A shopping mall in the UK is banning those who wear hooded tops. Tony Blair supports this effort as part of his “yes-to-civility, no-to-hooligans campaign.
Cultures have a funny way of cultivating their opposite. It is not very surprising then that one of the nations most preoccupied with politesse should produce some of the rudest people on the face of the earth. I refer, of course, to the English soccer fan.
Many people who wear hooded tops are soccer fans for the rest of the week. They swagger, swear, glower, and otherwise seek to intimidate by appearance. They are, we must all agree, a deeply obnoxious presence.
But I have two words for the Bluewater mall and Britains Prime Minister:
bite me.
Call it the “rule of no rules, but heres how it works in open societies. We may not ban expressive behavior. If clothing or conduct inflicts no material cost, no substantial injury, no loss of interest, we may not ban it. Thats what it is to be an open society.
Now, if you want to get tough with holligans, by all means, be my guest. I may be the only anthropologists on the planet who does not harbor a bleeding heart. I dont care what deeper social causes inspire criminal behavior. When people break the law (the criminal law), they go to jail (gaol).
Most of my colleagues would insist we are treating the symptom, not the disease. Not me. I say crush the little bastards. Put them in the jail for the remainder of their natural lives. With any luck, this will be time enough to see the return of public flogging.
But let us make this punishment for criminal behavior, not expressive behavior. If all our offenders have done is wear a hoodie, leave them be. No harm, no foul. No foul, no gaol.
That little tirade satisfies the libertarian within. But the anthropologist remains puzzled. How is it that Western, First world, societies continue to ban expressive behaviors (hoodies in the UK and the chador in France)?
What part of “open society do we not understand?
References
BBC coverage of the hoodie ban, here
This is a pre-emptive strike on hooliganism, Grant. Hoodies, low-riders, bling are all potential weapons of mass disruption. Can’t have that in a civilized society. Next thing you know, they’ll be wanting to question why we make decisions, which will bollox up the works even more.
Nip it in the bud. Primary prevention is the best medicine!
Just re-read 1984 a few months ago. First of all, it’s a top notch piece of literature, I think. Second, it’s deeply affecting.
This business of dangerous appearances and their associated thought crimes has been with us for centuries and shows no signs of abating soon, not here nor in any other free society.
Tom, Western civ, just one hooded sweatshirt away from anarchy. Grant
p.s., something is wrong with the comments system. Am investigating.
This is weird. The comments show here, but the counter reads 0.
Is it just me, or has everything just been going bananas lately? Belinda Stronach is a now liberal, the Brits are now oppressing fashion, and Kylie Minogue–who symbolizes female sexuality–has now unfortunately been diagnosis with cancer to a major female sex organ, the breasts. It’s as though we’ve entered Seinfeld’s Bizarro World–where everything just doesn’t seem quite right.
back to the topic at hand…re the boyz in the hoodies…not that i disagree that an open society is a thing of great value; just wondering what your thoughts are re what gladwell wrote about in the tipping point about eradicating graffiti from the NY subway cars, basically putting into actionthe ‘broken windows theory’, that one small fissure or violation leads to larger ones. so to eradicate violence, theft, and generally bad behaviour the symbols associated with it (such as hoodies) must also be banned. it’s a tricky one, i know. of course people should be allowed to wear hoodies wherever they want. wearing a hood does not make one a criminal any more than wearing fake bling makes one a rich rapper. having lived in england in the past 5 years and having witnessed so many violent acts in public places such as tube stations and bus stops (people getting stabbed and then told to hand over their “mobile” ie cell phone), it’s hard to wonder if zero tolerance isn’t such a bad idea. as for your ‘hang ’em high’ theory re criminal behaviour, you know and i know that with this volume of criminal, violent behaviour the chances of getting caught are slim indeed. as an economic strategy in a place like london, e.g. crime can pay handsome dividends to the desperate.
I blogged about the same issue last week (www.phatgnat.typepad.com/phatgnat/2005/05/hoodies_banned.html) but just wanted to draw your attention to one school in England who has hoodies as part of their school uniform: http://www.phatgnat.typepad.com/phatgnat/2005/05/update_hoodies_.html
Michelle, it’s not you, the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Grant
Leora, great question, I was wondering about the broken window notion as I wrote this entry. And I can see, and could see, how it applies. However, this theory, as I understand it, says that the “permission” for big crimes comes from the tolerance for small crimes. And the small crimes here are real ones, crimes against people and property. I think broken windows is right. We should go after the small crimes…but only if they are really crimes, not expressive acts. As to the crime ridden streets of London, “3 strikes and you are out” would sort things out much better than a hoodie ban. But then Blair would rather spend his way out of city crime with civil liberties instead of court reform and prison construction. It’s so much cheaper, don’t you see. Thanks! Grant
DK, thanks for the head’s up. Having a look now. Best, Grant
I’m disappointed to see a straight libertarian analysis here with no examination of why hoodies have become the brand of anti-social behaviour, and no recognition that intimidation is an activity with externalised costs, like industrial pollution.
Certainly something has gone wrong with behaviour in the UK, starting in schools. It’s just not punished effectively any more.
The chador case is even more complicated; you’ve overlooked the argument for how freedom may be increased by the chador ban in schools. Those wearing it tend to have it forced on them by parents and male relatives…
I’m disappointed to see a straight libertarian analysis here with no examination of why hoodies have become the brand of anti-social behaviour, and no recognition that intimidation is an activity with externalised costs, like industrial pollution.
Certainly something has gone wrong with behaviour in the UK, starting in schools. It’s just not punished effectively any more.
The chador case is even more complicated; you’ve overlooked the argument for how freedom may be increased by the chador ban in schools. Those wearing it tend to have it forced on them by parents and male relatives…
(And something is very wrong with your comments system.)
Peter, could you be more specific about the externalized costs and the problem with the comments system? Your second point is a good one, that banning the chador creates freedom for some wearers, but I have a feeling this is “their fight.” The community has the right to insist on this practice, the individual has the right to upt out. Thanks, Grant
Hmmm. Something strange is going on here.
I lived in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) for several years as a teenager and crime was non-existent. On the other hand if you broke the law they threw the book at you and then deported you at the end of your sentence.
With the rise of zero tolerance and legislation for what people should or shouldn’t wear in public we (I’m a Londoner) seem to be heading towards an extremist model of justice. The Saudi (or more accurately Wahabi) model of justice doesn’t put people in jail for the rest of their lives for stealing. (Despite what the tabloids say I would hazard a guess that cutting people’s hands off for theft is more rhetoric than reality.) We seem to be leapfrogging way across the spectrum into what, in some ways, is very harsh regime.
Is this the Hayekian road to serfdom working itself out?
By the way, the issue in France was not about the chador – which is what we see women in Iran wearing (ie full body covering, typically in black) but about the hijab – which is a headscarf.
The notion that all girls are forced to wear one is a generalisation which cannot really be proved. Of course, some girls are forced to wear one by their parents. But then I know a friend who was forced by his parents to wear a balaclava to school as a child – where he was mercilessly teased for it. So what?
My little sister has worn a headscarf since the age of 13 or 14 – for over fourteen years now – by choice. She grew up in London. Neither my mum nor my twin sister (her older sis) wear one. She’s now moved to Austin, TX. Her husband is worried about her walking in the streets wearing a headscarf.
Go figure.
Zaid, thanks for your comments and the correction. I guess my feeling is that zero tolerance, especially when applied to expressive behavior, ends up giving us a society that is predictable, joyless and static (aka switzerland). We might in some situation have to pay this price but it is so high we want to proceed with great caution and on a short term basis only. Thanks, Grant