Sagnir - 01.06.2016, Blaðsíða 125
^embers were mostly from the educated middle class and did not live in the areas
affected. The discussion group was quick to adopt the official narrative of looking
at the unrest as something unpolitical, and that a big driving force behind crime
'vas consumerism. On top of this it was argued that the participants of the riots
v’ere driven by wrath and violence connected to mascuiinity, that through their
,r,asculinity they thought they had the right to the public space, the masculinity of
the participators is explored, but not that of the police. Others in the group were
^‘ate cautious in delegitimizing and disempowering participants through notions
°f gender.25 One participant warned the others that:
••• we have to be really careful about not oversimplifying our arguments ...
^anifestations of masculinity are fundamentaliy linked to other aspects of
s°cial identity. Where others see entitlement, I see disenfranchisement and
jhatginaiisation ... For example, whatever entitlement a young black man may
tyd.tn his interactions with women, he is much less likely* * 7 to experience that in
Pas mtcractions with the “world out there’k His masculimty is therefore likely to
De constructed with fundamental tensions.26
Ftom a historical perspective it would be problematic to view a riot as essentially
an expression of masculinity. A long history of food riots throughout Europe
V'°uld question this assumption, from the 17* until the 19* Century food riots
tvere a common form of popular protest. It is generally claimed that women held
Pr°minent roles as instigators and participators in these riots.27
^ Creating otherness
De depoliticized explanations given by the media usually shift all responsibility
°Ver to the participants, while at the same time describing them, their characteris-
||Cs and behaviour. This process is well described in Moritz Sommer's thesis, when
e studies what specific words were the most prevaient when describing the par-
íp^Pants. The description correlates with the explanations mentioned previously.
, e word ‘Rioters’ ranks the highest, a term contrasted by the more civilized term
Pr°tester’ that was used by the BBC in the beginning, a usage which they were
eavily criticised for.28 ‘Criminals’, ‘thugs’ and ‘gangsters’ rank second on the list
°ko\ved by ‘looters’. ‘Mobs’ —‘irrational and mindless’ comes after that. ‘Animals’
|l.n<^ savages’ comes in fifth place, utilizing a dehumanizing language calling par-
ClPants ‘rat packs’ and ‘wild beasts’. In sixth place comes ‘anarchists’ and finally in
^fVenth place comes ‘underclass’ being mentioned a total of 31 times. A notewor-
I aspect of all the descriptions is that they concentrate on a perceived behaviour
a,110ngSt the participants. Even with the word underclass behaviour is stressed,
7 E2 Kelly and Aisha K. Gill, “Rods not Riots”, p. 63-65, 68.
26 Ibid, p. 70-71.
7 kynne Taylor, ”Food Riots Revisited”, p. 483, 490.
J°n Henley, “The UK riots and language”, www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/10/uk-riots-language
^eved 16. August 2015. Moritz Sommer, “The Rioter’ as ‘Pleb’”, p. 18.
125