The Postmodernity of Football Hooliganism

By using a 'cultural' definition of 'postmodernism' (derived from Jameson and Martin) in which postmodernism is regarded as the transgression of modern boundaries, this article traces the emergence of postmodern aspects to violent male fandom at football games since the 1960s. It...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The British Journal of Sociology. - Routledge Journals for the London School of Economics and Political Science, 1950. - 48(1997), 4, Seite 576-593
1. Verfasser: King, Anthony (VerfasserIn)
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 1997
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:The British Journal of Sociology
Schlagworte:Postmodernity Football Hooliganism Masculinity Nationalism Liminality
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 JST114848653
003 DE-627
005 20240625025709.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 180607s1997 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.2307/591597  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)JST114848653 
035 |a (JST)591597 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a King, Anthony  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The Postmodernity of Football Hooliganism 
264 1 |c 1997 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a By using a 'cultural' definition of 'postmodernism' (derived from Jameson and Martin) in which postmodernism is regarded as the transgression of modern boundaries, this article traces the emergence of postmodern aspects to violent male fandom at football games since the 1960s. It is argued that at games, male fans have created imaginary masculine and national boundaries by which they have affirmed their identities but that in fighting they have sought to breach these boundaries in postmodern fashion. 
540 |a Copyright 1997 London School of Economics 
650 4 |a Postmodernity 
650 4 |a Football Hooliganism 
650 4 |a Masculinity 
650 4 |a Nationalism 
650 4 |a Liminality 
655 4 |a research-article 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t The British Journal of Sociology  |d Routledge Journals for the London School of Economics and Political Science, 1950  |g 48(1997), 4, Seite 576-593  |w (DE-627)302468587  |w (DE-600)1491378-1  |x 14684446  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:48  |g year:1997  |g number:4  |g pages:576-593 
856 4 0 |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/591597  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.2307/591597  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_JST 
912 |a GBV_ILN_11 
912 |a GBV_ILN_20 
912 |a GBV_ILN_22 
912 |a GBV_ILN_24 
912 |a GBV_ILN_31 
912 |a GBV_ILN_39 
912 |a GBV_ILN_40 
912 |a GBV_ILN_60 
912 |a GBV_ILN_62 
912 |a GBV_ILN_63 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_69 
912 |a GBV_ILN_70 
912 |a GBV_ILN_90 
912 |a GBV_ILN_100 
912 |a GBV_ILN_101 
912 |a GBV_ILN_110 
912 |a GBV_ILN_120 
912 |a GBV_ILN_285 
912 |a GBV_ILN_374 
912 |a GBV_ILN_702 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2001 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2003 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2005 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2006 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2007 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2008 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2009 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2010 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2011 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2014 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2015 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2018 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2020 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2021 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2026 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2044 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2050 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2056 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2057 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2061 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2106 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2107 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2111 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2190 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2232 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2933 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2949 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2950 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4035 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4037 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4046 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4126 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4242 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4251 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4305 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4306 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4307 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4313 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4322 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4323 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4324 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4325 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4335 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4346 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4393 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4700 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 48  |j 1997  |e 4  |h 576-593