Dangerous assumptions

Jane Lane is an educationalist and a fervent activist always fighting for social and racial justice. Here, she writes for OBV on her thoughts about the assumptions we make and the damaging effects they have, often on those least able to defend themselves. It's a timely and thought-provoking piece.

We nearly all do it! We distance ourselves from people and situations that we find difficult to understand and of which we sort of disapprove. We make assumptions about others, about them, to convince ourselves that they are not like us. In doing this we justify what we do, how we would do it in contrast to them. It is a slippery path to embark upon because it so often leads to damaging stereotypes and judgements about those we distance ourselves from.

This is largely what many people did sometime after the ‘riots’ in August – more latterly and reflectively termed ‘uprisings’, ‘disturbances’, ‘events’ or ‘unrest’. But initially those who were not directly involved, while feeling shock at what they saw on TV or heard on the radio, may have tried to think through why such dreadful and dangerous things were happening. There were widespread and serious attempts to explain and analyse in a relatively sympathetic way.

But within a short space of time a more negative reaction set in, not least perhaps because of the reports in the media. Numerous words to describe the people involved were bandied about – yobs, hoodies, thugs, louts, anarchists, arsonists, unpleasant and violent - usually attached to being young. Their behaviour was described as feral, violent, drunken, feckless, and mindless. And, depressingly, words like Tottenham sometimes became code for Black and working class. And various forms of ’blame’ were heaped on parents. Many people could not see beyond their own outrage and self-righteousness at such happenings. The probability is that they had not the remotest glimmer of the reality of the lives of those they were judging.

By distancing themselves from the looters, thieves and perpetrators of violence (the so-called ‘rioters’) they gave themselves informal permission to assert concepts that demeaned those involved. Crucially, such concepts were unlikely to be challenged or contradicted because of the gap of understanding and contact between them and the ‘rioters’. To an objective observer this demonstrated the powerlessness of those involved as being in no position to respond or refute such assertions or even know what was being written or said about them. This is serious because information/supposition may be more readily accepted as genuine fact if it involves ‘looters/rioters’, and not so effectively interrogated as it might have otherwise been in different circumstances. For example, in early September, the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke stated that three quarters of those charged with offences so far had previous convictions. But, according to a Radio 4 programme, 80% of adults convicted in the Crown Courts and 93% of those convicted in magistrates courts also have previous convictions*.

Furthermore it is well known that the first avenue that the police pursue is of those already known to them who already have convictions. So those subsequently arrested and charged are less likely to have previous convictions. These comparative data puts Kenneth Clarke’s 75% of those charged in a different light statistically. But how many people heard his percentage and concluded that the rioters charged were disproportionately already of a criminal bent?

Distancing themselves from looters again allows some people to make statements about what sort of people ‘they’ are, why they did what they did, their motives, their feelings and what sort of parents they must have. For example, describing the looters as these people or these kids (thus distancing themselves from them) and ascribing motives and actions to them such as thinking it was acceptable to loot and vandalise, being belligerent, out of control, not caring about anyone else, at this stage, can only be supposition. While some or all of this may, or may not, be true, so far there has been no valid survey about their assumed behaviour and attitudes. It is not known if those looting were proud of it or, in a calm moment of reflection, would (like nearly everyone else) disapprove of such behaviour.

Critically, any such assumptions feed into the already existing hostility to many young people. And the butt of blame is often laid at the feet of their parents, thus diminishing any empathy that might in other circumstances, be given to parents struggling to cope with the commonly understood and accepted difficulties facing ‘teenagers’. Parents, too, become victims of stereotyping.

Although most people make assumptions and judgements about others as soon as they see, meet or hear about them they are potentially dangerous. If these feed into negative stereotypes about people who are different, this may reinforce the deeply embedded racism and classism in our society and result in groups of people being stigmatised, disadvantaged and discriminated against by those with power to do so. In the circumstances of the ‘riots’, this means that the possibility of our society being at ease with itself is put at risk.

For people concerned about the damaging effects on individuals, groups and on society of some of the reactions to the ‘riots’ there are a few things that need to be done:

• always take time initially to question whether perceived negative behaviour may have other explanations to those generally bandied about.
• take care about the words used to describe people.
• analyse whether judgements and assumptions made about people are based on stereotypes.
• challenge stereotypes and, wherever possible, counter them personally and, formally, in the media.
• identify the often underlying and possibly hidden assumptions about people on social class and race grounds.
• accept that most of us routinely make instant judgements and assumptions about others we see and hear about.
• recognise that any such negative judgements and assumptions are usually learnt in the early years of our lives (and maybe it is too late to stop us initially repeating them) but that they must be immediately countered by ensuring that they do not influence our attitudes or behaviour to others i.e. to unlearn the effects of such almost automatic judgements and assumptions.
• recognise that some of the judgements we make about ‘good parenting’ that stereotype others are based on cultural assumptions of how to behave. For example, making negative comments about the times for children to be in bed, based on social class assumptions or assuming that the different people meeting a child from school means the child is insecure rather than having many people who care for and about him or her, based on cultural/racial grounds i.e. understanding that there are many ways of bringing up children,
• work with children in their very early years to enable them to learn positive attitudes and behaviour to differences between people and to unlearn any negative attitudes and behaviour that they may have already learnt.

Finally, are we absolutely sure that, if we were faced with the opportunity to take something for free from a shop, that we would not do so?

Jane Lane