How Soccer Explains Terrorism

Globalization is often lauded as a bringer of widespread peace, going hand in hand with the spread of democracy, capitalism, and interstate dependency. While minority religions, cultures, and belief systems are often swept away by this tide of liberal democracy, it is believed that this loss of cultural diversity, while regrettable, is a welcome price to pay for world peace. Indeed, some would argue that many of these more “primitive” belief systems lead to tribalism and conflict, and therefore globalization is doing a service to humanity by stamping out these barbaric belief systems. However, as Franklin Foer explains in his book “How Soccer Explains the World”, globalization has not necessarily led to less tribalism and conflict. Rather, global homogeny has channeled tribalism into new forms outside of the state, the institution it was previously bound to, and has caused individuals to act out tribalism in the form of terrorism.

            As Franklin Foer explains in his book, globalization has failed to erode ancient hatreds and rivalries. Foer explains this position through the lens of soccer, using the rivalry between Celtic F.C. and Rangers F.C., two Scottish football teams, as an example. Members and supporters of Rangers F.C. tend to be Protestant and Scottish, while members and supporters of Celtic F.C. are usually Catholic and Scots-Irish, meaning that two relatively archaic “tribal” identifiers: religion and ethnicity, divide the supporters of these teams. Tribalism, therefore, continues to exist in the modern globalized world, but merely exists in a different, admittedly less destructive, form. Foer asserts that globalization has failed to diminish the tribal rivalry between these two teams and their supporters, and at times globalization actually exacerbates nationalism and tribalism. As Foer explains, global companies like Nike capitalize on the huge profits of rivalries, and will sell paraphernalia that accentuate tribal identity. For instance, Nike will sell orange shirts, which allude to King William of Orange, a British king who re-conquered the monarchy from the Catholics, to the Protestant fans. These orange shirts are bought up in massive amounts by the Protestant fans, which incites the Catholic fans and fans the flames of the rivalry. Globalization, therefore does not diminish tribalism and nationalism, but rather forces it down other avenues. As Foer observes, the rivalries between and inside many European states are alive today and thriving in the form of vehement commercial football rivalries. Globalization, and the democracy and interstate peace it has brought on, has ensured that when it comes to “de jure” policies, many western countries encourage integration and deplore discrimination. However, the desire of multinational corporations and other institutions to make profits has given rivalry and tribalism a new commercial form in many countries, as exemplified in these soccer rivalries.

            In areas where globalization still stifles official political rivalries but does not provide this commercial avenue, tribalism takes a different and much more terrifying form. Following along with Foer’s assertion that globalizations causes tribalism to be acted out in other forms, one could see how globalization encourages the development of terrorism and other forms of non-state tribalism. As globalization promotes peace and homogeny between and within states, those who disagree with this hegemonic norm have had to find other avenues for dissent. In developing countries, countries without commercial avenues for dissent, like the Middle East, concentrate these tribalism and conflict in other non-state institutions, namely terrorist cells. Through this lens, one could say that football, specifically the commercial aspect of football, explains terrorism and other forms of tribalism in an age of globalization.

            In his book “How Soccer Explains the World” one of the primary conclusions that Foer draws is that globalization has not diminished rivalries and tribal antagonism, but rather changed the locus of these rivalries from the state level to the corporate level. However, in some areas of the world, tribalism is still discouraged at the state level, but a corporate outlet is not provided for tribal release and tribalism has taken a new form: terrorist cells.