Social disorganization theory refers to a theory in criminology that attributes crime and delinquency variation over a period to the absence or total breakdown of institutions owned by the community such as families, churches or schools thus disintegrating the usual coexistence that existed among people. Generally, social disorganization explains the lack of organization at all levels of social stratification.
This theory holds that place matters most than an individual’s character in influencing the occurrence of a crime. It has been used by sociologists to explain the increase in crime, delinquency and other social problems. For instance, rapid growth and change were viewed as ‘disorganizing’ or ‘disintegrative’ forces. As such, this contributed to a breakdown in the teaching and learning of those prior ‘social rules,’ which had inhibited crime and delinquency in European peasant society (Cavan 35).
Edwin Sutherland used social disorganization to explain the high increase in crime that resulted in the transformation of preliterate and peasant societies where, “influences surrounding a person were steady, uniform, harmonious and consistent to modern Western civilization which he believed was characterized by inconsistency, conflict and un-organization” (Cavan 36). He also believed that the following factors led to the disintegration of the communities and families that were once united. This included mobility, economic competition and the individualistic ideology of capitalism and industrial development.
This undermined government control as they were not governed by either family or neighborhood control. Finally, Cavani came to this conclusion; “if the society is organized regarding the values expressed in the Law, the crime is eliminated; if it is not organized, crime persists and develops” (Cavani 38).
The social disorganization theory also faced some criticism as it never gave a satisfactory explanation for increased crime. Albert Cohen described it as wholly negative since it holds that delinquency is a result of an absence of effective constraints. He argued that this theory had failed to address the dispositions of delinquency in the absence of constraints. The theorists of Social disorganization believed that the high crime rate is a result of weak communal constraints.
Burges and Bogue (128) argued that social disorganization theory was high for a locale in a situation where residents do not get along with one another, are not members of the local organization for the betterment of the community, have different opinions about acceptable behaviors on the streets and they are unlikely to intervene when they encounter a wrong. The theory also brought about the cultural conflict in that it depicted society as a collection of socially differentiated groups with distinct sub-cultural perspectives. Burges and Bogue (129) stated the following three ways through which such conflict would happen; firstly, those with different standards overlapping, secondly, laws of one group were extended to incorporate others and finally distinct groups migrated to new territories.
Delineation among different forms of social disorganization has been introduced in the revival of the theory through social and cultural differentiation. The concepts of socio integration and collective efficacy have remained to be distinct features of social disorganization. This theory has continued to survive because of its assumptions that social factors are the fundamental causes of crime and that the components of social structures are unstable. Furthermore, the theory holds that the effects of instability are worse for the lower classes and finally that human nature is naturally good but subject to vulnerable situations and cannot resist temptation.
Works Cited
Burgess, Ernest and Bogue Donald. Contributions to Urban Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Print.
Cavan, Shonle. Delinquency and Crime: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1968. Print.