Exploring reasons for popular support of spontaneous vigilantism

This thesis examines the reasons why people engage in spontaneous vigilantism, where it often takes place, why the act itself appears spontaneous, and whether there are individual differences in predicting support for it. Prior research, reviewed in chapters 2 and 3, has demonstrated that people mostly engage and/or support spontaneous vigilantism when law enforcement is not established or, even if established, are inadequate, ineffective and/or unfair. Some researchers like Brown (1975) see vigilantism as a positive act where citizens cooperate for self-protection under conditions of disorder (p.130). However, Sederberg & Rosenberg (1976) argue otherwise, maintaining that vigilantism is a form of politics with three purposes: crime control, social group control and regime change. Johnston (1996) thinks it is too broad a conceptualisation of vigilantism if actions of state authorities against its citizens are considered vigilantism. This thesis investigated vigilantism done with or on behalf of the state in the form of neighbourhood watches and informal vigilante groups (with a focus on the latter due to the spontaneous nature of their activities). Ethnographic research conducted in Ghana (chapter 4) finds that rather than mere police effectiveness (which was a factor), the existence of legal orders in one social field (termed legal pluralism) meant that residents chose who to resolve their cases for them. Claims of ineffective police, though true, were mainly a rhetorical strategy to legitimise community leaders. Surveys conducted in Ghana, Nigeria and the U.K. (chapter 5) find that pro-vigilantism norms, rather than police effectiveness or unfairness, predict participants’ support for vigilantism in all three countries. Survey evidence from the U.K. (chapter 6) finds that authoritarianism and having a dangerous worldview were the individual differences predicting support for spontaneous vigilantism and suggests that vigilantism thrives in frontiers by creating a dangerous worldview and predicting support for spontaneous vigilantism.