The Social Disorganization Theory Of Crime

His interest wasn’t so much why someone deviates but why the rates differed dramatically from one society to another. Merton also changed the concept to where there is an apparent lack of fit between cultures norms, about the apparent lack of success and the appropriate goals to achieve them. He believed the United States puts more emphasis on success, and anomie –strain becomes the explanation for high rates of deviant behavior in the U.S. compared with other societies, and also an explanation for the distribution of deviant behavior across groups defined by class, race, and ethnicity. The U.S., in fact, Merton sees as an example of a society in which success goals (often defined primarily in monetary terms) are emphasized for everyone in the culture, and people are criticized for not performing to their best ability.

This week reading discuss social disorganization and collective efficacy. Higgins (2010) stated that the social disorganization theory where a person live is important in deciding if their is weakness to commit crime. In both text, it stated that social disorganization theory came from the Chicago School's social ecology movement. The theory stated that many factors such as "geography, population movement, and physical environment" and the combination of these factors can cause criminal behavior (Higgins, 2010, p. 30). In explain social disorganization theory, it is broken into zones. The concentric zones explain crime because these are the zones where individuals worked and lived. By having this view it can tell that crime is probably

In this research study, we will be examining The Social Disorganization Theory derived from The Chicago School of criminology. The purpose of this study is to better understand the social and ecological characteristics of those whom reside within this community and the environmental influences that may have contributed to the increased crime rate; which has significantly lead to mass incarceration within the urban community. This research will examine how many environmental characteristics impact the community and the particular disadvantages which lead to the increase in crimes? We will also assess the different legislative factors that theoretically contribute to the growing rate in poverty, which ultimately leads to an increase in the incarceration rates? Lastly, we will further explain the correlation between poverty and crime, and how it contributes to greater disparities within the community. These questions will be answered by focusing on impoverished communities consisting of primarily African Americans and Latinos.

For years, gang crime has been loathed by society, as society has perceived it to threaten the well-being of its members. In addition to the fear of gang violence, concerns have been raised of gangs polluting youth; hence, policing strategies have emerged more increasingly in an attempt to put an end to the delinquency. Nevertheless, for society the causation of gang crime has been discussed to a lesser extent; thus, the objective of this essay will be to depict a viable explanation of gang crime through the use of two criminological theories. To accomplish the task at hand; I shall, define gang crime, provide a description of social disorganization theory, illustrate how the application of social disorganization theory provides an explanation of gang crime, describe differential opportunity theory, demonstrate how differential opportunity theory can explain gang crime, and exemplify as to which theory provides a superior explanation of gang crime. In the end, it will be clear that social disorganization theory is a superior explanation of gang crime in comparison to differential opportunity theory, due to its ability to deliver a more enhanced explanation than the one that is provided by differential opportunity theory.

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.

Social disorganization theory was established by Shaw and Mckay (1942) in their famous work “Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas”. The main argument of the social disorganization theory is that, the place where people live will influence the individual’s behavior, and this may lead them to crimes. More precisely, certain characteristics of the neighborhood/community will strengthen or weaken the informal social control within the community, and this has mediating effect on crimes.

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,

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.

Other researches have taken a look at, to what extent does social disorganization factors such as ethnic heterogeneity in neighborhoods; poverty; dilapidated housing; single families’ homes; and socioeconomic status might influence criminal acts/behaviors that are committed by racial and ethnic minorities (Sampson & Wilson, 1995; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1929). For example Shaw and McKay (1929) who we can consider the father of social disorganization theory, found that it was not ethnicity or race that influenced these groups involvement in crime, but rather the social disorganization and its location within the area that affected the crime rates. Within this research we will attempt to find ways gain and understanding as to why these areas tend to be more affected than others, and to examine ways to address the lack of support of Social disorganization and racial inequality within

In his article, Robert K. Merton explains the role of social structure in generating anomie, which is the sense of lawlessness and alienation within individuals. Merton also discusses between the adoption of culturally prescribed goals, and how these goals are acceptably achieved. Merton begins his article by defining conformity, and how some social structures add pressure upon certain individuals. Merton then breaks down the social structure into two important sections or phases, and how both sections or phases intertwine and how they are both different. One section is described as the culturally defined goals, purposes, and interests. The other section, is the regulation and controls acceptable in achieving goals. Merton then goes on to discuss

In 1942, Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay produced Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, which aimed to explain crime in urban communities using social disorganization theory. Elliot and Merrill (1934) define social disorganization as “a breakdown in the equilibrium of forces, a decay in the social structure, so that old habits and forms of social control no longer function effectively” (p.20). Using this definition and the ecological approach, Shaw and McKay argue that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility led to the disruption of community social organization (Shaw and McKay 1942). This disruption is what essentially leads to delinquency and further crime. Numerous empirical studies and tests were conducted in order to determine the validity of the theory. Studies done in the United States and in other countries have also shown support for the theory. In addition, the theory has been extended and revised by multiple scholars and applied to nonmetropolitan areas. The numerous studies and tests of social disorganization theory will prove whether the theory is applicable to other metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas and whether the theory is still applicable to the modern era.

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.

Although my personal experiences are not involved in gang like activity, or serious deviant behavior, it still resembles the actions children make when they are left unsupervised. These behaviors become so normalized in these inner cities, which people just become accustom to delinquent behavior because it is so embedded within communities. This theories concern is only with how the “characteristics of geographical areas, such as whether they are disorganized, influence crime rates” (Cullen). Although I think that this is an interesting aspect to consider upon looking at crime rates, I do not think it is accurate to study a community without studying the characteristics of those who make up the community as well. Sampson and Wilson argue that social disorganization is linked to racial inequalities rather then it being a natural part of city growth. I think that this is an accurate statement, because racial inequality is what creates such a tremendous divide among communities, and I believe that if racial inequality did not exist, we would not have as much disorganization within communities. It has also been argued that “cultural values emerge that do not

Merton’s Anomie Theory believes that society shapes the cultural norms and values of people and also their aspirations and the approved methods of achieving such aspirations. Merton considers that there is a link between anomie in society and the difference between the levels of emphasis placed on aspirations and those placed on the means of realizing these aspirations in society; the smaller the difference the less likely anomie will occur. Merton also believes that crime is caused by society although he believes it is not useful to society; Merton believes that crime is a representation of the poor organization of society. In American culture, monetary success is the predominant cultural goal, but not everyone has the same access to attain it. Some people respond to this disjunction in criminal ways. Components of adaptation to strain include conformity which is when people embrace conventional social goals and also have the means to attain them, they can choose to conform. They remain law-abiding.

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.