London riots

As much of a cliche as it is, I can feel a real sense of pain from the 'nation', or rather, the myriad populations here in the UK. There is great bewilderment at the violence that has seemingly erupted from nowhere and the sheer inability of the state's forces to cope. People are asking why so many youths have suddenly decided to 'turn on their own communities', a phrase that has been used over and over, and how this has happened.

Some point to the structural marginalisation of disaffected youths, with little in terms of a future and job prospects, ignored and condemned by society, suspicious of the authorities who have always been suspicious of them, who have no voice, frustrations to vent and nothing to lose. They say that this violence was only a matter of time. Others call the violence plain hooliganism with immoral, opportunistic looters simply out to get goods for free. They say that these youths have had every opportunity to better themselves but have chosen not to out of pure laziness, and that socio-economic justifications for the violence are pure hogwash. Still others resort to the 'culture' argument, talking about the breakdown in values and the failure of parents to instill the correct values in their kids.

I think that there are structural factors underlying the violence. It is true that these youths feel as if they have been marginalised, and that they have no stake in this society. To a large extent their frustrations are justified. However, the fact that there are structural causes of the violence does not take away the moral responsibility of the perpetrators for what they have done. A cause is not a justification. That they chose to vent their frustrations in this way, that they chose to acquire a voice in this way, that they chose to drown that voice in the clamour of greed and selfishness and thoughtlessness, that they chose to hurt others who were largely innocent of any wrongdoing - these are choices that are not acceptable. Yes, they were dealt a bad hand, but this does not automatically exempt them from making the right choices, and I fully support dealing harshly with them, if the state's resources allow.

The presence of law and order in any state is always an illusion predicated on the acquiescence of its population. When even a significant minority refuses to respect law and order, the illusion breaks down and lawlessness is easily married with impunity - this is, after all, the principle behind civil disobedience. 'Rioting' is cathartic, and when a critical mass of people is reached, it is also strangely easy, especially in a state where the government is unwilling to turn its full capacity for violence on its own people. But sometimes there is no easy path that is also morally justifiable.

When all is said and done, something needs to change about the system. The 'rioting' is an immediate problem that needs to be solved; the 'rioting' is also a symptom of a larger problem. For too long we have looked down our noses at the youths roaming the streets in loud, rowdy gangs, dismissing them as stupid 'street trash' who will never amount to anything, and never looking at the reasons they are this way. We forget that they are also looking at us looking at them, and we forget that they feel our disdain and react in anger. We forget that they are human too. That the riots have called our attention to this does not absolve the rioters of responsibility, for to make that argument would be to once again deny the agency of these youths; it has merely reminded us that we are responsible too. We cannot stand apart from the riots and judge, for we were complicit as well.