Jeremy Clarkson, A Study in Society and Institutional Violence

Jeremy Clarkson, aged 54, has been fired. James May and Richard Hammond, his compatriots on Top Gear, have stated they will not continue if Jeremy Clarkson is no longer a part. From this, we can assume that Top Gear has ended with Clarkson's termination.


Many people are taking this opportunity to say he brought it on himself, and that BBC was cornered if not completely right in making their decision.


I'd like to take this opportunity to ask some critical thinking questions. (I know it's weird, but they taught me to ask critical questions in public school so I figure I might as well get some mileage out of the education the fine tax payers of the USA bought me)


Question 1: Why is Clarkson responsible, solely?


Breakdown: I watched Top Gear. I loved Top Gear. I did not work with J. Clarkson every day. *I* know better than to repeatedly antagonize him. So, given that everyone with whom he worked knew his temperament, why is it magically shocking that someone could goad him to a point where he lashes out? I cannot fathom that a coworker had no visual, verbal or physical clues that Jeremy Clarkson was upset enough to lash out.


Question 2: Why is Clarkson a 'bad guy?'


Breakdown: Jeremy Clarkson says inappropriate things. He also picks cars based solely on size and power options available. He was not a caricature of a person, he was real. He had preferences and a temper. Should you ever punch a coworker? No. Should you willfully hurt others verbally or physically? No. Is Clarkson a normal human being? For my Magic 8 Ball loving crowd, "All signs point to yes."


I cannot justify, or support, the BBC response to Jeremy Clarkson. I am, in fact, mystified by it. I understand that there are people who have claimed injury (emotional and physical) from his actions.


I do not comprehend how behavior far less within the scope of usual human existence is supported and in some cases applauded (wholesale slaughter of people who never had weapons of mass destruction?), while being a cornered human being feeling the pressure of a boss out to get you and reacting finally in a violent, self-sabotaging way is deplorable?


Am I suggesting that the BBC contributed, deliberately, to the climate in which Jeremy Clarkson reached a point where hitting a producer occurred? Bet your sweet Bippy I am. Am I saying the BBC should be culpable in some way for the situation as well as Jeremy Clarkson? Obviously. Am I saying Clarkson acted alone? Nope - the BBC is eclipsing any grassy knoll joke I could write here.


I do not support institutional violence, created to drive someone out, which is then denounced as the fault of the expelled. So congratulations to the BBC for succeeding in your poorly-concealed castle intrigues game. I am sincerely hopeful that it results in a loss of viewership unrivaled in the modern era, and a public shaming that requires massive reworking of your leadership.


I will continue to proudly have my phone's theme set to All Things Clarkson. I will continue to support his terrible manners lapses, his intelligent analysis of vehicles, and I will support whatever endeavor is next for him.


I don't support people because they're flawless. I support them because I like who they are, flaws and all. But hey, three cheers for the BBSee-less.