To the Editor:
When you reach a certain age, the news often has a significant element of déjà vu. So it is with the recent riots in England.
Back in the 1960s, urban riots were a hot item in the United States, what with outbreaks in the Watts area of Los Angeles, Detroit and various other locations. And there was much weighty analysis on the underlying causes.
Then, as now, much of the analyses took on a distinctly political tone. Watts, we were told, "was a manifestation of a general sense of deep outrage," and unless major steps were taken to eliminate the underlying economic and social deprivation, "we will reap a whirlwind that will be completely uncontrollable."
Invariably, these "major steps" corresponded to the political agenda of the person advocating them.
Edward C. Banfield was not sympathetic to this line of argument. A professor of urban government at Harvard, Banfield had first come to prominence via a 1958 study of a poor village in southern Italy, but it was 1970's The Unheavenly City that truly made him a controversial figure.
In it, he laid out the view that class and culture were the most important contributors to poverty and disorder. And the chapter titled Rioting Mainly for Fun and Profit dissected the American riots in a way that was dramatically at odds with the prevailing orthodoxy.
Banfield's analysis identified four types of riot: The rampage, the foray for pillage, the outburst of righteous indignation, and the demonstration. Let's take a quick look at each type.
The rampage is a function of "animal spirits" in search of excitement and thrills. The participants are usually young and generally male, and disturbances of this sort have a long-standing historical pedigree.
The foray for pillage is essentially self-descriptive. The motive is theft and the "everyone is doing it" euphoria of the moment provides a general licence to partake.
The outburst of righteous indignation requires a spark to set it off, some specific event where an injustice is deemed to have taken place. The injustice in question may be real or imagined, but the mob's sense of outrage provides the riot fuel.
The demonstration is an explicit, non-spontaneous political act, where the intention is to influence public opinion. Often, this entails provoking an apparent overreaction by the authorities, which in turn puts the demonstrators - and their cause - at a moral advantage.
In Banfield's analysis, major riots tend to be a blend of at least two of these types. And the American urban riots of the 60s were predominantly of the rampage-pillage variety.
Banfield also explored what he described as "accelerating causes," defined as environmental characteristics which increase the probability of riots occurring and spreading. Adapted for technology changes over the past 40 years, one of these has particular resonance for what happened in England - namely, the role of modern media.
Banfield's observation was that "Sensational television coverage of the riots recruited rampagers and pillagers." In effect, it spread the fever.
Now think about the changes in media since Banfield wrote: Where once upon a time news came in 15 or 30 minute bursts two or three times a day, we now have round-the-clock news channels plus a proliferation of social media. The fever-spreading capacity has increased exponentially.
Too many of us, what happened in England conflicts with what we thought we knew about the peaceful, ordered nature of English life. But royal weddings and Agatha Christie notwithstanding, a slice of English society has long been susceptible to rampage.
The Duke of Wellington understood this, so much so that he made looting by his own soldiers punishable by hanging. Still, notwithstanding his fearsome reputation as a disciplinarian, the British army's 1812 capture of Badajoz was followed by a drunken rampage. Indeed, the orgy of looting, rape and murder wasn't brought under control until a gallows was erected in the Plaza.
Doubtless, we would find the Iron Duke's approach a tad over-the-top these days. But at least he wasn't confused.
As Freud once noted, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." And sometimes a looter is just a looter. Bear that in mind the next time you hear someone attempting to hijack a riot for political or ideological ends.
Pat Murphy, Troy Media Corporation.
