I read a column by Kathleen Parker on the broken window theory of our civilization. Usually I hate her neocon articles, but this one wasn't bad. She talked about the theory of social breakdown being similar to when windows are broken in neighborhoods. This theory evidently was popularized in 1982 by Professors James Wilson and George Kelling. When a window is broken, there is more of a tendency for vandals to break a few more windows. They may even break into the building, light fires, and become squatters. Or, if litter begins to accumulate on a sidewalk, more people leave trash, and then break-ins begin to develop. The authors then hypothesized that if you fix the window or clean up the litter, you will prevent crime. Apparently the mayor of New York put this theory to work by enforcing strictly the laws against small crimes, such as subway fare evasion. When he did that, crime significantly decreased.

The theory behind this is that humans respond to these signs as absence of caring or lack of anyone being in charge. Civility disintegrates. Kathleen, then, has extended this theory to the some of the violence we see. She says that our acceptance of profanity or some of the banality in entertainment may be what has led to some of the violence we see, such as the recent brawls we have seen here in the U.S. at sporting events.

It sounds plausible. What do you think?

Kalleh, I totally agree with this. We talk about this idea often where I work. We are very conscientious about how we keep the library's physical appearance. We also adopt this theory when dealing with discipline behaviors in my branch. We do kick people out for being too loud (after only one warning). If we let things go, they escalate very quickly. Also, many folks, once kicked out the first time, will behave appropriately when they return.

Take a look at this article. There is a great deal of literature (journal articles, news, etc) on this topic. It's also discussed (if I remember correctly) in the book _Good to Great_ by Jim Collins.

I also think it very plausible. I look at it this way. With preventing petty crimes, which occur frequently, you are demonstrating efficiency of policing fequently. The natural extension of this that the major crimes will also be handled efficiently.

BTW here is a pet peeve that I have. (Hang on, you'll see its relevance). I used to merge onto a stop and go highway immediately. I became annoyed at the number of drivers that would zoom along the merge lane to the last possible moment before merging. Now I do the same. But I have noticed now that more and more drivers are going along the shoulder.

I call it the penguin theory. Here's why. In the Antarctic the penguins would crowd towards the edge of a ice flow. They jostle each other until one falls in. They wait and see if the penguin reappears. If it does, then it means that the water is safe to enter and all of the rest of the penguins dive in. I think petty crime is like that. If you see someone get away with a petty crime or some sort of antisocial behaviour, you are more likely to do that behaviour yourself.

I've been biting my virtual tongue on this, but now I must chime in. Yes, bandaid social responsibility does work in the short term. If you are looking for cosmetic solutions instead of real ones.

Over 18 million Americans will go to bed hungry tonight. Good table manners make create a more civilized dining atmosphere at your local restaurant but they won't fill hungry bellies, stave off malnutrition, or increase attention spans of hungry children.

Nearly 22 million Americans are illiterate or semi-literate. Kicking miscreants out of the library is necessary, and I agree. Nevertheless it will not assuage the despair that comes with being unable to read in a society which places such high value on the printed word and the ability to express oneself with writing. It also won't deal with an unrelated problem -- cold, lonely homeless people who view the library as a haven but often do not have the social behavior required for such places.

Nearly 30 million American workers put in more than 40 hours a week at jobs that pay minimum wage with no benefits of any kind. They raise their families in squalor with inadequate food, clothing, heat, etc. Their anger and rage, which too often explodes, may be somewhat appeased with a downgrading of violent images on TV, but only temporarily. They and their children will still be cold, hungry, lacking in medical care, and living in fear because of the violence and rapine in their neighborhood.

Canada has more guns per capita than we do. The hunting culture so widely touted by the NRA here in America is far more pervasive in Canada. And yet they have nothing approaching the level of gun violence we have here. Many Europeans are addicted to movies filled with violence and sexual imagery. In many other countries, materials which we call pornographic are readily available to all members of society. Secular humanism is on the rise, with some nations reporting over 80% of their population claiming no religious affiliation. And yet, their levels of violent crimes against person and property are amazingly lower than ours. I don't think it is because they police small crimes more than we, or because they have lower levels of banal entertainment.

I do think it is because they do not live in a culture of fear for starters. We have a steady diet of doom doom gloom despair on our news. I also think it is because social welfare programs have a much higher priority in those countries than they do here. We put war first, everything else second, and food and health care last. This is what creates an angry and violent society: fear of hunger, fear of job loss, fear of disease, fear of violence.

I will now climb down off my soap box.

It sounds plausible. What do you think?

What do plausability and reality have to do with one another? Have the death penalty and the three strikes laws emptied our prisons? If amputating a hand for robbery is such a good deterrent why are there any robberies in Saudi Arabia? If marriage is a sacred institution and over half of Americans are Christians, why is the divorce rate so high? Why do people need a drivers license and insurance to drive a car, but (in some states) don't even need a blood test to get married or cohabit? What is the value of rhetorical questions?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jo:
I will now climb down off my soap box.

---

No, stay up there, jo. I agree with everything you said. There are no simple answers to the causes of crime or the lack of personal and social responsibility, but poverty, illiteracy, and greed certainly have something to do with them.

Tinman

What do plausability and reality have to do with one another

jheem, one of the definitions for "plausible" is "likely;" that's how I meant it. Is the theory likely to be true? New York City does say it is realistic, though I did wonder about their conclusions. When you are talking about situations as complex as this, there are a number of variables. It is too simplistic to merely attribute the drop in crime to enforcing subway fare evasion, I think.

Yet, I do think the theory has some validity. Of course Jo is right that there are many very complex causes and many ways our society neglects them, though I am not quite as negative as Jo is. And, I am the first to say that capital punishment is unethical and has never been shown to work in any way.

However, that doesn't mean that attending to a disintegrating community (or civility or whatever) can't do something to prevent futher crime.

Kalleh, I never meant that there wouldn't be improvements by attending to neglected communities. There is nothing more horrible than living in a building that leaks, has infestation, poor wiring, and bad heat. Children raised in these kind of conditions come to believe that they have little or no value. The same goes for children who are forced to attend poorly maintained and supplied schools.

I am not negative. Actually, I am very positive. I believe that people are basically good, and that if given half a chance will be kind and responsive to one another.

I just have profound objections to neocon simplistic solutions to serious confounding problems. It merely seems to me that articles like Kathleen's lead people to abrogate their very real responsibility to help enhance the quality of life for their neighbors with the substitution of quick fixes that are cosmetic at best.

I just have profound objections to neocon simplistic solutions to serious confounding problems.

Kathleen Parker is a neocon, I agree. However, my point was not that this is the entire solution, but that it could possibly make a difference. Perhaps I am wrong, though.

Michael Moore suggests that the USA is a frightened country and that this is one of the reasons for its levels of such things as gun crime.

I was in Florida last week and went to the Kennedy Space Centre. Before we were allowed in we had to go through the same levels of security as would have been that case had we been boarding and aircraft. People with small penknives (mine that I always carry has a blade less than two inches long) were made to return them to their vehicles before they were allowed in. All of use had our bags X-rayed and I was body searched. Everyone's bags were searched as well as being X-rayed and I had to switch on all my appliances such as my camera. We were, incidentally, a private party of travel agents, all arriving together in a private bus.

Now come on - was this reasonable? Was one of us going to try to hijack a space shuttle with a penknife? Did we, maybe, intend to try to kidnap an astronaut with the same penknife - in front of a crowd of a hundred fellow-visitors?

If that level of security is not the over-reaction of a frightened society I'd like to know what it is!

I found this silly quote interesting, and thought of this thread:

"Fear can sometimes be a useful emotion. For instance, let's say you're an astronaut on the moon and you fear that your partner has been turned into Dracula. The next time he goes out for the moon pieces, wham!, you just slam the door behind him and blast off. He might call you on the radio and say he's not Dracula, but you just say, 'Think again, bat man.'"
-- Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts], Recurring Saturday Night Live comedy bit