Little attention, however, has been paid to the interactional dynamics of the fear-driven encounter. The dominant approach employed by fear-of-crime researchers has been to measure the intrapersonal levels of fear found in survey respondents. Over the past two decades, investigators have generated a large body of findings regarding the relationship between social status and fear. This research has demonstrated that fear is highest among the elderly, women, urban dwellers, nonwhites, and the poor (see Liska, Sanchirico, and Reed 1988; St. John and Heald-Moore 1996; Warr 1984, 1985; Yin 1982, 1985).
Other investigators have examined the manner in which fear of crime affects the lives of individuals. Research on the human consequences of fear of crime have mainly focused on the extent to which fear drives people to avoid certain situations or areas perceived to be dangerous (e.g., Liska, Sanchirico, and Reed 1988; Skogan and Maxfield 1981) or the ways in which people develop protective measures to guard against victimization (e.g., Bankston and Thompson 1989; Wright 1991). The fearful individual has been largely seen as one who, to a greater or lesser extent, avoids undesirable social interaction or devises protective strategies to lower the probability of victimization.
But avoiding undesirable interaction is not always possible. In the real world, pedestrians are often confronted with situations and people that seem dangerous. The fear that sometimes results when strangers meet in public places can have a variety of consequences. The fearful pedestrian may choose to simply exit the interaction or to employ some sort of strategic behavior to reduce feelings of vulnerability. A recent ethnographic account of pedestrian behavior, in fact, demonstrates that strangers will often actively collaborate to restore order after a violation of personal space has taken place (Wolfinger 1995). Often, however, interaction between strangers is much more problematic.
Negotiating public spaces is particularly problematic when pedestrians encounter social types who represent a potential threat or danger. Survey research shows that the majority of residents in major cities do, indeed, routinely encounter people whom they perceive to be dangerous (Kelling and Coles 1994). A widespread belief in the existence of a dangerous class of city dwellers, who are responsible for most of the crime and disorder in our urban centers, dates back to the nineteenth century (Monkkonen 1988). Public disorder as a social problem continues to play a prominent role in contemporary critiques of city life. Some of the city streets of our nation are often portrayed as virtually unnavigable due to the presence of "aggressive panhandlers, disheveled vagrants, and rude teenagers" (e.g., Kelling and Coles 1996, xiv).
As history has shown, however, men do not need to display any overt signs of aggression or criminality to signal danger to their audiences. The mere presence of gatherings of black or Latino males may be regarded as a symbol of public disorder (Anderson 1990; Bourgois 1990. The need to control these threatening populations has been a recurrent concern among city planners and policy makers. The Greaser Law of 1856, for example, was an antivagrancy statute meant to restrict Mexican immigrants to labor camps and to keep them off the public streets (Shorris 1992). More recently, legislators have worked to resurrect loitering laws by drafting order-maintenance legislation that targets specific public behaviors such as begging, lying down, obstructing pedestrian traffic, or threatening or intimidating pedestrians (Kelling and Coles 1996).
For many black and Latino men, the awareness that their mere presence represents potential danger to others may be a common experience. For these men, that recognition may have a variety of consequences. One effect of being publicly treated as dangerous is that a temporary yet compelling label may be affixed by the fearful onto the feared. Labeling theorists have argued that formal reactions to deviant behavior have the unanticipated consequence of creating the very behavior they were meant to prevent (Lilly, Cullen, and Ball 1995). Labels are compelling forces because they are not only affixed to behavior, but they also attach themselves to the identities of those so labeled. According to this perspective, treating a man as a dangerous type may increase the probability that he will behave dangerously. The feared individual may, out of frustration and resentment, behave in accordance with the label, if only to "fulfill the prophecy" of those who display fear (Anderson 1990).
Similarly, treating a man as if he might be dangerous may serve to confirm his already formed perception of himself as a street predator or "badass." As Katz (1988) has argued, the badass identity must be continually reaffirmed through structured action. He must be able to "adjust the public self sensitively to situationally contingent expectations" (p. 81). It is likely, then, that expressing obvious fear to such individuals may communicate a set of expectations that the badass is more than willing to meet; frightening people is rewarding because it transcends common morality, because it reinforces reputation, and because it is fun (Katz 1988).
In the present study, I draw upon the above theoretical insights to address some of the neglected dimensions of public fear and how it is played out in social interaction. Based on my ethnographic research in a predominantly Latino urban neighborhood, I will discuss some of the forms that fearful behavior takes. I will argue that when one pedestrian fears another, the fearful pedestrian sometimes communicates feelings of vulnerability by using overt avoidance techniques or by acting demonstratively cautious. When actors communicate fear through pure avoidance or demonstrative caution, the feared individual may respond by acting in a threatening or dangerous manner. One of the hidden costs of fear, then, is that it may be self-fulfilling. I will not argue that fearful people are to blame for their own victimization. Frightened people do not create predators through simply communicating fear; instead, the propensity for public harassment is not so much created by fearful behavior as it is activated by it.
In the pages that follow, I will discuss my method of research and describe the neighborhood where the observations took place. The neighborhood context must be understood because public fear was particularly high in this community due to its high crime rate and its reputation for being a dangerous place and due to ethnic prejudice and ethnic conflict. Next, I will discuss three general types of fearful behavior--pure avoidance, demonstrative caution, and assertive interaction--and describe the process through which fear-driven confrontations unfold.
METHODS
The neighborhood where I conducted my research, hereafter referred to as Chronic Town, is a predominantly Latino community located in a large suburb near Washington, D.C. I lived near Chronic Town and had informally observed public behavior there while grocery shopping at the local market. I became interested in the almost constant presence of groups of Spanish-speaking immigrant men who congregated in the parking lot of the grocery market. At first, the activities of the corner congregators seemed innocuous to me. Generally, I would see ten to fifteen men sitting or standing around having a conversation. At the same time, I knew that Chronic Town had a reputation for being a …
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
| October 01, 1998 | Vander Ven, Thomas M. |COPYRIGHT 1997 Sage Publications,
Image Credit: http://blog.latinovations.com
0 comments:
Speak up your mind
Tell us what you're thinking... !