The Theory of Social Disorganization

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

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.

Social Disorganization; what is it? How does it affect me and the community that I live in? For many years’ residents in their particular community fought crime the best way they knew how. Some call the police, some protected their clan and yet others simply watch it happen, praying that they are not the next victim. So how do people stop crime when the police are nowhere around? Who can the residents turn to? The answer is simple; they turn to their neighbors.

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.

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.

A combination of the social disorganization and strain theories brings a new concept, which is considered as the cultural deviance

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 focus of this theory is on the association between social control, the neighborhood structure, and crime (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003). Social disorganization is the incapability of the community to solve significant problems and achieve common goals. The theory posits that residential mobility, poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and weak social networks decrease the ability of the neighborhood to manage the behavior of people and hence the likelihood of crime is increased (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003). Therefore, the social and physical environments of neighborhoods can increase the chances robbery. Factors such as unemployment, vandalized buildings, and poverty can thus be used to explain the occurrence of robbery. When the robbery rates have increased in a neighborhood, an examination of the social and physical environment can yield answers to robbery patterns.

The main assumption of Social Disorganization Theory is the ability to explain why crime committed by lower class communities is more prominent than neighborhoods from communities in better economic areas. This theory is the relationship of the destabilization of urban communities and neighborhoods through Shaw and McKay’s study (Quoted in Siegal, 2010) that used the analysis of Ernest Burgess’s Concentric Zones Model. This model generates ideas that the closer to “zone 2”, individuals in a community have more stress factors

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.

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.