Anarchy in the UK

　　英國的亂局

　　SHAME was the first response of many people in Britain to the riots that started in theTottenham neighbourhood of London on August 6th, skipped across the capital in the followingdays and nights and spread to Manchester, Birmingham and many other cities. Alongside theshame, there was a jolting bafflement. The law-abiding majority suddenly saw that some oftheir compatriots were happy to torch cars and buildings, loot shops, and attack firemen andambulance crews. The confidence trick at the heart of the social order was violently laid bare:it turns out that if sufficient numbers of criminals want to create havoc on the streets, theycan. In the absence of internal, moral restraints, external ones can only do so much.

　　許多英國人對該國騷亂的第一反應是羞恥。這場騷亂8月6日始發于倫敦托特納姆地區，在隨后幾天里掠過首都蔓延到曼徹斯特、伯明翰和其他一些城市。人們在羞恥之余，還深感困惑。那些守法的大多數突然看到，一些國人竟樂于焚燒汽車和房屋、劫掠商店以及襲擊消防員和救護人員。社會秩序深層的騙局昭然若揭：原來，如果意圖在街頭制造大破壞的罪犯足夠多，那么他們就能達到目的。當缺乏內在道德制約的情況下，外在制約的作用僅此而已。

　　The world watched London in fascinated amazement. Other nations tend to regard Britain asenviably orderly and law-abiding, at least compared with many of its more excitablecontinental neighbours. That peaceable image is only partly justified: contagious rioting hasbroken out before, typically during the summer, including in the 1980s, when Tottenham andsome of the other flashpoint areas this week last erupted. This time, however, the complexionof the trouble is different from those earlier flare-ups. In its sheer mindlessness, it was, in away, even more depressing.

　　全世界都驚異地看著倫敦。其他國家往往對英國的遵紀守法頗為羨慕，認為英國至少強于它的一些更易沖動的大陸鄰邦。而它的這種平和形象只是部分才有正解：四處蔓延的騷亂先前已然爆發過，它們通常發生在夏季，其中就包括1980年代的那場騷亂，那是本周托特納姆和其他一些火藥桶地區最近一次騷亂。然而這次困局與早期的那些沖突不同，從其十足的無知一面來看，它在某種程度上更讓人憂慮。

　　Moral malaise

　　道德痼疾

　　This weeks multiplying riots had some commonfeatureslooting, arson, attacks on the policebutthey spanned different places, races, ages andsexes. Race was not the defining issue, as it was inmany of the disturbances of the 1980s. One of thefirst to appear in court for looting was a 31-year-oldteaching assistant: hardly an identikit hooligan. Thatleft politicians free to project their own rationales onthe carnage.

　　本周愈演愈烈的騷亂具有一些共性搶劫、縱火、襲警但它跨越了不同地區、種族、年齡和性別。同 1980年代的歷次騷亂一樣，種族并未在這次騷亂中扮演關鍵角色。法庭上出現的第一個被控搶劫罪的人是一個31歲的助教：他幾乎不是一個通常意義上的街頭惡棍。這讓政客們對這場殘殺的原因莫衷一是。

　　For some on the left, the real villain was the governments public-spending cuts. This view isgiven superficial support by the fact that the 1980s outbreaks happened during the Thatchercuts. But it is still a lazy fantasy. It might be comforting to think of the riots as an extensionof a familiar debateand to argue that the underlying ills can be easily remedied with a littlemore state largessebut there is little reason to do so. Unlike the riots in Britain in the 1980s,Los Angeles in 1992 or France in 2005, these were not overtly political or racial. And since thecuts have barely bitten yet, that explanation doesnt wash.

　　Anarchy in the UK

　　英國的亂局

　　SHAME was the first response of many people in Britain to the riots that started in theTottenham neighbourhood of London on August 6th, skipped across the capital in the followingdays and nights and spread to Manchester, Birmingham and many other cities. Alongside theshame, there was a jolting bafflement. The law-abiding majority suddenly saw that some oftheir compatriots were happy to torch cars and buildings, loot shops, and attack firemen andambulance crews. The confidence trick at the heart of the social order was violently laid bare:it turns out that if sufficient numbers of criminals want to create havoc on the streets, theycan. In the absence of internal, moral restraints, external ones can only do so much.

　　許多英國人對該國騷亂的第一反應是羞恥。這場騷亂8月6日始發于倫敦托特納姆地區，在隨后幾天里掠過首都蔓延到曼徹斯特、伯明翰和其他一些城市。人們在羞恥之余，還深感困惑。那些守法的大多數突然看到，一些國人竟樂于焚燒汽車和房屋、劫掠商店以及襲擊消防員和救護人員。社會秩序深層的騙局昭然若揭：原來，如果意圖在街頭制造大破壞的罪犯足夠多，那么他們就能達到目的。當缺乏內在道德制約的情況下，外在制約的作用僅此而已。

　　The world watched London in fascinated amazement. Other nations tend to regard Britain asenviably orderly and law-abiding, at least compared with many of its more excitablecontinental neighbours. That peaceable image is only partly justified: contagious rioting hasbroken out before, typically during the summer, including in the 1980s, when Tottenham andsome of the other flashpoint areas this week last erupted. This time, however, the complexionof the trouble is different from those earlier flare-ups. In its sheer mindlessness, it was, in away, even more depressing.

　　全世界都驚異地看著倫敦。其他國家往往對英國的遵紀守法頗為羨慕，認為英國至少強于它的一些更易沖動的大陸鄰邦。而它的這種平和形象只是部分才有正解：四處蔓延的騷亂先前已然爆發過，它們通常發生在夏季，其中就包括1980年代的那場騷亂，那是本周托特納姆和其他一些火藥桶地區最近一次騷亂。然而這次困局與早期的那些沖突不同，從其十足的無知一面來看，它在某種程度上更讓人憂慮。

　　Moral malaise

　　道德痼疾

　　This weeks multiplying riots had some commonfeatureslooting, arson, attacks on the policebutthey spanned different places, races, ages andsexes. Race was not the defining issue, as it was inmany of the disturbances of the 1980s. One of thefirst to appear in court for looting was a 31-year-oldteaching assistant: hardly an identikit hooligan. Thatleft politicians free to project their own rationales onthe carnage.

　　本周愈演愈烈的騷亂具有一些共性搶劫、縱火、襲警但它跨越了不同地區、種族、年齡和性別。同 1980年代的歷次騷亂一樣，種族并未在這次騷亂中扮演關鍵角色。法庭上出現的第一個被控搶劫罪的人是一個31歲的助教：他幾乎不是一個通常意義上的街頭惡棍。這讓政客們對這場殘殺的原因莫衷一是。

　　For some on the left, the real villain was the governments public-spending cuts. This view isgiven superficial support by the fact that the 1980s outbreaks happened during the Thatchercuts. But it is still a lazy fantasy. It might be comforting to think of the riots as an extensionof a familiar debateand to argue that the underlying ills can be easily remedied with a littlemore state largessebut there is little reason to do so. Unlike the riots in Britain in the 1980s,Los Angeles in 1992 or France in 2005, these were not overtly political or racial. And since thecuts have barely bitten yet, that explanation doesnt wash.