Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:19:43.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Civility, Community Cohesion and Antisocial Behaviour: Policy and Social Harmony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2012

JON BANNISTER  and
ANTHONY O'SULLIVAN
JON BANNISTER
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, 25 Bute Gardens, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8RS email: [email protected]
ANTHONY O'SULLIVAN
Affiliation:
School of Social and Political Sciences, 25 Bute Gardens, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8RS email: AnthonyO'[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intergroup conflict, whether manifest as the absence of community cohesion or as the presence of antisocial behaviour, is an issue of international concern. In the UK, confronting the reality or perceived threat of intergroup conflict is a core feature of community cohesion and antisocial behaviour policies. To varying degrees, the frameworks underpinning these policies see the absence or breakdown of community relations as a cause of social disharmony. A key challenge for policy is therefore improvement of the quality of community relations. In this paper, we consider how government has approached this challenge. We filter our analysis through the lens of civility, which proposes that the peaceful coexistence of diverse social groups rests on the existence and maintenance of intergroup empathy and mutual respect. This proposal is supported by international research evidence on the outcomes of meaningful interactions, where these are predicated on equal group status, leading to changes in group and intergroup perceptions and behaviours (the contact hypothesis). We consider the extent to which community cohesion and anti-social behaviour policies in the UK demonstrate a coherent conception of the problem of community relations, the quality of community relations to which these policies aspire and whether the strategies deployed to address community relations seek to support civility through meaningful interaction. We find that the policy debates start from different presumptions concerning the roots of social disharmony, and this is reflected in the nature of the interventions which the community cohesion and antisocial behaviour policy frameworks support. In particular, we find that the social interaction promoted through policies in the UK is not necessarily aimed at achieving social harmony through meaningful interaction based on recognition of equal group status. We also show that these policies are based on little in the way of evidence and prior knowledge.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 91 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ADT (2006), Anti-Social Behaviour across Europe, www.adt.pt/informacao-corporativa/AntiSocialBehavioUrAcrossEurope_EN.pdfGoogle Scholar
Allport, G. W. (1954), The Nature of Prejudice, Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Anderson, R., Branislav, M., Vermeylen, G., Lyly-Yrjanainen, M. and Zigante, V. (2009), Second European Quality of Life Survey Overview, Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
Audit Commission (2006), Neighbourhood Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour: Making Places Safer through Improved Local Working, London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
Bannister, J. and Kearns, A. (2009), ‘Tolerance, respect and civility amid changing cities’, in Millie, A. (ed.), Securing Respect: Behavioural Expectations and Anti-Social Behaviour in the UK, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannister, J. and Kearns, A. (forthcoming), ‘Overcoming intolerance to young people's conduct: implications from the unintended consequences of policy in the UK’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, DOI: 10.1177/1748895812458296' following 'Justice'.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, L. and Dekker, K. (2012), ‘Social trust in urban neighbourhoods’, Urban Studies, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, L., Sautkina, E. and Kearns, A. (2011), ‘Mixed messages about mixed tenure: do reviews tell the real story?’, Housing Studies, 26: 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R. (2006), ‘The value of civility?’, Urban Studies, 43: 863–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. and Gaertner, S. L. (2001), ‘Toward reduction of prejudice: intergroup contact and social categorization’, in Brown, R. and Gaertner, S. L. (eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 451–72.Google Scholar
Broadwood, J. and Sugden, N. (2009), Building Cohesive Communities What Frontline Staff and Community Activists Need to Know, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (1999), Professional Policy Making for the 21st Century, Report by the Strategic Policy Making Team, Cabinet Office, London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2010), Building the Big Society, London: The Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Cantle, T. (2008), Community Cohesion: A New Framework for Race and Diversity, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cavanagh, B. (2007), A Review of Dispersal Power, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.Google Scholar
Chaplin, R., Flatley, J. and Smith, K. (2011), ‘Crime in England and Wales 2010/11’, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 10/11, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Clarke, A., Williams, K., Wydall, S., Gray, P., Liddle, M. and Smith, A. (2011), Describing and Assessing Interventions to Address Anti-Social Behaviour, Research Report 51, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Commission on Integration and Cohesion (2007), Our Shared Future, Wetherby: Commission on Integration and Cohesion.Google Scholar
Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2004), The End of Parallel Lives? The Report of the Community Cohesion Panel, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2008), The Government's Response to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2009), Guidance on Meaningful Interaction: How Encouraging Positive Relationships Between People Can Help Build Community Cohesion, Wetherby: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2010), Cohesion Delivery Framework Overview, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Communities and Local Government (CLG) (2012), Creating the Conditions for Integration, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Crawford, A. (2008), ‘Dispersal powers and the symbolic role of anti-social behaviour legislation’, The Modern Law Review, 71: 753–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, P. (2010) ‘Axe on charities “risks wrecking big society”’, The Guardian, 24 October.Google Scholar
Dorling, D. and Rees, P. (2003), ‘A nation still dividing: the British census and social polarisation 1971–2001’, Environment and Planning A, 37: 1287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DTZ (2007), Evidence on Integration and Cohesion: Phase Two, Wetherby: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
DTZ and Heriot-Watt University (2007), Use of Antisocial Behaviour Orders in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.Google Scholar
Evans, A., Boyle, J., Gardner, S., Hay, C. and Patterson, K. (2007), An Evaluation of Local Authority Antisocial Neighbour Noise Nuisance Services, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.Google Scholar
Flint, J. (2009), ‘Cultures, ghettos and camps: sites of exception and antagonism in the city’, Housing Studies, 24: 417–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, J., Green, S., Hunter, C., Nixon, J., Parr, S., Manning, J., Wilson, I., Pawson, H., Davidson, E. and Sanderson, D. (2007), The Impact of Local Antisocial Behaviour Strategies at the Neighbourhood Level, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.Google Scholar
Fuller, C. (2011), ‘Measuring performance in community cohesion’, in Newman, I. and Radcliffe, P. (eds.), Promoting Social Cohesion: Implications for Policy and Evaluation, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gijsberts, M., van der Meer, T. and Dagevos, J. (2011), ‘“Hunkering down” in multi- ethnic neighbourhoods? The effects of ethnic diversity on dimensions of social cohesion’, European Sociological Review, DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcr/022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, P., Norman, W., O'Sullivan, C. and Ali, R. (2011), Charm Offensive: Cultivating Civility in 21st Century Britain, London: The Young Foundation.Google Scholar
Harradine, S., Kodz, J., Lernetti, F. and Jones, B. (2004), Defining and Measuring Anti-social Behaviour, Home Office Development and Practice Report 26, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Hayton, K., Boyd, C., Campbell, M., Crawford, K., Latimer, K., Lindsay, S. and Percy, V. (2007), Evaluation of the Impact and Implementation of Community Wardens, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M. (2009), ‘Living apart, living together? The role of intergroup contact in social integration’, Proceedings of the British Academy, 162: 243–300.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M. and Brown, R. (1986), Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, S. and Tilley, N. (2011), ‘Tackling anti-social behaviour: lessons from New Labour for the Coalition Government’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11: 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Home Office (2001), Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team, London: The Home Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2003a), Building a Picture of Community Cohesion: A Guide for Local Authorities and their Partners, London: The Community Cohesion Unit.Google Scholar
Home Office (2003b), Respect and Responsibility – Taking a Stand Against Anti- Social Behaviour, Norwich: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2005), Community Cohesion: SEVEN STEPS A Practitioner's Toolkit, London: The Home Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2011), More Effective Responses to Antisocial Behaviour, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2012), Putting Victims First: More Effective Responses to Antisocial Behaviour, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2007), Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour, Forty-fourth Report of Session 2006–07, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Ipsos-MORI (2007), What Works’ in Community Cohesion, Research Study Conducted for Communities and Local Government and the Commission on Integration and Cohesion, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, J. B., Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M. and Voci, A. (2005), ‘Intergroup contact: when does it work and why?’, in Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. and Rudman, L. A. (eds.), On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 278–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, J. and Heath, A. (2008), Predictors of Community Cohesion: Multi-Level Modelling of the 2005 Citizenship Survey, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Local Government Association (LGA) (2002), Guidance on Community Cohesion, London: LGA Publications.Google Scholar
Millie, A. (2008), ‘Anti-social behaviour, behavioural expectations and an urban aesthetic’, British Journal of Criminology, 48: 379–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millie, A. (2009), Anti-Social Behaviour, Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Mooney, J. and Young, J. (2006), ‘The decline in crime and the rise in anti-social behaviour’, The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 53: 397–407.Google Scholar
Musterd, S. and Van Kempen, R. (2009), ‘Segregation and housing of minority ethnic groups in Western European cities’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100: 559–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, A. (2009), What Works in Enabling Cross-Community Interactions? Perspectives on Good Policy and Practice, Wetherby: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Neilsen, I., Nyland, C., Smyth, R., Zhang, M. and Zhu, C. (2006), ‘Effects of intergroup contact on attitudes of Chinese urban residents to migrant workers’, Urban Studies, 43: 475–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, H., Davidson, E., Sosenko, F., Flint, J., Nixon, J., Casey, R. and Sanderson, D. (2009), Evaluation of Intensive Family Support Projects in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F. and Tropp, L. R. (2005), ‘Allport's intergroup contact hypothesis: its history and influence’, in Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. and Rudman, L. A. (eds.), On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 262–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliffe, P. and Newman, I. (2011), Promoting Social Cohesion: Implications for Policy and Evaluation, Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Respect Task Force (2006), Respect Action Plan, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. (2008), ‘Community cohesion and the politics of communitarianism’, in Flint, J. and Robinson, D. (eds.), Community Cohesion in Crisis? New Dimensions of Diversity and Difference, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1999), ‘Inventiveness in politics’, Economy and Society, 28: 467–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. and Newton, K. (2010), Evaluating the Quality of Society and Public Services, Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
Rubin, J., Rabinovich, L., Hallsworth, M. and Nason, E. (2006), Interventions to Reduce Anti-social Behaviour and Crime: A Review of Effectiveness and Costs, Pittsburgh: RAND.Google Scholar
Scottish Executive (2003), Putting Our Communities First, Edinburgh: TSO.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2009a), Promoting Positive Outcomes: Working Together to Prevent Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland, Volume 1, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2009b), Promoting Positive Outcomes: Working Together to Prevent Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland, Volume 1 Annexes, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2009c), Promoting Positive Outcomes: Working Together to Prevent Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland, Volume 2, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish Government (2011) Scotland's People, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Simpson, L. (2004), ‘Statistics of racial segregation: measures, evidence and policy’, Urban Studies, 41: 661–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somerville, P. (2009), ‘“The feeling's mutual”: respect as the basis for cooperative interaction’, in Millie, A. (ed.), Securing Respect: Behaviour Expectations and Anti-Social Behaviour in the UK, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 139–70.Google Scholar
Squires, P. (2008), ASBO Nation: The Criminalisation of Nuisance, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, H. (2012), ‘A Big Society needs an active state’, Policy and Politics, 40: 145–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. (2011), ‘Community organising and the Big Society: is Sail Alinsky turning in his grave?’, Voluntary Sector Review, 2: 257–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonry, M. and Bildsten, H. (2009), ‘Antisocial behaviour’, in Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and Public Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 578–98Google Scholar
Vervoort, M. (2012), ‘Ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities'social integration: weak and strong social ties examined’, Urban Studies, 49: 897–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Hirsch, A. and Simester, A. P. (2006), Incivilities: Regulating Offensive Behaviour, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Watt, N. (2012), ‘David Cameron launches £600m “Big Society” fund’, The Guardian, 4 April.Google Scholar
Wells, P. (2011), ‘Prospects for a Big Society?’, People, Place and Policy online, http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ppponline/issue_2_060711/article_5.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wacquant, L. (2008), Urban Outcasts: A Comparative Sociology of Advanced Marginality, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Wright, S. C., Brody, S. M. and Aron, A. (1996), ‘Intergroup contact: still our best hope for improving intergroup relations’, in Crandall, C. S. and Schaller, M., , M. (eds.), Social Psychology of Prejudice: Historical and Contemporary Issues, Kansas: Lewinian Press.Google Scholar