1. Durkheim The “Chicago School” Social Disorganization
Social Structure I
Durkheim
The “Chicago School”
Social Disorganization

2. Emile Durkheim (late 1858-1917)
French Scientist
Suicide
Humans nature: selfish and insatiable
Effective Societies able to “cap” desires
Socialization & Social Ties
Special concern with “Industrial Prosperity”
Coined the Term “Anomie”:
Institutionalized norms lose ability to control human behavior and human needs

3. “Industrial Prosperity” therefore cap or control
Durkhiem’s Legacy
Rapidly Changing
Society
“Industrial Prosperity”
Anomie
(Norms are Weakened)
Human Nature as
Insatiable; must
therefore cap or control
Social Ties Important
The Anomie/Strain Tradition
(Thursday)
The Social Disorganization and “Informal Control” Tradition (Today)

4. Meanwhile, back in America
“Social Pathologists” ( )
Cities as “bad” and “corrupting”
Immigrants as amoral and inferior
Chicago School (1930s)
University of Chicago (Sociologists)
Tie to Durkheim: City/Societal Growth
Worry over lack of integration (and control)

5. Park & Burgess (1925) How does a city growth and develop?
Concentric Zones in Chicago
Industrial zone
Zone in transition
Residential zones

6. Shaw and McKay Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas 1942.
Mapped addresses of delinquents (court records)
Zone in transition stable and high delinquency rates over many years
Implications of these findings:
1. Stable, despite multiple waves of immigrants!!
2. Only certain areas of the city Something about
this area causes delinquency

7. Social Disorganization
What were the characteristics of the zone in transition that may cause high delinquency rates?
Population Heterogeneity
Population Turnover
Physical Decay
Poverty/Inequality
Why might these ecological characteristics lead to high crime rates?

8. Explaining high crime in the zone of transition
1. Social Control
Little community “cohesion,” therefore, weak community institutions and lack of control
2. Cultural Transmission of Values
Once crime rooted in a neighborhood, delinquent values are passed trough generations of delinquents

9. Social Disorganization 1960-1980
Fell out of favor in sociology in 1950s
Individual theories gained popularity
Criticisms of Social Disorganization
“Official Data”
Are these neighborhoods really “disorganized?”
Cannot measure “intervening variables”
“Chicago Specific” (not all cities grow in rings)

10. Modern S.D. Theory Addressing criticism
Interest rekindled in the 1980s
Continues today with “ecological studies”
reborn as a pure social control theory (left behind “transmission of values)
Addressing criticism
“Concentric rings” not necessary, it is simply a neighborhood level theory
Ecological characteristics do affect a neighborhoods level of informal control

11. Sampson and Groves (1989) Using British Crime Survey Data (BCS)
ECOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
Population turnover
Poverty / inequality
Divorce rates
Single parents
SOCIAL CONTROL
Street supervision
Friendship networks
Participation in
organizations

12. Sampson (1997) Replicated results in Chicago
Areas with “concentrated disadvantage,” (poverty, race, age composition, family disruption) lack “collective efficacy”
Willingness to exercise control (tell kids to quiet down)
Willingness to trust or help each other
Lack of collective efficacy increases crime rates

13. Review of Social Disorganization
Macro (Neighborhood) level theory
Explains why certain neighborhoods have high crime rates
Ecological Social Crime
Characteristics Control Rates
NOT an individual level theory
Avoid “Ecological Fallacy”

14. Policy Implications? Build neighborhood “collective efficacy”
How do you do this?
Address ecological characteristics that ruin collective efficacy
Family disruption, concentrated poverty, residential mobility

15. Other “ecological” ideas
William J. Wilson (Concentrated Poverty)
The “Underclass” or “Truly Disadvantaged”
Crime out of economic need, frustration…
Cultural Isolation no contact with “mainstream” individuals/institutions
Little respect for “life,” hypermaterialism…
Robert Bursik
Political capital; inadequate access to public services