Response to Apathy Sketchpad on "Scum"

( Original post on Apathy Sketchpad concerning the use of the word "scum" amongst football rivals here: http://bit.ly/p87Vuc - NB: I think Andrew Taylor is an excellent blogger, and strongly recommend you give Apathy Sketchpad a read)

You make a good point, but I’m not sure I agree.

Firstly, let me tell you why part of me is inclined to concur. One night a year or two ago I was out drinking with a friend, who had invited a friend of his along. This friend-of-a-friend was a fan of Portsmouth, or Southampton – I can’t really remember, as I’d been drinking and as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t really matter which.

Talk got down to football (as it often does amongst young men who don’t really know much about one another and haven’t much else to talk about) and somewhere along the way this fellow let slip his utter, undying hatred for anyone from his rival town. Sensing a bit of drunken hyperbole, I explained that I, as a Spurs fan, had a similar ‘hatred’ for Arsenal fans, but outside the footballing arena, knew a couple who were good friends and who I wouldn’t wish ill of, besides a thorough drubbing from my team of choice whenever we faced off. Indeed, at the risk of falling into the “some of my best friends are immigrants…” rhetoric, I emphasised that I have no ill feeling towards any Arsenal fans outside of football, and feel that the rivalry is simply a convenient way of expressing the fundamental tribalism human beings are innately prone to, without anyone getting hurt in any meaningful way (leaving aside stories of people around the world killing themselves and/or others after matches, which only goes to emphasise the dangers of people taking that tribalism too seriously). Obviously, I was a bit drunk, so I doubt my argument was quite so succinct, but I think I made my point reasonably coherently.

Unfortunately, my fellow football fan disagreed completely. His rivals had deeply wronged the people of his town, and he could barely bring himself to draw breath when he drove through their town, much less consider that its people might be anything other than the very worst humanity has to offer. I countered that Arsenal had deeply wronged Tottenham in a very real way (the root of the animosity being first Arsenal’s ‘invasion’ of North London in 1913, escalated by their arguably unfair – albeit democratic – election to the First Division ahead of Spurs in 1919) and that while I’d burn a ‘Gooner’ shirt rather than wear one (even if I had to pay for it if I burned it, or got the money if I wore it – which I thought was quite a decent bit of jeopardy construction in my drunken state), I had the common sense to accept that present-day Arsenal fans had nothing to do with the events of nearly a century ago, and were at any rate mostly fans by accident rather than design, and thus not responsible for anything to do with their club. I was told I was wrong, our rivalry bore no comparison (I tried to argue that all rivals consider their rivalry more pure and valid than anyone else’s, but was shouted down) and the bile and indignation escalated until I was forced to concede that I could not change his mind, and so somehow shifted the topic to music, in the hope he wouldn’t get so wound up about the bands he disliked.

The whole episode shook my faith in the idea that football is these days rather benign. Here was a man for whom reason departed utterly where football was concerned, for whom dogmatic prejudice was as deeply ingrained as a fundamentalist. A grown, married young man who seemed genuine in his assertion that he would disown (and so would presumably at least consider such a course of action) any child of his who struck up a relationship with the “scum”.

So I’ve no doubt that idiots exist, for whom words like “scum” resonate with the fullest, deepest of meanings, and for whom such vocabulary reinforces a sense of consensus around their irrational loathing of people they know nothing about. I’ve no doubt some such people take to violence and hooliganism, and I’ve no doubt innocent people occasionally get hurt as a result.

But I still don’t agree that the word should be stigmatised. First up, I stand by my view that football satisfies our tribalistic urges, and I think that’s a healthy thing for most people. Even Airstrip One knew the value of a two minutes hate. Uniting in (for most people a pantomime of) hatred against some other people serves as a useful release of pent up frustrations, and instils a sense of both togetherness and being part of something bigger than oneself (yes, there are other routes to that feeling, but it’s not inherently a bad one). Secondly, I’m not convinced it’s such an awful word. It’s not a nice one, referring to something worthless and dirty (I don’t have an OED subscription, and my copy is not to hand to check the full definition, but as far as I know, there aren’t many meanings to the word) or else semen (as in scumbag>condom), but it’s by no means a monstrous, hideous slur that confers some horrible fate upon its recipient (I’m not convinced any words are, although words such as nigger and cunt are often hauled out as irredeemably awful arrays of letters – I’d argue they’re just words that have gained deeply negative associations, and no more likely to inflict actual hurt as words in themselves as any other; scum, for instance… That’s not to say I’d use them except in very particular contexts and circumstances, but still). Take away scum, and those who wish to express deep loathing will simply commandeer another slur (or make one up). The feeling will not be cured by removing its means of expression.

Perhaps it would be better if we focussed on finding ways to ensure (or at least encourage) media outlets (from Sky to twitter users) make some effort to avoid the senseless binary opposition evoked whenever rivals square off on the football field – we could start with a bit more dialogue between rival fans, some genuine banter rather than the usual laddish sparring.

At any rate, it’s an interesting debate – typically thought-provoking stuff from you.