It is possible to say that domestic violence against spouses, children, neighbors or the violence in the streets originates from particular circumstances of a particular event. But we can observe that in societies where massive violence is present all the time that people living in those societies gravitate toward violence. There are general circumstances pushing people to use violence, to attack and even to kill. When a country is in a war far away from the motherland and its government has some difficulties in explaining the reasons of this war to the nation, society can internalize this violence and start to act as a part of this procedure. In countries where individualism is of utmost importance, this internalization may appear in an individual manner as serial killings or as school mass murders. But in societies where communities and masses are dominant, violence shows itself in a more social manner.
The latter is more frequent in the European continent, including Turkey. When individuals are politically forced to always act together and when they have no choice but to join one of the existing camps, this can create a violent atmosphere. We’ve been witnessed this fact lately in France, in the street protests just after the presidential election. In Italy, we’ve seen violence in the football stadiums and the incidents were so perilous that the competitions have been cancelled. Similar events were seen in Turkey, as we’ve witnessed in the Galatasaray-Fenerbahçe derby.
To support a football team gives the feeling of belonging to something, but it is also nourishing the chauvinist feeling of being different from the “other.” This has profound roots that cannot be simplified into merely supporting a football team. The overall political atmosphere in a country supports this shift from the simple supporter to the chauvinist.
In every case where the dichotomy between “us” and “the other” is strong, every individual with the “us” feeling seeks to eliminate the “other” in every imaginable way. This might be a neo-Nazi willing to kill a Turk living in Germany or a “supporter” willing to beat the player of the rival team up.
If political life gives the feeling that segregation, animosity or the destruction of someone different is usual, then in football it’s not inconceivable for supporters to think that stadium violence is acceptable. The policies provoking the masses and differentiating them from one another to make everyone each other’s enemy has the same logic.
There is no difference in thinking between calling someone a “traitor” in a political debate and throwing a seat at a rival’s head during a football game. Those responsible for stadium violence are not only on the board of directors of the teams but also the political decision makers. It’s not possible to think that there’s a huge psychological between these two groups. That’s how they created football fanatics who kill -- by insisting on establishing “Turkish football.”
If nobody sees that the process of creating a monolithic political philosophy works toward establishing segregation, the social violence seen in the stadiums for now could spread to the streets as part of a common frenzy.
