The riots: clarity not justification by Michael Keith
15 August 2011 11 Comments
“Its time we stopped hearing all this (you know) nonsense about how there are deep sociological justifications for wanton criminality and destruction of peoples’ property.
“Whatever peoples’ grievances may be it does not justify smashing up someone’s shop, wrecking their livelihood and kicking them out of a job.”
(Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, visiting Clapham on Tuesday 9th August 2011; reported in national press and video link on BBC 2 Newsnight, Friday 12th August)1
In some quarters the Mayor of London’s recent dismissal of ‘sociological justifications’ of the July 2011 riots in Britain was taken as a slight aimed at an academic discipline as much as an ascent of the moral high ground. But as a well known classicist Johnson would be aware that his conflation of knowledge production (the epistemological) and morality (the ethical) had a longer, though no less troubled provenance. The Greek aitia (αἰτία) conflated both cause and reason; the term that etymologically gives us the medical mapping disciplines of aetiology appealed to both a sense of determination of the action alongside a notion of moral reason or justification.
But Johnson will also be aware of the enlightenment traditions that appealed to reason in a different way; that attempted to use observation, scrutiny, and analysis to make sense of phenomena that were at first sight perplexing as well as disturbing. Such thinking dwelt on how events, patterns and trends came about in some places and not others, at this time and not at that time. In short how a notion of causality might help us make sense of the world.
And if we turn to Aristotle, another figure of classical thought familiar to Johnson, we might understand at least the questions that we might begin rationally to ask about recent events in British cities. For Aristotle, we should understand the separation of material, formal, final and efficient causality through the metaphor of the sculptor. The marble provided the material (the material cause) out of which the figure was hewn. The template provided the formal guide to the work of the sculptor; the pick or axe the efficient action of iron on stone and the telos of the object, its final causality, was the sculpture envisioned by the artist or artisan.
So unlike the parade of pundits who have (like Nothrop Frye’s determinist critic) placed what interests them most (gangs, rap, unemployment, moral fibre, race, migration) into a causal relationship with what interests them least (the riots) we might instead find a proper place for academic scholarship. Scholarship that makes comprehensible the milieux and the habitus; the social context in which the social order is so fragile that the actions of recent weeks are possible. We might ask about the riots’ chronology, their choreography, their formal appearance on some estates and not others, in some cities first and others later. We might also ask about the sequence of events in Tottenham and the cast list of individuals involved both now and over the last three decades in that part of London, and we might finally ask just how we went from a protest outside a police station to nation wide mayhem. All of these questions demand evidence as well as analysis, empirical endeavour and abstract reason, work that we might understand as sociological research.
Such scholarship (after Kant rather than Aristotle) might be marked by both ethics and epistemology. In such scholarship, we might appeal to and develop a sociological imagination that links private troubles and public issues. But such a recognition of ethical dilemmas does not mean that to know all is to forgive all. Indeed the very discipline of sociological investigation might be demanded to understand the aetiology of the rioting; to make even skeletal sense of recent events, their prehistory in the riotous tradition of the British Isles, the colonial legacies that haunt the 21st century cities of the United Kingdom and the present day’s ostentatiously fragile social order.
In short, things can look a little fuzzy from the rarefied heights of the moral high ground. Maybe some high quality sociological research could make the landscape below just slightly more comprehensible if we are plausibly to explain as well as to condemn the events in British cities this month.
Michael Keith is Director of the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at the University of Oxford. He is the author of – among other things – ‘ Race, riots and policing – Lore and disorder in a multiracist society’ (1993)
1http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b013h14z/Newsnight_12_08_2011/, 10.20, accessed 14th August 2011.
To pursue explanation would be to undermine the policies of both Conservative and Labour governments that have exacerbated social inequality. Instead what is favoured is a form of capitalist delirium (Melinda Cooper’s term) which eschews explanation in favour of new modes of transformation that may be capitalized upon, in this case measures of punishment or discipline and so on. Moreover we can note in the response of especially Conservative politicians and commentators an individualisation of the problem (sheer criminality) or a demonization of the family unit of the underclass, itself fragile due to poverty.
Sociology and the Riots
In August 2011 the country was again shocked by another wave of rioting in its cities. To the years 1981, 1985 and 2001 will be added 2011. The 1980s riots in particular produced a wave of sociological work seeking to understand them. How useful these approaches will be in the present context remains to be seen, however, a number of sociological puzzles have already arisen.
Firstly, what features do these riots share with previous events and their contexts. Their location and political context are very different from 2001 but the initial riot in Tottenham bears striking similarities to those of the 1980s with the role of police operations in the context of heightened tension between the police and local communities. Whilst ‘race’ clearly played a central role initially the 2011 riots quickly became a wider question. Furthermore looting seems to have been the central ‘tactic’ in 2011, whilst directly engaging the police was most prominent in the 1980s. As a result the 2011 riots beyond the initial stages of the Tottenham incident have been seen as ‘consumer society riots’. Zygmunt Bauman has suggested in contemporary societies the principal means of social integration has become consumption, and to be denied the right to participate in this is in effect to be excluded from participation in society. Thus rather than there being an explicit political agenda there is an underlying implicit political meaning, and that is a complex series of issues ranging from the initial concerns with racist policing to the social exclusion of many, especially young people at a time of wider economic recession. Does the prominent role of looting signify something of deeper sociological importance about these riots compared to the 1980s?
There has been a tendency for sociological accounts to look to the expressed or underlying unity of rioting crowds. This might work for political gatherings, but it is often the diversity of the crowd and the diversity of their actions that is so striking. Whilst the media and politicians might want to identify the typical rioter, in practice this is more difficult. From the evidence so far available we have seen a core of people aged 18-24 accounting for half of those involved this would be entirely unsurprising from US research on the grounds of ‘biographical availability alone. Young men especially of that age range in the areas concerned are less likely to have employment, families or other commitments which simply means they are available to participate. However, this risks stereotyping the background of those involved. The ages of those who have appeared in court so far ranges from 11 to 58 and this fits with the dominance of looting, which previous research has shown involves all kinds of people, whilst it is the 18 to mid 30s men who are most likely to be directly engaged with the police. Once the conflicts moved beyond Tottenham they became even more ethnically diverse events. So far it seem very difficult to identify a common collective identity or social positioning for those involved other than a rather generic social exclusion. Thus we have to look to the diversity of those involved, their motivations and the interactions amongst them, bystanders and the police for a fuller sociological explanation.
http://www.sociology.leeds.ac.uk/public/
Who are troublemakers behind UK riots? (CNN, 09/08/11) As rioting and looting spreads beyond the capital, Dr Paul Bagguley provides further analysis of what triggered the unrest. He says that the long-term impact of the global economic downturn has helped fan the flames.
http://bit.ly/p3bEOg
Dr Bagguley also quoted in:
UK riots: What turns people into looters? (BBC News online, 09/08/11) http://bbc.in/o3hrzX (Online only) Britain in the grip of riots – but why? (Channel 4 news website, 09/08/11) http://bit.ly/pmCHrB (Online only) Morning Reports (BBC Radio 5 Live, 10/08/11, 05:19) Listen again here: http://bbc.in/pu8cTt (interview starts around 19 minutes in) Video clip: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/question-economics-looting-uk-14275105
(please ignore the advert at the beginning).
(in german): http://taz.de/Strassenschlachten-in-Grossbritannien/!76052/
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087701,00.html
Thanks for this, Michael. The utter poverty of the public imagination is so striking. The willingness amongst the punditocracy to spout rubbish is equalled only by its near complete social amnesia. David Starkey can summon the the ghost of Enoch Powell but repress the historical fact that extensive looting took place during the London Blitz. Crime is never ‘just’ criminality. One thing that I think is different about these incidents is the degree to which those present were also observering and documenting the riots in real time. The ‘data’ captured and broadcast on youtube and facebook offer insight and lessons for anyone who wishes to think carefully about what happened but also this spontaneous sociology exposes the young observers to the full scrutiny of the criminal justice system. Close to where I live in Catford a JD Sports was broken into and looted. A bystander recorded on their iphone the boxes of trainers being carried out. Although tempted he wouldn’t go inside. He said to a female friend “I am a working man.” She replied that she wouldn’t go in because she worked with children and neededeep her “CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) check clear”. They had too much to lose. Equally, it showed by contrast those young people who had little stake in the society and felt that had nothing to lose.
For me, Michael seems to echo Stuart Hall’s comments on Radio 4 recently, when he warned of the coming conservatism in this country, telling us that the powerful have always tried to appear as though they have just ‘emerged from the sea’ with all their enlightenment rationalism and fitness to govern already in place. Derrida’s work tried to unstitch metaphysical depth, because if we don’t we are left with the kind of othering we are currently getting from our politicians. Crucially, Michael urges that difficult theory must be applied practically, against the impulses we are seeing on the right which illuminate how forms of imperialism are not ‘merely historical’, but contemporary, and Les also seems to echo this. I agree that complexity is needed, but I don’t hear it from politicians, and much more frighteningly, I don’t hear it out in public, and this includes some friends of mine. Ultimately, the riots were a disaster, they could be used to other the underclass for decades, unless we make it a space for change…
To shift from the content of Michael Keith’s piece to its exposition, it isn’t especially hard to follow, apart from the greek references which wouldn’t take much time to further explain to a non-specialist. I say this because I am reminded of the heartfelt comment of artist Alfredo Jaar at last autumn’s Liverpool Biennale. Introducing a talk by Chantal Mouffe as part of his installation The Marx Lounge, he said he was constantly bewildered by the gap between academc discourse and work and what happens in the world. Watching David Cameron’s body language- open-neck shrt, earnestness- and the accompanying language-level has been a sad experience, not least because it is deliberate. As a parallel to Steve Hanson’s reference to Stuart Hall, here is James Hole, Honorary Secretary of the Yorkshire Union of Mechanics’ Institutions, writing in 1853 about Dr. Birkbeck’s advocacy of education for all:
‘He resolved to offer them a gratuitous course of elementary philosophical lectures. To treat his proposal as “visionary” and “absurd”, was but to repeat the welcome which the would-be wise have bestowed on every improvement since the world began. They predicted “that if invited, the mechanics would not come; that if they did come, they would not listen; and if they did listen, they would not comprehend.”‘
ps. I should have said David Cameron among others; my comment is about language-use, nothing more
Some excellent points Michael. But its not all knee-jerk as your focus on Boris Johnson suggests. Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband have spoken of multiple and complex causes – may be they’re competing not to be outbid for the moral high ground but still a world away from ‘criminality pure and simple’. And both of them have (pace Peter Oborne) also made links between riots and issue of trust (or lack thereof) following scandals of MPs expenses, phone hacking, and police and News International.
A lot has been said about families, communities, youth, deprivation, etc. Not all (or much) of that would might stand up to empirical work – and Paul Bagguley makes a strong point about diversity rather than unity – but all those things are easily amenable to analyses where sociological thinking has a lot to say.
I just wanted to add to the mix the fact that one of Boris Johnson’s senior aids, (Dr) Munira Mirza, has a Phd in Sociology from the University of Kent. See the link:
http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/mayoral-team/munira-mirza
At £127K we should also, as an aside, be using her as a poster person for sociological employability!
Tim Strangleman
People wanted free stuff and thought they had a decent chance of getting away with it. No biggie, not difficult to understand.
It would interesting to see the answers to questions like why it went from a protests against a police shooting to a massive riot across the country and how the “standing up” against the rioters will affect future unrest. One component, the social media comes into question. However according to a preliminary study by the Guardian the tweets were mainly reactions to the riots rather than encouragement (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/24/twitter-study-post-riot-plans).
One theory; explaining the reason for rioting involving gangs could perhaps apply the ideas of Edwin Sutherland. In a recent book from 2010 on criminal gangs in Sweden the authors Lasse Wierup and Matti Larsson they came to the conclusion if the advantages are greater, no matter who individuals socioeconomic background they will commit the crime. In the post riot period with harsh sentences given to the perpetrators I wonder if the disadvantages were not greater after all. In short, Sutherland’s theory to some extent might be part of the explanation but for sure not the only one.
On the other hand, how about a simplistic explanation that “STUFF HAPPENS” quoting Donald Rumsfeld’s during the early disturbance in Iraq back in 2003, because after all “freedom is untidy”.
Pingback: I read the article on the riots in Salford have the Guardian got it right?have we failed our kids,my question would be have Labour failed our kids. | Swinton South Green Party