Collective Victimisation and the Threat to Public Order
| DOI | 10.1350/ijps.2008.10.4.096 |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| Author | Mark Clark |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Collective victimisation and the threat to
public order
Mark Clark
Logan Central Police Station, 11 Civic Parade, Logan Central 4117, Queensland, Australia.
Tel: +61 7 3826 1854; email: Clark.MarkB@police.qld.gov.au
Received 13 September 2007; accepted 20 January 2008
Keywords: policing public disorder, policing public order, victimisation,
human rights
Mark Clark
has served as a police officer in the
Queensland Police Service for 31 years and cur-
rently holds the rank of Inspector. He has a
background in criminal investigation, prosecu-
tions and uniform policing. He holds a Bachelor
of Science Degree in Sociology and a Master’s
Degree in Public Policy and Administration.
A
BSTRACT
The article presents, for future research, a possible
conceptual model for understanding the elements
of public order within postmodern society. It
deconstructs public order into component parts of
progressive collective victimisation, social mores
and human rights. It argues that public order may
be undermined by progressive collective victim-
isation that commences with the erosion of social
mores that support networks of understandings
within the community, and that continues until
it creates a perception of a threat to the physical
security of a defined class. It presents the view
that this victimisation process can be related to
social exclusion that precludes the individual from
self-actualisation. This continues, unless abated,
until it threatens the fundamentals of human
survival. The victimisation process, if unchecked,
creates within the excluded societal group, a
‘fight’ or ‘flight’ response. The article suggests
that future police administrators may need a
political awareness not required of their pre-
decessors, and supportive information systems to
keep the peace in the 21st century.
INTRODUCTION
The maintenance of public order in the
postmodern era may become highly prob-
lematic with increasing population density
and globalisation issues. The rapid com-
munication of any event is now possible by
use of modern communications technology
and the ability to reach people in different
geographical locations is unprecedented. A
seemingly small event may have a significant
impact on public order, not only in the
local community where it occurred, but
also internationally.
A conceptual model for understanding
the driving forces underpinning public
order may now be an imperative for effect-
ively keeping the peace. An examination of
a deconstructed collective victimisation,
inclusive of the elements of social mores,
human rights and expressive symbolism,
may provide some direction for further
research.
Minor offences, for example, may
require, when examined in a different
philosophical framework, a different poli-
cing response from the one hitherto given.
The police administrator, for example, may
be required to create a ‘narrow gate’ of toler-
ance for minor offences. This may prevent a
greater threat to public order because of the
progression of collective victimisation of a
certain class. There may be an argument
International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 10 Number 4
International Journal of Police
Science and Management,
Vol. 10 No. 4, 2008, pp. 417–433.
DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2008.10.4.096
Page 417
that a ‘wide gate’ of tolerance for minor
offences undermines public order by a pro-
gressive breakdown of social mores that
support public order.
There may also be an argument that the
collective victimisation process may operate
along a continuum that begins with the
creation of ‘separateness’ of a defined com-
munity group, resulting in the breakdown
of respect for the group to the extent that it
becomes difficult for a member of the
group to ‘self-actualise’ within the broader
community. The difficulties experienced by
the individual in the achievement of per-
sonal goals, because of social definition,
become progressive. It may be that its con-
tinuance will create a perception that the
personal safety of the individual is threat-
ened, creating a ‘fight’or ‘flight’ response.
The social mores, at this juncture, have then
broken down and the introduction of a ‘force
multiplier’ may perpetuate the fear and
‘globalise’ a ‘localised’ event.
The police administrator may have to be
more aware of the power of symbolism that
creates perceptions of victimisation in post-
modernist communities than was necessary
for his or her predecessor. Symbolism is
now communicated just as quickly by the
individual, via the use of modern techno-
logy, as by the traditional ‘force multiplier’ of
the media. The symbolism, associated with
collective victimisation, becomes a legit-
imate policing priority because of its ability
to create widespread disorder through per-
ceptions and inferences.
The police administrator, who deals spe-
cifically with the actuality of an event and
does not address negative symbolism, may
experience some disquiet within the com-
munity. The criminal investigation must
progress and be seen to do so.
However, programmes of ‘reassurance’
may be required to reinforce the social
mores that underpin social order. The com-
munication of these programmes may be
crucial to lower collective victimisation.
Social mores and public order
Social mores were recognised by Hobbes
(1660, p. XI) as manners:
BY MANNERS, I mean not mere
decency of behaviour; as how one man
should salute another, or how a man
should wash his mouth, or pick his teeth
before company, and such other points of
the small morals; but those qualities of
mankind that concern their living
together in peace and unity.
They have been more contemporaneously
recognised as ritualised or rule-based inter-
actions within the local community for
specific purposes. Innes (2000, p. 53)
argued that these rules and rituals are, in
essence, socialised cultural assumptions:
‘Competent participation in society is
dependent upon a process of socialisation
and cultural assumptions which are pre-
sumed to be shared.’
Informal understandings may also create
an atmosphere of heightened risk. Where
the community indicates a declined value
or an absence of ownership, this may reduce
or nullify informal constraints. Wilson and
Kelling (1982, p. 4) argued that a demon-
strated lack of ownership and control pro-
voked criminal activity and a breakdown of
the peace.
The communication of a declined value
was evident in the Nazi regime in its deal-
ings with the Jewish citizenry. The despoli-
ation of the Jewish community in Germany
began with political attacks upon their
status and self-esteem as German citizens. It
was followed by confiscation of their prop-
erty and then, finally, by genocide. The
isolation of the Jewish population from the
protection of social mores was the precursor
of social isolation from the protection of the
State. With the removal of all expressive
symbolism, the Jewish community was
totally removed from the concept of human
rights.
Collective victimisation and the threat to public order
Page 418
To continue reading
Request your trial