DDL
What are the strengths and weaknesses of “structural” and “cultural” explanations of urban disorganization and unrest?
With the development of the society, urban unrest and disorganization has become a huge concern for every community member. Now, sociologists have concluded two explanations for the outbreak of urban unrest and disorganization: structural and cultural or social. Both of these two arguments have their strengths and weaknesses. This essay will discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of two arguments.
Before talking about the explanation, disorder is the key concept for understanding the whole essay. Disorder is a nebulous topic that has been defined in multiple, often highly contentious, ways (Harcourt 89; Perkins and Taylor 70). Past studies of neighborhood disorder have focused on the presence of vandalism, litter, graffiti, abandonment, illegal activities such as public drinking and drug use, panhandling, prostitution, public harassment and loitering (Geis and Ross 80; Sampson and Raudenbush 163; Skogan 68). But Skogan(69) and Perkins and Taylor (95) separated disorder into two category: social and physical disorder. Social disorder includes human behavior and usually related to crime. In contrast, physical disorder often refers to elements of the built environment such as trash and abandoned buildings, which is viewed as undesirable. But how does the disorder generate? According to the article “How residents make sense of neighborhood disorder in Flint”, environment can produce the disorder in both the direct and indirect way (Johansen, Neal and Gasteyer 59). For example, if people can see an abandoned or unmaintained property, it will constantly give these people a sense of physical disorder. Also, this physical disorder can indirectly send to these people a negative message that the local residents or authorities are unable or unwilling to maintain social order in this area. In order to further explain the environmental production of disorder, author introduce a very famous theory called Broken Windows Theory(BWT).This theory is proposed by James Wilson and George Killing (1982) in 1982 that used broken windows as a metaphor for disorder within neighborhoods. Their theory links disorder and incivility within a community to subsequent occurrences of serious crime. For instance, broken windows or streetlights can lead to more significant forms of physical and social disorder. The presence of broken windows implies that residents are not sufficiently invested in their neighborhood to repair them, or that police are not sufficiently inclined to pursue window-breakers. So, people who live near this area will somehow produce a sense of physical disorder or social disorder, and then it will lead to five following results:
1. Communities began to appear disorderly situation; some community residents begin to move out.
2. As fare of crime, the community residents who did not move out won’t care about much about community.
3. Monitoring force area declined further deterioration of community policing.
4. More residents are moving out, those who still remain in the area become more retreat, limit their time outdoors.
5. Foreign criminals invade the community, so that crime rates continue to rise.
After finishing talking about the disorder, both structural and cultural/social explanations can describe and make sense of social disorganization and unrest.
What are strengths and weaknesses of structural and cultural expectations of urban disorganization and unrest?
Most structural and cultural expectations attempt to give some linking into the etiology of crime. More so, they provide some light into social learning coupled with strain as well as social control. There have been several attempts at explaining crime enterprises through cultural variations in society. For instance in 19th century studies carried out by Geis and Catherine (244) placed the blame on crime and violence to a region in the south of France. Ideally, this region was mainly inhabited by immigrants hence cultural differences. This same line of thinking also placed the high levels of crime among the southern Italians. The Southern Italians were mainly Sicilians as well as Neapolitans. It was claimed that these group of people possessed inherent cultural traits which made them engage in criminal activities (Bannister and Anthony 194). One great weakness of this line of thinking is to brand all southerners as criminals. Further this simplistic thinking and explanation could be used to profile certain groups of people when actually the incidence of crime in that particular area could be emanating from different courses altogether.
The notion that most southerners are crime prone has been debunked by several researchers. Most of them submit that residents from such regions could be acquiring the criminal tendencies from their neighbors to lose them. In fact most subsequent research has further observed that gangs from diverse communities do behave differently (Cummings 89). The theory that cultural traits do enhance criminal activity has become difficult to prove. Further researchers in this line of thinking have found it extremely impossible to develop reliable taxonomies that can clearly relate particular gang activity with a particular community. In a study carried out by Frederic Thrasher, gangs were deemed to be found in particular in a community known as “gangland”. For instance in Chicago, this gangland inhabited the industrial areas. These industrial areas, mainly composed of mostly foreign immigrants, were said to produce more gang due to its mix of people and their many problems. Thus communities without such a mix were assumed or better, expected not to have gangs. In actual sense, the social economic challenges are the ones that were deemed to propel individuals to engage in crime.
However, the claim that only gangs existed in areas that were from areas populated with foreigners, poverty and poor residential areas has been countered further. Some researchers believe that gangs also exist in backgrounds that have coherent organization and not just “disorganized slums” (Olzak et al 596). Gangs can be found in various communities. Perhaps this finding seems to violate most of the previous assumptions that have been made by researchers over the years.
Gangs are found in various communities. Though they may operate in areas that are “unsettled”, with time they may emerge in communities and neighborhoods that are stable. This means that communities lacking in good housing, good employment opportunities, education etc tend to have more gangs. This does not mean that gangs are absent in more settled areas. Gangs do exist in communities that have substantial strength and organization too.
Gangs do fit into their organizational bases in a unique way. The gangs can coalesce around adult groups as well as other institutions in their area of residence. These could be schools, territorial boundaries etc. For instance some predominantly white gangs found in the St. Louis municipality had long standing loyalties to their respective neighborhood as well as schools (Cummings 89).
Gangs can form due to re-organization rather than organization. For example gangs that formed in the northern suburbs of St. Louis only happened when their communities settled. This coincided with the time when blacks saw an end to three decades of mandatory and voluntary migration.
The concept of civility
Incivility has been known to reflect poor relations that exist between disparate groups. All these bring about disharmony and hence crime. Civility has to do with manners and other elements of good grooming. According to Bannister and Anthony (92) civility stands for “manners, politeness, courtesies or other formalities of face to face interactions in everyday life”. Thus civility can make those people from contrasting identities and backgrounds to interact in harmony. This coexistence cannot be harmonious if civility is not well inculcated among these diverse populations. Civility is not well inculcated among these diverse populations. Civility happens both in presence as well as others. This explanation is relevant as measures can be put in place to educate the masses on the need to co-exist through harmonious interaction. Further this approach does not seek to profile other communities unlike the other models that tend to black-list certain groups in society. When civility is fostered, then coexistence between members of diverse backgrounds will flourish.
The model of civility has been critiqued as based on its evidential base. Further, there has been a challenge with trying to define cohesive community. It is thus thought governments can replace civility by stepping in to solve tensions through bilateral interventions without necessarily bringing them together. Also this government could facilitate in by stepping in as an honest broker in cases disharmony exists.
Poverty segregation and race riots explanations underpin another area of conflict that may disorganize society. There are social forces that are exploited by the whites to gain racial advantages over the other members of color. But when one strives to extremely repress racial competition, there are high chances that other counter movements of the aggrieved may emerge. A case in point is what happened in South Africa. According to Olzak (594) segregation greatly contributes racial antagonism as is happening in the United States of America Presently. This approach, clearly explains another area of disharmony and unrest that does not dwell on poverty directly. This is despite the fact that racial segregation has led to deprivation in most cases.
However, it should not be taken that only racial segregation and deprivation lead to conflict and unrest. In fact studies have noted that in cases where there are decreases in economic disadvantages leading to increase competition for jobs. The resource mobilization as well as competition theories do clearly provide a qualified critique to the explanation.
In conclusion, the various studies reviewed in this work indicate that the structural and cultural explanations of urban disorganization and unrest have their strengths and weaknesses. Though some models attempt to link crime to many forms of deprivation and cultural traits, others have identified areas to do with civility and race relations as possible flashpoints for crime and unrest. All in all, these explanations make a determined effort to answer the etiology of disorganization and unrest.
Works cited
Bannister, Jon and Anthony O’Sullivan. Civility, Community Cohesion and Antisocial Behaviour: Policy and Social Harmony. Journal of Social Policy, 42 (2013): pp. 91-110. Print
Cummings, Scott. Gangs: The Origins and Impact of Contemporary Youth Gangs in the United States. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993. Print
Geis, J. Karlyn and Catherine E. Ross. A new look at urban alienation: The effect of neighborhood disorder on perceived powerlessness. Social Psychotogy Quarterly, 61(1998): 232—246. Print
Harcourt, E. Bernard. Illusion of Order: The false Promise to Broken J4’mclows Policing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. Print
Olzak, Susan, Suzanne Shanahan and Elizabeth H McEneaney. “Poverty, Segregation and Race Riots: 1960 to1993.” American Sociological Review, 61 (1996): pp. 590-613. Print
