The riots in some English towns this week came 13 years almost to the day after the wave of riots that swept England following the killing of Mark Duggan in London, 2011. There are some parallels, but also some crucial differences. The 2011 riots were driven to a significant extent by anti-police anger and resentment. The 2024 riots are driven by racism: xenophobia and Islamophobia. The other parallel is with what happened immediately after the Brexit vote in 2016 and the Trump victory in the same year. Each was followed by a spike in hate crimes, most of which were ‘racially’ motivated. The Trump victory was also followed by an upsurge in far-right street mobilizations.

A lot has been said about the role of ‘coordination’ in the August 2024 xenophobic riots. But there is a significant ‘spontaneous’ element that also needs explanation, as does the relation between coordination and spontaneity in collective events like these. This is where social psychology comes in.

A short answer to the question of why the August riots spread is meta-perception and collective empowerment of specific group identities. ‘Meta-perception’ refers to what people believe about what other people believe. Collective empowerment in events like these can have different sources.

First, it can arise from a belief about public opinion. With the unexpected Brexit and Trump results in 2016, xenophobes suddenly (and mistakenly) believed that their racist views were widely shared. They thought they would be supported if they took threatening and violent action against those they perceived as ‘foreign’. The Brexit and Trump hate-crime spikes were driven by empowerment, not just grievance.

Why might people at the first of the August wave of xenophobic riots (Southport, 30^th July) feel their views were widely shared? Social media has been highlighted. But note also that, just three days before, ‘thousands of people’ marched in London on the ‘Tommy Robinson’ ‘patriots’ demo. A big demonstration is a way of building a sense that ‘you are not alone’, that many others think like you, and so of capacity building.

Second, empowerment can arise within the events. Where police appear increasingly unable to prevent the rioting, people in further locations gain a sense of vicarious empowerment. They believe the police locally won’t cope either. Although activists have been identified as leading players in the far-right riots, where others share with them the police as a common outgroup, they too can become empowered. This helps explain why other people less committed to the xenophobic ideology also start joining in.

Moreover, enacting their xenophobic identity in a way they are not usually able (through attacks on shops, hotels etc. but also defeating the police) is itself empowering to them because it reverses normal social relations. It enhances their sense of agency. It fuels another kind of spread. Those involved now feel confident to do the same again, perhaps travelling to another location to do so.

Third, collective empowerment can arise from the expectation that like-minded others will come out onto the streets locally. The precondition for this expectation is the participant’s belief that there are others locally who broadly agree with them and who therefore constitute an ‘us’ or ‘we’. When there is a critical mass of such people, a riot can occur. When riots happen in other locations over ‘similar’ issues, such people increasingly believe that people will now come out on to their own streets locally. Belief that others like self will come onto the street provides expectations of support for ingroup normative action (in this case xenophobic action) and hence the intention to act. The social media calls from the far-right activists could help promote the expectation also, by creating an impression of widespread intentions.

Solutions to this crisis of xenophobic riots from a social psychological perspective address these empowerment processes at source. First, potential participants need to understand that there is not the wider public support they think there is for their views, that the opposite is the case. Second, prevent them mobilizing and marching, to limit that capacity-building. Third, prevent their actions (including smaller acts of hate) from having a tangible impact – prevent them from turning their subjective identity into objective reality – by negating and cancelling out their effects. And fourth, as it is particular identities that are empowered or disempowered, assert and support collective identities antagonistic to theirs. For example, well-organized and -attended groups and activities based on international class solidarity help to defeat racism and xenophobia on the streets by making such solidarity more realistic than the racist vision.

This analysis and these kinds of actions also address the wider problem of why people support tyrannical systems such as fascism. These movements gain much of their support from being seen able to put their beliefs into practice. Their capacity for organizing and achieving their goals legitimizes them and gives them credibility. Undermining their capacity to act and organize undermines their credibility in the eyes of others who might consider supporting them.