Social disorganisation theory has its history dating back to the early twentieth Century. It is based on the belief that crime and delinquency are associated with the absence or presence of communal institutions where communal institutions can refer to schools, churches or even local governments. In the theory, a community is considered organised when members belong or perform activities coordinated by central and representative figure within the community such as a local official or priest. By participating in these activities, communities create relationships between each other and consequently build a sense of communality. The latter serves to reinforce cohesion in society and curbs crimes or delinquency. Social organisation was limited to small communal groups such as local councils but was later applied to larger groups such as nations, continents and the like. (Kapsis, 1978)
Earlier work
Thomas and Znanieki (1918) explain that the social disorganisation theory was initially applied in the City of Chicago by psychologist working for the University of Chicago; this was in the early twentieth century. The City of Chicago was quite conducive for the application and study of this theory because it had been associated with numerous migration cases from different parts of the worlds at that time. The social cohesion that had been witnessed in that City was now a thing of the past because there were numerous changes occurring. The sociologists claimed that arrival of immigrant populations within the City led to a breakdown of some of the well know social rules that had prevented occurrence of crime.
Edwin Sutherland (1924) did extensive work in the field of social disorganisation through his book ‘Principles of criminology'. In his book, he starts with the values that make peasant societies more stable and less prone to crime or delinquency. Such societies are harmonious and influences are derived from consistent sources. However, with the introduction of western societies, peasant societies were transformed by capitalist idea. Communal values no longer took precedence and instead individualistic tendencies took over. The relationships that initially dispensed cultural values and traditions disintegrated and there was ‘disorganisation'. He also believed that systemic (organised and persistent) cases of crime could be overcome if society was rearranged to deal with it. But because society is random and individualistic, cases of crime will continue to occur.
Henry Mackay and Clifford Shaw (1929) also collaborated in this filed of criminology. They were also members of the University of Chicago. In their research, they reaffirmed that there were links between the level of social ‘organisation' and crime rates. They conducted research and found out that cases of delinquency and crime were more popular in areas nearer to Chicago city than those further away. They also concluded that societies with high rates of delinquency had equal proportions of adult crimes. According to the two, high crime rates were prevalent in areas where there was physical deterioration. They also reported that some location were associated with high crime rates regardless of the fact that their populations were changing. Their explanations for these were that populations were faced with certain social challenges irrespective of their biological predispositions. Consequently, those social challenges would lead to high crime rates even when those societies had minimal cases of immigrant arrival or population changes.
The two sociologists put forward the argument that traditional norms were disoriented when there was introduction of commerce. This made social systems weaken and with time, they would eventually disappear. This could eventually lead to higher cases of crime and maybe even permissiveness towards it. Sutherland (1939) argued that there was a direct relationship between two aspects; social disorganisation in society and crime organisation. He asserted that the latter was propagated by the former once society did not try to eliminate it.
Farris (1948) did some more work in this area and eventually applied it to suicidal cases, mob justice and mental instability. According to him, social organisation was a long term and systemic interdependence of individuals within society. He believed that social disorganisation occurred when there was disintegration of this interdependence. Farris (1955) goes on to add that one can gauge crime rates on the basis of social organisation. Those ones that had minimal cases of crime were also the ones that were highly organised. He adds that cases of disorganisation were likely to occur in areas where there were high levels of industrialisation.
Criticisms to the theory
It should be noted that there were some critics to Farris', Shaw's and Sutherland's view. One such critic was Cohen (1955). He believed that the social disorganisation theory was only one sided. It was only relevant when explaining cases of delinquency or crime by asserting that there were no societal constraints. However, the theory could not explain how this came about; what were the pressures that caused individuals to exhibit deviant behaviour. Merton (1957) believes that a satisfactory theory was one that examined both sides of the coin; i.e. those who committed crimes and those ho did not.
Cohen (1955) also brings forward certain facts about the seemingly ‘disorganised societies'. He says that those societies themselves hav4e certain levels of coordinated. When one asks some of the residents of those populations about their way of life, most of them will argue that there are groupings made up of like minded characters rather than the peasant societies that were simply lumped up in one large group. Cohen (1955) believes that some society may be organised but in a defective way; this does not mean that they are disorganised.
In response to those types of criticism, Sutherland (1968) brought forward new ideas about the issue. He explained that there are social systems in which pressures are inconsistent and by continuously subjecting individual to this kind of system, then the influences would consequently turn out to be organised. Suttles (1968) also supports Sutherland's explanations through his book ‘social order of the slums'. He explains that organisation within any society can occur up to a certain extent but not wholly within the entire society. This meant that the level of social organisation depended upon the subject who was examining the issue. Actually problems with the subjectivity of the social disorganisation theory brought an end to its use in the sixties. This is because social organisation was deemed as a negative character trait.
Burner (1954) also did some work in the field of crime and delinquency and further added some criticism to the social disorganisation theory. He believed that crime and delinquency were seen as indicators of social disorganisation yet at the same time. These were the same causative factors of crime. He explained that social disorganisation could not be measured directly and that it could only be deduced from certain observable issues. He adds that cases pf organisation were prevalent in all spheres if life even when the individuals concerned were themselves socially deviant. This sociologist believed that social disorganisation was in itself an ambiguous term and that its application were likely to cause one to circumvent around the same thing.
Contemporary social disorganisation theorists
However, one should not ignore the fact that the social disorganisation theory has been used o link social relations to crime and also how the latter is linked to traditional social institutions. These arguments brought about some new introductions in that area. One of the recent sociologists in this regard were; Geerken, Crutchfield and Gove (1982). They believed that social cohesion was ruined upon the introduction of different populations. They went ahead to link this to the cases of prevailing crime rates to population changes.
Stark et al (1983) also supported the belief that population turnover could infer social disorganisation and they supported this with statistics in different countries. They provide a link between new populations and crime rates. The main difference between these views and the earlier views of social disorganisation was the fact that research done later focused on the positive rather than on the negative aspect; that is, they mostly dealt with the issue of social organisation rather than disorganisation. Consequently, even the level of criticism against this new evidence was not as much as it was in the sixties.
Contemporary social disorganisation theorists assert that their explanations may not necessarily apply to all types of crime. They add that most of the instances in which the theory would be appropriate are when dealing with cases of property crimes. However crimes like homicides which were committed between two specific individuals may be explained with other theories. This is because the social disorganization theory is based upon the issue of population turnover and therefore, when crimes deal with only one individual then this may prove to be inappropriate for the social disorganisation theory.
Other ideas on the social disorganisation theory
Some sociologists like Taylor (2001) introduced fresh concepts to the theory. He introduced the term collective efficacy which he described as the existence of similar characteristics between different aspects of society that facilitate social integration. He highlighted some of the traits that could make a society be deemed as possessing collective efficacy;
1) When members of the community get along
2) When there are local organisations
3) When the local organisations collectively try to curb crime
4) When members of the community have similar ideas about what is wring or right
Kapsis (1978) did some work in this regard and came up with new ways of collecting data in the social disorganisation theory. He examined three different neighbourhoods experiencing three different levels of population changes. In one community, there were no population changes hence no racial changes, in another community, there were moderate levels of racial change and in the third, there were serious racial and population changes. His results were consistent with the social disorganisation theory which found that crime rates were less prevalent in the ‘stable' community than in nay other community.
Schwartz (1986) also found that delinquent behaviour among adolescents was rather high in communities that were not stable; he used self reports for his study. Others who have done working in this field include Sampson & Groves (1989). They conducted most of their research in two hundred neighbourhoods in Britain. They mainly examined cases of criminal offence and victimisation. In their study, they found that the reasons behind social disorganisation was that there were teenage groups that were unsupervised, they also cited cases of low levels of organisation and few instances of friendships within those communities. Some of the factors that caused the latter mentioned issues are
- frequent movements between neighbourhoods
- disruptions within families
- ethnic disharmony
- poor economic situations
- industrialisation or urbanisation
Patterson (1991) concurred with these findings by asserting that cases in which there were high cases of delinquency and crime corresponded to non-economical factors such as those factors cited in the social disorganisation theory. Other theorists also put forward the argument that crime rtes could be related to social network. Stark (1983), Krohn (1986) and Freundenberg (1986) supported those view points by explaining that cases of social control could be instituted by informal existence of social networks. When there were certain relationships between different members of the community, then cases of delinquency were likely to go down. The main difference between these views and those held by earlier theorists is the fact that there is examination of both social organisation and disorganisation with regard to the social networks. This has served to eradicate some of the criticisms that were brought about in earlier work done by social disorganisation theorists.
Some new concepts brought forward by Grasmick and Bursik (1993) clarified some of the vague aspects of the theory. They defined three major levels of social integration i.e.
1) parochial control
2) personal control
3) public control
Personal control is defined by the social networks that existed between different individuals within a community. Parochial control refers to relationships that exist between different members of the community and their institutions; these may include schools and businesses as explained by earlier theorists such as Shaw. It is possible to find that one particular community has strong personal controls but has minimal or no parochial controls. Lastly, there is the issue of public control. This refers to the relationship between members of the community and their government. Again, it may be possible to find certain societies with high levels of parochial control but with minimal levels of public control. This is the reason why some areas such as slums may be deemed to have certain levels of organisation but still exhibit crime prevalence. The existence of these levels of control can also explain why there may be cases of gang violence in seemingly stable neighbourhoods.
Wesley Skogan (1986) continued wit proposal made by Farris on the mid fifties about the connection between crime and social control. Skogan established a link between crime and social disorganisation. He claimed that instead of looking at crime as an out come of social disorganisation, there could be the use of a feedback approach. He explains that when crime and delinquency occurred within a given community, then this would cause more fear among the inhabitants and it would also cause withdrawal from members of the community; this could be manifested either psychologically or even physically. Later on, such a community would be plagued with deteriorating businesses and a weakening of control systems within that community.
Skogan's work was supported by Marowitz (2001) et al. They used information from the British data to come up with certain explanations. They asserted that there was a loop between; crime, fear and social disorganisations. Crime brought about fear and fear brought about social disorganisation. On the other hand, social disorganisation brought about crime. There was a level of interdependence between these three aspects.
Relationships between social disorganisation theory and other theories
The social control theory is one in which there are certain linkages between cases of delinquency and social controls. Hirschi (1969) explained that there were four main spheres of social controls that he felt needed to be addressed in order to reduce deviance
- participation in traditional activities
- reception of moral beliefs
- attachments to others
- loyalty to traditional goals
Social bonds as put forward in the social control theory can be related to social networks as explained in the social disorganisation theory. Also, both theories look at the social causative factors of crime and delinquency, the only difference is that in one, there is more precedence to population changes while in the other theory, there is precedence to community relationships. The latter corresponds with the social control theory while the latter corresponds to the social disorganisation theory.
Responses to criticisms
Because there have been criticisms made against social disorganisation theorists based on the fact that they emphasise on the lack of controls rather than the motivating factors behind crime. Some theorists have come up with various explanations to those criticisms. Merton (1957) proposed the issue of cultural values. He argues that in urbanised societies such as the one he was studying placed a lot of pressure on their members to achieve economic success. However, that same society did not provide its citizens with adequate resources to achieve those goals. Consequently, they were tempted to utilise other unconventional ways in order to realise those goals; some of them opt for crime.
Cohen (1955) on the other hand, came up with his own motivating factors and strongly disagreed with the ones put forward by Merton. He believed that there was pressure exerted upon teenagers and adolescents to pursue goals impose upon them by their parents. Most of these teenagers feel frustrated in that process and react by forming their own goal that are in exact opposition to the ones put forward by their parents. He believes that most of this frustration propagates cases of subcultures. The latter cultures are usually formed in direct opposition to conventional beliefs and may make it okay o do things that are deemed deviant. This is why they may encourage crime.
Other sociologists have drawn certain similarities between these two systems. They argued that both motivational factors proposed by Merton and Cohen linked goals and societal pressures. There were therefore called strain theories.
Unanswered questions in the theory
Jensen (1998) has argued that the above mentioned motivational factors may be contradictory. The main issue behind the social disorganisation theory is the fact that there is a deficiency in institutional and communal systems during the process of instilling values in adolescents and members of the community. This lack of values is the cause of crime. However, when one looks at the pressures stated above; pursuance of conventional gaol, they find that it is not linked to crime. Agnew (2001) brought out the fact that when individual strive to pursue societal or traditional goals, there are minimal cases of crime. As a matter of fact, pursuing those goals deters crime and this goes against Cohen's and Merton's goals.
The theory of social disorganisation presupposes that cultural norms and values generally discourage crime and delinquency. However, there have been suggestions by Yinger (1960) and Empey (1967) that there are certain ways in which cultural beliefs are ‘disorganised'. Gresham Sykes and Matza (1961) suggest there are instances on which certain societies may not necessary respect or grant status to people who obey the law. They explain that sometimes people have profound respect for those who managed to abate the law and involve themselves in risky endeavours.
Sykes and Matza (1958) suggest that there are instances when people may forgive or tolerate crimes when the victim was not a very likeable character, or when an offender felt that he had no other alternative or when there was no clearly defined victim. These beliefs are even applied in legal systems where they are called ‘extenuating circumstances'. One can therefore say that cultural norms may present conflicting meanings and may bring about certain levels of ‘disorganisation'.
Sellin (1938) put forward some points that are still unanswered. He believed that certain societies may have subcultures and in each of those subcultures, there may be a very consistent and harmonious message put forward by the subcultures. However, it is possible to find that certain norms within one subculture may not be tolerated by another culture. What this does is that it causes conflict especially when those groups: share borders, share common laws or had different histories.
Conclusion
In light of these facts, there is a challenge for sociologists to come up with distinctions between the various types of ‘social disorganisation'. There is a need to measure social disorganisation. This has not been achieved until today. There is also a need to make out the differences between social organisation and social disorganisation in relation to crime. If all these issues are addressed, the theory of social disorganisation will be satisfactory in the explanation of crime and delinquency. However, one must not underestimate what it had achieved so far; it has managed to show that crime rates can be inferred to social factors and their lack thereof.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.