This week
in class, we elaborated upon the "Broken Windows Theory".
Sampson states that "...the broken windows theory sees visual cues
as objective and obvious in their meaning - signs of disorder serve as a signal
of the unwillingness of residents to confront strangers, intervene a crime, or
call the police" (Sampson 125). This viewpoint of the theory argues
that a neighborhood's physical appearance has a correlation to what the
residents, as well as, passer-byes think of said community. If a
community has broken windows, graffiti, and run-down areas, then it is assumed
that crime is evident in the neighborhood. Sampson labels the above as
physical disorder. We have been socialized to believe in the broken
widows theory. Believing the theory also includes thinking that the individuals
within the community are disconnected from their surroundings. We have
associated graffiti and broken widows with lower class, drugs, gangs, so on so
forth. But is it really the case? Or do other areas have
more money in their system to clean up and repair the neighborhoods when
necessary? We have learned countless times as sociology students that
people are products of their environments. In urban communities the
environment is often times not very favorable to certain demographics of
people. In class we discussed how New York City is extremely prone to
aggressive police behavior, especially in the poorer, urban areas.
Policing in these neighborhoods is used to try and control the public.
People are harassed and ticketed for petty crimes that we would never see
in an affluent community. Some examples include sidewalk grilling,
jaywalking, public drinking and graffiti.
below: the dilapidated Rosenwald Apartments, Chicago
Sampson goes on to explain whether disorder causes crime,
and if the aforementioned aggressive policing prevents or reduces crime.
Sampson defines social disorder as solicitation of prostitution, drug
usage, public drinking, and loitering. He then refers back to physical disorders and the assumption of crime. He states that the broken widows theory does not cause crime, it is crime itself which causes and exacerbates the stereotype and assumptions. I agree with Sampson, because I look at street graffiti and believe that it is art. I do not necessarily jump to the conclusion that the area must be riddled with crime. I believe that street art enhances the area and shows the talent that some individuals have. I have seen graffiti in both more affluent and poorer neighborhoods around Chicago and have not thought that it is a reflection of disorder within the community. Now this might just be because I am a sociology student, so hopefully there isn't too much bias there, but perhaps it is just me thinking as the avid art enthusiast that I am.
Chicago street art
City of Chicago graffiti removal services stating the perceived devastating effects of graffiti on a the community: http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/streets/provdrs/graffiti_blasters/svcs/mayor_daley_s_graffitiblasters.html
Paired with the broken widows theory is the assumption that disorder within a community is result of a lack of collective efficacy. Collective efficacy is defined as "...the linkage of cohesion and mutual trust among residents with a shared expectations for intervening in support of neighborhood social control" (Sampson 127). It is believed that in poor neighborhoods in physical disarray that collective efficacy is extremely low among residents, thus crime is prevalent and the community suffers. In his study Sampson's data shows a correlation between lower collective efficacy, public disorder, and predatory crimes.
I found an article that directly references Sampson's work. It entails the homicide rate in different neighborhoods in Chicago. In a larger sense, this article shows that poverty, geography, and race are all related to crime, and hints that this is why Sampson is studying it.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/December-2012-1/Homicide-Social-Efficacy-and-Poverty-in-Chicago/
First off I would like to say that this article was well written and put together in an orderly fashion. I too have a bit of an artsy side, hence the reason for me choosing this article. To answer your first two questions (Is this really the case? And a follow-up), I would say that yes, this really is the case. I understand your viewpoint saying that its art and doesn’t reflect negatively on the surrounding community but from what I have noticed, growing up near Detroit and traveling there quite a bit, is that the majority of street graffiti has some sort of “tag” or gang related symbols incorporated within their art. It can be very subtle at some points to where you may confuse it with an intricate art piece but in all reality, it’s a marking of territory. For example, I know that the Gratiot Park gang in my hometown uses the initials within the mouth or teeth of whatever they’re tagging. In something like a person, monster, or animal, where the teeth aren’t very visible, it just looks like a cool drawing. Another way I wanted to relate any type of street art to crime in the area is how it’s done and who its done by. Graffiti can be a hefty ticket and is seen as destruction of property. This causes the individuals who perform these tags to do them late at night when not a lot of people are out driving their cars. Now, let’s look at the age range of people tagging buildings. I would have to say 14 to 25. The reason why I chose this age range is because new members to a gang or group of hoodlums (14-18) might do it just to fit in with the older crowd. Why I cap it at 25 is because if you’re that old and still gangbanging or pushing petty crimes (like street graffiti) you’re either dead, locked up, a burnt out druggy, or they took a step back going “Shit, I gotta straighten up.” Most people within that age group have a sketchbook that they doodle in. If your neighborhood has teens and young adults running around spray painting things late at night, it shows some sort of dysfunction within that given community. To expand on a different perspective, maybe some kids are doing it to express their art, but this doesn’t exclude the fact that they aren’t still going out in late hours of the night and vandalizing a building. To sum things up, I think graffiti is a form of art and always will be but, the fact that it requires delinquent activity in order to be formed is the reason why it directly impacts the surrounding community. It shows that there are disobedient kids/young adults living there, and if they are already doing criminal activity just to express their art, what other kind of criminal acts are they associating themselves with? On a side note, some of the things they do are outrageous and look really cool, especially in the ruins of Detroit and the edge of Nashville's Broadway.
ReplyDelete