Well, the 'silly season' never really got started did it? Drifting in on the tail of the phone-hacking scandal came the nascent tremor of the euro-zone economic situation, and peppering this palimpsest of news people occasionally recalled that there was famine in Ethiopia. And now the 'silly' and more bizarre stories are going to have to fight harder for the headlines as parts of the UK smoulder in ruins.
Never known to waste a good crisis of course, a good deal of posturing has resulted from this sorry state of affairs from politicians and political commentators alike. Since there is an appetite for 'investigations' and 'inquiries' at the moment, there is a mood to establish the truth of the matter, but sadly existence of this mood, developing in tandem with ongoing events, ultimately fosters the same kind of irrational and cynical reasoning that often mandates an inquiry in the first place. In the desperate effort to establish the truth whilst riots are still going on, commentators are essentially trying to investigate the source of the fire whilst the building burns around them. If flames have enveloped the entire building, how can you really be sure that someone left the grill on? And even then, is that information immediately useful?
Of course, the truth should not be left untouched, but frankly the attempts by politicians and commentators to explain this bizarre turn of events are pathetic if not a little contemptible. Labour politicians have repeatedly stated that these riots have resulted from a lack of opportunity and anger at the government cuts. Conservative politicians have claimed that this is part of the Labour legacy. And some commentators and bloggers have even dare claim that this is the consequence of consumerism and the celebrity culture. All of these accusations, whomever they are leveled at, of course always start with the words "I'm not excusing these events", or words to that effect, but regardless of which caveat they preface their thoughts with they fail to admit that they are still blaming someone other than the actual looters.
The most obvious difference between the riots occurring now and the ones that occurred thirty years ago is that the riots in the 1980's involved rioters actively aggravating the police. The scale of looting was relatively low, because actually the rioters of old, the classic rioter if you will, actually had a cogent, if possibly misguided, point to make. The fact that the present day rioters are barely in contact with the police just goes to illustrate that these people really don't have much of a point to make at all. Social deprivation and government cuts affect everyone, not just teenagers and young adults, so to reduce this violence and destruction to the result of unpopular government policy is simply lazy.
Indeed, such reasoning would not just seem to be lazy, but also in contradiction with the available facts. Currently, over a hundred people have been charged in the aftermath of the rioting in London, and current reports state that some of the people charged today have included Youth Workers, Social Workers, University Graduates, and even a recent enlistee to the Armed Forces. On first analysis, the fact that a list of rioters should include people in these professions does not seem particularly noteworthy, until one realises that these are not professions associated with the 'hopeless', 'disengaged' and 'deprived'. If someone who is 'disengaged' can become a Social Worker then it's a wonder that the Social Care service can function at all.
The argument from consumerism is an even more ludicrous line of reasoning. Of course, frequent images of celebrities flaunting their latest high-end purchases, and the ability of very high-profile individuals to ostensibly earn dizzying amounts of cash for seemingly very little work or effort, will always work to discourage anyone, not just the young, from putting in the effort themselves. Hopelessness is often born out of jealousy. However, once again, there are not middle-aged men or women involved in this looting, clamouring for the latest goods from high street stores. In fact, given the child population of London, it unarguably the case that there are a number of teenagers that are also not taking advantage of the seemingly lawless environment. If capitalism and the celebrity culture were truly the underlying cause of these events then one would need to clearly address this disparity between those inside and those outside the mob. What makes those who abstain from looting different from other people? Answer this question and you will do far more than anyone who advances this pathetic 'insight' into 'modern life'.
It is far too early to be postulating in this manner. Riots may be (at the time of writing) over in London, but they are simmering elsewhere. The sheer scale of the rioting cannot even be taken to be an indicator of the popularity of the 'cause' - instead of a common battle cry and a conch, this crowd could just as easily have limitless youthful curiosity and Twitter. All of the thoughts alluded to above are quite simply a cynical round of the blame game, with each person wishing to condemn the rioters whilst simultaneously tacking on a rider loaded with culpability to the target they have pre-chosen to suit their political bias. Any one of them could be proven to be correct in their analysis - but it would just good fortune. All of them rely on the axiom that all children are but a blank slate, waiting patiently and in good faith to be etched on by the corrupting and tainted influences of the wider world. But perhaps we shouldn't rule out the fact that actually, in the end, there is no explaining away that some people are just criminals, some people are just stupid, and that some people just want to belong to a crowd.
No comments:
Post a Comment