Stephen Reicher e Clifford Stott, due psicologi sociali con quattro palle cadauno, han fatto un’analisi a freddo delle rivolte inglesi partite da Tottenham lo scorso agosto.
Farne un sunto sarebbe criminale, butto lì un incipit nella speranza che macari venga voglia di leggerlo tutto (che merita):
The day after the Tottenham riot in August, David Lammy, the local Labour MP, spoke from the scene. Unlike the riots of 1985, he asserted, this one was not based in any genuine grievance. The rioters were “mindless, mindless people” who had mounted an unjustifiable attack on the community.
When David Cameron rose to address parliament on 11 August he endorsed Lammy’s perspective. The riots, he said, were “criminality pure and simple”.
Whether Lammy and Cameron realised it or not, they were echoing a long tradition of political responses to urban rioting. In their aftermath, riots are always condemned as senseless and criminal acts that require a strong-armed response. With hindsight, it is nearly always acknowledged that they arose out of and reflected broader social conflicts. But hindsight often comes too late to stop conflict from festering.
If we misunderstand the nature of riots, and if we misrepresent them as mindless and as simple criminality, we ignore the best resource we have for understanding the perspectives, the grievances and the frustrations of those who riot. Still worse, we introduce repressive measures that exacerbate their sense of grievance and frustration. (…)
