essay on social disorganization

Social Disorganization Theory – Examples, Pros & Cons

Social disorganization theory states that crime in a neighborhood is a result of the weakening of traditional social bonds. This weakening of bonds results in social disorganization.

Social bonds that might be weakened include:

• Family connections,
• Community connections, and
• Religious connections.

Traditional social binds (family, community, and religious) are usually weakened thanks to large-scale migration , industrialization , and social disadvantage .

Social disorganization theory points the finger at these sorts of forces as the cause of delinquency.

The theory further states that disorganization can be pinpointed to certain specific areas and demographics. The theory’s founders highlighted certain high-risk demographics, such as areas with a high proportion of migrant workers , and areas with a high proportion of blue-collar workers .

Social Disorganization Theory Definition

Below are some standard definitions of the social disorganization theory: 

• Shaw & McKay (1969)  – Social disorganization, defined as a sudden influx of a large number of people in and out of a neighborhood, creates a pathological environment that contributes more to crime than the deviant behavior of abnormal individuals. 
• Robert E. Lee Faris (1955)  – Social Disorganization is the “weakening or destruction of the relationships which hold together a social organization” .
• Bursik & Grasmick (1993) – “neighborhood life is shaped by a network of formal and informal community associations” that form the essence of social organization . A disruption in these community associations results in social disorganization. 

*APA citations for the above sources are listed at the end of this article

Explanation

A simple aid to understanding this theory is to break it down into its what, where, and why.

1. What – Crime

The social disorganization theory is a theory that applies the principles and methods of sociology to understand the prevalence of high crime rates especially among juveniles of working-class communities.

2. Where – Urban Blue-collar Neighborhoods

The social disorganization theory has mostly been applied to understanding crime rates in urban neighborhoods with blue-collar , working-class populations and high rates of migration. 

Social disorganization is a type of spatial theory , in that it posits that certain neighborhoods or areas within a city tend to have higher rates of crime.

Its early proponents, such as Shaw & McKay (1969), even developed detailed crime maps of cities. They called their map-making exercises ‘spatial mapping’, which attempted to show how crime varies as you move from a city center to its suburbs. Such spatial models, however, were discarded later.

3. Why – Disorganization

The social disorganization theory holds that traditional societies were organized according to certain rules and norms that have been nurtured and strengthened over time.

Some rules and norms in communities gained the status of unsaid, unenforced, yet widely accepted laws. ‘Respect your mother’, ‘go to church’, and ‘do not steal’ might be examples of these established norms. Social disorganization theorists believe that all traditional societies had mechanisms for internal policing or regulation that acted as checks and balances against deviant behavior by its members. 

However, in cases where traditional societies are subjected to stress factors such as large-scale immigration and/or industrialization, disorganization occurs, leading to a breakdown of the society’s internal norms. In these situations, the community fails to ensure order and regulation.

Social disorganization manifests in the form of a spike in deviant behavior by its members, particularly juveniles and youth, leaving external, state-backed policing the only mechanism for regulating crime.

The social disorganization theory grew from the work of a group of University of Chicago researchers in the 1920s and 30s who are credited with founding the Chicago School of Sociology.

These researchers were interested in examining the increasing rates of crime in the first few decades of the 20th century as the city of Chicago witnessed a boom in both industrialization and immigration.

The theory provided many insights into crime, that today, we think of as obvious givens, but were path-breaking for their time. Some of these included:

1. Theory of Social Ecology – The social disorganization theory is an ecological theory that attempts to attribute human behavior to influences absorbed consciously or unconsciously from their surroundings.

2. The City as an Environment – At the end of the 19th century, metropolises such as Chicago were a relatively new phenomenon. So the idea that a city is an environment much like the natural environment, and that Darwinian rules of evolution apply to this urban environment, much like they do  in nature, was a novel one. The social disorganization theory began by basing itself on Darwinian postulates. For instance,  the theory held that just as certain kinds of plants thrive in certain environments, specific human behavioral traits such as delinquency also thrive in certain kinds of environments.

3. Acculturation – A central postulate of the social disorganization theory was that attitudes are not innate but stem through a process of acculturation or an imbibing of cultural norms and mores.. It follows then that in a socially disorganized neighborhood, children and juveniles are likely to get acculturated to a lack of control and conflicted morality, leading to crime.

Offshoot Theory: Cultural Deviance Theory

Good to Know Information

The development of the social disorganization theory is closely tied to the phenomenal Polish migration to the US at the beginning of the 20th century.

One of the foundational texts of the social disorganization theory is a book by University of Chicago sociologists, W.I. Thomas and Florain Znaniecki titled The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, published between 1918 to 1920.

The beginning of the 20th century saw a huge influx of migrants to America, many of whom eventually found work in the booming manufacturing industries of Chicago. It is estimated that almost 25% of all new immigrants to America at this time came from Poland. In fact, such was the magnitude of this wave of Polish immigration that Chicago soon became home to the third largest population of ethnic Poles after major cities in Poland such as Warsaw and Lodz.

The Polish Peasant in Europe and America is today considered a classic text in sociology. The insights contained in this book laid the foundation of what was later to be called the social disorganization theory. The authors emphasized the importance of the “group”, as defined in the social sciences , to understanding social change .

According to them, members who become isolated from the “group”, in this case the immigrant Polish community, tend to become vulnerable to deviant behavior and delinquency. 

Examples of Social Disorganization Theory

1. Public Housing Projects and Delinquency – Several social disorganization theorists such as Bursik & Grasmick (1993) and Wikstrom & Loeber (2000) concluded that juveniles living in public housing projects in western countries may be more susceptible to crime as the ties of community in such projects are weak. Neighbors may not often know each other, and family networks are likely to be small, with the nuclear or single-parent family being the most common. In the absence of community-level organization, juveniles in such projects were being rendered vulnerable to the effects of social disorganization

2. Linguistic Diversity, and Challenges in Community-level Regulation – Elliot et al (1996) concluded that in neighborhoods with a high percentage and high diversity of first generation immigrants, crime rates tend to be higher. This is because in such neighborhoods, a large number of different languages are spoken, making communication, and by extension, community self-regulation difficult.

3. Self-regulation in Rural/Tribal/Primitive Communities – In contrast to the previous two examples cited, colonial anthropologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries traveling to remote tribal and “primitive” societies, were often struck by the remarkable order and absence of crime from such societies. While they may not always have approved of the means of dispensing justice in such societies – comparing “primitive” law mostly unfavorably with systems of justice in the western world – they did, however, note the sense of community and organization in primitive communities, and their efficient functioning for the purpose of maintaining order. Some examples include Weber’s writings on primitive law, and Malinowski’s Crime and Custom in Savage Society. 

R.R. Marett summed up the attitudes of a generation of sociologists and anthropologists when he wrote that 

“ in a savage community, it is often hard to distinguish any sovereign determinate person vested with the power either of making or maintaining the laws.  Nevertheless, the result is often so law-abiding in the sense of being responsive to social order, that it might seem superfluous to provide a legal machinery that must actually but rust in disuse.” (Marett 1912)

Of course, sociology has since moved well beyond such simplistic binaries of savage and civilized, but these examples serve to buttress the basic premise of the social disorganization theory  – that all societies, in their natural, stable state, have mechanisms for the internal regulation of human action and behavior, and delinquency occurs when such community-based mechanisms are disturbed or broken.

4. Hate Crimes and “Lone Wolf” Shooters – The social disorganization theory does not apply to immigrants alone. It can equally well be used to explain crimes against immigrants by members of dominant groups. Such individuals, isolated from their social groups on account of the breakdown of traditional groupings such as family, church, etc., and being unable to cope up with a rapidly changing environment around them, begin to display deviant behavior. Think of “lone wolf” shooters who often attack immigrants. 

A famous pop-cultural example would be the character of Travis Bickle played by Robert De Niro in Taxi Driver , who, living an isolated life cut off from his family and community, and struggling to make sense of the rapidly changing post-Vietnam war American society,  begins to harbor delusions of “cleaning up” his neighborhood.

Related Theory: Differential Association Theory

Strengths of Social Disorganization Theory

1. Grounded in Empiricism – The social disorganization theory was one of the earliest projects that marked the empirical turn in sociology from a theoretical perspective. The Polish Peasant in America, for instance, was based on thousands of personal documents, interviews, and case histories, resulting in a 5-volume magnum opus. Other University of Chicago projects, such as those  by Shaw & McKay (1969), and Park & Burgess (1925) too, relied on large bodies of empirical data collected over several years, detailed city maps, and voluminous statistics to produce elaborate theoretical models. 

2. Durability – In the second decade of the 21st century, the theory has now been around for a little over a century. Unlike many other premises of the social and natural sciences, the theory, however, continues to stay relevant, even though it has been modified and adapted several times from the time of its first formulation. 

3. Accuracy – Within its limited scope, the mathematical models derived from social disorganization theory worked remarkably well in predicting delinquency. For instance, the unit-weighted regression model devised by Ernest Burgess, a founding theorist of the social disorganization theory to predict the parole success rates of convicts is noted as a remarkably accurate model, and one that further found application in fields such as insurance. Burgess based his model on assigning scores to convicts on various parameters of their integration with their social environment , such as having a job, a family network, etc. 

4. Provides Actionable Policy Insights – The theory is useful in drawing our attention to what works and what does not when it comes to tackling crime. For instance, by pointing to the roots of delinquency, the theory helps explain why incarceration and the penal justice system are futile in reducing crime. Several studies, for instance, Pratt & Cullen (2005) have in fact demonstrated that incarceration is inversely related to crime. The theory gives several actionable policy insights such as where to direct public funding to prevent crime ( certain neighborhoods, as depicted by mapping models), how to govern urban cities ( delegating more authority to the neighborhood and community-level organizations), and which social values to uphold ( families, as units that can prevent social disorganization). 

Related Theory: Family Systems Theory

Criticisms of Social Disorganization Theory

1. Ecological Determinism and Spatial Discrimination – A key concept of the social disorganization theory was the concentric zones model which divided a city into concentric zones, with certain areas, closer especially to the city center being identified as the breeding grounds of crime, whereas a movement radially outwards from the centre seemed to be correlated with a decrease in crime. However such an approach made a claim that was later found to be untenable – that certain spaces and cites within a city by themselves induce socially pathological behavior Such hypotheses in turn led to further stigmatization and marginalization of already marginalized spaces.

2. Ignores Positive Role of Migration – The theory, especially in its earlier formulations, emphasized anomie-inducing effects of migration that are no longer held to be tenable. Studies of migration by sociologists are now increasingly pointing to an overall positive effect of migration with immigrant presence being linked to greater innovation, increased wealth creation, and more liberal societal values in general. In fact for many rich countries such as Canada, immigration is critical for continued economic growth. 

3. An Overreliance on Sociological Factors of Crime – We now understand that crime has both social as well as psychological causes. An overemphasis by the social disorganization theory on the structural and social causes of crime eventually led to its taking a backseat to psychological theories of crime, until a balance was found between the two towards the end of the 20th century.

4. Inability to Explain White Collar Crime – Like other similar “location” theories based on urban ecology, that attribute crime to certain locations within an urban center (such as those with higher immigrant populations, or lower economic status), the social disorganization theory fails to explain white collar crime or organized, multinational crime rackets that do not seem to be rooted in any neighborhood or limited to immigrants or economically deprived sections of the society.

Don’t make this Mistake

The social disorganization theory is closely related to another key sociological concept – anomie . But don’t confuse the two!

The term anomie is of French origin and can be loosely translated to normlessness. It is traced to the French Sociologist Emile Durkheim who used it in two influential works – The Division of Labor in Society (1893) and Suicide (1897). 

Like the social disorganization theory, Durkheim laid stress on human groupings and social organization as the determinants of human behavior, and a disruption to these structures, as a cause of deviant behavior. Anomie, however, possesses a wider semantic scope and signifies a greater range of meanings than social disorganization.

For instance, while anomie may result from rapidly changing societal norms (social disorganization), it may also result from a mismatch between an individual’s personal ambitions and his/her capacity to achieve them. Durkheim’s formulation of Anomie preceded the work of the Chicago School on social disorganization by about 3 decades and had a significant influence on them. 

For more on Durkheim, see his concept of social facts or my list of Durkheim’s theories .

Bursik, Robert J., & Grasmick, H.G. (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control . New York: Lexington Books.

Elliott, D.S., Wilson, W.J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R.J., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996) The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Research in Crime and delinquency. 33 pp: 389–426. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022427896033004002  

Faris, R. E. L. (1955) Social Disorganization . New York: The Ronald Press Company.

Malinowski, B.  (1989) Crime and Custom in Savage Society Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Marett, R.R. (1912) Anthropology London: Williams & Norgate.

Park, R. E., Burgess, E.W. & McKenzie, R.D. ( 1925) The city . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pratt, T. C. & F.T. Cullen. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice , Volume 32: A Review of Research (pp. 373−450). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thomas, W. I. & Znaniecki, F. (1918-20). The Polish peasant in Europe and America . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Shaw, C. R. & McKay, H.D. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wikstrom, P.O & Loeber, R. (2000) Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? A study of male juvenile serious offending, individual risk and protective factors , and neighborhood context Criminology 38(4) pp: 1109-1142. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb01416.x

Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD)

This article was co-authored by Kamalpreet Gill Singh, PhD. Dr. Gill has a PhD in Sociology and has published academic articles in reputed international peer-reviewed journals. He holds a Master’s degree in Politics and International Relations and a Bachelor’s in Computer Science.

• Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link The 10 Types of Masculinity
• Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 31 Most Popular Motivation Theories (A to Z List)
• Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Counterfactual Thinking: 10 Examples and Definition
• Kamalpreet Gill Singh (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Cultural Divergence: 15 Examples and Definition

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Social Disorganization Theory

Introduction, foundational texts.

• Neighborhood Demographics and Crime
• Social Ties and Crime
• Neighborhood Informal Social Control and Crime: Collective Efficacy Theory
• Accounting for the Spatial and Temporal Dimensions of Social Disorganization Theory
• From Urban to Rural Settings
• The Generalizability of Social Disorganization in the International Context
• Social Disorganization Theory and Community Crime Prevention

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Chicago School of Sociology
• Civil Society
• Social Capital

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Consumer Credit and Debt
• Economic Globalization
• Global Inequalities
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Social Disorganization Theory by Rebecca Wickes , Michelle Sydes LAST REVIEWED: 28 February 2017 LAST MODIFIED: 28 February 2017 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199756384-0192

Social disorganization theory is one of the most enduring place-based theories of crime. Developed by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, this theory shifted criminological scholarship from a focus on the pathology of people to the pathology of places. Shaw and McKay demonstrated that delinquency did not randomly occur throughout the city but was concentrated in disadvantaged neighborhoods in—or adjacent to—areas of industry or commerce. These impoverished neighborhoods were in a constant state of transition, experiencing high rates of residential mobility. They were also home to newly arrived immigrants and African Americans. In these areas children were exposed to criminogenic behavior and residents were unable to develop important social relationships necessary for the informal regulation of crime and disorder. Social disorganization theory held a distinguished position in criminological research for the first half of the 20th century. Although the theory lost some of its prestige during the 1960s and 1970s, the 1980s saw a renewed interest in community relationships and neighborhood processes. Kornhauser 1978 (cited under Foundational Texts ), Sampson and Groves 1989 (cited under Social Ties and Crime ), and later Bursik and Grasmick 1993 were central to the revitalization of social disorganization theory. In the mid-1990s, Robert Sampson and his colleagues again expanded upon social disorganization theory, charting a theoretical and methodological path for neighborhood effects research focused on the social mechanisms associated with the spatial concentration of crime. Social disorganization theory and its contemporary advances enhance our understanding of crime’s ecological drivers. Their core tenets underpin community crime prevention programs concerned with limiting the negative influence of poverty, residential instability, and racial or ethnic segregation on neighborhood networks and informal social controls. In this entry, we provide readers with an overview of some of the most important texts in social disorganization scholarship. We include foundational social disorganization texts and those we believe most saliently represent the theoretical and methodological evolution of this theory over time. Furthermore, we consider those articles that test the generalizability of social disorganization theory to nonurban areas and in other national contexts. We conclude this chapter with a discussion on the relevance of social disorganization theory for community crime prevention.

In this section we refer readers to Shaw and McKay’s original reflections on social disorganization ( Shaw and McKay 1972 ) and include key texts associated with two revitalizations of the systemic model for community regulation and collective efficacy theory. The development of the systemic model marked the first revitalization of social disorganization theory. It emerged from Kornhauser 1978 and was further advanced by Bursik and Grasmick 1993 and, later, Kubrin and Weitzer 2003 . The introduction of ecometrics and collective efficacy theory signaled the second major transformation of social disorganization theory. Drawing on data from one of the most comprehensive neighborhood projects conducted in the United States—the Project for Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods—Robert Sampson and his colleagues ( Sampson 2012 ; Sampson and Groves 1989 , cited under Social Ties and Crime ) demonstrated the role of neighborhood social processes (like informal social control) in preventing crime and highlighted how changes in nearby areas influence the concentration of social problems in focal neighborhoods. Taken together these texts provide essential knowledge for understanding the development of social disorganization theory and the spatial distribution of crime in urban neighborhoods.

Bursik, Robert J. 1988. Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology 26.4: 519–551.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988.tb00854.x

Social disorganization theory experienced a significant decline in popularity in the study of crime during the 1960s and 1970s. Bursik makes a significant contribution by highlighting the most salient problems facing social disorganization theory at the time, and charting a clear path forward for the study of neighborhoods and crime.

Bursik, Robert J., and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control . New York: Lexington Books.

In this manuscript Bursik and Grasmick extend social disorganization research by illustrating the neighborhood mechanisms associated with crime and disorder, detailing the three-tiered systemic model for community regulation and the importance of neighborhood-based networks and key neighborhood organizations for crime prevention.

Kasarda, John D., and Morris Janowitz. 1974. Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review 39.3: 328–339.

DOI: 10.2307/2094293

In this work, Kasarda and Janowitz examine the utility of two theoretical models commonly used to explain variations in community attachment. The first model considers population density and size to be the primary predictors of community attachment across place whereas the second focuses on length of residence. The authors find empirical support for the second model only.

Kornhauser, Ruth. 1978. Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

A key limitation of social disorganization theory was the failure to differentiate between social disorganization and the outcome of social disorganization, crime. This work clearly articulates the social control aspect of Shaw and McKay’s original thesis, providing clarity on the informal social control processes associated with preventing delinquency.

Kubrin, Charis, and Ronald Weitzer. 2003. New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40.4: 374–402.

DOI: 10.1177/0022427803256238

Kubrin and Weitzer critically engage with the nature of the relationships among neighborhood structure, social control, and crime as articulated in social disorganization theory. These authors propose important substantive refinements of the thesis and provide a comprehensive discussion of the methodological issues that hinder the study of neighborhoods and crime.

Park, Robert E., Ernest W. Burgess, and Roderick Duncan McKenzie. 1925. The city . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

This classic book is accredited with laying important groundwork for the development of the “Chicago School” of sociology. It is a key text for understanding the early theoretical foundations of urban ecology and social disorganization theory.

Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods .

This website provides an overview of the PHDCN, a large-scale, interdisciplinary study of families, schools, and neighborhoods in Chicago. The website, part of the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research, includes useful information on the PHDCN methods, how to access data, and an archive of all PHDCN-related publications to date.

Raudenbush, Stephen, and Robert Sampson. 1999. “Ecometrics”: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology 29.1: 1–41.

DOI: 10.1111/0081-1750.00059

Drawing on a strong psychometric tradition, Raudenbush and Sampson propose several strategies to enhance the quantitative assessment of neighborhoods, what they coin “ecometrics.” They further demonstrate the utility of survey and observational data and stress the importance of nested research designs. This paper is particularly useful for designing neighborhood research.

Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226733883.001.0001

In this award-winning book, Sampson synthesizes neighborhood effects research and proffers a general theoretical approach to better understand the concentration of social problems in urban neighborhoods.

Shaw, Clifford R., and Henry D. McKay. 1972. Juvenile delinquency and urban areas . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Shaw and McKay originally published this classic study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago neighborhoods in 1942. This significant work provides an overview of the delinquency study and details social disorganization theory.

Shaw, Clifford R., Frederick Zorbaugh, Henry D. McKay, and Leonard S. Cottrell. 1929. Delinquency areas . Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

As one of the first empirical inquiries into the geographic distribution of crime and delinquency, this study set the foundation for Shaw and McKay’s later work. Of particular interest to Shaw and colleagues was the role community characteristics played in explaining the variation in crime across place.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Sociology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Actor-Network Theory
• Adolescence
• African Americans
• African Societies
• Agent-Based Modeling
• Analysis, Spatial
• Analysis, World-Systems
• Anomie and Strain Theory
• Arab Spring, Mobilization, and Contentious Politics in the...
• Asian Americans
• Assimilation
• Authority and Work
• Bell, Daniel
• Biosociology
• Bourdieu, Pierre
• Catholicism
• Causal Inference
• Chinese Cultural Revolution
• Chinese Society
• Citizenship
• Civil Rights
• Cognitive Sociology
• Cohort Analysis
• Collective Efficacy
• Collective Memory
• Comparative Historical Sociology
• Comte, Auguste
• Conflict Theory
• Conservatism
• Consumer Culture
• Consumption
• Contemporary Family Issues
• Contingent Work
• Conversation Analysis
• Corrections
• Cosmopolitanism
• Crime, Cities and
• Cultural Capital
• Cultural Classification and Codes
• Cultural Economy
• Cultural Omnivorousness
• Cultural Production and Circulation
• Culture and Networks
• Culture, Sociology of
• Development
• Discrimination
• Doing Gender
• Du Bois, W.E.B.
• Durkheim, Émile
• Economic Institutions and Institutional Change
• Economic Sociology
• Education and Health
• Education Policy in the United States
• Educational Policy and Race
• Empires and Colonialism
• Entrepreneurship
• Environmental Sociology
• Epistemology
• Ethnic Enclaves
• Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis
• Exchange Theory
• Families, Postmodern
• Family Policies
• Feminist Theory
• Field, Bourdieu's Concept of
• Forced Migration
• Foucault, Michel
• Frankfurt School
• Gender and Bodies
• Gender and Crime
• Gender and Education
• Gender and Health
• Gender and Incarceration
• Gender and Professions
• Gender and Social Movements
• Gender and Work
• Gender Pay Gap
• Gender, Sexuality, and Migration
• Gender Stratification
• Gender, Welfare Policy and
• Gendered Sexuality
• Gentrification
• Gerontology
• Globalization and Labor
• Goffman, Erving
• Historic Preservation
• Human Trafficking
• Immigration
• Indian Society, Contemporary
• Institutions
• Intellectuals
• Intersectionalities
• Interview Methodology
• Job Quality
• Knowledge, Critical Sociology of
• Labor Markets
• Latino/Latina Studies
• Law and Society
• Law, Sociology of
• LGBT Parenting and Family Formation
• LGBT Social Movements
• Life Course
• Lipset, S.M.
• Markets, Conventions and Categories in
• Marriage and Divorce
• Marxist Sociology
• Masculinity
• Mass Incarceration in the United States and its Collateral...
• Material Culture
• Mathematical Sociology
• Medical Sociology
• Mental Illness
• Methodological Individualism
• Middle Classes
• Military Sociology
• Money and Credit
• Multiculturalism
• Multilevel Models
• Multiracial, Mixed-Race, and Biracial Identities
• Nationalism
• Non-normative Sexuality Studies
• Occupations and Professions
• Organizations
• Panel Studies
• Parsons, Talcott
• Political Culture
• Political Economy
• Political Sociology
• Popular Culture
• Proletariat (Working Class)
• Protestantism
• Public Opinion
• Public Space
• Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
• Race and Sexuality
• Race and Violence
• Race and Youth
• Race in Global Perspective
• Race, Organizations, and Movements
• Rational Choice
• Relationships
• Religion and the Public Sphere
• Residential Segregation
• Revolutions
• Role Theory
• Rural Sociology
• Scientific Networks
• Secularization
• Sequence Analysis
• Sex versus Gender
• Sexual Identity
• Sexualities
• Sexuality Across the Life Course
• Simmel, Georg
• Single Parents in Context
• Small Cities
• Social Change
• Social Closure
• Social Construction of Crime
• Social Control
• Social Darwinism
• Social Disorganization Theory
• Social Epidemiology
• Social History
• Social Indicators
• Social Mobility
• Social Movements
• Social Network Analysis
• Social Networks
• Social Policy
• Social Problems
• Social Psychology
• Social Stratification
• Social Theory
• Socialization, Sociological Perspectives on
• Sociolinguistics
• Sociological Approaches to Character
• Sociological Research on the Chinese Society
• Sociological Research, Qualitative Methods in
• Sociological Research, Quantitative Methods in
• Sociology, History of
• Sociology of Manners
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of War, The
• Suburbanism
• Survey Methods
• Symbolic Boundaries
• Symbolic Interactionism
• The Division of Labor after Durkheim
• Tilly, Charles
• Time Use and Childcare
• Time Use and Time Diary Research
• Tourism, Sociology of
• Transnational Adoption
• Unions and Inequality
• Urban Ethnography
• Urban Growth Machine
• Urban Inequality in the United States
• Veblen, Thorstein
• Visual Arts, Music, and Aesthetic Experience
• Wallerstein, Immanuel
• Welfare, Race, and the American Imagination
• Welfare States
• Women’s Employment and Economic Inequality Between Househo...
• Work and Employment, Sociology of
• Work/Life Balance
• Workplace Flexibility
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Corrections
• Crime, Media, and Popular Culture
• Criminal Behavior
• Criminological Theory
• Critical Criminology
• Geography of Crime
• International Crime
• Juvenile Justice
• Prevention/Public Policy
• Race, Ethnicity, and Crime
• Research Methods
• Victimology/Criminal Victimization
• White Collar Crime
• Women, Crime, and Justice
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Social disorganization theory.

• Paul Bellair Paul Bellair Department of Sociology, Ohio State University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.253
• Published online: 27 July 2017

Contemporary sociologists typically trace social disorganization models to Emile Durkheim’s classic work. There is continuity between Durkheim’s concern for organic solidarity in societies that are changing rapidly and the social disorganization approach of Shaw and McKay (1969). However, Shaw and McKay view social disorganization as a situationally rooted variable and not as an inevitable property of all urban neighborhoods. They argued that socioeconomic status (SES), racial and ethnic heterogeneity, and residential stability account for variations in social disorganization and hence informal social control, which in turn account for the distribution of community crime. Empirical testing of Shaw and McKay’s research in other cities during the mid-20th century, with few exceptions, focused on the relationship between SES and delinquency or crime as a crucial test of the theory. As a whole, that research supports social disorganization theory. A handful of studies in the 1940s through early 1960s documented a relationship between social disorganization and crime. After a period of stagnation, social disorganization increased through the 1980s and since then has accelerated rapidly. Much of that research includes direct measurement of social disorganization, informal control, and collective efficacy. Clearly, many scholars perceive that social disorganization plays a central role in the distribution of neighborhood crime.

• social disorganization
• systemic model
• informal social control
• collective efficacy
• neighborhoods and crime

Introduction

This review of the social disorganization perspective focuses on its chronological history and theoretical underpinnings, and presents a selective review of the research literature. The goal is to assess the literature with a broad brush and to focus on dominant themes. Given that the social disorganization literature has increased rapidly in recent years, it is not possible to cite or discuss every issue or study. In addition, the review emphasizes what is commonly referred to as the control theory component of Shaw and McKay’s ( 1969 ) classic “mixed” model of delinquency (Kornhauser, 1978 ). Interested readers can expand their knowledge of social disorganization theory by familiarizing themselves with additional literature (see Bursik & Grasmick, 1993 ; Kornhauser, 1978 ; Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003 ; Sampson, 2012 ).

In this review, first social disorganization theory is tethered to the classical writings of Durkheim ( 1960 [1892]), and then progress is made forward through the theory and research of Shaw and McKay ( 1969 ; also see Shaw et al., 1929 ). Research issues that emerged in research attempts to replicate the work of Shaw and McKay in other cities are reviewed. During the 1950s and 1960s, researchers moved beyond Shaw and McKay’s methods for the first time by measuring social disorganization directly and assessing its relationship to crime. The results of those studies are consistent with the hypothesis that community organization stimulates the informal controls that constrain individuals from expressing their natural, selfish inclinations, which include delinquency and criminal offending.

Many scholars began to question the assumptions of the disorganization approach in the 1960s when the rapid social change that had provided its foundation, such as the brisk population growth in urban areas during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, began to ebb and was supplanted, particularly in the northeastern and midwestern cities of the United States, by deindustrialization and suburbanization. The historical linkage between rapid social change and social disorganization was therefore less clear and suggested to many the demise of the approach. Soon thereafter, William Julius Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged ( 1987 ) described the rapid social changes wrought by an evolving U.S. economy, particularly in the inner city, and in so doing he provided a new foundation on which to conceptualize the consequences of rapid change. The theoretical underpinning shifted from rapid growth to rapid decline. Wilson’s model, as well as his more recent work, continues to provide a dominant vision of the urban process and lends intellectual energy to the approach. Since the 1970s, increasingly sophisticated efforts to clarify and reconceptualize the language used to describe community processes associated with crime continued. Today, the disorganization approach remains central to understanding the neighborhood distribution of crime and is indeed among the most respected crime theories.

Classical Social Disorganization Theory

The impact of informal constraints (often referred to as informal social control) on crime is traditionally associated with concepts such as community or group cohesion, social integration, and trust. For instance, Durkheim’s Suicide ( 1951 [1897]) is considered by most sociologists to be a foundational piece of scholarship that draws a link between social integration and deviant behavior. His analysis of social change in the The Division of Labor ( 1960 [ 1892 ]) was concerned with apprehending the basis of social integration as European societies were transformed from rural, agricultural to urban, industrial economic organization. Durkheim argued that the division of labor was minimal in traditional rural societies because individuals were generally involved in similar types of social and economic activities. As a result, shared values and attitudes developed pertaining to appropriate modes of behavior and the proper organization and functioning of institutions such as families, schools, and churches. Those values and attitudes made up the societal glue (referred to as a “collective conscience”) that pulls and holds society together, and places constraints on individual behavior (a process referred to as “mechanical solidarity”).

As societies shift toward urban, industrial organization, the division of labor becomes differentiated and complex, and, for instance, leads to greater reliance on individuals assuming specialized, yet interdependent, social roles. For instance, responsibility for the socialization of children shifts from the exclusive domain of the family and church and is supplanted by formal, compulsory schooling and socialization of children toward their eventual role in burgeoning urban industries. Durkheim argued that this type of social and economic differentiation fosters interest group competition over standards of proper social behavior. Under those conditions, the “collective conscience” loses some of its controlling force as societal members internalize a diverse set of thoughts, ideas, and attitudes that may be in conflict with those of the family and church. The achievement of social order under those conditions (referred to as organic solidarity) is based on the manipulation of institutional and social rewards and costs, given interdependent roles and statuses. The development of organic solidarity in modern societies, as they shift away from mechanical solidarity, can be problematic and is achieved through a relatively slow process of social readjustment and realignment. Greater delinquency and crime are a consequence of that shift in the foundation of social control.

Durkheim’s social disorganization theory is closely tied to classical concern over the effect of urbanization and industrialization on the social fabric of communities. One of the first urban theories, often referred to as the “linear development model” (Berry & Kasarda, 1977 ), argued that a linear increase in population size, density, and heterogeneity leads to community differentiation, and ultimately to a substitution of secondary for primary relations, weakened kinship ties, alienation, anomie, and the declining social significance of community (Tonnies, 1887 ; Wirth, 1938 ). According to that view, some between-neighborhood variation in social disorganization may be evident within an urban area, but the distinctive prediction is that urban areas as a whole are more disorganized than rural areas.

A second approach, referred to as the systemic model (Berry & Kasarda, 1977 ), denies that cities as a whole are more disorganized than rural areas. Rather, social disorganization within urban areas is conceptualized as a situationally rooted variable that is influenced by broader economic dynamics and how those processes funnel or sort the population into distinctive neighborhoods. The resulting socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of neighborhood residents (Kornhauser, 1978 ), tied with their stage in the life-course, reflect disparate residential “focal concerns” and are expected to generate distinct social contexts across neighborhoods.

The Chicago School

Durkheim’s conception of organic solidarity influenced neighborhood crime research in the United States, particularly social scientists at the University of Chicago and its affiliated research centers in the early 1900s. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, many small communities grew rapidly from agriculturally rooted, small towns to modern, industrial cities. This was particularly the case for the city of Chicago. During the period between 1830 and 1930 , Chicago grew from a small town of about 200 inhabitants to a city of more than 3 million residents (Shaw & McKay, 1969 ). The ensuing model of urban processes was heavily influenced by the work of Park, Burgess, and McKenzie ( 1925 ), who argued that neighborhoods develop their own character through the process of city growth.

Park et al.’s ( 1925 ) systemic model held that the primary social process underlying all urban interaction is competition over the right to occupy scarce physical space. Given competition, real estate markets develop naturally, and prices reflect the desirability of or demand for a particular parcel of land. Neighborhoods nearer to the central business district (CBD) are more valuable given their proximity to commerce, and well-resourced industrial firms were able to purchase that land. As the city grew, distinctive natural areas or neighborhoods were distinguishable by the social characteristics of residents. For instance, the poorest, most racially and ethnically diverse populations inhabited neighborhoods encroaching on the central business district. Families with few resources were forced to settle there because housing costs were low, but they planned to reside in the neighborhood only until they could gather resources and move to a better locale.

During the 1920s, Shaw and McKay, research sociologists at the Institute for Juvenile Research affiliated with the University of in Chicago, began their investigation of the origins of juvenile delinquency. They were strongly influenced by Park and Burgess’s systemic model, and they argued adamantly that the roots of juvenile delinquency and adult crime are found, at least in part, in the social organization of neighborhood life. From Shaw and McKay’s ( 1969 ) perspective, the most important institutions for the development and socialization of children are the family, play (peer) groups, and neighborhood institutions. The character of the child gradually develops with exposure to the attitudes and values of those institutions. The nature of the interaction between the child and the family, as well as the character of children’s informal play groups, is strongly influenced by the social organization of the neighborhood. An organized and stable institutional environment reflects consistency of pro-social attitudes, social solidarity or cohesion, and the ability of local residents to leverage cohesion to work collaboratively toward solution of local social problems, especially those that impede the socialization of children. (Shaw & McKay, 1969 ). In stable neighborhoods, traditional institutions, such as schools, churches, or other civic organizations, stabilize and solidify the social environment by reinforcing pro-social values. Institutions falter when the basis for their existence, a residentially stable group of individuals with shared expectations, a common vision of strengthening the community, and sufficient resources, do not reside in the community. When spontaneously formed, indigenous neighborhood institutions and organizations are weak or disintegrating, conventional socialization is impeded, and thus informal constraints on behavior weaken, increasing the likelihood of delinquency and crime. Their theory is clearly very compatible in structure with Durkheim’s ( 1951 ) explanation of the social causes of suicide.

Shaw and McKay developed their perspective from an extensive set of qualitative and quantitative data collected between the years 1900 and 1965 (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993 , p. 31). Their quantitative analysis was facilitated by maps depicting the home addresses of male truants brought before the Cook County court in 1917 and 1927 ; alleged delinquent boys dealt with by juvenile police in 1921 and 1927 ; boys referred to the juvenile court in the years 1900–1906 , 1917–1923 , 1927–1933 , 1934–1940 , 1945–1951 , 1954–1957 , 1958–1961 , and 1962–1965 ; boys brought before the court on felony charges during 1924–1926 ; and imprisoned adult offenders in 1920 (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993 ). Visual inspection of their maps reveals the concentration of juvenile delinquency and adult crime in and around the central business district, industrial sites, and the zone in transition. Gradually, as the distance from the CBD and zone in transition increases, the concentration of delinquents becomes more scattered and less prevalent. Examination of maps depicting the distribution of physical and economic characteristics reveals that delinquency areas are characterized by the presence of industrial land, condemned buildings, decreasing population size, high rates of family dependency, and higher concentration of foreign-born and African American populations. Shaw and McKay joined their knowledge of the distribution of social and economic characteristics with their concern for community integration and stability to formulate their social disorganization theory. Thus, in their view, the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and crime and delinquency was mediated by social disorganization (Kornhauser, 1978 ).

While Shaw and McKay’s ( 1931 , 1942 ) data supported their theory, multivariate techniques, though available, were time consuming and difficult to execute by hand. Thus, it is difficult to determine from their results which of the exogenous neighborhood conditions were the most important predictors. However, Kornhauser ( 1978 ), whose evaluation of social disorganization theory is highly respected, concluded that the pattern of correlations presented favored the causal priority of poverty and thus that poverty was the most central exogenous variable in Shaw and McKay’s theoretical model (Kornhauser, 1978 ). Social disorganization research conducted by other scholars from the 1940s to the 1960s debated whether neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with delinquency because it was assumed that the relationship provided a crucial test of social disorganization theory.

Tests of Shaw and McKay’s Model

Lander’s ( 1954 ) analysis of juvenile delinquency across 155 census tracts in Baltimore, Maryland, is a relevant example. He concluded that poverty was unrelated to delinquency and that anomie, a theoretical competitor of social disorganization, was a more proximate cause of neighborhood crime. Lander’s conclusions concerning the causal role of poverty, it was argued, called into question a basic tenet of social disorganization theory. However, Lander’s ( 1954 ) regression models were criticized for what has become known as the “partialling fallacy” (Gordon, 1967 ; Land et al., 1990 ). In essence, when two or more indicators measuring the same theoretical concept, such as the poverty rate and median income, are included in a regression model, the effect of shared or common variance among the indicators on the dependent variable is partialed out in the regression procedure. The coefficients linking each indicator to crime thus represent the independent rather than joint effect. The results, then, underestimate the effects of SES when multiple indicators are included as distinct independent variables rather than combined into a scale. Gordon’s ( 1967 ) reanalysis of Lander’s ( 1954 ) data shows that when a single SES indicator is included in delinquency models, its effect on delinquency rates remain statistically significant. Studies conducted by Bordua ( 1958 ) and Chilton ( 1964 ) further supported the view that SES, independent of a number of other predictors, is a significant and important predictor of delinquency rates. Contemporary research continues to document distinctively greater levels of crime in the poorest locales (Krivo & Peterson, 1996 ; Sharkey, 2013 ).

While the emphasis of early social disorganization research centered on the relationship between poverty and crime, the effects of racial and ethnic composition or heterogeneity and residential stability on delinquency were not studied as carefully. Perhaps this was a result of the controversy surrounding the eugenics movement and the related discussion of a positive relationship between race, ethnicity, and crime. Shaw and McKay ( 1942 ) argued, in opposition, that racial and ethnic heterogeneity, rather than racial and ethnic composition, is causally related to delinquency because it generates conflict among residents, which impedes community organization. Lander’s ( 1954 ) research examined the issue. He reported that crime rates increase as the percentage nonwhite approaches 50% and that crime rates decrease as the percentage nonwhite approaches 100%. Those results support the heterogeneity rather than the composition argument. Bordua’s ( 1958 ) and Chilton’s ( 1964 ) findings indicate that regardless of the functional form, percentage nonwhite and delinquency rates are not related. In addition, Bordua ( 1958 ) reported a linear relationship between the percentage foreign born and delinquency rates, while Lander ( 1954 ) and Chilton’s ( 1964 ) results contradict that finding. None of the aforementioned studies included a measure of population increase or turnover in their models. Thus, the role of racial heterogeneity and population mobility in differentiating neighborhoods with respect to delinquency rates remains uncertain from these studies. More recent research (Hipp, 2007 ) suggests that heterogeneity is more consistently associated with a range of crime outcomes than is racial composition, although both exert influence. Hipp ( 2007 ) also found that homeownership drives the relationship between residential stability and crime.

To an extent, the lack of theoretical progress resulting from early research studies can be attributed to Shaw and McKay. Scholars focused on replicating associations between sociodemographic characteristics, such as poverty, and delinquency, but didn’t measure or test the role of community organization. Although definitions and examples of social organization and disorganization were presented in their published work, theoretical discussion was relegated to a few chapters, and a few key passages were critical to correctly specify their model. Shaw and McKay ( 1969 , p. 184) clearly stated, however, that in an organized community there is a “presence of [indigenous] social opinion with regard to problems of common interest, identical or at least consistent attitudes with reference to these problems, the ability to reach approximate unanimity on the question of how a problem should be dealt with, and the ability to carry this solution into action through harmonious co-operation.” Shaw and McKay ( 1969 ) assumed that all residents prefer an existence free from crime irrespective of the level of delinquency and crime in their neighborhood. Thus, they implied that “a socially disorganized community is one unable to realize its values” (Kornhauser, 1978 , p. 63).

Confusion persisted, however, because they were relatively brief and often interspersed their discussion of community organization with a discussion of community differences in social values. Consequently, it was unclear, at least to some scholars, which component of their theory was most central when subjecting it to empirical verification. Brief statements, however, provide insight into their conceptualization. For instance, Shaw and McKay ( 1969 , p. 188) clearly state (but did not elaborate) that “the development of divergent systems of values requires a type of situation in which traditional conventional control is either weak or nonexistent.” Based on that statement, weak community organization is conceptualized to be causally prior to the development of a system of differential social values and is typically interpreted to be the foundation of Shaw and McKay’s ( 1969 ) theory (Kornhauser, 1978 ).

While the debate over the relationship between SES and delinquency and crime took center stage throughout most of the 1940s and stretching into the 1960s, a small literature began to measure social disorganization directly and assess its relationship to delinquency and crime. Perhaps the first research to measure social disorganization directly was carried out by Maccoby, Johnson, and Church ( 1958 ) in a survey of two low-income neighborhoods in Cambridge, Massachusetts. One neighborhood had a high rate of delinquency and the other a low rate. Maccoby et al.’s ( 1958 ) findings indicated that the higher delinquency neighborhood was less cohesive than the low-crime neighborhood. That is, residents were less likely to know their neighbors by name, like their neighborhood, or have compatible interests with neighbors. In addition, there were no differences in attitudes toward delinquency between the areas, but the residents of the low-delinquency area were more likely to take some action if a child was observed committing a delinquent act. Two additional studies supporting the social disorganization approach were also published in this time frame. Warren ( 1969 ) found that neighborhoods with lower levels of neighboring and value consensus and higher levels of alienation had higher rates of riot activity. Kapsis ( 1976 , 1978 ) surveyed local residents in three Oakland area communities and found that stronger social networks and heightened organizational activity have lower rates of delinquency.

Contemporary Social Disorganization Theory

For a period during the late 1960s and most of the 1970s, criminologists, in general, questioned the theoretical assumptions that form the foundation of the social disorganization approach (Bursik, 1988 ). As mentioned earlier, the rapid growth of urban areas, fueled by the manufacturing-based economy and the great migration, waned and began to shift gears. If rapid urban growth had ceased, why approbate an approach tethered to those processes? In the years immediately following, Wilson’s ( 1987 ) The Truly Disadvantaged reoriented urban poverty and crime research in a fundamental way and created a new foundation focused on the dynamics of urban decline. Beginning in the 1960s, deindustrialization had devastating effects on inner-city communities long dependent on manufacturing employment. Increasing violent crime during the 1970s and 1980s fueled “white flight” from central cities (Liska & Bellair, 1995 ). Improvement in civil rights among African Americans, particularly pertaining to housing discrimination, increased the movement of middle-class families out of inner-city neighborhoods. As a result of those and other complex changes in the structure of the economy and their social sequelae, a new image of the “high-crime” neighborhood took hold.

In Shaw and McKay’s model ( 1969 ), high delinquency and crime were viewed as an unfortunate, and to some extent temporary, consequence of rapid social change. As resources were accumulated through factory work, a family could expect to assimilate by moving outward from the “zone in transition” into more desirable neighborhoods with fewer problems. The high-crime neighborhood depicted in Wilson’s ( 1987 ) research was characterized by extreme, concentrated disadvantages. Residents who could afford to move did so, leaving behind a largely African American population isolated from the economic and social mainstream of society, with much less hope of neighborhood mobility than had been true earlier in the 20th century .

In part, the decline of interest in social disorganization was also attributable to the ascendance of individual-level delinquency models (e.g., Hirschi, 1969 ), as well as increased interest in the study of deviance as a social definition (e.g., Lemert, 1951 ; Becker, 1963 ). Moreover, social disorganization scholars had not addressed important criticisms of the theory, particularly with respect to its human ecological foundations (Bursik, 1988 ). The social disorganization perspective reemerged in the late 1970s and 1980s on the heels of a string of scholarly contributions, a few of which are highlighted here. Kornhauser’s ( 1978 ) Social Sources of Delinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models is a critical piece of scholarship. She laid bare the logic of sociological theories of crime and concluded that Shaw and McKay’s social disorganization theory had substantial merit but had never been accurately tested. Reiss and Tonry’s ( 1986 ) Communities and Crime , as well as a string of articles and monographs published by Bursik ( 1988 ; Bursik and Grasmick, 1993 ) and Sampson ( 2012 ; Byrne & Sampson, 1986 ; Sampson & Groves, 1989 ) also paved the way for a new era of research. Importantly, that literature clarifies the definition of social disorganization and clearly distinguishes social disorganization from its causes and consequences.

The updated conception of social disorganization derives from a basic tenet of the systemic approach, which defines the social organization of a community “as a complex system of friendship and kinship networks rooted in family life and ongoing socialization processes” (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974 , p. 329). Community organization increases the capacity for informal social control, which reflects the capacity of neighborhood residents to regulate themselves through formal and informal processes (Bursik, 1988 , p. 527; Kornhauser, 1978 ). As Freudenburg ( 1986 , p. 11) notes, “people who know one another often work out interpersonal agreements for achieving desired goals … They are made possible by the fact that the people involved are personally acquainted … Persons who remain strangers will be systematically less likely to be willing or able to participate in such mutual agreements.” Examples of informal control that result from the presence of friendship, organizational, or other network ties include residents’ supervision of social activity within the neighborhood as well as the institutional socialization of children toward conventional values.

The supervisory component of neighborhood organization refers to the ability of neighborhood residents to maintain informal surveillance of spaces, to develop movement governing rules, and to engage in direct intervention when problems are encountered (Bursik, 1988 , p. 527). Informal surveillance refers to residents who actively observe activities occurring on neighborhood streets. Movement governing rules refer to the avoidance of particular blocks in the neighborhood that are known to put residents at higher risk of victimization. Direct intervention refers to, for example, residents questioning residents and strangers about any unusual activity and admonishing children for unacceptable behavior (Greenberg, Rohe, & Williams, 1982 ). The socializing component of community organization refers to the ability of local, conventional institutions to foster attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief (Hirschi, 1969 ). Families and schools are often viewed as the primary medium for the socialization of children. However, in some communities, the absence or weakness of intermediary organizations, such as churches, civic and parent teacher associations, and recreational programs, which connect families with activities in the larger community, impedes the ability of families and schools to effectively reinforce one another to more completely accomplish the process of socialization.

Community Networks and Crime

The systemic model rests on the expectation of an indirect relationship between social networks and crime that operates through informal control (Bellair & Browning, 2010 ). A direct relationship between network indicators and crime is revealed in many studies. The size of local family and friendship networks (Kapsis, 1976 , 1978 ; Sampson & Groves, 1989 ; Simcha-Fagan & Schwartz, 1986 ; Lowencamp et al., 2003 ), organizational participation (Kapsis, 1976 , 1978 ; Sampson & Groves, 1989 ; Simcha-Fagan & Schwartz, 1986 ; Taylor et al., 1984 ), unsupervised friendship networks (Sampson & Groves, 1989 ; Lowencamp et al., 2003 ) and frequency of interaction among neighbors (Bellair, 1997 ) are most consistently associated with lower crime. Importantly, research indicates that extralocal networks and relationships between local residents and public and private actors, what Hunter ( 1985 ) refers to as “public social control,” are associated with crime. Drawing from urban political economy (Heitgerd & Bursik, 1987 ; Logan & Molotch, 1987 ; Peterson & Krivo, 2010 ; Squires & Kubrin, 2006 ), “public social control points to the importance of brokering relationships with private and governmental entities that benefit neighborhood social organization by helping to secure lucrative resources and/or facilitate concrete actions to control crime” (Velez et al., 2012 , p. 1026). Velez et al.’s ( 2012 ) research reports a direct effect of home mortgage lending on violent crime and calls into question well-known lending practices in the home mortgage industry that disadvantage communities of color (also see Ramey & Shrider, 2014 ; Velez, 2001 ).

The systemic approach is drawn into question, however, by research documenting higher crime in neighborhoods with relatively dense networks and strong attachments (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993 ; Horowitz, 1983 ; Suttles, 1968 ; Whyte, 1937 ). Research examining the relationship between neighborhood social networks and crime sometimes reveals a positive relationship (Clinard & Abbott, 1976 ; Greenberg, Rohe, & Williams, 1982 ; Maccoby, Johnson, & Church, 1958 ; Merry, 1981 ; Rountree & Warner, 1999 ) or no relationship (Mazerolle et al., 2010 ), and networks do not always mediate much of the effects of structural characteristics on crime (Rountree & Warner, 1999 ). Social networks, then, are associated with informal control and crime in complex ways; continuing research is needed to specify the processes.

Two prominent views have been developed to account for the positive effects of social networks on crime. First, as discussed earlier, is Wilson’s ( 1996 ) hypothesis that macroeconomic shifts combined with historic discrimination and segregation consolidated disadvantages in inner-city neighborhoods. Following a period of economic decline and population loss, these neighborhoods are composed of relatively stable populations with tenuous connections to the conventional labor market, limited interaction with mainstream sources of influence, and restricted economic and residential mobility. Affected communities, according to Wilson, exhibit social integration but suffer from institutional weakness and diminished informal social control. Strong network ties, then, may not produce the kinds of outcomes expected by the systemic approach. The most vulnerable neighborhoods, he argues, are those in which “not only are children at risk because of the lack of informal social controls, they are also disadvantaged because the social interaction among neighbors tends to be confined to those whose skills, styles, orientations, and habits are not as conducive to promoting positive social outcomes” (Wilson, 1996 , p. 63). Wilson’s theory underscores a weakness in the traditional systemic model because socialization within networks is not entirely pro-social. Relatedly, Browning and his colleagues ( 2004 ; also see Pattillo-McCoy, 1999 ) describe a “negotiated coexistence” model based on the premise that social interaction and exchange embeds neighborhood residents in networks of mutual obligation (Rose & Clear, 1998 ), with implications for willingness to engage in conventional, informal social control. For instance, residents who participate in crime are often linked with conventional residents in complex ways through social networks (also see Portes, 1998 , p. 15). Browning et al.’s ( 2004 ) analysis indicates that neighboring is positively associated with violent victimization when collective efficacy is controlled.

Informal Control and Crime

With some exceptions, the systemic model is supported by research focused on informal control in relation to crime, but, relative to studies focused on networks, there are far fewer studies in this category. As already mentioned, perhaps the first study to document support is Maccoby et al.’s ( 1958 ) finding that respondents in a low-delinquency neighborhood are more likely to “do something” in hypothetical situations if neighborhood children were observed fighting or drinking. Residents in the low-delinquency neighborhood were also more likely to take action in actual incidents of delinquency. Hackler et al. ( 1974 ) examined the willingness to intervene after witnessing youths slashing the tires of an automobile in relation to official and perceived crime across 12 tracts in Edmonton (Alberta). Crime rates were lower when a larger proportion of respondents stated they would talk to the boys involved or notify their parents. However, Greenberg et al. ( 1982 ) examined informal control (informal surveillance, movement governing rules, and hypothetical or direct intervention) in three high-crime and three low-crime Atlanta neighborhoods and found few significant differences. Surprisingly, when differences were identified, high-crime neighborhoods had higher levels of informal control, suggesting that some forms of informal control may be a response to crime. Bursik and Grasmick ( 1993 ) note the possibility that the null effects observed are a consequence of the unique sampling strategy. That is, each of the three high-crime neighborhoods was matched with a low-crime neighborhood on the basis of social class and a host of other ecological characteristics, which may have “designed out” the influence of potentially important systemic processes. More recently, Bellair and Browning ( 2010 ) find that informal surveillance, a dimension of informal control that is rarely examined, is inversely associated with street crime.

Collective Efficacy

Sampson et al.’s ( 1997 ) research has redefined and reinvigorated social disorganization research by utilizing a comprehensive data collection and new methodology (Raudenbush & Sampson, 1999 ) to pioneer an original measure. Collective efficacy is reflected in two subscales: “social cohesion among neighbors [i.e., trust and cooperation] combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good” (Sampson et al., 1997 , p. 918), and reflects “the process of activating or converting social ties among neighborhood residents in order to achieve collective goals, such as public order or the control of crime” (Sampson, 2010 , p. 802). A central premise is that expectations for informal control in urban neighborhoods may exist irrespective of the presence of dense family ties, provided that the neighborhood is cohesive (i.e., residents trust one another and have similar values). Their models, utilizing survey data collected in 343 Chicago neighborhoods, indicate that collective efficacy is inversely associated with neighborhood violence, and that it mediates a significant amount of the relationship between concentrated disadvantage and residential stability on violence.

What is perhaps most impressive about the collective efficacy literature is the degree to which research conducted internationally conforms to Sampson et al.’s ( 1997 ) formulation. For instance, despite lower rates of violence and important contextual differences, the association between collective efficacy and violence appears to be as tight in Stockholm, Sweden, as it is in Chicago, Illinois (Sampson, 2012 ). And as Sampson ( 2012 , p. 166) notes in his recent review of collective efficacy research, “Replications and extensions of the Chicago Project are now under way in Los Angeles, Brisbane (Australia), England, Hungary, Moshi (Tanzania), Tianjin (China), Bogota (Columbia[ sic ]), and other cities around the world.”

Further support, based on reanalysis of Chicago neighborhoods, was reported by Morenoff et al. ( 2001 ; also see Burchfield & Silver, 2013 ). They established a relationship between friendship/kin ties and collective efficacy and replicated the link between collective efficacy and violence, but, consistent with the discussion of network effects, found no direct association between friendship and kin ties and violence. Consistent with the conception of collective efficacy, a small body of aforementioned systemic research reveals that perceived cohesion (Kapsis, 1978 ; Maccoby et al., 1958 ; Markowitz et al., 2001 ; Warren, 1969 ), one of the essential ingredients of collective efficacy, is inversely associated with crime. Further, Matsueda and Drakulich ( 2015 ) have replicated essential elements of Sampson et al.’s ( 1997 ) model and report that collective efficacy is inversely associated with violence across Seattle, Washington, neighborhoods. However, as might be expected, not every study reports supportive findings. Bruinsma et al. ( 2013 ), for instance, report that the social disorganization model, including measures of collective efficacy, did a poor job of explaining neighborhood crime in The Hague, Netherlands. Nevertheless, taking stock of the growing collective efficacy literature, a recent meta-analysis of macrolevel crime research (Pratt & Cullen, 2005 ) reports robust support for the collective efficacy approach. The average effect size described places collective efficacy among the strongest macrolevel predictors of crime. As such, the collective efficacy approach has and continues to attract a great deal of scholarly interest, and will likely, if it hasn’t already, eclipse the systemic model (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993 ) in future research.

Reciprocal Effects

The direction of causality between social disorganization or collective efficacy and crime has become an important issue. Bellair ( 2000 ), drawing from Bursik and Grasmick ( 1993 ), was the first published study to formally estimate reciprocal effects. Using simultaneous equations, he found that informal control is associated with reduced crime but that crime also reduces informal control because it increases perceptions of crime risk. Further evidence of a negative feedback loop is reported by Markowitz et al. ( 2001 ). They report that cohesion is associated with disorder and burglary in theoretically expected ways, and that disorder and crime reduce cohesion. Both studies are thus consistent with disorganization and neighborhood decline approaches. Most recently, Steenbeek and Hipp ( 2011 ) address the issue of reciprocal effects and call into question the causal order among cohesion, informal control (potential and actual), and disorder. Their longitudinal analysis of 74 neighborhoods in the Netherlands reveals (see Table 5, p. 859) that cohesion increases informal control, but, contradicting the predictions of the systemic model, neither is associated with disorder. Consistent with the neighborhood decline approach, disorder reduces the potential for social control and increases actual informal control.

Although there is abundant evidence that the perspective is on solid footing, there are many inconsistent findings in need of reconciliation and many puzzles to be unraveled. Existing studies have been carried out in a wide variety of contexts with distinct histories, differing sampling strategies, and utilizing a wide variety of social network and informal control measures. One of the most pressing issues regarding development of the social disorganization approach is the need to resolve inconsistency of measurement across studies. Simply put, researchers need to move toward a common set of measures of local networks and informal control, going beyond indicators judged to be less useful. Achieving consensus on that issue will clearly require careful conceptualization and focused research.

For example, Bellair ( 1997 ) examined the frequency with which neighbors get together in one another’s homes. The measure that had the strongest and most consistent negative effect on crime included interaction ranging from frequent (weekly) to relatively infrequent (once a year or more). That measure mediated the effect of racial and ethnic heterogeneity on burglary and the effect of SES status on motor vehicle theft and robbery. Warner and Rountree ( 1997 ) report that neighbor ties are associated with reduced assault but result in greater numbers of burglaries. Neighbor networks are defined as the prevalence of helping and sharing among neighbors. Although there is, unquestionably, commonality among those measures, the network indicators utilized in Warner and Rountree’s ( 1997 ) study reflect differing behaviors relative to those used by Bellair ( 1997 ).

Morenoff et al. ( 2001 ) reported that neighbor ties were unrelated to crime, but in that study networks reflected the number of friends and relatives living in the neighborhood. In Browning et al.’s ( 2004 ) analysis, neighboring was measured as a four-item scale reflecting the frequency with which neighbors get together for neighborhood gatherings, visit in homes or on the street, and do favors and give advice. It appears that neighboring items reflecting the prevalence of helping and sharing networks (i.e., strong ties) are most likely to be positively associated with crime, whereas combining strong and weak ties into a frequency of interaction measure yields a negative association (Bellair, 1997 ; Warren, 1969 ). More research is needed to better understand the commonalities and differences among community organization measures. In the absence of a more refined yardstick, it will be very difficult to advance the perspective. The differences may seem trivial, but variation in the measurement of social networks may help account for substantively disparate findings, reflecting the complex nature and consequences of neighbor networks.

Measures of informal control used by researchers also vary widely. Sampson et al. ( 1997 ) utilize multiple measures reflecting whether neighbors could be counted on to intervene in specific situations regarding child delinquency, truancy, misbehavior, and neighborhood service cuts (also see Matsueda & Drakulich, 2015 ). Steenbeek and Hipp ( 2011 ) measure the potential for informal control with a single, more general question that inquires whether respondents feel responsibility for livability and safety in the neighborhood. The latter measure, arguably, does not narrow the circumstances under which residents might feel compelled to action. Actual informal control is measured with a question regarding whether respondents had been active to improve the neighborhood. Very few studies include a direct measure of concrete attempts at informal control that have been made by local residents in real-life situations.

Yet, relative to other indicators that have appeared in the literature, the measure utilized by Steenbeek and Hipp ( 2011 ) could reasonably be conceptualized as a measure of organizational participation. Organizational participation measures are, in general, less robust predictors of community crime. More scrutiny of differences in the measurement of informal control, a building block of collective efficacy, may help clarify anomalies reported across studies and perhaps narrow the list of acceptable indicators. Data collection that includes a common set of network and informal control indicators is needed so that the measurement structure of the items can be assessed. Achieving consensus on that issue will clearly require careful conceptualization and focused research. Matsueda and Drakulich ( 2015 ) present a rigorous strategy for assessing the reliability of informal control measures and provide an affirmative move in that direction.

A major stumbling block for unraveling inconsistencies, however, is the well-known shortage of rigorous data collection at the community level (Bursik, 1988 ; Sampson & Groves, 1989 ). The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN), though, provides an important blueprint for the collection of community-level data that should serve as a model for future collections. Indeed, it has already inspired community-level data collection in cities around the world, and those efforts will inform research that will lead to further theoretical refinements. It is important that the next generation of surveys be designed to measure a broad spectrum of community processes. Adding to the stockpile of available community-level data is a necessary, but hopefully not prohibitive, challenge facing researchers. Overall, the future of social disorganization and collective efficacy theory looks very bright.

Further Reading

• Bursik, R. J. , Jr., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime . New York: Lexington Books.
• Hunter, A. (1985). Private, parochial and public social orders: The problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In G. Suttles & M. Zald (Eds.), The challenge of social control . Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Kubrin, C. E. , & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 40 (4), 374–402.
• Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sampson, R. J. , Raudenbush, S. W. , & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science , 277 , 918–924.
• Shaw, C. R. , & McKay, H. D. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas (rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders . Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Bellair, P. E. (1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance of neighbor networks. Criminology , 35 , 677–704.
• Bellair, P. E. (2000). Informal surveillance and street crime: A complex relationship. Criminology , 38 , 137–170.
• Bellair, P. E. , & Browning, C. (2010). Contemporary disorganization research: An assessment and further test of the systemic model of neighborhood crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 47 , 496–521.
• Berry, B. J. , & Kasarda, J. D. (1977). Contemporary urban ecology . New York: Macmillan.
• Bordua, D. J. (1958). Juvenile delinquency and “anomie”: An attempt at replication. Social Problems , 6 , 230–238.
• Browning, C. R. , Feinberg, S. L. , & Dietz, R. D. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces , 83 , 503–534.
• Bruinsma, G. J. N. , Pauwels, L. J. R. , Weerman, F. M. , & Bernasco, W. (2013). Social disorganization, social capital, collective efficacy and the spatial distribution of crime and offenders an empirical test of six neighbourhood models for a Dutch city. British Journal of Criminology , 53 (5), 942–963.
• Burchfield, K. B. , & Silver, E. (2013). Collective efficacy and crime in Los Angeles neighborhoods: Implications for the Latino paradox. Sociological Inquiry , 83 (1), 154–176.
• Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology , 26 , 519–551.
• Byrne, J. M. , & Sampson, R. J. (Eds.). (1986). The social ecology of crime . New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Chilton, R. J. (1964). Continuity in delinquency area research: A comparison of studies for Baltimore, Detroit, and Indianapolis. American Sociological Review , 1 , 71–83.
• Clinard, M. B. , & Abbott, D. J. (1976). Community organization and property crime: a comparative study of social control in the Slums of an African city. Delinquency, Crime, and Society , 186–206.
• Durkheim, E. (1951[1897]). Suicide: A study in sociology . New York: Free Press.
• Durkheim, E. (1960[1892]). The division of labor . New York: Free Press.
• Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Freudenburg, W. R. (1986). Density of acquaintance and community research. American Journal of Sociology , 92 , 27–63.
• Gordon, R. A. (1967). Issues in the ecological study of delinquency. American Sociological Review , 32 , 927–944.
• Greenberg, S. W. , Rohe, W. M. , & Williams, J. R. (1982). Informal citizen action and crime prevention at the neighborhood level . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
• Hackler, J. C. , Ho, K-Y. , & Urquhart-Ross, C. 1974. The willingness to intervene: Differing community characteristics. Social Problems , 21 (3), 328–344.
• Heitgerd, J. L. , & Bursik, R. J. , Jr. (1987). Extra-community dynamics and the ecology of delinquency. American Journal of Sociology , 92 (4), 775–787.
• Hipp, J. (2007). Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: Neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. American Sociological Review , 72 , 659–680.
• Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency . Berkeley: University of California.
• Horowitz, R. (1983). Honor and the American dream . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Hunter, A. (1985). Private, parochial and public social orders: The problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In G. Suttles & M. Zald (Eds.), The challenge of social control (pp. 230–242). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishers.
• Kapsis, R. E. (1976). Continuities in delinquency and riot patterns in black residential areas. Social Problems , 23 , 567–580.
• Kapsis, R. E. (1978). Residential succession and delinquency. Criminology , 15 , 459–486.
• Kasarda, J. D. , & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review , 39 , 328–329.
• Krivo, L. J. , & Peterson, R. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces , 75 (2), 619–648.
• Land, K. C. , McCall, P. L. , & Cohen, L. E. (1990). Structural covariates of homicide rates: Are there any invariances across time and social space? American Journal of Sociology , 1 , 922–963.
• Lander, B. (1954). Towards an understanding of juvenile delinquency . New York: Columbia University Press.
• Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Liska, A. E. , & Bellair, P. E. (1995). Violent-crime rates and racial composition: Convergence over time. American Journal of Sociology , 101 , 578–610.
• Logan, J. , & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place . Berkeley: University of California.
• Lowenkamp, C. T. , Cullen, F. T. , & Pratt, T. C. (2003). Replicating Sampson and Groves’s test of social disorganization theory: Revisiting a criminological classic. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 40 (4), 351–373.
• Maccoby, E. E. , Johnson, J. P. , & Church, R. M. (1958). Community integration and the social control of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Social Issues , 14 (3), 38–51.
• Markowitz, F. , Bellair, P. E. , Liska, A. E. , & Liu, J. (2001). Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationship between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology , 39 , 293–320.
• Matsueda, R. L. , & Drakulich, K. (2015). Measuring collective efficacy: A multi-level measurement model for nested data. Conditionally accepted. Sociological Methods and Research .
• Mazerolle, L. , Wickes, R. , & McBroom, J. (2010). Community variations in violence: The role of social ties and collective efficacy in comparative context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 47 , 3–30.
• Merry, S. E. (1981). Urban danger: Life in a neighborhood of strangers . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Morenoff, J. D. , Sampson, R. J. , & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violenc e. Ann Arbor: Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
• Park, R. E. , Burgess, E. W. , & McKenzie, R. D. (1925). The city . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Pattillo-McCoy, M. (1999). Black picket fences . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Peterson, R. D. , & Krivo, L. J. (2010). Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial spatial divide . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology , 24 , 1–24.
• Pratt, T. C. , & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice , 32 , 373–450.
• Raudenbush, S. W , & Sampson, R. J. (1999). Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology , 29 (1), 1–41.
• Reiss, A. J. , & Tonry, M. (1986). Communities and crime . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ramey, D. M. , & Shrider, E. A. (2014). New parochialism, sources of community investment, and the control of street crime. Criminology and Public Policy , 13 , 193–216.
• Rose, D. R. , & Clear, T. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology , 36 , 441–480.
• Rountree, P. , & Warner, B. D. (1999). Social ties and crime: Is the relationship gendered? Criminology , 37 , 789–813.
• Sampson, R. J. (2010). Collective efficacy theory. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (pp. 802–812). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Sampson, R. J. , & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology , 94 , 774–802.
• Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Shaw, C. R. , & McKay, H. D. (1931). Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency: A Study of the Community, the Family, and the Gang in Relation to Delinquent Behavior, for the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement . US Government Printing Office.
• Shaw, C. R. , & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Shaw, C. R. , Zorbaugh, F. , McKay, H. D. , & Cottrell, L. S. (1929). Delinquency areas . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Simcha-Fagan, O. , & Schwart, J. E. (1986). Neighborhood and delinquency: An assessment of contextual effects. Criminology , 24 , 667–704.
• Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline . New York: Free Press.
• Squires, G. D. , & Kubrin, C. E. (2006). Privileged places: Race, residence, and the structure of opportunity . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Press.
• Steenbeek, W. , & Hipp, J. R. (2011). A longitudinal test of social disorganization theory: Feedback effects among cohesion, social control, and disorder. Criminology , 49 (3), 833–871.
• Suttles, G. D. (1968). The social order of the slum . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Taylor, R. B. , Gottfredson, S. D. , & Brower, S. (1984). Block crime and fear: Defensible space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 21 , 303–331.
• Thomas, W. I. , & Znaniecki, F. (1927). The Polish peasant in Europe and America . New York: Knopf.
• Tönnies, F. (1887). Community and society. The urban sociology reader, 13.
• Velez, M. B. (2001). The role of public social control in urban neighborhoods: A multi-level analysis of victimization risk. Criminology , 39 , 837–864.
• Velez, M. B. , Lyons, C. , & Boursaw, B. (2012). Neighborhood housing investments and violent crime in Seattle, 1981–2007. Criminology , 50 , 1025–1056.
• Warner, B. D. , & Rountree, P. (1997). Local social ties in a community and crime model: Questioning the systemic nature of informal control. Social Problems , 44 , 520–536.
• Warren, D. I. (1969). Neighborhood structure and riot behavior in Detroit: Some exploratory findings. Social Problems , 16 , 464–484.
• Wellman, B. (1979). The community question: The intimate networks of East Yorkers. American Journal of Sociology , 84 , 1201–1231.
• Whyte, W. F. (1937). Street-corner society . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology , 44 (1), 1–24.

Related Articles

• Neighborhood Context and Media Representations of Crime
• Network Perspectives on Crime
• Moving From Inequality: Housing Vouchers and Escaping Neighborhood Crime

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Criminology and Criminal Justice. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 24 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

Character limit 500 /500

Handbook on Crime and Deviance pp 197–211 Cite as

Social Disorganization Theory: Past, Present and Future

• Charis E. Kubrin 6 &
• Michelle D. Mioduszewski 6  
• First Online: 29 August 2019

11k Accesses

12 Citations

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

Social disorganization theory is one of the most popular theories researchers employ to understand the spatial distribution of crime across communities. In this chapter, we outline the theory’s historical trajectory, discuss its main arguments, and present key findings about neighborhoods and crime from the literature. We also summarize the theory’s thorniest substantive and methodological issues, which include testing mediating concepts like informal social control and defining a neighborhood unit. Finally, we introduce newer challenges facing the theory including theorizing the role of neighborhood subculture and understanding how immigration impacts community crime rates in the context of current immigration patterns in the U.S. In the conclusion we encourage researchers to consider innovative methods and data sources in future tests of social disorganization theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street . New York, NY: Norton.

Google Scholar  

Andresen, M. A. (2006). A spatial analysis of crime in Vancouver, British Columbia: A synthesis of social disorganization and routine activity theory. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 50 (4), 487–502.

Article   Google Scholar  

Andresen, M. A., & Linning, S. J. (2012). The (in) appropriateness of aggregating across crime types. Applied Geography, 35 (1–2), 275–282.

Bankston, C. L., III. (1998). Youth gangs and the new second generation: A review essay. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 35–45.

Bellair, P. E. (1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance of neighbor networks. Criminology, 35 (4), 677–704.

Bellair, P. E. (2000). Informal surveillance and street crime: A complex relationship. Criminology, 38, 137–167.

Bellair, P. E., & Browning, C. R. (2010). Contemporary disorganization research: An assessment and further test of the systemic model of neighborhood crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47 (4), 496–521.

Berg, M. T., Stewart, E. A., Brunson, R. K., & Simons, R. L. (2012). Neighborhood cultural heterogeneity and adolescent violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28 (3), 411–435.

Bernasco, W., & Steenbeek, W. (2017). More places than crimes: Implications for evaluating the law of crime concentration at place. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33 (3), 451–467.

Blau, P. M., & Schwartz, J. E. (1984). Crosscutting social circles . Orlando, FL: Academic.

Boggess, L. N., & Hipp, J. R. (2010). Violent crime, residential instability and mobility: Does the relationship differ in minority neighborhoods? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26 (3), 351–370.

Braga, A. A., & Clarke, R. V. (2014). Explaining high-risk concentrations of crime in the city: Social disorganization, crime opportunities, and important next steps. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51 (4), 480–498.

Browning, C. R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64 (4), 833–850.

Browning, C. R., Dietz, R. D., & Feinberg, S. L. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83 (2), 503–534.

Bruce, M. A., Roscigno, V. J., & McCall, P. L. (1998). Structure, context, and agency in the reproduction of black-on-black violence. Theoretical Criminology, 2 (1), 29–55.

Burchfield, K. B. (2009). Attachment as a source of informal social control in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37 (1), 45–54.

Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551.

Butcher, K. F., & Piehl, A. M. (1998). Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime. Journal of policy analysis and management , 457–493.

Byrne, J. M., & Sampson, R. J. (1986). The social ecology of crime . New York, NY: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Chamlin, M. B. (1989). A macro social analysis of the change in robbery and homicide rates: Controlling for static and dynamic effects. Sociological Focus, 22, 275–286.

Chavez, J. M., & Griffiths, E. (2009). Neighborhood dynamics of urban violence: Understanding the immigration connection. Homicide Studies, 13 (3), 261–273.

Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys . Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–120.

Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29 (2), 371–383.

Curman, A. S., Andresen, M. A., & Brantingham, P. J. (2015). Crime and place: A longitudinal examination of street segment patterns in Vancouver. BC. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31 (1), 127–147.

Elliott, D. S., Wilson, W. J., Huizinga, D., Sampson, R. J., Elliott, A., & Rankin, B. (1996). The effects of neighborhood disadvantage on adolescent development. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 389–426.

Feldmeyer, B. (2009). Immigration and violence: The offsetting effects of immigrant concentration on Latino violence. Social Science Research, 38 (3), 717–731.

Gans, H. (1968). The balanced community: Homogeneity or heterogeneity in residential areas? In H. Gans (Ed.), People and plans: Essays on urban problems and solutions (pp. 161–181). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gau, J. M. (2014). Unpacking collective efficacy: The relationship between social cohesion and informal social control. Criminal Justice Studies, 27 (2), 210–225.

Gelman, A., Fagan, J., & Kiss, A. (2007). An analysis of the New York City police department’s “stop-and-frisk” policy in the context of claims of racial bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102 (479), 813–823.

Gill, C., Wooditch, A., & Weisburd, D. (2017). Testing the “Law of Crime Concentration at Place” in a Suburban Setting: Implications for Research and Practice. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33 (3), 519–545.

Gostjev, F. (2017). United we stand? The role of ethnic heterogeneity in the immigration and violent crime relationship at the neighborhood level. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 3 (3), 398–416.

Graif, C., & Sampson, R. J. (2009). Spatial heterogeneity in the effects of immigration and diversity on neighborhood homicide rates. Homicide Studies, 13 (3), 242–260.

Greenberg, S., Rohe, W. M., & Williams, J. R. (1982). Safe and secure neighborhoods: Physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low crime neighborhoods . Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Grubesic, T. H., Wallace, D., Chamberlain, A. W., & Nelson, J. R. (2018). Using unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for remotely sensing physical disorder in neighborhoods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 169, 148–159.

Gruenewald, P. J., Freisthler, B., Remer, L., LaScala, E. A., & Treno, A. (2006). Ecological models of alcohol outlets and violent assaults: Crime potentials and geospatial analysis. Addiction, 101 (5), 666–677.

Hart, T. C., & Waller, J. (2013). Neighborhood boundaries and structural determinants of social disorganization: Examining the validity of commonly used measures. Western Criminology Review, 14, 16.

Hipp, J. R. (2007). Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: Neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. American Sociological Review, 72 (5), 659–680.

Hipp, J. R., Bates, C., Lichman, M., & Smythe, P. (2018). Using social media to measure temporal ambient population: Does it help explain local crime rates? Justice Quarterly , 1–31.

Hipp, J. R., & Boessen, A. (2013). Egohoods as waves washing across the city: A new measure of “neighborhoods”. Criminology, 51 (2), 287–327.

Kim, Y. A. (2016). Examining the relationship between the structural characteristics of place and crime by imputing census block data in street segments: Is the pain worth the gain? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34 (1), 67–110.

Kirk, D. S., & Laub, J. H. (2010). Neighborhood change and crime in the modern metropolis. Crime and Justice, 39 (1), 441–502.

Kirk, D. S., & Papachristos, A. V. (2011). Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. American Journal of Sociology, 116 (4), 1190–1233.

Kohm, S. A. (2009). Spatial dimensions of fear in a high-crime community: Fear of crime or fear of disorder? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 51 (1), 1–30.

Kornhauser, R. D. (1978). Social sources of delinquency . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kubrin, C. E. (2000). Racial heterogeneity and crime: Measuring static and dynamic effects. In D. A. Chekki (Ed.), Community structure and dynamics at the dawn of the new millennium (pp. 189–218). Stamford, CO: JAI Press.

Kubrin, C. E. (2015). Cultural disorganization and crime. In Challenging criminological theory: The legacy of Ruth Kornhauser (pp. 193–214).

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kubrin, C. E., & Desmond, S. A. (2015). The power of place revisited: why immigrant communities have lower levels of adolescent violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 13 (4), 345–366.

Kubrin, C. E., Hipp, J. R., & Kim, Y. A. (2018). Different than the sum of its parts: Examining the unique impacts of immigrant groups on neighborhood crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34 (1), 1–36.

Kubrin, C. E., & Ishizawa, H. (2012). Why some immigrant neighborhoods are safer than others: Divergent findings from Los Angeles and Chicago. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 641 (1), 148–173.

Kubrin, C. E., Stucky, T. D., & Krohn, M. D. (2008). Researching theories of crime and deviance . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003a). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 374–402.

Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003b). Retaliatory homicide: Concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood culture. Social Problems, 50, 157–180.

Kubrin, C. E., & Wo, J. C. (2016). Social disorganization theory’s greatest challenge: Linking structural characteristics to crime in socially disorganized communities. In The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 121–136).

Lee, M. T., & Martinez, R. (2002). Social disorganization revisited: Mapping the recent immigration and black homicide relationship in northern Miami. Sociological Focus, 35, 363–380.

Lee, M. T., Martinez, R., & Rosenfeld, R. (2001). Does immigration increase homicide? Negative evidence from three border cities. Sociological Quarterly, 42, 559–580.

Levin, A., Rosenfeld, R., & Deckard, M. (2017). The law of crime concentration: An application and recommendations for future research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33 (3), 635–647.

Light, M. T., & Miller, T. (2018). Does undocumented immigration increase violent crime? Criminology, 56 (2), 370–401.

Lopez, N., & Lukinbeal, C. (2010). Comparing police and residents’ perceptions of crime in a Phoenix neighborhood using mental maps in GIS. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 72 (1), 33–55.

Martinez, R. (2006). Coming to America: The impact of the new immigration on crime. In R. Martinez Jr. & A. Valenzuela Jr. (Eds.), Immigration and crime: Race, ethnicity, and violence (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Martinez, R., & Lee, M. T. (2000). On immigration and crime. In Criminal justice 2000: Vol. 1. The nature of crime: Continuity and change (pp. 485–524). Washington, DC.

Martinez, R., Stowell, J. I., & Lee, M. T. (2010). Immigration and crime in an era of transformation: A longitudinal analysis of homicides in San Diego neighborhoods, 1980–2000. Criminology, 48 (3), 797–829.

Matsueda, R. L., Drakulich, K., & Kubrin, C. E. (2006). Race and neighborhood codes of violence (pp. 334–356). The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity, and crime in America.

Mears, D. P. (2002). Immigration and crime: What’s the connection? Federal Sentencing Reporter, 14, 284–288.

Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu for gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 5–19.

Morenoff, J. D. (2003). Neighborhood mechanisms and the spatial dynamics of birth weight. American Journal of Sociology, 108 (5), 976–1017.

Nielsen, A. L., & Martinez, R., Jr. (2009). The role of immigration for violent deaths. Homicide studies, 13 (3), 274–287.

Odgers, C. L., Caspi, A., Bates, C. J., Sampson, R. J., & Moffitt, T. E. (2012). Systematic social observation of children’s neighborhoods using Google Street View: A reliable and cost-effective method. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53 (10), 1009–1017.

Ousey, G. C., & Kubrin, C. E. (2009). Exploring the connection between immigration and violent crime rates in US cities, 1980–2000. Social Problems, 56 (3), 447–473.

Ousey, G. C., & Kubrin, C. E. (2014). Immigration and the changing nature of homicide in US cities, 1980–2010. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30 (3), 453–483.

Ousey, G. C., & Kubrin, C. E. (2018). Immigration and crime: Assessing a contentious issue. Annual Review of Criminology, 1 (63), 84.

Ousey, G. C., & Wilcox, P. (2005). Subcultural values and violent delinquency: A multilevel analysis in middle schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3 (1), 3–22.

Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1925). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The city (Chapter 2) . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Pattillo, M. E. (1998). Sweet mothers and gangbangers: Managing crime in a black middle-class neighborhood. Social Forces, 76 (3), 747–774.

Peterson, R. D., Krivo, L. J., & Harris, M. A. (2000). Disadvantage and neighborhood violent crime: Do local institutions matter? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37 (1), 31–63.

Reid, L. W., Weiss, H. E., Adelman, R. M., & Jaret, C. (2005). The immigration-crime relationship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas. Social Science Research, 3, 757–780.

Rice, K. J., & Smith, W. R. (2002). Socioecological models of automotive theft: Integrating routine activity and social disorganization approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39 (3), 304–336.

Sampson, R. J. (1987). Communities and crime. In M. R. Gottfredson & T. Hirschi (Eds.), Positive criminology (pp. 91–114). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sampson, R. J. (2006). Collective efficacy theory: Lessons learned and directions for future inquiry (Vol. 15, pp. 149–167). New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions.

Sampson, R. J. (2012).  Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect . University of Chicago Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32, 777–804.

Sampson, R. J., & Bean, L. (2006). Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised theory of community-level racial inequality. In R. D. Peterson, L. J. Krivo, & J. Hagan (Eds.), The many colors of crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity, and crime in America (pp. 8–36). New York, NY: New York University Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28 (1), 443–478.

Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows”. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67 (4), 319–342.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.

Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. Race, crime, and justice: A reader , 1995 .

Schnell, C., Braga, A. A., & Piza, E. L. (2017). The influence of community areas, neighborhood clusters, and street segments on the spatial variability of violent crime in Chicago. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33 (3), 469–496.

Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27 (1), 27–56.

Silver, E., & Miller, L. L. (2004). Sources of informal social control in Chicago neighborhoods. Criminology, 42 (3), 551–584.

Small, M. L., & Newman, K. (2001). Urban poverty after the truly disadvantaged: The rediscovery of the family, the neighborhood, and culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1), 23–45.

Smith, W. R., Frazee, S. G., & Davison, E. L. (2000). Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: Small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology, 38 (2), 489–524.

Smith, D. A., & Jarjoura, R. G. (1988). Social structure and criminal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 27–52.

Stark, R. (1987). Deviant places: A theory of the ecology of crime. Criminology, 25, 893–911.

Stewart, E. A., & Simons, R. L. (2006). Structure and culture in African-American adolescent violence: A partial test of the code of the street thesis. Justice Quarterly, 23, 1–33.

Stowell, J. I., Messner, S. F., McGeever, K. F., & Raffalovich, L. E. (2009). Immigration and the recent violent crime drop in the united states: A pooled, cross-sectional time-series analysis of metropolitan areas. Criminology, 47 (3), 889–928.

Taylor, R. B. (2002). Fear of crime, social ties, and collective efficacy: Maybe masquerading measurement, maybe déjà vu all over again.

Taylor, R. B. (2015). Community criminology: Fundamentals of spatial and temporal scaling, ecological indicators, and selectivity bias . NYU Press.

Taylor, R. B., & Covington, J. (1993). Community structural change and fear of crime. Social Problems, 40, 374–395.

Triplett, R. A., Gainey, R. R., & Sun, I. Y. (2003). Institutional strength, social control and neighborhood crime rates. Theoretical Criminology, 7 (4), 439–467.

Vandeviver, C. (2014). Applying Google maps and Google Street View in criminological research. Crime Science, 3 (1), 13.

Velez, M. B. (2009). Contextualizing the immigration and crime effect: An analysis of homicide in Chicago neighborhoods. Homicide Studies, 13 (3), 325–335.

Wadsworth, T. (2010). Is immigration responsible for the crime drop? An assessment of the influence of immigration on changes in violent crime between 1990 and 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 91 (2), 531–553.

Walton, E. (2016). “It’s not just a bunch of buildings”: Social psychological investment, sense of community, and collective efficacy in a multiethnic low-income neighborhood. City & Community, 15 (3), 231–263.

Warner, B. D. (2003). The role of attenuated culture in social disorganization theory. Criminology, 41 (1), 73–98.

Warner, B. D. (2007). Directly intervene or call the authorities? A study of forms of neighborhood social control within a social disorganization framework. Criminology, 45 (1), 99–129.

Warner, B. D. (2014). Neighborhood factors related to the likelihood of successful informal social control efforts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42 (5), 421–430.

Warner, B. D., & Burchfield, K. (2011). Misperceived neighborhood values and informal social control. Justice Quarterly, 28 (4), 606–630.

Warner, B. D., & Pierce, G. L. (1993). Reexamining social disorganization theory using calls to the police as a measure of crime. Criminology, 31, 493–517.

Warner, B. D., & Rountree, P. W. (1997). Local social ties in a community and crime model: Questioning the systemic nature of informal social control. Social Problems, 44, 520–536.

Warner, B. D., & Rountree, P. W. (2000). Implications of ghetto-related behavior for a community and crime model. In Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance (pp. 39–62). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53 (2), 133–157.

Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S. M. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology, 42 (2), 283–322.

Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S. M. (2012). The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem . Oxford University Press.

Wickes, R., Hipp, J., Sargeant, E., & Mazerolle, L. (2017). Neighborhood social ties and shared expectations for informal social control: Do they influence informal social control actions? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33 (1), 101–129.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards and integrated theory in criminology . London: Tavistock.

Wooldredge, J. (2002). Examining the (ir) relevance of aggregation bias for multilevel studies of neighborhoods and crime with an example comparing census tracts to official neighborhoods in Cincinnati. Criminology, 40 (3), 681–710.

Xie, M., & McDowall, D. (2008). Escaping crime: The effects of direct and indirect victimization on moving. Criminology, 46 (4), 809–840.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Criminology, Law and Society, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

Charis E. Kubrin & Michelle D. Mioduszewski

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charis E. Kubrin .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Marvin D. Krohn

Department of Criminal Justice, Radford University, Radford, VA, USA

Nicole Hendrix

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

Gina Penly Hall

Alan J. Lizotte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Kubrin, C.E., Mioduszewski, M.D. (2019). Social Disorganization Theory: Past, Present and Future. In: Krohn, M., Hendrix, N., Penly Hall, G., Lizotte, A. (eds) Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20779-3_11

Published : 29 August 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-20778-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-20779-3

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

Criminal Justice

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Theory of social disorganization.

The spatial concentration of crime   and victimization at geographic locations is a well known and robust empirical finding within criminology. Several studies have indicated that crime is concentrated at micro places such as street addresses, segments, and block groups (Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger 1989; Weisburd et al. 2004), and evaluations of place-based policing tactics at micro places indicate that geographically focused policing tactics are a promising crime reduction strategy (Braga 2001; Weisburd and Eck 2004). The implementation of such micro place policing strategies was guided, in part, by the empirical finding of crime concentration at places and theoretical insights from situational crime prevention theory, routine activities theory, and the ecology of crime literature (Skogan and Frydl 2004; Weisburd and Eck 2004).

As a result,   many policing scholars have noted that the police are more likely to make observable impacts on crime when they target the criminal event itself and the environmental conditions that allow for it to occur, rather than targeting the development of the individual criminal offender (Weisburd 1997). Although criminal activity is concentrated at a larger level of geography as well, such as communities or neighborhoods (Shaw and McKay 1942/1969), the policing literature has not yet fully incorporated theoretical insights from the social disorganization literature in the research on policing of larger units of place.

This article discusses the relevance and   implications of social disorganization theory for the policing of community-level areas characterized by structural and social disadvantage. Social disorganization theory and policing are linked through such concepts as procedural justice and legitimacy. Research from the social disorganization literature has shown that communities characterized by concentrated disadvantage (that is, extreme structural and social disadvantages such as poverty, public assistance, high percentage of female heads of household, unemployment, percentage of youth) influence the formation of individual perceptions regarding the legitimacy of the police and the extent of criminal activity within the area (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003a). In the sections that follow, I review social disorganization theory and several key insights and discuss the implications of those insights for policing areas of concentrated disadvantage, most notably the importance of perceptions of favorable police legitimacy and procedural justice.

Social Disorganization Theory

Social disorganization theory   is among the oldest and most prominent of criminologi-cal theories. Originating in the 1930s from the influential Chicago School, Shaw and McKay (1942/1969) developed an ecological theory of delinquency based on the finding that high rates of delinquency remained stable over time in certain neighborhoods regardless of changes in the racial or ethnic composition of residents. Social disorganization refers to the inability of a community to regulate the activities that occur within its boundaries, the consequences of which are high rates of criminal activity and social disorder (Kornhauser 1978; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Markowitz et al. 2001).

Structural disadvantages such as population heterogeneity,   residential instability, and poor economic conditions hinder the formation of community cohesion by limiting informal social networks and weakening a community’s ability to exercise effective informal social control over the activities that occur within its boundaries. The focus in social disorganization theory is on the dynamics of criminogenic places, and how such contexts influence and impact individual behavior as well as community-level cohesion and behavior.

There have been several revisions and extensions to   the original social disorganization theory put forth by Shaw and McKay. In particular, scholars began to clearly articulate and measure the intervening mechanisms by which neighborhood structural disadvantages lead to increased criminal activity (Bursik 1988; Sampson and Groves 1989; Bursik and Grasmick 1993; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997). In an influential test of the intervening mechanisms of social disorganization theory, Sampson and Groves (1989) found that a neighborhood’s informal social control abilities (for example, ability to supervise and control teenage peer groups, strength of local friendship networks, and rate of participation in voluntary associations) substantially mediates the relationship between structural disadvantage and crime and victimization rates.

More recent studies have noted the distinction   between the presence and type of informal social relationships within communities (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003a). For example, the presence of informal social networks within communities is beneficial for crime reduction in so much as they result in strong community cohesion and solidarity between residents that is pro-social in nature and results in both the desire and resources necessary to obtain collective valued goals. Several researchers have appropriately noted that we cannot assume that all informal social networks are created equally and that the nature of the network greatly dictates the nature of the potential resources and outcomes (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003a).

Further refinements to social disorganization theory   include distinguishing between the presence of informal social networks and the potential resources or outcomes that are derived from involvement in such networks (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997). Concepts such as social capital and collective efficacy reflect the valuable resources generated from involvement in social networks and refer to the degree of mutual trust and cohesion between community members and their ability to work cooperatively toward collective goals (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997).

In one of the most statistically sophisticated tests,   Sampson and colleagues (1997) found that after controlling for individual-level traits and neighborhood-level concentrated disadvantage, collective efficacy was negatively related to neighborhood-level violence. In addition, other studies have observed that there is a positive association between crime and social disorder, and the mediating effects of collective efficacy between structure and crime also applies to the relationship between structure and disorder. The former suggests that social disorder has a causal impact on crime, the latter suggests that disorder and crime reflect the same underlying process at different levels of severity (Skogan 1990; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Markowitz et al. 2001). Moreover, concentrated disadvantage was negatively associated with collective efficacy, indicating that areas with structural and social disadvantages are less able to form the informal social networks necessary to generate cohesion and a willingness to obtain collective goals.

It is important to note that   exact causal paths and directions linking structural traits, informal social networks and community cohesion, fear of crime, and disorder and crime are debatable, as many of these variables can theoretically impact each other simultaneously, indicating joint causation. For example, few studies have adequately examined the possibility that not only do social disorder and decay lead to low social cohesion but that low social cohesion also impacts the presence of social disorder (Markowitz et al. 2001; Kubrin and Weitzer 2003).

Further improvements to social disorganization theory   include focusing on social networks between the community and external local institutions, such as the police, as social networks important for shaping the nature of the dynamics as well as the strength of informal social control within communities (Bursik and Grasmick 1993; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls 1997; Kubrin and Weitzer 2003a). Social networks that link community residents to outside conventional institutions provide residents with both normative and tangible resources to regulate criminal activity, and recent research has indicated that public social networks may provide the greatest crime reducing benefits for disadvantaged communities (Velez 2001).

Using data from the Police Services Study,   Velez (2001) found that structurally disadvantaged communities that had strong relationships with the police, as measured by the quality and frequency of interaction with the police, had lower victimization rates than did disadvantaged communities that had weak ties to the police. There is much evidence indicating that residents living in areas of concentrated disadvantage have weaker networks and perceptions of legitimacy toward the police (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003b; Anderson 1999).

Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Policing

Perceptions of legitimacy toward the police   refers to the degree to which residents view the police as fair, just, and appropriate (Tyler 1990). Police legitimacy acts as a source of social control based on normative beliefs and represents the individual’s belief in or bond to conventional society. Perceptions of procedural justice, the belief that the police use fair and just procedures in interaction with citizens, are closely related to and in fact influence perceptions of legitimacy (Tyler 1990; Skogan and Frydl 2004).

Several scholars have argued that   macro social factors resulted in the economic segregation of minorities into structurally disadvantaged areas, resulting in a clustering of multiple social and structural disadvantages within communities and an intense feeling of social segregation and isolation among residents of dis-advantaged communities (Wilson 1987; Sampson and Wilson 1995). According to Anderson’s (1999) ethnographic study of violence in inner-city ghettoes of Philadelphia, violence results from the void left by the declining significance of social institutions and conventional norms for those living in poverty and economic deprivation and the alienation these individuals feel from mainstream society. The resulting pattern of norms that arise is what Anderson calls the ”code of the street.” Thus, the code of the street arises as a result of a profound lack of legitimacy in conventional institutions such as the police and ”emerges where the influence of the police ends” (Anderson 1999, 34).

Sampson and Bartusch (1998)   confirm this relationship between community structure and perceptions toward the police in their study of 8,782 residents of 343 Chicago area neighborhoods. They found that after accounting for individual socio-demographic traits (for example, race) and differences in crime rates, neighborhoods characterized by concentrated disadvantage, as compared to more affluent areas, had higher levels of dissatisfaction with the police and legal cynicism. Neighborhood structural traits shape the ”cognitive landscape” in which normative orientations and perceptions about the law are formed (Sampson and Bartusch 1998). Harsh structural conditions that result in social isolation lead to a feeling in which violence is inevitable and the police mistrusted and avoided.

As a result of evidence such as this,   many social disorganization researchers have argued for the theoretical inclusion of subcultural factors to help explain the relationship between concentrated disadvantage and crime (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003; Sampson and Bartusch 1998). Structural contexts of social and economic disadvantage can attenuate individual-level normative values and bonds to conventional society, which create a lack of legitimacy and subsequent void in which competing norms and modes of conduct can develop. This is especially relevant for policing since the police are viewed as the law enforcement agency of conventional society and as representative of the dominant conventional culture (Anderson 1999; Easton and Dennis 1969; Tyler and Huo 2002).

Kubrin and Weitzer (2003b)   state that perceptions of police practices in poor communities largely revolve around two themes related to police discretion, under-policing and overpolicing. Residents of poor communities largely perceive the police as providing insufficient protection from crime and victimization, noting that the police have little regard for the occurrences within their community (Kane 2005; Kubrin and Weitzer 2003b).

Conversely,   perceptions of police services also tend to focus on the opposite end of the continuum, with several studies reporting that individuals from areas of disadvantage perceive high levels of police misconduct or overpolicing such as unwarranted traffic stops and searches, racial profiling, and verbal and physical abuse (Kubrin and Weitzer 2003b; Kane 2005). Overpolicing tactics such as racial profiling are also related to unfavorable perceptions of police legitimacy and procedural justice (Tyler and Wakslak 2005). Furthermore, since African Americans are overrepre-sented in communities of concentrated disadvantage, findings indicating that African Americans have unfavorable perceptions of police legitimacy are relevant for the policing of disadvantaged areas. Equally if not more important are emerging findings that suggest legitimacy and procedural justice perceptions are significantly associated with law breaking (Tyler 1990; Paternoster et al. 1997; Kane 2005).

Paternoster and colleagues (1997)   reanalyzed data from the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment to examine the impact of perceptions of procedural justice on the probability of future spouse assault. Their findings indicate that those offenders who felt as if they were treated fairly by the police had a lower number of rearrests, as compared to those offenders who reported low perceptions of procedural justice. In addition, after controlling for individual traits and prior offending, Paternoster and colleagues found that recidivism counts among those offenders that had been arrested but reported being treated fairly by the police were as low as those of offenders that had not been arrested but instead were released.

Additionally,   findings from a study examining the relationship between variations in police legitimacy and violent crime at New York City police precincts from 1975 to 1996 (Kane 2005) found further support. Findings indicate that low police legitimacy, measured as police misconduct and underpolicing and overpolicing, is statistically related to violent crime rates, but only among those communities characterized by structural disadvantage.

This is not surprising,   given prior research in the social disorganization literature linking concentrated disadvantage to both weak formal and informal social relationships within communities; more affluent communities likely have strong informal social networks, high levels of collective efficacy, and less need for formal social control mechanisms that result from relationships with the police. For communities with extreme structural and social disadvantages, the issue of police legitimacy is more salient, given the typical absence of strong prosocial intracommunity informal networks, and the crime reducing impacts of favorable perceptions of police legitimacy are greater (Velez 2001).

Policing tactics can be better   informed by an understanding of the relationship between disadvantaged communities and the mistrust of authorities it fosters. Given the literature concerning the relationship between concentrated disadvantage and crime rates as well as perceptions of legitimacy, it is likely that policing tactics may have differential impacts, in terms of outcome effectiveness and citizen reactions, across degrees of neighborhood-level structural disadvantage.

For example,   community-oriented policing (COP) tactics rely heavily on the support and cooperation of community residents in implementing crime and disorder reducing programs. The community and the police are seen as coproducers in the creation of community safety, order, and well-being (Moore 1992). There are several elements and goals of community policing, one of which requires the police to increase social interactions with community members and develop relationships with the community that facilitate the reduction of disorder and crime. Community policing also encourages community involvement in the defining and solution of community problems, but if perceptions of police illegitimacy lead to decreased involvement and willingness to become involved among residents, the application of COP tactics may be problematic.

Although the COP approach is   promising for increasing perceptions of police legitimacy, it is important to note that there may be some difficulties associated with the application at neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage. There has been substantial literature on the difficulties of applying the COP model to police departments due to deeply rooted beliefs in the traditional model of policing (Weisburd and McElroy 1988); however, much less has been mentioned of the difficulties of applying the COP model to communities characterized by concentrated disadvantage.

Just as the normative,   cultural, and organizational context of traditional policing made adoption of the seemingly equal role between police and community as crime fighters more difficult, it is likely that the normative, cultural, and structural context of extremely disadvantaged communities will result in reluctance to trust the police and resistance to increased interaction with the police. COP reflects an example of Bursik and Grasmick’s public network and thus represents the intersection of formal and informal social control in communities. Findings from the social disorganization literature suggest that approaches such as COP may face resistance from residents of structurally disadvantaged communities and that preexisting perceptions of low police legitimacy may be difficult to overcome in a short time and may in fact be exacerbated by increased police activity within the community.

The potential difficulties in implementing   certain policing tactics in structurally disadvantaged communities is also applicable to policing tactics that are focused at micro places or reducing social disorder. Micro places such as street segments or addresses are situated within larger macro social contexts of the community and urban political economy; thus, it is likely that the environmental aspects, as well as situational aspects, of both the micro place and the community will matter for the commission or prevention of crime.

Additionally,   ”hot spots” policing is tightly focused and targeted on small units of place, and this type of policing may perpetuate or contribute to perceptions of overpolicing and subsequent low police legitimacy (Tyler and Wakslak 2005). Similarly, order maintenance policies that seek to reduce crime by reducing perceived and observed social disorder, thereby reducing fear of crime and crime itself, are also susceptible to accusations of overpolicing, since zero tolerance policing tactics have the potential to be viewed as harassment and contribute to low levels of police legitimacy (Wilson and Kelling 1982; Skogan 1990; Skogan and Frdyl 2004).

In conclusion,   findings from the social disorganization literature are relevant to the study of policing for several reasons. First, individuals living in areas of concentrated disadvantage are more likely to be dissatisfied with police services, have higher perceptions of legal cynicism, and hold less favorable perceptions about the procedural justice and legitimacy of the police (Sampson and Bartusch 1998; Anderson 1999; Sunshine and Tylor 2003; Kubrin and Weitzer 2003a, 2003b). Second, favorable perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy toward the police are related to compliance with the law and lower crime rates (Tyler 1990; Paternoster et al. 1997; Kane 2005). Third, policing tactics such as community-oriented policing rely on garnering support from the community; thus, the effectiveness of these tactics is likely to vary by the degree of community disadvantage. Moreover, even policing tactics that are focused at the micro place level, and hence have less reliance on community support, are vulnerable to the ill effects of low police legitimacy, since these micro places are often embedded within larger macro social contexts that are characterized by concentrated disadvantage.

See also: Accountability; Attitudes toward the Police; Community-Oriented Policing: History; Crackdowns by the Police; Crimi­nology; Minorities and the Police; Policing Multiethnic Communities; Quality-of-Life Policing; Zero Tolerance Policing.

References:

• Anderson, E. 1999. Code of the streets. New York: Norton.
• Braga, A. A. 2001. The effects of hot spots polic­ing on crime. The Annals of American Politi­cal and Social Science 578: 104—25.
• Bursik, R. J. 1988. Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology 26: 519-51.
• Bursik, R. J., and H. G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. New York: Lexington.
• Kane, R. 2005. Compromised police legitimacy as a predictor of violent crime in structurally disadvantaged communities. Criminology 43: 469-98.
• Kornhauser, R. 1978. Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Kubrin, C. E., and R. Weitzer. 2003. New direc­tions in social disorganization theory. Jour­nal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40 (4): 374-402.
• Markowitz, F. E., P. E. Bellair, A. E. Liska, and J. Liu. 2001. Extending social disorga­nization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Crim­inology 39: 293-319.
• Moore, M. n.d. Public health and criminal justice approaches to prevention. In Crime and justice, 19, ed. Albert Reiss and Michael Tonry, 237-63. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Paternoster, R., R. Bachman, R. Brame, and L. W. Sherman. 1997. Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spousal assault. Law and Society Review 31:163-204.
• Sampson, R. J., and D. J. Bartusch. 1998. Legal cynicism and (sub-cultural?) tolerance for deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review 32: 777-804.
• Sampson, R. J., and W. B. Groves. 1989. Com­munity structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology 94: 774-802.
• Sampson, R. J., and S. W. Raudenbush. 1999. Systemic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology 105: 603-51.
• Sampson, R. J., and W. J. Wilson. 1995. To­ward a theory of race, crime and urban inequality. In Crime and inequality, John Hagan and Ruth D. Peterson, 37-54. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Sampson, R. J., S. W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime. Science 277: 918-24.
• Shaw, C. R., and H. McKay. 1942/1969. Juve­nile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sherman, L. W., P. R. Gartin, and M. E. Buerger. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities theory and the criminology ofplace. Criminology27: 27-56.
• Skogan, W. G. 1990. Disorder and decline. New York: The Free Press.
• Skogan, W. G., and K. Frdyl. 2004. Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence, W. G. Skogan and Frdyl. Committee to Review the Research on Police Policy and Practice, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
• Sunshine J., and T. Tyler. 2003. The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support of policing. Law and Society Review 37: 513-47.
• Tyler, T. R. 1990. Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Tyler, T. R., and Y. J. Huo. 2002. Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Tyler, T. R., and C. J. Wakslak. 2004. Profil­ing and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attribution of motive, and accep­tance of police authority. Criminology 42: 253-82.
• Velez, M. 2001. The role of public social con­trol in urban neighborhoods. Criminology 39: 837-63.
• Weisburd, D. 1997. Reorienting crime prevention research and policy: From the causes of criminality to the context of crime.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Weisburd, D., and J. E. Eck. 2004. What can police do to reduce crime, disorder, and fear? The Annals ofAmerican Political and Social Science 593: 42-65.
• Weisburd, D., and J. E. McElroy. 1988. Enact­ing the CPO (community patrol officer) role: Findings from the New York City Pilot Program in Community Policing. In Community policing: Rhetoric or reality, J. R. Greene and S. Mastrofski, 89-102. New York: Praeger Press.
• Weisburd, D., S. Bushway, C. Lum, and S. M. Yang.   2004.   Trajectories   of crime at places: A longitudinal study of the street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42: 283-321.
• Wilson, J. Q., and G. Kelling. 1982. Broken windows. The Atlantic Monthly 211: 29-38.
• Wilson, W. J. 1987. The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago.

7.2 Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance and Crime

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Describe the functionalist view of deviance in society through four sociologist’s theories
• Explain how conflict theory understands deviance and crime in society
• Describe the symbolic interactionist approach to deviance, including labeling and other theories

Why does deviance occur? How does it affect a society? Since the early days of sociology, scholars have developed theories that attempt to explain what deviance and crime mean to society. These theories can be grouped according to the three major sociological paradigms: functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.

Functionalism

Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with the way the different elements of a society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of a functioning society. Strain theory and social disorganization theory represent two functionalist perspectives on deviance in society.

Émile Durkheim: The Essential Nature of Deviance

Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people’s present views (1893). For instance, when Black students across the United States participated in sit-ins during the civil rights movement, they challenged society’s notions of segregation. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently held social norms, which also contributes to society (1893). Seeing a student given detention for skipping class reminds other high schoolers that playing hooky isn’t allowed and that they, too, could get detention.

Durkheim’s point regarding the impact of punishing deviance speaks to his arguments about law. Durkheim saw laws as an expression of the “collective conscience,” which are the beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society. “A crime is a crime because we condemn it,” he said (1893). He discussed the impact of societal size and complexity as contributors to the collective conscience and the development of justice systems and punishments. For example, in large, industrialized societies that were largely bound together by the interdependence of work (the division of labor), punishments for deviance were generally less severe. In smaller, more homogeneous societies, deviance might be punished more severely.

Robert Merton: Strain Theory

Sociologist Robert Merton agreed that deviance is an inherent part of a functioning society, but he expanded on Durkheim’s ideas by developing strain theory , which notes that access to socially acceptable goals plays a part in determining whether a person conforms or deviates. From birth, we’re encouraged to achieve the “American Dream” of financial success. A person who attends business school, receives an MBA, and goes on to make a million-dollar income as CEO of a company is said to be a success. However, not everyone in our society stands on equal footing. That MBA-turned-CEO may have grown up in the best school district and had means to hire tutors. Another person may grow up in a neighborhood with lower-quality schools, and may not be able to pay for extra help. A person may have the socially acceptable goal of financial success but lack a socially acceptable way to reach that goal. According to Merton’s theory, an entrepreneur who can’t afford to launch their own company may be tempted to embezzle from their employer for start-up funds.

Merton defined five ways people respond to this gap between having a socially accepted goal and having no socially accepted way to pursue it.

• Conformity : Those who conform choose not to deviate. They pursue their goals to the extent that they can through socially accepted means.
• Innovation : Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate means by instead using criminal or deviant means.
• Ritualism : People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through socially acceptable ways. These members of society focus on conformity rather than attaining a distant dream.
• Retreatism : Others retreat and reject society’s goals and means. Some people who beg and people who are homeless have withdrawn from society’s goal of financial success.
• Rebellion : A handful of people rebel and replace a society’s goals and means with their own. Terrorists or freedom fighters look to overthrow a society’s goals through socially unacceptable means.

Social Disorganization Theory

Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, social disorganization theory asserts that crime is most likely to occur in communities with weak social ties and the absence of social control. An individual who grows up in a poor neighborhood with high rates of drug use, violence, teenage delinquency, and deprived parenting is more likely to become engaged in crime than an individual from a wealthy neighborhood with a good school system and families who are involved positively in the community.

Social disorganization theory points to broad social factors as the cause of deviance. A person isn’t born as someone who will commit crimes but becomes one over time, often based on factors in their social environment. Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989) found that poverty and family disruption in given localities had a strong positive correlation with social disorganization. They also determined that social disorganization was, in turn, associated with high rates of crime and delinquency—or deviance. Recent studies Sampson conducted with Lydia Bean (2006) revealed similar findings. High rates of poverty and single-parent homes correlated with high rates of juvenile violence. Research into social disorganization theory can greatly influence public policy. For instance, studies have found that children from disadvantaged communities who attend preschool programs that teach basic social skills are significantly less likely to engage in criminal activity. (Lally 1987)

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory looks to social and economic factors as the causes of crime and deviance. Unlike functionalists, conflict theorists don’t see these factors as positive functions of society. They see them as evidence of inequality in the system. They also challenge social disorganization theory and control theory and argue that both ignore racial and socioeconomic issues and oversimplify social trends (Akers 1991). Conflict theorists also look for answers to the correlation of gender and race with wealth and crime.

Karl Marx: An Unequal System

Conflict theory was greatly influenced by the work of German philosopher, economist, and social scientist Karl Marx. Marx believed that the general population was divided into two groups. He labeled the wealthy, who controlled the means of production and business, the bourgeois. He labeled the workers who depended on the bourgeois for employment and survival the proletariat. Marx believed that the bourgeois centralized their power and influence through government, laws, and other authority agencies in order to maintain and expand their positions of power in society. Though Marx spoke little of deviance, his ideas created the foundation for conflict theorists who study the intersection of deviance and crime with wealth and power.

C. Wright Mills: The Power Elite

In his book The Power Elite (1956), sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of what he dubbed the power elite , a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who hold the power and resources. Wealthy executives, politicians, celebrities, and military leaders often have access to national and international power, and in some cases, their decisions affect everyone in society. Because of this, the rules of society are stacked in favor of a privileged few who manipulate them to stay on top. It is these people who decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who have little power. Mills’ theories explain why celebrities can commit crimes and suffer little or no legal retribution. For example, USA Today maintains a database of NFL players accused and convicted of crimes. 51 NFL players had been convicted of committing domestic violence between the years 2000 and 2019. They have been sentenced to a collective 49 days in jail, and most of those sentences were deferred or otherwise reduced. In most cases, suspensions and fines levied by the NFL or individual teams were more severe than the justice system's (Schrotenboer 2020 and clickitticket.com 2019).

Crime and Social Class

While crime is often associated with the underprivileged, crimes committed by the wealthy and powerful remain an under-punished and costly problem within society. The FBI reported that victims of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft lost a total of $15.3 billion dollars in 2009 (FB1 2010). In comparison, when former advisor and financier Bernie Madoff was arrested in 2008, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission reported that the estimated losses of his financial Ponzi scheme fraud were close to $50 billion (SEC 2009).

This imbalance based on class power is also found within U.S. criminal law. In the 1980s, the use of crack cocaine (a less expensive but powerful drug) quickly became an epidemic that swept the country’s poorest urban communities. Its pricier counterpart, cocaine, was associated with upscale users and was a drug of choice for the wealthy. The legal implications of being caught by authorities with crack versus cocaine were starkly different. In 1986, federal law mandated that being caught in possession of 50 grams of crack was punishable by a ten-year prison sentence. An equivalent prison sentence for cocaine possession, however, required possession of 5,000 grams. In other words, the sentencing disparity was 1 to 100 (New York Times Editorial Staff 2011). This inequality in the severity of punishment for crack versus cocaine paralleled the unequal social class of respective users. A conflict theorist would note that those in society who hold the power are also the ones who make the laws concerning crime. In doing so, they make laws that will benefit them, while the powerless classes who lack the resources to make such decisions suffer the consequences. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, states passed numerous laws increasing penalties, especially for repeat offenders. The U.S. government passed an even more significant law, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (known as the 1994 Crime Bill), which further increased penalties, funded prisons, and incentivized law enforcement agencies to further pursue drug offenders. One outcome of these policies was the mass incarceration of Black and Hispanic people, which led to a cycle of poverty and reduced social mobility. The crack-cocaine punishment disparity remained until 2010, when President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased the disparity to 1 to 18 (The Sentencing Project 2010).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a theoretical approach that can be used to explain how societies and/or social groups come to view behaviors as deviant or conventional.

Labeling Theory

Although all of us violate norms from time to time, few people would consider themselves deviant. Those who do, however, have often been labeled “deviant” by society and have gradually come to believe it themselves. Labeling theory examines the ascribing of a deviant behavior to another person by members of society. Thus, what is considered deviant is determined not so much by the behaviors themselves or the people who commit them, but by the reactions of others to these behaviors. As a result, what is considered deviant changes over time and can vary significantly across cultures.

Sociologist Edwin Lemert expanded on the concepts of labeling theory and identified two types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with others. Speeding is a deviant act, but receiving a speeding ticket generally does not make others view you as a bad person, nor does it alter your own self-concept. Individuals who engage in primary deviance still maintain a feeling of belonging in society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future.

Sometimes, in more extreme cases, primary deviance can morph into secondary deviance. Secondary deviance occurs when a person’s self-concept and behavior begin to change after his or her actions are labeled as deviant by members of society. The person may begin to take on and fulfill the role of a “deviant” as an act of rebellion against the society that has labeled that individual as such. For example, consider a high school student who often cuts class and gets into fights. The student is reprimanded frequently by teachers and school staff, and soon enough, develops a reputation as a “troublemaker.” As a result, the student starts acting out even more and breaking more rules; the student has adopted the “troublemaker” label and embraced this deviant identity. Secondary deviance can be so strong that it bestows a master status on an individual. A master status is a label that describes the chief characteristic of an individual. Some people see themselves primarily as doctors, artists, or grandfathers. Others see themselves as beggars, convicts, or addicts.

Techniques of Neutralization

How do people deal with the labels they are given? This was the subject of a study done by Sykes and Matza (1957). They studied teenage boys who had been labeled as juvenile delinquents to see how they either embraced or denied these labels. Have you ever used any of these techniques?

Let’s take a scenario and apply all five techniques to explain how they are used. A young person is working for a retail store as a cashier. Their cash drawer has been coming up short for a few days. When the boss confronts the employee, they are labeled as a thief for the suspicion of stealing. How does the employee deal with this label?

The Denial of Responsibility: When someone doesn’t take responsibility for their actions or blames others. They may use this technique and say that it was their boss’s fault because they don’t get paid enough to make rent or because they’re getting a divorce. They are rejecting the label by denying responsibility for the action.

The Denial of Injury: Sometimes people will look at a situation in terms of what effect it has on others. If the employee uses this technique they may say, “What’s the big deal? Nobody got hurt. Your insurance will take care of it.” The person doesn’t see their actions as a big deal because nobody “got hurt.”

The Denial of the Victim: If there is no victim there’s no crime. In this technique the person sees their actions as justified or that the victim deserved it. Our employee may look at their situation and say, “I’ve worked here for years without a raise. I was owed that money and if you won’t give it to me I’ll get it my own way.”

The Condemnation of the Condemners: The employee might “turn it around on” the boss by blaming them. They may say something like, “You don’t know my life, you have no reason to judge me.” This is taking the focus off of their actions and putting the onus on the accuser to, essentially, prove the person is living up to the label, which also shifts the narrative away from the deviant behavior.

Appeal to a Higher Authority: The final technique that may be used is to claim that the actions were for a higher purpose. The employee may tell the boss that they stole the money because their mom is sick and needs medicine or something like that. They are justifying their actions by making it seem as though the purpose for the behavior is a greater “good” than the action is “bad.” (Sykes & Matza, 1957)

Social Policy and Debate

The right to vote.

Before she lost her job as an administrative assistant, Leola Strickland postdated and mailed a handful of checks for amounts ranging from $90 to $500. By the time she was able to find a new job, the checks had bounced, and she was convicted of fraud under Mississippi law. Strickland pleaded guilty to a felony charge and repaid her debts; in return, she was spared from serving prison time.

Strickland appeared in court in 2001. More than ten years later, she is still feeling the sting of her sentencing. Why? Because Mississippi is one of twelve states in the United States that bans convicted felons from voting (ProCon 2011).

To Strickland, who said she had always voted, the news came as a great shock. She isn’t alone. Some 5.3 million people in the United States are currently barred from voting because of felony convictions (ProCon 2009). These individuals include inmates, parolees, probationers, and even people who have never been jailed, such as Leola Strickland.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, states are allowed to deny voting privileges to individuals who have participated in “rebellion or other crime” (Krajick 2004). Although there are no federally mandated laws on the matter, most states practice at least one form of felony disenfranchisement .

Is it fair to prevent citizens from participating in such an important process? Proponents of disfranchisement laws argue that felons have a debt to pay to society. Being stripped of their right to vote is part of the punishment for criminal deeds. Such proponents point out that voting isn’t the only instance in which ex-felons are denied rights; state laws also ban released criminals from holding public office, obtaining professional licenses, and sometimes even inheriting property (Lott and Jones 2008).

Opponents of felony disfranchisement in the United States argue that voting is a basic human right and should be available to all citizens regardless of past deeds. Many point out that felony disfranchisement has its roots in the 1800s, when it was used primarily to block Black citizens from voting. These laws disproportionately target poor minority members, denying them a chance to participate in a system that, as a social conflict theorist would point out, is already constructed to their disadvantage (Holding 2006). Those who cite labeling theory worry that denying deviants the right to vote will only further encourage deviant behavior. If ex-criminals are disenfranchised from voting, are they being disenfranchised from society?

Edwin Sutherland: Differential Association

In the early 1900s, sociologist Edwin Sutherland sought to understand how deviant behavior developed among people. Since criminology was a young field, he drew on other aspects of sociology including social interactions and group learning (Laub 2006). His conclusions established differential association theory , which suggested that individuals learn deviant behavior from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for deviance. According to Sutherland, deviance is less a personal choice and more a result of differential socialization processes. For example, a young person whose friends are sexually active is more likely to view sexual activity as acceptable. Sutherland developed a series of propositions to explain how deviance is learned. In proposition five, for example, he discussed how people begin to accept and participate in a behavior after learning whether it is viewed as “favorable” by those around them. In proposition six, Sutherland expressed the ways that exposure to more “definitions” favoring the deviant behavior than those opposing it may eventually lead a person to partake in deviance (Sutherland 1960), applying almost a quantitative element to the learning of certain behaviors. In the example above, a young person may find sexual activity more acceptable once a certain number of their friends become sexually active, not after only one does so.

Sutherland’s theory may explain why crime is multigenerational. A longitudinal study beginning in the 1960s found that the best predictor of antisocial and criminal behavior in children was whether their parents had been convicted of a crime (Todd and Jury 1996). Children who were younger than ten years old when their parents were convicted were more likely than other children to engage in spousal abuse and criminal behavior by their early thirties. Even when taking socioeconomic factors such as dangerous neighborhoods, poor school systems, and overcrowded housing into consideration, researchers found that parents were the main influence on the behavior of their offspring (Todd and Jury 1996).

Travis Hirschi: Control Theory

Continuing with an examination of large social factors, control theory states that social control is directly affected by the strength of social bonds and that deviance results from a feeling of disconnection from society. Individuals who believe they are a part of society are less likely to commit crimes against it.

Travis Hirschi (1969) identified four types of social bonds that connect people to society:

• Attachment measures our connections to others. When we are closely attached to people, we worry about their opinions of us. People conform to society’s norms in order to gain approval (and prevent disapproval) from family, friends, and romantic partners.
• Commitment refers to the investments we make in the community. A well-respected local businessperson who volunteers at their synagogue and is a member of the neighborhood block organization has more to lose from committing a crime than a person who doesn’t have a career or ties to the community.
• Similarly, levels of involvement , or participation in socially legitimate activities, lessen a person’s likelihood of deviance. A child who plays little league baseball and takes art classes has fewer opportunities to ______.
• The final bond, belief , is an agreement on common values in society. If a person views social values as beliefs, they will conform to them. An environmentalist is more likely to pick up trash in a park, because a clean environment is a social value to them (Hirschi 1969).

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/7-2-theoretical-perspectives-on-deviance-and-crime

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory Essay

Scholars have come up with different theories that seek to explain the foundation of juvenile delinquency, including why some regions record higher crime rates compared to others. The available schools of thought link juvenile delinquency to diverse forces that include young people’s unique personalities and the pressure associated with their external environments, including societal influences.

The article by Çam (2014) indicates an alarming increment in the rate of juvenile arrests in the U.S. and Turkey since 2000. In America alone, such figures vary from one region to another, and hence the reason why I believe that the social organization theory can effectively explain this situation. This paper depicts the selected theory as the best because it specifies a juvenile’s physical and social settings as major forces that influence their decisions to engage in criminal activities.

The Basic Tenets of the Social Disorganization Theory

In a study by Bond (2015), the social disorganization theory is founded on the awareness that adolescents’ current location or environment plays a huge role in helping to foretell their chances of engaging in criminal activities. In particular, regions that have higher numbers of juvenile delinquents usually have various issues in common, which end up fueling the existence of criminal gangs steered by young people.

According to Bond (2015), physical untidiness, poverty, and extensive cultural diversity characterize high-crime localities where juvenile delinquency is prevalent. Another principle of the social disorganization theory is that illegal engagements do not begin from the personal level. This theory holds that people who perpetrate crimes do not necessarily need to have previous records linking them to such misdemeanors.

Instead, their reactions to “abnormal” circumstances influence their desire to participate in wrongdoing, regardless of their age or gender. Hence, according to Lopez and Gillespie (2017), tenets of the social disorganization theory have been resourceful in the present-day juvenile delinquency system. In particular, as Junger-Tas (1992) reveals, they have helped interested parties to identify high-risk places where they can gather information regarding the rising levels of juvenile offenses, particularly in some regions that are linked to increased cases of chaos and minimal efforts of ensuring informal social control.

Why this Theory Best Describes a Young Person’s Decision to Commit Delinquent Acts

In the study by Hadjar, Baier, Boehnke, and Hagan (2007), young people’s mode of action is attributable to the combined input made by their respective parents and the society. This claim presents the family environment, especially where parents are more occupied in the labor force, as a major crime-breeding avenue among male and female juveniles. In line with the social disorganization theory, such parents are detached from their adolescent children to the extent that finding time to interact after work, at least to know how each family member spent their day, is impossible.

The emphasis placed on the aspect of poverty is another reason why the social disorganization theory best explains juveniles’ decision to engage in criminal activities. In line with the article by Kavish, Mullins, and Soto (2016), which examines the labeling theory in details, this school of thought assumes that localities that are identified as part of underprivileged urban neighborhoods are likely to be associated with a high number of delinquents who are further designated as deviants. However, a close examination of these disadvantaged regions reveals that indeed the aspect of poverty mentioned in the social disorganization theory influences young people’s decision to commit crimes in the effort of getting material goods or finances to satisfy their constrained needs, including shelter, food, and clothing.

Several theories have been put across examining the reason behind the observed increased cases of juvenile delinquency. However, the social disorganization theory stands out as the best school of thought that effectively presents young people’s surroundings or locations as the root of the issue. This theory appreciates that juveniles engage in crimes because of forces that originate from their external environments such as society among other conditions, including poverty.

Bond, M. (2015). Criminology: Social disorganization theory explained . Web.

Çam, T. (2014). Testing social disorganization theory for the causes of index (major) crime incidence among Turkish juveniles. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 13 (51), 329-345.

Hadjar, A., Baier, D., Boehnke, K., & Hagan, J. (2007). Juvenile delinquency and gender revisited: The family and power-control theory reconceived. European Journal of Criminology, 4 (1), 33-58.

Junger-Tas, J. (1992). An empirical test of social control theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8 (1), 9-28.

Kavish, D. R., Mullins, C. W., & Soto, D. A. (2016). Interactionist labeling: Formal and informal labeling effects on juvenile delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 62 (10), 1313-1336.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, May 1). Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-social-disorganization-theory/

"Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory." IvyPanda , 1 May 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-social-disorganization-theory/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory'. 1 May.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory." May 1, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-social-disorganization-theory/.

1. IvyPanda . "Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory." May 1, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-social-disorganization-theory/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Juvenile Delinquency: Social Disorganization Theory." May 1, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-social-disorganization-theory/.

• Social Disorganization Theory and Delinquent Behavior
• Social Disorganization and Crime
• The Social Disorganization Theory by Shaw and McKay
• Social Disorganization Theory Review
• Juvenile Delinquency Theories in the United States
• Juvenile Delinquency: Criminological Theories
• Social Disorganization Theory in Criminology
• Theories of Delinquent Behavior: Description and Analysis
• Rape Theories and Policies to Minimize Crimes
• Use Criminological Theories to Predict Crime and Victimization in Your Neighborhood
• Advocacy in the Human Services: Child Case
• Juvenile justice: Redeeming Our Children
• Juvenile Delinquency, Its Factors and Theories
• Factors Associated With Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Justice and Punishment in Public Opinion

• Content Guidelines
• Privacy Policy

Receive your Favorite Topics right in your Inbox.

Social disorganization: meaning, characteristics and causes.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Read this article to learn about the meaning, characteristics and causes of social disorganization!

Life is a process of continuous adjustment and readjustment. The social organism is always undergoing a change necessitating adjustment of its different parts.

When the various parts of society are properly adjusted, we have social order and a well organised society, but when they fail to adjust themselves to the changing conditions, the result is social disequilibrium or disorganisation leading to social problems.

Since social disorganisation puts the society out of gear, it has been an important subject of study in sociology. However, before we study social disorganisation, it would be fruitful to study social order as its study is helpful in understanding the nature of social disorganisation.

I. Social Order:

The problem of social order has been one of the major concerns of Sociological theory. The importance of social order in sociology can be ascertained due to the following reasons: (a) order is itself something positive and its opposites can be understood only with reference to it; (b) the functioning of human society requires order as a pre-condition; (c) the existence of social order cannot be taken for granted and (d) the analysis of the problem of order is helpful in understanding the nature of disorder in its various aspects.

The term social order can mean a number of things:

(a) It refers to the control of violence in social life;

(b) It refers to the existence of reciprocity or mutuality in the social life;

(c) it refers to the element of predictability in the social life;

(d) Social order refers to consistency and

(e) Social order also entails persistence.

Percy S. Cohen refers to four main types of theories to explain the existence of social order.

These theories have been briefly described below:

Coercion theory:

The theory emphasizes the use or threatened use of physical coercion or the use of symbolic and moral coercion. According to this theory, order exists in society largely as a result of the power which some men have to command compliance from others.

If they do not comply with these commands, they are threatened with some form of physical punishment, deprivation of property, resources or rights or with some social stigma or supernatural sanction.

This theory can explain various aspects of social order. Men generally control their impulses and follow the social norms because they are afraid of the consequences of acting otherwise. In some instances, men are consistently reminded of the moral need to conform to social norms and values. Men carry out their obligations and expect others to do the same because the failure to do so will be punished by authority.

The coercion theory can also explain disorder, conflict and change. In all societies, there are at least two types of conflict: first, there is a conflict between men contending for positions of power and second, there is a conflict between the powerful and the powerless.

During such periods of conflict, various types, of disorders take place. In such conditions, social change may also take place. This theory explains order in its various aspects and also explains the breakdown of social order and the occurrence of change.

Coercion theory has a few serious weaknesses, which are as follows:

1. In case coercion is considered as necessary condition for social order, it can easily be refuted by examining those societies where order exists without a single centralized authority which can use force. These are the tribal societies which have been termed as ‘stateless’ or ‘acephalous’. In such societies there are hardly any positions of authority and there are no, political units. The ethnographic facts of such societies appear to refute the argument that coercion is a necessary condition for social order.

2. In the short run, the exercise of power may achieve some degree of social order but in the long run, it is bound to give rise to opposition or the use of violence to overthrow it. In case coercion is necessary, though not sufficient, for the maintenance of social order, then it would appear to be true that the weakening of coercive power is a sufficient condition for occurrence of social disorder or change. This is difficult to test empirically for there is no society in which coercion disappears altogether.

Interest theory:

This theory has two main variants:

(1) The first explains the social order as resulting from a contract between men who find it in their interest to have some social arrangements. This view point emphasizes that men cannot achieve their objectives without the co-operation or at least the dependability of others.

(2) The second version of the interest theory is far more subtle and complex than the first. It states that social order results from the unintended consequences of many men separately pursuing their own interests; it is not true that men discover that order is in their collective interests and then establish it, rather they establish it unwittingly and discover later that it is in their interests.

This theory can also account for disorder and change in the following way: when circumstances arise which are not covered by the existing rules then disorder and conflict follow, until the need for new rules is recognized. The interest theory is quite significant in the development of sociological theory.

The main merit of the theory is that it does conceive of social phenomena in terms of causal processes which are, to some extent, independent of human will. It can explain the occurrence of disorder and change, for the adjustment of interests is never fully achieved.

There are two main defects of this theory:

(a) The first defect has been expressed by Emile Durkheim and latter Talcott Parsons. The defect is that the theory does not explain the derivation of interests. Both Durkheim and Parsons argue that interests, to some extent, are given by society itself; that is, their existence presupposes social order.

(b) The theory assumes that men adjust to the conduct of one another with almost perfect freedom, their choice being limited only by nature and by the need to take note of one another’s conduct. No consideration is given to the power which some men have to determine or influence the manner in which others will take account of their own wishes. In short, the theory lays so much stress on the unintended consequences of actions that it overlooks the degree to which some intentions are more significant than others.

The value consensus theory:

This theory stresses that order is based on some minimal consensus on certain values which are predominantly moral but may also be technical and aesthetic. The basis of this theory is that whenever men are committed to the same values, they also recognize a common identity as against others. Commitment to values enables men to devise means for reconciling or adjusting conflicting interests and for turning coercive force into legitimate authority.

This theory can explain disorder and change in the following way:

(a) no man is totally committed to common standards and some people, because of their upbringing are never fully committed. When circumstances change radically, many people will abandon their commitments.

Thus, there are always individuals who are ready to deviate and they are large in number when circumstances encourage this, (b) The second possible cause of the disorder and change occurs when there is a clash of values due to contact between different societies and when new values emerge which are incompatible with the old.

This theory is hardly new as it was advanced by August Comte and to some extent by Emile Durkheim. Comte argued that disorder in society was due to a lack of consensus on certain fundamental ideas and principles concerning the desired type of society and the proper means of administering it.

He was of the view that consensus was reduced by the growth of the division of labour, which prompted sectional differences and conflict. Durkheim rejected much of the arguments put forth by Comte. He considered that a unified system of ideas and morals was possible only in a relatively simple, undifferentiated society.

He recognized that the division of labour prompted differences and conflicts. He pointed out that the differences also provided a new moral conception of interdependence. In a highly differentiated society, there could be no consensus based on detailed moral rules and the acceptance of total system of ideas. However, there could be a consensus on certain diffuse moral values which prescribed limits within which different set of rules could exist.

If this theory states that consensus is a sufficient condition for the creation and maintenance of social order, then it is rather weak. First, it fails to explain how some consensus can be reached without social order. Secondly, it is also false as an explanation of the continuity of order, for example, there may be widespread consensus in modern society on the desirability of higher living standards; but this is as likely to provoke conflict as to solve it.

But if the theory states that some degree of consensus or commitment to common values is a necessary condition for social order, it is far more acceptable. In a simple sense, the theory is almost indisputable for human social life is not conceivable unless men have some common standards and are committed to maintaining them.

In a more significant sense, the theory states that underlying the acceptance of some common rules is the commitment to certain broad principles concerning the desirability of these rules. This implies that there’ is a possibility of choosing between one set of principles and another. However, this may be true in some complex civilizations but not in case of the simple societies.

This theory has been strongly supported as an explanatory theory by Comte and Parsons. However, some scholars like Mannheim and Marx have held rather Utopian notions concerning the possibility of establishing a complex society on the basis of a vast consensus. Critics have pointed out that a commitment to common values and ideas in complex societies is unlikely to be extensive even where it is powerful.

The Inertia theory:

This theory of social order is different from all the others in that it seeks only to explain one aspect of social order, namely, element of continuity or persistence in social life. It is also different in that it does not refer to a single factor or process but to any number of them. The theory asserts that if social order exists, it provides the conditions for its own continuation. This appears to be tautological in that the notion of social order implies that of continuity.

Although the theory cannot be accepted as such, when formulated more clearly and precisely it emphasizes the point that some of the causal processes of social phenomena are often circular. This theory implies that when social order is maintained; it tends to resist pressures for disruption and change, at least from within.

This theory can be combined with any of the others:

Coercion, interests and value consensus can each be introduced as factors within the theory or model which uses the assumption of inertia or equilibrium. In fact, all three elements can be combined within a theory or model of an ongoing social order.

Conclusion:

A survey of the four theories leads to important conclusions. These are: (a) none of these theories can really explain the origins of social order, (b) Each of these theories explains how social order persists and how it breaks down and changes. For each theory states a necessary, though not a sufficient condition for the continuity of any social order, once it exists.

All social order rest on a combination of coercion, interests and values. This does not mean that every type of social order is dependent, to the same extent, on each of the three factors. In fact, they differ very much in the extent to which they emphasize these different elements.

II. The Meaning of Social Disorganisation:

Social disorganisation is the process opposed to social organisation. Social organisation, Some Fundamental Concepts’, is an orderly relationship of parts. The significance of this orderly arrangement lies in what it does. When the parts of social structure do not perform their functions efficiently and effectively or perform them badly, there occurs an imbalance in society.

The social equilibrium is disturbed and society gets out of gear. Emile Durkheim defined social disorganisation as “a state of disequilibrium and a lack of social solidarity or consensus among the members of a society.” W.I. Thomas and Florien Znaniecki conceived of social disorganisation as “a decrease of the influence of existing rules of behaviour upon individual members of the groups.”

According to Mowever, social disorganization is “the process by which the relationships between members of a group are shaken.” Stuart A. Queen, Walter B. Bodenhafer, and Ernest B. Harper described social disorganisation in their book ‘Social Organisation and Disorganisation’ as the counterpart of social organisation.

According to them, just as social organisation provides the means by which a society maintains its unity and cohesion through effective control of its members, and, hence, functions smoothly; social disorganisation causes a weakening of group solidarity, loss of control over its members, and, therefore, conflict and disintegration.

According to Ogburn and Nimkoff when the harmonious relationship between the various parts of culture is disturbed, social disorganisation ensue. According to R.E.L. Faris, “Social disorganization is a disturbance in the patterns and mechanisms of human relations. According to Elliott and Merrill, “Social disorganisation is the process by which the relationship between members of the group are broken or dissolved.”

Thus on the basis of these definitions it may be said that social disorganisation refers to serious mal-adjustments rather than un-adjustments in society so that they fail to satisfy the needs of the individuals satisfactorily. Society, as we know, is the web of social relationships. In an organised society social relations have some patterns and mechanisms. When the relations become disordered or disintegrated there is social disorganisation.

In a well organised society the various institutions are in a harmonious adjustment or, in other words, there exists functional balance between the various elements of the social structure. When there is a lack of adjustment and balance and institutions do not function in a manner that satisfies all the individuals, we can speak of social disorganisation.

Social disorganisation, therefore, is to be considered in terms of functional disequilibrium, it is disequilibrium within customs, institutions, groups, communities and societies. Comparing social disorganisation with social organisation Queen and Harper write, “If social organisation means the development of relationships which persons and groups find mutually satisfactory, then disorganisation means their replacement by relationships which bring disappointment, thwarted wishes, irritation and unhappiness.” Social disorganisa­tion often brings personal disorganisation, since a person is a social creation and his “self” a social product.

It may be, however, noted that no objective criteria for measuring the degree of disorganisation are available; whether a situation represents organisation or disorganisation is largely a matter of subjective judgment. For example, divorce may be thought of as signifying family disorganisation. Actually it may be due to a better knowledge of the divorce laws and altered attitudes towards marriage.

Characteristics of Social Disorganisation:

The main characteristics of social disorganisation are the following:

(i) Conflict of Mores and of Institutions:

As we have studied earlier every society has its mores and institutions which regulate the life of its members. With the passage of time, these mores and institution become obsolete. New ideals arise and new institutions are formed. The existing mores come into conflict with new mores.

Some people want to replace them by new ones. This destroys consensus in society. With the destruction of consensus, social organisation breaks up and social disorganisation ensues. In the Indian society we can see such conflict of mores and institutions.

If, on the one hand, there are critics of caste system, on the other hand there are its staunch supporters. There is a strong difference of opinion on a number of other issues like divorce, family planning, untouchability, love-marriage, joint family system, women education, widow remarriage, education etc.

On the one hand, we denounce caste system while on the other we apply casteism in the selection of candidates for political offices, recruitment to public services and admission to educational institutions. There is much confusion of mores in our society and so we are passing through a state of social disorganisation. Elliot and Merrill called social organisation fundamentally a problem of consensus and when there is disagreement concerning mores and institutions, the seeds of social disorganisation have been sown.

(ii) Transfer of Functions from one Group to Another:

In an organised society the functions of different groups are defined and predetermined. But as society is dynamic, the functions of one group are transferred to another. Thus most of the functions once performed by the family stand transferred today to nurseries, schools and clubs. This has caused family disorganisation. Thus transfer of functions from one group to another is characteristic of social disorganisation.

(iii) Individuation:

Man today thinks in terms of self. The functions of different groups are determined in purely individualistic terms. Under the impact of individualism every person thinks upon all the important matters of life from his individual viewpoint. The young men and women want to take decisions on such important matters as marriage, occupation, recreation and morality in accordance with their individual prejudices, interests and attitudes. This trend has set in a dangerous process of social disorganisation.

(iv) Change in the Role and Status of the Individuals:

In an organised society the roles and status of people are defined and fixed. Their functions are well defined and they carry on the tasks allotted to them. They enjoy the status in accordance with their role in society. A primitive society suffers less from disorganisation because it is stable and its members follow the professions allocated to them.

But in course of time our norms change which also brings a change in the roles and statuses of the people. They no longer are treated as fixed and the people begin to choose from amongst the different role which causes disequilibrium. Thus the women are no longer confined to homes.

They work in offices. This change in the roles of women has caused family disorganisation. The Government of India is making efforts to raise the status of the lower classes which has led to disorganisation in the caste system. Faris writes, “Social disorganization is the disruption of the natural relation of persons to a degree that interferes with the performance of the accepted tasks of the group.”

Symptoms of Social Disorganisation:

Social disorganisation is an indication of the existence of diseased or disruptive elements in society. Just as a disease is known by its symptoms, so social disorganization may be known by its symptoms. Mabel, A. Elliot and Francis E. Merrill have pointed out that social disorganisation may be of three types i.e., disorganisation of the individual, the family, and community. Among the symptoms of personal disorganisation they included juvenile delinquency, various types of crime, insanity, drunkenness, suicide and prostitution.

Among the symptoms of family disorganisation they included divorce, illegitimate births, desertion and venereal disease. Among the symptoms of community disorganisation they included poverty, unemployment, crime and political corruption. It may be, however, noted that no definite distinction can be made among the three types of disorganisation because they are interdependent.

Calvin F Schmid listed the following symptoms of disorganised communities: high rate of population mobility, high rates of divorce, desertion, illegitimacy, dependency, delinquency and criminality, a disproportionately high rate of males, a low rate of home ownership, high rates of suicides, commercialized vice and death from disease and alcoholism.

Herbert A. Bloch divided the symptoms of social disorganisation into two categories:

(1) The sociological, and

(2) The literary-ideological. He divided the sociological symptoms into three classes: individual, family, and community. By literary-ideological symptoms he meant certain tendencies appearing in literary and artistic works which indicate a disturbed state of mind. Among these tendencies he mentioned nostalgic themes and themes dealing with personal frustration and rebellion or protest. Queen, Bodenhafer and Harper included in their list of social disorganisation, unemployment, poverty, sickness, homelessness, insanity, and feeble-mindedness.

Faris has enumerated the following symptoms of social disorganisation:

(1) Formalism;

(2) The decline of sacred elements;

(3) Individuality of interests and tastes;

(4) Emphasis on personal freedom and individual rights;

(5) Hedonistic behaviour;

(6) Population heterogeneity;

(7) Mutual distrust;

(8) Unrest phenomena.

III. Causes of Social Disorganisation

Social disorganization has been and is always present in every society. As indicated above man since the dawn of civilization has been confronted with social problems of diverse nature. A society in which each structural element is functionally equilibrated with all the others is purely a hypothesis. If social disorganization is a widely prevalent phenomenon, then the question arises as to what leads to it.

(i) Division of Labour:

According to Emile Durkheim, extreme division of labour is the cause of social disorganization. Division of labour is generally productive of social solidarity; but when it becomes excessive and complex then solidarity diminishes or disappears and social equilibrium is disturbed. Extreme division of labour gives rise to economic crises of all kinds, class struggles, and industrial strife, and leads to the demoralization of individuals, the family, and the community. “In short” as Koenig puts, “it produces an abnormal, anomalous situation in which the different parts do not integrate but are at cross purposes with each other and a state of normlessness.”

(ii) Violation of Social Rules:

According to W.I. Thomas and Znaniecki, when the rules and regulations of society fail to keep individuals under control, social disorganisation sets in. In society there are always individuals who violate social rules. This has a disorganizing effect upon social institutions, and unless the violations are checked; they may eventually lead to the death of institutions. According to Elliot and Merrill, “Without social values neither social organisation nor social disorganisation would exist.”

The changes in social values come into conflict with old values. The new values take time to adjust themselves in society. In the meantime social disorganisation spreads. The Traditional social values in Indian society have undergone a major change. As a result a major conflict between the old and new values has been created. Consequently, one sees the process of social disorganisation working rapidly.

(iii) Industrialization:

Industrialization creates conditions leading to social disorganisation. The effects of industrialization on family structure and relationships. Industrialization as seen in system had led to capitalism, exploitation and class conflicts. It has also contributed to unemployment, crime, immorality, family disorganisation, urbanisation and its evils.

(iv) Cultural Lag:

Ogburn maintained in Social Change that disorganisation is caused primarily by the unequal rates of change in the different parts of culture, resulting in a conflict between them. The disproportionate rates of change in various elements of the functionally interdependent component system of a changing social structure produce a condition of disequilibrium. This uneven change is due to the fact that inventions and discoveries are made more frequently in certain parts of culture, usually the material parts, than in others.

Science and technology, while bringing a more efficient material culture, more knowledge, and a higher standard of living, produce social disorganisation as well. Thus Ogburn says, “When 10,000 musicians are thrown out of jobs as a result of ‘canned’ music through the sound film introduced in cinemas, the result is the disorganisation of orchestras, and musicians who cannot find employment.”

Modern technology is changing at a rapid rate and creating important social changes with which our institutions have not yet caught up. Ogburn by analysing various social problems such as unemployment, poverty, crime, race conflict, family disorganisation and labour problems has shown that social disorganisation issues from the irregular changes of our culture.

(v) Natural Catastrophes:

According to Ogburn, technological inventions, however, must not be considered the only cause of social disorganization, Ecological disturbances, i.e., disturbances in the relationship of man to his environment, including such natural phenomena as disease, earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions and various other catastrophic phenomena of nature, may also have a disorganizing effect on society.

When the Black Death visited England in 1348, it is said, it destroyed between a third and a half of the entire population in a little over a year. The effect of natural catastrophes on social organisation was great in the past; at present such catastrophes are more easily controlled.

We now have more knowledge with which to control or check epidemic, to build earthquake proof houses and to dam rivers against floods. However, recent experiences with floods in India suggest that the influence of geographic factors on social organisation should not be under-estimated.

Besides natural catastrophes there may be other types of crisis too which can cause social disorganisation. Thus the sudden death of a leader may create a crisis and throw the society out of gear. The murder of Mahatma Gandhi created such a crisis for India. A crisis may become cumulative as a result of a series of events taking place from time to time, the partition of India was a cumulative crisis.

The differences between the Congress and Muslim League went on increasing, hatred between Hindus and Muslims went on aggravating and communal clashes took place from time to time. The fire of communalism gradually spread. In the end the country had to be partitioned. Both the Indian and Pakistani societies were faced with serious problems which could not be solved even to this day.

While war is the result of social disorganisation, it is also its cause. War disturbs the economy of a country and introduces confusion and disorder in society. War leads to scarcity. There is economic crisis during the war period. It inflates the prices and the people resort to hoarding and black-marketing.

Further, war consumes the young men of the country. As a result young women are widowed. They are left with none to support them. That tends to weaken the sexual ties. War also affects the male-female ratio. Social values are also injured.

(vii) Maladaptation of Inherited Nature to Culture:

Ogburn mentions another cause of social disorganisation and it is the lack of adaptation of man’s inherited nature to the environment of group and culture. Man’s nature is modified very slowly through changes in the germ plasm, whereas culture is altered with comparative rapidity.

Group life implies cooperation and respect for the rights of others, yet the aggressive, acquisitive tendencies of man are not readily accommodated to the restrictions imposed by the group. The social environment may thus impose requirements on man which he finds most difficult to fulfill. The life in modern urbanised society is highly competitive and very taxing causing many individuals to become demoralized or to suffer breakdowns.

It may also be noted that in modern societies, whereas the epidemic diseases have been brought under control, other physical disabilities, circulatory disorders, cancer and various degenerative conditions have become more common. The increase in these diseases is a product of the modern way of life.

Nervous tensions that are induced by the stresses and strains of social change are thought to be primarily responsible for much of the high blood pressure, faulty heart action and gastric ulcers. The mental disorders are also considered to be directly related to the modern way of life. It may be said that these diseases are the price that men pay for social change.

At the end, it may be said that social disorganisation is a process prevailing all over the world. In actual fact no society is completely organised. Some elements or the other of disorganisation are to be found in every society. When these elements grow more numerous their disorganised character becomes more apparent than others.

All societies are changing rapidly accumulating numerous cultural lags at every point. In the family, in the industry, in the government, in the school and in the church a number of cultural lags can be seen.

The traditional informal controls have failed to regulate the behaviour of individuals in modern society. Many people fail to internalize a coherent system of values and behaviour controls. They become disorganised and are diagnosed as mentally ill.

It may also be referred that some sociologists regard social disorganisation as a natural process than as a malady. Mal­adjustment or non-adjustment of different parts of social structure may prepare a way for a new social structure to emerge. Social disorganisation may thus prove beneficial to erase the old edifice and construct a new one.

But the new structure should be erected before social disorganisation can destroy the entire social fabric. Social disorganisation is a disease of society which must be treated rapidly and effectively before it becomes chronic and destroys the social organism.

IV. The Nature of Social Problems:

Social problems are the conditions threatening the well-being of society. Lawrence K. Frank in an article ‘Social Problems’ in the American Journal of Sociology defined a social problem as “any difficulty of misbehaviour of a fairly large number of persons which we wish to remove or correct.” Paul B. Harton and Gerald R. Leslie defined it as “a condition affecting a significant number of people in ways considered undesirable, and about which it is felt something can be done through collective social action.”

Richard C. Fuller and Richard R. Meyers define a social problem as a condition which is defined by a considerable number of persons as a deviation from some social norm which they cherish. According to Lundberg and others, “A social problem is any deviant behaviour in a disapproved direction of such a degree that it exceeds the tolerance limit of the community”.

According to Green, “A social problem is a set of conditions which are defined as morally wrong by the majority or substantial minority within a society.” Social problems are situations or conditions which are regarded by society as threats to its established ways or to its well being and, therefore, needing to be eliminated or alleviated.

These situations are deplored by many people. They are the symptoms of social maladjustment. Social problems cause dissatisfaction, suffering and misery. Societies are not always harmonious. They face one another with hostility and suspicion. Therefore, several cases of maladjustment or un-adjustment present themselves in society. It is the purpose of Sociology to study such cases and discover the underlying causes.

Subjective Element of Social Problems:

Whether a particular situation is a social problem or not, is largely a matter of subjective judgment. One society may regard a situation a problem, while another may not so regard it. In the same society too what is regarded a problem today may not be so regarded tomorrow because of change of conditions and attitudes.

Social problems are what people think they are and if situations are not defined as social problems by the people involved in them, they are not problems to those people, although they may be problems to philosophers or scientists or to outsiders. Thus prostitution was no social problem in ancient Greece, where the earnings of priestess-prostitutes built and maintained the religious temples.

In ancient India caste system was no problem. The several castes accepted their hereditary status as fixed from the beginning, and their religion sanctioned their acceptance of hereditary status. Slavery in America would have never become a social problem had it not been challenged. In this way a particular situation does not become a social problem unless and until it is considered morally wrong by the majority or at least by a substantial minority.

However, inspite of this subjective nature of social problems, there are some social problems which are universal and permanent. War, crime, unemployment and poverty have always been regarded major social problems by all societies in all times. This goes to show that men everywhere have possessed the same basic drives and have had to deal with the same kinds of environmental and social conditions. That is why many of the social problems of today are identical with those of olden times.

Every social problem implies three things.

Firstly, that something should be done to change the situation which constitutes a problem;

Secondly, that the existing social order will have to be changed to solve the problem;

Thirdly, that the situation regarded a problem is undesirable but is not inevitable. The people deplore the situation because they think that it can be reformed or eliminated.

It may also be noted that a situation becomes a problem only after the people become aware that certain cherished valuations are threatened by conditions which have become acute. Without such awareness no situation can be identified as a problem. This awareness can be known when the people begin to say that “something ought to be done” to remove the situation.

When the people say “something ought to be done” they also propose that ‘this and that should be done.” Herein ends and means are discussed and alternative solutions proposed. Untouchability became a social problem in India only after it was realized by the people that it constitutes a threat to the social unity and that something ought to be done to abolish it.

Classification of Social Problems:

Some sociologists have made an attempt to classify social problems. Harold A. Phelps classified them under four categories corresponding to the four major sources, i.e., economic, biological, bio-psychological and cultural. Among the problems stemming from economic causes he listed poverty, unemployment, dependency etc.

Among those arising from biological sources he included physical diseases and defects. Among the problems emanating from psychological sources he included neuroses, psychoses, epilepsy, feeble mindedness, suicide and alcoholism. Among the problems deriving from cultural sources he included problems of the aged, the homeless, and the widowed; divorce, illegitimacy, crime and juvenile delinquency etc.

In America the Report of the President’s Committee on Recent Social Trends attributed social problems chiefly to inadequacies in physical heritage, biological heritage, social heritage and social policy.

Under physical heritage were included problems like depletion and conservation of natural resources, under the second category, i.e., biological were included problems of population quantity, quality, growth, decline and flexibility, as well as problems of eugenics and birth control.

In the third category (social heritage) were included problems involving technological changes, unemployment, business cycles and depression, education, politics, religion, public health, law of enforcement and minority groups. Under social policy were included problems of planning and reorganizing economic, social political life and institutions.

However, none of the problems listed above can be said to belong exclusively to any single category. Thus poverty may be due lo disease, a biological source; or to inadequate vocational preparation, which is a cultural source. Several causes may be celled for any other social problem.

Unemployment may be due to social policy or lo physical heritage. War may be due to economic sources or to cultural ones. The causes of each social problem lie not in one source but in many sources and, therefore, to find an adequate solution to a problem it is necessary to investigate all the causes.

V. The Causes of Social Problems:

No problem is due to a single cause. As stated in the preceding paragraph social problems have no single or simple cause. Each problem has a complex history and is usually due not to one but to many causes, which are sometimes even difficult to determine. Among the several causes no priority can be ranked.

War, poverty, crime or unemployment does not offer single or simple explanation for their occurrence. Sometimes one problem is so interwove with other problems that it cannot be solved apart from them, for example, the problems of crime cannot be solved without solving the problem of poverty and the problem of poverty cannot be solved without solving of problem of illiteracy. In other words, social problems should be considered in their complex totality and only then they will be understood and dealt with effectively.

Attempts to find out a single cause:

Inspite of the fact that no problem is due to a single cause some sociologists have nevertheless, made an attempt to find out a single explanation for a problem. Even to the laymen the notion that a problem is due to a simple and single cause is widespread.

Lombroso, the father of modern criminology, was of the view that the criminal behaviour is inborn and is primarily a biological phenomenon. He said that the criminal has definite physical stigmata, or anomalies, such as a symmetrical cranium, long lower jaw, flattened nose etc. He represents an atavistic type, or a throwback Lo primitive man.

The view of Lombroso that criminally is biologically determined was disproved by Charles Gorin, the English statistician, who proved that the criminals in no way differ from the non criminals in physical characteristics. Henry H. Goddard, an American psychologist, asserted that crime is due primarily to mental deficiency, especially feeblemindedness.

But his assertion was soon negated by various researches. Some sociologists point out that emotional imbalance or glandular disturbance is to be considered the primary cause of criminal behaviour. But their assertion also has been disproved by many criminologists.

The Dutch criminologist held the view that crime is a result mainly of the abuses or presence of the capitalist system. However, his view finds few adherents today. Montesquieu pointed out that the causes of crime are the geographical factors like climate, weather etc., but Cohen has rejected this view and asserted that the conception of Geographical school is more imaginative than factual.

The commonly accepted view about crime today is that there is no single cause of crime; for individuals become criminals for different reasons. Though some common factors may be present in many cases yet in almost every instance the combination of factors is unique. A situation or circumstance may cause one person to turn to criminally but may not affect another similarly.

The criminal behaviour is due to a number of interrelated factors involving environment and personality. Walter C. Reckless remarked that criminology may be forced to abandon the hopeless search for general causes of crime and be satisfied with establishing the relative importance of certain conditions associated with criminal behaviour.

What is true of crime is also true of other social problems like unemployment, poverty, suicide, war etc. No single or simple explanation can be offered for their occurrence. Unemployment may be due to bad economic planning, industrialization or inadequate system of education.

Poverty may be the result of poor conservation of natural resources, biological disabilities of the people or capitalistic system. Suicide may be due to mental un-adjustment, family disputes or evil social customs. Similarly, war may be due to the aggressive nature of people, economic conditions or imperialistic aspirations of some people.

Thus it is apparent that the particularistic interpretation of social problems ascribing them to a single cause is wholly inadequate. The origin of social problems lies not in a single cause but in many causes which cannot be put under a single theory.

A problem may be due to a combination of physical, biological, mental and cultural factors or any one of them. No hard and fast rule can be laid down about the causes of social problems. As discussed above a situation or condition may affect different people in a different way. People living under the same conditions do not necessarily behave in the same manner.

It does not, however, mean that any effort to find out the cause of a social problem is vain, but, on the other hand, it points out to the necessity of finding out all the causes of a problem and not to rest content with a single or clear cut explanation of it. Only after we have found out all the causes of a social problem, it can be adequately solved.

According to Lundberg and others, interferences with communication among the members of a community produce deviant behaviour. Interferences with communication may arise on account of two factors (i) Personal factors like feeble-mindedness, physical disability etc., and (ii) Social factors like urbanisation, industrialisation, immobility, conflicting codes and standards, and weak social institutions.

It may be that a particular factor is a primary source whereas the other factors are secondary, but which is the primary source, opinions differ on it. Thus P.A. Parsons held that the incomplete adjustment of man to material resources is responsible for his problems, whereas A. B. Wolfe maintained that the fundamental social problem is one of population. Ogburn contended that many social problems are the result of the failure of the original nature of man to adjust itself to constant changes in culture and its institutions.

Related Articles:

• Social Change: Notes on the Definition and Meaning of Social Change
• Social Stratification: Meaning, Characteristics and Dimensions
• The Meaning and Characteristics of Family
• Voluntary Associations: Meaning and Characteristics

Upload and Share Your Article:

• Description *
• Author Name *
• Author Email Id. (required) *
• File Drop files here or

• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Social Disorganization

Upload Your Knowledge on Sociology:

Privacy overview.

Social Disorganization

Social and Economic characteristics shape under-class communities. Sub-cultures in these communities will typically have parenting practices that hinder children’s intellectual and behavioral development. Children in these areas are prone to having problems with the law.

In the 1920-30s, the social disorganization theory developed by the Chicago School links high crime rates to localized city urban areas. It refers to the inability of community-based control of its residents more likely to engage in illegal activities. Sampson (1986) suggested that traditional social disorganization variables may influence community crime rates when considering the effects of levels of family disruption.

Disadvantaged communities with poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, and the lack of schooling have taken their toll on the families living there. These neighborhoods have been populated by new immigrants. While race or ethnicity is not considered the cause of crime, social disorganization tells of the collapse of community-based control like churches, schools, and local organizations being held responsible. I feel that the absence of family processes is where we lose our youth to crime.

Sampson (1992) attempted to consolidate the empirical findings that relate social disorganization to family processes and then to delinquency and youth violence. Social disorganization, directly and indirectly, influences the care of children and other family processes, and ultimately, rates of delinquency and crime. We are failing our children when there are cyclical clues that we need to look more into family processes. Shaw and McKay (1942) viewed the economic well-being of a community as a major determinant of variation in rates of delinquency.

Proficient in: Youth Violence

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997) examined how social disorganization influences violence and crime, via its effects on collective efficacy. Neighborhoods with high residential mobility, family disruption, and scarce local friendship lead our unsupervised youth to delinquency and street crime.

Strain Theory

Social structures play a role in the development of our youth and put pressure on them to achieve wealth and social status even in impoverished communities. This strain negatively affects the way individuals and our youth cope. The strain theory is a sociology and criminology theory developed in 1938 by Robert Merton. The problem, according to Merton (1938), is that despite the widespread belief in the possibility of upward social mobility, the American social structure limits individuals’ access to the goal of economic success through legitimate means. This can be seen in younger adults trying to achieve money, status, and respect. Many juveniles believe this will improve their outcomes but essentially failed to achieve their goals. But there isn’t enough study to show how individuals can cope with strain or its impact. Agnew’s (1985 and 1992) general straseveralin theory posits that strain leads to negative emotions, which may lead to several outcomes, including delinquency. These fathe factors increase the likelihood that communities and their adolescents will turn to delinquent adaptations for example drugs, illegal behavior, and violence.

Subculture Theory

Another concept developed by sociology scholars from the Chicago School is the subculture theory. The subculture theory argues that juvenile delinquents whose views differ from normal society could be prevented from becoming a criminal if they were understood. Cohen argues that working-class boys join deviant subcultures because of frustration from being denied status in society. So, the lack of respect from mainstream society will now be achieved by committing crimes condemned by mainstream society.

The theories emphasize communities, groups, and gangs central to the outcome of the juveniles and their connection to the crime. They also show that these problems are distinct in impoverished communities. Although these adolescent offenders are associated with low-level street crimes only, the theories illustrate how bad values are being transmitted down from generation to generation. This conduct by the deviants is seen to be normal and understood.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Where the three theories are weak is at showing us the difference in how groups commit crimes compared to the individuals. Cohen concludes that juvenile frustration is from being unable to achieve and that their actions are thought of as consequential by the group. Adolescents are being predestined to have heavy influence from their residential neighborhoods and peers, with little consideration of autonomy or free will. The Shaw and McKay theory fails to cover elements that would be missed without doing empirical studies. We cannot put all the emphasis on schools, churches, or local organizations. Policymakers have failed with their programs for decades because they are not run by people with ties to those neighborhoods and individuals. Family processes are key to making communities healthy again, mentally and emotionally.

Although all three were chosen from sociological theories, the social disorganization theory resonated with me. I was able to envision firsthand the transformations of my old neighborhood and its rapid decay in my youth. When the change started, I can remember how residents and neighbors stopped engaging in activities together. As I grew older I could see the change in the younger kids and the community, to be almost unrecognizable.

Script Kiddies Theory

My theory is named the “Script Kiddies” and their cybercrimes. Cybercrime is when a computer is the objective target of crime or is used as a tool for malicious online activity to commit a crime. With the rapid advancement of technology and the Internet, increased cybercrime has made law enforcement investigations difficult to enforce because of its instantaneous nature. There have been few studies on computer crime and since the term “hack” has only been around since the 1950s and 1960s, it is relatively new. This shows the perception the young have about hacking and its rewards for illegal activity. Society has failed to illustrate the retribution of these acts. Teenagers and young adults are using available computer tools written by experienced hackers to infect computers and damage websites. There is a false stereotype of these teens being an alienated and isolated group only connected to their computers is false. These script kiddies put importance into groups of hackers to become recognized in social circles or more recently theft. Many of these teens are misunderstood between being an individual with an interest in how things work and the ones with their justification for malicious intent. Law enforcement is struggling to find ways of tracking and prosecuting cybercrime, and parents cannot teach technology ethics since most cannot navigate their computers. Different from other theories because it focuses on the curious teen to be looked at as just a teen, and not a criminal by the legal system. The culture around hacking and the teens involved need to be better understood, and then their behaviors can be reformed into an outlet for computer science curiosity or technology enthusiasts.

Cite this page

Social Disorganization. (2022, May 14). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/social-disorganization/

"Social Disorganization." PaperAp.com , 14 May 2022, https://paperap.com/social-disorganization/

PaperAp.com. (2022). Social Disorganization . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/social-disorganization/ [Accessed: 24 Apr. 2024]

"Social Disorganization." PaperAp.com, May 14, 2022. Accessed April 24, 2024. https://paperap.com/social-disorganization/

"Social Disorganization," PaperAp.com , 14-May-2022. [Online]. Available: https://paperap.com/social-disorganization/. [Accessed: 24-Apr-2024]

PaperAp.com. (2022). Social Disorganization . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/social-disorganization/ [Accessed: 24-Apr-2024]

• Social Disorganization And Over The Hedge Pages: 5 (1293 words)
• Social Work Social Policy And Social Welfare Social Work Essay Pages: 10 (2786 words)
• An Introduction To Social Work Practice Social Work Essay Pages: 12 (3494 words)
• Person Values To The Work Of Social Care Social Work Pages: 17 (4895 words)
• Human Development Theory And Social Work Issues Social Work Pages: 9 (2405 words)
• Ethical Dilemmas Facing Social Workers Social Work Essay Pages: 11 (3091 words)
• Social Policy Essay: What is Social Policy? Pages: 8 (2107 words)
• Social Work Knowledge And Skills Analysis Social Work Essay Pages: 8 (2369 words)
• The Serious Social Issue Of Domestic Violence Social Work Essay Pages: 5 (1395 words)
• Social Administration Social Welfare Pages: 11 (3237 words)