Social Disorganization Theory By Shaw And Mckay

Frank Schmalleger explains the theory of social disorganization as one that depicts both social change as well as conflict, and lack of any agreement as the origin of its cause for both criminal behavior as well as nonconformity to society and closed associated with the ecological school of criminology (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 152). The philosophy behind the organization and structure of a society and how that contributes to criminal behavior within society is by stressing poverty, economic conditions, lack of education, lack of skills, are not sought-after in the work place, and divergent cultural values. Criminal behavior is the result of the person’s assignment of location within the structure of society.

And on the other hand how “Code of the Streets” shows links to the Differential Association and Social Learning theories of crime. The Differential Association (closely related to Social Disorganization theory), developed by Edwin Sutherland, and Social Learning theory, developed by Ronald Akers, both theories of crime are theories that try to explain, at a micro-level, why individuals rather than groups of individuals commit crime (Feldmeyer, Differential Association and Social Learning, 2015).

This breakdown of organization and culture within a community leads to a lack of informal social control which in turn leads to higher crime rates especially in the juvenile population (Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, & Cutrona, 2005). Social disorganization theory asserts that strong levels of connection within a community along with a sense of civic pride motivate individuals to take a more active role in the community therefore acting as a deterrent to crime.

The rational choice theory and social disorganization theory contrast in so many ways. The rational choice theory is when wrongdoers choose to commit crimes and is punished severely. On the other hand, the social disorganization theory is differences in crime levels based on structure and culture factors that shape the nature of social order across communities. Furthermore, the difference between the two is that one of the is about a decision making process choice and the other is about how socialization controls criminal behavior.

So far, both theories are able to explain the crime inequality observed insides neighbourhoods; however, when it comes to explaining the difference in crime rates between neighbourhoods with similarly low levels of poverty, social disorganization theory is not able to fully explain why such difference may occur, as it places a greater focus on the internal dynamics of the neighbourhoods than on the external contingencies (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 92). Based on Table 4.5 of Divergent Social Worlds: Neighborhood Crime and the Racial-Spatial DivideI, minority low-poverty areas have roughly two and a half times more violence than their white counterparts (Peterson & Krivo, 2010, p. 88). Social disorganization theory insists that residential instability (percent of those who owns and percent of those who rent) , population heterogeneity (internal differences, including ethno-racial differences), poverty (percent of those who live in poverty), income, deteriorating neighbourhood, and population loss (percent of those who leave due to deterioration) are mechanisms that leads to the absence of informal social control and increases social disorganization, causing the loss of control over youths who then hang out at spontaneous playgrounds and form gangs with delinquent traditions that get passed down through cultural transmission. If such was the case, then one would expect neighbourhoods with similar and comparable local conditions to have similar average rates of crimes. However,

Later, in September of 2009, Beverley Kingston, David Huizinga , and Delbert S. Elliott began a study called A Test of Social Disorganization Theory in High-Risk Urban Neighborhoods which is aimed to examine whether sufficient variation exists between structurally disorganized neighborhoods. This study addressed the following questions, (1) What is the relationship between each of the social structural characteristics (poverty, single-parent households, racial and ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility) and the neighborhood social processes (2) What is the relationship between neighborhood social structure, social processes, and delinquent opportunity structures? (3) What is the combined effect of neighborhood social structure, social processes, and delinquent opportunity structures on rates of juvenile delinquency (Kingston, David, & Elliot, 2009)

Social disorganization theory explains the ecological difference in levels of crime, simply based on cultural and structural factors that influence the social order in a given community. Social disorganization is triggered by poverty, social stability, ethnic heterogeneity, and a few key elements. Although Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay (1942), were known for social disorganization theory, in 1947 Edwin Sutherland introduced the notion of a ecological differences in crime that is the result of differential social organization. Despite similar arguments on social organization, Shaw and Mckay argued that the cultural integration explained the ecological variation in crime rates as a result of the negative impact on the community. Also elaborating on structural socioeconomic factors shaping informal control like poverty, heterogeneity, and residential mobility. Later Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989), refined the work of Shaw and Mckay by highlighting on the importance of social ties and new measures of social disorganization.

The social disorganization theory is directed towards social conditions. This theory argues that crime is due to social conflicts, change, and lack of consensus in the group.

The social disorganization theory claims that communities that lack social control or structure have an increased amount of crime. In addition, the theory proposes that the level of income, resident mobility, level of social network and ethnic heterogeneity all have an affect on the amount of crime in an area (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003). Many studies have been conducted and have supported the theory that the organization and control of a neighborhood has an affect on the level of crime within that neighborhood. However, there are some limitations to the social organization theory in explaining crime. The social disorganization theory fails to look at cultural factors that influence a neighborhood and areas outside the city (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003). Another limitation to this theory is that it does not explain how a motivated offender turned his wants into actions and committed the crime, but instead looks at the area around an offender (Rice & Smith, 2002). The final limitation that one must look at is that the social disorganization theory does not examine formal controls, but solely relies on informal controls, which can be problematic in the sense that formal controls are the ways authorities enforce laws, which could influence crime (Kubrin & Weitzer,

Social disorganization is a theory brought up from the Chicago School of Thought in which is explained as being ecological rather than individualistic. Social disorganization is not about what people do however it is about a community not being able to come up with moral consensus. In social disorganization individuals cannot agree overall on how the neighborhood should be enforced. This does not necessarily mean that the individuals are immoral or bad people, but they simply cannot come to an agreement as a whole. Social disorganization is a control based theory and has three major processes, which is heterogeneity, residential mobility, and poverty. There were two processes that were seen to increase the likelihood of social disorganization. Areas categorized by economic deficiency were inclined to have high rates of population turnover (Bursik, 1988). For example if there are minorities or immigrant groups living in a certain area because that is the living condition they can afford, in order for population turnover to occur heterogeneity and residential mobility needs to take place. Whether people are kicked out or too poor to afford the living conditions in that area is in favor of disorganization because poor conditions result in high levels of poverty leading to factors such as high unemployment rates. These rates decrease as people move further out into the residential living areas and the suburbs.

The social structure theory deliberates delinquency as a gathering of the person’s dealings with numerous groups, organizations, and process in the society. Any person irrespective of their prominence in life is likely to become delinquents if they continue with negative social affiliations. Every aspect of the society, social and economic must be viewed using the social structure theories to find the cause of crime and deviance. The social structure theories consist of four types which include social disorganization theory, anomie theory, differential association theory, and labeling theory. Several theories offer different answers to this delinquent of influential the key features of a social group.

Economic status, mobility and heterogeneity were three components of the community stressed by Shaw and McKay’s disorganization theory, which were believed to have rather influential correlation of neighborhood delinquency rates. Kornhauser expressed the approval of the unchallenged influence of economic statues, however, criticized the argument that area rates of mobility and heterogeneity were related to delinquency.

Social Disorganization theory connects crime rates to neighborhood ecological characteristics. Based on the research and according to Osgood and Chambers, social disorganization theory specifies three important variables; residential instability, ethnic Heterogeneity, female-headed households. These three variables are considered to be the most criminogenic.

The Social Disorganization theory is an intriguing theory that can be seen in our society today. This theory states that “disorganized communities cause crime because informal social controls break down and criminal cultures emerge” (Cullen 6). The city of Chicago was the predominate focus upon the construction of this theory. The reasoning for this was because Chicago was the fastest growing population in the 19th century, a population starting at 5,000 in 1800 and growing to 2 million in 1900, nearly doubling every decade. At this point in time, the city was composed of citizens who did not speak a common language nor shared the same cultural values. Due to this social divide, these community members were unable to organize themselves in

Social Disorganization theory has its roots in urban ecology and Burgess’s concentric model. As part of the positivist paradigm of criminology, it poses a scientific examination of the connection of social disorganization and crime mediated by structural factors. The macro-level research concludes that a weakening of social bonds between an individual and institutions of socialization will lead to delinquency. Over time, there has been much empirical support for the theory and extensions have been made to include more reliable measures of social disorganization within a community. This paper will discuss the origins of the theory developed by Shaw and McKay, then move forward to prominent empirical support, social disorganization research on suburban areas and lead up to valid criticism of the theory. Finally, there will be an examination of the policy implications originally posed and a proposal towards a more integrated approach addressing causes for social disorganization through the critical paradigm of criminology.