Many of the theories and perspectives we have in criminology and sociology today have stemmed from the infamous sociology department, otherwise known as the “Chicago School”. Its emphasis on studying people and the natural interactions they have with their surroundings has led to the extensive examination of numerous neighbourhoods within Chicago. Social disorganization theory was one of the many theories that developed from this ecological thinking. It sought to identify the social problems that arose from rapid urbanization and industrialization. This paper will detail the elements associated with social disorganization theory, as well as supportive evidence of its validity and generalizability. Social disorganization theory originally stemmed from W.I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki in their book called The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, in which they chronicled the adjustments of Polish immigrants as they transitioned from Europe to the urban neighbourhoods of Chicago (Cartwright, 2013). This coincided with the population increase of the city, which grew exponentially in size as well due to immigrants from Europe, African-Americans from the South, and farmers from rural areas (Cartwright, 2011, 76). The sudden influx of people created several new problems, mainly due to overcrowding and the lack of economic resources from various migrant groups that led to increased criminality. Park and Burgess also emerged during this time with the concentric zone theory. It posits that the city of Chicago grew in ringed zones, which would continue to spread outwards to accommodate the expansion. The business district would be located at the center of the city where the industrial and commercial buildings are located. The central... ... middle of paper ... ...arious counties. The counties they sampled mostly consisted of towns and smaller cities with a population under 50,000 (Osgood & Chambers, 2000, p. 90). Their findings revealed that the theory had great generalizability to the rural communities, where arrest rates of juveniles were significantly related to the factors proposed. However, their research also showed that poverty and residential instability were negatively correlated. This would go against the proposition that poverty would lead to social disorganization in the traditional theory (Osgood & Chambers, 2000, p. 103). The studies by Sampson and Groves, Bursik and Grasmick, and Osgood and Chambers all helped expand the social disorganization theory. Their individual studies gave empirical support to the original theory and solidified its status as a valid and relevant explanation for crime and deviance.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.
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.,
In conclusion, both strain/anomie and social disorganization theories are both very important theories in explaining the causation of crime and deviance. Many theorists today often rely heavily on these theories. As crime and society continue to change, these theories will continue to provide a solid foundation for future theories created.
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 ...
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
Is it a coincidence that highly urbanized areas are full of crime and always statistically higher than small towns and rural areas? A child that is being brought up in a metropolitan area that is full of violent crimes is flooded in a sense and has nothing to do but to breath in some of the negative influences that go on around him. Therefore, I believe that the most influential scene in a child’s life is the neighborhood that he grows up in. Parents cannot constantly watch over their children, ask about whom they are hanging out with, constantly check where they are, and find out what they are getting themselves into? (Statistics p348)
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...
Sociologist utilizes several perspectives to explain individual motivations of deviance with an emphasis on biological, psychiatric, psychoanalytic, and psychological terms. The emergence of these ideals temporarily displaced social disorganization theory, which stresses a rapidly changing environment as the cause of deviant behavior. Social pathology seeks to explain deviance by evaluating conditions or circumstances, uniquely, affecting the individual. Sociological theories recognize the existense of social conditions that produce deviant behavior and how society identifies it.
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,
An integrated theory is a combination of 2 or 3 theories that offers many explanations on why crime is occurring, compared to a traditional criminal theory that just focus on one type of aspect (Lilly et al.2010). The purpose of integrated theories is to help explain many aspects into what causes criminal behavior and why one becomes delinquent. From this an argument arises can integrated theories be used to explain all criminal behavior. Integrated theories are successful in explaining certain aspects of crime on what causes one to become deviant; however one theory alone cannot explain why an individual engages in crime. This paper will examine three integrated theories and look in-depth how these theories can explain different aspects on why criminal behavior occurs and the weakness of each theory. The three integrated theories that will be discussed in this paper are Cloward and Ohlin Differential Opportunity theory, Robert Agnew General Strain theory, and lastly Travis Hirschi’s Social Bond theory.