Samenvattingen tekst crime and the city
Week 1: ORDER AND DISORDER; FEAR; PUBLIC SPACES
Introduction to the course – order and disorder
Mooney – Urban disorder (primary)
The text by Gerry Mooney examines the idea of urban “disorder” and shows that order and
disorder are not objective or neutral categories, but social constructions that come from power
relations, dominant worldviews, and inequality. Disorder can only exist in relation to a certain
idea of order, and the central question throughout the text is therefore: whose order and whose
disorder? What is seen as chaotic, dangerous, or problematic by one group can be functional,
logical, and even necessary for another group.
Cities are characterized by intensity, closeness, and diversity, but also by strong social and
spatial divisions. Historically, as in Engels’ description of nineteenth-century Manchester, and
also in contemporary cities, the concentration of people and activities leads to both creativity
and economic dynamism, as well as to alienation, conflict, and exclusion. Attempts to “order”
cities – through planning, redevelopment, suburbanization, or modernization – often produce
new forms of disorder, especially for socially weaker groups.
The text shows how images of urban disorder are strongly influenced by the media, politics, and
dominant discourses. Riots, slums, ghettos, and problem neighborhoods function as symbols of
urban decline, while their structural causes – such as market forces, state policies,
globalization, and inequality – often remain out of view. Disorder is therefore personalized and
problematized in specific groups and places, which are “othered” and stigmatized as dangerous,
deviant, or morally inferior.
Through different case studies, Mooney makes clear how this process appears in different
contexts.
In British cities, post-war social housing was initially intended to create order by clearing slums.
The peripheral housing estates that resulted from this, such as in Glasgow, were later
themselves labeled as problem areas. They became isolated, socially stigmatized, and
associated with crime and “underclass” discourses, while their problems largely come from
structural poverty, policy choices, and spatial segregation.
In Manchester, this tension becomes visible in the opposing images of the city as, on the one
hand, “Gunchester” (violence, drugs, crime) and, on the other hand, “Madchester” (creativity,
culture, and nightlife). Both representations are simplifications that hide the complex reality of
the city and certain neighborhoods.
The text then critically examines the idea of the urban “underclass” and the slum. These are
often presented as chaotic, pathological, and socially disorganized, while research shows that
both ghettos and slums are internally well structured, with their own norms, networks, and
survival strategies. What is seen as disorder from the outside often turns out, from the inside, to
be a rational response to exclusion, marginalization, and a lack of alternatives (for example, the
favelas in Brazil).
,Finally, Mooney emphasizes that urban disorder cannot be separated from broader economic,
political, and social processes. Globalization, market logic, and state planning produce specific
spatial arrangements that create wealth and poverty, inclusion and exclusion, order and
disorder at the same time. Cities are therefore not inherently chaotic spaces, but places where
different forms of order exist next to each other, and where what is labeled as disorder is often
the result of conscious choices and power structures, rather than the failure or deviance of
certain groups.
Ritzer – McDonaldization of the society (supplementary)
In The McDonaldization of Society, George Ritzer explains how the logic of fast-food restaurants,
especially McDonald’s, spreads to more and more areas of society. He calls this process
McDonaldization. It is not only about food, but about how work, consumption, education,
healthcare, leisure time, and even social relationships are organized.
McDonaldization is based on four main principles:
1. Efficiency
The fastest and most practical way to reach a goal. People are encouraged to save time
and to follow fixed steps that are decided in advance (for example, self-service or online
ordering).
2. Calculability
The focus is on quantity rather than quality. Big, fast, cheap, and more become more
important than content, craftsmanship, or meaning.
3. Predictability
Products and experiences are the same everywhere. What you get in a McDonald’s in
London is similar to what you get in New York or Brussels. Surprise and variety disappear.
4. Control
People (both workers and customers) are guided and controlled by rules, technology,
and standards. Machines and protocols replace human judgment.
Although McDonaldization has advantages – such as convenience, speed, accessibility, and
lower costs – Ritzer mainly stresses its negative consequences, which he calls the “irrationality
of rationality.” Systems that seem rational often lead to inhuman, inefficient, or problematic
results, such as alienation, stress, loss of autonomy, dehumanization of work, and the
homogenization of culture. In this sense, McDonaldization is a modern version of Weber’s iron
cage: a rational order that supports people, but at the same time traps them in tightly organized
and controlled structures.
Ritzer argues that McDonaldization is a double process: it makes things possible (efficiency and
accessibility), but at the same time limits creativity, freedom, and humanity.
,Link met urban order/disorder – text Ritzer
George Ritzer uses the concept of McDonaldization to describe how the logic of efficiency,
calculability, predictability, and control, originally developed in fast-food restaurants, has spread
to more and more areas of society, including urban life. This development is closely linked to
Max Weber’s analysis of rationalization and his idea of the iron cage: people increasingly
become trapped in rational systems that promise order and efficiency, but at the same time limit
freedom, creativity, and autonomy.
In urban contexts, this rationalization appears as a strong focus on urban order. Cities are
organized to function in the most predictable, controllable, and efficient way possible. Public
space is tightly planned, functions are separated, and the behavior of city users is guided by
rules, architecture, and technology. Shopping centers, transport stations, fast-food areas, and
controlled public spaces are examples of a McDonaldized urban order in which desired behavior
is encouraged and deviations are discouraged.
Technology plays a central role as a tool of control. Camera surveillance, digital payment and
ordering systems, access controls, algorithms, and surveillance infrastructures replace human
judgment and make urban behavior measurable and predictable. As a result, control becomes
impersonal and constantly present, further enclosing urban space within Weber’s iron cage of
rationality.
Questions for further reflection:
1) What is a suspicious/abnormal behaviour in public space?
Mooney:
Suspicious or abnormal behavior is not an objective category, but a social construct. Behavior
becomes “suspicious” when it deviates from what dominant groups consider normal. Youth
loitering, informal trading, homelessness, or rowdy behavior are often labeled as problematic,
not because they are inherently criminal, but because they do not fit within dominant ideas of
order and respectability.
Ritzer:
Within a McDonaldized urban order, behavior is suspect when it is inefficient, unpredictable, or
difficult to control. Anything that doesn't fit into fixed scripts (staying seated for long periods, not
consuming anything, improvising) is seen as abnormal.
, 2) Can we fight crime by tackling disorder? Does it make sense to (re)order a city in
order to reduce crime?
Mooney:
Mooney is highly critical of this idea. The assumption that disorder automatically leads to crime
(as in broken windows theory) is problematic. Disorder is often a symptom of structural
inequality, not the cause of crime. Reordering cities without addressing these structural causes
tends to displace problems rather than solve them.
Ritzer:
Ritzer shows that reordering often leads to more control and surveillance, but not necessarily to
less crime. Efficiency and control may increase feelings of safety, but they do not address the
social roots of crime.
Answer:
No. Simply (re)ordering cities is not a sustainable or effective way to reduce crime.
3) What would be an interesting and useful definition of public order? And public
disorder?
Public order:
Public order is the dominant way in which public space is organized, regulated, and controlled
to make behaviour predictable, acceptable, and manageable within existing power relations.
Public disorder:
Public disorder refers to behaviours, groups, or uses of space that are defined as problematic
because they do not fit dominant norms of order, efficiency, and control, rather than because
they are inherently harmful or criminal.
6) Are public spaces chaotic?
Mooney:
No. What is often described as chaos is usually an alternative form of order. Slums, informal
markets, and so-called “problem neighbourhoods” have internal structures, rules, and social
networks.
Ritzer:
Public spaces are only seen as chaotic when they do not meet rational, standardized norms.
From other perspectives, they are functional and meaningful.
The texts by Mooney and Ritzer show that order and disorder in public space are not objective
realities, but social constructions shaped by power, rationalization, and control. Attempts to
strengthen urban order in the name of safety and crime prevention often lead to exclusion,
stigmatization, and new forms of disorder, while the structural causes of crime remain
unaddressed.
Week 1: ORDER AND DISORDER; FEAR; PUBLIC SPACES
Introduction to the course – order and disorder
Mooney – Urban disorder (primary)
The text by Gerry Mooney examines the idea of urban “disorder” and shows that order and
disorder are not objective or neutral categories, but social constructions that come from power
relations, dominant worldviews, and inequality. Disorder can only exist in relation to a certain
idea of order, and the central question throughout the text is therefore: whose order and whose
disorder? What is seen as chaotic, dangerous, or problematic by one group can be functional,
logical, and even necessary for another group.
Cities are characterized by intensity, closeness, and diversity, but also by strong social and
spatial divisions. Historically, as in Engels’ description of nineteenth-century Manchester, and
also in contemporary cities, the concentration of people and activities leads to both creativity
and economic dynamism, as well as to alienation, conflict, and exclusion. Attempts to “order”
cities – through planning, redevelopment, suburbanization, or modernization – often produce
new forms of disorder, especially for socially weaker groups.
The text shows how images of urban disorder are strongly influenced by the media, politics, and
dominant discourses. Riots, slums, ghettos, and problem neighborhoods function as symbols of
urban decline, while their structural causes – such as market forces, state policies,
globalization, and inequality – often remain out of view. Disorder is therefore personalized and
problematized in specific groups and places, which are “othered” and stigmatized as dangerous,
deviant, or morally inferior.
Through different case studies, Mooney makes clear how this process appears in different
contexts.
In British cities, post-war social housing was initially intended to create order by clearing slums.
The peripheral housing estates that resulted from this, such as in Glasgow, were later
themselves labeled as problem areas. They became isolated, socially stigmatized, and
associated with crime and “underclass” discourses, while their problems largely come from
structural poverty, policy choices, and spatial segregation.
In Manchester, this tension becomes visible in the opposing images of the city as, on the one
hand, “Gunchester” (violence, drugs, crime) and, on the other hand, “Madchester” (creativity,
culture, and nightlife). Both representations are simplifications that hide the complex reality of
the city and certain neighborhoods.
The text then critically examines the idea of the urban “underclass” and the slum. These are
often presented as chaotic, pathological, and socially disorganized, while research shows that
both ghettos and slums are internally well structured, with their own norms, networks, and
survival strategies. What is seen as disorder from the outside often turns out, from the inside, to
be a rational response to exclusion, marginalization, and a lack of alternatives (for example, the
favelas in Brazil).
,Finally, Mooney emphasizes that urban disorder cannot be separated from broader economic,
political, and social processes. Globalization, market logic, and state planning produce specific
spatial arrangements that create wealth and poverty, inclusion and exclusion, order and
disorder at the same time. Cities are therefore not inherently chaotic spaces, but places where
different forms of order exist next to each other, and where what is labeled as disorder is often
the result of conscious choices and power structures, rather than the failure or deviance of
certain groups.
Ritzer – McDonaldization of the society (supplementary)
In The McDonaldization of Society, George Ritzer explains how the logic of fast-food restaurants,
especially McDonald’s, spreads to more and more areas of society. He calls this process
McDonaldization. It is not only about food, but about how work, consumption, education,
healthcare, leisure time, and even social relationships are organized.
McDonaldization is based on four main principles:
1. Efficiency
The fastest and most practical way to reach a goal. People are encouraged to save time
and to follow fixed steps that are decided in advance (for example, self-service or online
ordering).
2. Calculability
The focus is on quantity rather than quality. Big, fast, cheap, and more become more
important than content, craftsmanship, or meaning.
3. Predictability
Products and experiences are the same everywhere. What you get in a McDonald’s in
London is similar to what you get in New York or Brussels. Surprise and variety disappear.
4. Control
People (both workers and customers) are guided and controlled by rules, technology,
and standards. Machines and protocols replace human judgment.
Although McDonaldization has advantages – such as convenience, speed, accessibility, and
lower costs – Ritzer mainly stresses its negative consequences, which he calls the “irrationality
of rationality.” Systems that seem rational often lead to inhuman, inefficient, or problematic
results, such as alienation, stress, loss of autonomy, dehumanization of work, and the
homogenization of culture. In this sense, McDonaldization is a modern version of Weber’s iron
cage: a rational order that supports people, but at the same time traps them in tightly organized
and controlled structures.
Ritzer argues that McDonaldization is a double process: it makes things possible (efficiency and
accessibility), but at the same time limits creativity, freedom, and humanity.
,Link met urban order/disorder – text Ritzer
George Ritzer uses the concept of McDonaldization to describe how the logic of efficiency,
calculability, predictability, and control, originally developed in fast-food restaurants, has spread
to more and more areas of society, including urban life. This development is closely linked to
Max Weber’s analysis of rationalization and his idea of the iron cage: people increasingly
become trapped in rational systems that promise order and efficiency, but at the same time limit
freedom, creativity, and autonomy.
In urban contexts, this rationalization appears as a strong focus on urban order. Cities are
organized to function in the most predictable, controllable, and efficient way possible. Public
space is tightly planned, functions are separated, and the behavior of city users is guided by
rules, architecture, and technology. Shopping centers, transport stations, fast-food areas, and
controlled public spaces are examples of a McDonaldized urban order in which desired behavior
is encouraged and deviations are discouraged.
Technology plays a central role as a tool of control. Camera surveillance, digital payment and
ordering systems, access controls, algorithms, and surveillance infrastructures replace human
judgment and make urban behavior measurable and predictable. As a result, control becomes
impersonal and constantly present, further enclosing urban space within Weber’s iron cage of
rationality.
Questions for further reflection:
1) What is a suspicious/abnormal behaviour in public space?
Mooney:
Suspicious or abnormal behavior is not an objective category, but a social construct. Behavior
becomes “suspicious” when it deviates from what dominant groups consider normal. Youth
loitering, informal trading, homelessness, or rowdy behavior are often labeled as problematic,
not because they are inherently criminal, but because they do not fit within dominant ideas of
order and respectability.
Ritzer:
Within a McDonaldized urban order, behavior is suspect when it is inefficient, unpredictable, or
difficult to control. Anything that doesn't fit into fixed scripts (staying seated for long periods, not
consuming anything, improvising) is seen as abnormal.
, 2) Can we fight crime by tackling disorder? Does it make sense to (re)order a city in
order to reduce crime?
Mooney:
Mooney is highly critical of this idea. The assumption that disorder automatically leads to crime
(as in broken windows theory) is problematic. Disorder is often a symptom of structural
inequality, not the cause of crime. Reordering cities without addressing these structural causes
tends to displace problems rather than solve them.
Ritzer:
Ritzer shows that reordering often leads to more control and surveillance, but not necessarily to
less crime. Efficiency and control may increase feelings of safety, but they do not address the
social roots of crime.
Answer:
No. Simply (re)ordering cities is not a sustainable or effective way to reduce crime.
3) What would be an interesting and useful definition of public order? And public
disorder?
Public order:
Public order is the dominant way in which public space is organized, regulated, and controlled
to make behaviour predictable, acceptable, and manageable within existing power relations.
Public disorder:
Public disorder refers to behaviours, groups, or uses of space that are defined as problematic
because they do not fit dominant norms of order, efficiency, and control, rather than because
they are inherently harmful or criminal.
6) Are public spaces chaotic?
Mooney:
No. What is often described as chaos is usually an alternative form of order. Slums, informal
markets, and so-called “problem neighbourhoods” have internal structures, rules, and social
networks.
Ritzer:
Public spaces are only seen as chaotic when they do not meet rational, standardized norms.
From other perspectives, they are functional and meaningful.
The texts by Mooney and Ritzer show that order and disorder in public space are not objective
realities, but social constructions shaped by power, rationalization, and control. Attempts to
strengthen urban order in the name of safety and crime prevention often lead to exclusion,
stigmatization, and new forms of disorder, while the structural causes of crime remain
unaddressed.
