The graphic images of London burning during the August riots have given way to word images of the Euro burning. But the pictures of hooded youths, burning shops, and processions of consumer goods making their way out of shops remain vivid. So do the anguished questions and large theories of what caused the riots. The rise of consumerism, individualism, secularism, social media, inequality and poverty, and the fall of firm policing, discipline in schools and stable families were all blamed.
The responses on the whole were punitive and controlling, leading to a strong police presence and investigation, relatively harsh penalties in summary trials, evictions of families of looters.
In retrospect this echoes the process that led to the Intervention in Australia. The report of widespread sexual and other abuse also led to anxious questioning and to many large theories. The response to it was to introduce extra policing and control of community life through deprivation of income and other means.
This kind of response to antisocial behaviour has been called 'moral panic'. I do not like the phrase because it can suggest that concern and reflection in large terms on the reasons for antisocial behaviour are reprehensible and inappropriate. They are not. But the term does point to common features in the response to many different events: anxiety, broad cultural generalisation and the urge to take decisive action.
A recent report on the riots provides an opportunity to ask how adequate these kinds of response are. It asked people involved in the riots and those who kept out of them why they acted as they did. Most involved were caught up in the excitement and by the sight of others making off with desirable goodies. Many were drawn in by friends, some by resentment at particular actions by police. Those who did not take part were often influenced by friends or family and by fear of the consequences.
This account suggests that explanations of the riots couched in large cultural, economic or social terms may be helpful in identifying deeper influences on behaviour, but they do not offer causes. They fail to explain riots that have occurred at other times of history. They