As human beings we have no choice to but make sense of the events around us. What has been occupying a lot of our hearts and minds has been the recent outbreak of destruction, violence and disorder that has filled our streets over the preceding four days in London.
At first we looked to the immediate past - the death of a young man. We want for our own reassurance, an acceptable cause, we want to know if there is someone to blame, because quite rightly we are not comfortable with death on our streets. Was this an individual tragedy arising from a deep seated social problem or the consequence of the proper exercise of policing powers that might have had other outcomes under other circumstances?
What has ensued however has left more questions than answers. The nominal 'cause' for civil disorder has unambiguously ambushed and overtaken events that most recognise as so chaotic, destructive and self serving that it is difficult to relate the two: the events of the death of Mark Duggan on Thursday 4th August and the risk to human life, theft and destruction of public and private property up until today.
Psychologically there are at least two possible approaches to understanding these events: Those of social psychology which takes account of group behavior - the failure to act until someone else takes the lead or the propensity to the follow the crowd.
Individually, however, there are other mechanisms at work. We would not rob our friend's store; we would not throw rocks at strangers or set fire to a shop where our grandmother lived above. So why no concern for shopkeepers, grandmothers or strangers? The answer is that in the overwhelming energy of the moment, with a fictional sense of connection and belonging, we as a mass forget who we are. That is, we forget that it is us, the individual who will have to take responsibility for our actions.
We forget that we are not alone; and paradoxically, aloneness is what we are primarily struggling against. We have mothers, fathers and shopkeepers whom we rely upon and take joy out of sharing a welcome 'good morning' or being pleased that they remember our regular purchase or our names. In turn those people: mothers, fathers and shopkeepers have connections that are at risk under the present set of circumstances.
Psychology can explain why, but its function is not to excuse. Group actions have individual consequences. We should stop talking about how the police will deal with tonight as if further dangerous and destructive events will unfold as an inevitability. We should look forward to the intervention of individual mothers, fathers, grandparents asking: 'where is my loved one' whom I want to protect from this distressing and dangerous mess, regardless of which side of the barricade they are on.
Rev. Al Sharpton: Violence Never Has and Never Will Be The Answer
And this you do with resorting to the banal group action and loss of responsibility.
I would rather have an explanation which focusses upon the symbolic significance because as a collective, a society, we are guided as much by our unconscious motives and needs as our conscious.
Your approach depoliticises and strips meaning out of events laden with significance.
We then of course need somebody to occasionally break free of the old paths and perhaps if possible creatively come up with some truly novel explanations. I freely admit that this isn't going to be me. But I wish someone would. You'd think after nearly two and half thousand years, we'd have advanced a bit more beyond the spats of Plato and Aristotle.
The truth is that most poor people aren't violent. Most poor people don't destroy other people's property and do damage to their own neighborhood. And injustice does not drive most people to create more injustice by destroying the property of others.
A lot of the analysis and debate sparked by recent events has unfortunately suffered from one fatal error rendering most attempts futile and meaningless.
People have attempted to address and package the issue as if there were one archetypal rioter:
Some claiming it's a "black issue" - where are the role models/fathers? Let's blame Hip-Hop and rap music!
Others claiming it's a "class issue" - it's the underprivileged, "deprived", downtrodden, all lashing out.
Truth is, people who have fallen into this trap could not be more wrong. The events over the past few days are a evidence of a moral issue. People from all walks of life, all ages and shades have been caught on CCTV, are turning up at court and are occupying prison cells across the country. However, the one thing they all have in common is a damaged or non-existent moral compass.
So how do we address this? I would propose...(Post count exceeds 250-words)
READ THE REST HERE:
recommendedreading.blacktechnicolor.com
Complex. Please see my comment a few above.
I did not define any moral issues beyond caring for thy neighbour and appreciating what we have, these aren't arbitrary or subjective - they are core and simple values which can be appreciated and enjoyed universally.
ANY of the "isms" you described would benefit from a population morally inclined towards the concern of others and the appreciation of what we each have in our lives.
The solution I proposed (Working with the less fortunate, supporting charities) would in most cases increase moral fibre in the two simple ways I've described. Any other moral issues beyond those I've highlighted as pivotal are beyond the remit of the issue and solution at hand.
People more concerned with finding objections to potentially workable solutions are the very reason why we are yet to find something that will curb the ever increasing spiral of social decline in our society.
And as such, you are yet to rise to my challenge to find a better one.
So we do nothing? Instead just discuss which morals are "right" and "wrong" as our world continues to tear itself apart?
I hope more people seek solution rather than faffing over resolution in the coming months and years, it is already clear what the issue is, if more people share your view and don't start to see that, we are all in big trouble.
When an individual is asked questions, that draw their personal rendition of reality into the light for examination. And two of their statements, describing the nature of that construction, contradict one another. What would the normal sensible reaction be? A sobering realization that what they had always taken to be actual reality, isn’t? Or, descent into denial? If you can provide me with the correct answer to that, perhaps you can assist with this: Should we being governed by examples of the latter?
"more questions than answers"
There will always be more questions than answers. However an obstinate determination to not even make an attempt at addressing at least some, isn’t going to help reduce that number.
"the failure to act"
is endemic. That is why we must have independent citizens patrolling inside the apparatus itself, to respond to whistle blowers.
"there are other mechanisms at work"
You can say that again.
"The answer is"
apparently, from what you have written. To treat the symptoms, rather that eradicate the disease. If you want to waste your existence on that futile exercise, be my guest.
"We forget that we are not alone"
We are alone. While we each attempt to exist, inside our own ersatz reality.
"Psychology can explain why"
Then start the recovery process by first healing thyself.
"which side of the barricade"
between “reality” and reality, each of us is on.
Then again, with cradle to grave welfare, free healthcare why leave?
No justice, no peace.