Social disorganization indicates the failure of a social institution or the social organization such as schools, real estate, business, policing, and the group networking in certain neighborhoods or communities. Social disorganization, however, has its origin in ecology, which is the study of the relations between the environment and organism. In criminology, the social disorganization is considered as the perspective as well as the theory, but ecology is considered as an approach or the school.
The social disorganization theory has, however, emerged from the research that is conducted by Shaw and Mckay in Chicago. They have discovered that the crime rate is not dispersed evenly across the space and time in the city, rather it is concentrated in the specific area of the city, and it remained comparatively stable despite the continuous changes in the population that reside in each area. For example, the neighborhood having a high rate of crime, the rate will remain high irrespective of the ethnic or racial group at a particular time. This points out towards the fact that the crime is a function of the dynamics of neighborhood, and not essentially a function of the individuals that are living within the neighborhood.
Moreover, in order to find the characteristics of several neighborhoods that account for the crime rate stability, Shaw and McKay, has emphasized on the urban areas that are experiencing quick change in the economic and social structure, or in other words they have analyzed the zone of transition. Specifically, they have considered the neighborhoods having low socio-economic status. Mckay and Shaw have not proposed the direct relationship between crime and economic deprivation despite of the economic deprivation of the areas that are having higher crime rates. The socio-economically deprived areas, however, tend to be settled by the immigrants that are arriving in the areas that resulted in the racial and the ethnic heterogeneity in these areas. The areas, which are socio-economically deprived have high rate of racial heterogeneity and residential mobility; these neighborhoods are considered as socially disorganized. In these areas, the conventional institutions of the social control such as schools, family, churches, and voluntary community organizations were, however, weak, and they were not capable of regulating the behavior of the youths in the neighborhood (Shaw & Mckay, 1942).
Moreover, Shaw and Mckay have also noted that the lack of the behavioral regulation, particularly the disorganized neighborhood can produce the criminal traditions that can be passed further to the successive generations. This system of the attitudes is, however, learned by youth generation via daily contacts with the older juveniles. Hence, a neighborhood that is characterized by the social disorganization paves the way to crime and delinquency through
- The lack of the control mechanism,
- Cultural transmission of the delinquent values.
The social disorganization theory also comprises of the constructs that are far away from the macro-level elements, such as it comprises of the residential mobility, socio-economic status, and the racial heterogeneity. Further, many new concepts are also added that increase the theoretical utility of this approach, and help to properly test the mediating variables and the intervening mechanism between the variable of the social disorganization and crime rate. However, the intervening mechanism that is noted by the researchers, comprises of the effect of the social disorganization on the rates of collective efficacy, and the family disruption, which ultimately affect the crime rate.
Additionally, a recent research on the social disorganization has, however, taken two different directions, but these directions are related to each other. These two directions are the systemic model of the disorganization, and the social capital or the collective efficacy framework. The systemic model of the social disorganization emphasizes on the structural variations of the networks and their effects on crime. The network includes private sphere, i.e., kinship relations, and the intimate friendship, parochial networks, i.e., relationships of the secondary groups that are less intimate, and public sphere, i.e., the institutions and groups outside the neighborhood. The systemic model, however, focuses on the influence of the social disorganization on the sources of the behavioral regulation. The social capital or the collective efficacy explains that the social disorganization can help in the reduction of the social capital and the collective efficacy, which ultimately increases the violence rates and the crime. The social capital increases the solidarity and trust among the residents, and the collective efficacy is associated with the belief that the resident can effectually control the possibility of the unwanted behavior within the neighborhood. The most essential part in the social disorganization theory is the development of the inter-generational networks, material goods, and potential for the joint control, supervision and care of children in the neighborhood.
Processes that Lead from the Social Disorganization to the Crime
Furthermore, there are many processes that lead from the social disorganization to the crime. These processes include:
- Family Processes
- Neighborhood Processes
The social disorganization exerts its influence on the youth violence via its effects on the family structures and the stability. The traditional variables of the social disorganization, however, influence the crime rates of community when they take levels of the family disruption into consideration. This can occur by removing the essential set of the social control structures over the behavior of the youth, creating more opportunities for the victimization of the criminals such as through the lack of a competent guardianship. Further, there are several family processes that can be used in order to mitigate the harmful effects of the social disorganization.
The family factors also influence the delinquency in diverse ways. This can be analyzed from the fact the level of the attachment of an adolescent with the father is independently associated with the delinquent activity after controlling the interactive and independent effects. Further, another example in this regard is the influence of the parental discipline on the social disorganization, and the influence of delinquent friends on delinquency.
Furthermore, it is found from the research that the embeddedness of children and families in the context of community is a major feature of the social disorganization theory (Sampson, 1992). Prevention of the child abuse, prenatal care, supervision and monitoring of the youth, and management of the family practices are entangled with the networks of community in the social organization. Further, social disorganization also influences the child care directly and indirectly, family processes and the rates of the crime and delinquency.
The neighborhood processes also help in analyzing the link between the social disorganization and the crime. The social disorganization is associated with the residential mobility, ethnic heterogeneity, and lower economic status that affect the informal control mechanism, which ultimately pave the way to the crime and the delinquency rates (Tibbetts & Hemmens, 2009). It also increases robbery, theft, rate of vandalism, mugging, and burglary.
Moreover, the neighborhood having low socioeconomic status, family disruption, racial heterogeneity, and high residential mobility, have poor networks of friendship, and unsupervised groups of youth. These in turn pave the way to an increase in the crime rates. The social disorganization exerts its influence on the crime and violence by affecting the collective efficacy. It is found that the neighborhoods that socially disorganized have low collective efficacy. The efficacy is the willingness of the residents in order to intervene for the common goal. However, if the neighborhood is socially cohesive then it will prove effective for the realization of the social control.
Further, the social disorganization also exerts its influence on the economic deprivation, which paves the way to the violent crimes in the society. The social disorganization in combination with the poverty leads to the higher rate of the violence and crime (Mayer, Farrell, & Northup, 2000). Furthermore, the economic well-being of the community is a major determinant that helps in analyzing the variation in the delinquency rates. The poor communities lack the sufficient resources in order to defend the collective interest. In the poor countries, the institutions lack the sufficient knowledge and money. There exists a negative association between various indicators of the delinquency rate and the socio-economic status of the neighborhood. The delinquency rates, however, reflect the anomie level and the integration in a particular area and not the area’s economic status. The economic deprivation is, however, a powerful predictor of the crime and violence, which is independent of the other influences (Heitgerd & Bursik, 1987). The social disorganization, however, argue that the relationship between the economic deprivation and the social disorganization is complex, and it can be understood in a better way if the concept of the social disorganization is incorporated with the economic deprivation.
The social disorganization theory, however, suggests that programs that ensure family preservation should be funded because the family is capable of resisting the harmful effects of the social disorganization as they work together in order to reduce the social disorganization in their communities. Moreover, the family preservation programs are intensive and short term programs that emphasize not only on the individual clients but also on the needs of the whole family. In the past decades, one of the most significant advances in the social work is the development and encouragement of the family preservation programs.
Conclusion
References
Sampson, R.J. (1992). Family management and child development: Insights from social disorganization theory. Facts, Frameworks, and Forecasts: Advances in Criminological Theory, Joan McCord, ed., 3, 63−93.
Shaw, C. R., and McKay. H.D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas; A study of Rates of Delinquents in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Heitgard, J.L., and Bursik. R.J. (1987). Extracommunity Dynamics and the Ecology of Delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 92 (4), 775−787
Mayer, A. L., Farrell, A., & Northup, W. (2000). Promoting Non-Violence in Early Adolescence: Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways. Kluwer Publishers, New York
Tibbets, S.G., and Hemmens, C. (2009). Criminological Theory: A Text/Reader. Sage Publishers, Inc., London
