Sociological Theory Essay

This neighborhood has seen a severe declination and deterioration in living quality which results in the loss of the middle class. Many scholars have suggested that factors such as the change in the modern thinking of living, population flow, and government policies can lead to this declination and deterioration of the Markham and Lawrence neighborhood. The flight of middle class has left this neighborhood with social disadvantage and marginalized population such as recent immigrants, single-parent families, and racialized people who were unable to receive affordable accommodations elsewhere. In fact, people fail to improve their living quality due to the social segregation of poverty. In addition, it draws evidence on the issue of urban inequality in public housing, poverty concentration, and gentrification. Theoretically, the perception of urban inequality is not only about the low economic status, working-class displacement and ethnic heterogeneity, but rather the quality of street spectacles, housing, and residential stability that lead to the current condition of higher crime rate.

Anderson notes that two groups coexist simultaneously in the inner-cities which he labels as the “decent” and the “streets.” Although both groups suffer economic difficulties, they differ in values mainly instilled through parenting and the home environment. The decent group seeks to adopt mainstream middle-class values, such as a love,

Some problems associated with living in a neighborhood with a high percentage of the population living in poverty include increased crime rates, poor education, health problems and psychological distress. The concentration of people in high poverty neighborhoods magnifies the problems faced by the poor. This is because it leads to the concentration of the ills associated with poverty. Children in these neighborhood do not only lack basic needs but are also exposed to an hostile environment that holds numerous temptations and does not provide positive motivation (McConville & Ong, 2003). In addition, because schools are distributed geographically, children from high poverty neighborhoods attend the same schools and this result in low performance. This concentration also intensify the shift of the middle and higher income families away from these neighborhoods thus creating a gap between social needs and the financial base necessary to address these issues. The concentration of poverty is important because it has an impact on the distribution of income which might undermines the social fabric and may restrict opportunities for others (Jargowsky, 2003).

Apart from social-cognitive tradition, social disorganization theory contributes to the development of collective efficacy concept as well. Disorganization theory emphasizes on structural disadvantage and the prevalence of social networks at community level (Browning and Cagney, 2002). Traditionally, this theory explains social mechanisms as the channels that connect social-structural disadvantage to crime and mediate this relationship, while collective efficacy is an important one among them (Gau, 2014). Although contemporary social disorganization theory centers on informal social control (Jiang, Wang and Lambert, 2010), the latter is closely intertwined with collective efficacy, making it an inextricable part of the theory. Valuable as it is, disorganization theory nowadays plays a less important role in community collective efficacy research due to changes in urban ecology, the forms of community, and the relationship between urban neighbors (Sampson, 2012). Nevertheless, the legacy of this intellectual tradition – that is, the influence factors of community disorganization – has been absorbed into collective efficacy measurement and become a crucial part of it.

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,

Have you ever watched the news and wondered why so much crime is taking place in or around your neighborhood and by whom? You're not alone in trying to figure out why that is happening. The city of Chicago was experiencing major crime in their neighborhood by juvenile delinquency and could not pinpoint the reason behind it. Criminology theorists went on a mission to find why crime was popular in the neighborhoods of Chicago. They created a theory called social disorganization theory which is also known as the theory of the Chicago school.

Wilson explains that the inner city behavior suffer from many years of exposure to the similar situation, which created the depiction that individuals prefer to be within the same cycle of poverty. Where in reality, it is adaptions response to racial exclusion that traps many individuals within their neighborhood. Hence, creates limitations for opportunities in employment and mobilizing from their current circumstances.

Collective efficacy is defined as social control exerted by cohesive communities in which there exists a mutual trust and shared responsibilities including the care of children (Siegel, 2011). When a neighborhood, or in this case a building complex, has high collective efficacy it is believed to lower crime rates because the community members are essentially setting the standards for the behavior for what will and what will not be accepted. However, in Gang Leader for a Day, I have noticed a deviation. The people who lived in the Robert Taylor homes had been there for years, take women such as Ms. Mae and Ms. Bailey for example. Neighbors knew neighbors, children were taken care of by other neighbors, and there were respected and

Mexico City is used for another study in What Explains Criminal Violence in Mexico City? A Test of Two Theories of Crime and was intended to help predict the distribution of crime. Mexico City was chosen to do this study because it is often considered a poor environment. According to the article, social disorganization predicts that spatial variation in crime within cities depends on levels of poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and rapid population growth (Vilalta and Muggah, 2016). Recently, Social disorganization theory was updated with “collective efficacy” which is the degree of social cohesion between residents of a given community and their preparedness to act on behalf of the common good (Vilalta and Muggah, 2016). In other words, a higher level of collective efficacy means a lower level of crime and violence. Therefore, if able to promote this theory within Mexico City there is a greater possibility of lowering crime rates over a widespread

Social disorganization theory is a good way to measure the differences levels of crime between neighborhoods. Referring to the book article “Social Disorganization Theory’s Greatest Change: Linking Structural Characteristics to Crime in Socially Disorganized Communities by Charis E. Kubrin and James C. Wo on Pg.122” I can say one of the key factors that refer crime- free in a high level of poverty neighborhoods is that are based on the solidarity, cohesion, and integration as a social connection between residents as a collective efficacy. Also Social ties can lead to the assistance of poor neighborhoods to help them to solve any problem that affect communities with high rate of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and family instability.

Sampson defines collective efficacy as “social cohesion and shared expectations for control”. (152) This theory builds upon the acceptance of social disorganization theory, where social control is a prevalent issue, pertaining to everyone living in a community. In order to find control, collective efficacy will be encouraged, in order to unite the neighborhood and help them to work together for the common good and well-being, thus, reducing the crime and violence. Sampson however, says that in order to do this, the individuals at hand do not need to engage with the local police. Instead, he says, “institutional mechanisms may be sufficient”, meaning, there are other outlets to do the right thing. (152) One common everyday challenge people face monitoring children while they pay and being willing to intervene and address an issue. MSL already embraces this technique while conducting their programs. When the students come into the studios, they are instructed and guided, and if any problem or behavioral issues occurred, MSL would use the opportunity to educate them. Teaching children how to properly behave while they are young will positively impact them in the

A socially organized community, where the residents know each other, is less likely to see crime happen (Armour, 2004). It is scary to think that if one of my neighbors had approached the criminals breaking into these cars that they could

The way the community can prevent this behavior is by looking out for the neighbor to make sure there is no unknown stranger walking around, having a neighborhood watch program so no property is being destroyed. Neighbors can keep an eye out for one another’s children, to make sure they are not involved in any deviant behavior. “Thus, we conceptualize informal social control as the willingness of neighborhood residents to actively engage in behaviors aimed at preventing criminal and deviant behavior in the local area, with a particular emphasis on the deviant behavior of youth,” (Silver and Miller, 2004, p.553). Another key factor is social cohesion; this is the blocks capacity to be able to take away from crime and deviance to a minimum. Neighbors are able to exercise informal social control over youths due to social and organizational ties, neighborhood attachment, happy with the police work in the neighborhood, and legal

Some spectators question the value of neighborhoods and if neighborhoods make any difference in a child’s development. For individuals to assume that neighborhoods do not matter much to a child’s development would be careless. From history we know that poverty is deep rooted from economic shifts in demographics, family make up, changes in migration, segregation and a drastic decline in our nations industrialization labor force. In a response to understand and address these trends in our society, academic scholars and policy makers developed an interest in the contexts in which children are fostered beyond their families. These scholars denoted a field of study that is known today as neighborhood research (brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997) as cited in (Leventhal, 2003). But the important questions to identify and answer here are; how do neighbors effect children’s and youths and their well-being? And what can we do to alleviate neighborhood disadvantages and its potentially harmful effects on children’s development?

The perspective of collective efficacy is described as the the willingness of a community/group to work in order to meet a common goal which will ultimately benefit all. Collective efficacy tends to be more focused on the community and how their contributions can impact the decline of criminal and delinquent behaviors. The theory argues that communities with high level of collective efficacy and participation tend to have lower level of crime, that is because individuals are more willing to intervene and help each other when an issue arises, allowing them to work on conflicts and get to help others. Additionally, “collective efficacy is a task-specific construct that highlights shared expectations and mutual engagement by residents in local social control” (Morenoff et al., 2001, p. 520). Therefore, it clearly works the best when all the residents of a community work together in order to ensure that a safe environment is being created and that all contributions are being appreciated for it is something that would be for the benefit of a greater number. Furthermore, “collective efficacy is clearly a hugely important concept in the communities and crime literature” (Hipp & Wo, 2015, p. 172). The theory of collective efficacy surely helps explain significant correlations between crime rates and the levels of participation in a group. Because it studies social mechanisms and how the way members of a community interact with each other, it allows for a better understanding