The ?Cultural Theory? Approach to the Everton Stadium Debate

What can cultural theory this tell us about the current stadium debate at Everton?

"Cultural Theory" is a social classification system used by social scientists to interpret and analyse culture. The Wikipedia page provides a nice overview, and the best introduction is written by Michael Thompson,  Richard Ellis and Aaron Wildavsky. The basic idea is that we can categorise groups along two line: Grid (meaning regulation), and Group (meaning integration). If we assign "high" and "low" values to each of these lines, we end up with four distinct groups:

• Individualists are low grid, low group. They feel little solidarity to each other, and do not feel bound by externally imposed rules. It's dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest. Example: Gordon Gekko
• Egalitarians are low grid, high group. They have an immense feeling of common cause and equality. There are no formal rules, but members are closely aligned. Example: Greenpeace
• Fatalists are high grid low group. They are heavily regulated, with their time and routines dictated to them. But they feel no real motivation to participate within the creation of those regulationS; they are fragmented, and wish to be left alone. Example: miners
• Hierarchists are high grid high group. They are strictly bound by order and are committed to the cause. Example: the army

At a recent conference on Cultural Theory and Management, Mike Thompson presented the Arsenal stadium relocation as an example of a "clumsy solution" - a successful outcome due to all four cultural types participating (or at least, not being ignored). The Arsenal board fitted the individualist label; the general fans were fatalist; and the local (Islington) council was hierarchist. Negotiations to keep Arsenal in the local area seemed to have failed, and the club were set to leave Central London for a site near the M25.

However this motivated a pressure group to form - an egalitarian voice - who discovered a piece of land less than a mile from Highbury. In doing so, and by all sides of the debate sitting at the table, a solution emerged that is widely considered to be a successful case of stadium relocation.

What can this tell us about the current debate at Everton? Clearly the board fit into the individualist category. Together with Tesco and Knowsley Council they've identified a commercial opportunity in Kirkby and are pressing hard for the fans to support a move. Images of the proposed stadium are part of the big sell. Historically the City Council haven't been bending over backwards to help. In fact to rub salt into the wounds according to Greg Murphy Everton had made a general enquiry to see if it was feasible to build on Stanley Park, but were told it was protected under "Victorian covenant". Arch rivals Liverpool, at a later date, were subsequently told the opposite and recently released updated plans of their new stadium.

The fact that Kirkby falls outside the city boundary has created a backlash, and the generation of egalitarian supporters groups such as "Keep Everton in Our City". In a fascinating twist the City Councillor Warren Bradley has responded to the threat of the club leaving the city, and highlighted three plots of land that could be used for a stadium. One of which is "the loop" (pictured), part of the slip road off the Wallasey Tunnel.

From an architectural perspective, the loop site is fascinating. I think that a "blank canvas" approach to most projects is overrated, and that constraints provide a context and opportunity for genuinely iconic design. The proposed Liverpool stadium demonstrates this perfectly. The 18,000 capacity new 'Kop' is contrasted with a tiny stand behind the opposite goal. It's no coincidence that the owners and designers are more used to NFL stadium, and this background has influenced their plans. There's no need for such disparity: they had a blank canvas, but not necessesarily an open mind. On the other hand, elements of the design have been heavily constrained by local conditions, "The North and East facades take a convex form respectively overlooking Priory Road and Utting Avenue across gardens which will be developed in the tradition of Stanley Park. The South facade will be of completely different form, taking on a more formal appearance appropriate to its civic function at the northern edge to the new Anfield Plaza development...The West side is concave in form effectively embracing the park... " The Kirkby design is impressive but the club have had a completely blank canvas to work with. The loop design would be challenging: it's encompassed on all sides by slip roads, but combined with the elevation of the site provides a unique opportunity to create something iconic but not novelty.

Can the Everton situation find a clumsy solution? I'm not convinced. The individualist bias is far stronger than with Arsenal, since the Kirkby project is being led by Tesco. However the role of Best Way (who own much of the loop) might "buy out" Tesco's influence. The egalitarian voice is strong, and the fact that Bradley is an Evertonian bridges (and therefore includes) hierarchy with egalitarianism. As ever, the voice most likely to be ignored is that of the fatalist. In this case it's the general fan, who wants his matchday routine to suffer as little disruption as possible. As Arsenal discovered, if fans can use the same pubs before the game, everyone can come out of this ok.

Reader Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer