Critical Literature Review Of Social Disorganisation Theory Of ...

Critical Literature Review Of Social Disorganisation Theory Of Criminol...http://www.articlesbase.com/print/18973462 of 7 1/25/2012 6:43 PMchanging. Their explanations for these were that populations were faced with certain social challengesirrespective of their biological predispositions. Consequently, those social challenges would lead to high crimerates even when those societies had minimal cases of immigrant arrival or population changes.The two sociologists put forward the argument that traditional norms were disoriented when there wasintroduction of commerce. This made social systems weaken and with time, they would eventually disappear.This could eventually lead to higher cases of crime and maybe even permissiveness towards it. Sutherland(1939) argued that there was a direct relationship between two aspects; social disorganisation in society andcrime organisation. He asserted that the latter was propagated by the former once society did not try toeliminate it.Farris (1948) did some more work in this area and eventually applied it to suicidal cases, mob justice andmental instability. According to him, social organisation was a long term and systemic interdependence ofindividuals within society. He believed that social disorganisation occurred when there was disintegration ofthis interdependence. Farris (1955) goes on to add that one can gauge crime rates on the basis of socialorganisation. Those ones that had minimal cases of crime were also the ones that were highly organised. Headds that cases of disorganisation were likely to occur in areas where there were high levels ofindustrialisation.Criticisms to the theoryIt should be noted that there were some critics to Farris', Shaw's and Sutherland's view. One such critic wasCohen (1955). He believed that the social disorganisation theory was only one sided. It was only relevantwhen explaining cases of delinquency or crime by asserting that there were no societal constraints. However,the theory could not explain how this came about; what were the pressures that caused individuals to exhibitdeviant behaviour. Merton (1957) believes that a satisfactory theory was one that examined both sides of thecoin; i.e. those who committed crimes and those ho did not.Cohen (1955) also brings forward certain facts about the seemingly ‘disorganised societies'. He says thatthose societies themselves hav4e certain levels of coordinated. When one asks some of the residents of thosepopulations about their way of life, most of them will argue that there are groupings made up of like mindedcharacters rather than the peasant societies that were simply lumped up in one large group. Cohen (1955)believes that some society may be organised but in a defective way; this does not mean that they aredisorganised.In response to those types of criticism, Sutherland (1968) brought forward new ideas about the issue. Heexplained that there are social systems in which pressures are inconsistent and by continuously subjectingindividual to this kind of system, then the influences would consequently turn out to be organised. Suttles(1968) also supports Sutherland's explanations through his book ‘social order of the slums'. He explains thatorganisation within any society can occur up to a certain extent but not wholly within the entire society. Thismeant that the level of social organisation depended upon the subject who was examining the issue. Actuallyproblems with the subjectivity of the social disorganisation theory brought an end to its use in the sixties. Thisis because social organisation was deemed as a negative character trait.Burner (1954) also did some work in the field of crime and delinquency and further added some criticism tothe social disorganisation theory. He believed that crime and delinquency were seen as indicators of socialdisorganisation yet at the same time. These were the same causative factors of crime. He explained thatsocial disorganisation could not be measured directly and that it could only be deduced from certainobservable issues. He adds that cases pf organisation were prevalent in all spheres if life even when theindividuals concerned were themselves socially deviant. This sociologist believed that social disorganisationwas in itself an ambiguous term and that its application were likely to cause one to circumvent around thesame thing.

Critical Literature Review Of Social Disorganisation Theory Of Criminol...http://www.articlesbase.com/print/18973463 of 7 1/25/2012 6:43 PMContemporary social disorganisation theoristsHowever, one should not ignore the fact that the social disorganisation theory has been used o link socialrelations to crime and also how the latter is linked to traditional social institutions. These arguments broughtabout some new introductions in that area. One of the recent sociologists in this regard were; Geerken,Crutchfield and Gove (1982). They believed that social cohesion was ruined upon the introduction ofdifferent populations. They went ahead to link this to the cases of prevailing crime rates to populationchanges.Stark et al (1983) also supported the belief that population turnover could infer social disorganisation andthey supported this with statistics in different countries. They provide a link between new populations andcrime rates. The main difference between these views and the earlier views of social disorganisation was thefact that research done later focused on the positive rather than on the negative aspect; that is, they mostlydealt with the issue of social organisation rather than disorganisation. Consequently, even the level ofcriticism against this new evidence was not as much as it was in the sixties.Contemporary social disorganisation theorists assert that their explanations may not necessarily apply to alltypes of crime. They add that most of the instances in which the theory would be appropriate are whendealing with cases of property crimes. However crimes like homicides which were committed between twospecific individuals may be explained with other theories. This is because the social disorganization theory isbased upon the issue of population turnover and therefore, when crimes deal with only one individual thenthis may prove to be inappropriate for the social disorganisation theory.Other ideas on the social disorganisation theorySome sociologists like Taylor (2001) introduced fresh concepts to the theory. He introduced the termcollective efficacy which he described as the existence of similar characteristics between different aspects ofsociety that facilitate social integration. He highlighted some of the traits that could make a society be deemedas possessing collective efficacy;1) When members of the community get along2) When there are local organisations3) When the local organisations collectively try to curb crime4) When members of the community have similar ideas about what is wring or rightKapsis (1978) did some work in this regard and came up with new ways of collecting data in the socialdisorganisation theory. He examined three different neighbourhoods experiencing three different levels ofpopulation changes. In one community, there were no population changes hence no racial changes, in anothercommunity, there were moderate levels of racial change and in the third, there were serious racial andpopulation changes. His results were consistent with the social disorganisation theory which found that crimerates were less prevalent in the ‘stable' community than in nay other community.Schwartz (1986) also found that delinquent behaviour among adolescents was rather high in communities thatwere not stable; he used self reports for his study. Others who have done working in this field includeSampson & Groves (1989). They conducted most of their research in two hundred neighbourhoods in Britain.They mainly examined cases of criminal offence and victimisation. In their study, they found that the reasonsbehind social disorganisation was that there were teenage groups that were unsupervised, they also cited casesof low levels of organisation and few instances of friendships within those communities. Some of the factorsthat caused the latter mentioned issues are

Critical Literature Review Of Social Disorganisation Theory Of Criminol...http://www.articlesbase.com/print/18973464 of 7 1/25/2012 6:43 PMfrequent movements between neighbourhoodsdisruptions within familiesethnic disharmonypoor economic situationsindustrialisation or urbanisationPatterson (1991) concurred with these findings by asserting that cases in which there were high cases ofdelinquency and crime corresponded to non-economical factors such as those factors cited in the socialdisorganisation theory. Other theorists also put forward the argument that crime rtes could be related to socialnetwork. Stark (1983), Krohn (1986) and Freundenberg (1986) supported those view points by explaining thatcases of social control could be instituted by informal existence of social networks. When there were certainrelationships between different members of the community, then cases of delinquency were likely to godown. The main difference between these views and those held by earlier theorists is the fact that there isexamination of both social organisation and disorganisation with regard to the social networks. This hasserved to eradicate some of the criticisms that were brought about in earlier work done by socialdisorganisation theorists.Some new concepts brought forward by Grasmick and Bursik (1993) clarified some of the vague aspects ofthe theory. They defined three major levels of social integration i.e.1) parochial control2) personal control3) public controlPersonal control is defined by the social networks that existed between different individuals within acommunity. Parochial control refers to relationships that exist between different members of the communityand their institutions; these may include schools and businesses as explained by earlier theorists such as Shaw.It is possible to find that one particular community has strong personal controls but has minimal or noparochial controls. Lastly, there is the issue of public control. This refers to the relationship between membersof the community and their government. Again, it may be possible to find certain societies with high levels ofparochial control but with minimal levels of public control. This is the reason why some areas such as slumsmay be deemed to have certain levels of organisation but still exhibit crime prevalence. The existence ofthese levels of control can also explain why there may be cases of gang violence in seemingly stableneighbourhoods.Wesley Skogan (1986) continued wit proposal made by Farris on the mid fifties about the connection betweencrime and social control. Skogan established a link between crime and social disorganisation. He claimed thatinstead of looking at crime as an out come of social disorganisation, there could be the use of a feedbackapproach. He explains that when crime and delinquency occurred within a given community, then this wouldcause more fear among the inhabitants and it would also cause withdrawal from members of the community;this could be manifested either psychologically or even physically. Later on, such a community would beplagued with deteriorating businesses and a weakening of control systems within that community.Skogan's work was supported by Marowitz (2001) et al. They used information from the British data to comeup with certain explanations. They asserted that there was a loop between; crime, fear and socialdisorganisations. Crime brought about fear and fear brought about social disorganisation. On the other hand,social disorganisation brought about crime. There was a level of interdependence between these three aspects.Relationships between social disorganisation theory and other theories

Critical Literature Review Of Social Disorganisation Theory Of Criminol...http://www.articlesbase.com/print/18973465 of 7 1/25/2012 6:43 PMThe social control theory is one in which there are certain linkages between cases of delinquency and socialcontrols. Hirschi (1969) explained that there were four main spheres of social controls that he felt needed tobe addressed in order to reduce devianceparticipation in traditional activitiesreception of moral beliefsattachments to othersloyalty to traditional goalsSocial bonds as put forward in the social control theory can be related to social networks as explained in thesocial disorganisation theory. Also, both theories look at the social causative factors of crime anddelinquency, the only difference is that in one, there is more precedence to population changes while in theother theory, there is precedence to community relationships. The latter corresponds with the social controltheory while the latter corresponds to the social disorganisation theory.Responses to criticismsBecause there have been criticisms made against social disorganisation theorists based on the fact that theyemphasise on the lack of controls rather than the motivating factors behind crime. Some theorists have comeup with various explanations to those criticisms. Merton (1957) proposed the issue of cultural values. Heargues that in urbanised societies such as the one he was studying placed a lot of pressure on their members toachieve economic success. However, that same society did not provide its citizens with adequate resources toachieve those goals. Consequently, they were tempted to utilise other unconventional ways in order to realisethose goals; some of them opt for crime.Cohen (1955) on the other hand, came up with his own motivating factors and strongly disagreed with theones put forward by Merton. He believed that there was pressure exerted upon teenagers and adolescents topursue goals impose upon them by their parents. Most of these teenagers feel frustrated in that process andreact by forming their own goal that are in exact opposition to the ones put forward by their parents. Hebelieves that most of this frustration propagates cases of subcultures. The latter cultures are usually formed indirect opposition to conventional beliefs and may make it okay o do things that are deemed deviant. This iswhy they may encourage crime.Other sociologists have drawn certain similarities between these two systems. They argued that bothmotivational factors proposed by Merton and Cohen linked goals and societal pressures. There were thereforecalled strain theories.Unanswered questions in the theoryJensen (1998) has argued that the above mentioned motivational factors may be contradictory. The mainissue behind the social disorganisation theory is the fact that there is a deficiency in institutional andcommunal systems during the process of instilling values in adolescents and members of the community. Thislack of values is the cause of crime. However, when one looks at the pressures stated above; pursuance ofconventional gaol, they find that it is not linked to crime. Agnew (2001) brought out the fact that whenindividual strive to pursue societal or traditional goals, there are minimal cases of crime. As a matter of fact,pursuing those goals deters crime and this goes against Cohen's and Merton's goals.The theory of social disorganisation presupposes that cultural norms and values generally discourage crimeand delinquency. However, there have been suggestions by Yinger (1960) and Empey (1967) that there arecertain ways in which cultural beliefs are ‘disorganised'. Gresham Sykes and Matza (1961) suggest there areinstances on which certain societies may not necessary respect or grant status to people who obey the law.They explain that sometimes people have profound respect for those who managed to abate the law and

Critical Literature Review Of Social Disorganisation Theory Of Criminol...http://www.articlesbase.com/print/18973466 of 7 1/25/2012 6:43 PMinvolve themselves in risky endeavours.Sykes and Matza (1958) suggest that there are instances when people may forgive or tolerate crimes when thevictim was not a very likeable character, or when an offender felt that he had no other alternative or whenthere was no clearly defined victim. These beliefs are even applied in legal systems where they are called‘extenuating circumstances'. One can therefore say that cultural norms may present conflicting meanings andmay bring about certain levels of ‘disorganisation'.Sellin (1938) put forward some points that are still unanswered. He believed that certain societies may havesubcultures and in each of those subcultures, there may be a very consistent and harmonious message putforward by the subcultures. However, it is possible to find that certain norms within one subculture may notbe tolerated by another culture. What this does is that it causes conflict especially when those groups: shareborders, share common laws or had different histories.ConclusionIn light of these facts, there is a challenge for sociologists to come up with distinctions between the varioustypes of ‘social disorganisation'. There is a need to measure social disorganisation. This has not been achieveduntil today. There is also a need to make out the differences between social organisation and socialdisorganisation in relation to crime. If all these issues are addressed, the theory of social disorganisation willbe satisfactory in the explanation of crime and delinquency. However, one must not underestimate what ithad achieved so far; it has managed to show that crime rates can be inferred to social factors and their lackthereof.Reference:Akers, R. (2000): Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application, 3rd edition. Los Angeles; Roxbury PressBursik, R. (1988): Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency; Criminology Journal, 6, 4,p 54Bursik and Grasmick (1993): Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective SocialControl, New York; Lexington BooksEmpey L. (1967): Delinquency Theory and Recent Research; Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 4Faris, R. (1955): Social Disorganization, 2nd edition, New York; the Ronald Press CompanyHirschi, T. (1969): Causes of Delinquency, Berkeley; University of California PressJensen, G. and Rojek, D. (1998): Delinquency and Youth Crime, 3rd edition, Prospect Heights,rd, Illinois; Wavelnd PressMatza, D. (1964): Delinquency and Drift, New York; John WileyMatza, D. and Sykes, M. (1961): Juvenile Delinquency and Subterranean Values; American SociologicalReview, 26, 4 , 33Merton, R. (1957): Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 1957.

Critical Literature Review Of Social Disorganisation Theory Of Criminol...http://www.articlesbase.com/print/1897346Miller, W. (1958): Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency; Journal of Social Issues14, 21, 19Patterson, E. (1991): Poverty, Income Inequality, and Community Crime Rates; Journal of Criminology, 29,12, 13Sampson, R. and Grove, W. (1989): Community Structure and Crime: Testing Social Disorganization Theory;American Journal of Sociology, 94, 6, 23Sellin, T. (1938): Culture, Conflict and Crime, New York; Research CouncilShaw, C. et al (1929): Delinquency Areas, Chicago; University of Chicago Press,Stark, R. et al (1983): Crime and Delinquency in the Roaring Twenties; Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 2, 20, 24Sutherland, E. (1939): Principles of Criminology, Philadelphia; J.B. LippincottTaylor, R. (2001): The Ecology of Crime, Fear, and Delinquency: Social Disorganization VersusSocial Efficacy, Pp. 124-140 in R. Paternoster and R. Bachman, Explaining Criminalsand Crime, Los Angeles; Roxbury PressVoss, H. and Petersen, M. (1971): Ecology, Crime and Delinquency, New York; Appleton-Century-Crofts