Collective Efficacy: Alternative Security in the Face of Mass Surveillance by Sean Dula

COLLECTIVEEFFICACY:

Sean Michael Dula A46 561B: Tactical Urbanisms Professors Mueller & Kripa

ALTERNATIVE SECURITY IN THE FACE OF MASS SURVEILLANCE According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, safety is one of our most basic necessities following the physiological. For tenants of The Robert Taylor Homes public housing complex in the Southside of Chicago, safety was a seemingly inaccessible privilege as a result of the extreme failure of city officials and law enforcement. The urban landscape surrounding the Robert Taylor Homes was sown with crime, poverty, unemployment, stagnation, and government failure—a scene rendering the formation of organized, productive locality extremely difficult.A In this environment, many questions arise concerning how tenants in the complex lived within such a corrosive context and ultimately dealt with issues of security and justice. It is also important to investigate how individual enforcement roles played into larger, informal hierarchical social networks and affected community order. Although a marginalized community,B the tenants of the Robert Taylor Homes displayed a form of tactical enforcement, which relied upon a willingness to intervene and a communal understanding of the common good, defined as collective efficacy, amid a larger societal fabric marked by increasing centralized surveillance and a culture of depersonalized, unengaged social control. The behaviors exemplified at the Robert Taylor Homes required active community and individual engagement, which is something foreign to security and social order in middle and upper class communities.

Collective Efficacy: The Robert Taylor Homes Model

Historical Overview of Public Housing in the United States

The federal public housing program, of which the Robert Taylor Homes was a product, has operated under two distinct periods since the Great Depression. The initial period successfully instigated upward social mobility while the latter, in the second half of the twentieth century, failed to facilitate tenants’ movement into nonsubsidized, stable housing. In the time following the Depression, the program focused upon housing two-parent families who had been displaced as a result of economic hardship. Housing was the key to economic recovery for these families and as a result their reliance on public housing was short-lived. As Sudhir Venkatesh, an Indian American sociologist and ethnographer, stated, “their economic mobility ‘contributed to the sociological stability of the first public housing communities, and explains the program’s initial success.”1 Thus, the suburban single-family homes as part of this program served their purpose as methods for upward social mobility.2

HOUSING FORMS

RBA

The municipal and federal strategy in place to support the Robert Taylor Homes ultimately failed, resulting in overcrowding, crime, and a lack of law enforcement. Tenants readily admitted to participating in and witnessing vandalism and crime at a rate that outpaced the abilities of custodians, law enforcement, and the Chicago Housing Authority to maintain the facilities. Law enforcement officers did not feel safe entering the premises because as they approached, officers were exposed in the vast open spaces among the bases of the towers while perpetrators were hidden above and able to see the officers much in advance.10 Interior conditions, such as ‘faulty elevators, temperamental stair lighting, and dark corridors,’ further deterred officers from entering. When accused of neglect and racist practices, law enforcement cited the unsafe conditions as the true obstacles to effective enforcement.12 A lack of law enforcement increased petty and organized crime within the project. Aggressive tenant behavior increased as economic uncertainty heightened and policing decreased, resulting in extreme violence and higher rates of homicide.13

Collective Efficacy as a Social Force for Tactical Change

In Robert Taylor, while many social, economic, and political issues contributed to the living conditions, the tenants maintained a powerful force to create a safe and habitable community. Robert J. Sampson, a professor of social science at Harvard University, proposes a theory of ‘collective efficacy,’ which he believes explains this desire and intent of the tenant in public housing. Collective efficacy is defined by Sampson as social cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good.14 With this cohesive intervention, tenants are able to establish social behavior and norms beyond their household.15 Collective efficacy was a leading factor in shaping the community in the Robert Taylor Homes— especially as tenants faced issues from a lack of external support.16

Community Enforcement as a Tactical Response Tenants, facing dire situations of organized crime and violence, reappropriated their role in the collective order and enforcement within their community at Robert Taylor. In a communal manner, tenants monitored, intervened, and reported transgressions as social agents. The tactical methods of each approach are slightly different and utilized their ability to accumulate gains without necessarily accumulating or inscribing territory over a physical or juridical space.C

Monitoring: Tactic in Time and Space

Social ties among tenants began immediately in the 1960s as neighbors began to watch over each other’s children during recreation.17 This act of monitoring evolved into a tactical response to the lack of law enforcement presence to protect children and teenagers within the project. Monitoring was an act situated in time and space with the purpose of preventing criminal behavior that opposed the collective efficacy. Adults formed networks that monitored the younger tenants. In the 1960s the monitor groups were known as Mama’s Mafias and in the 1970s they were dubbed ‘watches.’18

Failed Urban Strategy

Post WWII

During monitoring, tenants occupied public spaces for leisure, recreation, or employment duties and supervised activities of younger tenants. One tenant, Judy Harris, said, “everyone looked out for shit, ‘cause we knew that you just had to if you was living up there. Anything could happen if you wasn’t careful.”19 Some children and teenagers participated in selfmonitoring around issues of gangs, organized crime, violence, and drugs. In the halls, stairwells, playgrounds, and public spaces of the Robert Taylor Homes, gang members actively recruited children and teenagers. Alex Kotlowitz, a local journalist and author, documented the story of young local boys, including Lafeyette and James. Kotlowitz says, “Lafeyette and James constantly worried that they might be pulled into the gangs. Lafeyette knew what might happen: ‘when you first join you think it’s good. They’ll buy you what you want. You have to do anything they tell you to do. If they tell you to kill somebody, you have to do that.’ James figured the only way to make it out [of the projects] was ‘to try to make as little friends as possible.’”20

Post Great Depression

Intervention: A Social Construct for Enforcement

Intervention was a shrewd tenant response to the situation in which regular law enforcement would not willingly enter the premise of the project due to the overwhelming dangers. This behavior was rooted in the social networks and the hierarchy of tenants in the Robert Taylor Homes. In many of the communities individuals led unique efforts to raise safety and order for their residents. For example, in buildings 210 and 218, tenant Wyona Wilson implemented an alternative similar to a police force. Many men illegally lived in the buildings with their families, and Wilson used their need to remain inconspicuous as an advantage for community policing. When issues of crime, such as “burglary, domestic abuse, and ‘snitching’ on the police” arose, Wilson used the undocumented male tenants as a militia who would inflict punishment on the perpetrator, or receive an apology for the transgression. In this tactical response, Wilson utilized the secrecy of the illegal male tenants as collateral for restoring order in the buildings; for, if they didn’t cooperate, she would have the males evicted. Michael Minnow, once a member of Wilson’s ‘Militia,’ recalled his tenure:

IN O

FRI N G

ic a

IL L

RBA N

Robert Taylor Homes Chicago, 1961

CEN

Pruitt Igoe St. Louis, 1954

The Robert Taylor Homes: A Hopeful Solution for Chicago

With the initial support of the federal public housing program, the 28 16-story high-rises of the Robert Taylor Homes were erected.6 Doors were opened to tenants on March 5, 1962, as Mayor Richard J. Daley welcomed the first of them to the project.7 For the city of Chicago, the new housing complex represented a proactive mission to remove ghettos from the urban landscape. For the neighborhood’s black population, the Robert Taylor homes presented a hopeful relief from urban overcrowding, blight, and inadequate living conditions. With a total of 4,500 units, ranging in size from three- to five-bedrooms, the development seemingly was prepared for large households accompanied by extended families and many children; yet, the buildings quickly became overcrowded.8 At one point, over 27,000—black, poor, and isolated—tenants lived in Robert Taylor.9

CURRENT URBAN CONDITIONS

Post Great Depression single family homes greatly differ in form from Post WWII modernist block housing. Different divisions of space, new housing policies, and the location within the city were all factors that contributed to current conditions.

Cabrini Green Chicago, 1942

A new strategy, enacted with the passage of the Housing Act of 1949, lowered the maximum salary that allowed citizens to live in public housing; thus, restricting the program to the most economically disadvantaged. This policy eventually prevented the success of the program in facilitating upward mobility and decreasing urban poverty. Furthermore, the program adopted a new mission of eradicating urban slums, while relocating tenants into new, modernist public housing complexes.3 Sanford Kwinter, in his article “Notes on the Third Ecology,” stated that there are several examples of communities erased by redevelopment, including cities abroad such as Beijing’s Hutongs and the Dharavi slums in Mumbai.4 Unfortunately, many other domestic public housing communities were developed in a similar manner, including the Cabrini Green housing project, also in Chicago, and the Pruitt Igoe housing project, located in St. Louis. In response to this practice of razing slums and building large, superblocks, Kwinter says ‘It is an unexamined and possibly dangerous supposition that the solution to the new demographic and economic pressures is to fully rationalize and modernize our existing urban habitats.’5

II.

“Oh you didn’t want to mess with these women. Lot of us was living with our women, you know, but we wasn’t on the lease. They was getting [public assistance], right. So we had to keep a low profile. So we did anything they wanted. Yeah, that meant we beat the shit out of niggers who was beating up women, or stealing, or just causing trouble.”21

This practice spread to other buildings within the complex to varying degrees of formality. Through similar social understandings, tenants were able to discern specific models for dealing with many different situations. For incidents of fire, theft, or even sexual abuse, typically group patrols and watches were the best option for seeking retribution. ‘Tenant brokers,’ individual leaders such as Wilson, would also call community meetings to gather information regarding suspected criminals.22 In the act of intervention, willingness to step in and communal understanding were essential to combating a lawless community.

Poverty, segregation, and crime are defining issues in many neighborhoods of Chicago, similar to many contemporary American cities. Here, the top 5 most impacted neighborhoods (Riverdale, Fuller Park, Englewood, West Garfield, & East Garfield) and the bottom 5 least impacted neighborhoods (Mount Greenwood, Edison Park, Beverly, Norwood Park, & Clearing) are compared.47 The apparent correlations between the three factors is extremely striking. These neighborhoods have not changed conditions over several decades, leading to certain urban decay conditions. Similar effects can be seen in cities such as St. Louis, Missouri.

Reporting: Bridging the Divide with External Law Enforcement

In response to crime that went above the scope of either monitoring or interventions, reporting was a last resort tenants used to get outside authorities into the complex. This tactic dictated that tenants call upon tenant brokers, who efficiently got police to Robert Taylor when law enforcement was otherwise unable or unwilling.23 In this case, a tenant broker’s personal connection to an officer was most helpful and greatly increased the likelihood of actually obtaining justice outside of Robert Taylor’s informal system.24

Seeking Order Through Imposed Surveillance

Contrary to the collective enforcement tactics visible in the Robert Taylor Homes, surveillance is another approach to community security that relies upon a centralized figure carefully patrolling and watching the social agents. Within the model focused upon surveillance the community members do not actively participate in security enforcement; instead, a centralized authority figure is tasked with maintaining a diligent watch to prevent or detect crime.

Percent in Poverty

Trends in recent decades show surveillance emerging as the predominate mode for addressing situational crime and transgression in America. In the past three decades American culture has become more exclusionary than holistic, more committed to social control than to social provision, and more attuned to private markets than public freedoms of citizens.25 The institutions responsible for crime prevention have undergone the same paradigm switch. Surveillance has been enacted to combat terrorism, prevent social unrest, and to protect national interests.

1984 and Big Brother: Mass Surveillance in Contemporary America

In his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, published in 1949, George Orwell portrays a dystopian view of how life could be in a world run by omnipresent government surveillance.26 Digital surveillance, in the form of assessments, determined the probability of an individual’s involvement in illegal, criminal, or suspicious activity.27 The streets of this fictitious regime are punctuated with posters reading ‘Big Brother is Watching You’— Big Brother being the quasidivine political leader. Although Orwell’s basis for the totalitarian regime was the past Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, the themes within, especially concerning mass surveillance of the population, are strikingly similar to contemporary surveillance.

Percent African American

Homicide Rate (per 100,000)

Digital surveillance in America has been present for decades and is increasing with new legislation. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), for example, was passed on October 25, 1994, and is intended to ensure the ability of law enforcement to perform electronic surveillance ‘effectively and efficiently despite the deployment of new digital technologies and wireless services that have altered the character of electronic surveillance.’28 In an Orwellian manner, CALEA required telecommunications companies to modify their logistical frameworks, including equipment, facilities, and services, to accommodate real-time government access for surveillance.29 In post 9/11 America, many such programs have been recognized as tools used in the global War on Terror; specifically, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Obama Administration have been criticized for reckless, warrantless wiretapping. In the summer of 2013, Edward Snowden, a contract worker, released thousands of files to the international press about the mass surveillance program, PRISM, directed by the NSA.

PRISM is a specific type of surveillance program that utilizes a method call ‘data mining’ to retrieve mass amounts of communication records. Data mining programs amalgamate incredulous amounts of raw data into one system for analysis and storage. The Total Information Act, run by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in the U.S. Department of Defense, is able to quickly process and analyze petabytes of data.30 A petabyte is one million gigabytes, it can hold the eighteen million books in the Library of Congress fifty times over, and can store forty pages of information on each of the 7.127 billion persons on the Earth.31 In a report on this technology, the Deputy Chief officer of the Central Intelligence Agency said, “It’s so power, it’s scary…”32

Legislative Extensions of Surveillance

In parallel to the hightech advancements in centralized mass surveillance, low-tech strategies have emerged that are equally as alarming. The ‘Shoot to Kill’ policy is an example of recent law enacted. In some countries, and in the United Kingdom, the ‘Shoot to Kill’ policy was put in place in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Under this policy, law enforcement are allowed to shoot a person if they are branded a danger after an initial risk assessment.’33

SECURITY IN ARCHITECTURE Public Housing Projects

Gated Communities

Close quarters and atypical urban conditions hinder access to conventional security in the built form in public housing projects.

Close proximity creates issues including overcrowding halls, dangerous play areas for children, increased damage to building, frequent rival gang interaction

2-4 m

in u t e s Before

Designed to guarantee security and safety, gated communities perpetuate the culture of control and mass surveillance in their built form.

Buildings house dozens of families per floor

Sparse Defensible Space means less accountability for the maintenance and upkeep of the built environment

VI.

Gate, Gatehouse, & Guard create a limited access point to prevent unwanted security threat or issues.

Large public spaces create dangers for external police entry

Defensible Space within a single-family, detached home facilitates security & social order. The true implications of such physical boundaries is unclear.

IV.

Security relies heavily upon the designed condition of the environment

7-1

in u

tes Limited access to transportation exposes tenants to possible dangers for longer periods of time.

VII.

Sidewalks with ample lighting, barriers on the perimeter, and direct access to transportation ensure safety of inhabitants.

After

Usually, the initial risk assessment is an internal judgment call made by a law enforcement officer within seconds of contact with the suspect. Jean Charles de Menezes was a Brazilian man who died in 2005 after being shot in the head from point blank range on the subway. London Metropolitan police made a split second assessment about de Menezes and his perceived involvement in a failed attempt to bomb the London Tube a day earlier. Unfortunately, their suspicions were incorrect and de Menezes died innocent.34 Often times, as was the case with de Menezes, mass surveillance with sloppy police work and crude profiling can lead to false-positive incrimination. After the March 2004 Madrid train bombing, American lawyer, Brandon Mayfield, from Oregon, was wrongfully incarcerated for two weeks. Spanish authorities had turned over the fingerprints, which poorly matched Mayfield’s, from a plastic bag used in the bombing. Although there was no evidence of Mayfield leaving the country or his involvement otherwise, the Department of Justice used ‘material witness’ law to jail Mayfield. The claim was exacerbated when the Department of Justice painted Mayfield as a Muslim extremist. Originally unapologetic, the FBI finally accepted the blame and admitted they had done wrong.35

The Role of Social Agents in Social Order

Although different from their role in collective efficacy, social agents play a large part in why mass surveillance programs and ideology exist the way they do in American culture. David Garland, in his book, The Culture of Control, which investigates the impact of social control in current American and British culture, said: “The risky, insecure character of today’s social and economic relations is the social surface that gives rise to our newly emphatic, overreaching concern with control and to the urgency with which we segregate, fortify, and exclude. It is the background circumstance that prompts our obsessive attempts to monitor risky individuals, to isolate dangerous populations, and to impose situational controls […] It is the source of the deep-seated anxieties that find expression in today’s crime-conscious culture, in the commodification of security, and in a built environment designed to manage space and to separate people.”36

Garland asserts that the driving reason for many agents in their prescribing to mass surveillance is an uneasiness in social and economic relations. This gives rise to ‘obsessive attempts’ to enact surveillance over marginalized populations, the ‘commodification of security,’ and the manipulation of the built environment. An underlying motive is fear. Agents, exercising upon stereotypes and false assumptions of past events, ‘segregate, fortify, and exclude’ in order to protect themselves from being partially subject to malicious transgressions. Convenience is also a significant contributor to the current trend of mass surveillance in America. In an environment of increasing convenience, middle and upper class social agents do not have to burden themselves with the responsibility and engagement that a lack of centralized surveillance would require. Instead, in evading that social duty, select social agents have the privilege to attain a more convenient life without a responsibility in collective security enforcement. Furthermore, this subconscious classicism materializes in the mind as thoughts against poverty and the lower class. Poverty is often equated to a lack of effort, feckless choices, distinctive culture, and chosen conduct.37 In reality, as is the case with the Robert Taylor Homes inhabitants, their induced poverty is the result of municipal and federal policy, not necessarily their choice.

Acting separately, denial and ignorance have also shaped the political landscape in which social control has pervaded. Social agents do not recognize that even little choice made in private, like buying music on iTunes, reading an article online, and Googling, are being recorded.38 These traces are analyzed and aggregated in a way that social agents may not expect. Thus, as a part of the contemporary surveillance culture, agents are unaware of the true impact upon them.

The Effect on the Social Agent

The prevalence of a mass surveillance society causes many undesired effects for both privileged and targeted populations. First off, by removing responsibility, surveillance distances the privileged agents from transgression, and thus distances the agents further from the issues of reality. Disconnected agents are prone to be like characters from Nineteen Eighty-Four and susceptible to further departure from reality and personal liberties. While privileged agents suffer more diffuse, corrosive effects, they are still able to partake in an industry that has formed around the privatization of security for those who can afford it. Thus, security and order have become commodities for the middle to upper class while marginalized populations suffer immediate consequences of repressive demands, including stereotyping, segregation, and exclusion. Those who suffer most in the recent decades of social and economic changes include the urban poor, welfare claimants, and minority communities.39 The ‘Bystander Effect’ provides an understanding for the perpetuation of these harmful effects. In an emergency situation, the ‘Bystander Effect’ is when an individual is hindered from intervening when other onlookers are present.40 The more onlookers present, the less likely they will be to step in, as they perceive their help is not needed in the face of other bystanders. The ‘Bystander Effect’ works directly opposite of the principles of collective efficacy; whereas collective efficacy and community security enforcement requires onlooker participation, the ‘Bystander Effect’ and the surveillance society dictate a lack of involvement.

Following the theory of architect and city planner, Oscar Newman, cramped urban residences have small ‘Defensible Space.’ ‘Defensible Space’ is essentially the theoretical application of the ‘Bystander Effect’ to the built environment. The more people who share a space, the less ownership each person feels towards that space and the less care they each will take in maintaining and defending it.41 Thus, suburban singlefamily detached homes maximize ‘Defensible Space,’ and display a high amount of care and responsibility for it. When a building is designed with inadequate ‘Defensible Space,’ it is set on a path toward early destruction, which is what happened with the modernist public housing projects such as the Robert Taylor Homes, Cabrini-Green, and Pruitt-Igoe.

Panopticon: Institutionalized Surveillance

The Panopticon, designed by Jeremy Bentham in the late eighteenth century, is an example of how architecture can dictate the culture of its inhabitants.42 Bentham designed the plan to have a circular organization with a central core in the middle for guards to patrol a ring of prisoners’ cells surrounding.43 The design is to maintain a constant state of surveillance, as prisoners are not able to know if they are being watched at any given time. This hyper institutionalized idea of surveillance was meant to also apply to schools, hospitals, sanatoriums, daycares, and asylums.44 Ideally, similar to the community monitoring seen in the Robert Taylor Homes, the Panopticon would deter misbehavior and would begin to reinscribe social norms.

The Role of Architecture Typologies and Form

In today’s society of commoditized security, the built environment has the task of designating space, meant to manage and separate people. The designation of space is both adaptive to the contexts of cultural currents, while also playing a large role in creating and perpetuating that context. For example, a contemporary suburban development includes detached single-family homes, each with its own, ample space. Urban dwellings, on the other hand, include less individualized space, often resulting in much larger amounts of shared space. The difference between the two typologies is seen over time on the Pruitt Igoe site in St. Louis. Before being razed, the De Sotto neighborhood had the same organization as any other organically urban area. Once Pruitt Igoe was built, the previous urban framework was replaced with a super-block system that eliminated vehicles from entering the premise beyond a couple parking lots on the periphery. The prior activated streets and urban environment were replaced with an idealized form of modernism, which eventually turned to squalor as residents were unable to identify with the deteriorating conditions, similar to the case of the Robert Taylor Homes in Chicago.

Gated Communities

The emergence of gated communities established the commodification of security in the built form. The usual elements of a gated community—gate, gatehouse, guard, clubhouse, pool, and neighborhood ordinances— are implemented to emulate a socially active environment in a manner that ensures ample safety to prevent any transgressions. Millions of Americans have chosen to live within gated communities, adopt the detachment from undesired issues, and embrace the heightened state of surveillance. Communities such as the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community in Stanford, Florida, where seventeen-year-old African American, Trayvon Martin was shot, perpetuate the disparity amongst populations. Instead of creating communities of collaboration or collective interaction, gated communities foster self-centered realities in which distorted behavior can form in individuals such as George Zimmerman, who since being acquitted of Martin’s murder has exhibited difficulty staying out of trouble with the law.

Collective Efficacy as an Alternative to Centralized Surveillance

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”45 -Benjamin Franklin

Collective efficacy is a proactive, engaged approach to crime prevention, whereas centralized surveillance methods rely on retroactive social measures. For example, in the case of surveillance, a perpetrator must be first caught during criminal activity in order to be stopped. Only if the methods for surveillance continue on the route of wiretapping and data mining (more and more Orwellian), will it be able to be proactive. On the other hand, collective efficacy models rely upon engaged, active involvement from all. Collective efficacy does not require a certain socioeconomic status, nor even that you reside in a certain type of neighborhood. Instead, it depends on active involvement from politicians decentralizing social order and surveillance, families participating in a more rewarding, diverse community, and bystanders getting involved.

Social Order and Safety: Right or Privilege?

The Panopticon allows officers and agents of authority to keep a constant view on their subjects in both the organization of its section and plan.

the Authority resides in the center of the building

the Subjects are under constant perception of surveillance

III.

The Robert Taylor Homes, as part of a much larger public housing movement, suffered from many social, political, and economic issues. Rampant crime, overcrowding, and poorly maintained facilities marked the experience of more than 27,000 tenants. Deteriorated conditions rendered the complex difficult and dangerous for law enforcement to enter. The presence of social efficacy, a theory pioneered by Robert J. Sampson, empowered tenants to form networks to respond to prevalent crime. Networks employed the collective action of monitoring behavior and public spaces in an order of prevention. Hierarchies were created with leaders such as Wyona Wilson to handle more complex interventions and reporting issues to outside law enforcement. As Michel de Certeau asserts in The Practice of Everyday Life, there are many ways of operating and of doing. Furthermore, the individual is the main agent for consumption and ultimate change.46 The tactical responses of the tenants illustrate the importance of consumption and reinterpretation of paradigms. The behaviors exemplified required active community and individual engagement to respond to overwhelming safety issues. In the absence of widespread collective efficacy, society has fallen into a state of mass surveillance. Perhaps it is time to turn to social movements in marginalized communities, distinct from the culture of control, to find a less restrictive solution to community security.

Appendix A. Arjun Appadurai, a contemporary anthropologist, views “locality as primarily relational and contextual rather than as scalar or spatial. [He sees] is as a complex phenomenological quality, constituted by a series of links between the sense of social immediacy, the technologies of interactivity, and the relativity of contexts. This phenomenological quality, which expresses itself in certain kinds of agency, sociality, and reproducibility, is the main predicate of locality […]” (Appadurai 178) B. Appadurai describes marginalized communities as context-produced, rather than context generative. This means that these neighborhoods are “produced in the darkest circumstances” instead of generating their own context to then inform the production of locality. Prison and concentration camps serve as the most extreme examples of these types of communities. (Appadurai 193) C. Michel de Certeau, a French Jesuit and scholar of history, psychoanalysis, philosophy, and the social sciences, claimed the power of a tactic in its ability to accumulate gains without inscribing territory or defining a physical or juridical space. (de Certeau xix) 1. Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), ix-x. 2. Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 184. 3. Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), ix-x. 4. Kwinter, Sanford. Notes on the Third Ecology. Ecological Urbanism. Mohsen Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, ed. (Zurich: Lars Müller Publishers, 2010), 99. 5. Ibid. 6. Sampson, Robert J. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012), 9. 7. Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 13. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid., 22. 10. Ibid., 72. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., 69. 14. Sampson, Robert J. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012), 152. 15. Ibid., 153. 16. Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), xvi. 17. Ibid., 77. 18. Ibid., 79. 19. Ibid. 20. Kotlowitz, Alex. There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in the Other America. (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 31. 21. Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 78. 22. Ibid., 79. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid., 81. 25. Garland, David. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 193.

26. Webb, Maureen. Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World. (San Francisco: City Lights, 2007.), 147. 27. Ibid., 148. 28. Figliola, Patricia Moloney. Digital Surveillance: The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2007), 149. 29. Ibid. 30. Webb, Maureen. Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World. (San Francisco: City Lights, 2007.), 149. 31. Ibid, 32. Ibid., 151. 33. Ibid., 162. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid., 163. 36. Garland, David. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 194. 37. Ibid., 196. 38. Webb, Maureen. Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World. (San Francisco: City Lights, 2007.), 148. 39. Garland, David. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 195. 40. Psychology Today. Psych Basics: The Bystander Effect. (<http://www. psychologytoday.com/basics/bystandereffect>. 26 Nov 2013.) 41. Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space. (<http://www.defensiblespace.com/>. 26 Nov 2013.) 42. Bentham, Jeremy. The Panopticon Writings. (Ed. Miran Bozovic London: Verso, 1995) 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. 45. Webb, Maureen. Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World. (San Francisco: City Lights, 2007.), 235. 46. de Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984), xi. 47. Bogira, Steve. Concentrated poverty and homicide in Chicago. (<http:// www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/ archives/2012/07/26/concentrated-povertyand-homicide-in-chicago>. 3 Dec 2013)

Works Cited Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Print. Bentham, Jeremy. The Panopticon Writings. Ed. Miran Bozovic London: Verso, 1995. Print. Bogira, Steve. Concentrated poverty and homicide in Chicago. <http://www.chicagoreader. com/Bleader/archives/2012/07/26/concentrated-poverty-and-homicide-in-chicago> de Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1984. Print. Figliola, Patricia Moloney. Digital Surveillance: The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 2007. Article. Garland, David. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Print. Kotlowitz, Alex. There Are No Children Here: The Story of Two Boys Growing Up in the Other America. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Print. Kwinter, Sanford. Notes on the Third Ecology. Ecological Urbanism. Mohsen Mostafavi and Gareth Doherty, ed. Zurich: Lars Müller Publishers, 2010. pp. 90-105. Print. Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space. <http://www.defensiblespace.com/>. 26 Nov 2013. Psychology Today. Psych Basics: The Bystander Effect. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/ basics/bystander-effect>. 26 Nov 2013. Web. Sampson, Robert J. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012. Print. Venkatesh, Sudhir Alladi. American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. Print. Webb, Maureen. Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World. San Francisco: City Lights, 2007. Print. Image Credits I. www.npr.org/2012/07/28/157454927/gang-violence-smoulders-on-hot-chicago-streets II. http://paulmullins.wordpress.com III. http://www.presidentsmedals.com/Entry-13310 IV. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zv5V20J0BPs/TqdbRuI1XpI/AAAAAAAABjI/HbeLckyvifE/s1600/ V. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ VI. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ VII. http://www.pruittigoenow.org/before-and-after/