Question one
The main rationale, which explains the emergence of the Chicago school of criminology was to provide a different meaning of how crime and related behavior. Notably, the earlier theories of crime only focused on a few reasons that explain criminal actions; the school was for an idea of providing a socialization aspect, which would improve on the past explanation of crime. Categorically, the Chicago school of criminal thought formulated various theories, some of which emphasized that people are not born bad or good; instead, the environment around them, and the social situation influence their behavior (Vito & Maahs, 2012).
Apart from that, it is important to note that the Chicago School emerged in the late 19th century when the cities were exposed to changes in the social organization of the society. There were massive movement of people to the cities, an initiative that led to overpopulation; hence, poverty and congestion on available social amenities. Under the leadership of sociologists such as Robert Merton, Henry McKay, Emile Durkheim and Clifford Shaw, the Chicago school focused to address some of this problems from a positivism way. They used symbolic interactionism as proposed by Simmel to strengthen their approach of addressing the social problems, which were affecting the society. As reported by Ball, and Lilly (2011), the causal problem of these social problems were the criminal culture, which used to be transferred from one generation to the other. Additionally, criminal acts or behaviors have also been transferred from one individual to the other through socialization. For this reasons, sociologists deemed it wise to formulate Chicago school of theories, which would explain, provide a different meaning, and address some of the problems encountered by the society.
Social disorganization theory emerged because of the disproportionate increase in the socio-economic hardship experienced by people residing in urban, which led to an increase in the level of crime. There was a rise in the level of crime in urban areas as compared to other places away from cities. For this reason, some of the social institutions such as the family, church, and schools broke down and that people lived in a state of normlessness (Cote, 2002). This theory emerged after Shaw and McKay’s research conducted in Chicago with an aim of finding out why crime rates were concentrated within specific regions of the city, and was committed by certain groups. Ideally, family and socialization processes influenced the rate of crime in such a way that juveniles could fail to adhere to the guidance given by their parents and adopt wrong ways followed by peers or criminal groups.
Question two
Strain theorists agree that certain stressors aggravate the likelihood of crime, which causes frustrations, negative emotions, and anger. Following the increased emotional pressure, a person might opt to commit crime as a corrective or an alleviation measure of his condition. It should be known that two founders of this theory, Merton and Agnew agree at this point; however, the major difference in their understanding is brought about by the way each “defines” the stressors or the strain causing factors (Gaines, Kaune & Miller, 2000). Notably, Merton believes that the failure to achieve monetary goals forces one into committing criminal offenses, while Agnew understand that, it is not only monetary success, but also other things such as loss of valuable property, inability to achieve socio-cultural goals, failure to identify with certain groups or cultures among other strains. Precisely, Agnew, disagrees with the tenets posited in the Chicago school because he believes that strain is phenomenological and not based on economic issues only. In this, he asserts that, people who have experienced emotional problems are prone to committing crimes as opposed to others (Renzetti, 2013). Currently, Agnew’s view has been adopted in modern psychology and other related fields because it provides a deeper meaning of the strain theory.
Question three
In his explanation, Merton believed that the American society was criminogenic and that the failure to attain monetary goals caused strain on a person. In such society, every individual will seek legitimate ways of achieving monetary goals; hence, creating a state of normlessness in such a society because no one seems to regulate law and order (Wilson, 2004). This state of anomie makes people to engage in deviant behavior after failing to achieve economic and financial goals. For instance, unemployment may force someone to engage in drug trafficking to raise funds to sustain his living.
On the other hand, those who have adopted deviant behavior from previous generation or through socialization will always form a society where no law exists to ensure that the do what they feel it is good for them. For instance, it should be known that not all drug traffickers lack financial power, they form a network (community), which operates freely as if there are no laws. Ideally, they have forced the society to understand and allow them to conduct their illicit business. For this reason, it is clear that anomie and deviancy are mutually reinforcing.
Question four
Merton understands that the American society focused more on attaining the “American Dream” and that through any means, individuals identified various ways through which they could use in sustaining their goals. However, upon the failure to attain this goal forces some people to adapt with the situation in various ways (Einstadter, Einstadter, Henry & Henry, 2006). Conformity to the laid down cultural goals makes people to accept the cultural goals and identified means of achieving them. This means that one is ready to abide by any given directive as long as it is practiced within the identified group. Apart from that, Innovation and creativity makes individuals to accept the cultural goals, but devise other ways of achieving them. Specifically, they adapt illegitimate ways of achieving these goals. In an effort to attain individual goals, some individuals are ritualistic in such a way that they reject cultural goals, but accept identified ways of attaining such goals. Such people keep their position and stick to goal attainment motive. Others retreat and reject any moves set to attain cultural goals and ways of attaining them. They fall out of such group and join a different world where they seek to change their lives.
Question five
In trying to understand the tenets of the Chicago school of criminal and the strain theory as part of it, the society within which this theory derives its relevance is prone to experiencing the following impact upon the implementation of these theoretical principles. Firstly, one should note that the society is divided into two groups including that of deviant and law-abiding people. In an effort to live together and achieve their goals, there is a likelihood of experiencing cultural conflicts because every group might have their own way of living, which affects the wellbeing of the other (Ball, and Lilly, 2011). The policy implication of having the two theoretical perspectives is that some societies, which aim fighting deviancy, might be the same that propagate crime because they do not support criminal fighting measures. For instance, a society might encourage people to fight by looking at them; this in itself encourages crime. On the other hand, criminal fighting measures may be irrelevant in some societies because the latter has a culture of fighting against crime, a move that will relieve law enforcing agents their duties. In such societies, the people might need the government or authorities to help them in fighting deviancy; instead, the latter might be reluctant.
References
Cote, S. (2002). Criminological theories: bridging the past to the future. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Einstadter, W. J., Einstadter, W. J., Henry, S., & Henry, S. (2006). Criminological theory: an analysis of its underlying assumptions (2nd ed., 1st Rowman & Littefield ed.). Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Gaines, L. K., Kaune, M., & Miller, R. L. (2000). Criminal justice in action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Lilly, J. R., & Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory: context and consequences (5. ed.). Los Angeles, Calif. [u.a.: Sage.
Renzetti, C. M. (2013). Routledge international handbook of crime and gender studies. London: Routledge.
Vito, G. F., & Maahs, J. R. (2012). Criminology: theory, research, and policy (3rd ed.). Sudbury, Mass.: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Wilson, F. H. (2004). Race, class, and the postindustrial city William Julius Wilson and the promise of sociology. Albany: State University of New York Press.
