Wake me up Inside: ASBOs

22032864 Sociology and Politics

Wake me up Inside

By Melissa Jane Knight

Do Anti-Social Behavioural Orders (ASBOs) serve as a tool of behavioural reform or do they act as an instrument of cultural reproduction?

This was my final year dissertation and was awarded 81 marks from Goldsmiths College, University of London in 2006. The statistics may have altered since then but I hope you think as I do, that the theory still very much retains its relevance.

Melissa Jane Knight 2009

+ 44 7886 116 055

[email protected]

1


‘Asbos do nothing to deal with the causes of anti-social behaviour and can distort

the work that is being done to build stronger communities. The government is

increasing the use of Asbos, despite the fact there is no evidence that they work.

Home Office figures show that more than four in 10 Asbos have been breached.’

(Asboconcern.org 2005)1

1 http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/asbowrong.html. [footnotes used for internet addresses and bibliographical references have not been counted in the word limit]

2


‘A class is defined as much by its being-perceived as by its being’

Pierre Bourdieu (1984), Distinction

Introduction

This dissertation principally deals with young people with ASBOs issued as a

consequence of deviant behaviour.

Wake me up Inside argues that for a young person (10-17 years old) an Anti-Social

Behavioural Order (ASBO) is an inappropriate form of behaviour management.

Currently holding a minimum of two years before they can be withdrawn, ASBOs

actually serve as an instrument of cultural reproduction, operating as labels that

enforce the particular subjectivity initially created within the act that permitted the

ASBO that then becomes reinforced through the everyday lived experience of being

the performer of that act.

By using exclusive methods of punitive justice, ASBOs further dissipate community

bonds. Consequently ASBOs have a high re-offending rate and therefore the anti-

social actions communities wish to stamp out seem to only work on individuals who

were never that ‘anti-social’ to begin with. More worryingly, ASBOs can deject

adolescents from cultural rites of passage - being in a gang, wearing hoods, making

noise, playing football - into an unnecessary space of criminalisation.

This is not a definitive account of how ASBOs affect all those young people issued

with them. This is a theoretical account, using the works of thinkers and drawing on

my experiences as a youth worker.

I have divided this dissertation into three main parts. Part One deals with ASBOs in

relation to government papers and legislation, official documents, and media

3


coverage, outlining what ASBOs are, what they do, the arguments both for and

against.

Part Two then deals with what ASBOs represent, questioning the term ‘anti-social’,

understanding adolescent behaviours within an interdisciplinary framework

comprising cultural-criminology, sub-cultural theory and discourse surrounding

cultural reproduction.

Part Three then offers practical ways forward, contextualised through an analysis of

what it means to discipline a young person in order to receive a genuine feeling of

punishment without witnessing further ‘anti-social’ behaviour, self-exclusion, or

rejection of the community.

4


Part One:

ASBO Legislation and Media Coverage

Since 1st April 1999, Magistrates courts have been given powers to issue Anti-Social

Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). ASBO legislation forms part of the overarching Crime

and Disorder Act 1998 that aims to locate ways to reduce overall crime and disorder

in England and Wales. The Act states a number of factors why a person may be

issued with an ASBO that surround causing ‘harassment, alarm or distress’ to a

person or people who do not live in the same home as the individual in question2.

An ASBO can be issued to an individual from as young as ten years old. If an Order

is issued, it prohibits the defendant from the actions that are brought against them.

The Order lasts for a minimum period of two years from the date issued and cannot

be withdrawn before that date unless the issuing authorities wish to do so. These

Orders are not criminal, they are civil, and are negotiated through the rules of civil

evidence. ASBOs, therefore, do not give the holder a criminal record however to

disobey them is a criminal offence. Breach of the ASBO must be clearly evidenced.

This usually sees communities filming each other, if required with local authority

owned filming equipment. Though they are civil orders, ASBOs can hold some

severe consequences. Individuals in breech of their ASBO can serve a maximum of

six months in prison and/or a fine ‘on summery conviction’ or up to five years

imprisonment and/or a fine ‘on conviction of indictment’ (Crime and Disorder Act

1998)3.

In March 2002, Parliament pushed forth some reforms on ASBOs which included

creating an ‘interim ASBO’ while the full process to obtain an ASBO proceeds; for

ASBOs to travel with the individual should they move; to extend the right to issue

Orders to Transport Police and registered social landlords; and allowing County

Courts to make Orders.

2 Crime and Disorder Act 1998: <www.opsi.gov.uk/act/act1998/98037--b.html#1> (cited 2 April 2006) 3 Crime and Disorder Act 1998: ibid

5


Local authorities and police use ASBOs as part of ‘local crime and disorder

strategies’ under the guidance that ASBOs are an appropriate form of discipline

(crimereduction.gov)4. ASBOs are not viewed by authorities as a last resort. A first

time offender can be issued with an ASBO as easily as an individual who has

threatened or intimidated the community for many years.

The Home Office outlines ASBOs are the result of much needed reform with the

main aim of ensuring the wider public do not feel powerless when faced with constant

threatening behaviour such as vandalism, violence, and intimidation. ASBOs are

therefore a public protection strategy. Official recommendations are made to issuing

courts about serving an ASBO to an individual or individuals based on complaints

made by members of the community with the clear intention of legally protecting the

safety and needs of that community.

‘The common element in all anti-social behaviour is that it represents a lack of

respect or consideration for other people. It shows a selfish inability or

unwillingness to recognise when one’s individual behaviour is offensive to

others, and a refusal to take responsibility for it.

More fundamentally it shows a failure to understand that one person’s rights

are based on the responsibilities we have towards others and towards our

families and our communities.’

(Home Office 2003:17 in Bond-Taylor 2005: 3)

Bond-Taylor (2005) understands the Government stance on antisocial behaviour

through Wilson and Kelling’s ‘broken window thesis’ (1982), the idea that if broken

windows are left unfixed, grafitti left to expand, and youths left to hang around shops,

‘crime increases, fear goes up, and people feel trapped’ (David Blunkett in Home

Office 2003, in Bond-Taylor 2005: 1). Bond-Taylor explains that the government,

however, has an inconsistent approach to anti-social behaviour, at one level positing a

stance that strong communities are ‘integral to tackling anti-social behaviour’ yet then

identifying some communities as the direct cause of anti-social behaviour, targeting

‘less affluent housing estates’ for example, giving powers to social landlords to make

4 crimereduction.gov: <www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos1>

6


moral judgements over the behaviour of tenants and individuals (Bond-Taylor 2005:

4).

‘Whilst providing new powers to tackle behaviour which is not criminal, [the

government] also strengthens control over those engaging in criminal acts, by

allowing a lower standard of proof to be used in granting an ASBO in a civil

court and allowing the admission of hearsay evidence. This has clear

implications for the administration of justice. The discretion and accountability

of those professionals engaged in newly acquired ‘policing’ roles, such as those

acting for the local authority, must therefore be scrutinised.’ (Bond-Taylor 2005:

5)

‘What makes this even more complex is that those communities with high levels

of anti-social behaviour might well be more tolerant of it, and vice versa and

therefore there must be an element of relativism to our conceptualisation of what

is anti-social.’ (Bond-Taylor 2005: 4)

Anti-social behaviour was once the concern of communities, with newspapers

reflecting a moral panic; Waiton (2006) argues: ‘Anxiety has now been

institutionalised by the political elite’ (p.3).

‘The elevation of crime and, more recently, antisocial behaviour into a political

issue has helped both reinforce the significance given to this kind of behaviour

and to frame the way social problems are understood.’ (Waiton 2006: 2)

The politicising of behaviour as a social problem began with force when the

conservative party announced in 1970 it was a party of law and order, reinforced by

Thatcher’s speech about the ‘enemy within’ (Waiton 2006: 4). Criminals - whether

trade unionists or burglars, were responsible for the denigration of society. The

victim became a symbol of societal break down, moving the crime further away from

the individual towards a crime against the state. Waiton marks 1992-1993 as the

period where young people became intensely focused on as a major threat to social

order.

‘The “violent trade union militant” was now replaced by this “persistent young

offender” as the “typical” criminal, and, as then home secretary Michael Howard

7


explained, ‘self-centred…young hoodlums’ would ‘no longer be able to use age’

as a way of hiding from the law.’’ (Waiton 2006: 6)

This is now a cross party issue. The Labour MP Frank Field’s book ‘Neighbours

from Hell: The Politics of Behaviour’ (2003) neglecting issues of housing and lack of

opportunities outlines ‘how politics had become a matter of regulating behaviour’

(Waiton 2006: 8)5. New Labour insists ‘“securing people's physical security and

freeing them from the fear of crime and disorder”’ is the ‘“greatest liberty

government can guarantee”’ (New Labour in Waiton 2006: 9); ‘Liberty was

transformed from the active freedom of individuals, to the protection given to them

by government and the police’ (Waiton 2006: ibid).

‘Imprisonment, antisocial behaviour orders and more intense forms of behaviour

management of parents and children increasingly became the political solution

offered by New Labour to these problems.’ (Waiton 2006: 10)

It is important to view ASBOs within the wider context of behaviour management

legislation. In October 2004, the government introduced compulsory parent training

for ‘chaotic families’, including ‘family behaviour contracts’ and ‘on the spot’ fines

for under sixteen’s, with parents responsible for payment, including any damage to

property perpetrated by those under the age of ten (Tempest, The Guardian, 14

February 2005). In 2005, Home Office minister Hazel Blears set aside £1.25 million

to monitor 50 anti-social ‘action areas’, threatening family evictions if their children

do not stop misbehaving (Tempest: ibid). Since these measures, the Home Office

reports decreasing figures of anti-social behaviour -‘25 per cent to 19 per cent over

the last two years’ - in government targeted ‘Trailblazer and Action Areas’6.

5 In January 2004 alone there was over a thousand articles published highlighting anti-social behaviour as a major concern for government (Waiton 2006: 1). 6 Home Office link from: <http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/> (cited 26/2/2006)

8


But are these measures the most appropriate? According to Asboconcern7, in the

second quarter of 2005 another 918 ASBOs were issued8. The total amount of

ASBOs issued currently stands at 7,356 (crimereduction.gov)9. The percentage of

those ASBOs that have been issued to young people has remained ‘a steady 43 per

cent’10 – this translates to a total of 3,165 issued to those aged between ten and 17

years old11.

In Manchester - recently coined ‘ASBO capital’ - ASBO legislation has been

administered widely, comprising one of the highest issuing rates in the country with

one in every 150 young people owning an ASBO12. British law usually protects the

identity of minors, but ASBOs work differently with some localities printing regular

ASBO-watch newsletters showing young peoples’ faces along with the reasons

administering ASBOs13. The newsletters aid public surveillance, financed by local

authorities who firmly believe the community should police itself, but consequently,

this can further damage and divide communities:

‘Naming and shaming can stigmatise whole families and communities. It can

lead to vigilante attacks. It can also, perversely, lead to asbos being seen by their

recipients as ‘a badge of honour’ - hardly an outcome that helps reduce anti-

social behaviour.’ (Asboconcern.org)14

Ben Taylor, a solicitor working full-time on ASBO cases, argues that government-

targeted Manchester encourages ASBOs to be issued without proper consideration of

the real effects these Orders have on the culture of the housing estates targeted.

Taylor explains that: ‘“Estates in Manchester are imploding because of the council’s

7 Asboconcern is a mixture of charities, professionals, trade unions, community groups, young people and others who are concerned with ASBOs ‘stigmatising vulnerable groups including children and young people, people with mental health problems or disabilities, and the homeless’. Asboconcern supports inclusive initiatives by ‘social care, youth work and justice fields’ that encourage social inclusion in ‘appropriate, just, proportionate, positive and effective’ ways, campaigning for ‘properly funded, high quality youth services and support for vulnerable people’.<http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/asboabout.html>8 Asboconcern.org.uk, figures cited 20 January 20069 crimereduction.gov.uk: <http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos2.htm> (cited 11 April 2006)10 Asboconcern.org.uk, (cited 20 February 2006)11 Figures from Asboconcern were accurate on 11 April 200612 According to a report on CBBC’s Newsround, BBC One, Tuesday 11th April 200613 It is also of concern that children and young people under the age of eighteen have their orders heard in an adult court room since the Youth Court do not own powers to hear civil proceedings see, Asboconcern.org: <http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/asbodossier.pdf>14 Asboconcern.org.uk <http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/asbowrong.html>

9


failure to listen to both sides in neighbour disputes”’ (Taylor in Weaver, The

Guardian, 14 February 2005). Arguing ASBOs are only ‘“fanning the flames of an

already difficult situation”’, Taylor believes that authorities should discourage court

intervention in disciplining anti-social behaviour, instead mediating disputes within

the community (Taylor in Weaver, 2005: ibid).

Under increasing pressure from organisations including Asboconcern and Liberty, the

Government has decided it will review the ASBOs of juveniles after the first year.

This is still inadequate to Asboconcern, who, calling for an independent review of

ASBOs, disagree that Home Office figures on decreasing anti-social behaviour justify

the damage ASBOs are causing, including the criminalisation of vulnerable young

people with learning difficulties, as well as ASBOs doing little to stop those young

people who engage in anti-social behaviour from re-offending, (citing a minimum

forty per cent breach rate).

Using information from Youth Offending Teams, preliminary research by the British

Institute for Brain Injured Children found that 1 in 3 ASBO holders under the age of

17 are considered to have ‘a diagnosed mental disorder or accepted learning

difficulty’ (Asboconcern.org)15. Currently, there is ‘no routine monitoring of ASBOs

by race or condition’ including if individuals have mental health problems:

‘In answer to a question from John McDonnell MP on 13th July 2003 asking how

many anti social behavioural orders have been made in respect to children who

suffer from (a) Tourette’s Syndrome (b) autism and (c) Asperger’s Syndrome,

the Minister [Hazel Blears] replied “Information is not collected centrally about

the characteristics of persons issued with an anti social behaviour order’

(Fletcher 2005: 4).

Hazel Blears made a similar statement in Parliament when asked about ASBOs being

issued to persons with disabilities, yet also stated: ‘We have not received any

evidence to suggest that ASBOs may disproportionately affect individuals with a

disability’ (Fletcher 2005: ibid). Panorama also investigated this danger, emphasising

15 BIBIC Link from: <http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/> cited 26/2/2006

10


how young people with psychiatric problems and/or learning difficulties are incapable

of understanding the ASBO they are breaching:

‘One is sixteen-years-old, of very low intelligence with an IQ of only 65, and

suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. His ASBO prevented

him for meeting in groups of more than three and banned him from entering

streets close to his home. Over six months he breached his ASBO twenty-four

times, each time is a criminal offence, resulting in numerous arrests and

periods in police custody. This triggered self-harming which saw him set fire

to himself in a cell and try to hang himself twice.’

(BBC Panorama, ‘Asbos on Trial’, 20th November 2005)

There are complex issues involved here. Does the law treat everyone equally or

should the law positively discriminate in order to protect the vulnerable? Thollebeek

and Baert argue equality under the law becomes impossible when ‘people can get

completely different outcomes when given the same resources’ and therefore

‘ASBOs, when implemented should take into account the context of a specific

behaviour’ (Thollebeek and Baert 2006:10).

Other media attention on ‘wacky’ ASBOs include Trevor McDonald’s ‘ASBO

Madness’ programme, which included ‘the girl with Tourette’s Syndrome whose

Asbo bans her from swearing’. Fletcher (2005) reports numerous others, including

the 15 year old who suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome banned from staring into his

neighbour’s garden, and the 10 year-old boy from Bath who committed £80,000

worth of arson related damage, banned from using matches until he turns sixteen

(Fletcher 2005:7). These extreme cases highlight ASBOs as an overall

counterproductive way of reforming behaviour.

Some broadsheet newspapers have taken a closer examination of the wider issues that

surround the ASBO holder, including the Guardian’s series on ASBOs, identifying

underlying factors which include poverty, an unstable home life, and educational

underachievement. Though media attention can add to the problem. Tabloids can

particularly heighten mass fear of youths as seen in the Mirror’s campaign to crack

down on terrorising teens, publishing numerous sensational articles on the minority of

11


dangerous young criminals and gangs. Justin Griggs, Head of Development at NALC

(National Association of Local Councils) on the role of ASBOs told the British Youth

Council that giving young people ‘good press’, sponsoring initiatives to set up local

democratic structures run by young people, as well as lowering the voting age to

sixteen, would see a dramatic shift in how young people are viewed, treated, and

behave in Britain. Griggs argues that governments and the media could do more to

disperse the negative myths that all young people are troublemakers and believes that

ASBOs do nothing to protect the rights of young people but actually serve to

disrespect them16.

Some politicians have also spoken out against ASBOs. The European Commissioner

for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil-Roblest, states: ‘It is essential…that measures to

combat behaviour be both fair and effective. It is doubtful whether the excesses of

the antisocial behaviour order and the high levels of juvenile detention achieve either

of these aims’17.

‘Youth Justice Board figures show that nearly 50 young people were in

custody for breaching an asbo in any month in 2004. That compares to an

average of three young people a month between 2000 and 2002.’

(Asboconcern.org)18

The Police Reform Act 2002 and Anti-Social Behaviour Reform Act 2003 increases

the powers of ASBOs, with additional legislation including the implementation of

CASBOs – ASBOs with a criminal conviction attached. Both Acts allow ASBOs ‘to

ban activity that is not in itself criminal, such as begging, prostitution, and even

playing football and being sarcastic’ (Asboconcern.org)19. Asboconcern explain that

issuing courts can administer ASBOs based on ‘hearsay evidence…that can

criminalise people for behaviour that is not criminal’; breech of ASBOs only

increases the number of prisoners, sometimes when ‘the original offence would not

carry a prison sentence. Around 10 young people a week are imprisoned this way’

(Asboconcern.org)20.

16 British Youth Council: <www.byc.org.uk/wsmyc-jgans.html> 17 Asboconcern <http://www.asboconcern.org.uk>18 Asboconcern <http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/asbowhat.html>19 Asboconcern: ibid20 Asboconcern: ibid

12


Though authorities insist ASBOs are working. With more than half of ASBOs being

adhered to, police explain that the high breech rate simply means officers are able to

tackle anti-social behaviour instead of being powerless when faced with badly

behaving youths; if a young person is in breach of their ASBO they can be arrested,

which immediately combats the problem (PC Pescud, in Osley 2005). Many

residents cite a reduction in anti-social behaviour from individuals issued ASBOs,

believing this also sends out messages to others that certain behaviour is

unacceptable. Awards ceremonies now take place to empower community members

who tackle anti-social behaviour. Hazel Blears recently presented ‘Respect Awards

for Taking A Stand’ that give recognition to families, couples and individuals who

stand up to those committing anti-social behaviour (Home Office 4 April 2006).

‘ASBOs make a real difference to people's lives by helping to rebuild confidence

in communities and bringing the actions of a selfish minority to task’

(Hazel Blears, Direct.gov news, 29 June 2005)

It is interesting to analyse the language the government use to regulate behaviour.

Lynn Raphael Reed and Pat Mahoney explain how war-like language is used within

the education system (‘targets’, ‘strategies’, ‘hit-squads’, and ‘action zones’) rests

heavily on an exclusive masculinity that often serves to further dislocate the

disadvantaged (Raphael Reed and Mahoney in Epstein et al 1998:56-73). ASBO

legislation resonates similar aggressive semiotics, using related rhetoric, for example

‘dispersal zones’ to describe areas where not more than three young people can be

seen together, constituting a gang, allowing authorities to break them up. In the

Home Office guidance notes on ASBOs the foreword mentions the community can

‘fight back’ and that anti-social legislation ‘is intended to help you to make the most

effective possible use of two of the most important weapons in your armoury – the

anti-social behaviour order or ASBO, and the ABC’ (John Denham MP, Home Office

2003: 4).

Aside from belligerent language, a more dangerous, pervasive, and fundamental

problem comes when ASBO discourse prohibits actions that are criminal offences

(for example punching somebody) and juxtaposes these with actions that are non-

13


criminal – such as playing football on the local green with more than three peers.

What are we teaching young people about their behaviour if the same ASBO

prohibits violent outbursts on the same plane as playing football? The discrepancy

between the two actions become blurred within the language of ASBO legislation,

sending out a confused message to the adolescent about which behaviour is

acceptable or unacceptable, and about which actions the law has control over and

which actions the individual has freedom to perform. Individuals, groups,

organisations, local agencies… should question what power lies within ASBO

discourse, who this power affects, and what are the effects of this power upon shaping

those individuals, and discuss alternatives to regulating behaviour that do not ascribe

negative and punitive forms of punishment, but actually build well-behaved and

responsible children and young people.

ASBOs serve to suggest that authorities have taken a punitive view of disciplining

behaviour without adequately looking at the consequences of ASBOs to the

development of these young people into adulthood. Part two aims to make such

recommendations.

14


‘The youth is related at any one time to the whole intricate and complex

phenomena of youth culture. He lives inside this world, is immediately part of

this world, lives out its meaning at several levels at different moments.’

(Willis 1974: 6)

15


Part Two:

anti-social behaviour as sub-social behaviour

From now on, I want to question ‘anti-social’ as an adequate term that best describes

deviant behaviours of young people, subsequently questioning ASBOs as an adequate

form of discipline, punishment, and reform. I want to put forth the argument that

‘anti-social’ behaviour is actually a product of society. This is not to shy away from

those young people engaged in deviant behaviour. Part Two considers ‘anti-social’

behaviour as a way of testing cultural boundaries between childhood and adulthood,

suggesting this can often be temporary, shifting, and fragile behaviour in conflict with

the determinism of ASBO legislation.

Sue Bond-Taylor (2005) argues authorities have failed to view ‘anti-social’ behaviour

as linked to complex cultural structures and hence ‘fail’ to achieve the ultimate goal

‘of building socially responsible communities’ (Bond-Taylor 2005:8). Since the term

‘ant-social’ assumes some form of shared beliefs, values, and norms about what is

social behaviour, Bond-Taylor necessitates a culturally-led exploration into ‘anti-

social’ behaviour.

‘The production of social norms, of moral codes and of expectations of

behaviour must be understood alongside the cultural displays of right and

wrong that societies present on a daily basis.’ (Bond-Taylor 2005: 5)

For example, through Wilson and Kelling (1982) graffiti is viewed as crime leading

to more crime, but Ferrell (2005) suggests that graffiti can also be explained through

cultural practices that involve ‘symbolic status’ (Bond-Taylor 2005:7). Bond-Taylor

explains:

16


‘…there are two elements to this – crime as culture, but also culture as crime.

Whilst certain forms of crime might be developed into cultural forms, there is

also the alternative, that deviant forms of cultural expression can be criminalised

and subject to control.’ (Taylor 2005: 5)

To view culture as crime can have some severe consequences upon how the

individual is perceived, and hence, treated. Bond-Taylor uses the recent reactions to

hooded jumpers as a clear example of how youth culture can be criminalised.

Largely perceived to be used by delinquent young people to avoid being recognised

by CCTV or members of the community, the hooded jumper has become a symbol of

criminal activity, with some public places, shopping centres and even universities

banning the garment. However, wearing a ‘hoodie’, Bond-Taylor reminds us, is also

an ‘expression of identity reflecting the culture of a generation’

(Bond-Taylor 2005: 6). To

ban something that acts as a

criminal accessory but

moreover a popular cultural expression involves an

element of control. In this context, ASBOs can act

as instruments that legitimise moral judgements, so

that when previously the law was unable to chastise

a youth group for wearing hooded jumpers outside

the local shop - now police have power to disperse

them for behaviour linked more to youth culture than criminality. Governments have

a choice in how they view adolescent behaviour and ASBOs constitute how far the

state control’s this behaviour; naming behaviour ‘anti-social’ represents ‘a social

construction which indicates the new domain of professional power and knowledge’

(Brown 2004 in Bond-Taylor 2005:5).

The Home Office has failed to issue current re-offending rates of ASBOs. This may

be to do with the disregard of ASBOs as a form of discipline. Bond-Taylor explains

that the persistence to engage in ‘anti-social’ behaviour is indicative of young people

challenging state power and that ‘punishment and control are not always interpreted

17


as undesirable’ (Bond-Taylor 2005: 7). Bond-Taylor invites us to understand the

‘sensual pleasures’ attached to owning an ASBO:

‘The imposition of an ASBO can be viewed as a symbol of belonging to a

particular group, a mark of identity. This too reflects the cultural location of such

behaviour…There is therefore a need to develop understanding of the pleasure to

be gained from deviant acts and the function that they serve within the current

cultural and economic location.’ (Bond-Taylor 2005: 7)

Albert Cohen’s ‘Delinquent boys, the culture of the gang’ (1955) is a key first-wave 21

study, introducing the term ‘sub-culture’ as an in-depth explanation into deviant

behaviour. Cohen found that those young men involved in what we now term ‘anti-

social’ behaviour were disproportionately from lower classes, had lower educational

attainment levels, living in deprived areas, with marginal career choices. Though a

major cause, Cohen found that economic factors could not solely account for

delinquent behaviour such as vandalism and intimidation, especially since not all

‘deprived’ youths are delinquent. Many of these young men were motivated by a loss

of status within the dominant culture. They instead created their own values and

attitudes – a sub-culture, and used delinquency as a way to gain status.

Delinquent behaviours are often viewed as acts of self or group exclusion, rejecting

the culture of society, but Jock Young’s work (2003) identifies that those who are

involved in anti-social behaviour actually consume more culture, not less, identifying

‘a bulimic society where massive cultural inclusion is accompanied by systematic

structural exclusion. It is a society that has both strong centrifugal and centripetal

currents: it absorbs and it rejects’ (Young, 2003: 397 in Bond-Taylor 2005: 6). This

is an important analysis, suggesting young people are engaging at the same time they

are rejecting culture, whilst highlighting the performative roles within society,

transforming the mainstream image that the state is the victim of ‘anti-social’

behaviour by highlighting how strands of society (located within one or more of the

21 From 1950s onwards a ‘mature’ approach to analysing sub-culture ensued, what the discipline now calls First Wave Sub-Cultural Theory. See also R Cloward & L Ohlin (1960) ‘Delinquency and Opportunity’ Glencoe: Free Press; JB Mays (1964) ‘Crime and Social Structure’; David Downes (1966) ‘The Delinquent Solution’ London: Routledge Kegan Paul. (Young 1998: 1)

18


economic, political and cultural spheres) can also be the accomplice or instigator to

‘anti-social’ behaviour.

People make decisions and behave according to ‘the comparisons they make’ and the

relationship between adolescent behaviour and society becomes crucial since the

individual draws comparisons from ‘structured forces’ existing within ‘a wider social

order’ (Young 1998: 8). Young argues that the social order also provides the

‘universal criteria’ from which to draw comparisons, and notes ‘a fundamental irony

is that what is seen as the most basic example of anti-social behaviour is itself a

product of the dominant values and economic pressures of conforming to society’

(Young 1998: 8):

‘The delinquent gang are not to be understood in terms of the values of an

isolated group somewhere in the ghetto: but the gang must be understood in the

ghetto and the ghetto within the culture, politics and economy of an advanced

capitalist society.’ (Young 1998: 8)

Second-wave sub-cultural theorists invite us to consider behaviour being linked in

complex ways to power and construct22. Mike Brake’s work (1980) explains youth

culture as the ‘mini-politics of rebellion against obscure social forces. From this is

created a collective symbolic identity which for a brief time during youth steps

outside the stark reality of industrial society’ (p.177), arguing that:

‘…subcultures arise as attempts to resolve collectively experienced problems

arising from contradictions in the social structure….This is nearly always a

temporary solution, and in no sense is a real material solution, but one which is

solved at the cultural level.’ (Brake 1980: vii)

22 Particularly in Britain from the 1970s the ideas of Cohen and his peers were developed into what is now referred to as Second Wave Sub-Cultural Theory, often a Marxist analysis into sub-cultural formations (Young 1998: 9). This includes the works of Mike Brake (1980) and Paul Willis (1977) used here. See also Stuart Hall et al (1978) ‘Policing the Crisis: mugging, the state, and law and order’ London: Macmillan; Philip Cohen & David Robins (1978) ‘Knuckle Sandwich: growing up in the working-class city’ Harmondsworth: Penguin; Paul Corrigan (1979) ‘Schooling the Smash Street Kids’ London: Macmillan; Dick Hebdidge (1979) ‘Subculture: The Theory of Style’ London: Methuen; Ken Pryce (1979) ‘Endless Pressure: a study of West Indian life-styles in Bristol’ Harmondsworth: Penguin.

19


From this angle, ASBOs can be extremely damaging to a young person’s

development, implementing a strong deterministic characterisation of that young

person’s identity; a determinism in conflict with adolescent subjectivity which often

is more fluid or momentary; criminalising behaviour that could instead be viewed

culturally or sub-culturally, as a reactionary phase or period23.

Though Brake explores how adolescent sub-cultures do not rest solely upon class,

occupation, or educational attainment, these factors create environments directly

linked to adolescent behaviours. Young (1998) refers to Mertonian anomic theory,

analysing ‘the disjunction between culturally induced aspirations and the structurally

limited opportunities of achieving them experienced by a particular subgroup’

(Young 1998: 5-6). Paul Willis’ ethnographic study ‘Learning to Labour’ (1977

(version used 1979)) works along similar lines, examining a number of factors

involved in how working class kids ‘let themselves’ get working class jobs.

Although Willis study makes the link between the transitions of young working class

men from the schooling system into menial labour, I want to use Willis’ conclusions

to explain how ASBOs assist cultural reproductive forces, but first let me explain

Willis’ argument.

Willis shows how male working class adolescents set themselves up for menial

careers through creating a sub-culture characterised by a mixture of deviant

behaviour and low educational attainment, rejecting education. Willis suggests there

is ‘an objective basis for these subjective feelings and cultural processes’ (Willis

1979:3) arguing deviance as a reaction to the schooling system which does not reflect

their individual, cultural or class-based interests.

What makes Willis’ argument distinct, is that though state agencies create the

structure that binds working class culture, it is ‘only on the basis of such a real

articulation with their conditions of existence that groups of working class lads come

to take a hand in their own damnation’ (Willis 1979: 3). Willis finds it is their own

culture formation - based upon the rejection of middle class values and mental labour 23 The fluidity and temporality of subjectivity is not simply the perquisite of adolescence. Harriet Bradley’s work on ‘Fractured Identities’ (1996), discusses how the modern world is now a site for many ‘selves’ within the self, signifying a shift in how individuals form their identity. Today there are numerous ways to pick and mix one’s self without having to rely heavily on any classical definitions such as class, educational attainment or occupation.

20


(Willis 1979:15), and through the acceptance of manual labour, of smoking and

drinking, and of sexist and racist attitudes as working class identity (Willis 1979:

104) - that gives these young men working class jobs.

Willis argues that labour power is crucial in cultural formation because it is the mode

of activity that constructs, connects, and reinforces beliefs and attitudes within the

world through the repetition of modes of labour. Willis observes how these young

men develop ‘a counter-school culture’ – a deviant resistance to the existing capitalist

structure, particularly school as an institution within the structure - leading to low

educational attainment, therefore, limited job prospects. Ironically these deviant

actions (playing up in class, skipping school, disrespecting teachers and

studious/conformist pupils) go on to sustain the capitalist hierarchy through forms of

cultural reproduction as Willis follows the ‘lads’ into their first six months in menial

labour working ‘the shop floor’.

‘The tragedy and the contradiction is that these forms of ‘penetration’ are

limited, distorted and turned back on themselves, often unintentionally, by

complex processes ranging from both general ideological processes and those

within the school and guidance agencies to the widespread influence of a form of

patriarchal male domination and sexism within the working class culture.’

(Willis 1979:3)

Willis’ argument could be transferred into the way a young person deals with their

ASBO. ASBOs become counterproductive since they permit a resistance that can be

created through a counter-ASBO culture that reinforces deviant behaviour instead of

rehabilitating it. The ASBO can be ‘distorted’ into representing a particular hetero-

masculinity (increasingly not gender-confined), giving the young person status (being

seen as tough or a hero). The ‘anti-social’ behaviour that led to the ASBO now

becomes a marker of their character. The young person affixes negative status to

comprise their identity and in doing so - without total awareness - actively partakes in

the construction of their life chances and conditions. What this means is that the

space where institutional agencies coerce and the individual acts becomes extremely

problematic.

21


Though reproducing conditions that suit the middle class regime, a certain amount of

autonomy complicates the notion that institutions solely re-produce working

class/deviant/‘anti-social’ cultures. At some point the lads in Willis’ study accept this

condition and confirm it through their own creation of a sub-culture that embraces the

idea of low educational attainment, accepting manual labour and adopting degenerate

values and attitudes as their ‘working class’ opinions and beliefs:

‘Class identity is not truly reproduced until it has properly passed through the

individual and the group, until it has been recreated in the context of what

appears to be personal and collective volition. The point at which people live,

not borrow, their class destiny is when what is given is re-formed, strengthened

and applied to new purposes.’ (Willis 1979:2)

If we imagine ASBOs outside of their legal framework and view them as producers of

spaces of active cultural reproduction, the power ASBOs perform over the individual

becomes quite clear. Like the school system, ASBOs enforce an attitude about the

young person’s identity, drawn in part from the ‘anti-social’ actions of the young

person within the community (just as Willis’ lads play up in the classroom), but also

from how the system creates conditions for this behaviour, how the system views this

sort of behaviour, and how this behaviour should be governed. Willis explains

institutions provide a regulatory function that regenerates cultural forms and I want to

argue that ASBOs act in a similar way: re-generating ‘anti-social’ culture through the

minimum two-year period. ASBOs are an extension of governmentality that now

reaches well within the realm of private, regulating behaviour that could be dealt with

within the community but now becomes a state-powered issue. From the arguments

outlined in Part One, the effects of this are further community fragmentation. My

argument is that an ASBO can sustain these inequalities by acting as an instrument of

cultural reproduction.

Bourdieu describes cultural reproduction as the passing down of inequalities and

disadvantages creating social hierarchy through constructing social worlds24.

Bourdieu (1970) argues that our social and cultural values are subconsciously learned

from childhood, and that these learning patterns shape how we socially interact, but

24 Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital> (cited April 2006)

22


that this is ‘second nature’ to us. Bourdieu argues that patterns of behaviour are a

product of habitus - ‘a set of dispositions which generate practices and perceptions’

born out of the middle class need to maintain manual labour (Johnson 1993: 5). The

state becomes an active site of reproducing certain inequalities, by engineering

institutions to structure a dominant culture. In this context, we can explain ASBO

legislation as shaping these processes of inequality instead of eliminating them. This

view changes the way we understand the links between ‘anti-social’ behaviour and

various actors in society. The individual, the community, local authorities, and the

state, are inextricably interrelated.

As a consequence, the process of cultural reproduction is responsible for the

regularity and continuity of social and cultural structures (Wacquant 1987:77). For

Bourdieu, even the reaction is an action of second nature, understanding society in

terms of a ‘field’25 that is loaded with meanings which Bourdieu calls ‘codes’. These

codes can be divided into differing forms of capital: economic capital and symbolic

or cultural capital. Bourdieu explains that economic capital has preference over

cultural capital, yet cultural capital has a more complex function within habitus.

Bourdieu’s analysis of the education system, for example, highlights that there are

certain ‘encoded’ principles that exist within the institution that only certain groups

pick up on26. Bourdieu is suggesting that a middle class pupil, therefore, will do

better at school because that pupil has already been equipped with cultural forms of

capital that a working class pupil is excluded from. Though the education system

appears neutral, it is actually loaded with encoded meanings (Anthony Giddens later

coined the term ‘the hidden curriculum’). What this means is that the education

system produces a certain (middle class) culture and within this comes a culture of

exclusion, exclusion Willis later describes as setting up working class pupils for

failure. A consequence of this loss of power is the formation of deviant or ‘laddish’

sub-cultures as a ‘self-worth protection strategy’ (Jackson 2002).

25 ‘A field is, by definition, ‘a field of struggles’ in which agent’s strategies are concerned with the preservation or improvement of their positions with respect to the defining capital of the field’ (Jenkins 1992)26 See Pierre Bourdieu (1970) ‘Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction’ in R Brown (ed) ‘’Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change’ Tavistock Publications and Pierre Boudieu and J Passeron (1998) ‘Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture’ Sage. See also C Jenks (1993) ‘Cultural Reproduction’ London: Routledge; R Sharp (1980) ‘Knowledge, Ideology and Politics’ London: Routledge; M Apple (1995) ‘Education and Power’ London: Routledge.

23


‘What we are confronted with is a whole way of life interpenetrated by a whole

symbolic system, not a series of discreet bits of behaviour alongside a series of

discreet cultural artefacts. The meaning of any particular elements of behaviour,

or any isolated expressive work, rests totally on its intricate relations with other

parts of the whole integrated-cultural system.’ (Willis 1974: 6)

Bourdieu’s conceptions of society can inform us that there is no action that exists

outside of the social world, outside of habitus. By understanding human agency as

within, and not separate from societal structures, deviant behaviour becomes

perceived differently: ‘anti-social’ behaviour becomes redefined as sub-social

behaviour.

The term ‘sub-social’, I feel, redresses the causal relationship between behaviour and

society by viewing behaviour as interconnected with the cultures of society. By

identifying young people’s agency as a product within society, we as society’s actors

can better understand their behaviour. Better still, authority-agencies become

accountable for behaviour; accountable in the sense of dealing with the causes

(cultural conditions) of sub-social behaviours and accountable in dealing with

addressing deviant sub-social behaviour in an appropriate manner. Since not every

teenager engages in deviant sub-social behaviour, the moment deviant behaviour

takes place - i.e. the act itself - comes from a mixture of causality and autonomy.

Part three will now develop this notion of accountability by examining ways forward.

24


‘Just as Western criminal justice is being challenged in its failure to curb crime and

its increasing prison populations, traditional approaches to behaviour management

need to be challenged to cope with increasing levels of family breakdown and

community disconnection, the loss of automatic respect for authority, and

increasing suspension and exclusion rates.’

(Thorsbourne 2006: 5)

25


Part Three:

Ways Forward: A case for Restorative Justice

So what can be done about these pesky youths? Well, for £581.63 every resident

could buy a ‘Mosquito Ultra Sonic Youth Deterrent’ – which emits an ultra high

pitched sound that becomes so annoying to the young ear, it has been proven to

disperse ‘small crowds of anti-social teenagers who have nothing better to do than

loiter outside their shops and stores’ (Mosquito CCTV systems – see appendix 1)27.

The ultra-sonic pitch does not affect older people, nor will it affect animals. It has no

long term damage and…seriously, is this all an advanced capitalist society can offer?

Although I have been working with teenagers since I was a teenager myself, before I

got actively involved within the community, I would have been considered good

material for an ASBO - smoking, drinking, swearing, love-bites, throwing mud,

knocking on doors and running away, and hanging around the streets in large noisy

gangs…the list goes on. This is why ASBOs can be seriously dangerous, because

what is deemed anti-social to one person (my ex-neighbours - potential ASBO

applicants) is merely seen as rites of passage to another (my ex-hippy mother). The

flip side, of course, is that I may be at university but several of the people I used to

hang around with from the age of ten to thirteen are now in and out of prison and

cause much harm and damage within the community. Their throwing mud turned

into firebombing cars after stealing them for joy rides; becoming violent and abusive;

excessive drinking and drug taking… The tricky question is, would an ASBO have

stopped them misbehave, or would it have stopped me achieve?

ASBOs were the subject of a recent Children’s BBC newsround special (Tuesday,

11th April 2006), and two things struck me about one boy’s interview. Firstly his

ASBO prevented him from hanging around with his cousin, and secondly, when

questioned about the consequences of breaking his ASBO (i.e. being arrested and put

in prison), the boy had said he felt scared. Scaring children and young people into 27 Mosquito Ultra Sonic Teenage Youth Deterrent <http://www.iviewcameras.co.uk/IV_CS_MOSQUITOCCTVSystemsdeals.htm?gclid=CN_Yl7b_pIQCFUkXMAodEmNVng>

26


behaving is counterproductive, heightening levels of fear28. Moreover, the focus rests

upon the consequences and not the behaviour.

ASBOs are victimcentric, offering comprehensive conditions and solutions for the

protection of victims, including video links to counter witness intimidation when

giving evidence (Home Office 2005:33-34). ASBO guidelines mention support

should be offered to those perpetrators who have social problems yet there is no

detailed issuing of any specific institutional agency’s role or responsibility. In fact,

the guide outlines ‘the welfare of the child is not the principle purpose of the order

hearing’ (Home Office 2005:38). I am not suggesting that the ‘perpetrator’ should

not be punished, or that the ‘victim’ should not receive justice; Part Three suggests

another form of punishment through another form of justice - Restorative Justice

(RJ).

‘Restorative justice is a participatory and democratic justice that focuses on the

community defined by the incident and not just the offender. It is an approach to

harmful behaviour and community conflict that sees wrongdoing as essentially a

violation of people and relationships.’ (Thorsbourne and Vinegrad 2006: 6)

Immediately changing the culture and environment of punishment is key to successful

behaviour management. Restorative Justice has an acute awareness of the language,

behaviour, and structure involved in disciplining young people: ‘Anti-social’ becomes

‘wrongdoing’; ‘punitive’ becomes ‘restorative’; ‘victim’ justice becomes

‘community’ justice; and ‘them against us’ becomes inclusive support for all actors as

one community.

The solutions that are offered here are the result of current practices by schools, youth

centres, community and religious groups, local authorities and youth offending teams

in parts of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Britain, engaging

members of the community to collectively resolve situations in a restorative

approach, through the ‘Community Conference’.

28 The politics of fear is an increasingly important strand in political thought. See Bernard Davies (2005:8-10) ‘threatening youths revisited: youth policies under new labour’ <http://www.infed.org/archives/bernard_davies/revisiting_threatening_youth.htm>

27


The format of Restorative Justice is the same across the board. The idea is to be fair

and consistent in disciplining behaviour. To explain the process I would like to use

Ben’s story, taken from a Channel 4 learning documentary on ASBOs as a case study

where RJ could have prevented ASBOs.

‘Ben is a 15-year-old student who has been in trouble with the police once but feels he has learned his lesson. He spends most of his time with friends who have received Anti Social Behaviour Orders or ASBOs and he fears that he will be next. In fact in July 2004 his village, Yarnfield in Staffordshire, received the biggest number of ASBOs ever given.

Ben seeks excitement in a 'boring' village where there's nothing to do: no decent shops and no skate park. Ben's friend, Reece, received an ASBO for spitting, swearing and riding his bike dangerously. Ben doesn't think this is antisocial behaviour and thinks they are being punished for doing everyday things.

Ben's father is supportive and feels that the youngsters' behaviour has been exaggerated. Reece's father doesn't think that anything has changed in the village since he was young except that there are more children than ever.

Some residents, though, have been filming young people after dark. One of the residents says she has seen some youngsters causing serious damage to her property and so the council gave her the video camera. She didn't feel comfortable filming them but she felt she was left with no option. Another neighbour calls the man from the council because she has been receiving hoax calls that she finds very upsetting. She was not a witness in court and yet has been harassed for six years. Ben claims this was a one-off occurrence and that two hours of video footage was made for a few minutes of youngsters doing something wrong. He says the cost of the video surveillance and investigations could have been better spent on creating something for the young villagers.

The village has been divided and there's no communication. The parents say this should have been sorted out years ago when it all started, then no ASBOs would have been issued at all.’ 29

Firstly a facilitator who has experience in RJ is called in to neutrally assess the

situation. This could be a local authority officer, priest or youth worker. The

facilitator will assess who has been affected by the wrongdoing. In this case, those

affected will be Ben, Reece, their fathers, the resident who filmed the young people,

and the lady who is distressed from harassment, and a member each to support them.

Also present would be the local council officer who has been investigating the

harassment, and a member of the school or youth club the young people respect, as

well as a neighbour or two whom both parties respect who can see both sides of the

29 ‘Ben’- part of Channel 4 series ‘Rude Britannia’ <http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/R/rude_britannia/programme4.html>

28


dispute. Everything in an RJ Community Conference is prepared, planned, and

structured. The generic format includes a circle-shaped seating arrangement and

script that allows all parties to be equally heard and understood (see appendix 2).

Members of the ‘victim’s’ party sit on the left of the circle and the ‘wrongdoer’s’

party sit on the right of the circle (Thorsbourne and Vinegrad 2006: 17). The

objective others sit opposite the facilitator. The facilitator sits on the centre edge,

completely neutral. The facilitator does not nod, change tones to sympathise or

judge, but retains a low and consistent calm investigative style.

Before the Conference takes place, the ‘wrongdoer’ has to have admitted to the

facilitator the incidents that have harmed the other members. Each individual

involved has previously spoken to the facilitator, entering the Conference informed

about what they will be asked; it is vital there are ‘no surprises’ (Thorsbourne and

Vinegrad 2006: 14). The use of time is key. Pace must be slow and steadily

controlled. Wrongdoers must explain fully the reasons why they committed the harm,

and listen to how their actions affected each individual on the ‘victim’s’ party. They

must also hear how their parents and other community members feel about how their

actions affected them and their neighbours, be accountable to it, and respond to it.

Likewise the wrongdoer gets to share their feelings and attitudes to the harmful acts,

and the victim’s will respond to show an equal understanding of the wrongdoer’s

perspective. The use of silence is an important tool to draw out each member’s

feelings and because the facilitator knows everybody’s stories, if a member omits

information, the facilitator can continue to ask the same question in a different ways

until an answer has been reached. The conference continues until everyone has said

their piece and responded to everyone else’s views (Thorsbourne and Vinegrad 2006:

35). So Ben and Reece get to share how they feel and also hear how their actions

make others feel. Once this stage has been met, an agreement is written up which

includes outcomes each individual wishes to experience. Once each member is happy

resolution has taken place, they will each sign and receive the agreement. There must

be enough time set aside for reconciliation, with refreshments set up to one side of the

room. This gives members time to de-brief and ‘heal’ (Thorsbourne and Vinegrad

2006: 16).

29


The conference ‘is not a soft option’; Thorsbourne’s research has found that young

people find the experience of facing the people affected by their actions incredibly

difficult (Thorsbourne and Vinegrad 2006:11). As Braithwaite explains ‘the nub of

deterrence is not the severity of the sanction but its social embeddedness’

(Braithwaite 1989: 55). There is a distinct difference between how a young person

would feel in the Conference to the difference they would feel seeing an impersonal

video link from a court room or prison cell.

‘The impact of the behaviour on local people and the local community is brought

home directly and personally to those doing it, in such a way that they are able to

understand the harm done, feel remorse for its effects and undertake to stop it

forthwith. Those who have suffered from it lose their fear of being targeted

again, and feel more constructive and less vengeful about supporting—and

holding to account—the youngsters in the future. Community representatives feel

involved and are better able to help the community to take more responsibility

for its own problems in future.’ (parliament.uk)

Thorsborne and Vinegrad (2006) argues that traditional responses to ‘misbehaviour’

dominantly relate to identifying which rule has been broken, who is to blame and

what punishment they deserve. But when strong punitive punishment is quickly

administered, young people become filled with anger instead of contemplating their

actions: ‘When we become outcasts, we can reject our rejectors and the shame no

longer matters to us’ (Braithwaite 1989: 68). Restorative Justice sees crime and

misconduct as ‘a fundamental violation of people and interpersonal relationships’

(Thorsbourne and Vinegrad 2006: 6). Thorsbourne and Vinegrad explains that

‘violations create obligations and liabilities’ that are to be healed. ASBOs cannot

provide this service.

30


Conclusion

An average ASBO can cost around ten thousand pounds, not to mention the costs of

each arrest and stint in prison. For the same amount of money, each young person

could have several Restorative Justice sessions, as well as one-to-one youth worker

support encouraging them to think about developing their positive skills instead of

stamping their identity with their negative actions and reaffirming them through the

experiences of being issued an ASBO and being arrested. The cost to community is

worse. ASBOs are exclusive, impersonal and punitive; to use Braithwaite, ASBOs

allow the individual to reject their rejectors, and do we want a society that feels

justice when a ten to 17 year-old is incarcerated for harassment or intimidation? Is

this even a solution?

I am currently exploring ways of improving behaviour and attainment levels of 12-16

year-olds. Twice a week, since September 2003, I have been tutoring young people

with a range of abilities attending our project for a range of reasons. Each group

completes a twelve-week course, building an individual portfolio based

predominantly on developing five main Key Skills (Improving Own Learning;

Working with Others; Communication, Application of Number and Information

Technology). This aims to give young people the opportunity to gain awards and

qualifications in skills gained outside the (often restrictive) national curriculum. This

is a constructive inclusive programme based on positive aspects to youth culture,

building socially responsible young beings.

On an average Wednesday after clearing the skills-centre, I un-crumpled what I

assumed to be another set of tagging (graffiti names) to discover the words ‘Wake me

up Inside’ written in a blue ball point pen. For me, these words broadly represent the

longing some adolescents feel underneath the many layers of construct within urban

London (and possibly elsewhere) that exist inside a complex space of self-loving and

self-loathing pitted against increasingly fragmenting communities characterised by

the complexities of consumerism, commoditisation, reduced space and time, post-

Fordist work regimes and new class divisions… inside a vacuum of loss, confusion,

31


and inadequate levels of communication, culminating in the simple desire and need to

be guided and taught life’s lessons.

Ultimately young people should be considered the blueprint of tomorrow’s society.

Parents, youth workers, teachers, politicians, police and others community agencies

should work together to view each other as the architects and builders of that society

and when one agency cannot, another is there to amend. This dissertation has not

been an advertisement for Restorative Justice; it has been my war-cry that behaviour

management begins within the community, at a cultural level, and starts with

communication.

This is a complex argument for a complex society. Adolescents are not hooded

monsters that naturally seek to intimidate and harass. They are young people with

energy and time, but little experience. Adults are people with lots of experience but

little energy and time. Somewhere a swap needs to take place.

Further Research

32


This dissertation can act as preliminary reading to compliment a range of further

research to strengthen the weaknesses in my argument.

ASBOs throw up all kinds of issues relating to living identity and practice. With

adequate time and funding, an empirical examination into the influence ASBOs have

on adolescent subjectivity would be interesting to pursue. A qualitative study could

initially look at ASBO holders within London, using an in-depth interview technique

that could be repeated with each young person over a period of time to allow the

young person to feel comfortable discussing their thoughts and feelings about if, and

how, the ASBO has affected their sense of self. This procedure could be repeated

with ASBO holders in rural villages and with ASBO holders living by the sea and

findings could be cross examined within a number of theoretical contexts, including

Spatial theory, post-structuralism, Marxism, and Urbanisation.

The dissertation could also act as a basis for a rich ethnography to find out if second-

wave sub-cultural theory adequately relates to sub-cultures found within current

youth gangs, testing whether ASBOs affect the life chances of a sample of ASBO

holders comparing them to a sample of non-ASBO holders, over a period of time.

Other work could include a critique of ASBOs and their relationship to social

inclusion and equal opportunities policies. Here data collection would include class,

educational attainment, family situation or home life, race, gender, age, and ability. If

ASBOs are evidenced to hold strong or disproportionate alignments with certain

stratifications this could highlight that contemporary Britain has not yet emerged

from a structure of inequality, perhaps arguing the Government’s lack of

documenting these stratifications hide existing and continued institutional

discriminatory practices amongst certain young people, therefore strengthening

Bourdieu’s notion of cultural reproduction.

Bibliography

33


Michael W. Apple (1995) Education and Power London: Routledge

Anti-Social Behaviour Reform Act (2003) England: The Stationery Office Limited <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20033300.htm> [cited 15/12/2005]

BBC News (February 2006) Fears as ASBO Leaflets are Issued<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_west/4677938.stm> [cited 3/03/06]

Hazel Blears in ASBO measures tightened to tackle yob 'menace'Direct.gov News, 29 June 2005 <http://www.direct.gov.uk/Nl1/Newsroom/NewsroomArticles/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=10020661&chk=Z/E3Qj> [cited 14/3/2006]

Sue Bond-Taylor (2005) Political Constructions of the Anti-Social Community Developing a Cultural Criminology, HSA Autumn Conference 8-9 September 2005<www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/ hsa/autumn05/papers/bond-taylor.doc> [cited 04/01/2006]

Pierre Boudieu and Jean-Claude Passeron (1998) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, London: Sage

Pierre Bourdieu (1996) edited by Randal Johnson; The Field of Cultural Production, Cambridge: Polity Press

Pierre Bourdieu (1984) translated by Richard Nice; Distinction : a social critique of the judgement of taste, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

Pierre Bourdieu (1970) ‘Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction’ in R Brown (ed) Knowledge, Education and Cultural Change, Tavistock Publications

Harriet Bradley (1996) Fractured Identities: changing patterns of inequality , Cambridge: Polity Press

John Braithwaite (1989) Crime, shame, and reintegration, New York: Cambridge University Press

Mike Brake (1980) The Sociology of Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures: sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll?, London : Routledge and Kegan Paul

Philip Cohen and David Robins (1978 ) Knuckle Sandwich: growing up in the working-class city, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Stanley Cohen (1972) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The creation of Mods and Rockers Oxford: Martin Robertson

Paul Corrigan (1979) Schooling the Smash Street Kids, London: Macmillan

J Ferrell (2005) ‘Crime and Culture’ in C. Hale, K. Hayward, A. Wahidin and E. Wincup (eds) Criminology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34


Frank Field (2003) Neighbours from Hell: The Politics of Behaviour, Politico’s Publishing

Harry Fletcher (2005) Anti-Social Behaviour Orders: Analysis of the first six years, London: Napo <http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/asbodossier.pdf> [cited 2/01/2006]

Stuart Hall et al (1978) Policing the Crisis: mugging, the state, and law and order, London: Macmillan

David Hargreaves (1967) Social Relations in a Secondary School, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Dick Hebdidge (1979) Subculture: The Theory of Style, London: Methuen

Home Office (4 April 2006) Resident Recognised for standing up for Respect <http://www.gnn.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=194624&NewsAreaID=2> [cited 16/04/2006]

Home Office (March 2003) A Guide to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, London: Home Office Communication Directorate

Caroline Jackson (2002) ‘Laddishness’ as a Self-Worth Protection Strategy’, in Gender and Education, volume 14, No.1: Carfax Publishing

Richard Jenkins (1992) Pierre Bourdieu, London: Routledge

Chris Jenks (1993) Cultural Reproduction, London: Routledge

Sean Nixon (2003) ‘Exhibiting Masculinity’ in Stuart Hall (ed) (2003) Representation Cultural Representations and Signifying Practice, London: Sage

Bill Osgerby(1998) Youth in Britain since 1945 Oxford: Blackwell

Richard Osley (2005) ASBO FILES REOPENED, <http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/072105/cn072105_01.htm> [cited 01/02/2006]

Darren Kemp (Producer) Panorama, BBC (20 November 2005) Asbos on trial <http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4447228.stm> [cited 02/01/2006]

Police Reform Act (2002) England: The Stationery Office Limited <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20020030.htm> [cited 15/12/2005]

Ken Pryce (1979) Endless Pressure: a study of West Indian life-styles in Bristol, Harmondsworth: Penguin

Derek Robbins (2000) Bourdieu and Culture, London: Sage

R Sharp (1980) Knowledge, Ideology and Politics, London: Routledge

35


John Springhall (1986) Coming of Age: Adolescence in Britain 1860-1960, Dublin: Gill and Macmillan

Matthew Tempest (2005) Parents targeted in antisocial behaviour plan, and agencies The Guardian 14/02/2005, <http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,1412516,00.html>

Thollebeek and Baert (2006) Anti-Social Behaviour Orders ASBOs, Voice UK January 2006 newsletter < http://www.voiceuk.org.uk/docs/January06.pdf > [cited 25/03/2006]

Margaret Thorsborne and David Vinegrad (2006) Restorative Practices in Schools, Milton Keynes: Incentive Plus

Margaret Thorsborne (2006) Restorative Justice, Milton Keynes: Incentive Plus

L D Wacquant (1989) Towards a reflexive Sociology: A Workshop with Pierre Bourdieu, Sociological Theory Volume 7

Stuart Waiton (2006) Antisocial behaviour: the construction of a crime,<http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Articles/0000000CAF28.htm> [cited 7/02/2006]

Stuart Waiton (2006) Antisocial behaviour: the construction of a crime< http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Articles/0000000CAF28.htm> [cited 13/04/2006]

Matt Weaver (2005) Government ‘too tough’ of anti social behaviour, The Guardian, 14 February 2005 <http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,1414544,00.html> [cited 7/02/2006]

Wikipedia.org: Cultural Capital, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_capital> [cited 4/03/2006]

Paul Willis, Simon Jones, Joyce Canaan and Geoff Hurd (1996) Common Culture Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Paul Willis (1979) Learning to Labour, Hampshire: Gower Publishing

Paul Willis (1974) Symbolism and Practice, Birmingham: Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies

Peter Willmott (1966) Adolescent Boys of East London, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

J.Q. Wilson and G Kelling (1982) ‘Broken Windows: The Police and Neighbourhood Safety’, Atlantic Monthly, March: 29-38

Author Unknown Pierre Bourdieu, <http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bourd.htm> [cited 5/2/2006]

36


Jock Young (2003) ‘Merton With Energy, Katz With Structure: The sociology of vindictiveness and the criminology of transgression’ Theoretical Criminology, vol 7(3): 389-414

Jock Young (2001) ‘Identity, Community and Social Exclusion’ in R. Matthews and J. Pitts (eds) (2001) Crime, Disorder and Community Safety, London: Routledge

Jock Young (1998) Sub-Cultural Theory: Virtues and Vices, [unpublished] <http://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/subculture.htm> [cited 5/1/2006]

Websites

Asboconcern.orgbbc.co.ukbbc.co.uk/cbbcnewsBritish Youth Council.orgChannel4.com/learningCrimereduction.govDfEE.govDirect.gov.ukGov.ukGuardian.co.ukHome Office.govnacvs.org.uk [National Association of Local Councils]Panorama.BBC.co.ukParliament.uk

Pictures

Page 1: 200 young people protest against ASBO legislation in Leeds 21 January 2006: <http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332120.html> (cited 19/04/2006)

Page 2: ASBO picture from CBBC web news: <http://news.billinge.com/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4930000/newsid_4935900/4935916.stm >

Pages 15, 17, 25, and 26: Pictures of people wearing hooded jumpers from: <http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-images/hooded-shirt.html> (cited 01/05/2006)

Page 17: ‘Ban Hoodies’ Jumper cited from < http://www.sumosam.co.uk/ > (cited 19/4/2006)

Page 31: John Allison picture http://www.adam.tinworth.name/archives/2005/06/<http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332000.html asbo demo> (cited 17/04/2006)

37


Television Programmes

CBBC Newsround Special ASBOs, <http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4760000/newsid_4768800/4768802.stm>Ed Kellie, (producer and director) ‘Ben’- part of Channel 4 series Rude Britannia <http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/R/rude_britannia/programme4.html>

ITV (broadcasted 03/06/2005) ASBO Madness : Tonight with Trevor McDonald

Other Research: Training

Facilitator Training (15-16 March 2006) Restorative Practices in Schools, Sundridge Park Conference Centre, Kent.

38

Documents

Wake me up Inside: ASBOs