> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://katecarruthers.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Riots, desire, consumerism, community and values.
- URL: https://katecarruthers.com/riots-onsumerism-community-values/
- Published: 2011-08-10T21:20:05.000Z
- Updated: 2026-04-01T03:51:51.000Z
- Author: Kate Carruthers
- Tags: civil society, ethics, community, connection, future, hyperconnectivity, networked society, people, society, #Migrated-1775015344493, #wp, #wp-post, #Import 2026-04-01 14:49

*Want* is a funny word. It can mean different things, such as:

> "absence or deficiency of something desirable or requisite" or  
> "to be lacking or absent, as a part or thing necessary to completeness", or  
> "to feel a need or a desire for; wish for", or  
> "to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire"  
> (Source [Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/want?ref=katecarruthers.com))

The scenes in the UK of rioters and looting were awful on many levels. But one scene that was repeated that was especially revelatory was the looters trying on goods in the stores before they stole them.

That behaviour spoke to me of *want*.

In the past, usually riots were because people lacked some necessity - food, freedom, the right to vote. That is, the rioters acted in response to *want* in the sense of absence or lack of something. This is the kind of rioting we have seen in the middle east in recent times, places like Egypt and Syria.

But in the UK we saw rioters, unfocused on anything except inflicting damage on property and [helping themselves to goods](http://www.smh.com.au/world/britains-most-wanted-retailers-physically-sick-at-looters-who-tried-on-shoes-in-157m-rampage-20110810-1ilfn.html?ref=katecarruthers.com) for which they had a desire. That is, acting in response to *want* in the sense of desire for something. And that something wanted was material goods rather than aspiration to freedom or truth.

This is different. It is about people who have learned to desire those things for the acquisition of which they do not have sufficient economic resources. And yet, they do have the means - through a collective act of will - to achieve access to the goods they desire.

The looters have achieved their *want*, they now have the material goods that they sought. However, in achieving those goods they have destroyed the community facilities upon which they and many others rely. They have reinforced their other-ness. They have achieved a short term goal while simultaneously creating the platform for increased levels of dissatisfaction.

I suspect that material goods will not really fulfil the *wants* of the rioters and looters in the UK. Their [anomie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie?ref=katecarruthers.com) will remain. And they will recall the power of their collective action. They will also recall the powerlessness of the authorities in the face of that collective action.

It might be as Winston Churchill once said (in slightly different circumstances):

> "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."  
>  
> *Source: Sir Winston Churchill, speech at Lord Mayor’s Luncheon, Mansion House, London, November 10, 1942*