Violent Consumerism in Junk Food Britain

posted by Geoff Andrews at Friday, August 26, 2011

26 August

The recent UK riots – ok English riots – have brought many responses and much analysis. I have been unconvinced by much of the debate. The right favours knee-jerk responses which seem to have been reflected in some absurd prison sentences unlikely to solve the problem. They refuse to even countenance the point that there may be some underlying causes. The left, on the other hand, has fared little better, with familiar and tired phrases, notably claiming to discover hidden political radicalism waiting to get out – according to this view ‘everything is political’. Fake sociologists and cultural populists, with their privileged keys to the explanation of what is really happening, always step forward in these discussions.

In fact analogies with the riots of 1981 seem misplaced – then the infamous ‘sus’ law, and overt as well as institutionalised racism of the police was much more evident in many cities. Nor do comparisons with student demonstrations or anti-global protests hold up. In fact, the riots were a kind of endorsement of materialism and individualism; a kind of repressed hedonism. The riots were really a form of violent consumerism, as Mary Riddell argued in the Telegraph. The controversial footballer Joey Barton, in his twitter comments about materialism, makes more sense than many of the experts in the media. After all, it is the big global corporate chains which have ripped the heart out of inner cities and towns across the country. Junk food has had a particularly pernicious effect, not only for their effects on spiralling obesity levels, but the ways in which they help destroy any civic sense of community.

The domination of corporate chains on British high streets is far more evident than in other European cities. It was noticeable that the ‘clean-up’ campaigns were organised by local citizens and mainly independent shops. In Birmingham, for example, it was independent coffee bars like the Six-Eight café rather than the chains which took civic responsibility seriously. The chains have no significant local identity and their power is partly evoked through their indifference to diversity and tradition. As George Ritzer, the author The McDonaldization of Society argued, this kind of globalisation amounts to ‘ a world of increasing homogeneity, a world in which virtually anywhere one turns one finds very familiar forms of nothing’. ‘Nothingness’ is an apt description for the centre of many towns and cities in the age of globalisation.

Of course cities are places of great diversity, but we should not confuse – as many of the cultural populists do, hiding behind the veneer of post-radical chic - the diversity and vibrancy of popular culture with the dominance of global brands. There is a lot of creativity in urban places which allows culture to thrive despite the monopoly of the chains, but the damage of the global corporations is now sadly evident.

As Eric Schlosser reminded us in Fast Food Nation, the impact of fast food is far-reaching, entering ‘every nook and cranny of American society’. It has become a way of living and its effects on environment and urban life are profound. It is interesting that a debate on taxing junk food is finally taking off in Britain at this time: in the US, similar arguments for a ‘soda tax’ have already been heard in many states. Junk food chains and corporate brands more widely carry huge symbolic significance for new generations. More optimistically - and maybe this is entering the political realm- perhaps the ‘Murdoch’ effect can now extend to a wider critique of corporate domination. Let the real debate begin.