Understanding The Community And Its Social Benefits Criminology Essay

What do you understand by the term community? How could a community benefit from either societal or situational offense bar? Very loosely a community is “ group of people populating in the same topographic point or holding a peculiar feature in common ” , another definition for the term could be described as, “ a group of people populating together and rehearsing common ownership ” ( Oxford dictionary 2010 ) . Whilst these definitions may be normally associated with the word ‘community ‘ , in the context of this essay, we will be concentrating on academic significances of community and measure the different readings of the word. Within the criminology field many writers and faculty members have attempted to give ‘community ‘ a heterogenous significance. This being said, foremost this essay will discourse work from Anderson, Bauman, Rose, Etizioni among others who have given the word ‘community ‘ a significance. By making this, the following essay will give a clear apprehension of the term community.

Second along with this, the National community safety program ( NCSP ) 2008-2011 will be analysed. In analyzing this papers, this essay will pull out the NCSP ‘s definition of the term ‘community ‘ in concurrence with analyzing some of the chief rules. This essay will besides give a general apprehension of the study, in add-on to associating it with the last subdivision of my essay, the Chicago school theory. Last this essay will research the Chicago school theory and will supply an overview of the theory. In this subdivision the essay will analyze function, zones in passage and offense hot-spots, along with researching the strength and failings of the theory itself. In concurrence with the latter, this essay will discourse how this might really profit a existent life community. Finally existent life illustrations of enterprises from instance surveies and intelligence articles will be investigated before finally reasoning the essay and supplying a clear apprehension of the term ‘community ‘ and how it could profit from the Chicago school offense bar rules.

Along with the above, a broad scope of academic beginnings such as academic books, articles, and diaries. Plus the national community safety program 2008-2011 and web page resources will be used to portray a clear apprehension and back up a clear organized model.

Anderson ( 1983 ) argues that communities are non societal or territorially-based, but are “ fanciful ” thoughts based on a shared consensus of rank to a group of persons. While Anderson focussed on the thought of the state as an “ imagined community ” , Rose ( 1990 ) argued that communities can besides be imagined beyond the state – she defines the imagined community as “ a group of people bound together by some sort of belief stemming from peculiar historical or geographical fortunes in their ain solidarity ” ( Rose 1990: 426 ) . Similarly, Dwyer points out that multiculturalism and community are interlinked because minority communities are imagined communities that have no territorial boundaries: for Dwyer ( 1999: 54 ) , “ cultural communities can non be imagined as bing in an organic integrity with axiomatic boundaries. ”

Bauman ( 2001: 1-6 ) extrapolates upon this thought of community as imagined, by looking at how economic, political and ideological factors shape its construct. First, he argues that community “ is nowadays another name for Eden lost ” ( 2001: 3 ) . However, what this “ dream ” of community fails to appreciate is that the realisation of community comes at a cost: viz. , “ The monetary value is paid in the currency of freedom, diversely called ‘autonomy ‘ , ‘right to self-assertion ‘ , ‘right to be yourself ‘ ” ( 2001: 4 ) . In other words, for Bauman, the modern-day construct of community is oppositional to our dominant thought of single freedom of consumer pick. The function of the consumer in society tallies counter to our thought of community because the consumer-producer relationship erodes the norms required to keep it. The consumer society, for Bauman, replaces these community norms with the norm of surplus: “ In a universe devoid of norms, surplus had turned from toxicant into medical specialty for life unwellnesss ” ( 2001: 131 ) . Therefore, in a society where surplus is the cardinal norm, the thought of community remains an fanciful Eden because “ imaginativeness, unlike the rough worlds of life, is an sweep of unchecked freedom ” ( 2001: 3 ) . The impression of community is hence defined by Bauman as a loose set of fanciful ideals that counter the rough worlds of the consumer-driven society of surplus.

Similarly, Etzioni ( 2000: 198 ) defines communalism as oppositional to individuality. However, contrary to Bauman, he stresses that community is a “ societal harmoniousness ” ( 2000: 198 ) , instead than a non-social imagined ideal. Furthermore, the complete eroding of these values as a consequence of an excess-driven consumer society is non inevitable – alternatively, Etzioni argues that these community values “ necessitate to be balanced with concerns for single rights and subgroup liberty ” ( 2000: 198 ) . In other words, community, for Etzioni, is a series of values that can be practically used to oppose the unchained individuality of free market capitalist economy.

From the following paragraphs sing a ‘community ‘ definition, it is clear to see and of import to observe that the term is to a great extent contested. In the undermentioned twosome of paragraphs, this essay will see the National community safety program 2008-11. In this, we will larn what the NCSP ‘s definition of ‘community ‘ is, along with associating it with the Chicago school theory.

Contrary to ideas about multiculturalism and of “ imagined ” communities, the National Community Safety Plan ( HM Government 2008 ) defines community in a heterogenous manner – in other words, it suggests that one dominant thought of community exists. In add-on, these values are applied harmonizing to local countries and, while some grant is made to the issues of cultural and sexual favoritism, “ community ” is used to specify a set of common, communal involvements related to district and offense. As such, the program uses a figure of Chicago School rules, who define community as “ the merchandise of biotic activity [ which can be ] understood through ecology ” ( Valentine 2001: 107 ) . The ecological rules of community outlined by Park and Burgess ( 1921 ) consist of the three following factors: foremost, competition creates different pricing systems, which leads to economic segregation ; secondly, ecological laterality causes flush countries to constellate together as a consequence of concern involvement ; and, thirdly, invasion and sequence, in which successful concerns can drive out less successful 1s. As Watts, Bessant and Hil ( 2008: 57 ) summarize, “ The ecological thought suggests that typical forms of human behavior are shaped by the organisation or design of infinite in which that behavior occurs. ” In other words, offense is the consequence of normal human existences being forced to populate in unnatural urban conditions. However, what abnormalcy and normalcy consists of depends upon how these community values are defined and, as Watts, Bessant & A ; Hil ( 2008: 57 ) continue to propose, the Chicago School “ promoted the thought that no individual factor explains criminalism ” . As such, persons within the Chicago School present a broad assortment of different factors that determine “ abnormalcy ” and attendant degrees of societal disorganisation. These relate to both societal and situational elements of community.

Community as a shared set of values is frequently linked to Chicago School theoreticians. Many Chicago School theoreticians argue that criminalism occurs partly because of a deficiency of these shared community values that are treated as cosmopolitan and national in range. For Shaw & A ; McKay ( 1942 ) , offense is the consequence of a deficiency of “ stable households ” that map as establishments from which societal and cultural norms can be promoted. Others argue that poorness and situational factors, such as the architectural design of estates, leads to the development of offense in certain countries. In both instances, the Chicago School argues that the thought of community should be defined in both situational and ideological contexts. In other words, community is both a shared set of ideals, every bit good as something which is practiced among groups of people. Institutions are cardinal factors in cementing community ties because they bring communities together in a situational sense, and advance these shared ideals. As Siegel ( 2008: 9 ) notes, the Chicago School argues that “ urban vicinities maintain such a high degree of poorness that critical establishments of societal organisation, such as the school and the household, get down to interrupt down. ” The manner to battle this decomposition is by advancing the community ideals of the stable household unit, every bit good as advancing the situational development of stable communities within countries with high criminalism and poorness.

The National Community Safety Plan ( 9:14 ) targets some of these elements of societal decomposition by concentrating policing policy on disorganised communities, and by working with bing partnerships within criminogenic countries. The consequences, nevertheless, are extremely variable. In some cases, anti-social behavior is targeted which, in pattern, chiefly focuses on immature males within those communities. The determination to concentrate on the construct of “ anti-social behavior ” is controversial exactly because it is hard to find what, in pattern, anti-social behavior constitutes. As Watts, Bessant & A ; Hil ( 2008: 158 ) argue, “ the features identified [ aˆ¦ ] as indexs of ‘antisocial ‘ behavior ” may be nil “ more than a package of biass about the universe of the ‘typical ‘ immature, male, juvenile delinquent. ” Furthermore, the determination to concentrate chiefly on “ increasing take-up of tools and powers for undertaking anti-social behavior ” may farther banish striplings from their community ( National Community Safety Plan 2008-2011: 11 ) . As Bauman ( 2001: 1-6 ) and Etzioni ( 2000: 198 ) suggest, community is oppositional to single freedom – furthermore, the dichotomy between these two opposing thoughts create the society in which we live. Consequently, the danger of a policy that discriminates against a group of persons based on peculiar “ biass ” is that it undermines this shared system of values. For Chicago School theoreticians, this eroding of a cosmopolitan impression of corporate societal duty within local communities creates offense because it segregates and separates peculiar persons from that community, thereby making a condemnable category of persons who portion a common set of separating values. While Bauman ( 2001: 130 ) argues that the underlying job with offense in “ disorganised zones ” is the consequence of the consumer society and its individualistic, anti-communitarian traits, Etzioni argues that individuality and communitarian facets should be aligned through the passage of peculiar privateness and patroling Torahs. Therefore, the National Community Safety Plan fails because it does non undertake these communitarian facets in a consistent manner.

Before reasoning the essay, the following subdivision will see local illustrations of how a community could profit from both societal and situational offense bar. In this subdivision examples from Hasting and Preston will be examined to portray a clear apprehension. Furthermore a nexus will be distinguished between the undermentioned illustrations and how they relate to the Chicago school theory and the NCSP.

Siegel suggests that, for the Chicago School, the fright of offense farther exacerbates the devolution of community values by insulating persons from one-another ( 2008: 9 ) . In Hastings, for illustration, the National Community Safety Plan has “ launched a long-run program to increase feelings of safety and fix the image of the town. ” The attendant decrease in the fright of offense by concentrating on anti-social behavior, and furthering a sense of community through the media has reduced the communal fright of offense, which, for Chicago School theoreticians, exacerbates societal disorganisation and leads to the rise of offense rates. However, they argue that cut downing the fright of offense does non handle the implicit in causes of offense, such as poorness, the failure of establishments, and the failure to advance relevant community values. Harmonizing to The Chicago School, offense rates will merely for good lower when the ecology of the disorganized zone is changed. While a focal point on the perceptual experience of offense may potentially rekindle community values, this is improbable to hold a long term consequence because the institutional jobs and the attendant devolution of community values remain.

Patroling schemes in Preston, Lancashire have been employed which more straight echo the ecological theories of the Chicago School. These focus straight on both “ situational ” and “ societal ” causes of offense in disadvantaged countries. Situational offense bar steps involve altering the “ design of the estate ” , such as altering the “ lighting and fence, altering entree points, ” and “ cleaning up and put ining CCTV ” ( National Community Safety Plan 2008-2011: 12 ) . In add-on, societal factors were introduced such as “ young person services outreach, Prince ‘s Trust undertakings and a brother system for new occupants ” ( National Community Safety Plan 2008-2011: 12 ) . In this instance, an effort is made to rekindle communities and prevent the disaffection of marginalized young person groups by furthering an thought of community engagement. Isolation from communities ( and subsequent individuality ) is countered through the “ brother system ” and via the usage of institutional and situational mechanisms. As a consequence, offense rates reduced by 49 per centum ( National Community Safety Plan 2008-2011: 12 ) .

In the concluding portion of this essay we will finally come to an apprehension of the term ‘community ‘ and how that benefits the Chicago school theory offense bar rules. In add-on, this essay will mention to the chief points that have been presented and summarize the statement above ; to more by and large reply the essay rubric.

In decision, since 1915 the definition of ‘community ‘ has ever been a contested term. Since C.J.Galpin foremost gave a sociological definition, a figure of viing definitions of ‘community ‘ quickly emerged. A major job with the term is the sheer graduated table of context it could perchance deduce from. However, sing the essay, it could be said that we need to work to “ derive control over the conditions under which we struggle with the challenges of life ” ( Bauman 2001: 149 ) . By this Bauman discusses the thought of get rid ofing ”disorganized zones ” because of the battle of the community within these zones. In respects to how a community could profit from either societal or situational offense bar. As discussed above a community could greatly profit from societal or situational offense bar as the NCSP declare findings of 49 % offense decrease rates as a consequence of these factors. Ultimately it can be said ; the term ‘community ‘ can neither merely nor rapidly be defined. But to genuinely understand the term we need to cognize the nature of the specific community, and how they behave.

Bibliography-word count 2,451

Anderson, B. ( 1983 ) . Imagined Communities: Contemplations on the Origin and

Spread Of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Bauman, Z. ( 2001 ) . Community: seeking safety in an insecure universe. Oxford:

Wiley Blackwell.

Dwyer, C. ( 1999 ) , “ Contradictions Of Community: Questions of individuality for

Young British Muslim Women ” , Environment And Planing A, 31 ( 1 ) , 53-68.

Etzioni, A. ( 2000 ) . The Limits Of Privacy. New York: Basic Books.

Oxford lexicon. ( 2010 ) “ Community ” Dictionary.

www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0167020 # m_en_gb0167020 [ day of the month

accessed 6.1.11 ] .

Park, R. E. & A ; Burgess, E. W. ( 1921 ) . Introduction To The Science Of

Sociology. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.

Rose, G. ( 1990 ) , “ Imagining Poplar In The 1920s: contested constructs of

community ” , Journal Of National Geography, 16, 425-437.

Shaw, C. & A ; McKay, H. ( 1942 ) . Juvenile Delinquency In Urban Areas. Chicago,

Siegel, L. L. ( 2008 ) . Criminology. 10th ed. , London: Cangage Publication.

Smith, J. ( 2007 ) . “ National Community Safety Plan 2008-11 ” Home office.

www.webct.mmu.ac.uk/webct/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct [ day of the month accessed 6.1.11 ] .

Valentine, G. ( 2001 ) . Social Geographies: infinite and society. London:

Pearson Education.

Watts, R. , Bessant, J. & A ; Hil, R. ( 2008 ) . International Criminology: A Critical

Introduction. London: Routledge.