Ways of Perceiving Safety: From Interpretative Registers to Mechanisms of Interpretation

ABSTRACT

In the study of fear of crime, perception of safety with respect to the risk of victimization is often viewed as the mere consequence of the absence of perceived risk. This paper takes the opposite view: that it is a complex phenomenon resting on a plurality of interpretative registers. Analysis of some thirty interviews of students at a French university shows three different ways of perceiving safety (fragility, self-confidence and tranquility), each rests on a specific relationship to oneself and toward supposed aggressors. Having shown this, we then look at how these interpretations emerge and evolve over time. Interpretations are by no means attached to individuals, rather, they fluctuate with the situations encountered and with past experiences, whence the importance of bringing out the two dimensions – synchronic and diachronic – of this phenomenon.

KEYWORDS:

• Perception of safety
• Risk perception
• Fear of crime
• Situation
• Disposition
• Public transport

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

¹ The recent review of the literature by Sundling and Ceccato (2022) is a perfect example of this type of work, aimed at inventorying the « characteristics » impacting the risk perceived by travelers in public transportation.

² The models established using the Structural Equation Modeling technique illustrate this clearly. For an example, see (Jackson 2009).

³ “Perceived social safety is similar to perceived personal danger, perceived safety or risk, and fear of crime, and may reflect cognitive and affective responses to risks” (Boomsma and Steg 2014: 195).

⁴ An otherwise most interesting paper by Zauberman, Robert, Nevanen, et al. 2013, is a perfect illustration of this.

⁵ The Île-de-France is a region of France including Paris and several other neighboring départements (les Hauts-de-Seine, la Seine-Saint-Denis, le Seine-et-Marne, L’Essonne, Les Yvelines, le Val de Marne et le Val d’Oise). With 12 million Franciliens (as its inhabitants are called) it is the most densely populated region of France: it represents 19% of the French population.

⁶ To the north of Paris, the Seine-Saint-Denis département characteristically concentrates a larger working-class population (in comparison to other départements). In addition, this is the poorest département in metropolitan France.

⁷ Table A1, appended, shows the structure of the sample and that of the university in which it was recruited.

⁸ However, as opposed to those writers, we are concerned solely with oppositions and associations established consciously by respondents. Because we are not sufficiently competent in the field of psychology we refuse to seek relationships of opposition which possibly reveal an unconscious use of some terms.

⁹ In French, « la méthode dite des tas ».

¹⁰ A regional express line.

¹¹ The name of the night buses in Île-de-France.

¹² A district in a northern suburb close to Paris.

¹³ In France, the suburbs are the urban areas surrounding a large city. Since the mid−1970s, some of these areas have become impoverished. The expression « suburban youth » is a euphemism designating youths, often of immigrant origins, from the poorest neighborhoods.

¹⁴ A district in a suburb close to northern Paris, whose population is 36.5% immigrant.

¹⁵ A district in a suburb close to northern Paris.

¹⁶ A large Paris station.

¹⁷ A Norwegian girl living in France in order to study when the interview was done, the respondent repeatedly used the expression chav to qualify groups of individuals she sees as threatening.

¹⁸ A Paris subway station located in the 1st arrondissement.

¹⁹ A Paris subway station located in the 6th arrondissement.

²⁰ An RER station located in a suburb at the southern tip of the region.

²¹ See the remarks of Ilona and Réda, quoted above.

²² This is particularly true of Bourdieu’s habitus. If primary socializing is decisive in the construction of the habitus, this is much less true of secondary socialization. In adulthood, the influence of socializing structures is limited by the principle of the conservation of the habitus which induces individuals to resist and to experience a crisis, but not to change.

Additional information

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Notes on contributors

Julien Noble

Julien Noble is a research associate at the CESDIP (Centre for Sociological Research on Law and Criminal Justice, France). He works with the team of the Observatoire Scientifique du Crime et de la Justice (OSCJ) on the fear of crime, perceptions of risk and victimization. His recent research has appeared in journals such as Deviance & Société, The British Journal of Criminology and Deviant Behavior.