Order and Disorder
Most of the topics we are discussing over the previous and coming weeks describe services or amenities provided to urban residents for their benefit: parks, healthcare, schools, transit, entertainment, and the like. The services included in this week’s readings seem different: the people being policed or otherwise controlled might not regard these services as a benefit.
To what extent does this represent a new dynamic in the relationship between residents and city governments? Does it change your thinking about the increasing size and scope of urban governments? Use specific examples from the readings to illustrate your thoughts or explore your concerns.
Student Reflection 1:
The police force illustrates how the dynamic between residents and city governments balances the purposes of serving the community and also being a force of authority. For any government actions to be fully effective, they need the support of the people within its jurisdiction. For example, even with an extensive police force, crime would not be controlled in a neighborhood if it went unreported by residents. Barring government positions of appointment and cases of corruption, politicians would need to be voted into office to stay in power. The term “public servant” carries this connotation. If voters wished to express their dissent and if there were enough of them with a common opinion, it would be relatively easy to make their voices heard. Although violent and not the most effective method of doing so, riots were an opportunity for civilians to demonstrate their dissatisfaction in the form of aggression against law enforcement. As cities grow, the sheer number of people that agree or disagree on a matter becomes a key factor.
However, the flip side of this relationship is that the government is given power to yield over the citizens. Governments have the resources like funding and political connections. In large cities, it becomes more difficult for an individual to organize any movement with the rest of the population in a systematic manner, so everyone must rely on more centralized networks to connect them for communication. Using the police force as an example, local branches are centers of law enforcement that enforce the law within their communities in their own manner even as they follow state and federal laws. They hold power in maintaining order by using their personal judgement to determine what is socially acceptable.
[by an MIT student, reproduced with permission]
Student Reflection 2:
The growth and change of the concept of a “police force” reflects how the development of urban environments has created an tense relationship between conflicting interests of freedom, order, and government control. The police force is often seen as a presence for the preservation of peace and order, something that should prevent crime in a city. However, the “way” they’ve been tasked with maintaining peace, the specific function and service they’re officially mandated to do has varied significantly due to social and political pressures.
In the early stages of urban government, the police focused on the concept of “public order” by enacting a volunteer night watch, preventing animals and people from causing disorder. The modern crimefighting aspect of policing was almost Laissez-faire, with victims individually responsible for finding those responsible and “hiring” constables to recover stolen goods. In fact the initial growth of major police forces, the bureaucratization of places like Boston and Philadelphia, can be linked to growing heterogeneity and density of these urban centers. A mixing pot of unprecedented levels of population, specifically a fragmented and multicultural population, was a breeding ground for social conflicts (like the competitive arson and looting of firefighting services) and riots that a volunteer force could not handle. Bureaucratization of the police gave them the necessary support in an environment where it was becoming impossible for well meaning individuals to maintain peace as a side job, but also created a rift as policemen were seen as a different group, more separate than the local watchmen consisting of neighbors and peers. As they gained formal power and responsibility in response to the rapid growth of cities, the increased scope of government naturally began eating away at individual freedoms.
The clearest example is probably the way politicians used their newfound enforcement force to regulated alcohol during prohibition. Stuck with having the responsibility to uphold a very unpopular law, yet also facing the anger and hostility of the people they were meant to serve, many policemen were forced to be discretionary in their application of the law, somehow appeasing their superiors while doing their best to preserve goodwill with the community. Additionally, despite limited ability for police to do any thing in the majority of crimes (e.g., domestic disputes where nobody wants arrests, or preemptively stop burglaries/thefts from happening), the pressure of public opinion forced the police to focus all their energy on this sisyphean task rather than the unofficial role of providing community services.
I think the transformation of the police force from volunteer watchmen to the powerful modern pseudo-military organization of today is a sad tale of good intentions being misguided and resources invested incorrectly. As cities grew, the influx of diversity and sheer population overwhelmed a previously sustainable method of maintaining order. Bureaucracy and bigger government was created in response, which increased the peacekeeping capabilities—but also necessarily began encroaching on people’s rights, especially as the government is vulnerable to political influence (despite attempts to “keep police out of politics”). We can see this when the commissions, afraid to air uncomfortable truths, decided to direct efforts to improve public perception instead of what’s absolutely best for the city. Unfortunately it seems impossible to have both freedom and “safety” simultaneously. Any attempts to target a “good pinch” will need increased surveillance, power to the police, and government oversight, all antithetical to personal liberties. Thus the paradox and dilemma of the urban police: having grown alongside cities into a role unrecognizable from its rural roots, police somehow fail to prevent crime and appear oppressive, all because they’re measured by metrics that don’t accurately reflect their purpose of providing for the general community.
[by an MIT student, reproduced with permission]
