The «broken window theory» originates from the experiment conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1969[1], which consisted of observing people’s behavior from perceiving an abandoned car on the street, in turn showing how it deteriorated. Two cars with similar characteristics were used for the experiment, each leaving in different place, with the hood open and without license plate. The first car was abandoned in the Bronx of New York, in a low socio-economic class area that presented a major crime and vandalism problem. The second car was abandoned in Palo Alto, California, in a quiet, upper socio-economic class area that had no crime or vandalism problems. In the case of the car in the Bronx, unused, within hours of being abandoned it began to show signs of vandalism, being disused and stolen by parts, after a week being completely destroyed. Meanwhile, the abandoned car in Palo Alto showed no signs of vandalism or deterioration. Up to that point in the experiment, the immediate explanation for the destruction of the car in the Bronx lay in context and its problem, however, Zimbardo planned to continue the experiment, and for this he broke a glass of the abandoned car in Palo Alto (which had not been deteriorated), hoping to observe people’s response to this new situation. The result was that in the face of broken glass of the car as a sign of vandalism – and latent abandonment of the urban object – a process of destruction similar to that experienced by the abandoned car in the Bronx began to be triggered, so it can be concluded that while the context significantly influences the conditions of certain urban objects (cars, furniture, etc.) it is their conservation and/or maintenance characteristics that will determine the degree of deterioration they will experience. In this case the broken window of the car was interpreted as a sign of neglect of the object – since there was no one who was interested in or claimed for the damage – which led to the gradual degradation of the entire car.
Following Zimbardo’s 1982 study, James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling developed the «broken window theory»[2] which explains how from minor deterioration or abandonment in any of the elements that make up a given environment, a constant process of deterioration can be triggered that favor the development of criminal and vandal activities.
«Consider a building with a broken window. If the window is not repaired, the vandals will tend to break a few more. Finally, they may even break into the building; and, if it’s abandoned, it’s possible that they’ll take care of it and set it on fire inside. Or consider a sidewalk or sidewalk: some garbage accumulates; soon, more rubbish builds up; over time, people end up leaving garbage bags from fast food restaurants or even raiding cars.» [3]
Faced with small destructions that are not repaired in a timely manner in the elements that make up a certain environment, it will most likely trigger a constant process of deterioration.
The «broken window theory» notes that crimes tend to be committed more often in sloppy, dirty, messy and deteriorated areas, so a good strategy to prevent vandalism is to take action when problems are small and easy to solve,- keep sidewalks clean, repaint walls with graffiti, repair broken crystals, cover tails or holes in the streets , etc.- this is as Gladwell points out the power of context, «people are much more sensitive to their environment than it may seem»[4], so keeping the space and the elements that make up it in optimal condition will help improve coexistence among people by avoiding acts outside the law.
One of the key aspects in the «broken window theory» is the social control that is exercised through the message that a certain action or object can transmit, in the case of the window rotates the message that is external is of abandonment, neglect, disinterest and apathy not only towards the window, but to the whole building – situation similar to that presented by Zimbardo in the experiment of the cars- , so social control is eliminated and the conduct of destruction tends to be repetitive about the object as a whole. «Careless property becomes easy prey for people who go out to have fun or loot, and even people who wouldn’t normally dream of doing those things and who probably consider themselves law enforcement.» [5]
With the deterioration of public spaces through vandalism the same thing happens, only in this case the message is usually accompanied by the breaking of codes of coexistence and sense of absence of authority. From this logic the theory tries to explain that small faults that are not sanctioned – throwing garbage in the streets, parking in prohibited places, driving to speeding, street drug addiction, etc. – are encouraged greater misdemeanors, crimes and disorder in public space, «disorder and crime are inexorably linked, in a kind of sequence of development». [6]
«Disorder creates a sense of fear. When citizens respond to that fear by moving out of the neighborhood, locking themselves in their homes, taking their children away from the street and giving up their right to property over public space, predators appropriate the place.» [7]
In the 1990s, the broken window theory served as the basis for driving the «Zero Tolerance» policy in New York, led by Rudolph Giuliani, with the intention of lowering the high crime rates in the city. The «Zero Tolerance» policy was to create clean and orderly environments that would prevent the transgression of the law and the norms of urban coexistence, from sanctioning any faults – greater or lesser – that were observed in the public space. As a result of this policy, criminal rates and violence in the city were significantly reduced, demonstrating that street crime flourishes in areas where there are no restrictions on out-of-law behavior. [8]
From this perspective it is important to reflect on the way in which the spaces and the elements that make up them are designed – particularly those that are public in nature – since it is clear that depending on their characteristics and their maintenance a particular perception and dynamics will be established in the environment, which may or may not contribute to generating greater public safety conditions.
In the case of architectural objects, the facade is a set of elements of paramount importance for the consolidation of dynamics in urban space, since it delimits interior and exterior activities, so it will necessarily always have a public character and scope. That is why its design and maintenance features concern a complex problem beyond just a matter of urban image. Since, although it is not possible to prevent 100% from carrying out-of-law activities in immediate public space, it is possible to reduce its impact from proposing solutions that make it difficult to carry out graffiti, which prevent the accumulation of garbage in sidewalks, which contribute to improving the visibility of the space – readability- , etc., situations which would subsequently lead to major problems of crime and insecurity.
Graffiti as a form of Public Space Impairment.
Contemporary graffiti has its origins in the 1970s in New York, where young Latinos and African-Americans influenced by Hip-hop culture sought new forms of expression in the face of a system that kept them repressed and marginalized from the rest of society. Graffiti appears as a means of communication for the «marginalized» which allows to establish points of recognition in any space of the city where it was possible to write a message (walls, subway cars, urban furniture, etc.). Initially graffiti was limited only to painting the signature of its authors, however, over time the messages acquired different nuances, manifesting not only as an action of protests, but also as an artistic action that sought to vindicate the values of the most socially disadvantaged young people. However, in the late 1970s such was the rise and expansion of graffiti, that numerous spaces in the city had been invaded by them, being regarded by society at large not as an artistic action, but as a vandal action from «potential criminals», is for this reason that the Metropolitan Authorities of New York took strong actions to suppress pints in public spaces. [9]
Faced with the repression of the authorities, many graffiti artists decided to look for new horizons to further develop their activity, so some moved Latin America and many others to Europe, thus making this activity known around the world. The graffiti artists who decided to remain in New York not only had to deal with the repression of the authorities, but also with a society against them that stigmatized them as criminals and encouraged the graffiti to disappear completely in the city. This situation only led to graffiti artists enlivening deep social resentment, becoming more violent and territorial. [10]
In the early 1980s, the drug called «crack» was introduced in New York, which had a significant impact on the criminal and violence rates in the city, as along with it a black market was established for sale and distribution, which attracted «marginalized» Latino and African-American youth by granting them a new development alternative, even if it were out of the law – either way these young people for society and for the authorities were already criminals.
Once «marginalized» young people officially became criminals, they largely transformed their ideology about graffiti from an artistic activity of vindication to a means of intimidation and vandalism. Graffiti then became a badge for crime groups, marking territories and sending control messages to other groups. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s there was an intense effort to eradicate graffiti from New York’s public spaces, however, because the city presented other major issues such as insecurity and violence, graffiti went into the background, becoming a recurring activity, mainly in low-class neighborhoods with high crime rates. [11]
Graffiti in other cities around the world has undergone a process similar to that of New York, ranging from an artistic activity to a vanishing activity, in the face of the rejection and stigma of graffiti artists and their doing, due to the affectations they cause in the places where they paint. It was until the mid-1990s that graffiti was now claimed in the world as an artistically activated and socially recognized, designated spaces in the city for its realization, however, today it remains a controversial activity, since even when it is considered a form of artistic expression, the reality is that on many occasions this activity tends more to vandalize the space than transmit a content from a concept and a composition.
In general it is difficult to define which graffiti has an artistic character and which is not – since it would be to enter into the debate of what art is and what is not – however, graffiti that has a vandal character and those that are not can be identified. Vandal graffiti develops deliberately without the permission of owners or authorities exercising custody of the objects being graphed, resulting in the impact on a good. In the case of graffiti that is not vandalized there is prior permission from the owners or authorities that guard the object to be graphed, thus presenting the recognition of the activity, so that graffiti in general are the result of a more elaborate technical and conceptual process, totally changing the perception of security in space.
Graffiti of an artistic nature, there is a concept and a technique elaborated due to social recognition and permission for its elaboration.
Vandalic graffiti, there is no permission and social recognition for its elaboration, so it is usually presented as scratches without a clear technique and message.
In the case of Mexico City, graffiti tends to be perceived as a vanity activity because they are mostly done deliberately and without prior authorization, however, spaces have begun to open up that seek to transform this vision, making it what should essentially be, a form of artistic expression , such is the case of the open-air museum in the Alvaro Obregón delegation, in which works of art are reproduced through graffiti, in search of the activity of graffiti artists being claimed as a possible contribution to the image of the city, and not as a form of deterioration. [12]
Open Air Museum in the Alvaro Obregón Delegation, Graffiti as a contribution to the image of the City.
[1]Zimbardo, Philip. El efecto Lucifer: el porqué de la maldad. Espasa Libros, Barcelona. 2008.
[2] Wilson J., Kelling G .Broken Windows. The police and neighborhood safety” , publicado en The Atlantic Monthly. Volumen 249. USA.1982.
[3] Teoría de las ventanas rotas. Wikipedia. disponible en: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teor%C3%ADa_de_las_ventanas_rotas.
[4]Gladwell, Malcolm. El punto clave. Santillana. USA, 2011. 29.
[5] Wilson J., Kelling G.Op.Cit. P.3
[6] Ibidem.
[7]Infobae: Arreglar las ventanas rotas, una solución a la delincuencia: disponible en: http://www.infobae.com/2014/04/13/1556813-arreglar-las-ventanas-rotas-una-solucion-la-delincuencia.
[8]Centro de Estudios Lomas. La teoría de “las ventanas rotas”. Departamento de Psicopedagogía. disponible en: http://www.cel.edu.mx/servicios/La%20teoria%20de%20las%20ventanas%20rotas.pdf
[9] Araño, Juan. La investigación en las artes platicas y visuales. Universidad de Sevilla. Sevilla. 2003.
[10] Figueroa, Fernando. Graphitfragen. Una mirada reflexiva sobre el graffiti. Minotauro. Madrid. 2009.
[11] Figueroa, Fernando. El grafiti de firma. Un recorrido histórico-social por el grafiti de ayer y hoy. Minobitia. Madrid. 2014.
[12] La Jornada: Mediante grafiti acercan arte a habitantes de Álvaro Obregón. Disponible en: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2013/10/14/capital/039n1cap.
Jesús Palomares Franco
mayo 2021
JESÚS PALOMARES FRANCO 