Justin McGuirk
Selected writing 2005 – 2015
  • About
  • Category
  • Title
  • Publication
  • Year
  • Design
  • London riots
  • The Guardian
  • 2011
Justin McGuirk
Selected writing 2005 – 2015
  • London riots

In 1968 Guy Debord defined the “spectacle” – his term for a mediatised consumer society – as “the moment when the commodity has reached the total occupation of social life”. And that’s what happened during last week’s riots. Shopping is no longer just the chief preoccupation of our leisure time – it is also how we go about our civil unrest. In that sense, the riots have rightly been described as a means of participation in a consumer society that the looters are otherwise excluded from. These were acquisitive riots. Lacking any articulated aims or ideology, they manifested themselves as a venting of consumer spleen. And two objects were the primary targets of that urge: trainers and mobile phones.

Three brands kept coming up in the coverage of the riots: JD Sports and Footlocker – the two most targeted footwear shops – and BlackBerry, the smart phone the rioters were using to message each other. What do trainers and smart phones have in common? Rather a lot, not least as they are both tools that the rioters used to outmanoeuvre the police. One provided speed, so that when the police did actually give chase they were no match for their more nimble adversaries. The other, BlackBerry Messenger, provided access to the networked society that made the rioters too dynamic and mobile for anything as static and cumbersome as a police cordon to handle. These were certainly not conscious motives for stealing phones and trainers, just useful advantages of high-performance commodities.

The real motive was desire. Trainers and mobile phones are two of the most prized status symbols among the young and streetwise. And both products draw their lustre from a culture of extreme wealth. The irony of the rioters’ use of BlackBerry smart phones was that these were once the ultimate executive toy, synonymous with jetset bankers keeping tabs on share prices – tools for executing a different kind of greedy impulse. Well, I say “irony”, but perhaps it’s not ironic at all. Bankers are role models of a sort, whether we like it or not; they represent a kind of wealth and unregulated freedom that the urban poor can only dream of. Politicians often refer to the “trickle-down effect” as the reason not to enforce higher taxation on the rich, but there is no sign of that trickle-down effect in real terms. What trickles down are the status symbols, not the liquidity.

The same is true of trainers. Brands employ sports stars with basic salaries of £250,000 a week to sell everything from tennis shoes to aftershave balm. Some of the allure of streetwear apparel – some of its glamour as a commodity – comes from its intimate proximity to extreme wealth. The fetish character of the trainer lies in its ability to embody so much more than a bundle of rubber and synthetic leather machine-stitched in a Vietnamese sweatshop.

Trainers as streetwear have a rather different provenance in the UK than in the US. Before hip-hop or skater culture made it to these shores, we had the casual subculture. Originally the preserve of football hooligans, “casual” style was born on the terraces in the late 1970s, and involved wearing Adidas or Gola trainers with designer-label clothing – preferable to football strips partly because it made it harder for the police to identify brawlers. By the mid-80s, this dress code was mainstream. And while many of those vintage trainer styles are still in fashion, trainer culture has morphed into something exponentially more sophisticated.

The trainer deploys the shape-shifting logic of the commodity at its most manipulative. Particularly in the last decade, brands have accelerated their novelty cycles with the promise of advanced performance. The visual language of the sports shoe has acquired the baroque manifestations of technological research. Trainers have developed an architecture of ribs and buttresses, air cushions and webbing. The marketing bumf blinds you with a pseudo-science of shock absorption. The logic is ineluctable: it leads to the nirvana of perfect support.

And just when you’ve completely bought into that logic, Nike will sideswipe you with a new concept: the Nike Free. This is the trainer that removes all that support malarkey to bring you the “Barefoot Running Shoe”. No more architecture, just the pleasant sensation of running on your naked soles. Well, hang on: which is it Nike? Bareback or support? There is no right answer. There is only what will sell, only what you can make people want. That is the genius of the commodity.

Unfortunately for them, in targeting their favourite products, the rioters played right into the politicians’ hands. Because the commodity makes criminality tangible. If the looters had been raiding stock options or ministerial expense accounts, they might have got away with it. But pilfering trainers – real things – is obviously “pure criminality”. The mistake they made was to confuse wealth with the symbols of that wealth – a confusion of comfort with design.

In his essay on the 1965 Watts riots, Debord argued that the rioters in this black community in LA were in effect morally superior to the whites who recoiled at their behaviour. Yes, they looted TVs but, Debord argued, they were also demanding more than the whites, something they couldn’t buy or steal: civil rights. “Comfort can never be comfortable enough for those who seek what is not on the market,” he wrote. In Tottenham, Hackney, Peckham, Brixton, Birmingham and Manchester, the rioters went after what was already on the market. In settling for the commodity, they let the system off lightly by falling for its decoy.

Justin McGuirk
Selected writing 2005 – 2015
  • Category
  • Title
  • Publication
  • Year
  • Architecture Activist architects Al Jazeera 2014
  • Architecture Djenné’s mud mosque Icon 2010
  • Architecture Honeywell, I’m home! e-flux journal 2015
  • Architecture Maison Dom-ino Dezeen 2014
  • Architecture PREVI, Lima Domus 2011
  • Architecture Revolutionary housing in Argentina Domus 2011
  • Architecture Robin Hood Gardens SQM 2014
  • Architecture The Base, Chocó Nuevotopias 2013
  • Architecture The High Line Icon 2009
  • Architecture Walter Benjamin puts activists to shame? Here 2013
  • Cities Beirut Icon 2006
  • Cities DIY cities (the limitations) Uncube 2014
  • Cities Edge City (São Paulo) Strelka Press 2012
  • Cities How radical is Radical Urbanism? Catalogue 2015
  • Cities Istanbul Icon 2010
  • Cities Jenin Icon 2005
  • Cities Life on the edge Moscow Urban Forum 2013
  • Cities Seoul Condé Nast Traveller 2012
  • Cities Shenzhen Icon 2008
  • Cities Unreal estate (London) Domus 2012
  • Cities Urban commons The Guardian 2015
  • Design Adventure gear The Guardian 2010
  • Design Beneath the street, the wilderness: Occupy and Bear Grylls Here 2012
  • Design Craft fetishism The Guardian 2011
  • Design Craft fetishism: From objects to things Disegno 2012
  • Design Design and the Right Domus 2013
  • Design Design and violence Dezeen 2013
  • Design Dreaming of year zero Bio 50 2014
  • Design Fabbers, dabblers and microstars Icon 2009
  • Design London riots The Guardian 2011
  • Design Luxury watch culture The Guardian 2010
  • Design Milan’s PR economy The Guardian 2011
  • Design On William Gibson on design Dezeen 2014
  • Design Open design Dezeen 2014
  • Design Samsung vs Apple Domus 2013
  • Design The internet of broken things Dezeen 2014
  • Design The post-spectacular economy Van Abbemuseum 2011
  • Design Ultramundane Domus 2013
  • People Alejandro Aravena Icon 2009
  • People Do Ho Suh Icon 2008
  • People Enzo Mari Icon 2009
  • People Ettore Sottsass Icon 2007
  • People Francis Kere Icon 2010
  • People Richard Sapper Domus 2013
  • Reviews Cool Tools by Kevin Kelly Dezeen 2014
  • Reviews Hearts of the City by Herbert Muschamp Icon 2010
  • Reviews Latin America in Construction at MoMA Architectural Record 2015
  • Reviews Mad Max: Fury Road Dezeen 2015
  • Reviews Max Bill Icon 2010
  • Reviews Philips shaver Icon 2008
  • Reviews Postmodernism at the V&A The Guardian 2010
  • Reviews Rebel Cities by David Harvey Art Review 2012
  • Reviews The Craftsman by Richard Sennett Icon 2008
  • Reviews The Historical Museum, Sarajevo The Guardian 2011
  • Reviews Together by Richard Sennett Art Review 2012
Justin McGuirk
Selected writing 2005 – 2015
  • Design
  • London riots
  • The Guardian
  • 2011
Back to Index

In 1968 Guy Debord defined the “spectacle” – his term for a mediatised consumer society – as “the moment when the commodity has reached the total occupation of social life”. And that’s what happened during last week’s riots. Shopping is no longer just the chief preoccupation of our leisure time – it is also how we go about our civil unrest. In that sense, the riots have rightly been described as a means of participation in a consumer society that the looters are otherwise excluded from. These were acquisitive riots. Lacking any articulated aims or ideology, they manifested themselves as a venting of consumer spleen. And two objects were the primary targets of that urge: trainers and mobile phones.

Three brands kept coming up in the coverage of the riots: JD Sports and Footlocker – the two most targeted footwear shops – and BlackBerry, the smart phone the rioters were using to message each other. What do trainers and smart phones have in common? Rather a lot, not least as they are both tools that the rioters used to outmanoeuvre the police. One provided speed, so that when the police did actually give chase they were no match for their more nimble adversaries. The other, BlackBerry Messenger, provided access to the networked society that made the rioters too dynamic and mobile for anything as static and cumbersome as a police cordon to handle. These were certainly not conscious motives for stealing phones and trainers, just useful advantages of high-performance commodities.

The real motive was desire. Trainers and mobile phones are two of the most prized status symbols among the young and streetwise. And both products draw their lustre from a culture of extreme wealth. The irony of the rioters’ use of BlackBerry smart phones was that these were once the ultimate executive toy, synonymous with jetset bankers keeping tabs on share prices – tools for executing a different kind of greedy impulse. Well, I say “irony”, but perhaps it’s not ironic at all. Bankers are role models of a sort, whether we like it or not; they represent a kind of wealth and unregulated freedom that the urban poor can only dream of. Politicians often refer to the “trickle-down effect” as the reason not to enforce higher taxation on the rich, but there is no sign of that trickle-down effect in real terms. What trickles down are the status symbols, not the liquidity.

The same is true of trainers. Brands employ sports stars with basic salaries of £250,000 a week to sell everything from tennis shoes to aftershave balm. Some of the allure of streetwear apparel – some of its glamour as a commodity – comes from its intimate proximity to extreme wealth. The fetish character of the trainer lies in its ability to embody so much more than a bundle of rubber and synthetic leather machine-stitched in a Vietnamese sweatshop.

Trainers as streetwear have a rather different provenance in the UK than in the US. Before hip-hop or skater culture made it to these shores, we had the casual subculture. Originally the preserve of football hooligans, “casual” style was born on the terraces in the late 1970s, and involved wearing Adidas or Gola trainers with designer-label clothing – preferable to football strips partly because it made it harder for the police to identify brawlers. By the mid-80s, this dress code was mainstream. And while many of those vintage trainer styles are still in fashion, trainer culture has morphed into something exponentially more sophisticated.

The trainer deploys the shape-shifting logic of the commodity at its most manipulative. Particularly in the last decade, brands have accelerated their novelty cycles with the promise of advanced performance. The visual language of the sports shoe has acquired the baroque manifestations of technological research. Trainers have developed an architecture of ribs and buttresses, air cushions and webbing. The marketing bumf blinds you with a pseudo-science of shock absorption. The logic is ineluctable: it leads to the nirvana of perfect support.

And just when you’ve completely bought into that logic, Nike will sideswipe you with a new concept: the Nike Free. This is the trainer that removes all that support malarkey to bring you the “Barefoot Running Shoe”. No more architecture, just the pleasant sensation of running on your naked soles. Well, hang on: which is it Nike? Bareback or support? There is no right answer. There is only what will sell, only what you can make people want. That is the genius of the commodity.

Unfortunately for them, in targeting their favourite products, the rioters played right into the politicians’ hands. Because the commodity makes criminality tangible. If the looters had been raiding stock options or ministerial expense accounts, they might have got away with it. But pilfering trainers – real things – is obviously “pure criminality”. The mistake they made was to confuse wealth with the symbols of that wealth – a confusion of comfort with design.

In his essay on the 1965 Watts riots, Debord argued that the rioters in this black community in LA were in effect morally superior to the whites who recoiled at their behaviour. Yes, they looted TVs but, Debord argued, they were also demanding more than the whites, something they couldn’t buy or steal: civil rights. “Comfort can never be comfortable enough for those who seek what is not on the market,” he wrote. In Tottenham, Hackney, Peckham, Brixton, Birmingham and Manchester, the rioters went after what was already on the market. In settling for the commodity, they let the system off lightly by falling for its decoy.

Back to Index

Login

Forgotten Password?

Lost your password?
Back to Login