There are times when otherwise “peaceful” people who believe in the rule-of-law, will act violently because they believe that they have been socially sanctioned to do so i.e., the group they belong to, and/or identify with has given them permission to do so. Sometimes, this position is “formal”, where a leader(s), directly instructs members of the group to act and behave in a certain way, and sometimes it is informal, when individuals take cues from each other as to how they should act e.g., whilst a faction of a crowd may be violently attacking another person, bystanders who are not yet taking part may receive looks from those that are, suggesting and pressuring them to join in etc. In the moment it may seem that the violence being used is for a greater good, and sometimes it is, such as when demonstrators are attempting to overthrow a corrupt government or regime as part of a revolution. However, there are times when it is not, such as when members of a social group join in on a retributive attack by one of their own, who believes that somebody slighted them in some way e.g., looked at them in the “wrong way” etc. In that moment it may seem that the violence being used is just and fair, even though in no way could it ever be claimed that it met the requirements of acting in self-defense. In this article I want to look at the power of socially sanctioned violence, that goes beyond simple peer pressure in the moment, and considers how sections of society and certain groups view “violence” and the use of physical force, believing mistakenly that the values of the group are either in-line with the law, or believe – in that moment - that they are above it, because it is socially sanctioned.

I remember the 1990 poll tax riots in London, where protestors who had gone on the march not intending to become violent, did so. This became apparent in interviews where protesters justified their use of violence by claiming it was only in response to excessive force by the police etc. Whilst this is also the claim that is made by demonstrators who plan and orchestrate violent acts, when the sheer number of people involved, and arrested, for acts of violence and property damage, is taken into account a large number of them were those who got caught up in/responded to the moment believing that they were socially sanctioned to do so i.e., that the larger community of the British public was in agreement with them, that the use of violence was justified. Whilst a good percentage of British society felt that the poll tax/community charge, was unfair and unjust etc. only a small percentage would likely condone the use of rioting, violence, and destruction to facilitate a change in government policy etc., and this is where there can be a confusion as to what society sanctions and what it doesn’t. It would be easy and simple to make the argument that societal values played no part, and the poll tax riots were simply the result of an overly emotional and adrenalized mob who got carried away with the excitement of rioting etc., however when you witness the euphoric response of the crowd to South Africa House going up in flames, you can see the collective idea in the crowd that a blow against apartheid has been struck i.e., a certain socially sanctioned goal has been achieved.

When I lived in a certain city in the North of England, one of the social values, that was very different to where I had grown up, was the general acceptance amongst certain sections of society that it was OK to hit/punch women. This was something I first witnessed when working door security at pubs and clubs. Whilst I was obviously aware of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), and that violence against women happened largely behind closed doors, I can still remember my shock and surprise at seeing a man punch a women square in the face – and the indifferent reaction/response of the crowd. Obviously, this was a clear case of assault and battery, however there was no shame on the part of the aggressor concerning what he’d done, and those that I was working with expressed no thoughts concerning the gender of the person who was attacked. Although not perhaps a universally socially sanctioned incident, violence against women (by men) largely was in that locale. Other similarly sanctioned acts of violence that were present in certain other sections of society in the UK, included the incidents of “Paki Bashing”, which were all too common in certain districts of London in the 1980’s, where groups would target Pakistani Immigrants with violence. Although many may look on the 1970’s/80’s as the era of racial violence in the UK, it should not be forgotten that such incidents started in the 1950’s, with the most notable incident being that of the 1958 Notting Hill Race Riots where gangs of white “Teddy Boys” actively searched for West Indian immigrants to attack. Again, watching and reading interviews, from the time, those involved believed they were socially sanctioned, as they believed that immigrants were taking away jobs and affordable housing from the residents in the area.

Individuals and groups may act violently believing that in that moment they have societal approval for their actions, and they may even equate this with a legal right e.g., what feels morally justifiable, must be legal etc. A good example of this type of misconception is a person’s belief that after disarming a firearm and moving away, that they are then – in every incident - legally permitted to shoot their unarmed assailant i.e., this would now constitute a self-defense situation, and society would approve of such an action etc. Where groups are concerned, societally sanctioned actions can become less “abstract”, as an individual gets their views and perceptions reinforced by those around them e.g., a demonstrator who sees those around them responding to a police presence by using violence, may believe that because those around them are acting in this way they too have the right to use physical force against law enforcement, and because everybody seems to be doing the same, this is socially sanctioned.