Masks in This

As it is the summer I thought that I'd do this a little differently. The government announced that from the 24th July face masks would be compulsory to be wear in shops. People had been wearing them on public transport and some had put masks on as soon as the pandemic closed in on us. But now we would all be required to wear them. This caused much discussion on social media and in bubbles across the land. Some had been arguing for the mask for some time, others pointed out that they would make little difference, something that WHO originally indicated. The president of the United States was against it at first but he has since relented and has been seen in public wearing one. Immediately before the announcement that we should wear a mask even our government seemed conflicted with Michael Gove saying that he didn't think legislation was needed to make it mandatory to wear a mask. Yet it is mandatory - we can be fined if we do not wear a mask in shops and enclosed populous spaces. There is a debate as to who is to enforce this - the shop worker, shop security or the police?

I decided to find out people's views on this piece of material that we now need to fix upon our faces. A small thing to ask but one which I found is an emotional instruction. Our identity is often channelled through our faces. One time government minister Jack Straw was once pilored for asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil during a constituency surgery as he couldn't quite hear what she was saying. Indeed there is a debate on the wearing of a veil within feminism - some believe that covering the face empowers the woman. Mead's semiotics suggests that we need to see facial expressions to fully interact. The mask will surely stop that.

Mead is often lumped in with social action theorists who use qualitative methods to investigate certain phenomenon. I thought that I'd use social media and unstructured interviews - with the later I took the idea of a 'guided conversation' to the extreme by mostly having a conversation. Using facebook, messenger and instagram I asked for people's views. And I was delighted with the responses. It seemed a topic that people felt strongly about and it also gave a valid view of the act of wearing a mask from a few perspectives.  In some cases I ask ed further questions but mostly just recorded the posts that people made.

Those that were against wearing the mask ranged from a loss of liberty to worries about it being the thin end of a wedge. One person believed that mask wearing would lead to further control from the government which would lead to things such as digital control. This is a point of view shared by left and right libertarians, those on the left worry about the loss of identity and extreme social control, the right agree but worry about liberty as well. One respondent was visceral about those who were arguing against this, believing that they were sleep walking into digital chips and more aggressive government monitoring. Some respondents attended a Keep Britain Free demo in London. The belief here is that the government has totally mishandled the virus for its own ends and mask wearing will continue this. Some people said that they would not wear a mask, they feared that people may be aggressive toward them but felt that it was their right. Some people who are anti mask are also anti vaccine. Another respondent said that they would wear a mask as they are required to but felt that it was for their own safety rather than for others. This person isn't English and believed the England was a country "increasingly being led by fear". They went on that "I worry that over time Brits will become a nervous bunch like the Americans."  Elaborating on how the mask would make them feel safe this respondent said that they didn't want people "being nasty to me in shops". This echoed the more explicitly anti mask respondents who feared 'bullying'.

This is an interesting point, my own observations since the lock down began was that at first mask wearers seemed to be more nervous, understandably as they wore masks before being required to. But also some wearers were more aggressive, I heard stories of people being shouted at and knocked out of the way by mask wearers. This can be attributed to the hiding of identity. Psychologists and sociologists have often researched into how hoods, scarves and masks can make people behave differently as it hides their identity. I decided to wear a mask a week before it was necessary to do so, on a trip to a supermarket both my partner and myself were taken aback by stares and fairly awkward body language directed towards us. One respondent said that she had noticed that at the start of lock down she'd seen people wearing them who she thought did so so that they didn't have to observe social distance and that they were an excuse to be anti social.

Some people worried about the comfort element. One respondent has been wearing full PPE at work (he is an optician)  and found it a pain, "it makes my ears sore and people can't hear me properly. But if it saves one life and keeps people safe then I'll choose a minor inconvenience every time."

I had a much needed haircut and the woman who did a particularly good job at it was wearing a visor. I didn't feel intimidated at all and was amazed at how 'normal' it felt.

Some respondents hated the idea of the mask but were resigned to it, one said that she had "been enjoying getting out and about again recently...I'll be scaling that back". This respondent echoed the 'bullying' theme by being concerned by people who see it as their place to confront those who aren't wearing masks and even going so far as to video them. "I despair of the nation of curtain twitchers that we have become".  Another respondent was resigned to wearing a mask but felt "claustrophobic and panicky" when doing so. Another said that the mask makes her feel "anxious" and was very worried that they would be here to stay.

The mask did have supporters, some enthusiastic. One respondent had been wearing one on the bus and at work and said that "I really enjoy the mask aesthetic to be honest, it makes me feel mysterious. That and strangers keeping out of my way. I could happily keep it up forever."  This echoes the empowerment argument in a positive way.  Others felt that the mask was needed if we are to get moving again as a country, especially as one respondent noted that the social distancing was becoming less of a thing as restrictions are eased.  A few respondents asked me what the harm was in wearing a mask, one said "what's wrong with erring on the side of caution?" This is perhaps the extreme of the anti mask respondents who see a lot of harm. Another said that it may make us "moderate our behaviour". Some worried about how they'd work in pubs and gyms. People were beginning to see them as the only way to get back to normality.

Others have ordered masks which reflect their identity. I have a Membranes mask, one respondent has ordered a Billy Casper mask. A record shop proprietor told me he has one with "It sounds better on vinyl" on it.  I was asked which "one I had got". I sat in a park with people comparing theirs. I ordered a nabd mask because I though it looked less scary, it was psychological, if it was part of my identity then it would become more normal.

As noted, several respondents have worried about what our country is going to become. So what of those living abroad?  One respondent who lives in China said that the mask was still necessary to wear on a bus or in the shops, he said that he never had a problem with wearing a mask but that it was becoming "bloody uncomfortable" now that it is a "constant 35 degrees". He also stated that he found it funny when he sees people wearing masks in cars when they are the only person in the vehicle. In Austria masks were required immediately. An American respondent said that in the states "people have lost their minds about it. And since there is no leadership or clear communication it's another dumpster fire consuming our civic life. The failure of common sense and the politicalisation of a step that is being recommended to help the collective is wild to witness and painful to be living through."

So, the mask has its supporters and its enemies, some see no problem with it - indeed some comments on my Facebook feed merely said "Just wear one"- others see it as physically scary or politically dangerous. None of my respondents are virus deniers - in fact the most anti mask respondent had symptoms of it. What all the answers hint at or boldly state is that identity both personal and cultural is being changed either slightly or extremely. The mask is another emblem of this virus which is seeing change enforced on us.

As I walk around town or on my country early morning walks I see masks on the roads and pavements lying there, dropped or discarded.  Debris of the new normal.

National Identity in This

Writing in the New Statesman this week the writer Fintan O'Toole lays blame at the British government's perceived mishandling of the current crisis as lying at the door of a boorish nationalism. The Prime Minister is caught in a colonial past when Britain ruled a large slab of the world. The Prime Minister's language is nationalistic, he uses terms from the war and the empire. Britain is a 'world beater'. Many Prime Ministers enjoy invoking the greatness of Britain (remember "British jobs for British people"). The blitz spirit comes out regularly as well. O'Toole connects this language with the 2016 referendum and the spirit of Britain alone evoked by that campaign. there is little surprise here as Dominic Cummings is the architect of both responses.  But the pandemic has raised questions of national identity, it has arrived at a time when British identity is at a premium as far as the politics of our land are concerned. Since the 2016 referendum we have had three Prime Ministers and two general elections. The last Prime Minister promised a "red, white and blue" Brexit. The current one sees himself as a Churchill figure evoking times past.

In sociology national identity has been a concern for years. Much research has focused on the white working class and our BAME communities. Terms such as 'little Englander' and 'Brasian' have been coined to try and identify identities in our cities and large towns. Brexit played on these identities, the Leave campaign focused on how identity was being taken away. The real argument was trade and political decisions but it was played as 'us and them'. mainly focused on the working class and the lower middle classes. Dominic Cummings saw these people as well as the older generations living in provincial towns as the target to winning the referendum. I knocked on doors for the Remain campaign in a lower middle class / working class area and a lot of the people I spoke to talked about identity and culture. They felt that their identity was being taken away by the EU certainly (although few could say how) but also because they perceived that the government did nothing for them. It was surrendering to other countries and to immigrants from various parts of the world. In short their identity was uncertain. this was also to do with how the UK had broken up since 1997, the union seemed fragile. Curtice and Heath found that since the late 1990s most English people identified themselves as English rather than British, they summised that this was because Wales and Scotland had their own governments with legislation powers. plus Scotland had had a referendum about leaving the UK and even though they narrowly voted to stay this gave out a message that they weren't 100% committed to the union.  the sociologist Waters saw this new Celtic identity as a threat to British national identity but in his research he also identified globalisation as an issue and the increasing multi culturalism in the UK that globalisation brings with it.

ITV4 has recently been rerunning Big Match football programmes from 1977. The Britain you see on the grubby rain soaked pitches is recognisable but different. The crowds are all standing, overwhelmingly white and male. The players are all white as well with names from Scotland, England, wales and Northern Ireland. When players smile they have gaps in their teeth. The adverts around the grounds are all local or national products and companies. Compared to our globalised multicultural game of today it looks very colloquial. Quaint perhaps. However two years later the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher came to power and revolution followed. a monetarist revolution which became what some call neo liberalism. The UK economy became determined by the rest of the globe, instead of making stuff we became a service economy, reliant on financial services. Writers such as Wilkinson have spoken about this as deindustrialisation. From a traditional gender perspective this meant that women were suddenly important to the economy (middle class women as working class women often had to work). But it also meant that Mrs Thatcher was initially pro EU. Free movement meant that our workforce could be supplimented at cheaper rates. The traditional working class such as the miner or the docker would become unemployed, some went into deskilled work, if they wouldn't or couldn't they were replaced by immigrant workers. Our banks, football clubs and high streets all became part of the global market. The country prospered, or some of it did.

With all of this came a libertarian mindset initiated by New Right thinkers such as Murray and Saunders. People should look out for themselves, take advantage of what is offered and prosper. There is a true meritocracy in the UK, if you fail it is your fault. Our services all became dependent on competition. ITV companies had to compete to keep their franchise, schools had to compete for formula funding. They were inspected and regulated directly by Whitehall and told what to teach through the national curriculum. Our utilities had to compete too. Companies such as British Telecommunications became a private company as did our buses and train networks. Eventually even our banks and building societies became internationally owned. Our football became truly international, foreign investors and businesses buying up clubs with dour industrial British names.

Mrs Thatcher was able to do this on the back of a conflict with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, a short bloody war which cost numerous lives but was sold to us as a British national victory akin to our campaigns in the Second World War. It was a heroic event and united most of the country behind it. But it also showed that national identity was going hand in hand with uber globalisation and free movement. In short a new type of Britishness was evolving despite the nationalism being presented by the government.

New Labour continued this nationalism, in their 1997 election broadcasts they even used a bulldog with a union flag draped around it. But they also embraced openly free movement incorporating it with a new British identity. Guibernau and Goldblatt believed that a new form of British identity was forming which was multicultural and all encompassing. The foreign secretary in the early New Labour government, Robyn Cook delighted in proclaiming that a survey had found that the national British dish was Chicken Tikka Masala. This multi cultural British identity was celebrated in the arts and saw itself wrote large in the 2012 Olympics included British athletes from all ethnicities winning and the opening ceremony incorporated British history and all its cultures.

However once the economy stagnated and the global banks went into recession people did what they do best, retreated back to their own tribes. This had been happening since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the invasion of Iraq and the attacks in London and other parts of the UK. Poverty combined with fear of terrorism, unemployment and general distrust of our political and legal system led to riots and the rise of nationalism. This was seen in the rise of UKIP and the Conservative party's fortunes. All of it then produced the referendum of 2016. National identity could now be restated.

Then came the pandemic. The Prime Minister initially seemed to favour a herd immunity. Something once favoured by his chief adviser but changed mlater. He told Phil and Holly on This Morning that we should 'take it on the chin'. Later when he called a lockdown he talked of the great British public with their common sense and their desire for the great British pint. 

The sociologist and cultural commentator Stuart Hall once wrote about how the British still talked like a colonial power. I used to dismiss this as a student in the 1990s but the current Prime Minister seems to have a hang up about the Empire. He quoted Kipling when foreign secretary and seemingly, as Fintan  O'Toole states in his article, thinks that what other countries have gone through does not apply to us. This nationalism echoes the President of the USA who has even gone as far as asking for testing to be slowed down as it "makes us look bad". Both men won elections on the back of nationalism.

back in March the Prime Minister said “We’re taking away the ancient, inalienable right of free-born people of the United Kingdom to go to the pub. And I can understand how people feel about that… I know how difficult this is, how it seems to go against the freedom-loving instincts of the British people.” These British people he talks about are the people Curtice and Heath identified, not so much British as English according to them. This quote does not speak for the whole of Britain. During lockdown we witnessed the toppling of statues, demonstrations by Black Lives Matter and people sympathetic to it and people opposed to it. Violence revisited our streets. Large numbers of working class Black and white people are dying. Mostly people who identify as BAME. 

A pandemic need a global response, we shouldn't compare ourselves with other countries. Perhaps we should unite with them and help the whole of our multi - cultured land and its diverse people.

https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson

The New Normal in This

Yet again during this pandemic the Prime Minister makes an announcement about easing the lockdown in two weeks and the very next day people change their behaviour. Beaches are full and social distancing becomes a thing of the past. Some commentators think that this is a deliberate government strategy, make announcements with a time frame in the hope that people will react immediately, therefore results can be tested sooner. Some form of the economic nudge theory. However it could be argued that there is no connection to what the prime minister says and people's behaviour during the past few months. Some sociologists would argue that people interpret what is said and adapt their behaviour accordingly, or some ignore the advice and try to go on as normal, this is known as agency.

As I've highlighted before in these blogs sociological theory is often concerned with  several strands of thought. That our very actions are controlled by structures such as the family, education etc and another which sees us as behaving as individuals, creating the world around them based on their own experiences. The third is a compromise or more accurately that the actions of an individual can often shape the structures that they work in. Giddens believes that structures and the agency of individuals creates a duality. They act together. I'd argue that this is what is happening in the UK right now.

In march I think structure took over. People decided to set their own freedom aside and obey the instructions from government. The structures of government, law and education worked together to protect the communities they served and another important structure - the NHS. The classic sociologists such as Durkheim would have nodded sagely - this is how society works, we all have the same norms and values - a value consensus. The Prime Minister appeared at a podium with two health advisors and told us some harsh truths and gave us quantitative data. Some the Queen addressed us - another structure - a totem if you will - telling us how to behave. people like me set aside our own political views and followed the advice. This worked for several weeks. we had heroes to follow - ket workers who we applauded weekly. The media was largely compliant - another structure telling us what to do. Folk heroes sprang up - captain Tom Moore and Joe Wickes.  The nation was united. Huge hospitals were constructed at heroic speed.

Chinks in the value consensus armour began to appear. First Prince Charles was reported to have symptoms. then cabinet ministers, then the Prime Minister himself. A picture circulated of the Prime Minister's chief advisor Dominic Cummings running at great speed away from Downing Street. The prince and the ministers recovered. The Prime Minister went into hospital and we were told that he was in good health. He wasn't he was very ill. But even here we rallied around. My local MP - no fan of the prime minister - stated in a email that she worried how his illness would affect elderly people. The value consensus continued.

After a few weeks people began adapting their behaviour, still following the guidelines but applying their own interpretation to them. This is natural as the term 'the new normal' became used regularly. The 'new normal' would be recognised by phenomenologists. Their view is that people adapt to new situations by looking back on what they have experienced. So, I can go to the beach as long as I stay 2 metres away from other sun bathers. The crowded beach pictures are interesting when seen from above in drone pictures, there is a form of social distancing. Of course not enough but the sun seekers were trying. Virtual gigs became popular - I went to a folk festival. People making sense of this 'new normal'. Of course there was still the heart break of not seeing loved ones, especially hard for those with relatives in care homes and those who had new grandchildren they wanted to cuddle. Or those isolated at home on their own.

So far Giddens will be happy, the structural duality was being proved right. Then came Dominic Cummings.  This then affected behaviour. It is difficult to say that it didn't. Police officers across the UK stated that it did. The casual anthropologist would see that behaviour changed that week. Hidden in the broadsheets was another story - just immediately before telling us all to lock down the Prime Minister had a baby shower at his country retreat. Lots of cabinet ministers were in attendance. I know of one couple who abandoned their lock down to drive to another part of the country to see their newly born grandchild.

In a way you could argue that this was a structure affecting our behaviour. Government behaves in this way so shall I. A new value consensus was formed as well as a new normal. There followed demonstrations, raves and more beach going. Schools were then put under pressure to open with grand statements from government ministers without detail. Anyone who dared to ask questions were attacked by the media both traditional and social. Politics resumed, the consensus broken.

Shops are now opening and the prime minister has announced that our great national hibernation is over. Social distancing has been reduced. In fact the government has handed our safety overy to us. Agency is all important, our actions will define our safety now. A structure has passed on responsibility to the individual. Phenomenologists would approve. We must make sense of the 'new normal' ourselves.  The individual is all important in the new normal.

Statues In This

Watching recent events with my sociology teacher head on I keep going back to Durkheim. Durkheim is inescapable in studying sociology at any level. His key concepts in the scientific study of society lie around social solidarity and the dangers of anomie. Anomie is a state of not belonging, being on the margins of society. Durkheim felt that it was this state that led to people committing deviant acts, these acts fly in the face of the norms and values of society, Anomie can harm value consensus. This consensus on what is right and what is wrong is taught through the various agents of socialisation. These agents are the family, religion, media, education and law. Basically anything that teaches us norms and values.

In the last week we have seen demonstrations and riots in the UK and in the USA. There have been some in Australia and in central Europe too. Black Lives Matter has extended as a movement in all of these countries. A statue of Edward Colston, a slave trader, was thrown into the sea in Bristol. This caused outrage amongst far right groups who paraded in London to protect other statues. Not only in the capital but people travelled to other parts of the UK to protect statues they either felt were under threat or had heard were targets. A black head was removed from above a pub in Derbyshire in case it was targeted. On line abuse on both sides has been dished out. Old television comedies have been removed from streaming platforms due to content which was perceived as racist. The country feels an uneasy place. And there is still a pandemic going on.

So what would sociologists make of this? Durkheim would view the statues as totems. Durkheim believed that societies need something which is sacred. Religion would play a huge role in this. But in a society which is increasingly secular, the national religion is declining in numbers and significance, there are many other faiths present and more secular disciplines too. In short we do not have a united church. Durkheim and other functionalist sociologists then believed that a surrogate religion would be sought out. But we live in a diverse society so these totems will be diverse too. Therefore nationalist Britons will see the removal of statues as an attack on their national identity at a time when that identity is in flux anyway. The Brexit vote was partially a vote to claw a certain identity in uncertain times for a section of our society which feels anomie. The far right plays on this anomie and exaggerates it. The media plays a role too, both traditional media and social media can help play of these fears. Anomie can blossom into violence and intolerance.

The Black community of the UK have always felt anomie. Black people have lived and worked in Britain for as long as society has been present. There have been numerous social tensions concerning BAME communities. They have often been demonised by the media and governments and far right movements. Usually, as stated in an earlier post, when governments have lost control of the economy. The recent unrest is different. It includes larger numbers and not all of them Black or BAME. So why? Durkheim believed that deviant behaviour can work as a warning device that society isn't functioning properly. It is how the criminal justice system reacts which is vital for the improvement of society. Consider recent events, Grenfell, Windrush, Mr Floyd's murder in Minneapolis, President Trump's flirtation with racist organisations and language, the high numbers of Bame deaths by the virus and the history of racist language used by our current Prime Minister. All of these events combine to create the notion that certain people are being victimised through not fault of their own. Surveys have shown that more people are watching television news because of lock down. They are visiting news sites more often too. They are seeing all the unrest and reacting.  The two sides are reacting to anomie, both wanting different Britains, one group looking to the future, the other to the past.  The totems represent both in different ways. As I mentioned in a previous post Gilroy sees Black deviant acts as a retribution for colonial struggles. In Bristol we saw that in actuality.

Durkheim believed that education played a role in social solidarity. Subjects such as history, English and religious education were vital for value consensus. However sociologists such as Strand have long found that certain BAME groups struggle in our schools. The historian and writer David Olusoga has recently argued that Black history must be taught in our schools. Durkheim would approve, as he realised that societies change (he just didn't like it happening quickly) as ours becomes more diverse that diversity must be catered for. It would also give an understanding of different communities. He would insist that this history should be taught in conjunction with traditional British history as well. But that's the thing every person alive in the UK today shares  a history. But the focus is on one community only. Black, Asian and Chinese soldiers fought in both world wars for example.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/15/britain-can-no-longer-ignore-its-darkest-chapters-we-must-teach-black-history

In a diverse society it is difficult to achieve the value consensus that Durkheim felt vital for a society to survive. The virus is still with us but we are fighting each other. The totems that we defend or attack should become part of our national narrative, in schools we should teach that narrative. No one is truely a hero or a villain. Education should be about understanding that. The media should be about informing us about this. Government should be about driving this shared narrative. Reports over the week are suggesting that BAME people are dying more because of the virus because of historic racism and inequalities. This is something that sociologists have stressed for years. Inequality leads to death. A pandemic highlights this in extreme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53035054
This is the fourth anniversary of Jo Cox's murder. Durkheim would echo her famous words. There is still more that we have in common than that which divides us. The agents of socialisation must be adapted to prevent further anomie for all of our communities. 

Black Lives Matter

The sociologist Stuart Hall believed that when a government was in crisis the media created moral panics. In his seminal classic Policing the Crisis Hall looked at the British newspaper's obsession with mugging, focusing on the role of young black men in this criminal act. The papers would report daily on this causing a moral panic and creating folk devils of young black men. They didn't report on the reason as to why young black men may turn to a life of crime. That was much too complicated, instead of looking at the crisis capitalism was in in the late 1970s both in Britain and world wide they focused on the ethnicity of these young men. Further investigation would uncover poverty, marginalisation in school and the job market. In short there were no opportunities for these young men. Like their white working class peers they had little hope of a job let alone a profession. But to report on that the papers would have bored their readers but more importantly they would have chipped away at the deeper problems of our society. And they would have had to focus on the fact that the British government had lost control of the economy.

Young black men were an easy target, they represented what the social scientist Goffman calls 'the other'. Goffman believed that we put ourselves into groups - basically 'us and them'. The media helped create the black boys as 'the other'. Sitcoms, films and popular media of the time deal with this subject matter lots, sometimes comically, sometimes as a social issue. But 'the other' had been created and this has been repeated in modern history, young black men have been joined by the Asian community and 'immigrants' as 'the other'. many times when a government has lost control these folk devils have been presented to us. Social media has spread rumours and misinformation about 'the other' as well. Goffman's work on Stigmas was furthered by Falk who said that societies create solidarity by creating 'outsiders'. People who are a threat to our society.

The threat to our society across the globe is the virus. The poet and activist Attila the Stockbroker wrote a poem recently wishing the virus was a person so he could attack it. Interestingly in the same poem he compares it to a fascist,  something that can be physically beaten.

This leads us to George Floyd. Mr Floyd was killed whilst he was being detained by a white police officer in Minneapolis. The police officer detained Mr Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nine minutes. Mr Floyd was handcuffed and reportedly said that he couldn't breath. This sadly common incident has led to widespread rioting in the US and many demonstrations across the world. The Black Lives Matter movement which has been active for many years now has become even more prominent. Social media has been awash with blacked out profiles and posts. All this at a time when a virus is still surging and killing, when we are supposed to be observing social distance.

I'm old enough to remember Stephen Lawrence and Rodney King. In fact those two men were part of my social and political awakening and their names have been with me throughout my interest in sociology, they are always on my mind. Both caused demonstrations and riots and campaigning. But this seems different.

Why did the police officer restrain Mr Floyd in the manner that he did? There are reasons for this that have been observed by sociologists throughout the 90s, 00s, 10s and now. The inquiry into Stephen Lawrence's death popularised a phrase called 'institutional racism' . This is when the practices of institutions like the criminal justice system don't treat everyone the same. Their procedures and policies do not have the same outcome on all members of society. For example the proactive 'stop and search' procedure favours the stopping and searching of young black men. To go back to Hall's study. The reason that so many more young black men ended up being arrested for mugging was due to them being under constant suspicion.perhaps leading to young white working class men getting away. On Twitter a white American tweeted that he had committed the same offence as Mr Floyd, which was the handling of a forged $20 bill. He tweeted that for him it was an amusing dinner table anecdote, for Mr Floyd it was a death sentence. The tweeter called this 'white privilege' . It is also an instance of institutional racism. A black man is treated differently to a white man. 

Sociologists and criminologists talk about 'canteen culture' this happens when police officers are socialising with each other. They unwind by talking about the job, they share anecdotes about people they have encountered on their job and who is likely to be a criminal. This can be in the canteen or in a bar. Pictures have emerged of the police officer wearing a Trump style hat bearing the legend "Make White Great Again". This would sufggest that he had deep held prejudices already. So seeing a black man he acted in the manner that he did.

But this goes beyond the police and deeper into American society. I think that the concept of 'other' is important here. Just before Mr Floyd's murder a woman was filmed saying to a black man who had complained about her dog not being on a lead that she was phoning the police to tell them that an African American was 'intimidating' her. Mr Floyd is not alone in being the victim of police brutality.  Sociologist Gilroy wrote that black crime and its treatment harked back to colonial Britain. If we look at the history of the US this may explain why the concept of the 'other' is so explosive there. America as a society was forged through land grab and genocide. This was followed by slavery, then segregation. The obsession with guns and militia (remember the militia response to governors who wanted social distancing?) is a psychological one. Many Americans have a fear of the other taking their home away from them. It was stolen once, perhaps it could be again. I was in Washington DC when Obama was elected as president in 2008. A black tour guide said to me about the White House "slaves built it, now we are taking it back". He had tears in his eyes as did I. Throughout Obama's presidency he was never accepted by large communities. Donald Trump demanded to see his passport. Republican politicians and media commentators emphasised his middle name Hussain. Often they 'mispronounced' his name as Osama. More than any president before him there was a hatred that can only be attributed to him being seen as 'the other'. Trump's Make America Great Campaign was aimed at these communities. Many of these people live in total poverty, their industries crushed in recession and capitalism in crisis. They needed someone to blame. Trump gave them someone. Not the big businesses or the globalised market but 'the other'. He talked of walls and barring people from certain countries entering the USA. Many of the things he said were hyper reality - only fragments of truth but he rallied these people, played to their fears and benefitted from their votes.

Trump has created a hegemony which means that his ideas have become the norm. 'The other' is accepted by many Americans.

However Mr Floyd's last words struck a chord. "I can't breath". A pandemic is raging across the globe. It makes breathing difficult for those infected. The police officer has become the real embodiment of the virus. Global statistics show that BAME people are being disproportionately killed by the virus. A horrifying image released early on in this pandemic were mass graves being dug in Brooklyn mostly for black victims. Mr Floyd's killer was not a virus but a man with racist symptoms. In many eyes now the police officer is 'the other'.

My favourite sociologist is Studs Terkel. Terkel was a master interviewer and his books deal with a wide range of issues. In one American Dreams: Lost and Found he interviews a former Klansman who talks about his racism, it is based on Goffman and Flak's 'otherness' but more interesting is his tale of how he suddenly changed. He'd been laid off his factory job and was picking his children up from school. In the line he got talking to a black man he recognised as also having worked at the factory. Both men shared their fear of how they could provide for their children. It suddenly dawned on this Klansman that this man who he once feared and hated was just the same as him. They were in exactly the same situation with the same fears about their uncertain future.

"We are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us"
Jo Cox 1974 - 2016

Society in This

In a documentary on past Prime Ministers broadcast on BBC Radio 4 during the first year of his Prime Ministership David Cameron quoted William Gladstone, the Victorian Prime Minister "It is the duty of government to make it difficult to do wrong, easy to do right." Mr Cameron believed that that was a useful maxim under which to govern. During half term the government was rocked by the media reaction to the actions of advisor Dominic Cummings and his journey to Durham and his movements once there which seemed to contradict the 'instruction' sent to every household regarding the lock down. Mr Cummings defended himself by finding a clause in the instructions about protecting children (actually about domestic abuse) and saying it was what any parent would have done. The week that followed saw exceptionally good weather and lots of people heading to the beaches and various other tourist spots around Britain.  The Prime Minister then announced  an easing of the lockdown, up to six people could meet outside. The British public could enjoy barbeques again. Immediately, it seemed a taxi pulled up outside my house and two lads got out, then a drug dealer turned up and my neighbour's lad and the aforementioned lads got stoned in a shed. On social media people shared their stories of beauty spots being visited by 'boy racers' and huge amounts of litter being left behind. Indeed on my morning walks I've seen smashed bottles, huge dumps of laughing gas and balloons lying in heaps. It does seem that the lockdown is over. For some people.

How does sociology explain this? As it happens Gladstone may have been onto something. Post modernist Baudrillard talked about people making an understanding of information by using simulcra. Basically signs that they understand. They make up their own interpretations of the mass of information that post modern media saturated society delivers. It could then be argued that people took Mr Cummings' actions as a sign that they could then break some of the lock down rules. This has been happening since the lock down started but an important figure such as the Prime Minister's chief advisor could be a spur to further relax the rules. My neighbours have been slavishly obeying the rules until now. Perhaps Mr Cummings acts as a simulcra? He is the sign that we can relax or interpret the rules in our own way.  Therefore the government has made it easy to 'do wrong'.

There are other explanations. Society is a complex beast, made of many different types of individuals, cultures and generations. In the sociology of media there is an old term called the 'two step flow' model. This means that we all receive the same messages but look to others to help us understand them. This can be office workers meeting around a kettle or water cooler discussing a drama they have watched or Love island (remember that). One social actor may seem more clued up than the others and they will accept their interpretation of the show they've all watched. This person would be the opinion leader. The opinion leader could be a parent, a religious leader, a dominant figure in a peer group. Their interpretation of lockdown rules and what they have read on mainstream media or social media could then influence other people. In a varied society such as ours this means that lots of messages and interpretations go out into various social groups and they are not the same. So people behave differently. What is interesting is that areas such as Settle (one friend of mine is particularly angry about the litter and the dangerous driving which occurred last weekend) are often visited by 'outsiders' but do not have as much destruction nor as bad behaviour on the scale witnessed recently. Maybe because the vast majority of people who would normally visit some sights are still rigidly following the lockdown rules. Whereas people who would normally not visit such sites are. They maybe flouting the rules because they feel cooped up in their homes. It is easier to obey the rules if you have a spacious living area. So, if you are not a frequent visitor to such areas you may not be aware of the norms and values of visiting.  Behaviour is learned according to sociology.

Functionalist sociologists argue that we need shared value consensus, people need to learn the same norms and values for society to exist. It could then be argued that a high profile government figure breaking these norms and values can lead to a societal malfunction. There is a danger that if people start creating their own norms and values then society may have serious issues.

Marxist sociologists would see the government's easing of the restrictions of lockdown as being purely economical. Capitalism is in crisis. There is a danger of a recession or even a depression. Schools must open to allow workers back to work free of childcare whislt private schools such as Eton stay closed. Marxists would see Mr Cummings as part of the elite who make rules but do not abide by them.

However there are socially scientific reasons to lift some of the restrictions. Functionalists such as Parsons would argue that schools are valuable socialisation agents, they can help children feel less isolated, they need social interaction with others. This leads to sociologists who believe that social interaction is incredibly important. People need people to understand the world around them. Perhaps it could be argued that with more social interaction (or more people around) then people may have more respect for others, the environment and perhaps drive more carefully. Rules are easier to enforce if there are people who openly obey them and when in masses people tend to as a survival instinct.

However there is still the worry about the virus. The government information is that the virus infections are declining, so if we are alert and sensible in our interactions then we are fairly safe. However the simulcra comes into play again. Even SAGE has different factions saying different things. Science has closed and open wings, conflicting views.  Qualitative data can be interpreted in various ways. Opinion leaders can influence people's views.  Mr Cummings's actions may, to some, seem the reasonable actions of a parent (in an affluent lifestyle they may well be reasonable) but they are not helpful to a government trying to make it easy for an incredibly diverse society to do right.

Teachers In This

Many years ago I lived in semi squalor in Brighton, I shared a flat on the seafront with my friend. One sunny day we decided to escape the madding crowds of that seaside town and go out into the country. We got a train to a little town called Lewes. As we strolled through the countryside I told my friend that I was thinking of becoming a teacher. I'd had a couple of ales and I expounded the joys of being a school master in a little village, deep at work in my books, being asked my opinion on things by the respectful locals. I was obviously lampooning the status of a teacher but in my mind it was rooted in reality. Teachers had respect, they had a certain status. I saw this on my flights back to Northern Ireland when the stringent security checks would ask my occupation, in the past I'd say 'student' , 'unemployed' , 'work in a hospital' each time I'd undergo a search of me and my belongings. When I said 'teacher' I was waved through. (Although by the time I'd become a teacher the troubles had ended so that might be a reason).

Over the last twenty years teachers have been reduced in status. The last two weeks have seen the media calling teachers out. It's our time to be heroes, get back to work. Michael Gove, one time Education Secretary, has started to refer to the profession as 'the blob' again. This was his term for us if we resisted any of his wide spread reforms from 2010 onwards. This was a phrase coined by Dominic Cummings who is now a chief adviser to the Prime Minister. The journalist Isabel Oakeshott tweeted on a Thursday that "Tonight thousands of teachers will clap for the NHS. Time for teachers to show the same bravery!"  Taking aside the reality that thousands of teachers are still in schools teaching and looking after children of key workers and vulnerable pupils, this is a fairly common view.

So why has the status of teachers declined. There are a few reasons. One is something I've talked about before, the neo liberal view that we all have agency, the large structures of society should not impose on our liberty. This was vocalised by Michael Gove during the 2016 referendum on the EU when he stated that no one was interested in experts. This ties back to his 'blob' comments too. Both authored by Dominic Cummings who has written extensively on such things.

It is also linked to the changes in education due to the demands of globalisation. A sociologist called Stephen Ball believes that the neo liberal perspective of education is that it can only succeed if it is treated like a business. In a globalised market place we do not only compete amongst ourselves but with other countries as well. The Conservative government in the 1980s deindustrialised the UK so that it could become a service industry - this would mean our economy could compete with other countries, the services we provided in finance and leisure would propel us upwards. Asked on a children's TV show what she thought of pop music Mrs Thatcher said it was very good for the economy. In 1988 the Education Reform Act was introduced, this provided key skills for work. It also introduced coursework and New Vocationalism which meant that women could be skilled up to take part in this service revolution. This led to a marginalisation of working class boys, something sociologist Mac an Ghall referred to as a 'crisis of masculinity' and something we still see in our housing estates and on our streets today.  The Reform Act also introduced competition amongst schools. They had to compete with each other. No longer were you confined to the local school, you could shop around. Like a supermarket. League tables helped parents out. This was carried on by Tony Blair's New Labour government. They gave Ofsted more powers to ensure that schools were meeting targets (they invested more in schools than the Conservatives but wanted results for their bucks) and introduced the academy system which went nuclear under Michael Gove. The idea behind academies initially was to rescue failing schools in impoverished areas. The academy would be run in conjunction with local business money, this would lead to high resources and less interference from LEAs. Under the coalition this was expanded and the ambition was that every school would become an academy regardless of performance or the area.  Large academy chains such as Dixons and Oasis appeared. Michael Gove went further - he introduced free schools. Here parents, businesses, faiths, football clubs, journalists anyone could set up a school. This meant even more choice. Gove then reset how to become a teacher, no longer did you have to go to university and train. Now you could train on the job. Academies had different working conditions and pay. this was to lessen the 'blob' because the 'blob' was heavily unionised. 

The effect of all of this according to Ball is that the role of a teacher was diminished. They became facilitators rather than teachers. They looked at exams and how to pass them. Like any business their eye is on results. Their management sometimes is not academic but business. Results are how things are measured in business. Education became the same. Ofsted is now interested in the customer's experience. Deep dives are carried out in schools, looking at the entire experience of the pupil.

When lock down began many schools had already closed. Mostly because of safety. Because of choice pupils traveled to school from various areas with many other people. Schools are often over subscribed because of formula funding (money for amount of students), corridors are bustling places full of bodies in close contact. But to say they closed is not true. I spoke to a deputy head of a school in West Yorkshire, he has been turning up to work since lock down. Vulnerable pupils and those of key workers are still attending. His school sends out food parcels to those children on FSM who can't travel into school. Another primary school teacher in South Yorkshire tells me they have been doing the same. As has the academy around the corner.  My sister in law is a dinner lady at a school. She's been working throughout the lock down.

The government's concern about disadvantaged pupils missing out on the school experience is not unfounded. Many sociologists would agree with them. Because of material and cultural deprivation many pupils do not have the resources to fully engage in education. They also need the discipline. Parsons said school was part of a resocialisation process. It filled in gaps that families may lack. In other words it provides a social experience, gives rules and boundaries. This may be lacking at home. This is before we look at abusive home environments. Smith and Noble looked at the home environment as far as schooling is concerned and saw that school had a huge role to play in making up the difference. The problem is that in the past people went to the local school. In an age of globalisation and competition this is less likely. It is difficult to get pupils into school. Most schools will operate with disadvantaged pupils who often live near by as they cannot afford to travel to school. The advantaged will stay at home doing remote learning.

So, it is really complicated. The neo liberal approach to education is about choice, this means that schools are now varied places, recruiting where they can. All this is fine until restricted movement and social distancing is the norm.  then it becomes complicated. The media has tried to uncomplicate this by comparing teachers to NHS staff. One stays at home whilst the other bravely fights the virus. Teachers have died but not in the same numbers as NHS staff. Teaching is not as dangerous as being a nurse. The recent EU referendum and VE Day celebrations have made the media see things in the terms of the second world war. The search for heroes continues as it helps with social solidarity. Teachers don't fit the hero bill today.  The economy needs schools open is one view. Children need to go back to school because of social, material and cultural deprivation is another view. Both are credible.

To go back to the initial view. Teacher's are no longer awarded a high social status because they are now part of a blob. Not Michael Gove's 'blob' but one of which he is an advocate. They are part of the business economic global blob.

Work in This

The sociology of work is more interesting than it seems. Not many colleges choose the topic in A level because even though the primary reason for students to take A levels is to get into work many students recoil in horror from the very mention of the word. Work is a four lettered word. I tried explaining the concept of paid employment to my daughter when she was five and she literally ran from the room screaming. Yet it is a very important part of our society. Sociologist Keith Grint stated that work was essential to individual and societal survival. Weber believed that the protestant work ethic carved out our national identity as a capitalist country (his idea has had many critics). Durkheim, the founding father of sociology as a discipline believed that work was a form of  organic solidarity meaning that it binds society together. Every job we do no matter what is essential for our society functioning normally. We need people he sociology of work is more interesting than it seems. Not many colleges choose the topic in A level because even though the primary reason for students to take A levels is to get into work many students recoil in horror from the very mention of the word. Work is a four lettered word. I tried explaining the concept of paid employment to my daughter when she was five and she literally ran from the room screaming. Yet it is a very important part of our society. Sociologist Keith Grint stated that work was essential to individual and societal survival. Weber believed that the protestant work ethic carved out our national identity as a capitalist country (his idea has had many critics). Durkheim, the founding father of sociology as a discipline believed that work was a form ofto empty our bins, educate us, mend us, serve us in shops, keep the lights on. Everyone in work has a purpose. Marx, of course, thinks that this is wrong. Society is based on exploitation. Capitalism needs inequalities to survive. If inequality didn't exist how would the owners of the means of production generate profit? Far from binding society Marx believed that work alienated people. I remember Mrs Glasgow, my A level sociology explaining it by saying that we should imagine that in pre capitalist times a man made boats, his family helped. he loved his boats and was proud to sell them. He'd stand on a shore and point out to his children which ones he'd made as they bobbed about in the sea. Once factories appeared and boats were mass produced for profit the workers didn't have much pride in their work as they only put rivets in or painted them, they rarely saw the end product. They got a wage. They were alienated from the product as it belonged to someone else.

When this all started Durkheim's view of organic solidarity was much in evidence. We needed the NHS workers, the shelf stackers, the checkout workers, the delivery workers and many more (many teachers have not had the luxury of home teaching, they've been in the classroom teaching vulnerable pupils and those children of key workers. Some have died.) of what we now term key workers. A friend of mine shut up his bike shop on the eve of lock down thinking that he'd lose his business only to find out he was a key worker and his shop has remained open (he contracted the virus). We clapped the NHS workers, politicians paid tribute to them. Those of us who are not front line key workers worked from home. Technology is important here as I've mentioned elsewhere.

The Prime Minister announced on Sunday 10th May that  people who could not work from home should return to work. The details were confusing but it soon appeared to some people that perhaps Marx was correct. Those returning to work were more likely to be what Marxists term as the working class. Those he believed were alienated from their work. The government told them not to use public transport if possible.

Now, the argument is that our economy needs this. We are all dependent on our economy being strong and vibrant. If it is strong we all enjoy the benefits of it. Our leisure time, our interests, our travel are all tied up with this. If it fails then we are limited in our movement and interests. Durkheim would recognise this. As would Grint. Our survival is dependent on a strong economy. So people going back to work is needed. Schools then must open so that the children of these workers have somewhere to go.

Marxists however would point out that there is an inequality of who goes back and who stays at home. There is a class difference. A middle class family will most likely be able to work from home and not send their children back to school in June (councils have said that there will be no fines until September). Many (not all) middle class incomes will remain intact. Others need to work regardless of safety in the workplace.

Work cannot be divided from leisure. Our leisure choices are dependent on people working. I ordered beer from a pub, the landlord drives to my house. My records and magazines are delivered by the postman. Walking needs good footwear. We are often unaware of the people beavering away in order to make life comfortable for us all. Hopefully This will make us appreciate them. Marx would be sceptical.