Sectarianism at football is about tribal solidarity, says academic
FOOTBALL fans chanting sectarian abuse are displaying “solidarity and fraternity” within their group rather than directing hatred at their rivals, according to a leading academic.
Dr Joseph Webster, an anthropologist of religion at Queen’s University, Belfast, believes sectarian chanting is “primarily for their own benefit, to validate their tribe”.
He claims the controversial law to tackle sectarianism in football fails to understand this “social reality” and is “unworkable”.
Dr Webster, who will be at tomorrow’s Old Firm match at Ibrox, said: “The assumption of those who railroaded the legislation through Parliament without proper scrutiny is that the sectarian misbehaviour surrounding certain football matches is all about rivalry, and a hatred of the other. But this isn’t the full picture.
“An exclusive focus on rivalry and hate completely ignores the equally important sectarian dynamics of solidarity and fraternity.”
The legislation was passed in 2011, but efforts to repeal it have since attracted cross-party support.
Labour MSP James Kelly, who is spearheading efforts to scrap the football act, insisted hateful behaviour was “unacceptable”. But he added: “It’s clear the Scottish Government don’t understand the issues here.
“They brought forward the original legislation with the idea they were tackling sectarianism, but they didn’t even define it in the act.
“If you look at the religious aggravation statistics for the last available year, there are 719 charges of which 46 are related to the Football Act.”
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “Singing songs about terrorism, mocking incidents involving loss of life and being hateful towards some of our most vulnerable communities with no regard for the impact is not acceptable in a modern Scotland.”
A CONTROVERSIAL law to tackle sectarianism in football has been branded a mess and should be scrapped because it fails to understand the “social reality” behind the conduct it seeks to ban.
A leading academic who carries out research on the behaviour of fans at Old Firm match days says the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act fails to understand that sectarian and other abusive behaviour is about cementing “solidarity and fraternity” within groups rather than directing hatred at their rivals.
Dr Joseph Webster, an anthropologist of religion at Queen’s University, Belfast who will be at tomorrow’s Old Firm match at Ibrox, says the Rangers and Celtic fans who behave badly will do so “primarily for their own benefit, to validate their tribe”.
Writing in today’s Herald, the academic compared rival football fans to “boys facing off in the playground” who are unwilling to throw a real punch. He said: “My suggestion is simple: the football act is such a mess because it completely fails to understand the social reality behind the behaviours it seeks to ban.
“The assumption of those who railroaded the legislation through Parliament without proper scrutiny is that the sectarian misbehaviour surrounding certain football matches is all about rivalry, and a hatred of the other. But this isn’t the full picture.
“An exclusive focus on rivalry and hate completely ignores the equally important sectarian dynamics of solidarity and fraternity.”
Dr Webster, who has attended Orange “social clubs” and shadowed Protestant flute bands as part of his anthropology research, said most sectarianism occurred in the absence of rival supporters or where fans were already strictly segregated.
He added that while the insults may well be “grossly offensive”, that is not their “primary purpose” as evidenced by the decrease of verbal sectarianism in public places such as train stations and town centres.
He said fans were much more interested in celebrating their own sense of belonging than what “the other tribe is doing”, and argued the football act is “unjustified, unworkable, and counterproductive”.
The controversial legislation was passed by the SNP when it had a Holyrood majority in 2011, but efforts to repeal it have since attracted cross-party support.
Dave Scott, campaign director for anti-sectarian charity Nil by Mouth, said it was important not to “excuse or legitimise this type of behaviour”, adding: “We wouldn’t do it with racism. Nor should we with sectarianism.”
One-third of all sectarian arrests each year are directly related to football and the poison that still emits from this fixture spills over into pubs, public spaces, homes and A&E wards right across the country. That’s the reality.”
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “Singing songs about terrorism, mocking incidents involving loss of life and being hateful towards some of our most vulnerable communities with no regard for the impact is not acceptable in a modern Scotland.”
THE Offensive Behaviour at Football Act is a bad piece of legislation. It’s unenforceable, counterproductive, and unjustified on free speech grounds. Iain Macwhirter, writing in this newspaper, rightly points out that “being unkind isn’t a crime”. I made this same case to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee.
The Billy Boys has some famously offensive lyrics, as do football chants which revel in the tragedy of the 1971 Ibrox disaster. But finding something offensive is not a good enough reason to make it illegal; such is the cost of a society which values freedom of expression more than freedom from offence. Yet, mass arrests of hundreds of Old Firm fans who will flout the Act during tomorrow’s match seems even less palatable. Thus, while free speech isn’t always pretty, it remains worthy of defence.
What if the case for repeal was made on different grounds? The Football Act should be scrapped because it completely fails to understand the social reality behind the behaviours it seeks to ban. The assumption of those who railroaded the legislation through Parliament is that football-related sectarianism is all about rivalry and a hatred of the other. But this completely ignores the equally important sectarian dynamics of solidarity and fraternity.
My research on Old Firm match days has revealed that the behaviours which the Act seeks to criminalise almost always occur either in the absence of rival fans (in supporters clubs), or where fans are already strictly segregated (in the stadium). Offensive behaviour at football is therefore an attempt to create intragroup cohesion and not inter-group rivalry. In shared spaces, as a result (on the streets or on public transport) such behaviours decrease dramatically. Offensive chanting is thus a collective performance engaged in by a group for themselves, as a demonstration of their own collective membership of that group.
Imagine two groups in the playground, readying themselves for a fight. Someone pushes to the front. He shuffles on the spot, barely moving forward an inch, while disingenuously hollering to his pals: “Hold me back! Hold me back!” His friends dutifully grab his outstretched arms, pulling him close, as he feigns to struggle against them. A few insults cross the battle lines, but soon the boys disperse. Not a single punch is thrown.
So it is with the vast majority of criminalised fans who, in reality, want nothing more than to be pulled back into the reassuring centre of their group. Their insults may be offensive but that is not their primary purpose. If it were, why would the strongest expressions of verbal sectarianism be offered in the absence of rival fans? And why would verbal sectarianism decrease so dramatically in shared public spaces, regardless of the presence or absence of police?
Tomorrow, as the Old Firm carnival unfolds, most Celtic and Rangers fans will not behave badly. Of those who will, these (mostly) young men will gather into (largely) homogenous and hermetically sealed groups to celebrate belonging to one of two tribes. They will shout and swear, sing vile songs, and unfurl insulting banners but they will do so primarily for their own benefit, to validate their tribe. What the other tribe is doing, both on and off the pitch, will be a sideshow to their own acts of collective affirmation.
The Football Act should be scrapped because it offers the wrong diagnosis: a diagnosis of acute, outward-looking, sectarian hate, when the real “condition” is actually chronic, inward-looking, selfabsorption. Since we can’t legislate our way out of the problem of boorishness, perhaps the Debrett’s A-Z of Modern Manners might offer a better way forward?
The behaviours the Act seeks to criminalise ... occur either in the absence of rival fans or where fans are already strictly segregated