By Maitphang Syiem
We all live in a complex dynamic and continuously evolving system; the earth is itself a dynamic system with all its attributes intertwined and interconnected to function in a stable mode. Dear readers and concerned Shillongites, we need to realise that our city is a form of a living system not devoid of controllable and uncontrollable attributes, and having said, this may sound technical, but to solve issues and problems and to stabilize per se, it sometimes requires to invoke a technical route. Now a question we all need to ask: when does a system become stable and secure? To answer, let us just sneak into control system theory. It says a system is stable if its output is under control, producing a bounded output for a given bounded input. With that concept and taking that analogy to Urbanization we can say that the urban living system is considered stable even when inevitable social disturbances (like unemployment, migration, inequality,) do not result in uncontrolled spikes in violence or crime.
To inquisitively ask why can’t we acquire a stable system or what makes the system stable, what can be seen is that for such stability we will need a robust and effective feedback mechanism (Community Responses). If the controlled interventions do not effectively produce controlled results, then the feedback mechanism (Community Evaluation) corrects the controlled inputs to stabilize a system. On the contrary, a system is considered unstable when there is no “Feedback Mechanism”. We all need to introspect whether Shillong City has that effective “Feedback mechanism” or it’s just a one-way linear approach. Why mathematically and metaphorically link a Control System Theory with the Urban landscape context, because as earlier said we all live in a system with controllable and uncontrollable attributes. In this context we are more interested in controllable attributes. We cannot deny the facts of rising crime rate both in the rural and urban scenario, however we complacently skip and not initiate Deep Learning as to what causes them. In this perspective and confining to Urban Crimes, urbanisation is inevitable but at the same time it opens up a plethora of “Urban Paradoxes” where urbanisation though it unveils opportunities but with hard hitting challenges such as socio-economic, education, sanitation, health, recreational amenities, urban poverty dysfunctional families, psychological, juvenile and adult delinquencies, rural-urban migration, housing issues, etc. In this deliberation these variables must be understood and modeled in a living system.
A nuanced understanding of these issues requires an exploration of the push and pull factors that affect the urban landscape, the paradoxes inherent in city development, and a careful assessment of various urban crime determinants. Shillong Urban is steadily fueled by stream of migrants (rural-urban) from all walks of life seeking economic opportunities, education and better living standards, (pull factors) but yet this is rarely an easy ticket to prosperity which eventually triggers vulnerabilities. The push factors such as urban poverty, unemployment, educational limitations, social and family instabilities can be such drivers for any human misconduct.
Now diving more into the facets of an urban living landscape (social context) and concerning with existing or migrated unit of families comprising youths and adults, does it ever occur to us whether these individuals may be exposed to “pushes” (Socio-economic pressures, frustrations, unemployment, family instability, educational gaps, lack of counselling, trauma, low self-esteem) and the “pulls” which can be the temptations, peer pressure , illegal opportunities, social disorganizations, substance abuse, murder intentions , thefts , burglaries etc? These variables can result in juvenile and eventually adult delinquencies.
On the other hand we cannot deny that interventions (inputs) have been taken, policies rolled out, however incorporating effective “Feedback Mechanism” as add-ons may be considered to check that such interventions oscillates the correct controlled output and not the incorrect output. For that matter the aforementioned “pushes” and “pulls” are controllable if all the intricacies of a system and the risks are well understood and all interconnected causes are analysed and correctly modelled and simulated to produce a stable and resilient system.
At this juncture we must have gathered a bit of understanding how evolving crimes in the urban landscape works as a system. Can crimes be controlled, prevented or reduced? The answer will rest within the systems (governance and society) we designed. What goes in the mind of an individual cannot be ascertained but the factors that may contribute to such misconduct can be assessed, addressed, and corrected if the interventions are effectively reached. Finally, we touched upon how we contain such aspects. Let us have a brief peek into containment theory developed by Walter Reckless. This social control theory in criminology explains why people refrain from engaging in criminal or delinquent acts even when exposed to “Pushes” and “Pulls.” So, we have the “inner containment” (self-control, moral values, tolerance, positive self-concept, goal orientation, commitment) and “the outer containment” which is the external social structures (family support, belongingness, moral reinforcement, community support and cohesion). These two are imperative for us to insulate individuals from social misconduct. We already have well connected age-old grassroots systems of governance, perhaps there should be a paradigm shift in approaches where we imbibe social governance as well and ponder on “anti-social, risk reduction strategies”. Incidents will evolve but incidents can be dampened, prevented and reduced by shifting from post crime handling activities to pre-crime reduction intervention activities.
How can we achieve this? The truth and hope yet again lies in the kind of system we designed considering all the “Pushes and Pulls.” This will need a multi-layered approach, multi-criteria data driven-decisions through “bottom to top” strategy.
We live in a fast paced and tech savvy world, where our eyes are glued to the screens and communication is only through the screen so don’t be surprised or angry if the younger generations out of frustrations (Push Factors) says, “you don’t have time for me.” It’s none of their fault. This is something we need to assess as families. We hardly communicate and listen. His Holiness the Dalai Lama quotes, “But if you listen, you may learn something new.” Aren’t we supposed to listen to the youth? As concerned communities it is high time that we safeguard and try to communicate with the marginalised/un-marginalised youths through counselling through social and moral reinforcement, community and religious community support activities.
Now touching on another point, community participation is commendable to fight against rising urban crimes, and it is the need of the hour. It will be really great if locality appraisal is conducted to get the nuance of impending vulnerabilities. Perhaps this can be part of a risk and vulnerabilities assessment which can help in Predictive Policing, Crime Risk Reduction, data driven and technology interventions. For a crime to be committed, factors such as time and location are intertwined so we have the time-spatial dimensions, and in this technological era we need to explore areas of predictive analysis in conjunction with the attributes of “Pushes and Pulls” to deduce and derive possible areas of crimes. We are not devoid of best practices done globally such as the CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Designs) and many more. All of us are part of the system. All we need is to collectively participate ,explore, contribute and be a part of that “Feedback Mechanism” and loop till we stabilize the system we envisage.
(The writer is a Geo-spatial expert and Citizen Science Practitioner)
