The Fair City part 5: Urban Aesthetics & Spatial Justice

Richard Sennett’s perspective on the role of “disorder” in urban life was further developed in his book The Conscience of the Eye. In this work, Sennett strengthens the relationship between urban diversity and broad political perspectives, and argues for a connection between a concern for urban spaces and concerns with social justice. Building from the Greek concept of sophrosyne or “poise,” Sennett argues that a “city ought to be a school for learning how to lead a centered life” (loc 108).

To care about what one sees in the world leads to mobilizing one’s creative powers. In the modern city, these creative powers ought to take on a particular and humane form, turning people outward. Our culture is in need of an art of exposure; this art will not make us one another’s victims, rather more balanced adults, capable of coping with and learning from complexity. (loc 117)

In On Beauty and Being Just, Elaine Scarry argues that the “willingness continually to revise one’s own location in order to place oneself in the path of beauty is the basic impulse underlying education” (loc 79). If this is the case, this notion of the educative impulse seems complementary to Sennett’s notion of the city as a school. Does not the flaneur’s traversal of Paris suggest a “willingness continually to revise one’s own location in order to place oneself in the path of beauty”? Many poets and urbanists have written about their psychogeographic explorations of the urban streetscape as affective passages through constantly shifting scenes of aesthetic beauty and urban sublimity. Many of these same writers have evinced an empathic awareness of disparity and inequality among urban denizens. Consider Baudelaire’s poem “The Eyes of the Poor,” in which a young man dines with his fiancé in a Parisian cafe. An impoverished family lingers on the street out front; they stare through the cafe’s windows, their eyes wide so as to take in the gleaming opulence inside. The woman asks the cafe attendant to send the family away, as their destitute appearance is interfering with her ability to enjoy the ambiance. Seeing her lack of empathy, the man realizes that his love for her has turned to hatred. In these examples we can see how the urban experience can cultivate a concern for both aesthetic forms and just relationships.

The examples presented in this essay also support this connection between a concern with the built environment of the city and a concern for equality and social justice. Early academic discourses of the 20th century metropolis emphasized the “artless” and chaotic of these sites, partly as a reaction to the sensory overload produced by the urban experience, but also the condition of heterogenous populations of varying ethnicities and backgrounds living in close proximity. Pathological discourses of urban populations relied on aesthetic evaluations to justify policing practices in urban communities. Often these policies adversely affected already vulnerable populations, exacerbating conditions of urban inequality. The issue of gentrification is currently a key concern facing U.S. cities. The advent of gentrification has accompanied a general “reclamation” of urban cores by affluent agencies and individuals, who are eager to revitalize blighted and disinvested neighborhoods into more aesthetically pleasing forms. These aesthetic evaluations have become increasingly significant for the governance and maintenance of urban spaces and bodies. As David Harvey states in Rebel Cities, “signature architecture and the cultivation of distinctive aesthetic judgments have become powerful constitutive elements in the politics of urban entrepreneurialism in many places” (p. 106). The pertinent question facing urban citizens, as posed by Harvey, is “whose aesthetics really count?”

References

Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. New York: Verso, 2012.

Scarry, Elaine. On Beauty and Being Just. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Sennett, Richard. The Conscience of the Eye : the Design and Social Life of Cities. 1st ed. New York: Knopf, 1990.

The Fair City part 3: Aesthetic Order & Criminal Justice

The following considers how varying aesthetic valuations of urban order and disorder have influenced U.S. urban policy. The history I trace here focuses on one salient case: the “broken windows” perspective of urban disorder and its implementation through policing practices by the New York City Police Department. Broken windows theory began as an academic discourse proposing a causal connection between visible neighborhood disorder (i.e. litter, graffiti, and the eponymous “broken windows). As such, this perspective effectively criminalized low-income and economically disinvested city communities. The perspective was enthusiastically adopted by New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who implemented a sweeping “Quality of Life” initiative in the 1990s that purported to put the broken windows principles into practice. This history is significant for the consideration of urban aesthetics and justice that is the theme of this essay. The history of the broken windows theory’s pathologizing perspective and eventual transformation into policy application demonstrates how aesthetic judgments about urban spaces have served as the foundation for regimes of policing and law enforcement.

The broken windows theory of urban disorder was a significant influence on urban sociology and criminology for decades, and the implications of its approach to disorder can be seen today. In an article titled “The Urban Unease” (1968), J.Q. Wilson reacted to the U.S. urban riots of the 1960s with a view of cities rooted in the tensions between order and disorder. In one example, Wilson suggested that “the process whereby neighborhoods […] have been formed in the large cities might be thought of as one in which order arose out of chaos to return in time to a new form of disorder” (p. 32). Wilson offers a pragmatic understanding of community buttressed by appeals to rationality, stating “concern for community” is less about the need for belonging “than the concerns of any rationally self-interested person with a normal but not compulsive interest in the environment of himself and his family” (p. 27). The behaviors inspired by rational concern for community, Wilson argues, should not be interpreted as conformity or prejudice, but rather as the development of “a range of sanctions to employ against others” in order to “regulate the external consequences of private behavior” (p. 29).

Wilson eventually developed these ideas of neighborhood disorder into the broken windows theory, first outlined in an article written with collaborator George Kelling (1982). The authors encapsulate the broken windows perspective by stating “if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken” (p. 2, emphasis in original). As with broken windows that go unrepaired, the authors argue, “’untended’ behavior also leads to the breakdown of community controls” (p. 3). Wilson and Kelling are not exclusively interested physical manifestations of disorder such as litter, graffiti, and buildings in disrepair, but present a larger argument that visible disorder (whether stemming from the built environment or from individuals inhabiting it), if left unchecked, will spread throughout a neighborhood. In the broken windows article, the “urban unease” of Wilson’s earlier essay develops from a general anxiety into pronounced fear. Wilson and Kelling  posit a connection between disorderliness, fear, and crime. Visible disorder on the streets will cause neighborhood residents to “think that crime, especially violent crime, is on the rise, and they will modify their behavior accordingly” (p. 3). As a response to this fear of crime, they argue, “people avoid one another, weakening controls” (p. 4) and allowing the spread of disorder. The avoidance of others and the neglect of disorder in the neighborhood necessitate intervention from outside of the community, and for Wilson and Kelling that intervention must come from the police, as the authors state that “[although] citizens can do a great deal, the police are plainly the key to order-maintenance” (p. 9).

Prashan Ranasinghe has persuasively argued that Jane Jacobs’ writing on urban space and city life significantly influenced the development of Wilson and Kelling’s theory. In tracing an intellectual history of how Jacobs’ ideas have “traveled” across scholarly and policy discourses, Ranasinghe cites an increased interest in public disorder among crimonologists in the late 1970s, after the U.S. urban race riots and shortly before the appearance of broken windows theory. Concern with visible disorder had previously appeared in other scholarly theories and texts, including Jacobs’ landmark book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Jacobs emphasized the importance of both interpersonal connection and a plentitude of strangers in contributing to the safety of a neighborhood. The presence of diverse groups of people on the sidewalks, and thus “eyes and ears on the street,” contributes to a culture of “casual surveillance” that discourages visible disorder and criminal activity, increasing both the perceived and actual safety of the neighborhood. Jacobs’ notions of “casual surveillance” and the self-regulating activities among community members have significant parallels with Wilson and Kelling’s theories of  Indeed, Kelling has said that his interest in studying disorderly behavior and conditions was directly inspired by reading Jacobs’ book, and stated in correspondence with Ranasinghe that “Broken Window[s] stands in a historical train of thought, the indebtedness of which to Jacobs becomes more clear over time” (p. 69). In Ranasinghe’s analysis, the “fundamental point of departure between Jacobs and Wilson and Kelling revolves around the reclamation of civility” (p. 74). As mentioned before, Wilson and Kelling considered police to be “the key to order maintenance,” capable of implementing the necessary sanctions and interventions beyond the capabilities of neighborhood residents. Jacobs presents a counter perspective in Death and Life, writing: “No amount of police can enforce civilization where the normal, casual enforcement of it has broken down” (p. 40).

Wilson and Kelling’s broken windows article proved very influential, and is credited with inspiring the implementation of policing practices implemented in cities throughout the United States. These policing programs have been referred to as “broken windows policing,” “zero tolerance policing,” and also, using Wilson and Kelling’s preferred term, “order maintenance policing”. In the 1990s, order maintenance policies based on broken windows theory were implemented by the New York City Police Department under police commissioner William Bratton and mayor Rudolph Giuliani. These policies were adopted as part of the city’s broader “Quality of Life” initiatives. During this period crime rates in the city decreased, and New York gained a reputation as one of the safest large cities in the country. 

In a 1998 address titled “The Next Phase of Quality of Life: Creating a More Civil Society,” mayor Giuliani praised the benefits of broken windows theory and zero tolerance policing, saying “broken windows theory works”. Describing the theory as the view that “the little things matter,” Giuliani called broken windows theory “an integral part of our law enforcement strategy”. As an illustration of the policy’s effectiveness, Giuliani relayed an anecdote wherein NYPD officers saw a man “acting suspiciously,” then followed the man “for a time” until they witnessed him “recklessly jaywalking”. After serving the man a summons for the jaywalking offense, the officers learned that the man was wanted in connection with several robberies. This story, Giuliani says, is representative of the “continuum of disorder”:

People who insist on romanticizing the disorder of the past should realize that the reason they have the luxury of this nostalgia is that today things have improved. We didn’t become the City people most want to live in and visit by encouraging an atmosphere of disorder and disrespect for the rights of others. […] There’s a continuum of disorder. Obviously, murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes. But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.

Bernard Harcourt has been among the most vocal and persistent critics of broken windows theory. His book Illusion of Order (2001) presents a sustained refutation of the theory’s empirical underpinnings, application in policy initiatives, and ideological implications. Harcourt calls the empirical support for the success of broken windows policing into question, and suggests that factors other than policing practices were responsible for New York City’s crime drop. Harcourt’s theoretical critique of broken windows is explicitly Foucauldian, highlighting the problems of subject creation. The broken windows approach, Harcourt suggests, “fails to pay enough attention to the ways that social meaning may construct the subject and to how our understanding of the subject fosters certain disciplinary strategies” (p. 180). More recently, the broken windows approach and zero tolerance policing have been heavily criticized in relation to the NYPD’s controversial “stop and frisk” policy, and the 2014 death of Eric Garner during an encounter with NYPD officers.

The preceding history of broken windows policing is presented to demonstrate a connection between urban aesthetics and justice. This example shows how the privileging of certain aesthetic attributes over others has been used as the basis for policing and criminalizing urban populations. The era of the Giuliani mayoral administration is popularly associated with the “Disneyfication” of New York City, a range of transformations exemplified by the removal of sex shops and “red light district” elements from Times Square, and their replacement by corporate entertainment and retail centers. A less well known but equally significant outcome of these  policies was the aggressive removal of homeless people from the public spaces in Manhattan. The “quality of life” and “zero tolerance” initiatives were deployed to systematically eliminate visible homelessness, a condition that was rhetorically equated with “visible disorder.” The connection between removing certain pathologized populations in the pursuit of a more aesthetically pleasing city is further demonstrated by the current trend of gentrification and displacement in U.S. cities.

References

Ranasinghe, Prashan. Jane Jacobs’ Framing of Public Disorder and Its Relation to the ‘broken Windows’ Theory. Theoretical criminology 16, no. 1 (2012): 63–84.

Wilson, J.Q. (1968). The urban unease: Community vs. city. The Public Interest, 12 (Summer), 25-39.

Wilson, J.Q. & Kelling, G.L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29-38. PDF version retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/304465/

Wilson, J.Q. & Kelling, G.L. (2006). A quarter century of broken windows. The American Interest, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.the-american-interest.com/2006/09/01/a-quarter-century-of-broken-windows/

The Fair City part 2: Aesthetics of Urban Order and Disorder

Urban agglomerations have taken many forms and been understood in a variety of ways, but density and difference have long been understood as definitive aspects of cities. From the earliest urban settlements and historical cities, the urban condition has been contrasted with rural settlements as sites of man-made chaos opposed to natural harmony. In his classic historical survey of urban settlements, The City in History (1961), Lewis Mumford thusly describes the functions and effects of early cities:

If early man had deliberately sought to break through the isolations and encystments of a too-stabilized community, set in its ways and reluctant to break into its happy routines, he could hardly have devised a better answer to that problem than the city. The very growth of the city depended on bringing in food, raw materials, skills, and men from other communities either by conquest or trade. In doing this the city multiplied the opportunities for psychological shock and stimulus. (p. 96)

Mumford traces the development from early, “organically” developed Greek cities to more structured Hellenistic cities, a process Mumford describes as a transition “from supple ‘disorder’ to regimented elegance” (p. 190). This new type of urban settlement was characterized by practices evocative of contemporary urban planning, including the imposition of geometric order, the use of surveying, and the application of a gridiron design plan. These new “orderly” aspects of the physical form of cities were enabled by technological advancements, and enabled further cultural developments such as libraries and museums. “Without system and order,” writes Mumford, “no one could have utilized these vast accumulations of economic and intellectual capital, unless justice and love had altered the whole scheme of distribution” (p. 199).

When the social scientific studies of cities developed as an academic discipline in the 20th century, disorder reemerged as a constitutive component of city life. Cities were still defined by density and difference, but there were new concerns about disorder among urban populations. This was evident in some of the early writings on modern cities. Georg Simmel (1903/2002) made sense of encounters and relationships in the modern city at the start of the 20th century in the classic essay “The Metropolis and Mental Life”. Similarly to how Mumford characterized the psychological experience of ancient cities, Simmel describes the experience of the modern metropolis as “the intensification of emotional life due to the swift and continuous shift of external and internal stimuli” (p. 11).

Many of the foundational authors in the field of urban sociology were scholars associated with the Chicago School of sociologists. Louis Wirth, one of these sociologists affiliated with the University of Chicago, penned an influential essay called “Urbanism as a Way of Life” (1938). In this essay, Wirth develops a sociological definition of the city that presages Richard Sennett’s valorization of the generative aspect of difference encountered in urban spaces. The city, Wirth argues, does not merely tolerate individual differences but rewards them, and cities have thusly “brought together people from the ends of the earth because they are different and thus useful to one another” (p. 10).

In another foundational essay of urbanism by an influential Chicago School sociologist, Robert Park (1915) characterized cities as “artless” agglomeration of “visible vastness and complexity” (p. 578). Park gives particular consideration to the experience of immigrants settling in American cities, and the establishment of ethnic enclaves and racial segregation within urban areas. The moral order and mores of immigrants undergo stress “under the influences of the American environment,” Park argues, and social control “breaks down” due in part to the fact that “the effect of the urban environment is to intensify all effects of crisis” (p. 596). Park states that “certain urban neighborhoods suffer from isolation,” and refers to efforts that “have been made at different times to reconstruct and quicken the life of city neighborhoods and to bring it in touch with the larger interests of the community” (p. 581).

In contrast to these social scientific discourses of urban spaces and bodies, other writers and theorists have valorized the disorganization that characterizes both the built environments of cities as well as the relationships that develop within them. In this perspective, the “artless” and disorderly elements of cities are not problems to be solved, but rather unique elements of the urban ecosystem to be cultivated and nurtured. American urbanist Jane Jacobs is among the foremost representatives of this view, as represented by her influential writings on city life in her classic book The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961). Writing about her home neighborhood of Greenwich Village in New York, Jacobs emphasized the importance of both interpersonal connection and a plentitude of strangers in contributing to the safety of a neighborhood. The presence of diverse groups of people on the sidewalks, and thus “eyes and ears on the street,” contributes to a culture of “casual surveillance” that discourages visible disorder and criminal activity, increasing both the perceived and actual safety of the neighborhood. Jacobs privileged “organic” neighborhoods characterized by diversity not only in the physical aspects of the built environment, but also in the demographic constitution of the neighborhood’s residents.

Jacobs’ emphasis on “eyes and ears on the street,” as well as the importance of an active and vibrant street scene, have contributed to her association with “anti-automobile” rhetoric and urban development discourse. This association has been further cemented through her infamous “battle of the wills” with urban planner Robert Moses in 1960s New York City. Scott Larson has characterized the ideological struggle between Jacobs and Moses as a “fight for the city’s soul.” The automobile has become emblematic of this division, as Jacobs was particularly opposed to Moses’ plans to demolish large sections of Manhattan to accommodate the construction of a midtown expressway. Moses’ plans were ultimately foiled, and the contentious initiative has come to popularly symbolize the victory of Jacobs’ vision of community as the future of the city, over Moses’ vision of a future city designed around the car. Larson characterizes a central irony of this legacy, saying “Moses’ support for the automobilization of the country fostered the forces that propelled people and businesses out of the city centers he was attempting to save.”

David Fleming applies a rhetorical lens to analyze new urbanist discourses and their deployment of Jacobs’ writing and ideas. New urbanist practices distill Jacobs’ insights into a focus on the role of good streets and sidewalks for promoting safe neighborhood conditions, generating contact among residents, and facilitate the assimilation of children to urban life. In rhetorical terms, Fleming says, Jacobs’ ideal city is a “talkative city,” characterized by “casual conversations among diverse, non-intimate but mutually dependent strangers and acquaintances.” The intrusion of automobile traffic is seen as one of the primary impediments to fostering the kinds of safe and connected neighborhood spaces that Jacobs privileged. Fleming contrasts Jacobs’ ideas with the urban planning ideals expounded by Christopher Alexander in his book A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. Alexander offers patterns of urban design intended “to limit the intrusion of the automobile into human space.” Jacobs’ ideal talkative city and Alexander’s patterns of limited automobility have influenced discourses of new urbanism, where these concepts are employed, as Fleming notes, in explicit appeals to evoke community. In this framework, the ordered imposition of streets designed around the rationality of automobile traffic disrupts organic neighborhoods and the sense of community that are seen to produce.

The early sociological accounts of cities as sites of disorder predominated in urban studies, and influenced the emerging criminological approach to studying urban areas. The sociology and criminology of the period was concerned with diagnosing the causes of the disorder, and developed into the “social pathology” perspective. Sutherland (1945) characterized social pathology as synonymous with “social disorganization” and concerned with “a loose collection of social problems” (p. 429). “One of the persistent and perplexing problems,” Sutherland states, “has been the definition of social pathology” (p. 430). Sutherland argues that the problem of definition in social pathology is not “a mere verbal problem” but one “intricately linked to the theories of social pathology,” stating that any “definition necessarily lacks precision when theory lacks it” (p. 431). In spite of these limitations, the social pathology perspective persisted in social science and policy applications for decades. Such pathological discourses continue to impact the lives of urban populations, as will be discussed further in the subsequent section of this paper. As we shall see, these policies have often employed Jacobs’ aesthetic valorization of “organic” communities to promote further pathologizing programs.

References

Alexander, Christopher, Sara Ishikawa, and Murray Silverstein. A Pattern Language : Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Fleming, David. “The Space of Argumentation: Urban Design, Civic Discourse, and the Dream of the Good City.” Argumentation 12, no. 2 (1998): 147–166.

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Random House, 1961).

Larson, Scott. ‘Building Like Moses with Jacobs in Mind’: Contemporary Planning in New York City. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2013).

Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects. [1st ed.]. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961.

Park, Robert E. (1915). The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the city environment. The American Journal of Sociology, 20(5), 577-612.

Sutherland, E.H. (1945). Social pathology. The American Journal of Sociology, 50(6), 429-435.

Wirth, Louis. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1-24.

The Fair City part 1: Aesthetics of Urban Order and Justice

In his book The Uses of Disorder, Richard Sennett valorizes the uncontrolled events and heterogeneous populations of cities as creating environmental conditions necessary for healthy personal development and the maturation of open and engaged worldviews. Published in 1970, the then 25-year-old Sennett was writing in the immediate wake of urban riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. In the book, Sennett is primarily concerned with the negative effects of white flight from urban cores, and the proliferation of comparatively homogenous suburban developments and “gate communities”. For Sennett, encounters with the difference and “disorder” found in a thriving urban center are essential for personal development, helping citizens learn to live a balanced life and develop nuanced political views. The notion of disorder that Sennett emphasizes is directly drawn from the social pathology literature of the time. Rather than pathologizing these elements of urban life, Sennett conceptualizes diversity and difference as vital components of the urban experience. Disorder, Sennett argues, is an essential and productive element of city life.

Discourses based on a dichotomy of order and disorder have long been applied to urban spaces. Cities and citizens have been “ordered” not only through planning schemes and infrastructure, but also through public policies and discourses. Through employing the language of disorder, these discourses have functioned pathologically to conceptualize certain citizens, spaces, and practices as either harmful or beneficial. At times it is urban residents themselves that are considered “disorderly,” based on predominating perspectives of the “good city” and the “good citizen”. In other cases it is the urban environment itself that is deemed “disorderly”. Visible litter, graffiti, and buildings in disrepair are common examples of physical disorder in city spaces. Sometimes, it is the present of certain people that makes the environment disorderly, as has recently been the attitude taken toward the visibly homeless in U.S. cities.

Many notable urban theorists have expressed the importance of social justice in urban life. Authors such as Sennett, David Harvey, and Susan Fainstein have written about justice in the city as well as the search for “the just city.” In his classic book Social Justice and the City, David Harvey writes “the shaping of space which goes on in architecture and, therefore, in the city is symbolic of our aspirations, our needs, and our fears” (p. 31). This notion serves as the foundation for Harvey’s investigation into the relationship between urban development and social justice. For Harvey and related scholars, the city has served as a useful unit of analysis for both the examination of and the intervention into visible disparities and social injustice.

These two perspectives on cities, of cities as disorderly spaces and of cities as representative of social justice, are linked through their attention to aesthetic concerns. In On Beauty and Being Just, Elaine Scarry considers the etymological link between beauty and justice: fairness:

A single word, “fairness,” is used both in referring to loveliness of countenance and in referring to the ethical requirement for “being fair,” “playing fair,” and “fair distribution.” One might suppose that “fairness as an ethical principle had come not from the adjective for comely beauty but instead from the wholly distinct noun for the yearly agricultural fair, the “periodical gathering of buyers and sellers.” (loc 827)

A key constituent of both notions of fairness, Scarry notes, is symmetry. She cites John Rawls’ definition of fairness as “symmetry of everyone’s relations to each other” to further emphasize this connection. Balance and symmetrical distribution is an ideal for both aesthetic beauty and social justice. Cities have often served as sites where social inequality is made visible, as unequal development and distribution of resources is set in stone. This essay argues that this link between aesthetic awareness and social justice is an important aspect of the urban experience, and that cities are particularly adept environments for cultivating both values.

The first section of this essay focuses on scholarly discourses of the city and how they influenced regimes of urban planning and governance. Particular attention is paid to the social scientific approaches developed in the early 20th century that developed into the “social pathology” perspective of U.S. sociology and political administration. The second section presents a case study of the “broken windows perspective” in urban studies and governance. This case demonstrates how aesthetic evaluations have served to promote regimes of urban policing and criminal justice. The third section considers the current trend in U.S. cities of gentrification and displacement as it relates to these concerns with urban aesthetics and social justice.

References

Fainstein, Susan S. The Just City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010.

Harvey, David. Social Justice and the City. REV - Revised. Vol. 1. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2009.

Sennett, Richard. The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity & City Life. [1st ed.]. New York: Knopf, 1970.

Scarry, Elaine. On Beauty and Being Just. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1999.

Trump and the rhetoric of urban order

I rarely weigh in on national politics on this blog, and this post is not intended as an endorsement or a denunciation of any candidate. Although this post responds to recent remarks made by Donald Trump, I'm not interested in joining the pile-on critiquing his overall rhetorical style or campaign message, which seems overly easy and even superfluous at this point. Rather I want to focus on Trump's comments at the first one-on-one presidential debate last week regarding "law and order" and the "stop and frisk" program. These are topics I've thought and written about in regards to the use of "urban disorder" rhetoric in U.S. policy and policing practices. Trump's positioning himself as the "law and order candidate" and his appeals based on unruly "inner city" conditions recalls previous campaign rhetoric such as Nixon's 1968 campaign (see the above video). Furthermore, his support of "stop and frisk" policing directly ties his statements to a history of U.S. urban policies based on an order/disorder dichotomy.

Discourses based on a dichotomy of order and disorder have long been applied to urban spaces. In his classic historical survey of urban settlements, The City in History (1961), Lewis Mumford traced the development from early, “organically” developed Greek cities to more structured Hellenistic cities. Mumford describes this process as a transition “from supple ‘disorder’ to regimented elegance” (p. 190). A 2016 opera titled A Marvelous Order centers on the ideological struggle between urbanist Jane Jacobs and mayor Robert Moses in 1960s New York City. This battle of wills between Jacobs and Moses is seen by many to be emblematic of a historical opposition between urban planning schemes designed to order and regiment city spaces and populations, and the disorderly and unplanned activities and interactions that have long been characteristic of city life.

Cities and citizens have been “ordered” not only through planning schemes and infrastructure, but also through public policies and discourses. One aspect of my research focuses on how the term “disorder” has been employed across various discourses and analyses of U.S. cities, and how these discourses have influenced or supported policies of urban development. Through employing the language of disorder, these discourses have functioned pathologically to conceptualize certain citizens, spaces, and practices as either harmful or beneficial. 

Writers such as George Simmel, Robert Park, and Louis Wirth wrote about the turn-of-the-century American metropolis as a site of sensory overload and radical diversity. Disorder in these accounts was variously understood as criminal behavior, unregulated or unruly spaces, and perceived failures of integration and communication among different ethnic groups. Park in particular was concerned with broader problems posed by isolated ethnic enclaves and the weakening of social ties among city dwellers, as evinced in his analyses of immigrants and African Americans in U.S. cities. The sociology and criminology of the period was concerned with diagnosing and remedying the causes of disorder, and this diagnostic approach developed into the “social pathology” perspective. 

In his infamous report “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” then Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1965) applied the social pathology perspective to theorize race relations in U.S. urban communities. Family structure was prioritized in Moynihan’s analysis, claiming that at “the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family” (p. 6). Moynihan emphasized incidences of unmarried and divorced women, “illegitimate” births, and the number of women-headed households to support his claim that “the family structure of lower class Negroes is highly unstable” (p. 7). Throughout the report, Moynihan refers to a “tangle of pathology” in which black women and children are ensnared, leading to the dissolution of families and thus the increase of violence and disorder in urban centers.

The Moynihan report has been cited as an important influence on the domestic programs enacted under President Lyndon Johnson, initiatives collectively known as The Great Society project. These programs focused on poverty and racial injustice, and also involved urban renewal and redevelopment efforts. Johnson outlined his vision of the Great Society in his 1964 commencement address at the University of Michigan. The Great Society, Johnson said, “demands an end to poverty and racial injustice,” and “is a challenge constantly renewed.” Johnson placed the state of urban America at the forefront of his Great Society vision, saying “our societies will never be great until our cities are great.”

In response to the urban race riots that occurred in several U.S. cities throughout the 1960s, President Johnson commissioned a working committee called the National Commission on Civil Disorders. The commission is also known as the Kerner commission, after Otto Kerner, chair of the commission and then governor of Illinois. Johnson directed the commission members to answer three questions in relation to the riots (Kerner, 1967, p. 1): What happened? Why did it happen? What can be done to prevent it from happening again? In their report, the authors referred to the riots that occurred in Detroit during the summer of 1967, stating that the riots “again brought racial disorders to American cities, and with them shock, fear, and bewilderment to the Nation” (p. 1). One of the report’s best-known statements is that the nation “is moving toward two societies, one black, one white,” and that the recent race riots had “quickened the movement and deepened the division” (p. 1). 

In the recommendations section of the Kerner report, the authors dedicate a section to the issue of housing. In addition to calling for provisions for affordable housing in cities, the authors recommend against the further building of high-density “slum” housing projects. The building of such housing projects represent further attempts to impose rational order onto what were seen as chaotic and disorderly spaces, as seen in the modernist urban planning schemes of the 20th century. This philosophy of architecture and urban design is exemplified by the work of modernist designer Le Corbusier. The architect of the infamous Pruitt-Igoe public housing project built in St. Louis in the 1950s was directly inspired by Le Corbusier’s architectural style and philosophy. 

While the modernist housing aspirations embodied in the Pruitt-Igoe project ended with collapsed walls and broken windows, students of urban life in America were soon preoccupied with broken windows of another sort. The broken windows theory of urban disorder was a significant influence on urban sociology and criminology for decades, and the implications of its approach to disorder can be seen today. In an article titled “The Urban Unease” (1968), J.Q. Wilson reacted to the U.S. urban riots of the 1960s with a view of cities rooted in the tensions between order and disorder.

Wilson eventually developed these ideas of neighborhood disorder into the broken windows theory, first outlined in an article written with collaborator George Kelling (1982). The authors encapsulate the broken windows perspective by stating “if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken” (p. 2, emphasis in original). As with broken windows that go unrepaired, the authors argue, “’untended’ behavior also leads to the breakdown of community controls” (p. 3). Wilson and Kelling are not exclusively interested physical manifestations of disorder such as litter, graffiti, and buildings in disrepair, but present a larger argument that visible disorder (whether stemming from the built environment or from individuals inhabiting it), if left unchecked, will spread throughout a neighborhood.

Wilson and Kelling’s broken windows article proved very influential, and is credited with inspiring the implementation of policing practices implemented in cities throughout the United States. These policing programs have been referred to as “broken windows policing,” “zero tolerance policing,” and also, using Wilson and Kelling’s preferred term, “order maintenance policing”. In the 1990s, order maintenance policies based on broken windows theory were implemented by the New York City Police Department under police commissioner William Bratton and mayor Rudolph Giuliani. These policies were adopted as part of the city’s broader “Quality of Life” initiatives. During this period crime rates in the city decreased, and New York gained a reputation as one of the safest large cities in the country. In a 1998 address titled “The Next Phase of Quality of Life: Creating a More Civil Society,” mayor Giuliani praised the benefits of broken windows theory and zero tolerance policing, saying “broken windows theory works”. Describing the theory as the view that “the little things matter,” Giuliani called broken windows theory “an integral part of our law enforcement strategy”.

Trump's deployment of disorder discourses, and his appeals to the virtues of stop and frisk policing, recalls this history in starkly similar ways. A recent Trump campaign mailer includes a close up of Hillary Clinton's face juxtaposed against images of urban disorder: a brick building with boarded-up windows, and a pile of detritus including splinters of wood and chunks of concrete. The reverse side bears the message: "Donald Trump will strengthen our communities and protect our families. The first step is rebuilding, revitalizing, and reigniting our cities - like yours." In light of the epidemic violence in the historically segregated areas of Chicago (which Mr. Trump is correct to emphasize), and the recent and ongoing protests against police violence in cities such as Ferguson and across the country, these appeals should be considered within the context of the history of disorder discourses in U.S. urban policy. Much of the strain between vulnerable urban populations and police officers evident today can be seen as the legacy of policing practices instituted under the support of these discourses. With the urban unrest of the 1960s being evoked in political rhetoric and recalled in televised images of protests, we should consider carefully what is being promoted with calls to "reignite" our cities.