Social aspects

In this Securipedia page, the focus is on the social functions of urban objects in an urban environment. In the graphic of the Securipedia overall structure, the assumption is depicted that (potential) measures that mitigate (potential) threats have impact on the social functions of urban objects, because of the consequences for the design and accessibility of the objects and the urban environment in general.

To be able to understand how current or future security measures have an effect on the social function we need first to know what is understood by social functions of urban object in particular and of the urban environment in general. Secondly, we need to know what the mechanisms are through which safety measurements effect, positively or negatively, the social functions.

Description

To understand the concept of social functions we need to keep in mind that mobility, economic and safety are of course also social in nature. But to facilitate sense making, we have distinguished social functions as a separate category, which will be described from a sociological and a psychological perspective.

General, sociological perspective

The social function of urban property, i.e. urban objects in urban environments, is illustrated by the phrase “The city is not a business, the city is for all”. In the social sciences, especially sociology, this view is known as functionalism. Functionalists see society, and hence urban environments, as made up of inter-dependent sections (objects) which work together to fulfill the functions necessary for the survival of society as a whole. People are socialized into roles and behaviours which fulfill the needs of society. Functionalists believe that behaviour in society is structural. They believe that rules and regulations help organize relationships between members of society. Values provide general guidelines for behaviour in terms of roles and norms. These institutions of society such as the family, the economy, the educational and political systems, are major aspects of the social structure. Institutions are made up of interconnected roles or inter-related norms. For example, inter-connected roles in the institution of the family are of wife, mother, husband, father, son and daughter.

Functionalists believe that one can compare society to a living organism, in that both a society and an organism are made up of interdependent working parts (organs) and systems that must function together in order for the greater body to function. Functionalist sociologists say that the different parts of society e.g. the family, education, religion, law and order, media etc. have to be seen in terms of the contribution that they make to the functioning of the whole of society. This ‘organic analogy’ sees the different parts of society working together to form a social system in the same way that the different parts of an organism form a cohesive functioning entity.

The theory is based around a number of key concepts. First, society is viewed as a system – a collection of interdependent parts, with a tendency toward equilibrium. Second, there are functional requirements that must be met in a society for its survival (such as reproduction of the population). Third, phenomena are seen to exist because they serve a function.

General, psychological perspective

Talcott Parsons stated that “the social system is made up of the actions of individuals” [Parsons & Shills, 1976:190]. Parsons determined that each individual has expectations of the other’s action and reaction to their own behaviour, and that these expectations are derived from the accepted norms and values of the society which they inhabit [Parsons, 1961:41]. These social norms are generally accepted and agreed upon [Gingrich, 1999]. As the behaviours are repeated in more interactions and these expectations are entrenched or institutionalised a role is created.

Parsons then developed the idea of roles into collectivities of roles that complemented each other in fulfilling functions for society [Parsons, 1961:41]. Some of the roles are bound up in institutions and social structures, such as economic, educational, legal, and even gender structures. These structures are functional in the sense they assist society to operate [Gingrich, 1999], and fulfill its functional needs so that the society runs smoothly. A society where there is no conflict, where everyone knows what is expected of them, and where these expectations are constantly being met, is in a perfect state of equilibrium. The key processes for Parsons in attaining this equilibrium are socialisation and social control. Socialisation is important because it is the mechanism for transferring the accepted norms and values of a society to the individuals within the system. Perfect socialisation occurs when these norms and values are completely internalised, that is they become part of the individual’s personality [Ritzer, 1983:196. Socialisation is supported by the positive and negative sanctioning of role behaviours which do or do not meet these expectations [Cuff & Payne, 1984:46]. A punishment could be informal, such as a snigger or gossip, or more formalised through institutions such as prisons and mental institutions. If these two processes were perfect then society would become static and unchanging, and in reality this is unlikely to occur for long.

From the perspective of functionalism, one could argue that measures that mitigate (potential) threats are concerned with maintaining equilibrium of the urban system and restoring omissions in socialization (crimes), in following social norms (hooliganism), and social control.

Entry points for social aspects in security-related urban planning

• Analytical perspectives
  • Ecological perspective
  • Sociospatial perspective
  • Environmental psychology
• Critical infrastructure: Types of impact of critical infrastructure failure on citizens and society
• Citizen acceptance aspects, including practical aspects of addressing them
  • Security as a public good
  • Citizen participation
  • Community safety approach
  • Cooperative Discourse
  • Social risk perception and communication of risk (risk perception mechanisms and parts of page on risk)
  • Failure of critical services: Societal aspects
  • Critical infrastructure: Types of impact of critical infrastructure failure on citizens and society
  • Perception of (in)security
  • Local open dialogue
  • Experimental participation method

Culture aspects

Design features of urban infrastructure influence citizens’ perception of the risk that infrastructure is at, or that it is assumed to mitigate or prevent. Design features also influence the general perception of criticality of that infrastructure. These two are important aspects of security culture. While urban sociology and socially concerned urban planning have gained much insight on environments such as pleasant calming or exciting secure environments have been addressed to a far lesser extent. But there are several further reasons why it is important to consider culture aspects in urban planning:

• First, culture determines the behaviour and perception of people and thus determines the (perceived) security.
• Second, cultural behaviour can be directed by the surroundings, and thus by the result of urban planning.
• Third, the framework for urban planning is also to some extent culturally determined: Different perceptions and disputes about risk and security can be linked to competing worldviews, as they are paramount in multicultural cities: Conceptions of risk, security and solutions to security problems vary according to the organisation of political and social relations.

Entry points for culture aspects in security-related urban planning

• Overview of culture aspects
• Security culture
  • Security culture
  • Methods to determine risk aspects of the public security culture
• Civic culture
• Community safety approach
• Cultural criminology
• Social risk perception and communication of risk (risk perception mechanisms and parts of page on risk)
• Ecological perspective
• Failure of critical services: Societal aspects
• Perception of (in)security and risks