
In times of social upheaval, it is easy to lose one’s head.
So, in light of the riots, it is worthwhile reiterating: there is a distinction between
a) cause and effect, and
b) moral right and wrong.
If eight youths break into a greengrocers shop, and run out clutching all they can carry, what they are doing is wrong. They should be appropriately punished. If they set that shop on fire, all the more so.
Equally, if a large group of people are allowed, or caused, to grow up in relative poverty, expecting that they will know nothing else all the days of their life, offered ever less chance of advancement while seeing ever-growing wealth all around them, it is to be expected that sooner or later there will be burning cars.
“Britain is a safe haven in the global debt storm” – George Osborne, today in the House of Commons, describing how his austerity package had been ‘vindicated’.
In Hackney on Monday night, surrounded by hooded teenagers throwing rocks, three burning cars, one motorbike, dirty, graffitied tower blocks, and a wall of police, I felt less bullish than Mr. Osborne.
One cannot draw a direct line of causation between the burning cars and the fact that the rioters and looters were generally of the income bracket hit hardest by cuts and rising unemployment. One cannot draw a direct line of causation between more than 50% cuts in youth budgets in Hackney (75% in Tottenham) and the broken shop windows. But one would be myopic not to note the correlation. And a lot more than myopic to imagine the surroundings to be ‘safe’. In any event, and again, without drawing causative links, it is hard to see Britain of the last few days as a ‘safe haven’ for anyone.
All that one can say is that there is a correlation between economic status and whether or not one has spent much time in the last 72 hours out looting.
“Young people smashing up shops has nothing to do with inequality… this is not about poverty, this is about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights, but nothing about responsibilities.”
- David Cameron, today in the House of Commons
What is the authority that should be respected? The government whose austerity package whips away youth centres and EMA allowances? Or the police? The police who, four months earlier, had kettled, hit and provoked us as we protested at rises in tuition fees, knowing that we were – by and large – to well-mannered and socialised to fight back.
Mr. Cameron is either wrong or being deliberately duplicitous. The rarefied society in which I spend my time glorifies violence and despises authority, but is thoroughly neutered by socialisation, and certainly does not smash up shops. We sit around despising authority, contemplating the horror of our existence, occasionally loving and being loved in return.
The teenagers in Hackney burning cars did not feel part of any social contract, and certainly not of the same society as me. I returned home with a swollen jaw, lucky it was no worse. They had no cause. Causes are a luxury of those with ideologies. For them, it was it was a mardi gras – the one night, perhaps of their lives, that they would, briefly, be the talk of the town.
And for others – in Brixton, in Manor House, in Queensway – shown on a daily basis that money is happiness, it was a chance to participate, through ownership, in society.
This is all about poverty. Not just in the economic sense – in the spiritual, too. If one believes that one has the possibility to better oneself – that life will improve next week, next month, next year – then one has something to lose. In the case of rioters in Brixton: what did they want? Not ‘freedom’. Or ‘a stake in society’. They wanted televisions and trainers. There is something terribly, terribly wrong with a culture that measures its worth by its televisions and its trainers: aesthetically, as well as ethically!
All of which excuses nothing. Actions have consequences, and wrong actions should be – and are – punished.
Theft is wrong, and thieves should be arrested and prosecuted. This is a moral imperative.
And a society that produces a class of the truly dispossessed, the hopeless (in the original sense of the word), will inevitably be punished by the actions of those it has created. This is amoral, casual and inevitable.