Locating Social Responsibility: CCTV and public space Mark Levine and John Dixon Lancaster University Psychology Department Proximities 2007.

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

Conclusion

Reframe thinking about CCTV surveillance

Social Relations in publicSafety in ‘the eyes of others’

Proximal safety rather than distal gaze of CCTV

(This is not a generic argument - viz Gatso cameras and responsibility)

Importance of ‘locating’ arguments about social responsibility