Name of theory Social Disorganization Theory (pp. 266-273, 503-504 in text) Author(s) of theory Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay Major ideas behind theory. Social Disorganization Theory, also known as the Chicago School theory of criminology, is inspired by the contemporaneous studies at the University of Chicago that endeavored to assess how cities grow from an ecological perspective (273). Coined by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, Social Disorganization Theory focused on “why certain neighborhoods have more social problems, such as delinquency, than others?” (266). In response, Shaw and McKay highlighted antecedent factors - such as physical dilapidation, poverty and heterogeneity along with other social ills (like a highly transitory populace, …show more content…
Contrary to Social Darwinism, Shaw and McKay argued that this correlation is not the making of the particular culture or ethnic features of the residents in that area (268). Rather, the environmental factors prone to crime limit the ability of the poor, heterogenous residents of the worn out area to organize themselves and the neighborhood in order to contain and reduce crime and delinquency (267-268). Observing this correlation between widespread and recurrent social ills and high rates of crime and delinquency almost always in neighborhoods located in the transitional Zone II of the Burgess’ concentric circles (with the exception of the northern coast of Lake Michigan) (266-268) endorsed their argumentation. These are urban …show more content…
There are several criticisms addressed to the Social Disorganization Theory. Firstly, Shaw and McKay have been criticized for not measuring their main focus in detail, namely the characteristics and the extent of social disorganization. However, this criticism was rebutted by studies that included valid measures of social disorganization and found out that the model still remains valid (270). Secondly, the onus put by Shaw and McKay on the macro-level, or better-said, on the structure of the issue at hand has been criticized for not taking into account questions on micro-level, better-said, the individualistic determiners, such as why some youngsters in the worst areas do not become offenders while those living in the best districts (even though very few) do so (270). This criticism was also extenuated by the previous studies of Shaw, where he had focused on the individual level of analysis as well (266, 270). Thirdly, this theoretical perspective appears to be negligent of its exceptions. There is not a clear-cut explanation for the reasons why despite remining in Zone II, the Golden coast does not display the features of neighborhoods, where social ills and crime rates correlate (270). There is not an explanation on why there is a low crime rate in neighborhoods, where Japanese Americans live predominantly (268). Most importantly, this model is silent about possible solutions for the social problems it takes at hand. Such silence stems
He is a decorated veteran, scholar and successful business leader upon graduating. In comparison to the other Wes Moore who never seemed to escape his childhood and ended up in prison. The theory that best explains the authors’ noninvolvement in a life of crime vs. the criminality of the other Wes Moore is the social disorganization theory. Shaw and McKay, the founders of this theory, believed that “juvenile delinquency could be understood only by considering the social context in which youths lived. A context that itself was a product of major societal transformations wrought by rapid urbanization, unbridled industrialization, and massive population shifts” (Lilly, Cullen & Ball, 2015). The theory is centered around transitional zones and competition determined how people were distributed spatially among these zones (Lilly et al., 2015). This model founded by Ernest Burgess showed that high priced residential areas were in the outer zones and the inner zones consisted of poverty (Lilly et al.,
The theory directly links the type community with the crime rates it has. Social Disorganization Theory was developed by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay in the Chicago School in 1942. They discovered that crime rates were not even across all communities. Despite changes in population Shaw and Mckay noticed that the crime was concentrated and stable among certain areas. Communities who were economically deprived, had high crime rates and increased population turnover were the cities that they considered to be socially disorganized. According to Regoeczi and Jarvis (2013), Extensions and revisions of this theory have included more explicit discussions of the intervening processes between such structural factors as economic deprivation and residential instability and crime rates. A persons physical and social environments are partly responsible for the decisions that they make. Shaw and Mckay did not directly correlate low income neighborhoods with crime, bust instead low income neighborhoods had higher turnover rates and the people who would move into the neighborhood were usually immigrants which then resulted in racial heterogeneity. Aspects of a person’s neighborhood can be looked at and used to predict whether there will be higher crime rates in the neighborhood. This theory is used to help law enforcement predict where the higher crime will be and therefore allow them to prevent
Residential inequality created by Macrosocial patterns is an important factor of violence and crime in poor inner city neighborhoods. This leads to social isolation of poor blacks and ecological concentration of of blacks and other disadvantaged people. The structural barriers include good schools and universities,employment opportunities, protection by the police, institutions like churches, and more barriers from organized community organizations. The people of these communities have fewer legal opportunities compared to the middle class to achieve success in legal ways and can influence the involvement in crime to find success and
Location is a significant factor that contributes to where the pattern of homicides occur in Chicago. This is because overtime particular areas have been developed due to gentrification in city areas including the Northern and Central sides, these changes occur due to influx of wealth. This leaves the Southern and Western sides to deteriorate as the houses and the areas aren’t well looked after due to affluent people leaving it that way causing a ‘slum-like lifestyle’ and low rent for those with low income. Therefore, a higher pattern of homicides in the Southern and Western sides of Chicago occur because those in lower classes tend to resort to violence and crime.
According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) the Social Disorganization theory was developed in the mid 1940’s by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay while they were researchers studying at the Institute for Social Research in Chicago. Shaw and McKay (1942) based their research of the study of crime in Chicago off of the work that Ernest Burgess theorized in how urban areas grow through a process of continual expansion from their inner core toward outlying areas. According to Cullen and Agnew (20011) one of the primary arguments in the social disorganization theory is the idea that there are settlement patterns in the development of cities, and how these patterns impact neighborhood characteristics and corresponding crime levels. Shaw and McKay developed a theory based off the settlement pattern research that Ernest Burgess conducted. According to Cullen and Agnew (2011) Ernest Burgess stated ...
Many people in the world today criticize and objectify specific people, merely by their outward appearance, as more likely to commit crime or other violent acts. A theory well known to criminologists is one devised by criminologists of the Chicago school, scholars whose main area of focus were urban, impoverished areas, and called their findings the Social Disorganization Theory in which it offers an idea as to why crime occurs in urban settings. The theory explains how American society is centered on the economy and individual achievement, otherwise known as “The American Dr...
Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory had a profound impact on the study of the effects of urbanization, industrialization and immigration in Chicago neighborhood on crime and delinquency rates. However, Shaw and McKay faced much criticism when they first released their findings. One criticism of the social disorganization theory had to do with researcher’s ability to accurately test the social disorganization theory. Although Shaw and McKay collected data on characteristics of areas and delinquency rates for Chicago communities and were able to visually demonstrate a relationship between by using maps and other visuals, their research did not have an actually test that went along with it (Kurbin, 2010). Kurbin (2010) states that “the
Social disorganization theory and cultural deviance theory, believed that immigrant groups relocating to more desirable neighborhoods discovered high delinquency rates persisted in certain Chicago neighborhoods for long periods of time in spite of changes in the ethnic and cultural composition of these neighborhoods (Lanier, Henry, & Anastasia, 2014).
Rose, Dina R., and Todd R. Clear. 1998. Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime: Implications for Social Disorganization Theory. Criminology 36 (3). Snell, Tracy L. 1994.
Two major sociological theories explain youth crime at the macro level. The first is Social Disorganization theory, created in 1969 by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. The theory resulted from a study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago using information from 1900 to 1940, which attempts to answer the question of how aspects of the structure of a community contribute to social control. The study found that a community that is unable to achieve common values has a high rate of delinquency. Shaw and McKay looked at the physical appearance of the neighborhoods, the average income of the population, the ethnicity of the neighborhood, the percent of renters versus owners, and how fast the population of the area changed. These factors all contribute to neighborhood delinquency.
This theory however as some have argued has emerged from social disorganisation theory, which sees the causes of crime as a matter of macro level disadvantage. Macro level disadvantage are the following: low socioeconomic status, ethnic or racial heterogeneity, these things they believe are the reasons for crime due to the knock on effect these factors have on the community network and schools. Consequently, if th...
In their Social Disorganization Theory, Shaw and McKay concluded that “bad parts of town” could be found in almost every large city. This is because as observed within the ecological model of expansion in the growth of large cities, there was a distinct interplay of factors influencing Social Disorganization in their zones of transition. Shaw can McKay concluded that it was a place that bred crime (the zone of transition) and that crime is much higher in the zone of transition because of the presence of poverty, residential mobility, and ethnic heterogeneity (Course Textbook, CH.7). These zones of transition were generally speaking seen as “ lower class
Why are some neighborhoods more prone to experience violent episodes than others? What is the extent and in what sociologically measurable ways do communities contribute to the causation and prevention of crime in their neighborhoods? Are neighborhood-level predictors adequate to explain differences in violent crime rates in the respective communities? These are some of the questions addressed by this statistically intense paper published in Science 1997, by Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls.
Social Disorganization theory talks about how one’s surroundings impacts the risk of crime around them. The Social Disorganization Theory was developed to show how much a neighbors and its surroundings affect people and crime. There are many factors that go with crime according to the Social Disorganization Theory. One major factor is Ethnic Diversity. According to the Social Disorganization Theory, the more diverse urban areas are, the more likely their is to be crime committed. (Social Disorganization, 2003). The ethnicity of the community affects crime because of the lack of communication. If you have language barriers, and people who do not understand each other, they may be some tension resulting in more crime. Social Disorganization
Therefore, the community has informal social control, or the connection between social organization and crime. Some of the helpful factors to a community can be informal surveillance, movement-governing rules, and direct intervention. They also contain unity, structure, and integration. All of these qualities are proven to improve crime rate. Socially disorganized communities lack those qualities. According to our lecture, “characteristics such as poverty, residential mobility, and racial/ethnic heterogeneity contribute to social disorganization.” A major example would be when a community has weak social ties. This can be caused from a lack of resources needed to help others, such as single-parent families or poor families. These weak social ties cause social disorganization, which then leads higher levels of crime. According to Seigel, Social disorganization theory concentrates on the circumstances in the inner city that affect crimes. These circumstances include the deterioration of the neighborhoods, the lack of social control, gangs and other groups who violate the law, and the opposing social values within these neighborhoods (Siegel,