Riots

[emperor]

There were rumours of disturbances in Coventry, but thankfully they seem to have been just rumours. Violence in Birmingham is a bit alarming, though. I hope all my friends in London (and elsewhere) are OK!

There's always a danger in commenting on ongoing events, that your comments end up a hostage to fortune. Still, much of what I've seen written so far has been rather unsatisfactory. In particular, it seems to me that whilst just dismissing the rioters as mindless thugs and suggesting the army should be called in is unsatisfactory, it also won't do to tell someone terrified by the violence that this is all about the uprising of a repressed underclass. I don't claim to be able to manage anything much more sophisticated here, but I think we need (regardless of our political persuasion) to resist narratives of these riots that suggest the cause is straightforward to explain[0].

I think it's fair to say that the causes of the rioting include: the shooting by police of Mark Duggan; the recently-exposed corruption in MPs, journalists, and the police; a feeling that the rich (bankers) caused the current economic woe and yet are escaping the hardships that result; a feeling that the government is systematically undermining the support for the poor; the enormous inequality in British society; herd behaviour; the feeling that the police are powerless to stop one looting shops; warm summer evenings; boredom.

If I'm even remotely correct, then we need to be able to both condemn the violence, and consider how some of the proximate causes of it might be addressed. Politicians will want to do what Maggie Thatcher did in the 80s, and dismiss the rioters as "simply criminal" and avoid looking hard at where society might be going wrong. They must rise above the easy rhetoric, but so too must those who would assign political motives to the rioters and ignore the unpleasant criminality that has been seen on the streets recently.

[0] I found myself, while writing this, continually trying to frame a theory of my own. Like many people, I want to make sense of what has happened. I want to talk about gross economic inequality and how we should address that; but I think that's for another post.

Comments

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

Violence in Birmingham is a bit alarming

It certainly is. It kicked off here before I left work to go home last night. Thankfully I didn't know that at the time. I'm sitting here in central Birmingham feeling slightly scared, wanting to go home and unable to really concentrate on stuff.


Regarding the causes I feel that the criminal aspects have overwhelmed the genuine reasons of the initial uprising. From what I can tell (mostly BBC news reports and Twitter) it's descended into people looting shops for consumer goods, booze and money.

At the moment I think it'll happen again this evening, but probably fizzle out on Wednesday: it's due to rain then apparently.

[geekette8.livejournal.com]

Excellent commentary. May I link to this elsewhere?

[kerrypolka.livejournal.com]

I think we need (regardless of our political persuasion) to resist narratives of these riots that suggest the cause is straightforward to explain

I agree both with this and the footnote about economic inequality!

[the-alchemist.livejournal.com]

I hope all my friends in London (and elsewhere) are OK!

Mostly OK so far, but not sleeping much. :( A fairly big crowd of rioters congregated on and around the steps to our house on Sunday night and banged on the door (or window? I wasn't watching, just heard the banging) and apparently made a lot of mess, but no permanent damage, and my nice neighbour cleared up the mess before we got up.


In particular, it seems to me that whilst just dismissing the rioters as mindless thugs and suggesting the army should be called in is unsatisfactory, it also won't do to tell someone terrified by the violence that this is all about the uprising of a repressed underclass.

Thank you so much for saying this. Not least because the members of the repressed underclass who haven't chosen violence are among the worst affected by the crimes of those who have; but also because victim blaming isn't OK even when the victims have more privilege than the people committing crimes against them/us. (And given that much of what I heard the rioters shouting was sexist abuse, I think it's fair to say that they were wielding privilege as well as expressing their reaction to non-privilege).

And it does feel like victim blaming when compassion for victims only comes as a footnote to blaming social factors that they/we have a part in (me more than most, I guess, but even so ...)

To your list of causes I would add: "people wanting stuff". To dismiss anyone or any act as "simply criminal" is a mistake, I think. It's always good to look at what wider society can do to prevent people from desiring to commit crime.

[queex.livejournal.com]

There've been riots before, there'll be riots again. It's one of those things.

One thing I've noticed about the commentary is that there's a trend to assume the rioters are one homogeneous crowd, rather than recognising that there are probably plenty of subcategories including 'I want nice things', 'They killed one of ours', 'Hell yeah violence', 'Why should we put up with this from those with power' and 'I'm angry and ignored'.

The rhetoric, particularly from Cameron et al, appears to be trying to bury the fact that there are genuine grievances in there somewhere, however badly they are acted on.

But, as someone wiser than me once said, 'Tories gonna Tory'.

[rmc28]

Thank you for writing this; it is what I think only expressed better :-)

I have been cheered by the #riotcleanup activity on Twitter today.

[ilanin.livejournal.com]

People wishing to blame rioting on economic inequality would need to formulate a theory which explains why riots usually happen during recessions, when inequality is at a minimum for that economic cycle (it's during the boom when the rich grow richer the fastest).

It's a theory that I'd be interested in, because it makes an intuitively large amount of sense that rioters (especially of the looting type as currently in London) would be motivated by some sense of envy or injustice. But that probably means it has more to do with the perception of inequality (which is probably greater during recessions due to the fact that I'd imagine it tracks unemployment pretty closely) than actual inequality as such.

[megamole.livejournal.com]

Excellent post.

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

Coventry would appear to have not been entirely unscathed, but nothing you could pass off as a riot.

[teithiwr.livejournal.com]

Very well written! I'm finding it extremely hard to be objective because it's just so upsetting, but it's good that some of us are capable of some analysis even now.

[hooloovoo_42]

I think it's fair to say that the causes of the rioting include: the shooting by police of Mark Duggan; the recently-exposed corruption in MPs, journalists, and the police; a feeling that the rich (bankers) caused the current economic woe and yet are escaping the hardships that result; a feeling that the government is systematically undermining the support for the poor; the enormous inequality in British society; herd behaviour; the feeling that the police are powerless to stop one looting shops; warm summer evenings; boredom.

Fine, except I wouldn't call anything that happened after Saturday night a riot. The people who were out on Sunday, last night, and if reports are to be believed, this afternoon in Salford and other places, are not rioters, they are kids who are copying what they've seen on the interwebz.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14467588
Groups of younger teenagers don't knock over a bottle shop because they are bothered about bankers or MP's expenses or whatever. They do it because they think they're hard. They do it because they think it's cool. They do it because they have no concept of the consequences, either to their own criminal record or someone else's livelihood.

Continuing to call this behaviour rioting is to bestow on it some kind of legitimacy when there is none.

I'm pissed off with the bankers and the MPs and the constant lambasting of public sector workers as being overpaid and having wonderful pensions. I'm sick to the back teeth of being unable to do my job properly because of continuing cuts in public sector spending while the politicians change the goalposts relating to my direct job on an almost weekly basis. But I paid for my new phone and my new telly and can't afford all the other things I want. I know there are jobs for young people who want them because I've put up a dozen vacancies in the last month. I'm constantly giving excuses to employers about why they aren't getting any applicants for these jobs.

So, yes, some people had a right to be hacked off with the police on Saturday, but since then, the people who have been causing willful destruction of property and danger to others are just thugs, whatever their motivation.

[didiusjulianus.livejournal.com]

Very interesting post, thanks emperor.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, for goodness' sake, it's not the end of the world or the collapse of civilisation; it's just a bit of summer recreational rioting.

It's not even very good recreational rioting. Not a single bus has been set alight. (The carpet warehouse was quite impressive as it went up, though).

It's nothing to get excited about. It will all blow over soon.

S.

[(Anonymous)]

Which, to be clear, isn't to say that it isn't horrible for those who have been caught up in the disturbances, or that those responsible shouldn't have every book in the Bodleian hurled at them. Just that it's not such a huge world-shattering thing as it seems to be being made out to be. It's not the collapse of civilisation or a massive breakdown in law and order, and nobody not actually threatened should be getting upset or anxious.

S.

[jacquic.livejournal.com]

Very delayed response because I didn't have anything to add, but I do now.

I was just chatting to my step-dad and he said that he'd heard someone on the telly being interviewed (I think he said it was someone Scottish but I have no further clues) who was explaining a way of considering mass violence like the riots as a disease, which would spread like an epidemic. I thought you'd be interested in that idea.