Emile Durkheim Social Disorganization Theory

In his first chapter, Erikson gives regard to a foremost leader in sociology; Emile Durkheim. As he notes, crime is really a natural kind of social activity. If crime is a natural part of

Frank Schmalleger explains the theory of social disorganization as one that depicts both social change as well as conflict, and lack of any agreement as the origin of its cause for both criminal behavior as well as nonconformity to society and closed associated with the ecological school of criminology (Schmalleger, 2012, p. 152). The philosophy behind the organization and structure of a society and how that contributes to criminal behavior within society is by stressing poverty, economic conditions, lack of education, lack of skills, are not sought-after in the work place, and divergent cultural values. Criminal behavior is the result of the person’s assignment of location within the structure of society.

The Three Main Theories of Deviance and Their Strengths and Weaknesses A functionalist analysis of deviance looks for the source of deviance in the nature of society rather than in the biological or psychological nature of the individual. Although functionalists agree that social control mechanisms such as the police and the courts are necessary to keep deviance in check, many argue that a certain amount of deviance can contribute to the well-being of society. Durkhiem (1895) believed that: * Crime is an 'integral part of all healthy societies'.

Kornhauser (1978) criticized this social disorganization theory and indicated that the cultural transmission was problematic. If the crime could be cultured, then it could be organized, it could promote itself,

"When a man is denied the right to live the life he believes in, he has no choice but to become an outlaw," (Kazi, 2017). The modern societies around the world put a high importance on preventing criminal activity and rectifying behavior that leads to crime. In an ongoing struggle against corruption, many sociologists, and psychologists have done in-depth research to understand what is the cause of crime in our society. Initially, in 1893, Emile Durkheim first came up with the idea called Anomie Theory to explain why offenses take place in our communities. Durkheim reported that crimes took place in our society because there was a lack of ethical norms and social standards within our communities (Walsh, 2018).However, almost half a century later, Robert K. Merton developed Merton's Strain Theory to thoroughly explain why some people in our society are more likely to commit crimes than the others who don’t. Merton’s Strain Theory argues that corruption not only occurs in our communities because we lack norms in our society, but are also caused by the strains that are present among us as individuals which influence people to commit the crime. In his explanation, people will resort to achieving success through illegitimate means when they are blocked from acquiring success through legitimate means (Walsh, 2018). After studying the classical strain theories, I think that Merton’s Strain Theory explains street crimes such as robbery, theft, assault, and drug dealing better than

Have you ever watched the news and wondered why so much crime is taking place in or around your neighborhood and by whom? You're not alone in trying to figure out why that is happening. The city of Chicago was experiencing major crime in their neighborhood by juvenile delinquency and could not pinpoint the reason behind it. Criminology theorists went on a mission to find why crime was popular in the neighborhoods of Chicago. They created a theory called social disorganization theory which is also known as the theory of the Chicago school.

Everyone in criminology is striving to find the extent and the cause of criminal behavior. One of the major theories of causation is the social structure theory of crime. In this theory they believe that crime is primarily caused by being in a disadvantaged economic class. In this paper I want to take the position of explaining the social structure theory and some of its subparts. I will be focusing on two main subparts: the anomie and strain theory and the social disorganization theory. But, first let me start off by talking about the association between social structure theory and crime itself.

Emile Durkheim studied deviance with the functionalism approach. Functionalism argues that each element of social structure helps maintain the stability of society (156). Durkheim actually viewed crime and delinquent behavior as a normal and necessary occurrence in a social system. These societies see the behavior as wrong and a punishment is the consequence. Functionalists believe that deviance helps clarify moral boundaries. It helps society’s moral compass to distinguish the difference between what is right and what is wrong. A function of deviance is to promote social cohesion; people can be brought together as a community in the face of crime or other violations (156).

Following Osgood and Chambers, In 2006 Joanne C. Jacob did an article named, Male and Female Youth Crime in Canadian Communities: Assessing the Applicability of Social Disorganization Theory which focuses on the relationships between community characteristics and the delinquent activities of both male and female youth. In this study, there was no research questions or hypotheses being posed. Jacob considered factors such as residential instability, ethnic heterogeneity, urbanization, socioeconomic status, and supervision as independent variables (2006). Jacob considered arrest rates as the dependent variable. This cross-sectional study examined written records of 417 municipalities of no more than 25,000 residents (Joanne Jacob,2006). Joanne Jacob found that family attachment, family control, school commitment, strain, differential association, and social disorganization are significantly

One of the most central questions in the study of neighbourhood outcomes is the question of what accounts for the unequal pattern of crime by race and ethnicity, in which the violent crime rate in minority neighbourhoods is often higher than in white neighbourhoods. Among the different explanations proposed, there is a predominant theory: the theory of social disorganization. As described by Dr. Rengifo (2009), the social disorganization theory, forwarded by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942), suggests that the variation in crime rates is linked to the weakened social integration of neighbourhoods which is a result of the presence of delinquent subcultures and structural factors on social interactions that lead to the absence of self-regulatory mechanisms.

Social disorganization theory explains the ecological difference in levels of crime, simply based on cultural and structural factors that influence the social order in a given community. Social disorganization is triggered by poverty, social stability, ethnic heterogeneity, and a few key elements. Although Clifford Shaw and Henry D. McKay (1942), were known for social disorganization theory, in 1947 Edwin Sutherland introduced the notion of a ecological differences in crime that is the result of differential social organization. Despite similar arguments on social organization, Shaw and Mckay argued that the cultural integration explained the ecological variation in crime rates as a result of the negative impact on the community. Also elaborating on structural socioeconomic factors shaping informal control like poverty, heterogeneity, and residential mobility. Later Robert Sampson and Byron Groves (1989), refined the work of Shaw and Mckay by highlighting on the importance of social ties and new measures of social disorganization.

The main assumption of Social Disorganization Theory is the ability to explain why crime committed by lower class communities is more prominent than neighborhoods from communities in better economic areas. This theory is the relationship of the destabilization of urban communities and neighborhoods through Shaw and McKay’s study (Quoted in Siegal, 2010) that used the analysis of Ernest Burgess’s Concentric Zones Model. This model generates ideas that the closer to “zone 2”, individuals in a community have more stress factors

Social Disorganization theory connects crime rates to neighborhood ecological characteristics. Based on the research and according to Osgood and Chambers, social disorganization theory specifies three important variables; residential instability, ethnic Heterogeneity, female-headed households. These three variables are considered to be the most criminogenic.

The Social Disorganization theory is an intriguing theory that can be seen in our society today. This theory states that “disorganized communities cause crime because informal social controls break down and criminal cultures emerge” (Cullen 6). The city of Chicago was the predominate focus upon the construction of this theory. The reasoning for this was because Chicago was the fastest growing population in the 19th century, a population starting at 5,000 in 1800 and growing to 2 million in 1900, nearly doubling every decade. At this point in time, the city was composed of citizens who did not speak a common language nor shared the same cultural values. Due to this social divide, these community members were unable to organize themselves in

The functionalist theory interprets all parts of society: the functional and dysfunctional. Although crime and deviance may seem to be dysfunctional to society, they are important aspects of society because they help to create social norms and social order. Crime and