Security is a key word in the contemporary public debate. It is recalled in political programs, talk shows, campaigns and institutional speeches as an absolute priority. But what do people really mean when they talk about security? And above all: do the solutions advanced by politics intercept the concrete fears that go through everyday experience?
To these questions try to answer a particularly lucid and documented article published on Il Domani, signed by the researcher Enzo Risso, entitled “The recipe on safety is always equal: repression and more serious penis. But the real fears of citizens are ignored.” It is a really interesting contribution because it discards the dominant narrative, showing with empirical data how deep the discard between the social experience of insecurity and its ideological representation in public space.
As Risso recalls, “security is a fundamental need for people, essential for physical, emotional and social well-being.” Recalling the pyramid of the needs of Maslow, the author emphasizes how safety immediately follows the physiological needs, forming the basis on which social relations, civic participation and individual self-realization rest.
Entering the merit of daily concerns, the article points out that in the first place there is “the need to defend itself from thefts in the house (50 percent, that rises to 60 among the popular classes)”. They follow the fear of splits, subtractions of vehicles and damages, indicated by 41 percent of the respondents, and the demand for contrast to the drug and narcotic substances, which involves 40 percent of the sample.
Particularly important is the data concerning the perception of urban spaces: “26 percent of Italians denounce to be afraid to go out in their neighborhood after sunset”, while 32 percent identify in youth bands a factor of strong unrest. This adds the visible presence of crime-related subjects, which for 38 percent of the population feeds a sense of limitation of personal freedom and existential uncertainty.
The sense of insecurity does not only result from the risk of suffering offences, but also from the material conditions of the territories. Risso emphasizes that “the permanence of forms of environmental degradation in the neighborhoods” is denounced by 37 percent of Italians, with significantly higher percentages in the peripheries and among the most fragile social groups. The chronic shortage of public lighting, which covers 38 percent of the sample, thus becomes a tangible indicator of institutional abandonment and disregard for the collective space.
In this perspective, fear is not only an individual emotion, but a structured social phenomenon, which arises from the interweaving of economic inequalities, spatial marginality and progressive rarefaction of services.
One of the most alarming aspects highlighted by the article is the spread of radical and reactive attitudes. “43 percent of Italians believe that people must defend themselves today,” while even 64 percent demonstrate a certain legitimacy of the idea of replacing law enforcement. It is what Risso defines the “justice syndrome”, a phenomenon that signals a deep crisis of the trust between citizens and institutions.
This dynamic was analyzed by scholars such as Zygmunt Bauman, who spoke of “liquid fear”, widespread and devoid of a defined object, typical of societies marked by precariousness and instability. Loïc Wacquant, a contemporary sociologist, has shown that in neo-liberal societies the contraction of welfare often corresponds to an expansion of the criminal state, with securitarian policies affecting the most vulnerable groups instead of intervention on the structural causes of discomfort.
Risso notes that politics “transforms a malaise rooted in material conditions of life in a story that identifies an enemy and proposes as a solution only repressive control”. It is a narrative that channels social anger towards scapegoats, diverting attention from inequalities and urban decay.
Yet, just from the analysis of the percentages there is also an alternative possibility. Recognising that safety is made of adequate lighting, proximity services, public space care, social presence and welfare policies means giving it a genuinely collective dimension. Investing in territories, peripheries, community networks and social prevention can reduce insecurity more effectively than any sanitation.
Rethinking security as a common good and not as a simple control tool is a complex but necessary challenge. It is from here that a policy can be born that can reduce the distance between institutions and citizens, transforming fear into trust and discomfort into participation. In this sense, what emerges from Risso’s work is a concrete invitation to imagine a more just, inclusive and really safer future.
L’articolo Security, fear and everyday life: when the public response does not meet the real needs proviene da IlNewyorkese.
