London Riots

“What needs explaining is why they don’t occur, not why they do occur.” – Roger Scruton.

There are two types of states in which we live in, two types of state in which we have, repressive and ideological. The repressive state, police and army, are paired with the ideological state, the media, to prevent a return back to unstable chaotically organised life. We create and construct order every day because quite simply we feel impelled to; it has become part of our nature to have a strict sense of order. Civil order occurs because people choose to follow the rules and law; it is a voluntary cooperation however the London riots of 2011 can be seen as a portrayal of the “natural state” of mankind with the rejections of the laws and social conventions. This linear and strongly stratified way of living is helpful in explaining how rioters, who become disillusioned with the façade, wanted to fight back and break the barriers that isolate and trap them.

Thomas Hobbes argues that the function of the state was to protect us from the horrors of living without one. The state of nature would be one of “nasty, brutish and short” lives and one of which we will all be at constant war with one another. Lies have to be fabricated, rules forced and institutions corrupted in order to stop a barbaric society taking over. In order to overcome a natural state, we require a strong and forceful central government.

We live in a society where we need fear. Fear is a strong and impelling emotion that has existed for decades. The natural need for fear in society has transcended generations as well as the voluntary co-operation that exists. Every law that exists is based on a boundary that limits people, laws mirror fear, people need to be controlled and subjugated otherwise the natural instincts and compulsions take over. However the London riots of 2011 display an inversion. In a time of weak social standing, the structures that hold people in place and are there to encourage development instead, invert and the police and media become the targets instead of the aggressors. The lack of government authority created a fear in the public instead of the fear in government. Fear of not fitting in led to more calls to riot, fear of being attacked led to calls to the police, fear exists in every parameter of life and serves to empower and weaken everyone.

We must look at it as a fact that the rioters felt that they could loot, with little consequence. The British politicians themselves looted in the expense scandal, and bankers in the PPI scandal. Punishment for these crimes have been perceived to be very relaxed, the idea that the government are not in a position of strength to be able to condemn them. Rioters sensed a moment of weakness, and opportunity to create chaos and imbue their own personal needs in a manner upon which spread to everyone and anyone who felt dissatisfied. Criminals thrive on society’s indulgence of understanding and expect that their social circumstance in some way or another is a meek justification for their actions. This in turn creates a self-fulfilling prophecy upon which people’s poverty causes them to steal plunging them into more crime and problems denying them a chance to move up the established hierarchy. The consumerist culture that the media so happens to promote and advertises leaves many feeling out of touch with the rest of society.

At the same time, the riots were able to be widespread as police intervention was able to stop them. The lack of any real decisive action from the government allowed rioters to do as they pleased. Instead of contemplating on whether it is moral to harm civilians, the government should have imposed their authority. The use of rubber bullets was neglected due to the fear of the media’s and public reaction, in which delayed progression. If the police were to be able to have calmed the first riots in Tottenham, other riots in places such as Hackney, Birmingham and Manchester would have been inevitable as they would not have seen the government’s vulnerability. This supports Thomas Hobbes idea that without a strong political power over the people, we would lead into anarchy.

The government not only had a lack of control over decisions on how to contain and neutralise any future riots as well as the current, they also had very little control over modern technology, and social networking i.e. Facebook, twitter and BBM. From these specific technologies , groups were able to form, to plan and to organize riots. The controlling body of Britain could not monitor or censor what was being posted and written, and the absence of control allowed the widespread of riots. The advances in media and social networking have meant that a complete control of the people has been extinguished.

Hobbes idea of the need for a strong and forceful government to control the state of nature is a very supportive argument of the London Riots 2011. The government are becoming more and more concerned about “human rights” instead of their authority which then allows the younger generation to be able to rebel. Even then after the riots, only a few were condemned and yet released on bail, or on tag, a few days later. Because of the idea of democracy, the government is controlled by the people rather than the other way round hence leading to riots. Fear and authority needs to be reinserted.