Subculture of Football Supporters
Hopefully the riots that occurred at the Kanjuruhan Stadium will be the last riot that tarnishes sportsmanship in our beloved country.
The tragedy of the deaths of at least 125 supporters and police at Kanjuruhan Stadium, Malang, raises a big question: what exactly should be done to prevent the recurrence of supporters’ anarchism?
Why is it that a football match, which is supposed to uphold sportsmanship, is often tainted by shameful, even anarchistic actions by supporters?
So far, the efforts to manage the behavior of supporters who tend to be anarchistic are generally seen within the framework of crowd behavior. Riot is considered as part of an aggressive action carried out by a destructive crowd. Supporters who act destructively are considered to be equivalent to a crowd that is out of control; triggered by the spontaneous actions of one or two individuals, others are then stimulated to imitate them.
Why is it that a football match, which is supposed to uphold sportsmanship, is often tainted by shameful, even anarchistic actions by supporters?
From the perspective of classical sociology, it is understood that the behavior of supporters who lose control is analogous to crowd behaviour during a spontaneous outburst of a disillusioned group. In a crowd, what happens is interactional amplification, which is a process by which members stimulate and respond to each other so that their emotional intensity and responsiveness increase.
Understanding the actions of supporters as equivalent to that of an out-of-control crowd not only simplifies the root problem behind the occurrence of supporters' anarchism, but also fosters an inappropriate response and approach to management. Understanding the actions of supporters as an expression of the subculture of young and marginalized people can help us understand the supporters’ anarchism in a manner at once contextual and complete.
Subculture
From the perspective of cultural studies, “subculture” refers to the whole way of life or “map of meaning” that makes the world understandable to its members. The prefix “sub” carries the connotation of a condition that is unique and different from the dominant (mainstream) society.
So, the term “authentic subculture” depends on this binary pair, namely the idea of a dominant culture or mainstream culture that is mass-produced and inauthentic. As Thornton (1997) argues, understanding the meaning of subculture lies in how access is placed on the differences between certain sociocultural groups and the wider society. Subcultures, in other words, are looked down on, and are seen as an “other” or from the perspective of difference.
To understand what is called a subculture -- including the subculture of supporters -- is inextricably linked to understanding the development of the society in which it emerged. In the context of modernity, as stated by Ken Gelder (2005), subculture is a concept about the difference between non-normative on the one hand and marginal on the other.
Also read:
> Tragedy
> Hopefully, It Will Be the Last Tragedy
In the history of modern society, explanations of subcultures tend to be associated with non-normative behavior and representations of marginality through special interests and practices: what is done, where it is done and what it does are outside the normal boundaries of society. In this early conceptualization, in the 1940s, the understanding of subcultures at that time helped researchers categorize people according to a number of social traits simultaneously (Gordon, 1947: 41).
The belief that underlies this definition is that a person's culture is directly related to membership in a particular demographic category, and it is assumed that all people who share certain social characteristics also share culture, namely values, beliefs and practices which then guide people regarding how to behave and present themselves.
Supporters who grow up in a habitus that places supporters of opposing groups as enemies unsurprisingly possess inexplicable hatred; moreover, they cannot easily understand the origin and evolution of such hatred. Revenge and dislike of the opposing team and supporters are one of the subcultures that mark and grow among football fans, such as Arema, Bonek and other supporters.
Deviate
If we trace backward in time, various theories about youth subculture that have developed to date are actually rooted in studies on subculture conducted in the United States since the 1920s.
The study of subcultures produced by the University of Chicago is part of the US tradition, when the population of Chicago doubled from 1860. With the aim of studying the growth of cities and their influence on social life and social problems, especially social disintegration, studies on the subculture of urban society began to develop.
Studies by experts from Mahzab Chicago (the Chicago School of Thought) have shed a lot of light on the deviations and pressures faced by society in the context of tremendous social change in major cities in the United States, especially Chicago. Research on urban subcultures developed by experts during that time focused more on non-normative aspects or deviations from collective behavior. Although it is not stated that their research is about subcultures, they are considered to be conducting subcultural research because ethically they aim to understand how people with cultural variations interact with each other.
Their research is generally directed at minorities, immigrants or the working poor who live in urban areas and who have the potential to create social problems and are therefore more likely to develop alternative cultures.
Also read:
> Football Excitement Ends in Deep Sorrow
The research on the origins of juvenile delinquency and its deviation by the Mahzab Chicago experts is important in explaining the social disfunction that occurred at Kanjuruhan Stadium. The most important assumption and finding of the Mahzab Chicago is that most patterns of criminal behavior are acquired during the criminals’ youth, and are not due to biological or psychological causes.
To summarize, a person commits deviant behavior or evil actions not because they are psychologically aggressive and evil, but rather because of the values and norms as well as the influence of their peer group when they were teenagers. Can you imagine what is going on in the minds of young people who from an early age have joined certain groups of supporters who teach hatred of opposing groups?
The hatred that accumulates and is constructed in the heads of the young people who support a certain team will undoubtedly appear automatically when their favorite team competes.
Among the prominent figures of the Mahzab Chicago was Albert Cohen. Cohen was a student of Robert K Merton who succeeded in spawning the monumental work, Delinquent Boys (1955). The concept of subculture developed by Cohen refers to the principle that all human actions are a continuation of efforts to solve problems. From this perspective, people would spend their time trying to solve mundane problems, such as how to ensure protection, sustenance and friendship.
For most people, the dominant culture provides solutions to this problem. For example, work provides income to meet food and shelter needs, while formal and informal activities provide opportunities to develop meaningful bonds with others.
Cohen also notes that not everyone has equal access to the means to solve problems. Everyone needs food and shelter, but some people struggle more than others to get it. Furthermore, Cohen also stated that a person's focal point regarding the problem is very important. People do not always decide to act the same way to get things done.
Cohen notes how young working-class men choose to solve problems in abnormal ways, i.e. via deviant or problematic behavior. Cohen's study shows how deviant behavior among the working poor can persist in the face of stress. This is especially seen in individuals from a lower-income bracket who are marginalized and try to find ways to overcome their tensions or problems, in order to blend in with the wider community.
According to Cohen, the frustration experienced by the urban poor due to their low social status has triggered a “formation reaction”, which causes them to reverse dominant cultural values and norms to legitimize certain actions.
Instead of working to meet the cultural goals of society (for example, working hard to gain respect from the general public), marginalized youth generally try to reverse these goals by deliberately not achieving them, for example by committing acts of vandalism to gain the respect of the equally marginalized people around them.
Young people are a "naughty" group who develop criminal behavior, always cause social problems and that it is necessary to find ways to solve them.
In the US, the study of subcultures was further developed in the 1960s and 1970s. Several concepts in the study of subcultures that emerged in the 1960s included “counterculture” and “contraculture” (Roberts 1978; Yinger 1960). In 1970, the discussion on subcultures was continued by David Arnold, who edited The Sociology of Subcultures, which mostly contained research on delinquency and gangs.
Most criminological research on subcultures has a paternalistic perspective so that policymakers consider youth subcultures to always be at risk (Carswell, 2007).
The view that emerges from this research on youth subcultures tends to be that young people are a "naughty" group who develop criminal behavior, always cause social problems and that it is necessary to find ways to solve them.
Deconstruct
The easiest ways to prevent the riots of football fans from recurring are by implementing a policy of banning football matches, increasing the number of officers during the match or organizing matches outside the area of the competing team to avoid the presence of too many supporters.
This method is clearly pragmatic and its effectiveness is undoubtedly temporary. If we agree to understand that supporters' anarchism is actually a representation of the resistance subculture and the subculture of marginalized communities, the strategy that should be developed is how to deconstruct that subculture, so that a new subculture can be reconstructed that is nonviolent and upholds sportsmanship.
Contestation is a necessity that young people need as a moment or space to show their social identity. The problem is that the contestation does not have the potential to become an anarchist action and only becomes an arena to vent feelings of disappointment if their favorite team or their ego is defeated by another party.
Being a fan does not have to mean being a blind supporter and developing blind loyalties. Being a supporter is an opportunity to encourage one’s favorite team to compete in a sportsmanlike manner and to be willing to train hard to achieve victory in the world of sports.
Hopefully the riots that occurred at the Kanjuruhan Stadium will be the last riot that tarnishes sportsmanship in our beloved country.
Rahma Sugihartati
Rahma Sugihartati, Professor of Information Science FISIP, Airlangga University; Writing a Dissertation and Books on Youth Subculture
This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswo.
