Using Football Factory as a case study, discuss the various ways in which membership of social groups can influence the lives of young people.
The controversial 2004 film Football Factory (Nick Love) is a perfect example when attempting to describe the influence a group can have on its younger members. Set in London, the film is based around a group of football hooligans (known as a firm) who, in the words of main character Tommy Johnson, spend their Saturday afternoons: “Kicking people’s heads in”. A large amount of Group Communication Theories can be applied to the firm – concerning everything from dress code to group hierarchy.
One of the most radical theories referring to Group Communication is the Group Think theory, as devised by Irving Janis in 1972. A comment from Janis sums his theory up; referring to Group Think as “a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgement which results from in-group pressure.
In the film, the Chelsea firm can, in one way or another, be associated with all of the Concepts of Group Think:
Illusion of Invulnerability
As may seem obvious from the title, this concept involves the feeling of invulnerability from a group. The Chelsea firm can often be seen with an illusion of invulnerability – the best example is when the radio reports littered through the latter stages of the film suggest there will be a large police presence at the Millwall game, yet there is not even a thought that the “meet” with the Millwall firm should not take place.
Collective Rationalisation
This is the process where group members rationalise with others and themselves after being given warnings by something or someone. This is again apparent in the film, when Tommy goes to buy flowers for his grandfather’s friend Albert’s funeral, and his friend questions his actions and attitude. Tommy’s response is simply “We’re only having a laugh”. It is interesting to notice how Tommy explains away the warning with such a flippant attitude; since it is probably created by the entire group thinking the same thing.
Illusion of Morality
Probably the largest inaccuracy of the group’s ethos is the idea that they think they are actually doing something for society. A short scene at the start gives a brief introduction to Tommy’s grandfather Bill – a war veteran, living out his final few days before jetting off for Australia. Tommy speaks of how it “makes him sick that the country treats him the way it does”, and even goes as far as to suggest that his anarchy is trying to rectify that fact. Tony Harris even salutes Albert’s grave. This is morality in its most twisted form.
Excessive Stereotyping
This doesn’t occur quite as often, but there are two major examples. Firstly, the animosity against the middle classes is a clear factor. This is shown firstly in Tommy’s dislike of Rod’s girlfriend, and then – after a few lines of cocaine – by Rod himself towards her family. Secondly, Billy Bright verbally, and physically, attacks the judge on two occasions, questioning his middle-class attitude, anchored by Tommy’s narrative explaining a stereotype of judges going to child-prostitutes and giving them crack money. This is an aggressive stereotype, which is probably only true for even less than 1% of judges, if for any at all.
Pressure for Conformity
Tommy uses this pressure on Rod during Rod’s time with his girlfriend. This, again, is one of the lesser occurring concepts of Group Think in the film. It involves putting pressure on those seen as “not pulling their weight”.
Self-Censorship
This happens a lot to Rod during his brief relationship, but more so to Zebedee during his fear and eventual dislike of Billy Bright. He often just shuts up and says nothing. Indeed this is the aim of Self-Censorship – Zebedee says nothing to assure his place in the group.
Illusion of Unanimity
This is very subtle in the firm – most displayed by Harris’ orders that are questioned by nobody. This illusion is the belief that everyone agrees with the actions suggested. It is often that silence means consent within Group Think affected groups.
Self-Appointed Mind-Guard
This is usually the leader, who chooses the group’s reality. It is quite amazing that a group can end up believing what this person tells them. Indeed reality is not an issue for most Group Think groups – rather their own distorted reality. In the film, the entire group is under the impression that what they are doing is just a bit of a laugh, and isn’t hurting anybody. As the young mother in the first fight scene points out, this is sincerely not the case.
Since all concepts of Group Think affect the Chelsea firm, it is not surprising to realise that the group is very similar to political totalitarian groups of the past – not least those of Hitler’s Nazis, and Stalin’s Communists. Personally, I can also relate this to Nineteen Eighty-Four (George Orwell, 1949) where, in fact, the word GroupThink as one word was coined from. The totalitarian control in all three cases modelled the youth of the three nations and this, to an extent, applies to Harris’ authoritarian control in the film.
He takes Zebedee under his wing early on, and looks after him as he makes the transition to a full-time member of the firm.
There is clearly a respect for Tony Harris throughout the firm – he is as hard as nails, an old-timer with a lot of experience. Zebedee looks up to him as a sort of father figure. This isn’t the case with the older men, but they still respect Harris’ decisions. Of course Harris’ leadership came about with a certain degree of common sense – on the one occasion on which members of the firm do disobey Harris, the three of them – Tommy, Rod and Billy Bright (naturally) are arrested for starting on some Stoke fans that Harris rightfully informs them to leave.
Stanton (1996) suggests that the location of a group may add to the chance of Group Think concepts being implemented. In this case, the group has been brought up on council estates in London – therefore they’re not the most sensitive individuals in the world. Indeed, with short scenes on some of the characters’ childhoods, this assumption is probably correct. The environment, as well as the group and task, are uncontrollable variables in group effectiveness. The reason the above are uncontrollable is due to the fact that all three have to exist for a group to have any reason to continue.
However, it is not only Group Think that leads to the youth of a group being influenced by the leaders. A perfect study to compare with is one from the 1930s by Lippitt and White (sometimes referred to as Lewin, Lippitt and White or Lewin et. al. since Lewin led the experiment, but not the study).
There were three groups of school children – each was required to create masks as a group. There was a leader for each group – Authoritarian, a leader that was to remain aloof and not inform the group nor consult them before giving orders; Democratic, a leader that encouraged, participated and offered guidance while discussing tasks with the children first; and Laissez-Faire, who informed the children of their tasks but did not get involved.
The results show that the Democratic group ended up creating masks of the highest quality, showing that democracy does help in completion of tasks to a high standard. The authoritarian group created the most number of masks and finished second quality wise. This shows that authority clearly helps to get things done, and to a relatively good standard too.
This is important in application to Football Factory since the leadership style of the Chelsea firm is indeed authoritarian. Tony Harris doesn’t stick around asking for ideas from others; he just implements them into his plans. Generally, the plans go very well – satisfaction and success occur.
Further conclusions from the Lippitt and White experiment suggested that some children preferred authoritarian leadership since they were brought up that way. This was certainly true of a son of an army colonel, who was brought up very strictly, and in fact relished the idea of being under authoritarian control.
Interestingly, under this control two distinct groups emerged between the children - an aggressive group and an apathetic group. The aggressive group were more likely to blame others and attention-seeking, as well as being rebellious. The apathetic group were more likely to be laid back and placed less demand on the leader – as well as being less critical.
This is fascinating since it is now possible to apply Tuckman’s Stages of Group Formation. Considering that the group is full of aggressive hooligans, it is possible to suggest that the Storming stage of Tuckman has occurred. On looking at the idea that two groups were formed, it is likely that those in the Chelsea firm who have been apathetic in the authoritarian group have been removed in the storming process, leaving only aggressive people and therefore desirable members for a group of hooligans.
The whole idea of authoritarian leadership’s effects on young members is extremely important when applying it to the Chelsea firm. Tony Harris and his small group of leaders are authoritarian, meaning that the members of the group get the most amount done possible in the time allowed. Considering this is the desired effect, youthful members are being nursed into the correct role all the time.
This does in fact happen throughout the film. Even in the short time that we see the characters, personal growth of the younger members occurs. Zebedee, for example, finally learns that to be good in Billy Bright’s eyes, he will have to be a hero at the Millwall meet. Even Tommy grows – and he is nearly 30. They are not alone. I believe it is important to note that it matters not how much an individual grows; as long as they are in a group that is authoritarian and embroiled in Group Think concepts, they will never be able to grow as an individual, rather as a pawn in someone else’s arsenal.