Poverty and Class

The London 2011 riots as a subject is extremely controversial. Over the years, sociologists, police and politicians have offered explanations as to what sparked these riots, and their explanations frequently clashed. Overall, the role of class in the riots was prominent, as many in poverty rioted in an attempt to raise awareness of their dire situation, however, others claim that other factors were more influential, for example, opportunism, greed and excitement.

The sociologist Briggs (2012, p.27) explains that some police and political figures claimed that gangs, problemed youths and dysfunctional families were to blame as they made up the underclass, who were widely regarded as feral due to their negative stereotypes of being unemployed and living off welfare. Briggs further explains that this view of blaming the underclass was limited in reliability as the media’s representation of who participated in the riots was inaccurate and exaggerated. This view is reinforced by Tyler (2013) as their argument offers an insight into how the media focused on the underclass and portrayed them as products of their own chaos and dysfunctionality. Headlines depicted the riots as uncontrollable, claiming that the underclass are “lashing out” and called on politicians to punish the poor. These punishments came in various forms, such as welfare cuts, the introduction of “workfare” and any rioter who was caught faced personal repercussions such as themselves and their family’s evictions from local authority housing. Overall, these punishments were imposed on the most impoverished and marginalised people in society, pushing them further into poverty. The riots were allegedly sparked over public spending cuts in the first place.

In contrast, Tyler (2013) highlights how the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, claimed that the riots had nothing to do with poverty, but instead were a showcase of the feral behaviour of the underclass. For example, he claimed that those who were rioting participated in smashing windows from their local shops in order to steal TV’s and other materialistic goods, not essential things which people in immediate poverty would be interested in. However, this was challenged as some people who looted stole essentials such as nappies. On top of this, Tyler (2013) also argues that the media created a platform for people to stigmatise the rioters even further as they curated columns such as “name and shame a rioter”. This encouraged people from the same communities to give the identities of people they seen looting, which further marginalised the rioters who were mostly in poverty.

Alternative reasons other than poverty and class were given as to why the riots occurred. In a report by the International Business Times depicted that the death of a black man called Mark Duggan, shot by the police in Tottenham, sparked the riots. This enabled the riots what began as a peaceful protest in solidarity over Duggan’s death became an excuse for theft and violence. Therefore, the riots may have been a product of opportunism. In contrast to this, a report by the Evening Standard (2011) argued that it was never a protest over discriminative justice as the rioters trashed their own communities instead of going after the institutions at fault such as the police, for the death of Duggan. Additionally, youths boasted of their participation in the riots on social media from their Blackberries. This sparked inquiries into whether the riots were a wakeup call as the underclass youths followed a celebrity culture through social media instead of having a respect for the law.

In conclusion, underlying issues that come hand in hand with class and poverty were all influential, to an extent, in causing the riots. As areas in which the riots took place lacked jobs for people who left school, social exclusion and margination was influential in the frustration felt by the rioters. However, it does not explain why their greed eventually meant they would loot from their own communities. Overall, other factors were just as influential as class and poverty.

---

Follow our blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.