While it may only be fiction, the Batman trilogy of films depicts a dystopia that isn’t that removed from what could occur in modern society. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises showed Gotham so riddled by crime due to a society polarised between the haves and have-nots, that it became characterised by moral turpitude. So much so that Ra’s al Ghul, and latterly Bane, were able to exploit the resentment that existed within Gotham and on both occasions initiate uprisings (albeit ill-fated thanks to the caped crusader) against Gotham’s wealthy elite and the authorities.
Returning to reality, the message is simple – give people enough to feed their anger, and sooner or later they will revolt. However, in modern society, where socio-economic inequality is moving in the direction of that seen in Gotham, people don’t appear motivated to stand up against an unfair and worsening situation.
Needless to say, governments and the elite cannot be exclusively blamed for the woes of the less fortunate. However, disparate living standards have become a feature of modern society. The haves and the have-nots are often separated by little more than a few miles in some cities but their respective realities couldn’t be starker in contrast. For many of the latter, a more desirable standard of living is almost flaunted before them within adjacent communities as pockets of deprivation and affluence are scattered alongside each other. Almost aggressive gentrification is changing the landscape of communities traditionally comprised by lower socio-economic groups. Furthermore, it’s compounded by government policies like the benefit cap in the UK. Similarly, the absence of a rent cap or robust rent control in many cities merely expedites this social transformation.
Yet despite a widening gap in socio-economic status, a warranted and indignant vitriol has not been forthcoming. Indeed, it has barely scratched the surface in articulating a mass discontent. Has society become so jaded and downtrodden that the less fortunate have accepted their place at the bottom of the social totem pole with limited, if any, scope to elevate themselves? Meanwhile, the richest and most privileged in society continue to solidify this position. Indeed, governments and their respective policies preserve this with no regard for those whose social position remains stagnant or worse still declines as a consequence.
Western society has long been structured to maintain a status quo that protects the position and privilege of the most advantaged. The medieval feudal system has effectively been replaced by patronage and nepotism for the elite and those who are able to ‘buy’ political favour from the government of the day. In the same way, education policies (arguably some of the most effective tools when engineering the composition and class structure of a society), such as the introduction of secondary modern schools in the UK, have restricted the aspirations and potential opportunities of a section of society that were deemed less ‘academic’ and more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups.
Similarly, social unrest such as that seen in riots in Brixton and latterly Tottenham (the latter spreading throughout the UK) has subsequently been capitalised upon in further progressing the position of those that are more fortunate. Middle classes swarm to buy properties in these respective areas, only to change the character and composition of communities while said property prices rapidly rise. Thus they price longstanding inhabitants and their families out of the area. Consequently, family and community links are broken and eroded as another tool of impeding the social mobility of the less fortunate. Although governments have no qualms with this and essentially encourage it with economic incentives, policies and rhetoric.
The aforementioned examples don’t begin to show the extent of the inequality within society. It’s apparent for all to see and there’s a clear history of it occurring. Therefore why is there effectively a silent majority who accept this? A recent report by Credit Suisse revealed that 1% of people own 48% of global wealth. It’s a staggering statistic but one that supports the Occupy movement’s ‘we are the 99%’ slogan and reinforces the current socio-economic inequality that society is subject to.
In the UK, not since the Poll Tax riots has there been unrest on a scale that showed how angry people were with social injustice. The MPs expenses scandal in the UK saw few MPs convicted for their actions which if not illegal were certainly not in the spirit of public life. But rather than directed and meaningful anger, people largely responded with further apathy for politics. Likewise, in the wake of the financial crisis, responses have been meek. The subprime mortgage crisis saw people lose their homes. And the financial sector, the group most responsible for the financial crisis, was bailed out at the expense of taxpayers around the world because they were crudely deemed ‘too big to fail’. The most notable but short lived response to this was the Occupy movement. And that failed to have any tangible and achievable objectives that would enable it to galvanise further support and effect change.
The Occupy movement, once showing promise that never materialised, provided a vehicle for anger to be articulated and change to be forcefully effected. Though instead it has seemingly fizzled out with little to show for its impact. It’s regrettable that it never became a movement that effected change, forcing governments to relent from what has been a tradition of favouring only the most privileged in society. Against a backdrop of increasing socio-economic inequality, the Occupy movement failed to effect change. It therefore begs the question what will motivate society to breaking point in meaningfully protesting against current circumstances?
It’s difficult to ascertain why exactly people don’t feel inclined to rebel against the existing state of affairs. Ignorance is a major factor. When American investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to bank holding companies, they were granted a status typically reserved for retail banks such as those found on high streets with regular customers depositing and withdrawing money. And accompanying that status, they had access to loans at lower rates and bolstered security from the Federal Reserve (who approved their newly acquired status). Meanwhile, industries, businesses and individuals continued to experience harsh financial austerity without any such protection or assistance afforded to them. Hardly a move in the spirit of integrity, this wasn’t highly publicised at all. Had it been, it may have provided a further source of anger as a tipping point for unrest in response to the actions of the financial section and respective governments in cahoots with each other. After all, surely everyone has a breaking point where they’re no longer willing be bent over a barrel by the state and the elite?
There also needs to be a unifying figure to mobilise efforts with the chutzpah to challenge the way things are. It’s unlikely to be forthcoming from a mainstream political figure. A glaring absence from the Occupy movement was a leader figure that was able to articulate and capture the sentiments of the wider public, hence the movement being unable to gather any momentum.
Ultimately, people have become jaded and accepted the status quo. Indignation has seemingly disappeared from society in recent years and worryingly so. There seems to be no motivation to reflect on the unfairness of growing polarised wealth nor an effort to reverse it. Nonetheless, as things edge towards further inequality, it may only be a matter of time before the dystopia of Gotham becomes less farfetched than it may currently seem.
Returning to reality, the message is simple – give people enough to feed their anger, and sooner or later they will revolt. However, in modern society, where socio-economic inequality is moving in the direction of that seen in Gotham, people don’t appear motivated to stand up against an unfair and worsening situation.
Needless to say, governments and the elite cannot be exclusively blamed for the woes of the less fortunate. However, disparate living standards have become a feature of modern society. The haves and the have-nots are often separated by little more than a few miles in some cities but their respective realities couldn’t be starker in contrast. For many of the latter, a more desirable standard of living is almost flaunted before them within adjacent communities as pockets of deprivation and affluence are scattered alongside each other. Almost aggressive gentrification is changing the landscape of communities traditionally comprised by lower socio-economic groups. Furthermore, it’s compounded by government policies like the benefit cap in the UK. Similarly, the absence of a rent cap or robust rent control in many cities merely expedites this social transformation.
Yet despite a widening gap in socio-economic status, a warranted and indignant vitriol has not been forthcoming. Indeed, it has barely scratched the surface in articulating a mass discontent. Has society become so jaded and downtrodden that the less fortunate have accepted their place at the bottom of the social totem pole with limited, if any, scope to elevate themselves? Meanwhile, the richest and most privileged in society continue to solidify this position. Indeed, governments and their respective policies preserve this with no regard for those whose social position remains stagnant or worse still declines as a consequence.
Western society has long been structured to maintain a status quo that protects the position and privilege of the most advantaged. The medieval feudal system has effectively been replaced by patronage and nepotism for the elite and those who are able to ‘buy’ political favour from the government of the day. In the same way, education policies (arguably some of the most effective tools when engineering the composition and class structure of a society), such as the introduction of secondary modern schools in the UK, have restricted the aspirations and potential opportunities of a section of society that were deemed less ‘academic’ and more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups.
Similarly, social unrest such as that seen in riots in Brixton and latterly Tottenham (the latter spreading throughout the UK) has subsequently been capitalised upon in further progressing the position of those that are more fortunate. Middle classes swarm to buy properties in these respective areas, only to change the character and composition of communities while said property prices rapidly rise. Thus they price longstanding inhabitants and their families out of the area. Consequently, family and community links are broken and eroded as another tool of impeding the social mobility of the less fortunate. Although governments have no qualms with this and essentially encourage it with economic incentives, policies and rhetoric.
The aforementioned examples don’t begin to show the extent of the inequality within society. It’s apparent for all to see and there’s a clear history of it occurring. Therefore why is there effectively a silent majority who accept this? A recent report by Credit Suisse revealed that 1% of people own 48% of global wealth. It’s a staggering statistic but one that supports the Occupy movement’s ‘we are the 99%’ slogan and reinforces the current socio-economic inequality that society is subject to.
 |
The Occupy movement, once showing promise that never materialised, provided a vehicle for anger to be articulated and change to be forcefully effected. Though instead it has seemingly fizzled out with little to show for its impact. It’s regrettable that it never became a movement that effected change, forcing governments to relent from what has been a tradition of favouring only the most privileged in society. Against a backdrop of increasing socio-economic inequality, the Occupy movement failed to effect change. It therefore begs the question what will motivate society to breaking point in meaningfully protesting against current circumstances?
It’s difficult to ascertain why exactly people don’t feel inclined to rebel against the existing state of affairs. Ignorance is a major factor. When American investment banks Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to bank holding companies, they were granted a status typically reserved for retail banks such as those found on high streets with regular customers depositing and withdrawing money. And accompanying that status, they had access to loans at lower rates and bolstered security from the Federal Reserve (who approved their newly acquired status). Meanwhile, industries, businesses and individuals continued to experience harsh financial austerity without any such protection or assistance afforded to them. Hardly a move in the spirit of integrity, this wasn’t highly publicised at all. Had it been, it may have provided a further source of anger as a tipping point for unrest in response to the actions of the financial section and respective governments in cahoots with each other. After all, surely everyone has a breaking point where they’re no longer willing be bent over a barrel by the state and the elite?
There also needs to be a unifying figure to mobilise efforts with the chutzpah to challenge the way things are. It’s unlikely to be forthcoming from a mainstream political figure. A glaring absence from the Occupy movement was a leader figure that was able to articulate and capture the sentiments of the wider public, hence the movement being unable to gather any momentum.
Ultimately, people have become jaded and accepted the status quo. Indignation has seemingly disappeared from society in recent years and worryingly so. There seems to be no motivation to reflect on the unfairness of growing polarised wealth nor an effort to reverse it. Nonetheless, as things edge towards further inequality, it may only be a matter of time before the dystopia of Gotham becomes less farfetched than it may currently seem.
