Governing Neighbours: Anti-social Behaviour Orders and New Forms of Regulating Conduct in the UK

Abstract

Discourses on anti-social behaviour in the UK are embedded within a wider politics of conduct based around concepts of citizenship, self-regulation, welfare conditionality, obligations to communities and rights and responsibilities. This paper explores how the regulation of behaviour is framed within ideas of community and contractual governance and identifies the central role for housing within strategies aimed at tackling anti-social behaviour and promoting civility. It discusses the use of Anti-social Behaviour Orders in governing conduct within a wider package of regulatory mechanisms including Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and tenancy agreements. An increasing focus on governing the interactions between neighbours is identified along with techniques to achieve this, including the growing use of conditionality in welfare entitlement. The paper argues that the regulation of conduct is symbolic of significant realignments of the roles of various actors in policing residential areas and raises fundamental questions about the link between conduct, citizenship rights and the scope and ambition of governance interventions aimed at reducing anti-social behaviour at individual and community levels.

Civilising offensives and ambivalence: the case of British Gypsies

“…Equally, attempts at changing behavioural norms and standards of conduct that have developed over centuries through complex and gradual processes of social competition, socialisation and psychologisation and which have inculcated lasting habits and advanced thresholds of shame and repugnance are evidently futile. Similar conclusions have also been drawn with regards to ambitious attempts to regulate and formalise the behaviour of other groups in contemporary society (see Flint, 2006;Flint and Nixon, 2006). In carrying out such civilising projects powerful groups (including state governments) aiming to change cultural practices and social conduct have failed to realise that 'increasing thresholds of shame and embarrassment did not come about through 'consciously rational decisions of large groups of people...Rather, it is the unplanned dynamics of social competition and social interweaving that foster the development of "delicate" sensibilities' (Fletcher, 1997, p.15).…”

(In)formalization and the Civilizing Process: Applying the Work of Norbert Elias to Housing‐Based Anti‐Social Behaviour Interventions in the UK

“…Importantly, good neighbour agreements do not simply proscribe forbidden behaviour, but prescribe desirable positive behaviour, such as volunteering, engaging in tenant participation structures, taking part in 'community' activities or looking after elderly neighbours (see Flint and Nixon, 2006 …”

Unpacking new labour's ‘Urban Renaissance’ agenda: Towards a socially sustainable reurbanization of British cities?

“…These toolsAnti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), Child Curfews, Parenting Orders-have been very contentious in their rationale and their effectiveness. Such tools go beyond 'crime' to include a wider spectrum of incivilities and 'disorderly' or antisocial behaviours (Charman & Savage, 2002;Flint, 2006;Flint & Nixon, 2006).…”