Tag Archives: London

The Guardian starts a series about London riots written by sociologists who have talked with those involved

Posted on by

Now that some time has passed since the London riots (earlier posts here, here, and here), The Guardian is beginning a series consisting of sociologists talking about what they have learned about the riots from talking with those who were involved. The series starts here:

Many interviewees identified deprivation and inequality as root issues. Some spoke about the lack of work opportunities and access to education, as well as the EMA cuts. Some believed that getting an education was the key to the golden gate, but a year after graduation they were still struggling to find work. For others, also out of work, a university degree had never been on the cards.

But much of the anger was directed at the police. Young people spoke of incessant stop-and-search accompanied by rudeness, arrogance and racism. Some young people talked of Duggan’s death not as a unique injustice, but as yet another example of police murder. Young people spoke of the riots as a means of “sticking two fingers up” at the authorities, and for a couple of nights relishing having the upper-hand…

Finally, many young people talked about the riots as a consequence of the anger and frustration felt at not seeing a future. Unable to see education, jobs and pensions on their horizon, some explained how they sought pleasure in consumerism. But while those they looked up to accessed and displayed these objects freely, for young people they were often out of reach. As consumers first and foremost, the inability to shop made them feel unfulfilled and lacking in self respect. In some places the signs of these divides were part of the architecture around them – the upward mobility of the cityscapes of global capitalism looked increasingly remote.

Some young people hoped the government would hear the riots as a call to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. But they didn’t think this likely.

I’ll be interested to read the subsequent pieces in this series. While the riots were often narrated by outsiders (particularly here in the United States),

interviews with those involved could reveal the internal motivations that led to actions that outsiders would see as out of line. Such broad and faraway views can be interpreted in different ways as Darnell Hunt illustrated how race influenced how people viewed news coverage of the Los Angeles riots of 1992. I hope we can soon to get to a point where we have some harder data, beyond even the vague statements from interviews offered in this opening piece. While the public may not want to hear the motivations of those who participated (particularly since it may be interpreted as justifying their actions), this is needed information in order to alter structural conditions and help prevent and/or predict future riots.

Indeed, a criminologist also thinks we need more “credible research” regarding the riots. (A side note: I use Newburn’s 2001 piece on evaluation research in my research methods class.)

Avoiding “vulgar sociologism” when responding to events like the London riots

Posted on by

Responding to commentary from social scientists about the recent riots in London, an Australian sociologist warns against “vulgar sociologism”:

ARGUABLY the greatest poet of the 20th century, Wynstan Hugh Auden, is reported to have quipped that, the goal of anyone seriously interested in human affairs, should be to “never commit a social science”. As I am an academic sociologist, one could be forgiven for thinking, I might take offence at such a blanket dismissal of my stock-in-trade.

However, I think WH was right on the money. And, the media and academic commentary on the riots in London days has only added to my conviction that ‘vulgar sociologism’ – as the Peruvian sociologist Cesar Graña termed it – is much worse than no sociology at all. If only social scientists knew how to keep their ‘traps’ shut, from time to time…

As a result of such shortcomings, what often passes for social science or social commentary, especially in the public domain, is no more than cliché, thinly veiled moralism or prophecy based on hindsight. Like the Old Testament prophets, who emerged from the desert to proclaim that unless the people repented, more God-willed disasters awaited, these social scientists and social commentators seem to relish holding society responsible for humanity’s ills…

If the recent outburst of public sociological commentary is anything to go by, we can see why Auden counselled against ‘committing’ the sin of social science. Bad social science reduces complex problems to simplistic formulas. It only fills our newspapers, radio and television airwaves, with irrelevant commentary…

The truth of the matter is, that unlike medical research and the fight against diseases, social science is acting in bad faith if it promotes the view that it can seriously enhance a society’s capacity to avoid or solve social problems. There is no social science equivalent to prevention or cure; and even diagnosis is a sketchy practice.

A sociologist is really arguing that sociologist can’t help society deal with social problems? Isn’t this what motivates many to become sociologists and what use is research if it doesn’t apply to society? If sociology can’t diagnose, let alone prevent or cure, what is left? What exactly does this sociologist lecture on in class?

At the same time, I can see some merit in another idea in this piece: it is difficult to quickly describe and/or understand what happened in London. While I don’t know many sociologists looking for “simplistic formulas,” this is a reminder that social behaviors and actions are often the product of complex circumstances. Quick, accurate, and helpful pronouncements about complex situations on television are hard to come by, whether the field is sociology, politics, economics, or something else. As this sociologist notes, there is quite a temptation to respond quickly: academics may want to be in the public eye and can be rewarded for it. In a world of sound bites and Tweets, is it any surprise that academics may want to take part and claim some space for themselves?

In the end, I’m somewhat bamboozled by this essay. Cautions about rushing to judgment are helpful but the broader statements about the capabilities of sociology and social science are unique.

How sociology can “unravel the [London] riots”

Posted on by

The president and vice-chair of the British Sociological Association explain how sociology can help explain the London riots:

One of the first things that disappears when considering disturbances such as these is perspective. One loses sight of the fact that nine out of 10 local residents aren’t rioting, that nine out of 10 who are rioting aren’t local to the area, and that nine out of 10 of these non-locals aren’t doing it to commit crime. That is to say, it is a tiny minority who are participating and, of those that are, it’s a tiny minority who are doing so solely to commit crime. Crime is a motive, but crowd behaviour is a more complex process, and it is sociology as a discipline that best understands crowd behaviour.

Crowds are irrational. Crowds don’t have motives – that’s far too calculating and rational. Crowd behaviour is dynamic in unpredictable ways, and reason and motive disappear when crowds move unpredictably. But has anyone made a connection with the two media events that dominated media coverage on the same day – the irrationality of crowds on the streets and of traders on the stock market? Both sorts of behaviour are moved by emotion not reason, passions not predictability, and reason disappears. Economists are lauded for their accounts of the irrationality of the market traders, but sociologists get criticised for suggesting that allegations of criminality are a poor account of the irrationality of crowds.

Sociologists seek to explain – not explain away – these events. An understanding of the impact of social inequalities and deprivation, youth unemployment, racism and ethnic conflict, and crime and policing forms a large part of the concerns of UK sociology. Since most politicians and the police seem to have been taken unawares by the events of the past few days, it seems we need more understanding and explanation, not less, if we are to be able to draw lessons from the current events and prevent their recurrence. The British Sociological Association would be happy to put London’s mayor and his staff in touch with sociologists who could add real understanding to the all-too-easy condemnations of these disturbing events.

Several things stand out to me:
1. I like the opening suggestion and make a similar argument to my Introduction to Sociology class: instead of asking why a few people commit crimes or are deviant, why not ask why most people are so willing to follow social rules and norms?

2. I like the comparison of the role of emotions in stock trading and crowd behavior on the streets. Arguably, emotions may a large role in social actions but generally get short shrift from commentators and researchers.

3. But, why suggest that sociologists are bitter because economists “are lauded” for their explanations?

4. I like the distinction between explaining and explaining away. I’ve seen some commentators suggest that we shouldn’t talk about the class status or alienation of the rioters because this may suggest that their actions are justified. But, at the same time, there is something that set off these riots and sociologists are often looking to understanding why something happened and not something else (to paraphrase Weber). We should not be afraid of explanations though determining how one should respond once the explanation is known is another matter.

Leaving bookstores alone in the London riots

Posted on by

Some people have noticed that the rioters/looters in London have ignored the bookstores:

While the rioters in England this week have looted shops selling shoes, clothes, computers, and plasma televisions, they’ve curiously bypassed one particular piece of merchandise: books. The Economist observes that while rioters have a centuries-old history of book burning, “books are losing out to high-end jeans and Apple-made gadgets” in London, with the Waterstone’s bookstore chain emerging unscathed and the WH Smith chain reporting only one incident (some stores closed as a precaution). In explaining that the store would probably stay open during the unrest, one Waterstone’s employee even felt comfortable enough to issue a dare to the rioters: “If they steal some books, they might actually learn something.” The exception to the rule is the gay bookstore Gay’s the Word, which had its front window smashed and its shopfront splattered with eggs (notably, no goods were stolen). “Our impression is that there are certain people who have an issue with a visible gay business and are using the excuse of chaos to cause anti-gay damage,” an assistant manager told PinkPaper…

So where does that leave us on the question of why the rioters refrained from looting and burning bookstores? The most likely explanation appears to be that the rioters were more interested in high-end clothing and electronics than books, for economic and personal reasons. But a Guardian article yesterday suggests the rioters may have been more principled about what they stole and what they didn’t than one might think.

Interesting. The image many people might have is that the rioters act indiscriminately, breaking and smashing things at will out of anger. But these different possible explanations suggest rioters follow some sort of logic. Yes, their actions fall outside the normal bounds of civil behavior but they are acting upon not-too-unreasonable logic (go for the high-end electronic goods). This reminds me of the work of Sudhir Venkatesh who suggests that gangs follow logical paths even though their actions may seem chaotic or unclear.

Perhaps I only think this as a sociologist or as someone who teaches research methods but it seems like these ideas about bookstores could be tested. Researchers could take different groups of people, perhaps split by socioeconomic status, and then give them a variety of free items that they could take including electronics, clothing, and books. Then, researchers could see what people would take and then could question them about their choices afterward. Of course, some of the same information could be obtained by asking this is a question or series of questions on a large-scale survey. These sorts of options could help provide some insights into where books fall among other desirable consumer goods. If I had to hazard a guess, I imagine American teenagers or emerging adults (18-29 years old) would also put books toward the bottom of the list of things they would desire.

Exploring the “mail rail” of London

Posted on by

There seems to be a growing interest in stories about underground spaces below cities. Add another to stories about underground Paris, New York, and Las Vegas: several explorers have documented the “mail rail” system that operated not too long ago beneath London:

Construction of the tunnels began on February 1915 from a series of shaft located along the route. The tunnels were primarily dug in clay using the Greathead shield system, although the connecting tunnels in and around the stations were mined by hand…

It wasn’t until June 1924 that workers began laying the track using 1000 tons of running rail and 160 tons of conductor rail…The line was eventually finished in 1927 with the first letter through the system running on February 1928…

Although initially the system was a success, in its last years of service the line was continually losing money. On the 7th November 2002, Royal Mail announced the line had become uneconomical with losses of £1.2M a day and that they planned to close it should no alternate uses be found. This was to be the death of the Mail Rail with the line from Mount Pleasant to the Eastern Delivery Office closing on the 21st March 2003, the remaining section from the Western District Office to Mount Pleasant following on the 29th. Now it just sits there buried where light cannot reach, rusting away, the trains sleeping silently in and around the stations wanting to be used again. Sadly a dream which we all know will never come true.

I had not known that these sorts of mail systems were in use until so recently. Such systems were not completely unknown in big cities: Chicago had a much more complex system that delivered mail as well as other kinds of freight. In big yet dense cities, these delivery systems could make a lot of sense as it would keep some traffic off the roads and goods could be delivered with little interruption.

I do wonder at times whether current city officials are very knowledgeable about what is underneath their cities. The pictures regarding London’s “mail rail” are quite good and I wonder if they caught anyone off-guard.

With such interesting things underneath so many big cities, it seems that movie and TV writers would have an endless supply of interesting settings where odd things could occur and creatures could roam…

Dealing with slow people on the sidewalk, London edition

Posted on by

This is an issue I’ve always wondered about: what to do with slow walkers on public sidewalks? Of particular note are people who stop in the middle of the sidewalk to hold an impromptu conference while others try to get around them.

Apparently, this is a concern for others as well. Business owners on London’s Oxford Street have proposed a plan to have tourists and shoppers walk closer to buildings while those who want to get through the area, such as employees and residents, walk closer to the street:

Sidewalk rage may be closer to the point, and an alliance of local landlords and retailers believes it has an antidote. On behalf of London pedestrians who are sick of dodging Oxford Street’s tourist hordes and texting teens, they’re ready to draw the line. A pretend line, anyway.

New West End Company, a group of 600 business owners in the district around Oxford Street, is planning to direct slow movers to walk in a “shopper lane” along store fronts, so that hurried residents and workers can proceed without opposition on the sidewalk’s edges. The concept echoes a gag played in New York City last May, when pranksters laid a chalk line down a sidewalk on Manhattan’s busy Fifth Avenue, with one lane reserved for “tourists” and another for “New Yorkers.”

But London’s line would likely be virtual. Under the plan being hatched by Dame Judith Mayhew Jonas, chairman of New West End Company, maps available at airports, hotels and other traveler spots would tell visitors to cling to buildings. The directive would also be written onto local area maps outside subway stations and at busy intersections.

With little chance of enforcing such rules, how effective could this be? And could tourists and others mount a counter-campaign where they remind the people of Oxford Street how many dollars they bring into the tourist industry and local businesses? (This is unlikely considering the diffuse origins of the slow movers – but it would be interesting nonetheless.)

h/t The Infrastructurist

Quick Review: 15 years ago, the release of (What’s the Story) Morning Glory

Posted on by

I have lots of music that I enjoy. But few albums rank as high as this 1995 release from Oasis. I estimate that between its release on October 2, 1995 and today (to be fair, I didn’t purchase the album until sometime in 1996), I have heard Morning Glory hundreds of times. (My best estimate at this point would be around 1,200 times.) Some quick thoughts about this masterpiece:

1. This is Oasis at their musical peak. Coming off a very successful debut album, this finds the band both brash and melodic. Many of the lyrics may not make sense (just read the lyrics to “Some Might Say”) but it is an irresistible combination of music, swagger, and atmosphere.

1a. Some of these songs are spectacular, particularly “Don’t Look Back In Anger.” The three-song run from tracks 2 to 4 (“Roll With It” to “Wonderwall” to “Don’t Look Back in Anger”) is great.

2. The popularity of this album would cement their claims of being the biggest band in the world. Perhaps most importantly, it even became popular in the United States with “Wonderwall” becoming a hit, other songs (like “Champagne Supernova”) making some radio headway, and Oasis playing much of this album on MTV Unplugged (which is a very fun album to listen to).

3. There is an atmosphere surrounding this album that comes out in some of the music. This was during a period of music known as “Brit-Pop” though Oasis was on the more traditional, brash side of this movement (while bands like Blur where more on the artistic/experimental side). London was being reborn after years of drudgery, Tony Blair was on the horizon of British politics, and all seemed bright again in England. Part of the irony is that Oasis was leading this charge, a band of working-class members, led by occasionally vulgar brothers, and hailing from the dreary northern city of Manchester.

4. I have many good memories of hearing this album. I was discovering a number of bands at this point, most of them British. The link between the Beatles and Oasis seemed (and still does seem) pretty clear. While some have always been mad that they tried to ape the Beatles, I don’t hold it against them. At the time when I first found this album, it is a short step from listening to Revolver to then listening to Morning Glory.

5. Though they weren’t on the album, there are a number of very solid B-sides from this era. These songs were evidence that Noel Gallagher was swimming in good music at the time – all of the B-sides could have easily made an excellent album in their own right.

All in all, an excellent album. With Oasis being no more and all the albums after Be Here Now lacking their 1990s swagger, I will return to Morning Glory many more times to hear Oasis at its peak.