Discussing Social Disorganization Theory
Abstract
This essay will present the inception of social disorganization theory, the original authors’ work and premises for the theory, as well as the scholarship that has tested and analyzed the theory in detail. Moreover, the assertions of social disorganization theory will be presented and, in turn, the reader will be able to glean the behaviors that are identified in the theory and how the theory is able to predict and forge indications for criminality and the policy implications that manifest from the academic efforts. In conclusion, there will be a discussion about the empirical validity of the identified theory and its fallacies when examined by other scholars.
Introduction
In order to properly comprehend social disorganization
theory, there must be a brief understanding of the previous criminological
inquiries that lacked explanations of social stressors that are caused by
urbanization and the social structures that became prevalent in contemporary
society during the era of the onset of theoretical applications involved with
social disorganization theory. That is,
prior to the Chicago School that focused on social strain studies the criminologists
primarily focused on rational choice and biological theories (Akers, Sellers,
& Jennings, 2017; Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2011; Siegel, 2007). For example, the work by Jeremy Bentham,
Cesare Beccaria, and Cesare Lombroso serve as examples for the primary
perceptions of the causations of criminal activities prior to the heavy
industrialization and urbanization that occurred in cultures throughout the
world, and this new widespread commercialism and urbanization caused additional
inquiries into sociological phenomenon because of its new position in
contemporary societies (Akers et al., 2017; Durkheim, 1984; Giddens, 1971;
Lilly et al., 2011; Merton, 1938; Siegel, 2007).
With
this being stated, the 1920s and 1930s – the era in which social
disorganization theory came to light – underwent large-scale operations of
construction and industrialization and was, essentially, the residual effects
of the Industrial Revolution from the latter half of the 1800s (Goldfield,
1990; Olson, 2014). Capitalism and
fast-paced production became the norm for individuals and generated organizational
businesses that competed for resources and capital on a domestic and
international level (Bekert & Desan, 2018; Goldfield, 1990; Olson, 2001;
Olson, 2014). Success in this format
produced stresses that were not as profound in previous periods of cultures
throughout the world (Durkheim & Hall, 1984, Marx & Engels, 2012;
Merton, 1938; Sampson & Groves, 1989).
The economic boom and massive gravitation toward urbanized living
generated new efforts to comprehend human behaviors because of the new social
settings and behaviors that were abundant (Akers et al., 2017; Lilly et al.,
2011; Siegel, 2007).
As many social scientific studies in the Western and
Eastern hemispheres emerged because of this significant change in society,
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay – under the guidance of Ernest W. Burgess and
Robert E. Park – provided the framework for most other researchers who were
analyzing the social structures of urban development and their relationships to
crime (Akers et al., 2017; Bursik, 1988; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw &
McKay, 1942, 1969). Social
disorganization theory, as Shaw and McKay (1942, 1969) put it, was a theory
that encompassed influences from environmental settings that occurred because
of the rapid urbanization, industrialization that took place in the early 1900s,
and dilapidation that occurred afterwards (Akers et al., 2017; Lilly et al.,
2011; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969). Because of this, Shaw and McKay (1942, 1969)
posited that external influences cause criminality; which is the main point of social
disorganization theory (Akers et al., 2017; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969). Shaw and McKay (1942, 1969) began their work
in the Chicago area by expanding their tutelage to performing a groundbreaking
study that was centered on juvenile delinquents and showed how the deviancy had
a distinct pattern in identified concentric zones for inner-city youths, and
that the rate of delinquency decreased for juveniles as the concentric zones
expanded outwardly from the zones closest to the major industrial and urbanized
area (Akers et al., 2017, Lilly et al., 2011; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw
& McKay, 1942, 1969). Moreover,
their results verified the impact of social disorganization on deviancy because
as decades passed the delinquency rates remained relatively stable as the
demographics and populations changed in the areas with the high rates of
deviancy (Akers et al., 2017; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay,
1942, 1969).
Finally,
Robert J. Sampson and W. Byron Groves (1989) became the primary authors and
experts on social disorganization theory by expanding the criticism of social
disorganization theory with the implementation of more variables and their
relations to criminal activities, such as lack of community supervision for
teenage gangs, informal friendship networks, and ties to formal organizations
(Sampson & Grove, 1989, pp. 780-798).
Briefly iterated, Sampson and Groves (1989) performed a study by asking
residents in an urban area about how they would respond via different scenarios
presented to the respondents (Akers et al., 2017; Sampson & Groves,
1989). Of this, Sampson and Groves
(1989) were able to relate the low levels of social cohesion with the homicide
rate and self-reported violence (Akers et al., 2017; Sampson & Groves,
1989). In sum, the Sampson and Groves
(1989) model of extended variables became the fundamental and most respected
theoretical application for social disorganization theory (Akers et al., 2017;
Lilly et al., 2011). Additionally, because of Sampson and Groves’s
(1989) study, other authors used a concept known as “collective efficacy” and
“social capital” to further validate the notions in social disorganization
research by discussing the informal and formal resources found within a
community and its relations to criminal activities (Sampson & Laub, 1993;
Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).
This essay will present the assumptions, assertions, description of how the theory
predicts criminal behavior, and the empirical validity of social
disorganization theory since its inception mostly from the Sampson and Groves
(1989) scholarship. As the paper
progresses, a clear understanding of how social disorganization is defined and
implemented in the comprehension of the causations of crime will be able to be
understood. Lastly, credible references
will be cited in order to confirm the scholarship within this paper.
Assumptions of Human Nature and
Social Disorganization Theory
The assumptions tend to be that community
controls have disappeared, immigrants are moving into urban neighborhoods, the
presence of businesses in the neighborhood can influence how residents relate
to one another, and that the disadvantages experienced by residents lead to
criminal values and behavior as opposed to law abiding behavior (Akers et al.,
2017; Lilly et al., 2011; Sampson & groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969; Siegel, 2007). Specifically,
social disorganization theory assumes a process that starts with optimism,
transitions into arrogance, creates pessimism and low self-esteem for the
residents in disorganized communities and, in turn, causes hostility and
depression because of the burdens from external perspectives and the inability
to surpass the detrimental labels and social barriers that occur because of the
social disorganization. As a result,
criminal behavior occurs (Emiliani & Passini, 2017; Durkheim, 1984;
Howard, 2000; Merton, 1938; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969). To be more precise, an
understanding of emotions prior to the onset of disorganized communities is
necessary in order to properly comprehend the following feelings, thoughts, and
behaviors that contribute to the further social and physical breakdown of
neighborhoods and the engagement in criminal activities. Initially, people were optimistic about living
and working in urban areas; after the acquired wealth was maintained the people
who lived in urban areas transferred to more affluent areas which, in turn,
furthered the optimistic emotions (Akers et al., 2017; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969). Due to the population transfer
from urban communities to more suburban and affluent areas, there were many
vacancies and less community attention to urban neighborhoods (Akers et al.,
2017; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Siegel, 2007). The
neighborhoods that were vacated by those who achieved economic success were
then forced to adapt to new residents who came from low socioeconomic
backgrounds who possessed little education and minimal job skills and
immigrants who had similar backgrounds and seeking accommodating housing
because of their socioeconomic status (Akers et al., 2017; Lilly et al., 2011;
Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Siegel, 2007).
Such people remained for a generation or so until they were able to move
out of the neighborhood, leaving room for the next group (Akers et al., 2017;
Lilly et al., 2011; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Siegel, 2007). Pretty much every group started at the bottom
of the socioeconomic ladder and were able to move up and out, and each group at
first suffered through the poverty and crime that came with their settlement in
the neighborhood (Akers et al., 2017; Lilly et al., 2011; Shaw & McKay,
1942, 1969; Siegel, 2007). When one
group moved out, another one moved in and experienced the same thing,
indicating that it is the place that
causes crime (Akers et al., 2017; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Sampson &
Groves, 1989; Wyly & Hammel, 2004).
Basically, the optimism that was acquired from the urbanization and
employment in urban areas carried over to the new communities, along with the
communal efforts to maintain a stable and functional neighborhood, because of
the wealth that was allocated from the employment opportunities in cities
(Akers et al., 2017; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Taylor, 1997).
When new groups moved into the urban
neighborhoods, the communities endure blight and negative perceptions from
outsiders (Altman, 1975; Raleigh & Galster, 2015; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969). In other words, the residents in
the dilapidated areas are viewed in a disparaging manner because of the lack of
resources and stereotypes that are attached to people of low socioeconomic
status and dysfunction that occurs in their communities (Becker, 1963, 1973;
Goffman, 1963). These external views not
only further the social breakdown of the urban communities, but also provide
for a justification to not distribute public and private resources that would
better the disorganized communities physically (Akers et al., 2017; Bursik,
1988; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Skogan; 1990;
Wilson & Kelling, 1982). In turn,
and simultaneously, the residents in the disorganized neighborhoods become
angry and depressed at the discrimination and view the outsiders with a negative
perception (Curry, Latkin, & Davey-Rothwell, 2008; Drakulich &
Crunchfield, 2013; Matheson, Moineddin, Dunn, Creatore, Gozdyra, & Glazier,
2006; Merton, 1938; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969;
Stein & Griffith, 2015). This hostility separates the residents in
dysfunctional communities from other citizens and organizations and establishes
separation between individuals who reside in the disorganized communities
because of the high rates of residential mobility, lack of trust, and
independent activities that residents participate in to live more prosperously
(Galster, 2010; Markowitz, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001; Sampson &
Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969).
Moreover, the disdain and lack of resources experienced by individuals
in the disorganized communities spawns a lack of care for physical surroundings
and communal efforts to fix the blight (Dassopoulos & Monnat, 2011; Merton,
1938; Sampson & Groves, 1989). Due
the lack of resources and skill sets, some of the residents in the disorganized
communities turn to criminal behavior to live comfortably, and crime becomes a
way of life for neighborhood residents (Bursik, 1988; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969; Sampson & Groves, 1989). Of
this, delinquency and criminality are a result of disorganized neighborhood
conditions that affect all groups of residents who live in this neighborhood
because the blight in socially disorganized communities remains steady and, at
times, the dilapidation worsens (Akers, 1985; Merton, 1938; Sampson &
Groves, 1989; Sutherland, 1940).
Collectively, strains and negative
perceptions, basically, transition into disorganized communities and encompass
human behavior that includes inattention to physical surroundings and
performing criminal activities to overcome the barriers that are endured and
noticed in the communities by some of the residents (Akers et al., 2017;
Merton, 1938; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969).
Behavioral and Environmental Assertions of
Social Disorganization
According to Sampson and Groves (1989), social class is described as individuals
having a lower socioeconomic status given the poverty threshold and lack of
typical services that most other individuals are able to acquire in
contemporary society (Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969). Residential mobility is defined as a high level of people moving in
and out of a neighborhood and, therefore, there is no stable foundation of
norms and values shared by the citizens in a particular area (Sampson &
Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969).
Ethnic heterogeneity is
described as mixed races and ethnicities in a community and a distrust between
different races and ethnicities, and thus community separation occurs and also
acts as variable for the physical deterioration of the neighborhood (Sampson
& Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969). Urbanization
is the variable that contributes to the lack of social control and
participation in community events and the weakening of kinship and friendship
networks (Sampson & McKay, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969). Family
disruption is best illustrated as a lack of bonding, distant parenting,
minimal oversight of children’s activities, single parenting, and other
atypical functions when compared to the understanding of conventional nuclear
family engagements (Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969). Shaw and McKay (1942, 1969)
suggested that residential mobility, urbanization, and economic decline are
conducive to family disruption because they undermine traditional bonding and
authority over children (Akers et al., 2017; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969).
As previously mentioned, Sampson and Groves
(1989) expanded the concept of social disorganization theory. Sampson and Groves (1989) found that the lack
of collective efficacy and social capital significantly contributed to
delinquency and criminality in disorganized communities (Sampson & Groves,
1989, pp. 777-782). Collective efficacy referred to the ability of neighborhood
residents to perform informal social control tactics in the neighborhoods that
were experiencing urban blight, and social
capital was understood as the positive peer networking, and the trust that
is required to create and sustain resources that would deter, eliminate, and
diminish behaviors and dilapidated structures that are suggested to produce
deviancy (Sampson & Groves, 1989, pp. 777-782).
Sampson and Groves (1989) contend that teenage gangs form in urban areas
because of circumstances that are caused by urban blight and social
disorganization, such as learned behaviors, family problems, and lack of
informal social controls (Sampson & Groves, 1989, p. 778). Sampson and Groves (1989) posited that
monitoring youth activities, breaking up street congregations, and challenging
disobedient youth would lower crime in socially disorganized communities
(Sampson & Groves, 1989, p. 778).
Regarding participation in informal friendship networks (peer
associations), Sampson and Groves (1989) suggested that if more positive
relationships exist that victimization would occur less often because of the
checking of criminal behaviors by individuals’ peers and that positive informal
networks would allow for the identifying of strangers in communities and, in
turn, participate in “guardianship against predatory victimization (Sampson
& Groves, 1989, p. 779).” Finally,
Sampson and Groves (1989) suggested that participation in formal and voluntary
organizations would lead to more social cohesion and thus embark on striving to
make better relationships and the community at large more aesthetically
pleasing and safe (Sampson & Groves, 1989, p. 780).
Also
important in social disorganization theory is the role played by environmental
conditions. For example, the number of
vacant buildings, poorly maintained and unmonitored public spaces, and number
of people living in a household are considered to be contributing factors to
social disorganization in communities and higher crime rates (Sampson &
Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Vacant properties serve as dens for drug use
and sales, and prostitution. They are
platforms for graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and a host for other
crimes and congregations that go unchecked by members of the community (Akers
et al., 2017; Jones & Pridemore, 2014; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Poorly maintained and unmonitored public
spaces is another variable that contributes to the lack of social cohesion in a
community and levels of crime (Akers et al., 2017; Sampson & Groves, 1989;
Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Precisely, these areas are similar to the
explanation of vacant buildings problems and serve as locations for deviant
congregations and, in turn, allow for criminality to thrive and dominate areas
that are meant for public use, thus contributing to the lack of social cohesion
in a community and aforementioned internal and external negative perceptions
(Akers et al., 2017; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969;
Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Household ratios are a representation of
socioeconomic status, and low incomes and inability to acquire larger domiciles
have been shown to cause stress and decrease collective efficacy because of the
participation in independent activities to alleviate the domestic burdens takes
place (Akers et al., 2017; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969; Wilson & Kelling, 1982).
Description
of How Social Disorganization Theory Predicts Criminal Behaviors
Prediction
of robberies with social disorganization theory can be used to understand its
relevance in understanding criminal behaviors.
For instance, most robberies are done out of desperation or anger
(Agnew, 1985; Merton, 1938; Porter & Alison, 2006). In communities that lack social capital and
have insignificant social cohesion, the two above-mentioned emotions are
prevalent for both offenders and victims (Agnew, 1985; Durkheim, 1984; Merton,
1938). More thoroughly, because of the
despair that occurs in neighborhoods that are experiencing urban blight, as
well as the slight resources and social organization, offenders will
participate in illegal means to allay the strains they are enduring and because
they want something they do not have and cannot afford (Agnew, 1985; Merton,
1938; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969). This may include robberies via opportunistic
means or out of hostility against another person for numerous reasons (Sampson &
Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969; Snowden & Freiburger,
2015). Social disorganization theory
predicts robberies of opportunity because of the minimal informal social
controls and inability to identify offenders due to the routine transiency
(Cancino, Martinez, & Stowell, 2009; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw &
McKay, 1942, 1969). Second to this,
opportunistic robberies are an easy mechanism to perform and provides immediate
gratification because of the lack of collective efficacy and social capital, offenders
and victims know that neighborhood residents and the police will do nothing to
help (Cancino, Martinez, & Stowell, 2009; Morenoff, Sampson, &
Raudenbush, 2001; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942,
1969).
Robberies
that occur out of anger or desperation are also fabricated because of the variables
and notions posited in social disorganization theory (Agnew, 1985; Merton,
1938; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969). The strenuous conditions of a socially
disorganized community cause envy and hostility towards people in the disorganized
communities when they retain items that other citizens and offenders may not
have, as well as toward citizens who briefly enter the areas (Agnew, 1985;
Durkheim, 1984; Marx & Engels, 2012; Merton, 1938; Sampson & Groves,
1989). Specifically, when a person is
unable to acquire the resources to provide themselves with channels to acquire
desired possessions or monies, coupled with the fact that a particular region
does not have significant collective efficacy, robbery out of anger or
desperation can become a method to overcome the strains that are associated
with social disorganization (Agnew, 1985; Akers at al.,
2017; Merton, 1938; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969). With this being presented, individuals from
socially disorganized communities who are enduring strains may also alleviate
their stressors by committing robberies in areas that are not socially
disorganized (Agnew, 1985; Akers at al., 2017; Merton, 1938; Sampson &
Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969).
Residents of disorganized communities may also commit robberies in areas
of a city that are organized and characterized by social capital and collective
efficacy (Agnew, 1985; Akers at al., 2017; Merton, 1938; Sampson & Groves,
1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969).
This is, after all, is where the better gains are achieved. Additionally, opportunistic robberies and
robberies out of anger or desperation – and other crimes – happen by offenders
who travel to disorganized communities because of the knowledge about the lack
of social cohesion, minimal social capital and, in turn, are able to not be
recognized because of the high rates of residential mobility; which causes
higher rates of crime and unsolved victimization (Sampson & Groves, 1989;
Shaw & McKay, 1942, 1969).
Empirical
Validity of Social Disorganization Theory
Much of
the testing about Sampson & Groves’s (1989) version of social
disorganization theory has posited that collective efficacy and social capital
are merited when analyzing urban areas that are experiencing crime. Precisely, the majority of the scholarship on
social disorganization infers that communities that are not bonded together and
do not utilize or have resources to cope with neighborhood problems are dealing
with strains that cause criminal acts and serve as hosts for delinquency and
criminality for internal and external citizens (Markowitz, Bellair, Liska,
& Liu, 2001; Regoeczi & Jarvis, 2011; Warner & Pierce, 1993). Therefore, the validity of social
disorganization theory is mostly accepted by the research community as depicted
by Sampson and Groves (1989) when collective efficacy and social capital are
highlighted.
Regarding
Sampson and Groves’s (1989) variable of local friendship networks, this
variable is interrelated with the assertions of collective efficacy and social
capital, and authors who have examined these characteristics, and social
disorganization theory in general, typically support the ideations involved
with the variable (Haynie, Silver, & Teasdale, 2006; Wölfer, Cortina, &
Baumert, 2012). In other words, a large
body of testing infers that the more positive friendships that are developed
will, in turn, regulate deviant behaviors because of the established
relationships and concerns that are found in positive friendships (Haynie, Silver, & Teasdale, 2006; Wölfer,
Cortina, & Baumert, 2012). Second to this, much of the
academic studies about social disorganization infer that more positive role
modeling not only deters deviant behavior on an individual level, but also
coincides with respect towards other people and communal functions (Gleason,
Jensen-Campbell, & Ickes, 2009; Jensen-Campbell & Malcom, 2007). That is, the positive friendship networks
transition into individual deterrence for unlawful activities and instills
appreciation for collective efficacy and the resources that manifest from it.
The
confirmation of Sampson and Groves’s (1989) variable of unmonitored youth gangs
has been performed as well. The inception
of youth gangs from social disorganization has also been found to be credible,
and the deviancy from the participants has been positively associated with
other criminality in the disorganized neighborhoods (Laurikkala, 2011; Mares,
2009; Spergel, 1995). Moreover, studies
have found that communities that do not monitor these activities are
experiencing social disorganization, which in turn fosters additional criminal
behaviors and has even been positively associated with further community
dilapidation (Perkins & Taylor, 1996; Taylor, Shumaker, & Gottfredson,
1985; Taylor, 1995). Sampson and Groves’s
(1989) suggestions about participation in formal and voluntary organizations
has been validated as well in many academic studies. Researchers have shown that the more positive
activities that individuals engage in is associated with greater community
organization and lower crime rates (Armstrong, Katz, & Schnebly, 2010;
Silver & Miller, 2004; Warner & Wilcox, 1997). That is, as more residents take part in
formal and voluntary organizational processes there is less separation in the
community as well as less crime. Second
to this, research has shown that when there is more participation in formal and
voluntary organizations members of a community are more proactive in dealing
with physical decay of properties and public spaces, which has been shown to be
related to lower crime rates (Armstrong, Katz, & Schnebly, 2010; Silver
& Miller, 2004; Warner & Wilcox, 1997; Wilson & Kelling, 1982).
On
the other hand, studies with premises of social disorganization theory and the
variables that were added by Sampson and Groves (1989) are also
diversified. Theorists have examined the
particularities of delinquency and criminality in socially disorganized
neighborhoods and, again, the results vary depending on the demographics of the
communities and individuals in the areas (Kingston, Huizinga, & Elliot,
2009; Kurbin & Weitzer, 2003). More
specifically, unmonitored youth gangs are not always part of social
disorganization studies or part of the studied areas and thus the external
validity about unmonitored youth gangs that Sampson and Groves (1989) exhibited
is not fully credible (Brenner, Bauermeister, & Zimmerman, 2011; Veysey
& Messner, 1999). Some studies have
shown that youth gangs are non-existent or insignificant when other variables
are added into the analyses of the causations of social disorganization and its
relationship with criminal activities in disorganized communities (Agnew, 1985;
Akers, 1985; Beaver, 2008; Beaver, 2011; Brenner, Bauermeister, &
Zimmerman, 2001; Veysey & Messner, 1999). Additionally, the contrasting theories that
have presented information about structural influences have concluded that
labeling, differential association, strain and anomie, and social learning
theories are more relevant and that macro-level assertions are not valid for
predicting criminal behaviors (Agnew, 1985; Akers 1985, 1985; Kornhauser, 1978;
Merton, 1938). Arguments are made
because the micro-level comprehensiveness is part of social disorganization
theory and its claims of how communities enter and remain in the dysfunctional
state that they are in which, in turn, produce delinquency and criminality;
however, the contradictory studies do present plausible findings about how
delinquency and criminality is not fully created because of disorganization in
communities for delinquent youths or others (Bernburg, Krohn, & Rivera,
2006; Fox, Lane, & Akers, 2010).
Biological theories, separate strain theories, and labeling theories all
present reasonable suggestions that criminality is not simply a manifestation
of socially disorganized communities and that individuals participate in
delinquent and criminal activities because of the lack of social organization
(Agnew, 1985; Akers, 1985; Beaver, 2008; Beaver, 2011; Merton, 1938;
Sutherland, 1940). In sum, there are
many other reasonable ideologies that predict deviant behaviors and are not
associated with social disorganization.
Discussing
the validity of the original variables by Shaw and McKay (1942, 1969), i.e.,
low socioeconomic status, family disruption, residential mobility, ethnic
heterogeneity, and urbanization, also has mixed results. In particular, all of these variables have
been tested separately with additional criminological theories and have implied
that disorganized communities have nothing to with the variables and their
relationship to disorganized communities and crime (Agnew, 1985; Akers, 1985, Barkan
& Rocque, 2018; Bornstein & Bradley, 2012; Boutwell & Beaver, 2012;
Merton, 1938). Being more specific,
socioeconomic status is a causation of criminal endeavors and communities not
being organized, but there is an array of studies that find that the lack of
social cohesion, social capital, and low socioeconomic status are not always
significant in individuals’ choices to perform illegal acts or participate in
functions that would allow for collective efficacy to prosper (Agnew, 1985,
Akers, 1985; Barkan & Rocque, 2018;
Boutwell & Beaver, 2012; Kornhauser, 1978; Merton, 1938). Family disruption has been tested with social
disorganization theory and found to be relevant; however, other studies have
explicated that the strains from such functionality are more individualistic
and do not correlate to lack of social controls, collective efficacy, crime, or
allocating of resources to disorganized communities (Hallett, 2002; Wong, 2011).
Ethnic
heterogeneity, when implemented into the notions of social disorganization
theory, is valid and the many examinations of the theory have shown so. Yet there is also a large amount of evidence
that infers that human-community divisions are common and not relevant when
suggesting that crime and delinquency happens because of social disorganization
when tested with other theoretical implications or other variables of
environmental factors (Havekes, Coenders, & Dekker, 2013; Laurence, 2011;
Steenbeek & Hipp, 2011). For
example, some criminal behaviors in socially disorganized communities happen at
the same rate in different ethnic or racial communities that are not
experiencing social disorganization, and therefore the lack of social cohesion
or social capital does not properly explain the reasons for acts on an
individual basis or for environmental influences (Agnew, 1985; Akers, 1985;
Martinez, Rosenfeld, & Mares, 2008).
Turning to residential mobility, academic studies have shown that the
lack of a stable population contributes to social disorganization and criminal
behaviors by internal and external citizens, but other testing has delivered
ideas that suggest that higher rates of residential mobility does not predict
criminal decisions and behavior on an individual level (Barkan & Rocque,
2018; Beaver, 2008; Beaver, 2011). So, a
crime can occur in a socially disorganized community and have nothing to do with
environmental conditions or strains that permeate from the location; hence the
theoretical implications of rational choice theory and the above-mentioned
theories (biological, strain and anomie, and labeling assumptions).
Testing of
social disorganization theory always includes urbanization and findings that
explain how more urbanized areas experience higher rates of dysfunction and
crime when compared to less urbanized areas.
The majority of research on social disorganization is in line with Shaw
and McKay’s (1942, 1969) original variables and thus makes the theory
valid. With this being stated, there is
a body of studies that infer that urbanization does not always cause social
disorganization and that criminal behaviors occur because of micro-level
assumptions (Barkan & Rocque, 2018; Beaver, 2008; Beaver, 2011). That is, individuals will participate in
criminal activities in and out of disorganized communities and the reasons for
their behavior are not related to social disorganization (Agnew, 1985; Akers,
1985; Beaver, 2008; Beaver, 2011; Kornhauser, 1978; Merton, 1938). Once more, biological, rational choice,
strain and anomie, and routine activities all provide a framework for criminal
thinking and justification for criminal behaviors without positing variables of
urban blight and social disorganization (Akers et al., 2017; Lilly et al.,
2011; Siegel, 2007).
Conclusion
Overall, Sampson and Groves’s (1989), and Shaw and McKay’s (1942,
1969), assertions about social disorganization and criminal behaviors are valid
when social cohesion and social capital are analyzed and correlated to crime
rates. However, invalidity occurs when
specific criminal behaviors and specific characteristics of individuals and
communities are examined separately.
Hence the administration of additional criminological theories.
Even with the inclusion of micro-level theories, social
disorganization theory does not fully explain biological, routine activities,
additional strain and anomie, and labeling theories and their relations to
deviant behavior on an individual level with full success. Nonetheless, Sampson and Groves (1989) do
present credible findings about how strains and environmental conditions can
cause criminal behaviors and even act as a mediating variable for illegal
behaviors, and there is a large number of academic studies that confirm the
validity of the work from Sampson and Groves (1989) and Shaw and McKay (1942,
1969).
References
Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64(1), 151-167.
Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant
behavior: A social learning approach (3 ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L., Sellers, C. S., & Jennings,
W. G. (2017). Criminological theories: Introduction,
evaluation, &
application (7th
ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Anderson, E.
(1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner
city. New
York: Norton.
Armstrong, T. A., Katz, C. M., & Schnebly, S. M. (2010).
The relationship between citizen
perceptions of collective
efficacy and neighborhood violent crime.
Crime & Delinquency, 61(1), 121-142.
Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of
moral control. Journal of
Social Issues, 46(1), 27-46.
Barkan, S. E., & Rocque, M. (2018).
Socioeconomic status and racism as fundamental causes
of street criminality. Critical Criminology, 1-21.
Beaver, K. M. (2008). Nonshared environmental influences on
adolescent delinquent
involvement
and adult criminal behavior. Criminology, 46(2), 341-369.
Beaver, K. M.
(2011). The effects of genetics,
the environment, and low self-control on
perceptions
maternal and paternal socialization:
Results from a longitudinal sample of
twins. Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 27(1), 85-105.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York:
Free Press.
Becker, H. S. (1973). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance
(Rev. ed.). New York:
Free
Press.
Beckert, S., & Desan, C. (2018). American
capitalism: New histories. New York:
Columbia
University
Press.
Bernburg,J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006).
Official labeling,
criminal embeddedness,
and subsequent delinquency: A
longitudinal test of labeling
theory. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67-88.
Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (Eds.).
(2012). Socioeconomic status,
parenting, and child
development. New York: Psychology Press.
Boutwell, B. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2010).
The intergenerational transmission of low self
control. Journal
of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 47(2), 174-209.
Brenner, A. B., Bauermeister, J. A., &
Zimmerman, M. A. (2011). Neighborhood variation in
adolescent
alcohol use: examination of socioecological and social disorganization
theories. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,
72(4), 651-659.
Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime
and delinquency: Problems
and
prospects. Criminology, 26, 519-551.
Cancino, J. M., Martinez, R., & Stowell,
J. I. (2009). The impact of neighborhood context on
intragroup and intergroup robbery: The San Antonio experience. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 12-24.
Cihan, A. (2014). Social disorganization and police
performance to burglary calls:
A tale of two
Cities. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37(2),
340-352.
Curry, A., Latkin, C., & Davey-Rothwell,
M. (2008). Pathways to depression: The impact of
neighborhood
violent crime on inner-city residents in Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Social
Science & Medicine, 67(1),
23-30.
Dassopoulos, A., & Monnat, S. (2011).
Do perceptions of social
cohesion, social support, and
social control mediate the effects of local community participation on
neighborhood
satisfaction?. Environment and
Behavior, 43(4), 546-565.
Durkheim, E. (1984). The division of
labor in society (W.D. Halls,
Trans.). New York: Free
Press.
Drakulich, K. M. and Crunchfield, R. D.
(2013). The role of perceptions of
police in informal
social
control: implications for the racial stratification of crime and control. Social
Problems, 60(3),
383-407.
Emiliani, F., & Passini, S. (2017). Everyday life in social psychology.
Journal for the Theory of
Social
Behaviour, 47(1),
83-97.
Fox, K. A., Lane, J., & Akers, R. L.
(2010). Do perceptions of neighborhood
disorganization
predict
crime or victimization? An examination
of gang member versus non-gang
member
jail inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 720-729. Galster, G. C. (2010, February). The mechanism(s) of neighborhood effects
theory, evidence,
and policy
implications. Paper presented at ESRC
Seminar, St. Andrews University,
Scotland,
UK.
Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and
modern social theory: An analysis of the writings of Marx,
Durkheim
and Max Weber.
Cambridge [U.K.]: Cambridge University Press.
Gleason, K. A., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., &
Ickes, W. (2009). The
role of empathic accuracy
in adolescents' peer relations and adjustment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 35(8), 997-1011.
Goffman, E.
(1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goldfield, D. (1990). The stages of American
urbanization. OAH Magazine of History, 5(2), 26-
31.
Hallett, M. A. (2002). Race, crime, and for-profit imprisonment:
Social disorganization as
market
opportunity. Punishment and Society, 4(3), 369-393.
Havekes, E., Coenders, M., & Dekker,
K. (2013). Interethnic
attitudes in urban
neighbourhoods: The impact of neighbourhood disorder and decline. Urban
Studies, 51(12),
2665-2684.
Haynie, D. L., Silver, E., & Teasdale,
B. (2006). Neighborhood characteristics, peer networks,
and adolescent violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(2), 147-169.
Howard, J. A. (2000). Social psychology of
identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 367-
393.
Huebner, B. M., Martin, K., Moule, R. K.,
Pyrooz, D., & Decker, S. H.
(2016). Dangerous
places: Gang members and neighborhood levels
of gun assault. Justice
Quarterly, 33(5),
836-862.
Laurence, J.
(2011). The effect of ethnic
diversity and community disadvantage on social
cohesion: A multi-level analysis of social capital and
interethnic relations in UK
communities. European Sociological Review, 27(1), 70-89.
Laurikkala, M. K. (2011). Juvenile
homicides: A social disorganization perspective.
El
Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing, LLC.
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R.
A. (2011). Criminological
theory: Contexts and
Consequences (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Malcom, K.
T. (2007). The importance of conscientiousness in
adolescent
interpersonal relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33(3), 368-383.
Jones, R. W., & Pridemore, W. A.
(2014). A longitudinal study of the impact of home vacancy
on robbery
and burglary rates during the U.S. housing crisis, 2005-2009. Crime &
Delinquency, 62(9), 1159-1179.
Kingston, B., Huizinga, D., & Elliot, D.
S. (2009). A test of social disorganization theory in
high-risk
urban neighborhoods. Youth &
Society, 41(1). 53-79.
Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003).
New directions in social
disorganization theory. Journal
of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 374-402.
Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social
Sources of Delinquency. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A.
E., & Liu, J. (2001). Extending
social disorganization
theory: Modeling the relationships between
cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology, 39(2), 293-320.
Mares, D. (2009). Social disorganization and gang homicides in
Chicago: A neighborhood
level comparison of disaggregated
homicide. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 8(1),
38-57.
Martinez, R., Rosenfeld, R., & Mares, D. (2008).
Social disorganization, drug
market activity,
and neighborhood violent crime. Urban Affairs Review, 43(6), 846-874.
and neighborhood violent crime. Urban Affairs Review, 43(6), 846-874.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2012). The communist manifesto (J.C. Isaac, Ed.). New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Matheson, F. I., Moineddin, R., Dunn, J. R.,
Creatore, M. I., Gozdyra, P., & Glazier, R. H.
(2006). Urban neighborhoods, chronic stress, gender
and depression. Social Science &
Medicine, 63(10), 2604-2616.
Merton, R. (1938). Social Structure and
Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.
Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., and
Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality,
collective
efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology,
39(3),
517-559.
Olson, J. S. (2002). Encyclopedia of
the industrial revolution in America.
Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Olson, J. S. (2014). The industrial
revolution: Key themes and documents
(S.L. Kenny, Ed.).
Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Patchin, J. W., Huebner, B. M., &
McCluskey, J. D. (2006). Exposure to community violence
and childhood delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 52(2),
307-332.
Perkins, D. D., & Taylor, R. B. (1996).
Ecological assessments of community disorder: Their
relationship
to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 24(1), 63-107.
Porter, L. E., & Alison, L. J.
(2006). Behavioural coherence
in group robbery: A
circumplex model
of offender and victim interactions. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 330-342.
of offender and victim interactions. Aggressive Behavior, 32(4), 330-342.
Raleigh, E., & Galster, G. (2015). Neighborhood disinvestment, abandonment, and
crime
dynamics. Journal
of Urban Affairs, 37(4), 367-396.
Regoeczi, W. C., & Jarvis, J. P.
(2011). Beyond the social production of
homicide rates:
Extending
social disorganization theory to explain homicide case outcomes. Justice
Quarterly, 30(6), 983-1014.
Reisig, M. D., & Park, R. B. (2003). Neighborhood
context, police behavior and satisfaction
with police. Justice Research
and Policy, 5(1), 37-65.
Rosenfeld, R., &
Mares, D. (2008). Social disorganization, drug market activity,
and
neighborhood violent crime. Urban
Affairs Review, 43(6), 846-874.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves. W. B.
(1989). Community structure and
crime: Testing social-
disorganization
theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls,
F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A
multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science,
277(5328), 918-924.
Shaw, C., & McKay, C. (1942). Juvenile
delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of
Chicago
Press.
Shaw, C., & McKay, C. (1969). Juvenile
delinquency and urban areas (Rev. ed.). Chicago:
University
of Chicago Press.
Siegel, L. J. (2007). Criminology:
Theories, patterns, and typologies (9th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Thomson
Wadsworth.
Silver, E., Miller, L. L. (2004). Sources
of informal social control in Chicago neighborhoods.
Criminology, 42(3), 551-584.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American
cities. New York: Free Press
Snowden, A. J., & Freiburger, T. L.
(2015). Alcohol outlets, social disorganization, and robberies:
Accounting for neighborhood characteristics
and alcohol outlet types. Social Science
Research, 51, 145-162.
Research, 51, 145-162.
Snowden, A. J., Stucky, T. D., &
Pridemore, W. A. (2016). Alcohol outlets, social
disorganization,
and non-violent crimes in urban neighborhoods.
Journal of Crime
and Justice, 40(4), 430-445.
Spergel, I. A. (1995). The
youth gang problem: A community approach.
New York:
Oxford
University Press.
Steenbeek, W., & Hipp, J. R. (2011).
A longitudinal test of social disorganization theory:
Feedback
effects among cohesion, social control, and disorder. Criminology,
49(3),
833-871.
Stein, R. E., & Griffith, C. (2015). Resident
and police perceptions of the neighborhood:
Implications for community policing.
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(2), 139-154.
Stewart, E. A., & Simmon, R. L.
(2006). Structure and culture in African
American adolescent
violence: A partial test of the code of the street
thesis. Justice Quarterly, 23(1), 1-33.
Sutherland, E. (1940). White collar criminality. American
Sociological Review, 5(6), 1-12.
Taylor, R. B., Shumaker, S., &
Gottfredson, S. (1985). Neighborhood-level links between
between
physical features and local sentiments. Journal of Architectural Planning and
Research, 2(4), 261-275.
Taylor, R. B. (1995). The impact of crime on communities. The Annals of the American
Academy of
Political and Social Science, 539, 28-45.
Taylor, R. B. (1997). Social order and
disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods: Ecology,
microecology,
and the systemic model of social disorganization. Journal of Research
in
Crime and
Delinquency, 34(1),
113-155.
Veysey, B. M., & Messner, S. F.
(1999). Further testing of social disorganization theory: An
elaboration of Sampson and Groves's “community structure and crime.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36(2),
156-174.
Warner, B. D., & Pierce, G. L.
(1993). Reexamining social
disorganization theory using calls
to
the police as a measure of crime. Criminology, 31(4), 493-517.
Warner, B. D. (1997). Community
characteristics and the recording of crime: Police recording of
citizens’
complaints of burglary and assault. Justice Quarterly, 14(4), 631-650. Warner, B. D., & Wilcox Rountree, P.
(1997). Local social ties in a community and crime
model:
Questioning the systemic nature of informal social control. Social Problems,
44(4), 520-536.
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982).
Broken windows: The police and neighborhood
safety. Atlantic
Monthly, 249(3). 29-38.
Wölfer, R., Cortina, K. S., & Baumert,
J. (2012). Embeddedness and empathy: How the social
network
shapes adolescents' social understanding.
Journal of Adolescence, 35(5),
1295-
1305.
Wong, S. K., (2011). Reciprocal
effects of family disruption and crime: A panel study of
Canadian municipalities. Western
Criminology Review, 12(1), 43-63.
Wyly, E. K., & Hammel, D. J. (2004).
Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the
American
urban system. Environment and
Planning A, 36(7), 1215-1241.
Zhang, L., Messner, S. F., & Zhang, S.
(2017). Neighborhood social control and
perceptions of
crime
and disorder in contemporary urban China.
Criminology, 55(3), 631-663.
 |
| Photo Credit: Gigi Sini |
Comments
Post a Comment