Locating Social Responsibility:
CCTV and public space
Mark Levine and John Dixon
Lancaster UniversityPsychology Department
Proximities 2007
Background
Home Office Funded StudyThey interested in ‘public’ evaluation of public order measures
Street Drinking and CCTV
We interested in implications for civic and public relations
Focused on Lancaster Town Square
DataTelephone survey (n=808) In-situ interviews (n= 59) with users of the
town square including TeenagersMothers with young childrenHomeless peopleTravellersCommercial workersElderly
Street Drinking
Exploring moral order and ‘ideological dilemmas’ of public spaceFreedom and control
Street drinking transgressing private/public distinctiontransgressing ‘free use’ of public spacetransgressing ‘valued place identity’
Locating Incivility (not public order)
Incivilities
Participants almost always orientate to the dilemmaSometimes resolved by constructing (in)admissible publics
Sometimes ‘purification’Although strong support for the ban - positions were nuanced.
Even support from street drinkersIncivility complaints + propriety recognition
CCTV Surveillance
Social Responsibility for others in public
Social psychology since 1960’sAmerican anxiety urban/city livingSociety of strangers
Interesting question as to why psychology ‘discovered’ this in the 60’s
Kitty Genovese case
The bystander effect
Group Size inhibits helpingDiffusion of responsibilityPluralistic ignoranceAudience inhibition
Arid and decontextualised research tradition
CCTV and Social Responsibility
James Bulger caseIconic imageImportant for establishment of legitimacy of CCTV
Conjunction of surveillance and social responsibility
Proliferation of CCTV systems
4.4 million cameras300 appearances per day£150-300 million per year41 cameras in Lancaster/Morecambe/EstatesFirst deployed in 1996
EffectivenessHome Office own research shows:
Good against car park crimeOK on some property crimesNot much good an any other dimension
Some ‘post-hoc’ benefits in high profile crimes
Support for CCTV systems remains high
(Although it depends on how you frame the question)
Our Research
Asked about:Attitudes to CCTV cameras in Lancaster Town Centre
Beliefs about social responsibility/welfare of others
Explored relationships between them
Findings from Survey Data
Support for CCTV high
Support for CCTV related to support for social exclusion
Strong agreement with norm to help others
Much less belief that others would help them
Stronger support for CCTV - weaker the feeling of responsibility to help others in public
J No I don't think I'd be the first person to go and try and (inaudible). Yeah I think most people now tend to keep themselves to themselves. Yeah, it would be a little bit unrealistic to expect just people to police themselves.
Int I mean do you think (inaudible) that situation would work?
J Yeah, I mean it's a sort of vicious circle isn't it, you know if you start expecting things like that [CCTV cameras] to do, take all your responsibilities for you, then it does get worse. Yeah it's hard to know really what to do. I mean it's going, but I think you've got to be a bit pragmatic to a certain extent, yeah, and just take measures you know if they look like in the short term they will do good and maybe take other measures in the longer term to, you know make people hopefully take care of each other, sort of thing but that's not something you can expect to just happen overnight and in the meantime you've perhaps got to have the cameras.
Qualifying Support for CCTV
I say a necessary evil, yeah I do really I mean, I, you know, tend to, myself I tend to believe in almost absolute freedom for everybody that everyone shouldn't really be monitored in what they do but as I say but if they do help to make places feel safer or whatever then it's hard to avoid them really to be honest.
Ideological dilemma
I think it's a two sided thing for me. If they were used for the safety and security of residents in the area and were monitored properly and consistently then you know, I wouldn't mind them, I mean I'm not a criminal so therefore I don't have to worry about cameras. It's not nice to be watched. Anyway if whether you're a criminal or whether you're not a criminal it's not nice to feel that some days you don't know he's looking at you going about your ordinary business.
Invisibility
“I'm not a criminal so therefore I don't have to worry about cameras”
Invisibility of the ‘included’
But even the ‘targets’ orientate to the dilemmaShort and Ditton (1998)Police Officer talk
Contrast with Speed Cameras
Making the invisible visibleHigh levels of support for Gatso camerasBut vocal and mainstream opposition
Top Gear/Captain Gatso/Anglegrinder Man
Here also discourses of ‘Responsibility’“Safety in the driver not the technology”
The hardening of minor infractionsSpeeding as ‘incivility’?
Technology doesn’t allow for the ‘location’ of social responsibility
Top Related