Football crowds around the globe make a fervent clamour in the stands with the aim of inspiring their team. This takes the form of chanting, singing or the playing of instruments such as drums or horns. This behaviour is an evolved communication strategy which links closely to vocal tactics displayed by other animals.
Vocal sounds, such as the bear’s growl, or dog’s bark, are often used for aggressive reasons, for example, when repelling an intruder. These noises indicate the fitness of the animal making the noise: an explosive sharp noise demonstrates anaerobic muscular power, whilst sustaining the vocal performance shows stamina and cardiovascular capacity. A rival that notices these qualities is likely to reconsider making any challenge. Natural selection thus favours the use of such vocal gestures as they manage to sustain advantages, such as access to territory, whilst averting potentially damaging physical conflict. A vocal display is a particularly effective tool, as the display is almost impossible to ignore. Hearing is a distinctive sense, as sound is a special modality that cannot be easily mediated by the recipient. Whilst we can close our eyes and hold our nose to block out visual or olfactory intrusions respectively, it is very difficult to mute an unwanted auditory input.
‘To hear’ also has an interesting etymology. Psychologist Julian Jaynes highlighted in his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind that ‘hear’ and ‘obey’ have the same root; it is probable that they were originally the same word. In English ‘obey’ comes from the latin obedire, which is a composite of ob + audire (to hear facing someone). Whilst instructions may be flouted, the acts of listening and obeying are related and this is reflected by the interlinked etymology of the words. When a verbal request is issued there is a presupposition that the hearer will comply. Noises, such as those used by animals in the general examples above, are utilized with the intention that the recipient of the sounds will comply with the sender’s communication.
On reflection, we now have insight into the reasons for sounds emanating from the stadium stands. The crowd supporting the home team will endeavour to make a sustained noise to underscore the territorial advantage of their side. The vociferous vocalised support emanating from the stands should inspire the team they are supporting, whilst intimidating the opponents. The home team should obey by playing well; the away team should obey by tamely capitulating! In South Africa the favoured means of aggregated communication from the stands is the vuvuzela which is a type of horn. The unrelenting wail of the vuvuzela was apparent at the South Africa hosted Confederations Cup, and it is highly likely that these will be clearly audible again at World Cup 2010. The local crowd will hope that some of the inescapable effervescence from the stands, captured via the din of the vuvuzela, will motivate South Africa to the latter stages of the tournament.
Whilst noises from spectators in the stand are now clearly explicable, the phenomenon of people watching the game from their living rooms and screaming at the TV requires additional scrutiny.
What bugs me is when away fans start singing “shall we sing a song for you?” Everyone knows the reason why away fans sing more than home fans is because they have had at least a 4 pack of Carling on the coach beforehand. On the 5 Live phone in after the last game of the season a Portsmouth fan called in to say how quiet it was at the Everton game (a game in which we could finish no higher or lower than 8th). I starting screaming “THAT’S BECAUSE WE WERE PLAYING BLOODY PORTSMOUTH!!” I guess that is just another example an irrational corollary of secularized monotheism.
The Guardian’s World Cup supplement highlights that:
“The collective sound [of the vuvezela] has been compared to a herd of blaring elephants or a hive of angry bees.”