as the wider shift in the class structure of British Society.Other then the sociological studies made on hooliganism there were studies on observed behaviour of hooligans and accounts provided by fans themselves. They just didn’t treat hooligans as subjects to understand their behaviour. The methos was simply asking them. So by this way they tried to have an insider view on hooliganism. And they realised that there were social rules among hooligans. Being a ‘football hooligan’ enabled young males to achieve a sense of personal young males to achieve a sense of personal worth and identity at school or work. Violence was a part of route to success and it was an alternative way of having a career.One of the influential studies done on hooliganism is the one that is about the lower working class and their alienation. Lower working class communities are characterised by a positive feedback cycle, which encourage aggression in many areas of social life. The capacity to consume alcohol in large quantities and fighting was a highly valued attribute among males of the lower working class. And they denied the educational and occupational status as a major source of identity. So this kind of a view on hooliganism was mainly based on a social class and the values of this class. Lower working class members especially the ones emerging after the reindustrialisation period of the 1970’s caused hooliganism to expand according to this view.It is a big problem for sociologists name and interpret the behaviours of the hooligans. For one investigator a specific incident involving rival fans might be classed as ‘a serious violence’, a second observer might describe the same event as ‘a harmless display’ or a journalist might use the term ‘mindless thuggery’. So there is no objective way of describing these behaviours. So because of this lack of objectiveness sociologists had different views on hoo...
