Social disorganization theory

Social Disorganization Theory (Shaw and McKay)

Overview

• Social Disorganization Theory posits that individuals' behaviors are more significantly shaped by the quality of their social relationships and physical environment rather than rational thought.

Key Contributors

• Developed by Shaw and McKay.

• Attributed social disorganization to conditions prevalent in urban areas, which were often the only affordable places for the newly arriving poor to live.

Conditions Contributing to Social Disorganization

• High rate of population turnover (residential instability).

• Mix of people from diverse cultural backgrounds (ethnic diversity).

Core Tenet

• Location plays a crucial role in predicting illegal activity.

• Observed neighborhoods with the highest crime rates commonly exhibit three key issues:

  • Physical dilapidation

  • Poverty

  • Higher level of ethnic and cultural diversity.

Types of Social Disorganization

• Geographical factors contributing to social disorganization manifest in various forms including:

  • Crime

  • Cultural retardation

  • Illiteracy

  • Suicide

  • Divorce

  • Insanity

Article Reference

• Bellair, P. (2017). Social Disorganization Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology. Link to Article

Contemporary Social Disorganization Theory Notes

Historical Context

• Contemporary sociologists trace social disorganization models back to Emile Durkheim's work on organic solidarity and rapid societal changes.

• Shaw and McKay's perspective (1969) views social disorganization as situationally rooted rather than an inevitable urban characteristic.

• They propose that socioeconomic status (SES), racial and ethnic heterogeneity, and residential stability influence social disorganization and informal social control, affecting crime rates.

Research Development

• Empirical tests primarily focus on the relationship between SES and crime, supporting social disorganization theory.

• Studies from the 1940s to the early 1960s showed some correlation between social disorganization and crime.

• Interest in social disorganization waned before resurfacing in the 1980s with more rigorous methods.

Classical Social Disorganization Theory

• Informal social control is linked to community cohesion, integration, and trust, essential for reducing deviance as noted by Durkheim.

• Durkheim distinguished between mechanical solidarity (traditional societies) and organic solidarity (urban, industrial societies), highlighting risks of increased delinquency.

The Chicago School Influence

• The Chicago School’s systemic model views social disorganization as a function of competition for physical space, leading to distinct neighborhoods based on socioeconomic characteristics.

• Shaw and McKay's studies drew correlational insights from juvenile delinquency data across Chicago from 1900 to 1965, linking neighborhood structure to crime.

Tests and Recurring Themes in Research

• Debates focused on the causal role of poverty and SES, with studies complicating initial assumptions.

• Racial and ethnic heterogeneity was found to lead to conflict and thus deter community organization, impacting crime.

Modern Developments

• Contemporary scholarship has refined definitions of social disorganization, often distinguishing it from its causes and consequences, emphasizing community networks and informal control.

• Collective efficacy combines social cohesion and willingness to intervene for common goals, significantly impacting crime rates. Studies have shown strong links between collective efficacy and violence across multiple international contexts.

Research Gaps and Future Directions

• Issues exist surrounding measurement consistency across studies, making it challenging to draw conclusive findings about social networks and informal control.

• There is a push for better community-level data collections to inform and refine theoretical frameworks. Future research should focus on common indicators and community dynamics affecting crime.