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.