Abstract
In France, public policies began defining “incivilities” as a primary topic and target to focus on more than two decades ago. Yet what this term actually means is still somewhat unclear: almost every organization that uses it has its own definition, sometimes its own observatory. Despite, or perhaps because of, its very vagueness, the concept has become widely shared and used, securing itself a place on the agendas of most local security policies, becoming an explicit part of the remits of an increasing number of professionals, from police officers to social workers, including a wide range of municipal agents. The range of situations and behaviors potentially included in the list of “unruly conduct” is seemingly endless, from groups of teenagers hanging out to homeless people privatizing public places, and from using playgrounds as public toilets to noise, garbage, dog fouling, graffiti, queue-jumping, pushing and shoving, street harassment, insults of all kinds, badly parked cars, and so forth. However, not all of them provoke the same public attention. This article focuses on the way disorders are actually defined, measured, and dealt with in practice. Incivilities are often said to be growing because of increasing powerlessness. Our research proves action is far from being merely correlative to the legal capacity for sanction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The analyses presented here are based on a diverse range of material, assembled in the course of four different surveys: 1) a first survey, conducted in the Paris region between 2000 and 2006, on civility in urban interactions (Gayet-Viaud 2008, forthcoming); 2) a survey initiated two years ago, and still under way, on incivilities and policies for their regulation, based on ethnographic studies of two neighborhoods in an arrondissement in the north of Paris and two neighborhoods in a large city in the south of France. Within this context, participant observations, simple observations, documentary analyses (a year of written complaints) and interviews were conducted (n = 55 to date) in public spaces, and with a wide variety of individuals and institutions: transport operators, landlords, municipal security officers, police officers, prevention associations specialized in mediation, elected representatives, residents and leaders of various associations (neighborhood, retirees, parent–teacher, allotment, neighborhood women’s associations). To this can be added the secondary usage of materials collected as part of two other surveys: (3) a collective survey commissioned by the French interior ministry on the role of DCPPs (délégués à la cohésion police–population – delegates for promoting police–population relations) involving a series of interviews (n = 27) and (4) a survey commissioned by the city of Paris on incivilities in public libraries, involving observations (three researchers for 3 weeks), interviews with librarians and local public security managers (n = 30), as well as the documentary analysis of incident reports for a period of 4 years (2009–2013): Gayet-Viaud 2014b.
Its theorical background being the famous “broken-window theory”, based on the assertion that a continuous spectrum exists between the most minor forms of disorder, right up to the most serious forms of crime. By deeming any apparent disorder as an invitation to crime, it has led to a shift toward the implementation of “early” measures to combat minor offenses. Despite the numerous criticisms generated by these policies (Harcourt 2001; Mucchielli 2002), these ideas have had no shortage of proponents in France: their importation has been an opportunity for growing calls to bring an “end to laxity” and, feeding off such enthusiasm, has had real electoral success.
« La civilité ça change la ville » (« civility changes the city »), RATP Forum, September 28th, 2011, foreword by RATP (Paris Public Transportation Authority) President, Pierre Mongin.
We already mentioned the diversity of definitions among scholars. As for public and private organizations, municipalities, regional councils, public-transport operators, and landlords, many have created observatories and taken action, but there is still no shared definition of the problem among them. While ONDRP (Observatoire National de la Délinquance et des Réponses Pénales – National Center for Monitoring Crime and Criminal-Justice Responses, a structure created in 2003 to clarify statistics on crime and criminality, operating under the aegis of the interior ministry) “chose to define incivilities as uncivil behaviors [sic] that are not legally sanctioned and are characterized by disrespectful attitude, lack of politeness or courtesy (i.e., spitting, obscene gestures, unacceptable behaviors, excessive speech…)”, RATP includes fare evasion; USH counts two types of incivilities, those committed against “local” personnel (including concierges, cleaning personnel and any agents present on sites) and all “acts of vandalism targeting property belonging to the social landlord (Thieffry et al. 2014). Some CLSPD (Local Security Boards) include school absence, and so forth.
This is the case for anti-begging bylaws, catalogued by the associations DAL (Droit au Logement – “Right to Housing”) and Vivre au Présent (“Live in the Present”). According to their records, 32 towns and cities passed at least one anti-begging bylaw between 1993 and 2002 (Fossier and Gardella 2006).
The Villepinte symposium took place on 24 and 25 October 1997 in the town of the same name (in the northeastern suburbs of Paris) at the initiative of the French interior ministry, and was titled “Des villes sûres pour des citoyens libres” (“Safe cities for free citizens”). It was a key moment in the history of security policy in France, as it formally recognized incivilities while simultaneously marking a turning point in the Left’s approach to security issues, and more specifically a shift from an approach based on promoting education and social justice to one that was more explicitly security-centered. The inaugural speech, given by the interior minister Jean-Pierre Chevènement (1997), attributed the rise in crime over the previous three decades to a breakdown in “the transmission of values and of respect for the most basic rules”, considering that “the problem with citizenship [was] the primary cause of insecurity.” The significance of incivility quite naturally fit in with this new ideological framework, with delinquency and petty crime becoming the acts of choice for those deciding to “break the Republican pact”.
Replacing the municipal crime-prevention councils created in 1983.
Articles 50 and 51 of the French equal-opportunities law of March 31, 2006, enables municipal and rural police officers to issue tickets for certain infractions included in the Penal Code and listed in a specific decree: allowing dangerous animals to roam free, offensive noise or excessive night-time noise, and ill treatment or cruelty to an animal. Article 44-1 of the Criminal Procedural Code gives mayors powers to settle disputes by offering perpetrators the opportunity to make good the prejudice caused or to carry out unpaid community work for the benefit of the municipality in question, e.g., cleaning or renovating graffitied or tagged façades. This decree also gives municipal police officers the option of a simplified procedure for the application of a fixed fine.
The crime-prevention law of March 2007 created the FIPD (Fonds Interministériel de Prévention de la Délinquance – Interministerial Crime-Prevention Fund), a large proportion of which went toward financing CCTV installations (60% in 2010). The law known as “LOPPSI 2” (Loi d’Orientation et de Programmation pour la Performance de la Sécurité Intérieure — Act for the Organization and Planning of Internal Security Measures) of March 2011 allows prefects in each département the option of forcing mayors to install CCTV systems.
This law dates back to the Vichy government in 1942, when catching tuberculosis was still a very real threat, and remains in force, albeit in a modified form since 1992.
The use of water-repellent paint that causes urine to rebound off walls on to the feet of perpetrators, imported from Hamburg in Germany, is also being studied.
This legislation is here considered as part of the legal framework aimed at combating incivility (though the scope of what is fought against is often wider, of course) because for in all the cases studied here, changes in law and by-laws have been explicitly presented as having to do with the fight against incivility, and/or the problems and phenomena targeted have been publicly defined as being a major aspect of incivility: in political debates in Parliament around “LSI” in 2002-2003, in public communication tools at the local level (cities websites), in national and local politicians public speeches, and in public definitions of policing professionals missions (Gautron 2007).
A specificity of these problems, and petty street crime more generally, is that inaction costs more in political terms than taking action. By contrast, for other forms of infractions that are potentially more serious, in civic terms, but less visible (or hidden, even) — such as tax fraud or misuse of corporate assets — the relationship between the cost of inaction and the cost of taking action is reversed (Katz 2013): it is very expensive to highlight these latter kinds of practices, whereas it costs very little to ignore them and let them carry on in the shadows, away from public scrutiny.
The issue of loitering in apartment-building entrance halls has given rise to a panoply of texts over the last 20 years, first by making it possible for concierges and caretakers to call upon the national police (1995) and, later, the relevant municipal police force (2001), until March 18, 2003 LSI, making the illicit occupation of building entrance halls a crime punishable by two months in prison and a fine of €3,750. The crime-prevention law of March 5, 2007, extended the definition of this crime, to cover all communal spaces and roof areas, and stiffened the applicable sanctions. In addition, social landlords have been authorized to install CCTV cameras in the communal areas of apartment buildings, with a relay of footage through to police control rooms (French law no. 2010-201 of March 2, 2010, on strengthening the fight against group violence and protecting persons performing a public service).
Also known as the Loi d’Orientation et de Programmation pour la Justice (Act for the Organization and Planning of Justice) or, more informally, the “Loi Perben I” (“Perben I Law,” named for Dominique Perben, the justice minister at the time).
Another offense must be mentioned here, the offense of masking one’s face in the public space, which at the same time created the legal notion of public space in French criminal law (Bui-Xuan 2013), instituted by French law no. 2010-1192 of October 11, 2010 also known as the “anti-burqa law”. According to the figures published by the French interior ministry’s Observatoire de la Laïcité (“Secularism Observatory”), between the moment this offense came on to the statute books in 2011 and February 2014, some 1,038 sanctions were issued with certain women having been identity-checked several times — up to 29 times in one case, and 25 times in another (both in the département of Alpes-Maritimes on the Côte d’Azur).
Loi d’Orientation et de Programmation pour la Performance de la Sécurité Intérieure (Act for the Organization and Planning of Internal Security Measures).
Examples of persons deemed to perform a public service in France include schoolteachers, bus drivers, firefighters, mail carriers, and traffic wardens. Examples of persons invested with public authority include magistrates, prefects, municipal police officers, national police officers, gendarmes, customs officers, Paris surveillance officers, labor inspectors, and sworn agents of the French national railways (SNCF).
For example, despite the creation of the offense of showing contempt for a teacher — punishable by six months’ imprisonment and a €7,500 fine — by the Act for the Organization and Planning of Justice (French law no. 2002-1138 of September 9, 2002) the “Perben I Law,” cases of contempt for a teacher are generally closed without any action being taken. Essentially, only police officers’ cases find their way into the courtroom (Jobard and Zimolag 2005).
Police officers are a rarer resource than less qualified public-security personnel.
Interview, manager within the DPP (Direction de la Prévention et de la Protection – Department of Prevention and Protection), Paris City Council, December 2013.
The Carré des Biffins is an area adjacent to the flea markets of Clignancourt and Saint-Ouen where the city council has made 100 plots available to local residents wishing to sell salvaged, second-hand objects.
Interview, manager within the DPP, Paris City Council, December 2013.
Interview, police officer belonging to a BST (brigade spécialisée de terrain – specialized field unit), February 2014.
Interview, manager within the DPP, on the subject of Paris City Council’s teams of security inspectors, March 2015.
These forms of “filtering” occur throughout the law-enforcement chain, both upstream (possibility of filing a complaint) and downstream of the judicial process (decision to press charges or not). For example, regarding the offense of contempt for persons performing a public service, few complaints are filed, and it would seem that public prosecutors typically drop cases of this kind without further action, with the effect that the offense — intended to protect schoolteachers from verbal assault — is de facto unenforceable.
The police officers interviewed agreed — as did the residents surveyed, via their narratives and written grievances — that there was a need to report these shortcomings, often deemed inevitable given the current state of resources available. In this regard, DCPPs (délégués à la cohésion police–population – delegates for promoting police–population relations) are sometimes the exception that proves the rule (De Maillard et al. 2017).
This division of labor between police and other bodies linked with maintaining public peace can also be considered a legitimization of the police’s growing abandonment of certain functions, associated with beat patrols and community policing, which amounts to “removing the national police from these spaces, exempting them from being present on the ground, getting to know people, talking to them, and so this is what the police becomes, like certain colleagues from the BAC [serious crime squad], Robocop types, always in their squad cars, ready to pounce” (interview, DCPP, February 2014). See also: Mouhanna 2011.
Interview, educator, July 2013.
“Oh yes, the mediators, we see them around: it’s the uniform, it’s their big thing. At Lafontaine [a local mediation association], they actually dress them in pink! And, well, obviously, it costs less. […] You only have to look at the national statistics — of the 30,000 posts created in the last 10 years, barely 1,500 of them have been for specialist educators… We’re an endangered species. Quality comes at a price…” (interview, managing director of a specialist prevention service, July 2013).
Interview, director of a specialist prevention service, October 2014.
Locally, fining is maybe a mid-term path that more and more cities, regardless of their political color, tend to adopt, mostly regarding cleanliness issues.
Manuel Valls, then the interior minister, explained that it was “composed of offenses or incivilities that, while not necessarily serious, made the day-to-day lives of residents more difficult,” pointing out that this was “an important change that corresponds to a profound aspiration of our fellow citizens.” “Politiques de sécurité. Bilan et perspectives. 2012–2013,” Ministère de l’Intérieur.
Put in place by SNCF.
Assessments of action undertaken are themselves rather oblique and institution-centered: they concern measures taken (number of tickets issued, number of people contacted, number of calls processed), and focus much less on changing phenomena.
Observatoire Parisien de la Tranquillité Publique – Center for Monitoring Public Peace in Paris.
Civility is, stricto sensu, a regime of sociability whereby people are treated as equals, as co-citizens (Gayet-Viaud 2015; Pharo 1985). Since the French Revolution, civility was transformed to embody political principles of equality and respect between equals into everyday interactions between people that have nothing else in common than the very fact of living together in a society. The «rules» and laws (including civil rules) are obeyed as a part of the political and social contract: everyone is equal before these laws and can contribute to criticizing and changing them if necessary (citizens being co-authors of the laws in a democracy). This suggests a problem of using the idea of «civility» in contexts and situations where the rules and order implied do not belong to the people, who do not have a say in the way things are working and sometimes cannot even complain and hope to be heard about decisions that have direct consequences on their daily lives.
On harm-doing as an attempt to seek or restore face, see the old but still relevant analysis by Lofland (1969).
Public agency distributing family allowance.
Letter to the mayor, Paris, September 2015.
Interview with a student of Master in «Security Policies», March 2014.
Institutions are more or less able to identify and acknowledge their own contribution to incivility: while RATP focuses on bad-mannered people, SNCF says they need to improve their service to customers.
For most of the fieldworks under study, the grievances from inhabitants and customers are not already gathered and measured (whereas incidents with personnel and incivility costs are). It is thus part of this on-going research to gather such symmetrical data. In local and small scale examples, the causal relationship between interactional problems (or some organizational innovation, for instance), has been proven already, through the immediate drop in incivility rate incidents observed, following some basic measures, regarding information to customers (Parisian Hospitals and SNCF).
Along with the minimizing of informal regulation by people themselves (Borzeix et al. 2006).
An allusion to a recent public scandal where horse meat was found in several ranges of frozen TV dinners that were supposed to be made with beef.
“Article 12. Relations with the population. Police and gendarmes serve the population. Their relations with the population shall be courteous at all times and shall exclude the use of the informal “tu”. They shall behave in an exemplary manner in all circumstances. They shall inspire respect and consideration.” The latest version of the code can be viewed online here: http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Le-ministere/Deontologie.
What enforcement policies of recent decades seem to have produced is a wider gap regarding civility expectations. There has been a clear and worrying rise in incidents linked to police checks. Studies have shown that a significant proportion of arrests following identity checks were for offenses committed in the course of the check itself, that is to say offenses partly provoked by these checks that essentially fall into the category of “contempt of cop” (Jobard op. cit.). More generally, the last two decades have been marked by a deterioration in relations between the police and the public (Mouhanna 2011).
Petition letter, Paris, June, 2014.
Interview with a 46 year-old resident of theParisian neighborhood under study, mother of three children of 4, 7, and 11, March 2014.
499 pedestrians were killed in 2014 in France (465 in 2013), two thirds in urban areas, with half aged over 65 (another population group affected in particular is children). Source: DSCR (Délégation à la Sécurité et la Circulation Routières – Delegation to road traffic and safety).
See also actions of “Stop street harassment”, and its French section created in 2014: www.stopharcelementderue.org
2.9% in 2006 and 2.6% in 2011, according to French statistics office INSEE’s 2007–2012 Enquête Cadre de Vie et Sécurité (Living Environment and Security Survey).
Le Monde, 21 octobre 2009.
Here the idea of “consent” is taken in a philosophical perspective, referring to the very general idea that in a democracy laws are legitimate as long as people can picture themselves as co-authors of these laws: that’s what distinguishes power from mere domination.
Among private companies’ executive members interviewed, SNCF or a large French bank human resources direction both acknowledge that more than half (SNCF) to 75% (BNP Paribas) of incivilities are linked to problems in customer service: “we produce a great part of the incivility we suffer” (Incivility Prevention Department’s Director, November 7th 2015). Of the responses provided by private companies, those that have been most successful all seek to facilitate substantive responses to the problems at the root of conflicts. For example, the emergency department of a large Parisian hospital has taken action to rethink the conditions for dealing with people accompanying patients, who often become embroiled in tense exchanges with reception staff and medical personnel, as a result of not being kept adequately informed of the medical care being administered to their loved ones. Certain social landlords have put in place systems where maintenance charges are refunded if lifts break down. Efforts have been made by councils to be more receptive to residents’ grievances on a local level (e.g., the “DansMaRue” digital application recently implemented in Paris, modeled on the British “FixMyStreet” app). Yet much still needs to be done to give more attention to those grievances and monitor them more accurately and systematically.
References
Bannister, J., Fyfe, N., & Kearns, A. (2006). Respectable or respectful? (In)civililty and the city. Urban Studies, 43(5/6), 919–937.
Bonnemain, C. (2000). Les incivilités: Usages d’′une nouvelle catégorie”. In F. Bailleau & C. Gorgeon (Eds.), Prévention et sécurité: Vers un nouvel ordre social ? (pp. 55–66). Paris: Éd. de la Délégation interministérielle à la ville.
Bonnet, F., De Maillard, J., & Roché, S. (2015). Plural policing of public space in France. Between private and local policing. European Journal of Policing Studies, 2(3), 285–303.
Borzeix, A., Collard, D., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2006). Participation, insécurité, civilité: quand les habitants s’en mêlent. Les Cahiers de la Sécurité, 61, 1–29.
Bui-Trong, L. (1993). L’insécurité des quartiers sensibles: une échelle d’évaluation. Les Cahiers de la Sécurité Intérieure, 14, 235–247.
Bui-Xuan, O. (2013). Droit et espace(s) public(s). Institut Universitaire Varenne, Colloques & Essais
Chevènement, J.-P. (1997). “Discours inaugural”, Colloque de Villepinte, 24 et 25 octobre 1997, online: http://discours.vie-publique.fr/notices/973145644.html.
Crawford, A. (1997). The local governance of crime: appeals to community and partnerships. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 368 p.
Crawford, A. (2009). Criminalising sociability through anti-social behaviour legislation: dispersal powers, young people and the police. Youth Justice, 9(1), 5–26.
Damon, J. (2002). La question SDF. Paris: PUF.
De Maillard, J. (2013). Le difficile renouvellement des métiers de la sécurité publique. Le cas des correspondants de nuit parisiens. Criminologie, 46(2), 109–130.
De Maillard, J., Gayet-Viaud, C., Jobard, F. (2017). (forthcoming) «Une innovation policière: les délégués à la cohésion police-population». Questions pénales/Penal questions. CESDIP.
Delage, P.-J. (2010). “Le bruit et l’odeur. Sur quelques nouvelles formes de répulsion envers l’altérité humaine”. Archives de Politique Criminelle 2010/1, n° 32, 219–227.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic. The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Douillet, A.-C., de Maillard, J. (2008). Le magistrat, le maire et la sécurité publique: action publique partenariale et dynamiques professionnelles. Revue Française de Sociologie, 2008/4, vol. 49, 793–818.
Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Emerson, R. M., & Messinger, S. L. (1977). The micro-politics of trouble. Social Problems, 25(2), 121–134.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. (2003). Narrating social structure: stories of resistance to legal authority. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 1328–1372.
Ferry, J.-M. (2001). De la civilisation. Civilité, Légalité, Publicité. Paris: Cerf.
Finkelkraut, A. (2002). L’imparfait du présent. Paris: Gallimard.
Fossier, A., Gardella, E. (2006). Le droit dans l’urgence. La jurisprudence face aux marginaux (XIIè et XXè siècles). Tracés, “Genres et categories”. N°10, 45–74.
Gardner, C. B. (1995). Passing by: Gender and public harassment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gautron, V. (2007). La fin de la singularité du modèle français de prévention de la délinquance. AJ Pénal, n° 5, 205–209.
Gayet-Viaud, C. (2008). L’égard et la règle. Déboires et bonheurs de la civilité urbaine. Paris: EHESS.
Gayet-Viaud, C. (ed.). (2011). Du civil au politique. Ethnographies du vivre‑ensemble. Bruxelles, PIE Peter Lang (co-ed with Berger M. and Cefaï D.)
Gayet-Viaud, C. (2014a). Le lien civil en crise ?, Yapaka «Temps d’arrêt».
Gayet-Viaud, C. (2014b). “Les incivilités dans les bibliothèques de la ville de Paris. Rapport de recherche”, CESDIP pour la Direction des Affaires Culturelles de la ville de Paris, 64 p.
Gayet-Viaud, C. (2015). «Civility and democracy». European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 7(1).
Gayet-Viaud, C. (forthcoming). La civilité. Enquête sur les formes élémentaires de la coexistence urbaine. Paris, Economica, «Etudes sociologiques».
Goffman, E. (1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.
Gusfield, J. (1981). The culture of public problems. Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harcourt, B. (2001). Illusions of order : The false promise of «broken windows» policing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Heinich, N. (2012). Incivilité du regard ou éthique de la transparence ? In C. Habib, Ph. Raynaud (dir), Malaise dans la civilité ? (pp. 26–49). Paris, Editions Perrin «Tempus Essai».
Jobard, F. (2012). «Les infractions à dépositaires de l’autorité publique sont-elles des actes politiques ? Essai de méthodologie critique». In L. Le Gall, M. Offerlé, dir. (Eds.), La politique sans en avoir l’air. Aspects de la politique informelle, XIXè-XXIè siècle. PUR.
Jobard F., Zimolag M., 2005, «Quand les policiers vont au tribunal. Étude sur les outrages, rébellions et violences à agents», Questions Pénales, mars 2005, 18 (2), CNRS et Ministère de la Justice.
Katz, J. (1999). How emotions work. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Katz, J. (2013). “The three dimensions of ethnography”, Books and ideas, interview by Gayet-Viaud C., Bidet A., Le Mener E., online: http://www.booksandideas.net/The-Three-Dimensions-of.html.
Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows. Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York: Free Press.
Ker Muir, W. (1977). Police. Streetcorner politicians. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Le Goff, T. (2005). L’insécurité «saisie» par les maires : un enjeu de politiques municipales. Revue Française de Science Politique, 55(3), 415–444.
Lieber, M. (2008). «La production d’un paradoxe : l’exemple de la prise en compte du genre dans le contrat local de sécurité parisien». In E. Isabelle, B.-C. Thanh-Huyen, M. Pierre (Eds.), Les politiques du genre. Paris, L’Harmattan «Logiques politiques».
Lieber, M. (2011). «Ce qui compte et ce qui ne compte pas : usages des statistiques et violences faites aux femmes». Cahiers du Genre, 2011/3 HS n° 2, L’Harmattan, 157 à 177.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Sage.
Lofland, J. (1969). Deviance and identity. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Lofland, L. (1973). A world of strangers : Order and action in urban public space.
Maillochon, F. (2004). With the ENVEFF team - Enquête Nationale sur les Violences Envers les Femmes en France – National Survey on Violence Against Women in Metropolitan France. Violences dans l’espace public. In S. Denèfle (Eds.), Femmes et villes (pp. 207–223).
Mainsant, G. (2008). L’État en action : classements et hiérarchies dans les investigations policières en matière de proxénétisme. Sociétés Contemporaines, n° 72.
Malochet, V. (2007). Les policiers municipaux. Paris: PUF.
Mitchell, D. (1995). The end of public space ? People’s park, definitions of the public and democracy. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 85(1), 108–133.
Monjardet, D. (1996). Ce que fait la police. Sociologie de la force publique. Paris: Editions La Découverte.
Mouhanna, C. (2011). La police contre les citoyens ? Nimes, Champ social.
Mucchielli, L. (2002). «La politique de la «tolérance zéro» : les véritables enseignements de l’expérience new-yorkaise». Hommes & Libertés, n°120.
Mucchielli, L. (dir.). (2008). La frénésie sécuritaire. Paris: La Découverte.
Nielsen, L. (2000). Situating legal consciousness: experiences and attitudes of ordinary citizens about law and street harassment. Law & Society Review, 34, 1055–1090.
Nielsen, L. B. (2004). License to Harass: Law, hierarchy and offensive public speech. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pharo, P. (1985). Le civisme ordinaire. Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck.
Philips, T., & Smith, P. (2006). Rethinking urban incivility research: strangers, bodies and circulations. Urban Studies, 43, 879–901.
Poncela, P. (2010). La pénalisation des comportements dans l’espace public. Archives de Politique Criminelle 2010/1 - n° 32, Editions A. Pédone, 5–21.
Robert, P. (2002). L’insécurité en France. Paris: La Découverte «Repères».
Robert, P. (2008). «Le sentiment d’insécurité au miroir de la violence et de la délinquance», Forum des Savoirs, Atrium de Chaville: http://www.phrobert.fr/docs/le_sentiment_dinsecurite_au_miroir.pdf.
Roché, S. (1993). Le sentiment d’insécurité. Paris: PUF.
Roché, S. (2002). Tolérance zéro ? Incivilités et insécurité. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Roché, S. (dir.). (1998). «L’ordre social et la Loi ou le problème des incivilités». Rapport final de recherche, Mission de recherche Droit et justice, DIV, Saint-Martin d’′Hères, CERAT, Institut d’′études politiques de Grenoble, 2 vol. 201.
Rousseau, J. J. (1968). The Social contract. Penguin Classics.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces : a new look at disorder in urban neighbourhoods. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603–651.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Disorder in urban neighbourhoods: Does it lead to crime? Washington: US Department of Justice National Institute of Justice.
Smith, P., Philip, T., & King, R. (2010). Incivility. The rude stranger in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Terrolle, J. P. (2004). La ville dissuasive. L’envers de la solidarité avec les SDF. Espaces et Sociétés 2004/1-2, Erès, 116–117.
Thieffry, C. et al. (2014). «Les faits d’incivilité dans le parc HLM en 2013», La criminalité en France. Rapport annuel 2014 ONDRP.
Velkovska, J., Zouinar, M., (2012). «Jugements et émotions dans les interactions institutionnelles», ethnographiques.org, décembre, n° 25, «Filmer le travail : observer, montrer, démontrer», http://www.ethnographiques.org/2012/Velkovska,Zouinar.
Wyvekens, A. (2008). «Quand l’urbain rencontre la sécurité. La prévention situationnelle en France aujourd’hui», RDPC, Bruxelles, n° 9-10, 887–900.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gayet-Viaud, C. French Cities’ Struggle Against Incivilities: from Theory to Practices in Regulating Urban Public Space. Eur J Crim Policy Res 23, 77–97 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9335-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9335-9