Las coordenadas localmente inerciales

1.2. Political Definition of Disorder

The central contention in this section is that the political definitions of disorder and institutional interventions have an explicit moral dimension. Since the Elizabethan period, the official definitions of disorder have always assumed a positivistic outlook. For instance, the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 carried with it a message of „corrective intervention‟,

„regulation‟ and inspection‟, as it labelled the poor as a threat to the moral fabric of society.

In addition, law and order have been at the core of political debates since the 1970s. At the core of Conservative Party‟s political ideology were New Right ideas firmly rooted in both neo-liberalism, that is freedom, individualism, the free market and rolling back of the state, and neo-conservatism, that emphasised law and order, public morality and national identity (Page, 2005). The Conservative Party‟s popularity, especially under Margaret Thatcher, was based mainly on the party‟s law and order agenda. The fundamental ideas of New Right are based on two themes: placing responsibility for crime and disorder squarely on the individual, and reasserting the importance of punishment in responding to crime (White and Haines, 2008). According to Page (2005) the Conservatives rejected the notion that crime can be explained by reference to structural inequalities and instead argued that the base instinct of individuals is the prime cause of criminality. In line with their belief and political ideology of

44 New Right, the Conservative Party introduced a considerable number of criminal justice laws, notably the Criminal Justice Acts 1982, 1990 and 1994. The boundaries of disciplinary and social control were expanded as more and more deviant behaviours were criminalised (Lea, 1997), with law and order considered as „war on crime‟ and an assault on the disorder of society. Consequently, this translated into a call during the 1980s and 1990s for increased police personnel, power and resources, longer jail sentences, the provision of more prisons, stronger discipline within families and schools and a return to more traditional values generally (White and Haines, 2008). New Right criminology revolves around the individual, and provides a moralistic and punitive approach to issues of crime, criminality and deviant behaviour (Young, 1981). The Conservatives were also influenced by different „right-wing‟

criminology theories such as control theories and the underclass thesis.

The getting tough approach adopted by the Conservatives has generally been associated with populist appeals to the public because they are electorally expedient and attractive (White and Haines, 2008). In fact, since the 1980s, populist rhetoric about crime have been used actively as a major electoral tool, particularly in the UK, whereby the extent and seriousness of crime and disorder are highlighted (but not necessarily backed up by statistical or other research findings) and this, in turn, is used to justify harsher penalties, and the assertion of state authority in more and more spheres of everyday social life. As part of this process, specific groups or categories of people are singled out for special attention: young people, welfare recipients, minority ethnic groups and sole parents. Thus „we‟ are protected by having ever greater state intervention in the affairs of „them‟. The rationale behind such intrusion is usually a combination of the protection of private property and differential treatment that should be meted out to the moral and immoral in society (White and Haines, 2008). This process is often referred to as „authoritarian populism‟ (see Taylor, 1981; Hall, 1980; Hall et

45 al., 1978) - a process in which crime is ideologically and strategically conveyed in a series of moral panics about law and order issues, in such a manner as to appeal to popular concerns about crime, on the basis of „us‟ versus „them‟. On the one hand, the „us‟ is always viewed as virtuous. The „them‟, on the other hand, whoever they are, are viewed as being parasites, destructive to the fabric of civil society (cf White and Haines, 2008).

In terms of crime, the essence of populism exaggerates the dangerousness of crime, and the foreign or alien nature of the criminal. Therefore, criminal is seen to be outside society - its networks, institutions, communities, mores, values, methods of income and ways of life.

Insofar as the criminal is not seen to be bound by normal social rules of conduct, so too it is argued that normal rules of order should necessarily be adhered to if criminals are to be brought to book for their offensive activities (White and Haines, 2008). According to White and Haines (2008), the rhetoric of populism is one that reduces all crime problems to simple solutions. Offenders are made entirely responsible for their actions, simply because they are seen as outside the normal institutions of society and a race apart. Hence, the deployment of draconian solutions to deal with their crime problem is legitimate and justifiable.

The nature of the „problem‟, from a right-wing perspective, is a combination of lack of economic incentives (such as welfare dependency), a culture of poverty (such as familial breakdown and inappropriate role models), intellectual deficiencies (such as hereditary genetic inferiority) and low standards of morality (as in illegitimacy via sole parenting) (see Page, 2005). Thus the solution is to make members of the „underclass‟ more responsible and accountable for their own welfare and lifestyle choices. In effect, the demand is for the withdrawal of government support for the disadvantaged, coupled with efforts to re-socialise people into new values and moral systems (White and Haines, 2008). As such the concept of

46 underclass which was first used in America became synonymous with the poorest blacks in the inner-city ghetto in Britain and perceptions of urban problems as being essentially to do with black people (Robinson and Gregson, 1992:41). In essence, apart from the political undertones in the concept so also are the racial undertones in its use. The Conservatives worked from the premise that Britain was becoming more and more lawless, and that certain communities were becoming increasingly „dangerous‟. The last criminal justice legislation initiated by the Tories prior to their removal from power was the Crime and Disorder Act Bill, which became law under New Labour as the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 moved the boundaries of criminalisation even further by introducing various sanctions that are designed to regulate presumably non-criminal behaviour, but with a threat of criminal sanction attached to it if breached. Thus, the Crime and Disorder Act marked a new preoccupation with more authoritarian forms of crime and disorder prevention, focussing on the criminalisation of anti-social behaviour through an increase in the powers of local authorities to use civil injunctions to control the movement of people who have caused, or are considered likely to cause, what the Act characterises as

„alarm, harassment and distress‟.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced the anti-social behaviour order. Known initially as the Community Safety Order, Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) are civil orders that were designed to deter anti-social behaviour and to prevent the escalation of such behaviour without having to resort to criminal sanctions, although breaches do give rise to criminal proceedings and penalties (Campbell 2002). It can be used against any person aged 10 or over who has acted in an anti-social manner. ASBOs were made available to the police and local authorities in April 1999 (Campbell, 2002).

47 Section 1(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 defines anti-social behaviour as:

―Acting in a manner that caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as (the defendant)‖

However, the law did not define what actually constitutes an anti-social action. What is regarded as „anti-social behaviour‟ varies between communities and individuals. As Brown (2004:203) observed

―Anti-social behaviour, rather than a sub-criminal form of behaviour, is a social construction, which indicates the creation of a new domain of professional power and knowledge‖.

Card (2001:208) also observed

―Behaviours are categorised and labelled so that they are identifiable and can be acted on appropriately; different types of label influence the type of policies seen as appropriate and acceptable for the management or elimination of that type of behaviour‖.

Furthermore, as Papps (1998:645) puts it:

―Any classification of behaviour as anti-social or nuisance must be seen as subjective because different people are annoyed or upset by different things‖.

In other words, „anti-social behaviour‟ means different things to different people. A behaviour seen as anti-social by one group or individual may be perfectly acceptable or normal to another group (see Card, 2001). Thus, anti-social behaviour is both a vague term as well as a strongly symbolic and evocative one (Brown, 2004). Invariably, there are other

48 definitions of anti-social behaviour available to local authorities that they could apply locally.

For example, the Housing Act (1996) defined anti-social behaviour as:

―Engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing in, visiting or otherwise engaging in lawful activity in residential premises... or in the locality of such premises, using or threatening to use residential premises … for immoral or illegal purposes, or entering residential premises ... or being found in the locality of any such premise‖.

In addition, the Chartered Institute of Housing Good Practice briefing (1995) defined anti-social behaviour as:

―Behaviour that unreasonably interferes with other people‘s rights to the use and enjoyment of their home and community‖.

In Scotland, the Scottish Executive Central Research Unit Report defined anti-social behaviour as

―Behaviour (by one household or individuals in an area), which threatens the physical or mental health, safety or security of (other) individuals and households, or causes offence or annoyance to individuals and households in the neighbourhood‖.

Furthermore, before the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, there were various legislative provisions upon which the police and local authorities could draw to deal with anti-social behaviour. Cases could be dealt with under the Environment Protection Act 1990 where a problem is judged prejudicial to health and also under the Noise Act 1996, the Public Order Act 1986 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Thus, the 1998 provision simply complements existing measures. This further complicates the matter, as the 1998 Act is not

49 the only measure in the armoury of local authorities and the police, with which they could deal with anti-social behaviour.

Since the definition of anti-social behaviour is open to different interpretations, different agencies of intervention have defined it in various ways to match local needs. Although local definitions can have a number of advantages, for example in terms of tailoring the legislation to local situations, local definitions can also encourage prejudice and discriminatory practices because of myths and stereotypes about troublesome people and places. According to Hunter (2001:223) „…problem of definition clearly leads to problems of solution; if the nature of the problem has not been defined then defining a solution seems impossible or problematic‟.

Many of the local definitions of anti-social behaviour contain implicit moral judgments about those that commit these acts (Card, 2001). The perpetrators are seen as simply unaccepting of the norms of society, and therefore must be outside society. Such judgements enable governments to apply more stringent qualification criteria to services provided by them (e.g.

housing), and to employ stricter measures and tougher penalties (Card, 2001).

Nevertheless, anti-social behaviour is a high priority for central and local government. Some of New Labour‟s views on the impact that anti-social behaviour could have on individuals and communities are expressed in the Social Exclusion Unit‟s National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Report, 2000. According to the report:

Anti-social behaviour destroys quality of life and contributes to fear of crime. It can result in people not going out or stopping their children playing outside. Anti-social behaviour destroys communities, with people living in fear and those who can move away doing so. The impact on deprived neighbourhoods is particularly profound, as anti-social behaviour can rapidly tip struggling neighbourhoods into decline. There are a wide range of costs, with small shops going out of business

50 and, in extreme cases, recently built properties being demolished (Policy Action Team 8 Report on Anti-social Behaviour: 1)

Apparently to show their commitment to dealing with anti-social behaviour, the New Labour government passed the Anti-social behaviour Act 2003 into law which expanded the power of the police and local authorities to dispersing groups that cause harassment or intimidation.

The law imposed restrictions on the ownership or possession of air guns and replica gun, banned the sale and manufacture of high powered air weapons, extended fixed penalty notices for disorder to 16 and 17 year olds, allowed newspapers to name and shame teenagers punished by courts with anti-social behaviour orders, and gave local authorities powers to apply for anti-social behaviour orders to tackle nuisance behaviour. According to the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett (2004), these are new tools in New Labour‟s fight against

„neighbours from hell‟

What is significant about ASBOs is that they blurs the fundamental boundary between civil and criminal law, and operate with a rule so vague that almost anything could break it (Burney, 2002). Anti-social behaviour has become and all-embracing category with

„intangible properties and proportions‟ (Burney 2002:482). Anti-social behaviour is constructed in official discourse as a property inherent to the behaviour itself, just as the category „crime‟ is constructed as a self-evident category, reflecting some inherent property of the behaviour (Brown, 2004). Field (2003) concludes:

―Crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour are now the horseman of the apocalypse. While capable of acting on their own, these horsemen are more commonly seen riding over the same territory in joint attacks on homes, vehicles and people, so adding enormously to a prevailing sense of unease which often tips

51 into fear and despair. Anti-social behaviour is important because it is the newest horseman of the apocalypse‖ (Field 2003:64).

Legislation passed in response to anecdotal and unspecific social threats is unlikely to produce the anticipated impact. ASBOs can only be seen in terms of the punitive populism that has become the symbol of New Labour‟s approach to law and order. Through their slogan of „tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime‟, New Labour has further extended the scope of criminalisation and the boundaries of social control. In the case of ASBOs, one sees the construction (and reconstruction) of the „dangerous classes‟. „Disorder‟

has become the personal property of individuals – a label that ascribes blame to individuals for the problems of their communities. „Disorderly persons produce disorderly places‟ seems to be the political message that has emanated from the state reaction to urban disorder.

1.3. Summary

This chapter has looked at the different theoretical perspectives on neighbourhood disorder as well as the political response to the problem. The variations in the theoretical perspectives demonstrate recognition of the problematic nature of the concept of disorder. The section on the political definition of disorder also shows that the concept is politically and socially constructed.

From the foregoing arguments, the following attributes of ‟disorder‟ are revealed:

Disorder is an attribute of „disorganised‟ communities (Chicago School).

There are two types of disorder: physical and social disorder. The former is often associated with environmental conditions in the neighbourhood – for example, dilapidated buildings, broken windows, graffiti and unkempt gardens. The latter refers

52 to acts of incivilities (behavioural and personal), deviant behaviour (such as prostitution and illegal drug use) and anti-social behaviour.

Disorder is a condition that results from ineffective state intervention in communities which then produces incivilities and crime, and consequently the fear of crime victimisation (Hunter 1978).

Disorder is a state of being in inner cities, visible in the physical condition and behavioural traits of people who live there. Disorder, if not checked, will lead to crime (Wilson and Kelling, 1982).

Disorder results from the inability of a community to mobilise resources to deal with its own problems. Disorder can result in the affected communities or neighbourhoods becoming vulnerable to decline (Skogan, 1990).

Social disorder diminishes with „collective efficacy‟ or social cohesion (Sampson et al., 1997). Disorder does not lead to crime. Rather, disorder and crime are manifestations of the same explanatory process. However, disorder (incivilities) could be the foundation for some crimes, but it is certainly not the foundation of all types of crime as proposed by Wilson and Kelling‟s „broken windows‟ theory (Sampson and Raudenbush 1999).

Disorder is strongly associated with concentrated disadvantage and concentrated immigration. In other words, disorder is highest in areas with low neighbourhood stability, high levels of poverty and a high ethnic minority population (Chicago School; Skogan 1990, Sampson and Raudenbush 1999).

Political definitions of disorder are far more moralistic than the academic theories propose. „Responsibility‟ is included in the definition of „disorder‟, whereby people

53 who engage in „disorderly acts‟ are believed to have taken a deliberate action to live outside the established moral codes of society, the emphasis being placed on particular social groups and individuals. Apportioning blame to „disorder‟ has meant that regulation, punishment and control have been pushed forward in political policies as possible approaches for dealing with disorder. This is evidenced in the widening of the net to include minor incivilities commonly referred to as „anti-social behaviours‟.

In this thesis, the author is not concerned with the nexus between crime and disorder (Wilson and Kelling, 1982). Neither is the thesis directly concerned with the correlation between social and physical disorder (Skogan, 1990). Instead the author sets out to challenge the existing notion that points to the intersection of race and disorder. This thesis looks at the nature and extent of disorder in a heterogeneous neighbourhood which has elements of both physical and social disorder. Hence, the following chapter looks at the historical origins of Britain‟s ethnic minorities, their treatment on arrival, and how their existence is linked with the problems of cities and urban „disorder‟.

54 Chapter Two

Historical Precedents to the Social Constructions of ‘Race’ and ‘Disorder’ in Britain

2.0. Introduction

Following the theoretical debates on disorder and urban development in Chapter One, this chapter presents a critical review of the historical and contemporary literature on the social construction of disorder, with a specific focus on how „race‟ became embedded in the discourses of „urban disorder‟ in Britain. Accordingly, this chapter looks at the history of migration and settlement in Britain of four of the country‟s main minority ethnic groups – the Irish, the Jews, and the commonwealth immigrants from the 19^th Century onwards. The 19th Century is chosen as a starting point for the discussion because it was the era in British history that is most commonly associated with modernisation and the growth of cities.

Whereas the arrival and settlement of these ethnic groups dates back for centuries (see Bowling and Phillips, 2002), the most significant „influx‟ took place in the 19^th Century, during the industrial „revolution‟, and in the post-war era (post-1945); in both cases, for economic reasons.

It is important to highlight that change in the mode of production from agrarianism to industrial capitalism in the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Centuries has altered the

It is important to highlight that change in the mode of production from agrarianism to industrial capitalism in the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Centuries has altered the