In defence of 'foul
language'
There are some things that go together
naturally. I’m thinking here of bacon and eggs, Davis and Cox or a good pint of beer
and a packet of pork scratchings. Then there are the things that don’t, but always
seem to be lumped together anyway. There’s sex and violence, for example. Can’t
I be for sex and against violence? But then, I never could understand why Heath and
Robinson had to play together all those times. Now, it seems, Burnley FC is making another
misbegotten paring: racism and bad language.
The club has recently released a statement on
"foul and abusive language" at Turf Moor. It reads:
"Burnley Football Club in-conjunction
with the Lancashire Constabulary Police are to clamp down on supporters using foul and
abusive language at football matches at Turf Moor.
The football club will not tolerate
behaviour in the form of obscene language, racial abuse and racist chanting.
Any spectator who is caught using such
language could be arrested and ejected from the ground and face the risk of being banned
for life from watching matches at Turf Moor.
Any instances of this nature should be
brought to the attention of the club stewards immediately.
Burnley FC Chief Executive, Andrew Watson,
commented:
‘We have had a number of complaints
from Burnley supporters over the last few weeks that foul and abusive language at the
ground is on the increase.
‘The Club will not tolerate this type
of behaviour and we will be taking major steps to eliminate this problem at Turf Moor.
‘Turf Moor has to be a safe place to
watch football and the club will continue to be proactive in making this a family led club
enabling supporters to enjoy their football in a safe and secure stadium.’
The continued co-operation of the vast
majority of supporters is greatly appreciated by both Burnley Football Club and the
Lancashire Constabulary Police"
There can be no doubt that doing something about
the unfortunately common racism one still hears at Turf Moor is a good thing. If you
don’t agree with that statement, you’re probably looking at this site by
mistake. But foul language? Hang on, what does this mean? What, for example, is the single
most common chant at Turf Moor? Doesn’t it contain the word ‘bastard’? Most
of them do. So is this ‘foul language’? And what of the sudden, unexpected
expletive in the face of the late missed chance? From now on, should we all be watching
our words?
The problem is that, while it’s possible to
come up with a reasonably clear and objective understanding of what constitutes racist
language in the context of a football ground, obscenity is a subjective notion. What
passes for a swearword in one house might be commonplace in the other. I can think of only
two swearwords we might balk at using on this site, but who knows who might take offence
at a ‘bloody’ or a ‘bugger’? And different language is, of course,
appropriate for different contexts. In front of your boss at work you might not use words
you’d consider acceptable in the pub with your peers. You see, it all depends on who
you’re with too. There’s also a generational aspect to the use of ‘foul
language’. Swearwords lose their power as language changes. ‘Crap’ might be
still be a rude word for a senior citizens, but these days it’s a commonplace.
Culture plays its part too. I vividly remember a Canadian teacher taking serious exception
to the use of the word ‘prat’. It doesn’t mean the same thing.
The point of this meander is to show that
there’s no such thing as swearing, or at least not in the same way as racism. It
depends. Who defines what constitutes obscenity?
My worry here is that the club will. Who’s
to say they’ll be right? Ultimately, if the club decides to clamp down on obscenity,
the decision will be enforced by stewards. They will be the ones interpreting the rule.
Unless they’re supplied with a list of banned words (hey, and perhaps they could be
carried in the programme so we’re all clear on it) we will ultimately be dependent on
their common sense and good judgement. Hmm, fills you with confidence, doesn’t it?
It’s hard not to think back to the recent
controversy caused by the action taken against people standing up at the back of the
Longside stand. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether people standing up is a
big deal or not, the way the rule was enforced left much to be desired. If
something’s wrong (for example, standing up), we need to be told what is tolerated
and what isn’t (e.g., most of us will stand up at some moments during the game, but
we assume we aren’t going to be turfed out for celebrating a goal). We need to know
where the line is drawn. Then everyone needs to be told. It isn’t enough to publish
things in programmes that some don’t buy or on websites that not everyone has access
to, or in small writing as part of ground regulations that no one ever, ever reads. You
need to do all these, spell it out, but assume that not everyone knows. This suggests the
need for leniency on a first offence, which in turns leads to the conclusion that we need
to have a disciplinary procedure, where a process is duly followed, people are told what
the process is, offenders are warned of the consequences of re-offence and those who
police the system are adequately trained and instructed to carry out procedure in a
transparent and standard manner. I didn’t get the impression from the seating
controversy that such a sensible, straightforward and clear approach had been adopted. Now
I can’t help worrying that another offence, another area open to interpretation, and
another potential conflict point might be added. On principle, anything that enhances the
power of stewards while stewarding at Burnley remains so poor is something to be concerned
about.
As it happens, the seating controversy was
resolved, albeit not without considerable negative publicity for the club. Has anything
been learned from that? Bear in mind they’re explicitly threatening to hand out life
bans in this statement
So, there may be technical problems in enforcing
a ban on ‘foul language’. But we should also ask, must there be a ban?
What’s wrong with obscene language anyway? I should put my cards on the table here
and say that, in the main, I think swearing is a good thing. There are times when only the
well-chosen expletive will do. Like all words, they lose their potency with overuse, but
sometimes their power to shock and express emotion makes them a powerful tool.
I admit, I swear at football matches. Football
is that kind of game. It’s exciting, emotional and unpredictable. Football matters,
and I wouldn’t go if it didn’t. Do I use language there I wouldn’t use in
other contexts? Sure. I also enjoy the communal nature of football. I like the chants,
like the spontaneity of the crowd’s reaction to personalities and events, like the
humour. Almost all of it, however, could be defined as obscene, if you wanted to.
Football, in Burnley at least, is still the sport of working people, and the language and
humour reflect this. Not for nothing is it sometimes called ‘industrial
language’. Crack down on this and you may eliminate the foul mouthed yob who
we’ve all encountered from time to time, but you may put a stop to the chant that
captures the moment, the remark that brings a smile to your face, or even the ability to
say what you really think when someone misses that sitter in dying seconds. Football was
always supposed to be catharsis: you shout and swear on a Saturday, get it all out of your
system, have a few pints and go back to work on Monday. There’s precious little
atmosphere left without eroding it further.
It would seem the main reason for attempting to
remove undefined obscenity, leaving aside the incomprehensible and unexplained references
to a ‘safe and secure stadium’, is to help create a ‘family’
atmosphere. I still believe the only good context in which the word ‘family’
occurs is in ‘family pack’ or ‘family size’, because that means you
get more. But it appears the club’s new motto will be 'not in front of the children'.
I have little time for such arguments. Why should it be that the perceived needs of one
group of people should hold sway in all discussions of taste and decency? Why should
children, or rather the adults who choose to speak for them, be the final arbiters in all
discussions of what is and isn’t morally permissible?
If the club is encouraging children to come to
Turf Moor, and so become the next generation of support to guarantee the club’s
future, then clearly they are to be commended. The £35 child season ticket was a
masterstroke that has reaped dividends. It has worked. Are we being led to believe that if
‘foul language’ was eliminated from the Turf, yet more children would come?
Before we take such a step, I would like to see research that clearly suggests this
connection. Is there any evidence that one of the things that has kept children away in
the past has been ‘foul language’? And didn’t most of us start following
Burnley as children? Since our near extinction in the late 80s, there have always been
plenty of children at Turf Moor, regardless of how blue the air has been. And there have
been some bitter times since then.
It is, of course, bollocks to think we can
protect children from ‘foul language’ anyway. They go to school. They won’t
hear anything worse on the match than they might pick up on the schoolyard. The only
difference might be the discomfort of their parents at hearing their children exposed to
words they fool themselves they don’t already know. Who are we protecting here?
As it happens, if I should find myself in the
company of children at a game, I do make an attempt to moderate my language. It’s for
that reason that I normally try to avoid them. I recall with horror an occasion when I
arrived late at Oldham and the only free seats were down at the front with all the kids.
The ninety minutes was a test. I believe most people would try to tone down their language
in a similar situation, so what’s the problem? Of course, there’s no telling
when you might get yourself stuck in the middle of a bunch of adults who don’t
approve of swearing. How can you tell? This is where, in my view, this issue shares a
common root with many of the problems of modern football: the development of all-seater
stadia.
In the old days, if you didn’t like your
immediate company you could move. Go and stand somewhere else. Now you’re stuck with
them. You might get someone you can’t stand for a match. If you’re really
unlucky, you both might be season ticket holders, and then you’ve got them for a
season. It’s only a problem if you’re forced to occupy a designated space.
I’ve always been against being forced to sit at football matches. I never could
understand how insisting going all seater was an appropriate response to a catastrophe
caused by police incompetence. I was perturbed that the conclusions of the Taylor Report
were so meekly accepted and implemented without debate, and depressed that it was used as
a means to disproportionately increase the cost of watching football. But this is one area
where it’s impossible to get a debate going. Say a word out of place and interest
groups will jump on you. You’re somehow seen to be challenging ‘safety’,
and that’s the end of all arguments. I suppose that only when a disaster has occurred
inside an all-seated ground will a fair discussion take place. Until then, we’re
stuck with seating. And because we can’t consider doing something about the root of
the problem, clubs will end up making well meaning but ill-conceived attempts to tackle
the things that stem from it. Thus, people who stand up are punished, because it’s
easier than contemplating the return of areas in which people are allowed to stand. And,
if people are using language deemed unsuitable for the ears of those around them,
it’s easier to punish those people rather than think about ways in which they can
find a section of the crowd who won’t object.
I do think it’s unfortunate, too, that the
club is mixing foul language and racism up. Even if they do not think the two equal, they
run the risk of giving that impression. Why must they be paired? These are not menaces of
the same level. The club leaves itself open to the accusation that they are failing to
take racism seriously. If you mean it, you don’t lump it in with something else that
isn’t nearly as bad. Racism should be singled out, zeroed in on and eliminated.
Anything else looks like tokenism. And there is still a lot of it at Turf Moor. If
anything off the pitch can spoil my day it’s that. Someone effing and blinding
doesn’t come close to it.
Has there really been a dramatic rise in
complaints about ‘foul language’ (as opposed to complaints about the different
phenomenon of racist language) anyway? As we’re getting bigger gates this season, has
any rise in complaints been out of proportion with the rise in attendances?
Oh, and one final thing. If bad language is to
be banned from Turf Moor, who is going to police the outbursts of the 22 men out on the
pitch, who have been known to use the odd word out of place? Ought we object, should we
hear an obscenity from the field of play? On that basis, for the recent derby game, the
entire Blackburn backroom staff could have been ejected. I sat near them, and I heard them
utter foul words. We all know that's not going to happen, but would it make any more sense
to single out a supporter for using language he can hear the staff and players get away
with? It doesn't seem to make much sense.
You may well disagree with some or all of the
above, as is your right. I’ve attempted to set out my arguments and give the issue
some thought. My question is, do you think any of those at the club who came up with his
hare-brained initiative have done likewise? Or is it just another misplaced bright idea
from the people who’ve given us golden suits at half time and a website that
isn’t written in English? I’d be interested in your views. They don’t seem
to be asking for them.
Firmo
9 January 2001
(Thanks to members of the Burnley FC E-group [www.egroups.com/group/burnleyfc], for
contributing ideas which I borrowed freely for this article.)
Your views on 'foul
language'
