Behaviour in Public Space - Essay Example

As the process of urbanization continues globally, understanding the diverse effects of the policies governing urban space has become an increasingly central element in the control of crime. Bannister et al. (2006) argue that recent developments in the policies governing urban space point to a growing willingness to neglect of public space as a means of addressing root causes of urban antipathy and crime in favour of tailoring public space to the needs of consumers. If, in fact, as Bannister et al. contend, the recent regulation of “respectful” behaviour in public spaces has begun to promote consumption at the expense of promoting understanding through meaningful, respectful interaction among different social groups, these policies may entrench the very “unrespectful” behaviour they intend to promote (Bannister et al 2006 p.920). This essay considers the strength of Bannister’s assertion that policies governing behaviour in public space are founded upon a distinction between the “respectable, consuming majority” and the “unrespectable, non-consuming minority.” Through analysis of two prominent attempts to control behaviour in urban public space – the ban of hoodies in the Bluewater Shopping Centre at Kent and the crackdown on graffiti in New York City – the essay argues that anti-crime behavioural modification efforts predicated on the ethic of respect or respectability are frequently, as Bannister suggests, more properly understood in context of a greater effort to promote consumption public space. The essay then considers causes this trend in context, along with its implications for control of crime in urban areas. The banning of hoodies in the Bluewater Shopping Centre at Kent and subsequent reactions from leaders illustrate two important points in support of Bannister et al’s argument. First, the incident illuminates the increasing conflation of commercial and public space. Secondly, the incident points toward the appearance of an underclass of non-consumers in the collective social imagination and the use of this grouping of individuals as the basis for both commercial and government regulation. Bluewater, a private shopping centre, is not a traditional “public” space, insofar as it is not owned by the public. However, the extensive reaction of the press and civil society point to the fact that commercial spaces have effectively become public spaces. Whether because of lack of genuinely public alternatives or because of deliberate planning many spaces that appear public are in fact for private gain, and regulated as such with support from the government (Schmidt 2004, p.18). The British government response to the Bluewater incident displays the lack of a significant division between public and commercial space, as public officials support and enforce private bans, while private spaces are not held to the standard of healthy public space. The Kent police provided public enforcement for the private regulation by operationally supporting the ban on hoodies, (BBC Article, 11 May 2005). Deputy Prime Minister Prescott, in charge of the government office promoting public respect, provided further public support for the ban and its enforcement (BBC Article 12 May 2005). However, more pernicious than the blurred lines between public and private may be the underlying tendency toward forcing the non-consuming class to stay out of either public/private spaces altogether. A major tendency of the new use of public space worldwide in the modern time has been the deliberate segregation and sequestration of particular people or groups (Davis 1992). This seems to be the case to a great extent at kent. With the coalition of commerce and public officials formed, the coalition has been able to paint a picture of the “enemy” – which generally seems to amount to the unrespectable underclass. The rhetoric of Prescott is particularly instructive here. He calls the hoodies and baseball caps part of an “‘intimidating’ uniform.” In other words, those who wear them are playing on a different team than the rest of decent society. Preventing this underclass from their no-good activities, however, does not seem to be the real intention of the ban. Closer examination of the ban at Bluewater uncovers a number of other regulations, which make the true intention of the ban clearly focused on activities that get in the way of commerce. Groups not intending to shop were similarly banned from the mall (Times Online, May 2005). Additionally and less noticed, political activities like canvassing and leafleting were banned along with hoodies at Bluewater. In context, the centre and the public officials who supported its decision have teamed up to demonize anyone not engaging in consumption. A similarly high profile regulatory change – Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign against graffiti in New York City - highlights a number of other aspects that suggest that attacks on indecency are frequently part of a greater effort to commercialize of public space. In 1995, New York City began with a task force to rid the city of graffiti. In his public address, Giuliani made the case that ridding the city of graffiti would stop more serious crimes from taking place (Giuliani 1995). He further set up a “Vandal Squad” in the police department and a citizen hotline offering rewards for anyone turning in vandals. Graffiti artists received harsh punishments and were prosecuted at a much higher rate. Though Giuliani generally focused his rhetoric on the harm done to “private” property in his speeches, the Vandal Squad focused its efforts on high profile public or public/private spaces – subways, major buildings and parks. Again, this reinforces the notion promoted in Bannister et al’s analysis, that public space is increasingly conflated with private space in thinking on public policy. More directly, however, the example again shows itself as parcel of a bigger effort – one not focused on decency, but instead focused on commerce. Though viewed as an isolated policy by the press, Giuliani’s anti-graffiti campaign came along with many other pro-commerce reforms to public space (Smithsimon 1999). Among these, the Giuliani administration pushed for government encouragement of commerce near parks. He advocated the destruction of definitively “public” space of community gardens in favour of replacing them with large money making enterprises (Smithsonian 1999). The administration was also well known for its questionable enforcement of bans on masks in performance art and political protests in public space, frequently citing harm to commercial zones (Weiser 2002). Given this context, the pro-decency anti-grafiti campaign is more rightly viewed as a small part of a bigger campaign to promote commerce by cleaning up public property to make adjoining private property more attractive – not to promote decency. In context both of these incidents point to a significant degree to which all non-commercial activities – whether political, performative, or recreational – have been grouped together and regulated as a whole in recent policies. Importantly, both also target identifying symbols of the non-consuming class – hoodies in the case of Kent and grafitti in New York. Beyond simple ethical concerns about whether the consuming class should be treated so favourably, the potential practical problems this approach may cause for efforts to reduce criminal activity in cities are both manifold and grave. Herbert and Brown (2006) use the example of the U.S. penal system to argue that this “neoliberal” approach to keeping the underclass out of public spaces has a frightening counterpart – increasingly cordoning off the underclass altogether and eventually placing that same underclass in prisons (p.18). In some cases, much of the underclass emerging from the neoliberal city’s frontiers may be drawn from particular racial demographics, thus hardening and reinforcing existing divisions (Goldberg 2001, pp.72-73). Hayward (2004) argues that criminology has failed to provide insights related to the reduction of crime in large part by failing to understand the ways in which individual psychologies and the city environment have interacted over time. Based upon the astute analysis from Bannister et al and the above presented evidence, it seems wise to heed this observation. Perhaps most importantly, there must be a new level of subtlety brought to bear on what public spaces, and more importantly citizens are capable. There are some causes for hope. While some politicians are all too happy to overgeneralize entire demographics as hoodie-wearing, graffiti-painting criminals who don’t belong in public space, there are others who see the benefits of taking other paths. Immediately following the Bluewater ban, for instance, David Cameron attempted to introduce some subtlety in the debate by pointing out that hoodie wearers aren’t all criminals – rather they are a product of their neglected environment (BBC News 9 July 2006). Though politicians may have some influence on the mindset of their countrymen, ultimately more permanent solutions are needed to break down tired stereotypes and misconceptions. Public spaces can be one such tool. Ignoring the pro-social uses of public spaces – promoting contact and understanding, creating feelings of unity among society members, and providing forums for contesting differences – in favour of promoting commerce is done at society’s own peril. BANNISTER J., N. FYFE and A. KEARNS. 2006. Respectful or respectable: (in)civility in the city. Urban Studies. 43 (5/6) pp. 919-937. BBC NEWS. 11 May 2005. Mall Bans Shoppers Hooded Tops. [Accessed 7th of May, 2008] Available via the World Wide Web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/4534903.stm BBC NEWS. 12 May 2005. Prescott Backing Hooded Tops Ban. [Accessed 7th of May, 2008] Available via the World Wide Web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4539405.stm BBC NEWS. 9 July 2006. Cameron to make hoodie appeal. . [Accessed 7th of May, 2008] Available via the World Wide Web: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5162010.stm DAVIS, M. 1992. Fortress Los Angeles: The militarization of urban space. In: M. Sorkin (ed.). Variations on a Theme Park: The New American City and the End of the Public Space. New York: Noonday GIULIANI, R. Feb. 23, 1997. Mayor’s WINS Address. [Accessed 7th of May, 2008] Available via the World Wide Web: GOLDBERG D T. 2001. Polluting the body politic: Race and urban location. In N Blomley, D Delaney and R T Ford (eds) The Legal Geographies Reader (pp 69– 86). Oxford: Blackwell HAYWARD, K. 2004. Space - the final frontier: Criminology, the City and the Spatial Dynamics of Exclusion. In: F. J. Ferrell, K. Hayward, W. Morrison, and M. Presdee, (eds.). Cultural Criminology Unleashed. London: GlassHouse Press, pp. 1-14. HERBERT, S. and E. BROWN. 2006. Conceptions of Space and Crime in the Punitive Neoliberal City. Antipode. 38 (4) pp. 755-777 SCHMIDT, S. 2004. World Wide Plaza: The Corporatization of Urban Public Space. Technology and Society Magazine. 23 (3) pp. 17-18 SMITHSIMON, G. The technologies of public space and alternatives to a privatized New York. [Accessed 7th of May, 2008] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.columbia.edu/~gs228/writing/techps.htm TIMES ONLINE. May 12, 2005. Blair Backs Ban on Hooded Tops. [Accessed 7th of May, 2008] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521620.ece WEISER B. November 20, 2002. Judge upsets state ban on masks at protests. New York Times. [Accessed 7th of May, 2008] Available via the World Wide Web: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2DE1639F933A15752C1A9649C8B63 Read More