What they're making of London burning
By Mark Vernon on Thursday, August 11 2011, 09:19 - In the news - Permalink
![]()
So the post-riot ideological battle lines are almost fixed.
In the blue corner, for it's broadly on the right, we have the family breakdown argument. The looting and violence is the predictable outcome of a deep forgetting in our society of the fifth commandment: honour your father and mother. Authority begins in the home. Liberal forces, or experiments, have emasculated it.
In the red corner, for it's broadly on the left, we have the culture of greed argument. We live in a smash and grab society, which politicians and bankers have exploited too, so who can now blame them if aspirational gangs and street opportunists join in? The riots are the predictable outcome of deep divisions in society.
It's an inevitable war, and another sign of an impotent politics that can't really do anything about family breakdown or runaway markets anyway, should either option be thought desirable. Further, and to isolate a more specific concern, it seems to me that the divide draws too on largely redundant conceptions of ethics. The blues are broadly deontological: enforcing 'thou shalt not' is their solution. The reds are broadly utilitarian: the greatest happiness is not being brought to the greatest number, but to an elite few. Neither, I think, can get to the real issues.
I feel a bit scholastic suggesting it - as another siren screams past my window - but a virtue ethics approach might offer something different. The analysis might work better if it's considered that relatively poor parts of society have lost much hope of the good life, and relatively wealthy parts of society have little love of the common good. There is little motive in either, therefore, to work on the habits and character that instills the social virtues we called Citizen Ethics.
To be frank, our project stopped just as the trickiest issue was becoming clearer. If the telos of life is not hedonistic consumption, not radical individualism, not serving markets and capital, then what fundamentally is it to flourish as a human person? Answers below the fold.
Actually, I'm sure such questions can't directly be answered. As in one's own life, so in society: any renewed vision of how to live well must gather, emerge, unfold - and probably only in conjunction with breakdown and pain. That's part of what it is to be all too human too.














Comments
Interesting piece, Mark.
This is a personal reflection and not intended to sound *too* self-oriented.
But these riots started just as I was coming out of a personal brief experience of 'breakdown and pain'. And as I woke up from my own anxieties, and certain elements of self-destructive feeling/behaviours, I was suddenly hit by some comparable things at a much larger, more complex and more important scale in communities and society as a whole.
Apart from making me feel I was petty/foolish to be so absorbed in my own issues, I think the timing of it made me very aware of how, in conjunction with all these socio-economic causes/factors, there are lots of scared, alienated and 'self-destructive', mainly young people out there. My instinct is to want to hear more from those young people. To want people to start to listen to them.
Some interesting points there. I have been wondering whether the ideological battle lines will remain as they were; whether the events will be ideologically "manageable" enough to be appropriated by the usual camps, or whether things could get so serious that they cause a regrouping. Guardian CIF was interesting, giving the impression that within many metropolitan liberals lurks an authoritarian element which is kept in check only by favourable conditions. Logically consistent, but strangely thrilling to see.
But now things are apparently quietening down, and ideological certainties are being repaired. I take it that your "blue" example was prompted by Anne Atkins on TFTD this morning!
Virtue ethics is certainly one way forward in framing this debate about what to do. Following your link, though, I was dismayed to find the same predictable stuff from politicians and commentators on the Citizen Ethics series. I never know whether most modern people don't "get" virtues, or whether there is a built-in imprecision which allows people to revert to what is comfortable.
quiet riot girl: nice to see you here. You always have something interesting to say in Heresy Corner, and I have often followed you home from there, so to speak. Glad to hear you are feeling better - please don't give up writing.
This seems to be an unfortunate consequence of vast numbers of rural peasants moving into conurbations under the mistaken belief they will have a better life. We've been here before, haven't we?
Hi Sam, thanks!
Heresy Corner is a great blog.
One concept I am thinking of is 'compassion' and its meaning from the German of 'sharing suffering'. But it is easy for people to identify 'victims' and share in their suffering, but not look at the bigger picture and empathise with those who have been labelled as the 'perpetrators'.
Sam/quiet riot girl - The alarming articulate Anne Atkins yes, and also the alarmist Melanie Phillips yesterday, who I am glad to say got it completely wrong about the Archbishop of Canterbury - incidentally providing a rather neat definition of compassion, as it happens, when talking about character:
Mark- I think Phillips' comment illustrates your point very well. That (even though she has come out with some insane clangers recently that the 'left' have jumped on) this issue is not one for 'ideological' polarity.
'Our involvement in a social project in which we all have to participate' , a social project which seems to be in some sort of crisis, means party politics have become less relevant to finding a way through.
Buggers the lot of em!