A recipe for resisting organised crime? What civil society needs for resilience is an anthropological matter

A brilliant short article on Global Initiative recently discussed the role of civil society in combatting and building resilience against organised crime. As I was reading, especially as it came after a deep and insightful discussion with a colleague in India with interest in criminalisation, it struck me how much anthropology of a society has to do with resilience.

Resilience is based on many factors and each of them is important, because each of them strengthens the others. In simplest terms that I can employ, resilience is what a society has against the pressures and inroads of crime (organised and otherwise to be very precise; while more everyday acts of violence, eg spousal abuse, discrimination based violence and prejudices, laissez-faire behaviours towards this or violence online and other actions do not cause quite the same problems as organised crime, they can help create an environment where tolerance for crime - and thus for organised crime - is high, which I would argue helps organised crime develop).

Conflict and lack of stability are frequently quoted as exacerbating factors for (organised) crime, which also create a chicken and egg problem of sorts : on one hand, spaces where tolerance for injustices and abuses is high are likelier to allow for crime, and likelier to dissolve into, shall we tentatively say, state organised or licit violence...violence, that is, on an official level of some kind (eg war). On the other, spaces that have already suffered conflict likely have had up to a decade or more of chance to develop lucrative illicit trades, and a form of reverse resilience of sorts, one of organised crime groups, may well be present that will firmly push against formation of a civil society that is not crime friendly.

And here is the anthropology of it : conflict, tolerance towards all kinds of crime, prejudices and the like are products of a society in which Othering is highly present. This is a society in which self and Other are clearly separated, and whatever passes for Other may be abused, often at will and openly, with little to no consequences. This Othering may be varied, from violence towards the other gender, eg women, to hate crimes towards migrants, citizens of mixed backgrounds, of another race, another religion, of the lgbt+ people; and let's not forget that many of us actually have more than one "Otherable" trait to our self (eg background, migrant status and sexual orientation, or religion and race, which I respectively call minorities within minorities and intersectional minorities; which traits combine depends on personal circumstances solely). Conflict, and pre- and often post-conflict harmful behaviours cannot exist without Othering. It takes dehumanisation and tolerance for abuse that would normally constitute as at least questionable to be able to, as a human being, harm another human being. Othering is at the core of harmful rhetoric of all types, and it can be found across political, ideological and other spectra. It is, also, at the core of organised crime; territorial disputes, separation of self (within crime) and Other (victims, those outside the crime) and gang membership vs another gang membership are all, in a sense, a matter of Otherness in context.

Let's now return to the article on Italian resilience, and apply this context bit by bit. First, let us consider - what possible impact can Othering have in building an anti-(organised) crime culture? The answer is frighteningly simple : when we Other, we cannot build a culture that stands together in face of a problem. Standing together means unity, built around common grounds, among which is the recognition that we are all the same, that we all have the same fears and hopes and needs. In cases - and spaces - where Othering is strong, one may absolutely refuse to work together with a person of a different ethnicity, an immigrant, someone of a different religious or tribal group, or an lgbt+ person. What is more is that the Othered will automatically be criminalised, as well as subject to tolerance towards crime that actively affects them. This is visible beautifully when an "outcast" group, eg sex workers, is subject of abuse or murder. The crimes are treated differently than when "good"(I am using this word because it is used to illustrate the perceived differences between sex worker and non-sex worker women) women are subject to the same violence...and this tolerance can remain even when people are aware that violence can spill from those easy, tolerated targets, onto the "good" population (thus creating a pressing and personally relevant reason not to tolerate crime). Harm done to a neighbour that is Other elicits poor support, including when witnesses are sought for, little investigative interest and wider political repercussions that may be associated with very problematic behaviour or rising crime statistics in non-Othered populace space (the one where doing nothing may politically matter), even schadenfreude. This kind of violence may also inspire others to commit further acts of it. And this is just crime in general. This repeats itself with even more dire consequences with organised crime (more dire simply because the consequences are arguably more far-reaching and lengthy, though I sometimes question this when I consider things like epidemic violence against women under non-organised crime but still criminal - and very long-term and far-reaching). A society that Others cannot, therefore, join around a common cause, let alone consider their steps towards resilience.

Emphasis on promotion of culture of legality and on education (see article) is similarly down to Othering (or rather, not Othering). Where hierarchies exist for those who are Other, their education will often be significantly lower and they will face significant issues that their non-Othered peers do not. We can see that wherever discrimination (either licit or illicit, so one not backed or ignored but explicitly allowed in a space) designates different paths for people based on their ethnicity, tribe, religion, caste, gender, etc.. Not only does this often become a pipeline into poverty, organised crime can actively prey on people who are struggling, not to mention welcome with open arms those who have already been told, all their lives, that being different means being a criminal. Even just class-based discrimination, starting with poor options presented to children born in slums and favelas, can be enough. Especially when licit is a symbol for violence or lack of attention in itself, or simply out of touch and unreachable, criminal governance, however problematic and however hated, becomes an entity that must at least be worked around if not grudgingly or even enthusiastically worked with. (Which you choose probably depends on your character and personal circumstances.)

Support system for victims (see article) is, again, largely absent where Othering reigns. Prejudices, criminalisation, fear and other behaviours and emotions, often socially and culturally based on what has been done or has been promoted before or recently as "good", factor in who is seen as deserving of help and sympathy and who is not. Victims, therefore, not only remain hurt, whatever this entails, they and their group also learn very quickly that they cannot count on licit assistance...which creates a situation in which a sort of Stockholm syndrome/traumatic bonding approach, based on the response of appeasement that all mammals have, can become a strategy, which is used simply to be able to survive under what can be deeply adverse circumstances. (A side note - you are free to mentally replace Stockholm syndrome with another term; I use both that and traumatic bonding when talking to people, because, while discussions of whether or not the term is good or appropriate are very valid, most average people actually know and somewhat understand Stockholm syndrome, so I find that to be a good place to start when discussing such topics. I consult and write for a varied audience, and this means doing my best to be understandable...even if this may or may not irk another researcher with a strong opinion of their own.) Finding ways to avoid direct confrontations, be it by complying or trying to find a middle ground somehow, are what people will often do to survive, fully or relatively unassisted.

Confiscated goods (see article) used for social good is out of the question in those situations also; Other, generally, does not get accorded much. But to me, this is an especially intriguing possibility because we see, in much of the forgotten spaces where gangs and mafias reign supreme, that the recruitment often involves tempting especially young men over with notions of power, money and goods. Even our media often portrays criminal life as somehow glamorous. It would make a lot of sense, therefore, for these potential recruits to see that power of crime is fleeting, and that there are other ways that a community can evolve and even thrive...including benefiting from breakdown of organised crime. However, for that to be successful, the prejudice of not according Other much must first cease, and that can be difficult to achieve.

There are probably many further points one could make. But this is only a short article with all its drawbacks. Let's focus on solutions instead.

Firstly and foremostly, we, locally and as a global society, must come to understand the impact Othering has in terms of crime, criminality and criminalisation, and what that means for organised crime. Without this reckoning, no other step can be successfully taken further. And there are many to follow : recognition means a duty and a possibility to begin to rectify that which we can. Laws must be created that limit discrimination, and applying them must be easy; training must be provided for those who need to make non-discrimination work in practice; speech that allows online and offline calls for Othering and especially violence against Other must be banned on international and local level, and we must, must, adhere to that at all costs. Losing sight of the necessity of so doing, unfortunately, can only lead to things returning to what was before...or worse. On local levels, trust and kindness must be established among people who may have histories of distrust and violence spanning a long time...histories that are very real, and have left deep wounds, and will require patient work to mend. This doesn't mean denying what happened or giving it a polish to make it look prettier than it is, or for that matter clamming up and not talking about it. It means acknowledging the hurt, discussing how we came by it, and what the real, deep seated reasons were, and what the solutions would look like. People do not hate each other automatically, without a great deal of encouragement. We need to ensure that this encouragement, in any shape and form, which has known intersections with organised crime (see any discussion on hate rhetoric and establishing and thriving of organised crime), ceases to exist in this world altogether.

Will this provide an end to organised crime? If it does, and I think it could, it will not be immediate. But every step we take is a step towards weakening it at the very least...and that is a worthy goal in itself.