‘It is only the thymotic man, the man of anger who is jealous of his own dignity and the dignity of his fellow citizens, the man who feels that his worth is constituted by something more than the complex set of desires that make up his physical existence – it is this man alone who is willing to walk in front of a tank or confront a line of soldiers.’ – Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, 1992
‘They were nicking televisions because they wanted a television and they weren’t prepared to save up and get it like normal people.’ – David Cameron, 14th August 2011
We used to conceptualise the realm of politics as having a higher end. From Plato and Aristotle on, the city was seen a vital condition of living ‘the good life’ and satisfying man’s political and social needs. Then, in the seventeenth century, something changed. Hobbes and Locke reconceptualised civic society firstly as a simple matter of security, of escaping the ‘nasty, brutish and short’ life of man in the state of nature, and then as a way of securing and accumulating property. Ideas which have held sway ever since. However, it is perhaps only the last thirty years which have seen these ideas of the basis of society and, indeed, human nature, drawn to their logical conclusion, culminating in the response of the British political class to the riots which engulfed the country’s major cities in mid-August 2011 and particularly the response of the Conservative-led government.
It was, we were told, ‘criminality’, pure and simple. People looted shops because they desired things and lacked the self-restraint to save up and pay for them like ‘normal people’. Even worse, presumably, were those who simply burned and vandalised – mindless feral thugs of ‘Broken Britain’ (a theme which seems to have vanished since May 2010), they lacked even their unrestrained desire as an excuse. The Prime Minister warned of ’100,000 deeply broken and troubled families…costing hundreds of millions of pounds for the country’. The barbarians were well within the gates and something had to be done about them. It was a very simple matter. Indeed, the Prime Minister criticised those who sought more complex causes, saying the only thing complicated about the riots was why there was ‘a sizeable minority of people prepared to do this.’
That modern politics is severely lacking in nuance is not exactly surprising, but the reaction to this particular event tells us a great deal about the mentality of our current politicians and its inadequacy for dealing with society. It is a mentality which revolves around money, where the key problem with these ’100,000′ families is the cost to the taxpayer. For these men and women of politics, as for an overwhelming number of others, it is money that matters. Overshadowed by Locke, Smith, Marx and, latterly, the employees of the IMF and the World Bank, man is seen as an economic creature, a consumer seeking to satisfy his desire for, say, a new television, and if he cannot afford it, then he will steal it. In the minds of these people, society is simply about accumulating goods and man is simply a bundle of material desires restrained, to a greater or lesser extent, by reason.
However, there is a serious flaw in the government’s thinking. If, as they claim, this was mere criminality, why did it flare up so suddenly? These 100,000 dysfunctional families of the Prime Minister’s imagination cannot have suddenly appeared from nowhere, springing from the ether to plunge the country into criminality. If it were really criminality, they would have been looting and burning for a long time now and these riots would have been nothing special. Indeed, the idea that the rioters were motivated solely by unrestrained greed entirely ignores the burning of buildings and the violence against the police which cannot simply be explained by the desire for a new television. No, something bigger lies behind this sudden outburst, something complicated (much though the Prime Minister craves simplicity). Rioting is a political act, motivated by another part of the human character, for man is not simply a collection of desires governed (or not) by reason. Man also has dignity.
Plato, in his division of the soul into three parts, called it ‘thymos’, usually translated as ‘spiritedness’, to go with reason and desire, although dignity is probably better, or perhaps self-esteem. It is that part of us which feels shame when we do not live up to our own standards, pride when we do and, crucially, anger when we are belittled. It is that part of us which drives us to stand in front of a tank or confront a line of soldiers or, indeed, riot police not for any material reason, but because we feel we have been wronged. This is the part of man which modern politics, and modern politicians, have forgotten, and we must remember it if we are to deal successfully with these riots.
It seems that the riots were triggered by the shooting of a man by police in Tottenham and disturbances at a subsequent protest. This was just the latest in a long line of police action which have undermined confidence in the force. It seems this was the last straw. It strikes me that this is a much better explanation of why people riot, as opposed to simply stealing. I am not, it should be stressed, arguing that every rioter was avenging wounds inflicted on his or others’ dignity by police – some certainly were using it as cover for simple crime and others may have been spurred by other political, ‘thymotic’ causes, but one cannot simply dismiss an entire riot as criminality.
But, with the elimination of ‘thymotic man’ from modern politics and the installation of the covetous ‘economic man’ in his place, out politicians are ill-equipped to understand and deal with the rioting. If one thinks people are driven only by desire and reason then, naturally, one would think the motivation of the rioters is a simple matter. However, man is more than that and, as such, things are much more complicated than the Prime Minister believes. We must reclaim ‘thymotic man’, driven by dignity as well as reason and desire, and add a little complexity to our understanding of human society. If we do not, we should not be surprised if more trouble is on the way – we must recognise that it is not a simple problem and there are no easy answers. After all, man is made up of something greater than the desire for a new television
