Chapter 3 part 1: Rejecting Individualism - The Chicago School

Social Disorganization (Chicago School)

Outside individual influence criminal behavior; larger societal change

The Ecological School (and the Chicago School of Criminology) also known as?

Theory of Social Disorganization

Important development of the Chicago School

Using theoretical development and scientific testing

Important development of the Chicago School Credited with what first attempt?

Understanding cultural or subcultural differences in groups that do not fit with the mainstream of society

Social Disorganization on the city; 1800 - early 1900s

Cities grew rapidly and became ‘a controlling factor in national life’

• Industrial Revolution

• Opening of Erie Canal and Baltimore and Ohio Railroad; created a continuous stream of (im)migration

Cities changes

• Increase in size, racial/ethnic heterogeneity, transiency (residential mobility)

Criminologists and Progressiveness in Chicago: Lacking Formal Social Agencies

Unable to address urban problems

• Weak institutions resulted in → normalness

• Gangs emerged as alternative social structures

• Chicago scholars sought theory to address urban crime problems

Slum conditions + overcrowding shaped behavior

Criminologists and Progressiveness in Chicago: Goals

Reduce poverty, help change

Ecology meaning

Study of dynamics and processes by which plants and animals interact with the environment

Ecological Principles in City Growth and Concentric Circles, who?

Robert Park; Chicago

Principles in City Growth and Concentric Circles: Robert Park, Chicago

Ecological ideas

Natural growth, predictable patterns; cities develop distinct natural areas

Areas can invade and dominate adjacent areas, causing instability and social disruption

Principles in City Growth and Concentric Circles: Robert Park’s ideas expanded by?

Ernest W. Burges

The University of Chicago: Robert Park Key Conclusion

City development is not random

Studying city life → understand how environment shapes behavior

Crime and deviance linked to where people live and community conditions (not just individual traits)

Burgess’ Concentric Zone Theory how many zones?

5

Burgess’ Concentric Zone Theory: Zone 1

Central Business District

Burgess’ Concentric Zone Theory: Zone 2

Zone in Transition (mix)

Burgess’ Concentric Zone Theory: Zone 3

Working class homes

Burgess’ Concentric Zone Theory: Zone 4

Residential Zone

Burgess’ Concentric Zone Theory: Zone 5

Commuter Zone

Shaw and McKay Social Disorganization Theory — Framework

Crime is concentrated in certain neighborhoods cross cities

Shaw and McKay Social Disorganization Theory — Framework: Urban Context (Zone 2)

Zone in Transition

Deteriorating houses, waves of immigrants, and displacement of residents

Shaw and McKay Social Disorganization Theory — Framework: Structural Conditions and Process

Poverty, high residential mobility, and population heterogeneity

High instability → weakened family and community ties → weakened informal social control

Social disorganization → higher crime rates

Shaw and McKay’s Social Disorganization Theory — Empirical Evidence

Mapped delinquency (longitudinal data) across Chicago

Tested patterns using Ernest Burgess’ concentric zone model

Shaw and McKay’s Social Disorganization Theory — Empirical Evidence: Findings

Highest delinquency in: Zone 2 (Zone in Transition)

Delinquency decreased → increase of distance; from the central business district

Pattern held regardless of the racial/ethnic group

Shaw and McKay’s Social Disorganization Theory — Empirical Evidence: Critical Evidence

When families moved out of Zone 2 → delinquency rates decreased

Crime is linked to characteristics of area (not people)

Shaw and McKay’s Social Disorganization Theory — Juvenile Delinquency Analysis (1942)

Study collected autobiographies and life histories of delinquent youth

Shaw and McKay’s Social Disorganization Theory — Empirical Evidence: Found?

Growing up in socially disorganized areas → increased delinquency

Weak conventional institutions (family disruption, school disorder, community instability); lower supervision → weak informal social control

Exposure to criminal subcultures (gangs and older and/or delinquent peers); Crime supportive values learned and transmitted

Shaw and McKay’s Social Disorganization Theory — Empirical Evidence: Mixed Model or Integrated Theory

Weak social controls + learned criminal values

Laid the groundwork for later control/social bond theories

Criticisms of Social Disorganization Theory

• Shaw and McKay’s original research; did not measure social disorganization; looked at arrests not specific to social disorganization factors

• Formulation (macro level) of social disorganization

• Does not explain why youth in Zone 5 chose to commit crime/motivation

Revitalization of Social Disorganization Theory: 1960s

Lost popularity

Revitalization of Social Disorganization Theory: 1980s

Renewed interest

Macro level theories gained traction

Sampson (1986) argued; lack of informal social control leads to crime