I have to admit to a certain amount of dismay when I was hearing the 'victims' of the looting cheer as the British versions of 'entitled'
celebrity leadership strongly condemn the idea of trying to determine the object of the article entitled
"London
riots: Why respectable people turned to looting".
It had occurred to me that it would be understandable that those injured and wronged by the hapless passionate flailing of mobs would be angry and
unwilling to entertain anything remotely sounding like an "excuse" for their woes. It also seemed to me that selecting that sentiment, and
pandering to it, was a typical political tool to engender support from people whose outrage blinded them to anything beyond immediate retribution.
But rejecting an understanding of the causes of such things seems foolishly myopic and self-destructive; sort of the way America rejects the idea that
their political and commercial meddling in other nations would engender "blow back" from the disaffected.
So for whatever reason, I wanted to share the comments this author makes regarding the riots...
A millionaire's daughter, a school teaching assistant and a lifeguard are hardly the sort of people you'd have expected to get caught up in the
wave of violent looting that hit the UK earlier this week. So what drives privileged or seemingly virtuous people to do bad things?
As those responsible for the disturbances begin to appear in court, it is becoming clear that the looters were not all out-of-control teenagers with
nothing to lose.
As a fellow human, I am often troubled by the oft-stated reality that people swept up into rioting mobs somehow lose their normal demeanor and become
someone they themselves wouldn't recognize. Part of me believes still that this could never happen to me.... but both history and recent events
seems to argue otherwise...
"It's a classic demonstration of the power of the situation," says Ayelet Fishbach, a behavioural scientist at the University of Chicago,
Illinois. "People in a group follow the group's norms."
I was investigating into (what presumably should be) the more mainstream understanding of what a
"riot"
actually is, and found this:
A riot is a form of civil disorder characterized often by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence against
authority, property or people. While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots are typically chaotic and exhibit herd behavior, and
usually generated by civil unrest.
Riots often occur in reaction to a perceived grievance or out of dissent. Historically, riots have occurred due to poor working or living conditions,
government, oppression, taxation or conscription, conflicts between ethnic groups, food supply or religions (see race riot, sectarian violence and
pogrom), the outcome of a sporting event (see football hooliganism) or frustration with legal channels through which to air grievances.
Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of private and public property. The specific property to be targeted varies depending on the of
the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious
buildings.
It appears that calling rioters "criminals" or, "terrorists" is quite a stretch. There is an apparent socio-political purpose for labeling them
as such. And what's more, should the grievances or lack of adequate venue to express them be even remotely legitimate, it behooves the authorities
to wash away the possibility with inflamed rhetoric about the failings of the rioters.
This leads to me think that we will not get any help for authorities in determining the cause lest they expose their lack of preparation for the
consequences of their own complicity in the rise of the disaffected.
The fact that many of those caught up in the UK rioting were middle-class "is only really a surprise if you buy into the view that rioting is the
preserve of mindless members of a subhuman underclass who are suffering from a range of delusions and pathologies", says Alex Haslam of the
University of Exeter, UK.
Our educated interviewee may be wiser than we think, as it appears clear that while name-calling by the victims is a natural consequence of their pain
and suffering, the political class seems all too eager to categorize the 'offenders' as "subhuman." While there appeared to be no formal
grievance that I have heard of, it appears that the spark causing this conflagration was one involving an increasingly troublesome social issue in the
west; overtly wanton and brutal behavior by public servants whose job used to be keeping the peace; but in our prevalent and often reinforced social
doctrine of fear, now practice 'enforcement' without forethought or remorse.
That spark, seems all but forgotten because of the property damage that incurred, and the tragic and equally out of proportion actions that led to
loss of life.
The article closes with a particularly refreshing new perspective...
However, Clarke McCauley of Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania believes another factor may also have been at play: "If you watch others looting
and getting richer, you are seeing them get ahead of you," he says. "It is not just the free reward value of looting that moves people, it is fear
of falling behind."
Somehow, that makes a bit of sense to me.
Thanks for reading.
Be well,
MM
