734301370Y: Bachelor Scriptie Sociale Geografie Supervisor: Marit de Vries
University of Amsterdam
Date of submission: 20th of June, 2014
Caroline Mies
Address: Cia van Boortlaan 4, Amstelveen Email: caroline_mies@hotmail.com Telephone number: 06-‐42662962 Student number: 10208704
Words: 19722
British media portrayal of the
2011 London riots
Thesis by Caroline Mies
University of Amsterdam
Foreword
This thesis is the end product of the three-‐year programme of the Bachelor Human Geography. During these three years, I have enjoyed my time as a Human Geographer very much. From this thesis I have learned to be more critical of how and what the media is reporting on. Media practices such as focussing on certain elements of a story and the use of specific sources can have a significant impact on the construction of a report and even on the perceived reality. By studying the media portrayal of the UK riots I have seen some of the ways in which the media can construct their own version of the ‘truth’. This has made me realize I should always be critical of what the media is stating and not just consider their story as pure reality. Besides this learning process, the course of this thesis has been a long and rather challenging one. However, with the help of some people I am able to be satisfied with the end result of this thesis. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Marit de Vries for always giving me helpful feedback and for letting me choose a topic that I was most interested in. Second, I would like to thank Dr Helen Wilson, for developing my interest in the UK riots during my semester abroad in Manchester. Apart from that, I would like to thank my parents for supporting me, not only during the process of this thesis but also during the entire three years of my study.
Abstract
The riots happening in the United Kingdom in 2011 were a hot topic in the British media and for the British politicians. However, many politicians, social scientist and journalists seemed to disagree with what really caused the riots and what the solutions were to the riots. This study explores the portrayal of the riots in the British media by analysing three newspapers, namely the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Guardian. First, different media practices relating to the construction of news reports and the objectivity are discussed. Second, the different explanations to the riots, given by social scientist and politicians are explored after which the analysis of the three newspapers is done.
The study concludes that there were two important frames constructed for the riots in the British media. The media either constructed the riots as an act of greed or as grievance. By focussing on specific elements of the riots and quoting particular people these frames were constructed and made credible.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
5
2. Media practices
7
2.1 Social constructivism, discourse and media 7
2.2 Media as an information source and its exclusionary practices 8
2.3 Framing and representation by the media 10
2.4 Media representations on riots 10
3. Explanations by social scientists and politicians
13
3.1 Theoretical perspectives on riots 13
3.2 Context: neo-‐liberalism and poverty of imagination 14
3.3 Causes: marginalisation and stigmatisation 15
3.4 Causes: Broken society 16
3.5 Depoliticisation of the causes of the London riots 2011 16
4. Research design and methodology
18
4.1 Research questions 18
4.2 Research method 18
4.3 Data gathering 18
4.4 Data analysis 19
4.6 Conceptual model and coding scheme 20
5. Media portrayal of London riots 2011
21
5.1 Causes for the riots portrayed in the media 21
5.1.1 Social explanations for the riots 21 5.1.2 Economic explanations for the riots 26 5.1.3 Institutional explanations for the riots 29
5.2 Solutions to the riots as portrayed in the media 31
5.2.1 Institutional solutions to the riots 31 5.2.2 Social solution to the riots 32
5.3 Participants as portrayed in the media 33
5.4 Conclusion 35
6. Conclusion
37
6.1 Discussion 39
References
41
Reference list for analysed articles
46
Appendix
50
1. Introduction
In August 2011 riots broke out in several cities in the United Kingdom during a time of economic recession. The riots started after a black male, Mark Duggan, was killed by the police in the London neighbourhood Tottenham. After this incident the family and some people from the local community held a peaceful protest at the police station with the intent to gain more clarity from the police about what exactly had occurred. However, the peaceful protest developed into violent riots after the police had allegedly attacked a 16-‐ year-‐old girl who demanded answers from them (Blake & Gardham, 2011). The riots lasted until the 11th of August and had spread to other cities, for example in Greater London, Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Salford, Nottingham, Gloucester and Liverpool. During these riots, shops were looted and cars were set on fire. The riots were said to be the worst Britain had seen since the last quarter of the century (Hughes, 2011b). More than 3000 people have been arrested and more than 1700 people were brought to court (Slater, 2011).
Tottenham is known as one of the most deprived neighbourhoods within the United Kingdom (Wardrop & Millward, 2011) and Tottenham has previously been the stage for violent riots. In 1981 there were the Brixton riots and in 1985 the Broadwater Farm riots. For some it seemed like the riots from 1981 and 1985 were happening again as there were some similarities with what happened then. The riots in 1985 started after the death of two black members of the local community. One of the victims was a woman who died from a heart attack after the police searched her home; the other victim was killed in a shooting during a police search in Brixton a week earlier (Van Dijk, 1989). However, the similarities between the riots in 2011 and the previous riots are contested in the media and by some politicians who say that the London riots in 2011 did not start for the same reasons like the ones from 1985 and 1981, which were mostly ‘race riots’ and the riots from 2011 were not (Johnston, 2011; Gilligan, 2011).
The riots of 2011 were also said to be new in the sense that the use of mass communications by means of Twitter, Facebook and BBM, the messenger system of Blackberry was utilized at a wide scale. The riots were therefore called the Blackberry riots as through BBM the rioters communicated with each other to spread information of where the next scene of rioting and looting was supposed to be (Halliday, 2011).
The riots in 2011 were widely covered in the media, and have become a topic of interest for social scientists and politicians. According to the social scientists such as Slater (2011), Wallace (2012; 2014) and Tyler (2013) the reasons behind the riots were marginalisation, stigmatization and depoliticisation.
Within the British political arena other causes have been mentioned for the riots. Several British Conservative politicians, such as the Prime Minister David Cameron and Ian Duncan Smith -‐ who is the work and pensions secretary of the Conservative party -‐ blame the ‘broken and sick society’, ‘pure criminality’ and people’s welfare dependency as reasons for the riots to start (Johnston, 2011; Mulholland, 2011). However the Labour politicians were more likely to blame social exclusion and a skewed relationship between the community and police for the riots.
Furthermore, the media has extensively reported on the different causes for the riots to start, the Guardian has even began it’s own investigation into the riots. The media is an important information source for people and so the way the media had reported on the riots would have consequences for the way the public viewed the riots and what needs to
be done in order to prevent new riots. The media has however also been criticized for having exclusionary practices, being biased and framing events in certain ways (Gitlin, 1980; Herman & Chomsky, 2000; Bauder, 2010; Entman, 2007). Therefore, the focus of this study is the way in which the British media portrayed the riots.
In order to study the British media, three newspapers have been selected that have a different political angle: The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and the Guardian. The thesis will focus on the riots that occurred in London as this is were the riots started and it is said that the rest of the riots were ‘copycats’ so it will be most interesting to study London were it all began. Thus the research question is: How do the British media portray the London riots
of 2011?
The outline of this thesis is as follows: firstly the theoretical framework is given. Secondly, media practices are explored after which explanations for the riots by social scientists and politicians are discussed. Then the method and data for this thesis is explained in the methodological chapter. In chapter 5 the results of the analysis of the three different newspapers are explored. And lastly the thesis will give a conclusion and recommendation for further studies.
2. Media practices
In the following paragraphs certain important aspects of the media are discussed. Our social ‘realities’ are constructed, in which certain discourses are promoted over others. These discourses are spread through various institutions, and one if them is the media. First of all media is an important source for information and so it has quite some power in distributing news and stories. Furthermore, the media is often thought to be objective and neutral but this has been criticised by many, as will be explained below. What the media tells us is therefore often a version of the event constructed by the media. In the following paragraphs these notions of the media will be further explained and explored. Finally, in the last paragraph the study of media representations on riots are discussed.
2.1 Social constructivism, discourse and media
In this research it is important to note that the notion of social constructivism is central therefore a constructivist approach is adopted. According to Hall (1997:25) people “construct meaning, using representational systems”. This means that meaning is constructed through the use of concepts and signs. The language system, or the representational system is what construct meaning and not the material world. This has great implications for the way knowledge and institutions such as the media produce truth. Within the constructivist approach there are two main strands, the semiotic approach and the discursive approach. The semiotic approach is the study of signs within language as forms of representation but the discursive approach seems more appropriate as it deals with notions of power and larger units of analysis such as whole texts and discourses (Hall, 1997)
Foucault’s discursive approach deals with the notion of discourse, power and knowledge. Following the definition of Phillips and Hardy, discourse is “an interrelated set of texts, and as the practices of their production, dissemination, and reception, that brings and object into being […] social reality is produced through discourses, and social interactions can not be fully understood without references to the discourses that give them meaning” (Phillips & Hardy, 2002: 3). So discourses can produce realities, which is in line with the constructivist approach. Foucault describes the production of meaning and knowledge through discourse, which according to Foucault, relates to the question of power as power defines the scope of what is to be included in the dominant discourse and what is excluded (Hall, 2001: 72-‐81). According to Phillips and Hardy (2002) “it is about the power of incomplete, ambiguous, and contradictory discourses to produce a social reality that we experience as solid and real” (Phillips & Hardy, 2002: 1-‐2). So discourses can produce realities, however these produced discourses have very much to do with power as this power defines the dominant discourse according to Foucault.
Furthermore, the media is one of the institutions in which these discourses are maintained and thereby influence the construction of our social realities. According to Van Dijk (1989) the reporting done by the media is part of a dominant and ideological framework because the reporting of the media is often in line with the institutional frameworks. Van Dijk (1989:232) explains: “positions defended by the press are not personal opinions, but manifestations of more complex, socially shared and dominant ideological frameworks that embody institutional relationships and power”. So the news and media is one source
through which “kinds of meaning get systematically and regularly constructed around certain events” (Hall, 1982: 67). Furthermore, journalism does not only reflect the material world. By selecting and interpreting certain cases and information the media produces certain realities according to Schudson, who states “journalist not only report reality but create it” (2003:2) and news is merely an “account of the ‘real world’ […] not reality itself but a transcription” (2000: 38). This is also related to the notion of power as certain stories are told and others are not and whose reality they report. So the news in this way constructs a dominant reality that is systematically produced.
2.2 Media as an information source and its exclusionary practices
In democracies the media has several different important roles for the public. First and foremost the media should supply its public with accurate information and should reflect the different public opinions. This includes speaking for all groups within society and not just the powerful, like politicians or just the rich people (Scammel, 2000). Habermas stated that the exchange of correct information is necessary in order for the public opinion and political action to be effective (Habermas, 1989). Additionally, the media should act as a watchdog against powerful institutions and government scrutiny, and so the freedom of speech in journalism is held high in many countries (Scammel, 2000). In order to give accurate information and serve the public interest, it is important for journalist to be objective so that political influences in the media are reduced. However this objectivity in journalism is often criticised (Herman & Chomsky, 2000; Bauder, 2010). The ownership of newspapers and advertisements in them are stated to reinforce certain power structures that undermine the freedom of speech and the objectivity of the journalists (Herman & Chomsky, 2000; Bauder, 2010). Herman and Chomsky even go further and say that the media in the US is an extension of private corporations’ interests (2000), but also in the UK much of the media is concentrated into the ownership of certain large corporations, such as The Daily Mail, Metro, The Mail on Sunday and Ireland on Sunday who are owned by DGMT (Dmgmedia, 2014). Furthermore, the notions of what is newsworthy and how to select and frame certain stories are interlinked with the corporations that issue them, which can this further undermine the objectivity. The following quote from Hall critiques the objectivity in which news is being reported.
“Journalists speak of ‘the news’ as if events select themselves. Further, they speak as though which is the ‘most significant’ news story and which ‘new angles’ are most salient and divinely inspired. Yet, of the millions of events which occur everyday in the world, only a tiny proportion ever becomes visible as ‘potential news stories’ and of this proportion, only a small fraction are actually produced as the day’s news in the news media. We appear to be dealing then with a ‘deep structure’ whose function as a selective device is un-‐transparent even to those who professionally most know how to operate it.” (Hall, 1973: 181)
From the quote of Hall is becomes clear that the media has exclusionary practices in selecting news events. The selection process for news events is not clear and therefore selecting events is likely to be based on what the media owner thinks of is relevant. The ownership of media can thus undermine the media’s objectivity. The media includes and excludes certain stories and thereby construct certain truths by only focussing on specific
events that are considered more important to the media or the powerful (Tuchman, 1978). Thus the media can filter dominant discourses in the construction and selection of certain ‘truths’ and therefore withholding other stories and truths (Ferree, 2002; Dzur, 2002). The events that are excluded or included are also dependent on the newspaper itself, as some newspaper will cover different stories and content than other newspapers for example. But these exclusionary practices and representing the event in certain ways have important consequences for how the public views particular events, as they are not given the divers and extensive report on some stories. Consequently, the action of the public is based on a selective frame of the ‘truth’ (Chouliaraki, 2008b).
Additionally, the media can also have exclusionary practices towards the use of sources. Governments provide much of the information that is used by the media and media representations are often influenced by the agendas of the elite (Gitlin, 1980). “Certainly, powerful national, political and economic voices tend to be privileged” (Bauder, 2010: 21) additionally, the voice of the more ‘weaker’ part of society is often excluded. The people that are the objects of the reports are often the marginalized who lack the power to influence the media and construct their version of the story. From the following quote of Bauder, it becomes clear that the people who are reported on in the media are often excluded from influencing the content of the reports and so their version of events is not told.
“The capacity for human agency to engage in journalistic construction of meanings and identities is distributed highly unevenly. While reporting often focuses on marginalized people, expresses compassion towards human suffering, and draws attention to injustice and hardship, the objects of such reporting have little influences on contents, coverage and the interpretation of them and their situation in the media” (Bauder, 2010: 21)
According to McChesney journalism is more and more dependent on what ‘official sources’ say, such as politicians and experts on the specific topic, and thus what they say is the news. In an interview McChesney states that “if you talk to prisoners, strikers, the homeless, or protestors, you have to paint their perspectives as unreliable, or else you’ve become an advocate and are no longer a ‘neutral’ professional journalist” (McChesney, 2000). Additionally, the government or other ‘official’ sources are preferred, because they are often ready and available and this also reduces the costs of newsgathering (Smith et al.,2001). Furthermore, “the media portray government sources as credible and unbiased” and they are often not critiqued and thereby the agendas of official sources are being reinforced (Smith et al., 2001: 1402). Such reliance on official sources therefore gives a certain connotation to the news that is reported and gives power to these officials to what is in the news.
Again, the notion of power has much to do with the content of the media and how events are represented. Consequently often the dominant discourses of the elites will be presented in the media as ‘truth’ or commonsense and can dismiss contesting beliefs (Knight & Dean, 1982). Additionally, it is stated that “elites presumably care about what people think because they want them to behave in certain ways, supporting or at least tolerating elites
activities” elites use their power to get people to think what they want by excluding and including the ideas or events that are favourable to them (Entman, 2007: 165).
2.3 Framing and representation by the media
The representation of events in the media is a constructed, produced and discursive version of reality. Another important aspect of the media is the way in which the media frames and represents certain events. Framing from the media is “the process of culling a few elements of perceived reality and assembling a narrative that highlights connections among them to promote a particular interpretation. Fully developed frames typically perform four functions: problem definition, causal analysis, moral judgement, and remedy promotion” (Entman, 2007: 164). These frames work to shape and alter the interpretations of the public by introducing or raising the importance of particular ideas. With the first function of problem definition, the news that is considered worthy is selected for the public (Entman, 2007). So this ‘priming’ of strategic framing involves: highlighting “the causes of the problems, to encourage moral judgments (and associated affective responses), and to promote favoured policies” (Entman, 2007: 164-‐165). Related to this is that according to Chouliaraki the media encourage “dispositions to feel, think and act” (2008a: 372) in certain ways. So if the media is systematically framing certain events in a particular way it might be that the media is helping distribute power to certain groups or individuals. In addition to this is that according to Entman, the media often has a bias when reporting a story and thus have the power to signify events in a certain way (Hall, 1982). The way the media frames certain events can reveal ‘media content biases’ that, either ‘consciously’ or not, shape the audiences in order to ‘support the interests of particular holders or seekers of political power’ (Entman, 2007: 166). If these biases systematically converge with certain political ideas media frames could consequently favour certain political actors or policy outcomes, this could even happen without the conscious actions or ideological goals from the journalist (Entman, 2007). Thus the media is privileging one version of the events over another, either consciously or not.
The framing and representation actions in the media thus have great implications for the way that the public experiences events and news and how this influences their actions on these produced ‘realities’. The media can shape the public opinion on events as it represents and frames events in a certain way by highlighting specific elements of the events and excluding others, so by framing the events in a certain way.
2.4 Media representations on riots
The media uses exclusionary practices and framing biases to construct specific realties. Since the media has reported extensively on the riots of 2011 it is interesting to see how media has reported on riots in the past. However the literature on riots and media is not very extensive therefore literature on social movements and protests are also explored. Social movements often lead to protests and since some authors, such as Slater (2011) and (2011), state that the riots of 2011 could have also been an act of protest this literature can be insightful as well.
Teun van Dijk has done a study on editorials and how they reported on the Brixton riots in the United Kingdom of 1985. From this study on editorials it becomes clear that the explanations for the riots were within the Black community itself, whose members were
said to be the only one rioting (only the Guardian mentions that there were also white people rioting) (Van Dijk, 1989). From the study on the riots in Brixton, it became evident that according to the press it was a race riot (Van Dijk, 1989). And so one of the recommendations, from the newspapers and politicians, was to teach the Black community the love for their country (Van Dijk, 1989). Social explanations for the riots such as, unemployment, bad housing, and racism are just briefly mentioned by the ‘quality’ papers but are then rejected with the excuse that not all people from the neighbourhood are rioting. A detailed investigation into the riots is rejected with the argument that people already know about social deprivation and because according to the editorials the police had already learned enough from the Scarman report, from earlier riots (Van Dijk, 1989). So almost all papers (except the Guardian and the Times) reject a government intervention to improve the social situation in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the press asks for justice by stiffer punishments to the people rioting, who are according to the editorials, criminals and hooligans who terrorize the neighbourhood. Thus in the case of the Brixton riots in 1985 the focus in the editorials was put on the social and institutional causes and solutions to the riots, namely tackling the race issue and tougher policing.
The editorials studied in Van Dijk’s research had quite some specific ideas about the riots. According to Koopmans (2004) many politicians react to social movements through the media and also learn what these groups want from the media, so many politicians react to social movement activities as they are depicted in the media. According to Koopmans (2004) the media can thus play an important role in influencing these politicians and policies by the way that they are reporting on certain social movements. Additionally, Smith et al (2001) state that the media can have a significant role in the way social movements and protest can succeed in obtaining what they want. According to their research, even when the social movements or protesters attract and get the attention of the media, the media portrays the protest in such a way that it can undermine agendas of the social movements (Smith et al., 2001). Because of limited space the newspapers often deploy a selection bias and thus cannot report on all protests. Some are not viewed as ‘newsworthy’ and so they are not reported on. In the study of Smith et al (2001) it became apparent that the media focuses upon selected issues for a longer period of time and so an event will likely to be reported if the issues that are protested for are in line with what the media has focussed on for a some time already. So in order for the protest to be reported on the issues of the protest must be tied to the issue cycles of the media (Smith et al., 2001). Additionally, the protesters have often said that the media fails to portray the causes of the protest according to the protesters’ view. According to Smith et al, the protest activities are portrayed in such a way that will appeal to the public, this often means that the issues expressed by the protesters are not properly reported on in the media. In the following quote Smith et al (2001) state that the issue concerns of the social movements are often not very important to journalists. Instead they state that the issues of the social movement might threaten the status quo, which is often in the interest of the media. This will reduce the likelihood of the media giving a platform for the social movements issues.
“Conveying protesters’ specific policy or issue concerns is of secondary importance to those reporting on public protests. This could be a function of media gatekeepers whose motivations, routines, and professional interests tend to support the status quo; or it could result from the failure of the social
movement organizers to engage in deliberate efforts to become sufficiently familiar with media news production routines so that they can develop strategies that effectively engage the media” (Smith et al., 2001: 1401)
As is stated in the quote, it can be very hard for the social movement to get the ‘right’ media attention that they seek. This also relates to the quote of Bauder (2010) in §2.2 about the exclusionary practices of the media with regards to the use of sources. He also states that the objects of the reports, which are often the marginalized people, lack the power to actively engage in forming the content of media coverage. Thus practices of the media ensure that only the most appealing media images, story and issues from social movements are likely to gain (favourable) media coverage and so all the other ‘less favourable’ stories are likely to be excluded or transformed negatively for the social movements (Smith et al., 2001).
3. Explanations by social scientists and politicians
Firstly, in this chapter a short overview of different social theories on riots is given. Then, explanations, given by social scientists and politicians, for the riots of 2011 will be discussed. These explanations cover different perspectives on the riots and their causes. It begins with explanations for the riots that focus on the impact of the dominance of neo-‐liberalism in our current political economy. The critiques on the dominance of neo-‐liberalism are connected to the concept of poverty of imagination in order to set the context in which the riots occurred. Others, such as Slater (2011) and Tyler (2013), have tried to explain the 2011 riots through processes of marginalisation and stigmatization. This is also a line of reasoning that has been used by many Left UK politicians, such as by Ken Livingstone a member of the Labour party and the former mayor of London. However an opposite explanation that is used by Conservative politicians is the concept of broken society, which will be explained. Additionally, some politicians, such as Theresa May, the Home Secretary, viewed the riots as acts of criminality and nothing more. This explanation for the riots is being criticized for being a form of depoliticisation as it takes away the blame from the government and thus no policies need to change. From the last chapter it became evident that many politicians and experts are used as sources in newspapers and thus it is also interesting to explore what they have said about the riots (Entman, 2007).
3.1 Theoretical perspectives on riots
Riots often start overnight, but the underlying causes have a far longer history that can result into the outburst of riots. There are several social theories on social action. The first is the breakdown theory, which states that riots and other forms of social violence and rebellion occur when social control has no longer a restraining power (Useem, 1998). This can happen when there are weak social networks, caused for instance by long-‐term unemployment and family instability or extensive migration. This can lead to the deprivation of the neighbourhood and the loss of social restraining power. The main critique point on this theory is that it assumes a degree of deterioration, however in many cases the living conditions of the people rioting were already very poor (Useem, 1998; Smyth, 2006).
Another theory, the structural strain theory, is maybe more applicable as it means that pressure is put on individuals that cannot afford to live the desired life. This means that because people cannot reach their goal they become unhappy and get frustrated. When this frustration turns into aggression it is know as the ‘relative deprivation theory’. So this frustration rises out of wanting success and tackle the people that they perceive have more than them, so out of grievances. Important indicators to look at are unemployment, income level, population growth and density (Crosby, 1979). Thus the structural strain theory and the relative deprivation theory both explain the beginning of riots as individuals that are facing pressure because they have weak economic positions and no success which leads to frustration and this is followed by aggression (Goldstein, 1994; Smyth, 2006). The mentioned theories are important for explaining the factors that lead up to the riot, but for the riots to really break out another very important factor is needed to really cause a riot (Smyth, 2006). “There must be motivation that drives individuals to move from being discontent with the social inequities they are faced with to revolting against them” (Smyth, 2006: 8). Millet et al. find that this happens when people see the social order as illegitimate
as happened when the police shot Mark Duggan under suspicious circumstances (Miller et al., 1977).
However, there has been much discussion on riots if they happen because of experienced injustices or out of greed. According to Collier and Hoeffler “it is difficult to find proxies for grievances and opportunities, we find that political and social variables that are most obviously related to grievances have little explanatory power. By contrast, economic variables, which could proxy some grievances but are perhaps more related to the viability of rebellion, provide considerably more explanatory power” (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004: 563). According to their study riots, rebellions and civil wars can be better explained as acts of greed than out of grievances or injustices.
With regards to the riots happening in London in 2011 different politicians and scientist gave different explanations for the riots to start. Some of these causes are more in line with explanations of greed and others as grievances. In the next paragraphs these different explanations of politicians and social scientists are given. It begins with explanations for the riots that focus on the impact of the dominance of neo-‐liberalism in our current political economy
3.2 Context: neo-‐liberalism and poverty of imagination
The London riots of 2011 occurred in a time of economic recession. Many people were facing hard times and struggled to keep their jobs. Since the 1970s neo-‐liberalism had influenced the UK (Tyler, 2013). However, according to Slater (2011) neo-‐liberalism does not reduce inequalities, it deepens them if any. Slater (2011) says that the cuts in welfare expenditures and benefits, increases the marginalisation of the most vulnerable members of society. The growing inequalities between the rich and poor are also considered to have a negative impact on the social cohesion and social mobility of the poor (Tyler, 2013).
According to Slater (2011) and Tyler (2013) the riots that occurred in 2011 were a result of the failing of the neoliberal system. Not everyone could benefit from neo-‐liberalism and it had created a lot of ‘losers’ in the UK. The riots that occurred in London were according to Tyler (2013) and Slater (2011) done by people, mostly young people, who did not cope well in this neoliberal system and were negatively affected by it. Furthermore, 28 percent of those people arrested in London were students (Home Office, 2011). It was speculated that there might be a link between the unemployed youth and the global wave of protests led by students against the privatisation of education and financial greed (Lea & Hallsworth, 2012). So this neoliberal system is important as a background setting in which the riots occurred.
The way in which neo-‐liberalism has influenced social and economic inequality in Britain and the way in which this is perceived by the general public has received quite some research attention (Dorey, 2011; Park et al, 2010; Sefton, 2009). Several authors mention the concept ‘poverty of imagination’ in their analyses of the public perception of social and economic inequality within the UK (Dorey, 2010; Slater, 2011). The concept of poverty of imagination refers to the believe that people who are poor are responsible for this themselves. It seems that this believe is very much apparent in Britain and in the British media (Dorey, 2010). Reasons for them being poor are because they are lazy or because these people are unable
to manage their budget properly and lack of motivation. It even goes to the extent of people believing that “welfare recipients are abusing the system” (Dorey, 2010: 337).
When this poverty of imagination is the public opinion this can have great implications for the policies on tackling inequality. When poor people are believed to be responsible themselves people are less likely to support welfare benefits or other forms of wealth distribution (Slater, 2011;Dorey, 2010). The media and the public will be more likely to judge the riots than have sympathy for them as it is not believed that the rioters faced structural causes of inequality. So this poverty of imagination can result into accusing the rioters for rioting instead of blaming the system or other underlying structures that has resulted into growing inequality and poverty.
3.3 Causes: marginalisation and stigmatisation
However, social scientists such as Slater (2011) and Tyler (2013), have tried to explain the 2011 riots through processes of marginalisation and stigmatization. Some of the rioters expressed the feeling of being marginalized for explaining why they were rioting. According to Slater (2011) them being marginalized had led them to take action in the form of rioting in London and in other big cities in the UK since they felt that this was the only way they could express their feelings of being deprived and systematic failure to address their needs. This is also a line of reasoning that has been used by many Left UK politicians, such as by Ken Livingstone a member of the Labour party and the former mayor of London. The concept of marginalisation, here, derived from Loïc Wacquant is a “regime of sociospatial relegation and exclusionary enclosure” (Wacquant, 2008: 2) which entails labour uncertainty which can for example lead to personal anxiety, the “relegation” of people to areas and neighbourhoods that are more deprived and “heightened stigmatisation” (Wacquant, 2008:2). This marginalisation led to the feeling of injustice for the rioters, which is often claimed by academics and some Left politicians to be the reason for the UK riots (Slater, 2011; Tyler, 2013; Wallace, 2012; Lea & Hallsworth, 2012). This relates to the relative deprivation theory, which stated that people are likely to riot when they feel experienced injustices and pressure because they cannot live their desired life because of weak economic and sometimes social positions.
The stigmatisation of the rioters as being unemployed, criminals, welfare dependent, resulting from the ‘broken society’ was often used by the government and in the media as causes for the riots (Cavanagh & Dennis, 2012; Wallace, 2012; Ball & Drury, 2012). In the media the rioters were often claimed to be from the underclass and were said to be criminals. Many politicians, often Conservatives, dismissed the rioters as all being criminals as many of the rioters that were arrested in the first few days already had earlier convictions. But these rioters that were arrested in the first couple of days that had a previous criminal record, were tracked the first because of their previous criminal record which made them better traceable. Figures that were presented later showed a much more even record of the people rioting (Ball & Drury, 2012). Due to this recurrent framing of the rioters as being criminals or from a certain background, is said to have led to increasing the marginalisation and stigmatisation of the rioters (Tyler, 2013).
3.4 Causes: Broken society
As already said, many Conservative politicians gave a rather different explanation to the riots as the Left politicians and social scientists as Slater (2011) and Tyler (2013) have given. Conservative politicians expressing their ideas on the causes of the riots have often used the problem of ‘the broken society’ as the major reason behind the riots (used for example by Liam Fox in 2005 and David Cameron in 2007 and 2011). The concept of the broken society derives from the work of the conservative politicians William Hague and Duncan Smith who both stressed the importance of the family. According to them “for a society to be stable and successful it was important, he [William Hague] said, that a large proportion of people were in successful marriages” (Kirby, 2009: 245). And so in order to battle poverty, families had to be supported and strengthened and marriages promoted. They talked mostly about the morality of the family whereas the concept of the broken society also uses ‘evidence’ with stressing the importance of family. This concept entails that a broken family, so with an absent father, leads to dysfunctional families which leads to a broken society. In the concept of the broken society, the use of evidence is much more present than with the concept of broken families which plays more on morals. Evidence such as that “children of separated families are twice as likely to have behavioural problems, perform less in school, become sexually active at a younger age, suffer depression and turn to drugs, smoking and heavy drinking” (Kirby, 2009: 243) are all frequently used by the conservatives to explain the importance of family in mending this ‘broken society’ and stress that the way of solving social problems is through the family and community (Slater, 2011).
The people that were rioting were accused for their bad behaviour. It was stated that this behaviour resulted from a bad upbringing because they had no father figure in their childhood. Morals, values and good and strict upbringing in a two-‐parent family would be the cure of this behaviour problem that had led to the riots (Slater, 2011; Slater, 2012; Kirby, 2009). This also relates to the breakdown theory as the riots according to this notion of broken society started because of a lack of father figures and no respect for authority. With the breakdown theory there is a loss of social restraining power, which can be because of the lack of a community control and respect for authority, which according to the notion of broken society, relates to the lack of father figures.
3.5 Depoliticisation of the causes of the London riots 2011
With politicians explaining the riots as a result of this notion of a ‘broken society’, or by explaining the riots as “criminality pure and simple” as Prime Minister David Cameron (2011) did, the government downplayed the causes for the riots. This will take away other possible reasons, for instance the possible reason that the riots were an act of response to the injustices that the rioters experienced (Wallace, 2014). Furthermore, the rioters will become just a group of people rioting for the sake of rioting as is often stated by politicians or in the media, instead of seeing them as social activists who want to change the current system (Slater, 2011). By downplaying the riots and making them not about experienced social injustices and social and economic structures but just about criminality or behaviour, the riots were depoliticised. The concept of depoliticisation from Wendy Brown (2006) is used here. She states “‘depoliticisation’ involves the removal of a political phenomenon from comprehension of its historical emergence and from a recognition of the powers that produce and contour it”(Brown, 2006: 15). Thus if the ones in power make it about behaviour and criminality they can depoliticise the riots by not tackling the injustices that
the rioters felt which may involve changing the system, which the government is probably very reluctant to.
