Introduction
The social disorganization theory offers a societal perspective on crime, suggesting that broader societal dynamics shape a criminal’s psychology. Almost simultaneously with the biological direction, the social disorganization school of criminology arose. This theory significantly shaped global criminology throughout the 20th century, effectively merging theoretical constructs with empirical research.
Factors such as neighborhood characteristics, migration, unemployment, residents’ social standing, low-income levels, limited education, or the prevalence of single-parent families don’t solely determine the crime rate. Instead, it is largely influenced by the weakening of informal social controls enforced by the community. Therefore, crime is not only a naturally socially conditioned phenomenon but also a normal and useful one in society.
Theory Origins
The social disorganization school of crime explanation is also called the Chicago or Environmental school. Its origins are linked to research conducted in the 1920s and 1930s in Chicago and its environs (Vilalta et al., 2021). Sociologists Park, Burgess, and Mackenzie saw the city as a dynamic social organism, an integral part of which was the development of crime. They explored the relationship between humans and nature. Representatives of the Chicago School of Sociology systematically studied various social problems of the city of Chicago (Errol et al., 2021). Among them are the geography of crime, ecology, population growth and urban infrastructure, migration, and demographic changes.
Founder
The founder of the theory of social disorganization is the French sociologist Émile Durkheim. Building on the work of Park, Burgess, and Mackenzie, Durkheim was among the first to propose that crime is an inherent aspect of all societies and plays a role in social dynamics (Wikström & Kroneberg, 2021). Within this framework, crime is analogous to pain in that, despite being undesirable, it is a natural component of normal physiological processes. Durkheim’s ideas were developed and supplemented by the American Robert Merton and others.
Emile Durkheim is a professor of sociology and pedagogy at Bordeaux and the Sorbonne, he also founded the journal L’Année Sociologique (Wikström & Kroneberg, 2021). Durkheim is one of the founders of the structural-functional approach in sociology. He asserted that each social phenomenon corresponded to a certain need of society. In contrast to atomistic conceptions, Durkheim sees society as a unique reality that cannot be reduced to a collection of people (Lei & Beach, 2020). He was among the first sociologists to attempt to combine theoretical and empirical analyses of social phenomena.
Rationale for Crime Existence
The social disorganization theory posits that crime is an inevitable component of society for several reasons. It is not feasible to adopt anti-criminal sentiments universally across all social emotions (Vilalta et al., 2021). This stems from the inherent diversity among individuals, leading to the inevitable presence of those who reject the established societal norms.
Should society minimize the variance between individual and collective behaviors, even minor deviations could be perceived as criminal acts. Overly stringent measures to curb moral transgressions can be detrimental, impeding societal progress in moral and ethical domains (Vilalta et al., 2021). Consequently, crime is deemed necessary due to its intrinsic connection to the fabric of social life, playing a vital role in the natural development of ethics and legal systems.
Factors Influencing Crime
Explaining the behavior deviating from social norms, the greatest attention in the theory of social disorganization is paid to suicides and murders. Two scientific categories are used: social cohesion and anomie. Mechanical solidarity predominates in archaic societies, while organic solidarity predominates in modern ones (Liu, 2020). The system of influencing crime in the theory of social disorganization is based on nonviolent measures, since the mechanisms of regulating social processes are at the heart of crime regulation. During stable times, the law serves not as a heavy burden imposed by the physical environment on the individual, but rather as a reflection of a more elevated communal awareness.
Two key social dynamics influence crime: the first being the extent of social integration, which is notably characterized by two forms of solidarity (Wikström & Kroneberg, 2021). The mechanical form of solidarity, which relies on the subjugation of individual traits, leads to the dilution of personal identity as one becomes assimilated into the collective (Errol et al., 2021). The second level is organic and grounded in the harmony between individual and social consciousness.
The mechanical type is based on the similarity of individual consciousnesses, completely absorbed by the collective. Mechanical solidarity gives way to organic solidarity, which is based on functional division and individual differences, as social labor divides. In a successful, morally healthy society, there is always great cohesion, as evidenced by the fact that the majority shares ideals and ideas about what is right and wrong (Liu, 2020). Periodically, when the social balance is disturbed, which can occur both as a result of an economic disaster and with a sharp increase in the welfare of the country (Wikström & Kroneberg, 2021). Then people’s connectedness fades, and society becomes disorderly.
The second societal factor influencing crime is anomie, defined as a breakdown in social cohesion and structure, which often gives rise to numerous adverse social outcomes. Concurrently, established social norms diminish in significance, leading to a divergence between personal and collective perspectives (Lei & Beach, 2020). Anomie represents the abnormality and crisis of society.
One of the main causes of crime in social disorganization is considered to be the pathology of consumerism, which society must limit the desire of its members (Wikström & Kroneberg, 2021). If society does not do this, it is threatened with chaos and disorganization, that is, anomie (Lei & Beach, 2020). Despite the explanation of crime as a social phenomenon, one cause of social disorganization is the degeneration of individuals within society.
Phenomenon of Anomie
Social disorganization is expressed in the phenomenon of anomie. This term, borrowed from the theological lexicon, literally translates as non-normality (Vilalta et al., 2021). Anomie is a social condition in which morality’s restraining function is drastically reduced (Errol et al., 2021). As a result, society is unable to exert a limiting effect on a person for some time.
The overall condition of disarray, also known as anomie, is further exacerbated by a marked reluctance to rein in passions precisely when discipline is most crucial (Lei & Beach, 2020). Thus, the theory of social disorganization reveals a normative phenomenon by its nature – anomie, which is the main cause of criminal behavior (Vilalta et al., 2021). In countering crime, a decisive role is assigned to the reconstruction of European spiritual traditions, which oppose the questions of the meaning of life to material needs.
The concept of anomie is examined from two perspectives: as a societal trait and as an individual trait. Anomie can stem from a discrepancy between the objectives endorsed by society and the legitimate methods it deems acceptable. The promotion of the goals of personal success and well-being, generally accepted in American society, is countered by limited access to socially approved channels for achieving them (Errol et al., 2021). Such are the aspirations for education, profession, wealth, and status (Vilalta et al., 2021). Consequently, for the lower echelons of society, there is essentially a singular recourse – the breach of legal standards. The articulation of objectives and means is regarded as the foundational principle underpinning the theory of social disorganization.
Representatives of the idea explain the rise in crime by citing the negative implications of such events in the modern stage of societal development. It encompasses the scientific and technical revolutions, urbanization, population movements, and the evolution of mass media (Errol et al., 2021). However, the study of all these phenomena is superficial and ignores the socio-political conditions in which they occur (Vilalta et al., 2021). In particular, it does not take into account their spontaneity, orientation, the media’s activities in an antagonistic society, and its corrupting influence.
Historical Background
The historical aspect of crime ecology has been studied. In the ancient and Middle Ages, crime was rural; that is, cities were walled (Lei & Beach, 2020). It was easier for criminals to rob caravans, carriages, and travelers heading from one city to another. When cities modeled on modern ones arose in the 17th and 18th centuries, crime largely became urban crime (Errol et al., 2021). The presence of historical context allows for a more in-depth analysis of crime in modern times.
Today, the interpretation of deviant behavior through the lens of social disorganization theory is widely acknowledged. Thus, the period of political and socio-economic reforms in the early 90s not only led to a state of anomie but also largely destroyed the former social identity and the social control system, thereby spurring processes of social disorganization (Lei & Beach, 2020). It is no coincidence that it was at this time that criminal statistics and sociological surveys recorded an unprecedented transformation of the crime structure and its growth, especially in urban and marginal environments.
Crime Zones Division
These investigations commenced in response to the worsening conditions in America’s large cities during that period, marked by the era of the Great Prohibition. During this time, crime became particularly pronounced (Errol et al., 2021). The theory posited that the highest delinquency rates occurred in the city’s central regions, including commercial and industrial zones. It was observed that as one moved away from these central and industrial locales, delinquency decreased (Vilalta et al., 2021).
The lowest crime rate is in residential urban areas, but the overpopulated poor areas are considered an exception. This is because their population consists mainly of immigrants (Vilalta et al., 2021). Minor property crimes may be concentrated near the culprits’ homes, while more serious property crimes are committed farther away.
This theory established a categorization of various urban zones and districts, assigning each a specific number. Zone 1 represents the city’s economic hub, while Zone 2 is identified as an area in decline, where residential structures once stood but have been slowly supplanted by small businesses (Vilalta et al., 2021). This includes an area where small offices, stores, apartment complexes, and budget-friendly bars intermingle, making it hard to classify as either commercial or residential.
Zone 3 comprises industrial enterprises and residential areas where workers live (Vilalta et al., 2021). Zone 4 is home to representatives of the middle and upper classes. Ultimately, the 5th zone refers to the suburban areas of a large city, where many workers commute to the city center for work via public transportation (Wikström & Kroneberg, 2021). This distribution of the city into zones allows us to identify the areas where crime is most likely to occur.
Positive Aspect of Social Disorganization
According to the theory of social disorganization, the subject of sociology is social facts, which have two distinctive features. The first is objectivity, that is, external existence, and the second is compulsion towards individuals (Errol et al., 2021). Social facts include images of thoughts, actions, and feelings that are external to the individual.
Simultaneously, collective tendencies transcend individual inclinations, embodying something beyond the mere aggregate of personal opinions (Errol et al., 2021). Therefore, public morality is always stricter and more uncompromising than individual morality. Society’s morality dictates the rules of behavior for specific people.
A noteworthy aspect of the social disorganization theory is its recognition that rising crime rates parallel the rapid advancement of human civilization. This increase in crime is intimately linked to the weakening of social norms, as societal standards for acceptable and legal conduct become diluted in collective awareness (Errol et al., 2021). However, it’s important to note that not all deviations from societal norms yield positive outcomes.
Some deviations can be beneficial, fostering societal innovation and progress (Lei & Beach, 2020). Examples of such positive deviations include the adoption of new technologies in manufacturing and the labor reorganization that accompanies these innovations. The challenge lies in foreseeing and mitigating the adverse effects that may arise from societal evolution.
The expansion of a social community’s contacts with the outside world has a decisive influence on social disorganization. This leads to the formation of new social attitudes and expectations among members of this community (Liu, 2020). In these conditions, the effectiveness of the application of old, traditional rules of conduct decreases (Lei & Beach, 2020). Thus, social disorganization is seen as part of the process of social change.
Conclusion
Overall, the theory of social disorganization dispels the illusion that crime and its causes can be eliminated. The presence of crime within a society is an essential, normal, and beneficial occurrence, integral to the natural progression of ethics and law. It is only when crime rates become excessively high or low that they are considered abnormal. This is because, in the first case, society is at risk of disintegration, and in the second, there is a lack of development. Given this rationale, it becomes essential to set a standard for criminal behavior within society and to address only those instances that clearly exceed it and warrant criminal punishment.
References
Errol, Z., Madsen, J. B., & Moslehi, S. (2021). Social disorganization theory and crime in the advanced countries: Two centuries of evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 191(6), 519-537.
Lei, M. K., & Beach, S. R. (2020). Can we uncouple neighborhood disadvantage and delinquent behaviors? An experimental test of family resilience guided by the social disorganization theory of delinquent behaviors. Family Process, 59(4), 1801-1817.
Liu, L. (2020). Family, parochial, and public levels of social control and recidivism: An extension of the systemic model of social disorganization. Crime & Delinquency, 66(6), 157-177.
Vilalta, C., Lopez-Ramirez, P., & Fondevila, G. (2021). The spatial diffusion of homicide in Mexico City: A test of theories in context. Global Crime, 22(3), 222-239.
Wikström, P. O., & Kroneberg, C. (2021). Analytic criminology: Mechanisms and methods in the explanation of crime and its causes. Annual Review of Criminology, 5(24), 179-203.