Olly Zanetti: London Riots
A thoughtful reflection on the recent civil unrest across the UK.
More like this...
Is nicking a TV a political act? It's a question I've asked myself a few times when reflecting on the sight of a kid who can't have been any older than his early teens, lugging a plasma screen almost as wide as he was tall through the streets in Hackney, north east London.
It was a bizarre sight, but the night of August, with riots in Hackney and elsewhere in London too, was altogether bizarre. A sandwich shop, windows smashed and guarded by riot police, stood next to a bank which escaped completely unscathed – no obvious anti-capitalist sentiment I guess. Up the street a fried chicken takeaway, the only building without shutters down, was overflowing with a masked but evidently hungry crowd. East London's hipsters were unusually thin on the ground, tell-tale white headphone cables were nowhere to be seen and almost all the bikes I saw had fat tyres and gears. There were bins were on fire, shops were smashed up and riot police blocking the streets.
So was all this political? Journalist and race activist Darcus Howe thinks it was. Speaking to the BBC, he suggested that many, particularly black, youth felt alienated from society at large, picked on by police and routinely stopped and searched. What we saw on the streets was a response to that. “I don't call it rioting,” he said. “I call it an insurrection.”
London mayor Boris Johnson isn't convinced by that argument. “It is time that people who are engaged in looting and violence stop hearing social and economic justifications for what they have done,” he told a member of the public while being escorted around damage in similarly riot-hit Clapham Junction.
In fact, neither is right. An insurrection is described as, “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against a civil authority or an established government.” It implies an at least marginally coherent social movement, some kind of unifying cause around which its have participants gathered. From what I saw on the streets, this didn't seem to be the case. Sure, there was a pretty obvious demographic – mainly but not exclusively young, mainly but not exclusively non-white – but there's a big difference between a demographic and a political movement. I don't think this was an insurrection.
But I also don't buy the 'mindless violence' arguments of the kind that Boris Johnson alludes to. Everyone has a mind. Those who rioted must have somehow justified what they were doing to themselves, however illogical that reasoning might seem to others. If we want some hints, it would be wise to look at the social or economic situation of those involved in the disturbances, the situation that Boris Johnson is so determined to ignore. It surely comes as no surprise that events were confined almost entirely to the less affluent areas of London, and to cities with relatively high levels of poverty like Manchester and Birmingham? What's gone on the streets over those few days was horrific, but as calm returns, we need to think start asking why it happened. Considering the social and economic status of the rioters certainly doesn't mean excusing their actions, but it is part of a bigger picture we need to look at if we have any hope of understanding them.
Smashing windows, stealing stuff, and chucking bricks at the police are not things most people would ever do. That's not because for fear of punishment, but because we understand that society only works if we follow its rules. People will moderate their own behaviour, police themselves, because they can see that it's in their interest to do so. What took place over those few days was indicative of that social contract breaking down. By rioting, by so obviously breaking the conventions of normal society, a group of people have shown their disaffection with that society. They no longer see a reason to moderate their behaviour, to play by society's rules, because it seems that society isn't offering them anything back.
So back to the original question, is nicking a TV a political act? Probably not. But that doesn't mean there isn't a need for a political response. If there are people so alienated from society that they will express it in such dramatic terms, then we all are faced with a big problem. Making the perpetrators feel 'the full force of the law', or the similar platitudes brandished in interviews by police chiefs and politicos, might in the short term salve public outrage but it's no long term solution. There are big questions everyone needs to ask about the society we live in. Why are there people who think it's okay to disregard its norms? And what should we do about it?
Subscribe to HUCK for six issues
Only £21 (UK) / £44 (EU) / £59 (Rest of the World).
London Riots (text) by Olly Zanetti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.Comments (8)
Please note: Your comment may be held in moderation for approval by an administrator to prevent spamming. This usually doesn't take long, please be patient.
Of the few interviews I’ve seen with the looters, the justifications have been half-hearted or non-existent. “Just taking back our taxes” said one. Two girls said they were “Showing the police... and the rich we can do what we want”. These answers are the words of people who just had nothing to lose - there was no reason for them not to go out smashing up shops. – no possible future where these actions would have a significant impact. Giving them a good reason not to is the real challenge but I’ve no fucking idea how we do that.
With trouble so widespread, that it strongly suggests that there is wider social and economic context to it. Obviously this doesn't excuse it, but recognising these is essential to understanding and preventing trouble from happening again.
It's not condoning such actions to question what's behind. There may well have been a lot of very unpleasant people taking part, but the fact still remains that there's something very wrong at the moment
A French friend of mine said "This is what happens when a government does not take care of its poors." I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but it is definitely that the UK is one of the country where the difference between the wealthy and the penniless is a huge. It is also true, or at least I feel so, that the British culture allow very little room for angriness to express itself. Riots, once in a while, might be the "valve" for this angriness to be taken out.
Also, policing in London during unrest/demonstrations is usually in your face. They close down space or contain it. They failed to do this. Space is usually dictated to by the police in relation to demonstrations and they usually take place in the centre of London where it is easier to control. These riots took place in people's own backyards and therefore the police found it harder to contain the actions of the crowd(or they were containing it but the zones that people were contained in already had plenty of targets for them to go for). It meant that there were rich pickings from all the chain stores in people's locality as opposed to the monolithic buildings in the centre of London.
One point is that people found the 'richer' areas of London much more heavily policed and found themselves forced back into their own areas. So people were operating in their own back yard, a place where they were able to achieve rewards. Somewhat similar to an MP scamming money on expenses.
You may argue that the norms of society had collapsed for a time but perhaps these people rioting had seen many other sections of society ignoring the law and norms ... and getting away with it. From corrupt MPs to dodgy newspapers. Perhaps the mentality of 'well why shouldn't I?' took over.
Also I guess you need to look at the 'fun' factor. Many people most probably thought it was 'a right laugh'! I'm not decrying the political aspect of which there is much!