Residents’ proprietary attitudes toward public places can deter crime there

Evidence

These two interests began to separate after the middle of the twelfth century; royal jurisdiction then came to be executed by judicial commissions that rode large circuits, and their administration was obviously of a more general, locally unconstrained sort, while the interests of the community were protected by the growing significance of the local jury. Here the community, in its purely internal interests, played the role of the individual in our correlation; it was a social individual whose judicial life had once run its course along with that of the political state-collectivity, but which later gained a purer autonomy of being with which it then stood along side of, or in opposition to, the equally more purely elaborated law of the large collectivity. — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 682 (#complicates, via linked claim)

His world was, I think, more cohesive than ours. He despaired of it, but he felt part of it—a citizen of a provincial city, with stern obligations to public work and to high culture. — Hilary Mantel, A Memoir of My Former Self- A Life in…, 196 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Groups behave like residents and take over public space with abandon; Residents’ private claiming of public spaces both reinforces and subverts urban spatial order; The local community functioned as an individual against the state — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 682 (+3 more)

Broader Connections