#riotwhitewash Sofia Himmelblau responds to her critics

Dr. Sofia Himmelblau, 12 Aug, 2011.

This was written as a response to various comments made regarding my
previous post and has also been reposted there. My previous post appears to have
sparked a huge amount of controversy compared to anything else previously
published on this blog. The average amount of views for a piece posted on this blog is
usually somewhere around the low hundreds, so far this post has had around 13,000
views and counting- as well as many passionately argued comments both in favour
and against. Due to this response I therefore felt that I should briefly respond to
some of the issues raised.

The post does not make the accusation that those cleaning up their streets are in
some way all fascists, the point that it does make, and that I stand by, is that
significant sections of the public discourse surrounding both the clean-up, and the
response to the riots more broadly, has come from an implicitly, and occasionally
explicitly, far right direction. As stated in the post, the language of rats, scum and
various other dehumanising rhetoric, applied only not to rioters but often
implicitly, and occasionally explicitly, to whole sections of society bears this out.
The Left is often accused of crying fascist too lightly (often particularly by those
who feel stung by the accusation), and whilst I agree that this may on occasions be
true, in this case however I feel that the strength of terminology is borne out by
much of the political response that has sought to solely blame the moral, cultural
and physiological (ie.sickness) deviancy of sections of society rather than examine
any structural socio-economic issues within society as a whole that may lay behind
the unrest. To paraphrase a somewhat over-quoted line with their photo-op
response to the unrest, the media are seeking to aestheticise politics; in my blog
post on the other hand, I was seeking to politicise their aesthetics, to draw out what
it is within it that has clearly political overtones. Contrary to what the Right claim,
to examine socio-economic issues such as inequality and gentrification is not a
moral deviancy either, it is also patently not somehow an excusing of the genuine
human misery or suffering caused by rioting, in fact I would argue conversely that
to take the very position which the politicians and media are falling over each other
to adopt, dismissing debate about economic and social exclusion, is in fact an
incredibly immoral- if you want to follow a consistent logic of morality -excusing of
the genuine human misery and suffering wrought through their economic policies
over the past 30 years. The far right nature of their discourse, the state of exception
which I have argued they seek to create (and which via the media has been widely
adopted by the public at large) is evidenced in the fact that their response to the
unrest is to call for militarised policing, politicised sentencing, and further social
exclusion. The far right dimension is likewise more superficially evident in the fact
that just such a rhetoric has already brought gangs of far right EDL supporters onto
the streets of SE London, who have clashed with police whilst looking to hunt down

and attack those they deem responsible for the unrest (and we can guess, and as is
evidenced by several accounts of the disturbances, the specific demographic they
will be seeking to target). It is likewise indicative that the individual who Cameron
was so keen to trumpet for starting a facebook Met police fan club has been proven
to be an out and out racist. That is not to say that everyone that joined the group
was a racist, that is clearly untrue, but it is simply to point out what motivates much
of the public discourse is often very far from being ideologically neutral.

We now hear that many people are clamouring for those convicted for their part in
the unrest to be stripped of their entitlement to claim state support in terms of
benefits and access to housing, several councils have stated that they intend to take
this position (although I am not sure of the legal ramifications). This is a further
extension of the state of exception that I mentioned, a further exclusion from
citizenship such as I have described, and it represents the thin end of the wedge. In
calling for such a policy not only is the implication made that those who rioted can
be directly correlated in the public perception with benefits claimants (and in terms
of housing this also clearly feeds into a certain far right discourse that has been
bubbling under the surface in recent years regarding access to housing and
immigration), but it also represents the further dismantling of the principle of
universalism in the welfare state. What next? all those with a criminal conviction
stripped of benefits? Further down the line perhaps access to healthcare on the
NHS? What are the implications of this when you consider that the governments
social policies have often resulted in the criminalisation en masse of a large section
of certain socio-economic or racial groups? It potentially implies the declaration of
whole swathes of people as non-citizens, even further excluded from society. Whilst
this might be popular on the Right, I fail to see how this can not lead to further
poverty, resentment and logically further crime and social unrest.

Contrary to most of the commentary on my post, some perhaps from people that
didnt read further than the title, this post was not primarily about race but class. To
whitewash something, although it connotes a certain racial dimension in this case,
more broadly, as we all know, means to cover over, to conceal or to mask. This is
what I argue the mainstream discourse, in this instance through its co-option of the
clean-up activities, has been keen to do in the wake of the riots. And whilst that
mainstream discourse has been so keen to close down any discussion on the events
through anything other than a moral framework, it fails by its own logic. I would
wager that the average haul of a looter caught up in the recent unrest would weigh
in significantly below the average fraudulent expenses claim made by MPs in the
recent controversy. Lets take Michael Gove, clearly appearing outraged in various
media appearances at all of the theft that has gone on. This is the man who got his
houses mixed up in order to steal 7000 (or 13000 depending on which house was
the real one) from the taxpayer. Perhaps he should be stripped of his entitlement to
housing? but then it might not bother him too much, hes a millionaire. Or there

is Hazel Blears, also moralising in the extreme, who also couldnt remember
where she lived and managed to loot 18,000 from the public purse. All those
flatscreen TVs looted must look familiar to Gerald Kaufman, who fiddled the
rules to the tune of an 8,000 flatscreen TV himself. Or Jeremy Hunt, who
having obtained 22,000 by dubious means generously agreed to pay back half the
money before going on to negotiate a fatally flawed stitch-up with Murdoch over
BskyB which to many looked somewhat corrupt. Perhaps the looters should also be
allowed to pay back half of what they took? Hmmm, clearly I am being facetious but
you get the idea, perhaps the politicians should leave the moralising to the moral
and concentrate on what after all is their (well remunerated) job, ie. social and
economic policy an area that unlike morality, they can directly influence, and that
ultimately is a significant factor in the recent unrest. Cameron claims that this was
pure criminality but even if we take him at his word we must therefore assume that
he has never read any criminology, the overwhelming majority of which would
point to a significant and proven link between poverty, inequality and crime. The
main difference it seems to me between theft of pair of trainers or Ed
Vaizeys 2,000 in antique furniture mistakenly delivered to the wrong address
appears to be a matter of class. You might state that these riots were not an act of
class warfare, but the response to them from the media and mainstream public
discourse most definitely has been. Just because the rioters themselves may or may
not have had a conscious or unconscious class motivation, that is a matter of
debate, does not mean that the response to them has not. We have seen an
uncompromising and robust reassertion of control and order in a physical sense
but also of social order in an ideological sense, by a bourgeoisie that felt threatened.
If you cannot see the class dynamic at play here you either are not looking hard
enough, you dont want to see it, or you buy into the glib Blairite assertion that
Britain is somehow now a classless society. You might believe that to be the case,
but I would have to disagree.

As for the Empty Shops Network, perhaps it was unfair to single that guy out alone,
I have been aware of the ESN for about two years and have taken some interest in
their activities, of which I have been somewhat critical for the reasons stated in the
post. I do not claim to be an expert on their activities however, and if anyone behind
the group would care to explain more fully what their activities entail I would be
happy to enter a discussion with them and to put their side of the story across on
the blog as well as simply my critique.

In terms of the vitriol expressed below by those who dont like their world view
questioned, perhaps they would care to tune in instead to the overwhelming
majority of media and public discourse presented on this issue which will no doubt
reassuringly confirm their ideological positions. With Labour and the (il)Liberal
Democrats seeking to outflank the Tories on the right, somebody has to make the
argument for seeing these traumatic events as a catalyst for more and not less

equality, social justice, and indeed just plain justice (note this is not the same thing
as shooting looters on sight or locking them up and throwing away the key), an
argument that mainstream politics is so demonstratively unwilling to make. Like I
say, if you dont like it, there is plenty of other commentary out there you can read
that will confirm your existing opinions.