Police Subculture: Causes, Traits, and Paths to Reform

Introduction to Police Subculture

The set of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors followed by members of law enforcement constitutes what is referred to as police subculture. Owing to the nature of their job, most police officers tend to view members of the general public as potential suspects, untrustworthy, and even potentially hostile. Police officers expect support from their colleagues. Consequently, an "us versus them" scenario is created, where "us" refers to the police force while "them" refers to the public.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to this dynamic. While the sense of trust created among officers is good for achieving team objectives, the police also hold a mantra that the line between chaos and order is quite thin—that society needs the police if there is to be law and order. This mantra is responsible for the deeply embedded feeling of unity, teamwork, and interdependence among members of the force. Officers believe these values are necessary for the success of police work. On the other hand, the "us versus them" mentality may lead to actions that contravene societal expectations.

Key Components of Police Subculture

While loyalty is not the same as the occupational subculture of the police, it is one of its main features. Loyalty transcends time and place. Members of the police force genuinely value loyalty, even when they come from diverse cultural backgrounds. The common regard for loyalty stems from the fact that it is a key asset for all who must confront a hostile world (Hunt & Magenau, 1993). In such circumstances, loyalty saves lives. It is an important element of both success and safety.

Loyalty, as discussed here, is neither inherently a vice nor a virtue—its moral value is situational. The moral worth of loyalty is determined by the reason for its expression. The selfless loyalty that leads one officer to take risks to save a fellow officer is considered virtuous, since the life of that officer is as valuable as any other human life. On the other hand, loyalty that supports cover-ups is corrupt and vicious. Declining to rescue another officer from a situation that compromises integrity, versus backing up a colleague in genuine danger, are two distinct acts driven by separately distinct motivations. The former serves private interests in the same way that accepting gratuity does, whereas providing backup for an officer at risk—like protecting an innocent civilian—serves the public good.

How to Correct the Flaws in Police Subculture

There are several reasons that inform and sustain the existence of police subculture. It persists even though it has a negative impact on the lives of officers themselves. Many law enforcement officers express a desire to be more humane toward themselves and their colleagues, recognizing that such a shift would enhance job satisfaction and overall wellness. Unfortunately, most officers are products of the system in which they were raised professionally—they do not know a better way to live or work. As a result, the subculture becomes engrained in their "police DNA."

Senior officers need to lead the way by changing their own attitudes toward work, health, and general wellness. However, a change of attitude by administrators is not sufficient on its own. It is not simply a matter of conducting an interview and receiving a set of satisfactory answers. Can supervisors realistically expect honest answers from their SWAT team members about their level of job satisfaction? The stakes are high in such circumstances, and everyone wants to keep a prestigious position.

If administrators genuinely wish to change the culture, they need to enforce transformative policies within their departments. It is essential for officers to have easy access to resources that support their wellness. Most importantly, the prevailing attitude toward those resources must itself change—through deliberate, focused effort. Officers must never fear retribution or denial of promotion because of their views on attitude change, or because they have sought therapeutic care following a traumatic experience.

It is common practice for law enforcement agencies to debrief officers after a crime has been committed. However, attention to the emotional effects of difficult encounters tends to diminish. Counseling and stress intervention should therefore be incorporated as a core component of police practice. Furthermore, intervention for stress should not be restricted to work-related issues alone. Officers have lives outside of work, and a colleague going through a difficult divorce, for example, may be too distressed to perform at their best. The pain that officers endure is not always easily observable.

Regrettably, the subculture embedded within the police force often prevents officers from seeking intervention services. There is a prevailing notion that an officer must be tough, and officers carry this attitude despite personal cost. The fact remains that interventions are needed to mitigate the stress that officers suffer (Willis, 2010).

In order to change the subculture, administrators and officers must first expose the problem. Honesty is crucial—officers must be willing to disclose their discomforts rather than suppressing what they feel. Only then can experts find meaningful ways to intervene. Administrators should take advantage of available resources and seek assistance from qualified professionals.

Support from peers, professional counseling, and spiritual engagement can all serve as useful resources. Administrators must recognize that wellness is a result of actually utilizing intervention resources, not merely making them available. Officers must admit to the existence of a problem and accept that they need help. Without that acceptance, wellness resources will be underutilized, and the desired cultural change will never materialize.

Conclusion

Common sense and knowledge should help all to realize that police officers are human, and cannot be immune to emotional traumas and their subsequent effects. It is ironic that while officers are equipped with skills to help victims of physical and emotional trauma, they are often left exposed to the same negative effects—and deliberately avoid opportunities to seek similar help themselves. There is a persistent and mistaken notion that police subculture is fixed and immutable. However, there is no rational justification for tolerating or sustaining harmful cultural norms.

What is needed are leaders with a strong conviction for change who can expose the problem and devise ways to address it. Initiatives that could begin to remedy the situation include fresh policies to counter established attitudes, a departmental culture that places holistic wellness at the center of police work, and an environment in which officers feel proud of their profession. Officers can be tough while still showing compassion—toward themselves and toward their colleagues. Such a stance will help them lead healthier and more fulfilling professional lives (Malmin, 2012).

References

Campbell, M. (2007). Applying communities of practice to the learning police. Learning and Socio-cultural Theory: Exploring Modern Vygotskian Perspectives' Workshop, 1(1). Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/llrg

Conti, N. (2010). Weak links and warrior hearts: A framework for judging self and others in police training. Police Practice and Research, 12(5), 410–423.

Davis, M. (1996). Police, discretion, and professions. In J. Kleinig (Ed.), Handled with Discretion: Ethical Issues in Police Decision Making (pp. 1–35). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Hunt, R. G., & Magenau, J. M. (1993). Power and the Police Chief. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Loftus, B. (2010). Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing & Society, 20(1), 1–20.

Malmin, M. (2012). Changing police subculture. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.

Newburn, T., & Reiner, R. (2007). Policing and the police. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan, & R. Reiner (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (4th ed., pp. 910–952). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skolnick, J. (2008). Enduring issues of police culture and demographics. Policing & Society, 18(1), 35–45.

Twersky-Glasner, A. (2005). Police personality: What is it and why are they like that? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 20(1).

Willis, D. S. (2010). Focus on training: The practice of spirituality and emotional wellness in law enforcement. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 19.