Citation
Jones, M.A. (2007), "Citizens, Cops, and Power", Policing: An International Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 330-332. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710753298
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2007, Emerald Group Publishing Limited
With the growing body of literature on community policing, one does not often see so superlative a piece of work that combines the study of political theory and policing to explore the relevance of community policing as both a philosophy and a practice. Steve Herbert utilizes a theoretical treatment to analyze a qualitative case study conducted in West Seattle to examine the role of community in local governance. In this exploration, Herbert seeks to engage the reader in asking two pivotal questions. First, should “community” be a legitimate and effective political actor with the ability to engage in community policing? Second, if the ability exists, how should the community interact with agencies of the state, such as the police? To this point, these two provocative questions have eluded significant and consistent consideration.
Herbert's begins this exploration by first discussing the terrain of community, melding both the notion of humans as not only social creatures but also as taking on the Aristotelian typology of being political creatures as well. The introductory piece goes on to further define community in three aspects, community as recovered (or thick version I), community as discovered (or thick version II), and the thin version of community where citizens are viewed as the means to an end versus being ends in themselves. Since community policing partly relies upon civic engagement and democracy at the local level, this first chapter provides this discussion on community in an effort to frame the question of whether neighborhoods truly are communities. In the end, Herbert discovers that the community he is studying does not necessarily meet the standard for thick or thin and that the analysis of the political capacity of the community deserves further attention.
In the following chapter, Herbert deals specifically with the question of political capacity. As he notes, community policing epitomizes notions of neoliberalism with the devolution of power to the local level in an effort to increase self‐determination. Therefore, communities and neighborhoods must have some level of political capacity. However, as Herbert finds, the political capability of a community largely relies upon its economic health. As a result, disadvantaged neighborhoods will have the propensity to suffer the greatest and will not prosper from a policing philosophy that has increased expectations of communal governance.
Herbert further delves into the issue examining the relationship between the police and the community, how the police structure their work, and their ultimate quest for legitimacy. The community policing philosophy stresses the need for the police to engage in co‐production with the community, solicit input from local groups, and subsequently respond to that input. Yet, as Herbert finds, the police tend to separate themselves because they are members of a politically vulnerable institution that can readily and easily endure pain from ill‐motivated activists and public officials. This separation from the public is an important mechanism of protection for the police. Therefore, the police construct themselves as a separate and powerful social group. Furthermore, Herbert finds that the police also construct community through their bureaucratic routines. As such, the state generates the community by defining what a community actually is.
In addition, as Herbert has noted, traditionally there is a resistance from the police to engage in community policing. Herbert engages the reader in a discussion of how the police have constructed a reality in which traditional police action is valorized over community action. Subsequently, the police view the community as a mere information provider and a tool at their disposal, not a partner in co‐production. As a result, this study finds that the police further separate themselves through this cultural construct because it views traditional police work as being masculine, adventurous, and full of machismo. A truly equal partnership of co‐production would involve a feminization of police work that would erode this self constructed paradigm.
Toward the latter part of the book, Herbert begins to discuss some of the findings of his qualitative study in regards to the relations between police and community. The findings indicate that in West Seattle the residents demonstrated a strong acceptance of the police and displayed and interest in working as closely as possible with officers. Furthermore, the residents viewed the police as being indispensable in making their neighborhoods safe and livable. However, Herbert also found that many citizens felt that the police's impulse towards authority is too often over emphasized and utilized unnecessarily. In this study, the community also expressed frustration with the police construction of the community. Although the community expressed an understanding for the police construction, residents frequently complained about how their complaints were distorted, ignored, or lost forever in the bureaucratic process. In short, Herbert provides this evidence to help the reader understand why it so difficult to find a way that the police‐community relationship, as an example of the state‐society relationship, can further collective and cooperative problem solving.
In the final chapter, Herbert concludes that the evidence points towards skepticism about the promise of community policing and other efforts at increased local self‐governance. Herbert states that the community cannot be expected to be a vigorous force for political action. Additionally, the community cannot relate in a simple manner to the police or any other component of the state. Therefore, Herbert ends by exclaiming that community is an ineffective tool to increase the political capacity of urban neighborhoods and improve citizen oversight of state agencies.
Herbert has done a superlative job at looking at the complex relations, both political and social, that construct the manner in which the community and the agents of the state operate. Herbert deserves praise for tackling the effectiveness of community policing from the unique angle of political theory and local governance. Yet, after reading this piece, one wonders if there is any other way from which this topic could be viewed. This book will undoubtedly be of interest to a wide variety of readers. While the book seeks to discuss the relationship between community and the police in carrying out crime control, it will also be of interest to those interested in civic engagement and local governance at the neighborhood levels.
Herbert's case study of a city that has adopted community policing provides us with some evidence that perhaps we should rethink this strategy. First, our communities may not have the political capacity or the desire to participate in efforts of local governance. Second, are police the most effective agents of the state to carry out this mission, given Herbert's findings? Additionally, the point should not be lost that Herbert identifies that political and economic actions at the macro levels of the government and social system undoubtedly have impacts on the neighborhoods at the micro levels. Subsequently, these small, localized groups will have little impact, if any, on the larger dynamics of the system. Therefore, it may be unfair for us to place this locus of responsibility upon the community. As a comment, and not a criticism, it would be interesting to explore this issue by examining a diverse set of communities composed of various backgrounds and housing types. Although the case study of West Seattle provides us with some intriguing and important findings, the results to this point are undetermined as to their universal application. Do these findings hold true within and across communities? This is work for future scholars, but Steve Herbert has taken us in a significant leap forward. In all, Herbert has built upon his previous work and his future works are much anticipated.