Social Banditry Essay

601 Words3 Pages
Eric Hobsbawm was the first to coin the term “social banditry” in his book entitled Bandits. A key point explored in the text is the important distinction that he draws between common, self-motivated criminals, and those whose deep – or at least publicly-perceived – connections to the peasantry or lower classes, and juxtaposition as the anti- or contra- government, Crown, or oppressive aristocratic ruling class afford them the title of “social bandit”. Robin Hood is the epitomical social bandit; though it is oft debated and, in actuality, widely doubted that a true Robin Hood in all his selflessness and honor ever existed, Robin Hood as a legend and in his many impersonations throughout history by real bandits illustrates the key point that often, perception by the public is the delineating factor as to whether or not a particular bandit is considered a social bandit, not necessarily said bandit’s actual adherence to the qualifications for social banditry Hobsbawm lays out. According to Hobsbawm, there are essentially four categories or “types” of social bandits, as attested to throughout history whether through song, ballad, oral tradition, and even news outlets. The “Noble Robber” is perhaps the category with which we are most familiar. Robin Hood, and his contemporary image, is the quintessential Noble Robber in that he is noble in character, and is noble, unselfish, and with a conscience that prevents him from needless killing and brutality. While few actually lived up to this genuine Robin Hood ideal, Diego Corrientes of Andalusia is considered a Robin Hood type bandit. He was “according to popular opinion” comparable to Christ because he was “betrayed, delivered to Seville on a Sunday, tried on a Friday in March, and yet had killed nobody” (47). The Noble Robber’s role is the champion of the people’s rights; he is aligned with the peasantry, and perhaps most
Open Document