; Dunning, Murphy and Williams, Roots, 239.

^6.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 144; Wilson, “Cleaning Up the Game,” 68; Clarke, “Figuring a Brighter Future,” 209–11; and Hargreaves, “Sex, Gender and the Body,” 162, 176.

^7.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 145; Dunning, Murphy and Williams, Roots, 57, cover.

^8.Dunning, Murphy and Williams, Roots, 72–3; Athletic News, January 10, 1888; and Birmingham Gazette, January 9, 1888.

^9.Dunning, Murphy and Williams, Roots, 69–70; Birmingham Post, February 11, 1902; and Leicester Mercury, December 18, 1900.

^10.Dunning, Murphy and Williams, Roots, 71; Handsworth Herald, November 8, 1890; Bygones Relating to Wales and the Border Counties, VIII, 1899, 88, quoted in Marples, A History of Football, 173; and FA Emergency Committee Minutes, October 20–November 18, 1908.

^11.Dunning, Murphy and Williams, Roots, 241–2.

^12.Lewis, “Football Hooliganism in England,” 316, note 15; Leicester Daily Mercury, April 7, 1900, quoted in Maguire, “The Limits of Decent Partisanship,” 270; and Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 146, notes 34, 35.

^13.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 147, notes 37, 38; Tranter, “The Cappielow Riot.”

^14.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 147–8, note 41; Lewis, “Football Hooliganism in England,” 317–8.

^15.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 145, note 30; Lewis, “Football Hooliganism in England,” 318–9.

^16.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 148–9, note 44; Lewis, “Football Hooliganism in England,” 319–32.

^17.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 149–50, note 45; Mann and Pearce, “Social Psychology of the Sports Spectator,” 191–3; Mann, “Sports Crowds Viewed from the Perspective”; Smith, “Precipitants of Crowd Violence”; and Smith, “Sports and Collective Violence.”

^18.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 150, note 46.

^19. Ibid., 151, notes 47, 48.

^20. Ibid., 151; Carr, What is History?

^21.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 152, notes 49, 50; Dunning, “The Social Roots of Football Hooliganism,” 150–1.

^22.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 152, notes 51, 52, 53.

^23. Ibid., 152, notes 54, 55; Mann and Pearce, “Social Psychology of the Sports Spectator,” 191.

^24.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 153, note 56.

^25. Ibid., 153–4, notes 57, 58.

^26. Ibid., 154, notes 60, 61.

^27.Maguire, “The Limits of Decent Partisanship,” 237–8.

^28.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 155, note 62.

^29. Ibid., 158, note 65.

^30. Ibid., 158. See, however, Geoffrey Barraclough's review of Elias’ Civilizing Process in New York Review of Books, October 21, 1982 and June 16, 1983, in which he criticises it as ‘mechanistic’ and as ‘clockwork history’ which demonstrates ‘top heavy sociological theorizing’.

^31.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 158.

^32. Ibid., 159.

^33.Dunning and Rojek, Sport and Leisure, vii, xv; Mennell, “The Contribution of Eric Dunning,” 26; Rojek, “The Field of Play,” 16, 24, 28; Hargreaves, “Sex, Gender and the Body,” 162; and Clarke, “Figuring a Brighter Future,” 209.

^34.Bairner, “The Leicester School,” 82, 89, 98; Giulianotti, Football, 46–7; Clarke, “Figuring a Brighter Future,” 204, 206, 208, 217; Hargreaves, Review of Football on Trial, 881; and Giulianotti, “Social Identity and Public Order,” 16, 17.

^35.Finn, “Football Violence,” 90–101, 102–4; Frosdick and Marsh, Football Hooliganism, 25–6, 28, 31, 32–3, 35–8.

^36.Dunning, Murphy and Waddington, “Towards a Sociological Understanding of Football Hooliganism.”; Dunning, “The Social Roots of Football Hooliganism,” 129, 135; Dunning, Sport Matters, 13, 152; Spaaij, “Aspects of Hooligan Violence,” 3, 10, 13, 31; Stokvis, “Sport and Civilization”; and Dunning, “Figurational Sociology and the Sociology of Sport,” 273.

^37.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 159; Dunning, Sport Matters; and Maguire, “Common Ground?,” 8, 17.

^38.Murphy, Dunning and Maguire, “Football, Spectator Violence and Disorder,” 159, notes 66, 67, 68, 69; Collins, “History, Theory and the ‘Civilizing Process’.”; Curry, Dunning and Sheard, “Sociological versus Empiricist History.”; Dunning, “Something of a Curate's Egg.”; Dunning and Curry, “The Curate's Egg Scrambled Again.”; Harvey, “A Curate's Egg Pursued by Red Herrings.”; Harvey, “The Curate's Egg Put Back Together.”; Harvey, “An Epoch in the Annals of National Sport.”; and Vamplew, “Empiricist Versus Sociological History.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Robert Lewis

Robert Lewis formerly worked for Manchester Archives and Local Studies, but has since retired and is now an independent scholar. He has published several articles on the history of association football in England, and written contributions to various books and sporting encyclopaedias. His article on ‘Football Hooliganism in England before 1914’, originally published in the International Journal of the History of Sport in 1996, is due to be republished in 2014 in Sports History: Critical Concepts, edited by Wray Vamplew for Routledge.