On violence, again
Article published: Sunday, August 28th 2011
Last November, I wrote an article for MULE regarding the government’s attempts to “censor the language of violence coming from young people” in the wake of the student protests in London. Given the recent spate of riots across the country it seemed appropriate to re-examine the topic, both in light of the new kinds of violence that occurred and, more importantly, in terms of the reactions it provoked.
The Prime Minister, he of the “hug a hoodie” fame, was quick to brand the riots “mindless” while speaking of the “immorality” in the minds of those committing the violence. The view from the ivory tower that is Westminster on council estates in places such as Tottenham or Salford probably creates the impression that packs of feral youths roam the streets without conscience and for the most part it did seem that many of those involved lacked the ability to express a purpose or belief in what they were doing, at least one that didn’t make a nice soundbite for the Daily Mail. But there was a language to this violence that, although communicated differently to the winter protests, shared similarities. It was the language of a group of people who had been ignored and sidelined by all other means of political and social communication.
Groups of students can organise a protest, speak eloquently and at length about their financial straights, and even shout members of their number down when they do anything to jeopardise the impression of their reasonable nature (for instance the “stop throwing shit” chant of Millbank Tower fame). Sound clips of an eight-year-old from Salford being interviewed minus any sort of face covering, brazenly telling the camera that he wouldn’t get caught looting because the police wouldn’t find him, and if they did it would only be his first offence, circulated on the internet – supposed proof of the idiocy and callousness of those involved. It might be stupid to brag on TV while on your way to commit a crime, but the feeling that you won’t get caught or worry if you do is far more understandable when you think of how the poorest people in society are increasingly invisible in it. For instance, the ‘Big Society’ idea of us all helping each other out to provide public services is aimed squarely at the middle classes. Those with enough cash don’t require such help as they can provide it for their own, and those at the bottom of the ladder are expected to fend for themselves.
If anyone from these places obtains the gaze of the public eye it is so they may be demonised or pointed at in the Jeremy Kyle freak show as people that are fundamentally incapable. Never less than in the environment of government spending cuts, adults from the poorest estates are portrayed as scroungers and cheats and their children a threat to teachers, social order and themselves (especially if recent comments by that great social reformer, Mr Tony Blair, are to be believed). Those in poverty have been denied a public language and a gateway to express their own needs, because the rest of society wants to view them as “chavs” that can’t manage any social activities beyond those of Wayne and Waynetta Slob. The apex of this is the view that single mothers are the root cause of this problem, following the idea that just as they must be lacking in control of their reproductive systems so too must they be unable to discipline their children. If the contrast between the two riots wasn’t already proof that the English class system is alive, well and judgmental, then the responses to them makes it an iron-clad fact.
The ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’ language was out in force and nowhere more prevalent than in the “I Love MCR” campaign that sprung up with its meeting point outside that most beloved of social institutions: the Phillip-Green owned Market Street branch of Miss Selfridge. Never mind that witnesses saw the police corralling rioting adolescents towards the independent shops of the Northern Quarter whose insurance was very unlikely to cover the damage done: the way to “fight back” against this is apparently to band together against the rioters and carry on shopping. Manchester City Council made public transport free for a day last weekend to encourage more residents to overcome their fears and flow back into the city centre to shop. The language of the violence of the riots was communicated in a fairly unabashedly capitalist way, targeting prominent symbols of low-level luxury that are consistently denied to those rioting. It was political and it was a message, but the solution to it is unlikely to be found in the tills of Market Street.
Finally, a key division needs to be made between rioters and looters. Burning down a building in your locality is designed to endanger people. Opportunistic stealing is thinking that you won’t get caught, not communicating a message that you don’t care about society because it certainly doesn’t care about you. Banding these two groups together in order to further marginalise them and equip them nicely for a life of crime by serving them with lengthy prison sentences won’t reform anyone, it will just deepen their need to make their presence felt through more unconventional means. As the cuts bite, this will not be the last of the revolts by those that society wishes to ignore, especially if the trend for tribally painting them as voiceless outsiders continues. This is not about patronisingly trying to “give voice” to a group of people who are demographically different from the student protestors, but about the need to end the middle class, keep-calm-and-carry-on-shopping response that has prevailed since.
Ruth Michaelson
Ruth’s first blog, On Violence, can be read here
More: Blog
Comments
No comments found
The comments are closed.
