Week7(2/27)
Seeing Like a State. 1996. Intro, Chapters 1 + 2(James Scott.)
Seeing from “king” s view:
“be able to himself to know with certitude in what consists his grandeur, his wealth, and his strength”(p.11)
Certain forms of knowledge(belongs to the upper class?) and control require a narrowing vision.
"The great advantage of such tunnel vision is that it brings into sharp focus certain limited aspects of an otherwise far more complex and unwieldy reality.”(p.11)
Utilitarianism of forest:
If the state only sees forestry through the lens of utilitarianism, there is a significant risk that the state ignores
the other role of forest in biodiversity or local community, because the only measure is whether forests make a profit.
Example of terminology in the context of human use:
- Nature-Natural resources
- Plants-Crops-Weeds
- Insects-Pests
“the forest itself would not even have to be seen; it could be “read” accurately from the tables and maps in the forester’s office.”(p.15)
Reconstruction of Paris:
Considering following factors, Haussmann’s redesign of city of Paris enabled regime to “read” the city and
helped manage and administer city with more ease.
- Legible intent
“resemblance to the logic behind the transformation of old-growth forests into scientific forests designed for unitary fiscal management”(p.59)
- Historical context
"The military control of these insurrectionary spaces-spaces that had not yet been well mapped-was integral to Haussmann's plan”(p.61)
- Improvement of public health
“Community” from a regime perspective and residents perspective
For regime, community-friendliness or accuracy has not necessary top-priority.
Rather, whether the society if legible(taxable) enough was more important
"The cadastral map and property register are to the taxation of land as the maps and tables of the scientific forester were to the fiscal
exploitation of the forest.”(p.36)
Question:
Reading so far seems as if scholars who can provide a different lens to decision makers played a very limited role in history.
1. If so, what is the sociopolitical context that limited them(e.g. anthropologist, ethnographers, anyone who provide different perspective) from participating in policy making? 2. Is asserting feedback from academia not enough to make a change?
------------------------------------------
Surveillance
1.Informal/Natural (e.g. Neighbor communication)
2.Formal/Organised (e.g. More patrol of security guards)
- What guards actually do may be as important as their physical presence
3.Mechanical (CCTV)
-Less impact to reduce crime without ‘rationality'
4.Mechanical (Lighting)
“this review should have stimulated more studies but was mistakenly interpreted as demonstrating that lighting had no obvious effect on levels of crime and funding for research on this topic in the USA evaporated.”(p.7)
Access Control
Concept focused on reducing opportunities for crime by denying access to potential targets and creating a heightened perception of risk in offenders(p.8)
Activity Support
Activity support involves the use of design and signage to encourage intended patterns of usage of public space.(p.9)
Image/Maintenance
“Promoting a positive image and routinely maintaining the built environment ensures that the physical environment continues to function effectively and transmits positive signals to all users.”(p.10)
→But we can’t conclude that the financially advantaged city leads to less crime.
Target Hardening
Does the cost of target hardening tactics outweigh the benefit?
Limitation
1. Does the reduction of fear of crime contribute to safety in the city?
Is there any byproduct from the perception of safety, such as people consume products at night?
2. We found out that the number of crime is not the only metrics
What is the other metrics of safety in the city?
Is there correlation between wealth and safety?
Does the metric change depend on the value of the city and residents?
------------------------------------------
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography. (P.M. Cozens, G. Saville, G. and D. Hillier. (2005).)
Surveillance
1.Informal/Natural (e.g. Neighbor communication)
2.Formal/Organised (e.g. More patrol of security guards)
- What guards actually do may be as important as their physical presence
3.Mechanical (CCTV)
-Less impact to reduce crime without ‘rationality'
4.Mechanical (Lighting)
“this review should have stimulated more studies but was mistakenly interpreted as demonstrating that lighting had no obvious effect on levels of crime and funding for research on this topic in the USA evaporated.”(p.7)
Access Control
Concept focused on reducing opportunities for crime by denying access to potential targets and creating a heightened perception of risk in offenders(p.8)
Activity Support
Activity support involves the use of design and signage to encourage intended patterns of usage of public space.(p.9)
Image/Maintenance
“Promoting a positive image and routinely maintaining the built environment ensures that the physical environment continues to function effectively and transmits positive signals to all users.”(p.10)
→But we can’t conclude that the financially advantaged city leads to less crime.
Target Hardening
Does the cost of target hardening tactics outweigh the benefit?
Limitation
- Less impact on ‘irrational’ offenders
- Negative socio-economic and demographic dynamics reduce efficiency
- Displacement
- Ecological threshold
1. Does the reduction of fear of crime contribute to safety in the city?
Is there any byproduct from the perception of safety, such as people consume products at night?
2. We found out that the number of crime is not the only metrics
What is the other metrics of safety in the city?
Is there correlation between wealth and safety?
Does the metric change depend on the value of the city and residents?