Like everyone else, it seems, I have noticed a conspicuous bias among those who are offering explanations for and interpretation of the recent riots. Rather than a bias about the kind of conclusions to be drawn, however, I am concerned with one about the amount of conclusions to be drawn. Isn't it at least possible that the events of the last week are not actually going to change this country forever? I can think of a few reasons why this sort of article is less common than perhaps it should be:
1) It is hard to play down the importance of the riots without sounding a bit insensitive to everyone who has lost their business, or been assaulted in the street, or been trapped in their house out of fear. To be clear, I am not saying that they are completely unimportant. Just that the might not be quite as socio-politically significant as all that.
2) The ratio of risk to reward in writing such an article is far too high. If you are wrong, you will look like a massive twat. And if you are right, no-one will really remember anyone saying anything either way anyway. So why risk it? Why indeed.
3) If there is one thing we know about professional journalists, it is that they are professional journalists. It is quite difficult to write an interesting article saying something is not very interesting, as I am currently proving. And if you do write a piece saying that the news is not very interesting, what on earth do you say or do when you have to write about it again tomorrow? Similarly, the one thing we know about people who are compelled to blog about such things in their spare time is that etc etc.
So, for all of these reasons and more, I am definitely not going to be caught saying that there might be very few lessons about society to be drawn from all of this, or even that it doesn't really tell us anything very much about anything at all. Instead I will just reminisce about the last time the government apparently "came very close to asking the army to come in", according to Jack Straw. That was in the autumn of 2001, when the country was brought to a standstill (/the brink of anarchy/its very knees) by the fuel protests. Remember them?
11/08/2011
A Small Argumentette Concerning the Causes of a Riot
I have not seen many attempts to discuss the causes of the recent (ongoing?) riots across England which haven't seemed either a bit simplistic, or a bit too partisan, one way or the other. As a precaution, therefore, I am definitely not going to say anything at all about the bigger picture, but I do want to note a wee argument in response to one particular line of thought I have seen advanced.
A couple of people I know and like have been suggesting that the paper linked to here shows that there is at least some connection between the recent rioting and the government's wildly popular program of cuts to public services. "Anyone who says the riots don’t have anything to do with the cuts should have a read of [this study]" says the man from the London Review of Books.
The paper may well show, as it claims to, that "austerity has tended to go hand in hand with politically motivated violence and social instability". Many (even most?) major riots are explicitly politically motivated, or at least follow on from demonstrations which were. That category of thing being strongly correlated with fiscal contractions etc would not be surprising. But taking this as evidence for the political motivation behind a particular riot is only plausible if you accept the premise that the incident in question belongs in the same category. To advance this correlation as evidence that the recent riots are connected to the government cuts is to beg the question.
I don't want to sound too dismissive of that sort of connection in general - I expect even the most rabid conservative loyalist would accept that the temper of the times has at least something to do with the rioting. But if they didn't, the evidence presented above wouldn't necessarily give them any reason to change their mind.
A couple of people I know and like have been suggesting that the paper linked to here shows that there is at least some connection between the recent rioting and the government's wildly popular program of cuts to public services. "Anyone who says the riots don’t have anything to do with the cuts should have a read of [this study]" says the man from the London Review of Books.
The paper may well show, as it claims to, that "austerity has tended to go hand in hand with politically motivated violence and social instability". Many (even most?) major riots are explicitly politically motivated, or at least follow on from demonstrations which were. That category of thing being strongly correlated with fiscal contractions etc would not be surprising. But taking this as evidence for the political motivation behind a particular riot is only plausible if you accept the premise that the incident in question belongs in the same category. To advance this correlation as evidence that the recent riots are connected to the government cuts is to beg the question.
I don't want to sound too dismissive of that sort of connection in general - I expect even the most rabid conservative loyalist would accept that the temper of the times has at least something to do with the rioting. But if they didn't, the evidence presented above wouldn't necessarily give them any reason to change their mind.
29/03/2011
The AHRC, The Big Society and University Funding
The Arts and Humanities Research Council have released a strongly worded denial of Sunday's Observer article, which reported that the funding body had made 'The Big Society' a research priority, and in return received a rather favourable budget settlement. Most people seem to regard this as either a ham-fisted attempt by the government to 'influence' academic research, or as a ham-fisted attempt by the AHRC to suck up to HMG. It is of course neither of these, but rather a brilliant and devious strategy to advance the Prime Minister's biggest (/main/only) idea.
Anyone looking for an example of all that is evil about the 'big state' need look no further. It can't be right that the politicians can decide what research is or is not carried out in our universities. The government know this of course. They do not want an all-powerful state interfering in every area of life. If we are to believe their rhetoric, there is almost nothing they feel so strongly about. But by wielding top-down power so heinously, HMG reinforce their own case, and turn opinion against the big state. At the cost of looking hypocritical and incompetent perhaps, but they are playing the long game here. The Conservative Party are nothing if not ideologues.
[The more cynical amongst you might suggest that this is nothing more than a slightly subtler version of the strategy tried on the National Health Service between 1979 and 1997. Look how poor the NHS is! Wouldn't it be better if we all went private like we said all along! I could not possibly comment.]
Anyway, having identified their strategy, we now face something of a dilemma in responding to it. Either we accept their logic, or we accept their interference in academia*. As one of the four remaining supporters of the 'graduate contribution' scheme for funding higher education, I am lucky enough to have a way out here: of course the state should not have anything to do with universities, that is why they should be self-funding and properly independent institutions. Those who favour state-funded higher education (whether from general taxation, or a graduate tax, or research grants) have a trickier problem. How can you guarantee the independence of academia from government when the former relies directly on the latter for 80% of its funding?
*I suppose there is a secret third option here, of calling them a bunch of bastards and saying that all that is required is for some politicians who are not bastards, or who are at least a different kind of bastard, to be in power. But as long as the tories can rely on being in government 3/5 of the time, as under the current system, this is not a satisfactory answer. Of course, we could try and change that system, but that is a story for another day.
Anyone looking for an example of all that is evil about the 'big state' need look no further. It can't be right that the politicians can decide what research is or is not carried out in our universities. The government know this of course. They do not want an all-powerful state interfering in every area of life. If we are to believe their rhetoric, there is almost nothing they feel so strongly about. But by wielding top-down power so heinously, HMG reinforce their own case, and turn opinion against the big state. At the cost of looking hypocritical and incompetent perhaps, but they are playing the long game here. The Conservative Party are nothing if not ideologues.
[The more cynical amongst you might suggest that this is nothing more than a slightly subtler version of the strategy tried on the National Health Service between 1979 and 1997. Look how poor the NHS is! Wouldn't it be better if we all went private like we said all along! I could not possibly comment.]
Anyway, having identified their strategy, we now face something of a dilemma in responding to it. Either we accept their logic, or we accept their interference in academia*. As one of the four remaining supporters of the 'graduate contribution' scheme for funding higher education, I am lucky enough to have a way out here: of course the state should not have anything to do with universities, that is why they should be self-funding and properly independent institutions. Those who favour state-funded higher education (whether from general taxation, or a graduate tax, or research grants) have a trickier problem. How can you guarantee the independence of academia from government when the former relies directly on the latter for 80% of its funding?
*I suppose there is a secret third option here, of calling them a bunch of bastards and saying that all that is required is for some politicians who are not bastards, or who are at least a different kind of bastard, to be in power. But as long as the tories can rely on being in government 3/5 of the time, as under the current system, this is not a satisfactory answer. Of course, we could try and change that system, but that is a story for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)