Yesterday evening the Vancouver Canucks lost the final game of the Stanley Cup Hockey Championship to the Boston Bruins in Vancouver. Before long, numerous fans turned violent. This included the overturning and burning of cars (including police cars), damage and destruction of immovable property (e.g. stores) and looting. Fights broke out as well resulting in a number of injuries. Photos of the disgrace abound (e.g. here and here).
Given their momentary majority, such mobs represent, however temporary, a real and significant authority operating within the spaces they occupy at the time, subject to police acting to re-assert control over the oppression of the mob. The rioting mob's power is not constant and thus in flux and dependent in part on those who challenge their authority gaining some supremacy or control over them.
However, it is also important to note that riots don't operate within a strict binary, in other words, rioters versus the state. Some of the victims of mob oppression are other civil society actors - property owners in the area and other victims of violence. Similarly, some of the resisters to the rioting mob's oppression are other civil society actors.
A Globe and Mail article, amidst all the reporting on the riot(s), took an important moment to present three brief narratives of resistance to the rioters. As the Globe's writer, Sunny Dhillon correctly observed, "just as [the rioters] get recognition, perhaps so too should those who put themselves in the dangerous position of trying to stop the rioters." Dhillon spoke to one individual, Dave, who witnessed the riots transpiring from his apartment window and was moved to intervene when he observed a neighborhood bookstore attacked. He moved quickly to stand in front of it to stop the rioters from advancing into the store. His resistance was met with threats of violence, but he refused to back down. Dave asserted: “This is my neighbourhood and I care about this place. And, to be honest, what are we saying if we just watch everyone destroy our neighbourhood?”
As Dhillon reports, the anti-riot resistance didn't just manifest itself in defending a "cultured" space (e.g. a bookstore), but also a liquor store where two women and two men stood in front of it. They were similarly threatened and had garbage thrown at them for defying the crowd's violence. In a more general show of resistance not tied to a specific piece of property, a group of about a half dozen individuals chanted "show some respect" which garnered them threats and rebukes from the rioters looting all around them.
What might we take away from this resistance to the rioters? For one, individual civilians can engage in resistance to such violence for it is perhaps not just the duty or the role of the state to intervene (although given its power and resources the state ought to be the main engine of quelling it). Everyday citizens are more than just idle bystanders, they are agents as well. Of course, it might be said that standing by and watching without intervening involves individuals engaging in a type of agency by omission - and in some instances criminal liability does extend to those who have a legal duty to act and help others and fail to do so intentionally or out of negligence. Second, the resistance demonstrated in Vancouver by Dave and others speak to the importance of protecting common spaces, (as spaces with substantive meaning) even those that are privately owned but otherwise open to the general public - quasi-public spaces (e.g. the book store and liquor store). But as Dave argued, it is about protecting the neighbourhood by guarding its constituent parts against threats. But in addition to protecting the physical integrity of the structures, it is also perhaps about resisting the assault on the conceptual identity that underlies the overall space that has social meaning. The space where everyday citizens and members of the community conduct their lives and interact that is being defiled. Here, by committing violence against these spaces, rioters commit violence against the larger public body that places importance on these spaces and their sanctity.
People inscribe spaces with meaning (although meanings that are not necessarily static or homogeneous). By their conduct, the rioters inscribed the city with a narrative of violence. The resisters discussed in Dhillon's article challenged this attempted re-inscription with their own meanings and tried to restore or defend the meaning of the space as a place that is civil or perhaps civilized and decent. When the half dozen resisters chanted "show some respect" one might understand that to mean (amongst various meanings) to respect the common spaces that all Vancouverites and visitors share.
Sources:
Sunny Dhillon, "Facing Down Vancouver's Rioters: 'This is my neighbourhood'" The Globe and Mail (16 June 2011) online: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/facing-down-vancouvers-rioters-this-is-my-neighbourhood/article2063031/
Given their momentary majority, such mobs represent, however temporary, a real and significant authority operating within the spaces they occupy at the time, subject to police acting to re-assert control over the oppression of the mob. The rioting mob's power is not constant and thus in flux and dependent in part on those who challenge their authority gaining some supremacy or control over them.
However, it is also important to note that riots don't operate within a strict binary, in other words, rioters versus the state. Some of the victims of mob oppression are other civil society actors - property owners in the area and other victims of violence. Similarly, some of the resisters to the rioting mob's oppression are other civil society actors.
A Globe and Mail article, amidst all the reporting on the riot(s), took an important moment to present three brief narratives of resistance to the rioters. As the Globe's writer, Sunny Dhillon correctly observed, "just as [the rioters] get recognition, perhaps so too should those who put themselves in the dangerous position of trying to stop the rioters." Dhillon spoke to one individual, Dave, who witnessed the riots transpiring from his apartment window and was moved to intervene when he observed a neighborhood bookstore attacked. He moved quickly to stand in front of it to stop the rioters from advancing into the store. His resistance was met with threats of violence, but he refused to back down. Dave asserted: “This is my neighbourhood and I care about this place. And, to be honest, what are we saying if we just watch everyone destroy our neighbourhood?”
As Dhillon reports, the anti-riot resistance didn't just manifest itself in defending a "cultured" space (e.g. a bookstore), but also a liquor store where two women and two men stood in front of it. They were similarly threatened and had garbage thrown at them for defying the crowd's violence. In a more general show of resistance not tied to a specific piece of property, a group of about a half dozen individuals chanted "show some respect" which garnered them threats and rebukes from the rioters looting all around them.
What might we take away from this resistance to the rioters? For one, individual civilians can engage in resistance to such violence for it is perhaps not just the duty or the role of the state to intervene (although given its power and resources the state ought to be the main engine of quelling it). Everyday citizens are more than just idle bystanders, they are agents as well. Of course, it might be said that standing by and watching without intervening involves individuals engaging in a type of agency by omission - and in some instances criminal liability does extend to those who have a legal duty to act and help others and fail to do so intentionally or out of negligence. Second, the resistance demonstrated in Vancouver by Dave and others speak to the importance of protecting common spaces, (as spaces with substantive meaning) even those that are privately owned but otherwise open to the general public - quasi-public spaces (e.g. the book store and liquor store). But as Dave argued, it is about protecting the neighbourhood by guarding its constituent parts against threats. But in addition to protecting the physical integrity of the structures, it is also perhaps about resisting the assault on the conceptual identity that underlies the overall space that has social meaning. The space where everyday citizens and members of the community conduct their lives and interact that is being defiled. Here, by committing violence against these spaces, rioters commit violence against the larger public body that places importance on these spaces and their sanctity.
People inscribe spaces with meaning (although meanings that are not necessarily static or homogeneous). By their conduct, the rioters inscribed the city with a narrative of violence. The resisters discussed in Dhillon's article challenged this attempted re-inscription with their own meanings and tried to restore or defend the meaning of the space as a place that is civil or perhaps civilized and decent. When the half dozen resisters chanted "show some respect" one might understand that to mean (amongst various meanings) to respect the common spaces that all Vancouverites and visitors share.
Sources:
Sunny Dhillon, "Facing Down Vancouver's Rioters: 'This is my neighbourhood'" The Globe and Mail (16 June 2011) online: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/facing-down-vancouvers-rioters-this-is-my-neighbourhood/article2063031/
No comments:
Post a Comment