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

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.

Developing a New Conceptual Framework of Meaningful Interaction for Understanding Social Isolation and Loneliness

“…Older people living in areas perceived to have high crime, in particular antisocial behaviour, may be less likely to enjoy personal security, less able to leave their homes, and consequently have fewer opportunities for interaction (Wigfield and Alden, 2015;. Bannister and O'Sullivan (2013) reached similar conclusions about the damaging role of anti-social behaviour in relation to social cohesion, rendering people afraid to go out or visit certain places. Research findings from Sweden suggest that the cause of fear and insecurity among older people arises not only from the threat of violence and crime but also from other factors such as disease and health care crises, dependency on others, and the loss of significant others (Jakobson and Hallberg, 2005).…”

Public Spaces Protection Orders: a critical policy analysis

“…By examining the far-reaching capabilities of PSPOs, this article has suggested that these developments have created a tool whereby local councils have the potential to exclude and criminalise vulnerable groups from public spaces; based on decreasing tolerance levels towards difference and hardening perceptions of deservedness. We have demonstrated how Bannister and O'Sullivan's (2013) conceptions of civility and ASB policy have evolved following the introduction of the new legislation, by suggesting how civility is now increasingly conceptualised and enforced at a local level, without scrutiny.…”

Diversity and participation in private apartment buildings: a review of the literature

“…In Australia and elsewhere, programs and policies addressing cultural diversity have traditionally been designed for community‐scale implementation, and often have been set up to encourage interactions within and across neighbourhoods (Bannister & O'Sullivan, ). Some other programs and policies facilitate cross‐cultural exchanges across institutions such as schools, local clubs, and religious associations (Department of Communities and Local Government, ).…”