British society has always tended to bubble over into violence
Those who pin the blame for the riots on contemporary conditions alone are missing the point.
By Leon Boardman Published 11 August 2011 13:43
It was, I suppose, inevitable that media comment in the wake of Tottenham and other recent riots would present them as a direct result of specific contemporary conditions. A typical example is provided by Melanie Phillips in today's Mail, who identifies it, without citing any particular evidence, as the "outcome of a three-decade liberal experiment which tore up virtually every basic social value". However, even some of those commentators locating the cause elsewhere implicate entirely modern phenomena: the pressure of mass-media consumerism, for example.
Unfortunately for this kind of analysis, there is plenty of evidence that British society has always tended to bubble over into violence, riot and looting, irrespective of the shape of that society at the time. The idea that the presence of "basic social value[s]" prevented such behaviour in the past does not stand up to scrutiny. In June 1940 a combination of wartime xenophobia and privation led to an outbreak of looting, burning and destruction aimed at Italian businesses in cities across England and Scotland. This is today almost forgotten, but its wartime context does not excuse the crossing of boundaries it represented.
Riots and disturbances were common enough in the mediaeval period, often breaking out into armed insurrection. But even the supposedly compact and ordered society of the 18th and 19th centuries was not immune. 1778's Gordon Riots were amongst the most violently destructive in London's history; they were triggered by a protest against the softening of anti-Catholic legislation, but were fanned by a dire economic situation, itself caused by Britain exhausting itself in a series of foreign wars. Lurid accounts exist of rioters setting fire to buildings and drinking themselves into a stupor. Even young children were swept up in events, subsequently undergoing the same treatment as adults in the usual response of the time, as several were hung afterwards: "I never saw children cry so," recorded a bystander.
Of course, the fact that riots have occurred in all times and in all kinds of society has failed to prevent attempts to argue the contrary. The Mail also quoted Desmond Morris, stating that humans are "programmed" to live in villages, and that rioting is an urban phenomenon - a different facet of the narrative that such violence is fundamentally a modern issue.
Perhaps Morris has never heard of the "Swing" Riots of 1830, in which agricultural workers burnt barns, hayricks, threshing machines and rural workhouses across Southern England and the Midlands in a protest against the increasing financial pressure on the rural poor: again, executions and transportations followed in their wake, while as with the Gordon Riots, the media of the time raised the spectre of foreign agitation. It was difficult to admit the thought that normal British subjects might, under particular conditions and fuelled by adrenaline, completely lose their heads.
Those familiar with the history of Wales will know of the Rebecca Riots of the late 1830s and 1840s, another fundamentally rural phenomenon. Groups of men, often dressed as women or masked to disguise themselves, attacked and destroyed tollgates in protest against a continuing squeeze on the incomes of farmers and smallholders. In this case, most of the rioters were never caught, perhaps because there was widespread agreement with their actions; "Rebecca" became well-known in Welsh history as an example of standing up to English economic influence.
The incidents that triggered these riots were often as widely different as the areas in which they occurred. Even so, there is one unifying factor: economic pressure. All took place against a background of falling incomes, increasing costs, and rising resentment. Moreover, the response - prior to the 20th century, at least - was always the same. In previous centuries, we sent in the army; men were transported for life; we hung children for joining in looting; yet riots continued, despite the inevitability of punishment, because little was done to mitigate the cause along with attempting to restore order. It would be good to think that we, as a society, have progressed since that point.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















18 comments
The elephant in the room is that for the last year or two, our politicians and media have been praising (and sometimes fomenting) riots abroad - Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The subtle difference between middle-class rioters abroad wanting power, and lower-class rioters in the UK wanting goods, may not necessarily be obvous to disaffected Britons.
Terrific article. I have been having some very instructive discussions with folk in the US about why our "riots" are different from theirs; the problem being that on the surface a "riot" looks very similar, especially from the outside, and more especially when filtered through the lens of the media who have their own story to tell.
It's what happens next that is important - and the evidence of history is that it probably won't be good for any of us in the longer term. (Speaking with my cynical liberal hat on, I think this is easy to understand: it's because those of us who are naturally compromisers routinely end up getting screwed. Look at what happened to the Levellers for an early example of this.)
Eoin - Major Victorian riots stopped after the 1840's with economic growth on a massive scale and a growing collectivism within society. Reform acts growing Democratic Reforms,and Trades Unions getting a fairer share of the "fruits of laboiur".
Lack of rioting was more to do with a sense of progress and optimism in society. Plus if you wanted to be violent and rob people you could join the army or the colonial office and go do it to foreigners.
I thought at the time as I was watching the news coverage of the riots how the right would somehow blame 'liberals', 'political correctness',multiculturalism, the welfare state and single mothers for what happened, and almost parody like they lived up to such expectations. As this article demonstrates though, rioting is a feature that makes periodic appearances throughout British history, with the common theme of it occuring in tough economic conditions.
Nonetheless, while there is a climate of austerity it doesn't seem likely that those engaged in the rioting did so with a conscious political purpose.
That photo isn't Tottenham, it's Wavertree in Liverpool. I live there!
Great article. Let's not forget that up until the start of the Twentieth century the armed forces rioted every so often, too. They'd get drunk (mostly), tear up the town and the next day the ring leaders would be whipped or worse. Contemporary reports termed them 'riots' although nowadays we tend to think that a riot must have some sort of political motive to be termed a riot, rather then just 'sheer criminality'.
Hate to be pedantic, but people are 'hanged' not 'hung'. Thankfully, we live in better times, where it is recognised in law that children are impressionable and should not be punished in the same way as adults.
The fact is, however, that the Victorians pretty much eliminated the riots which had held London to ransom, using cultural control ( i.e. Christianity).. Except for the war time riot, there has been no equivalent of this city wide riot since the 19th century.
Its a weak argument anyway, but I doubt that the apologisers would be as apologetic, were similar type riots attempted today. Two of these were racist or ethnic riots. The Gordon riots were particularly vicious and anti-Catholic ( you left out the hundreds of burnings of Churches and Catholic houses by the mob).. The modern equivalent would be a BNP led riot against the immigrants and their descendants. The swing rioters were luddites, and Morris is probably talking about riots in villages prior to the industrial revolution.
While it is true that historically, Britains have been a nation of rioters, this type of repsonse is a little disingeuous in that it distances itself from the specifics of the present moment, trying to be clever rather than genuinely exploring the issue- phrases such as "Perhaps Morris has never have heard of..." don't help. They just sound smug. Yes, we have always rioted when we've been on the receiving end of injustice or oppression but each occurrence of this is time-specific, eg, you can't argue that we always go to war and cite the same reasons for it in 1514 as in 1066 or 1914 as in 2003. You can't pretend the triggers for the most recent events are the same as 100, 200 or 500 years ago. A very specific set of circumstances led to the London riots- particularly the disenfranchisement of a generation who have nothing to look forward to and are excluded from a society that manifests itself in material terms. If we don't listen to these people, things will not improve: a whole generation feels it is being ignored: young people whose debts pile up, who lack education, jobs, housing and hope need help. Let's not condemn or hand out lengthy sentences- these people are already at the bottom of the heap- the gap between rich and poor is to blame. I'm not saying forget the past- we know that dooms us to repeat it but for goodness sake, don't let's over simplify the present.
And who is more to blame, the kids who loot a TV or the politicians who claim it on expenses ?
Very interesting article, but as Angela says, the photo is not of Tottenham. It's Lawrence Road in Liverpool. Can the attribution be changed, please?
Good article
How nice it would be for a senior politician to offer us mere citizens such historic insight as this, rather than shuffling about, trying to give the impression they are 'on top' of the situation....
That's a lot to blame the 'fascist left' for....I don't think you can discount economic factors and decisions from the hefty list of reasons for the riots and their escalation - which means the Tory cuts have to be part of the debate...
@ Crutchbender
Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.
Some people live for excitement, the thrill of the moment. Being so inclined they are the least able to channel that energy into something socially acceptable by themselves.(
@Crutchbender
Hope you feel better for getting that of your chest. While you're at it would you mind pointing me to your perfect point in time when everything was just tickety-boo. You're clearly a student of history, what with your dismissal of this article as "bizarre" and your reference to the youth of today lacking "any sense of history or pride".
These events are different and only a fool would file this under business as usual. The crackdown is next.
Post new comment