Social Structure I Durkheim The “Chicago School” Social Disorganization

Emile Durkheim (late ) 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

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)

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)

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

Shaw and McKay Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas –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

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?

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

Social Disorganization 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)

Modern S.D. Theory 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

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

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

Review of Social Disorganization Macro (Neighborhood) level theory –Explains why certain neighborhoods have high crime rates Ecological Social Crime Characteristics Control Rates Theory of “Places,” and not “People” –Not all people who live there are “crime prone,” in fact most are law-abiding

Other recent “ecological” ideas William J. Wilson (Concentrated Poverty) –The “Underclass” or “Truly Disadvantaged” –Cultural Isolation  no contact with “mainstream” individuals/institutions Little respect for “life,” hypermaterialism, violence as “normative” Robert Bursik –Political capital; inadequate access to public services

S.D. as an explanation for high rates of African American offending “Non-Southern” blacks –High proportion of the current members of the “Zone in Transition.” –Why not move like ZIT residents (immigrants) Housing Segregation Loss of Manufacturing Jobs

Policy Implications? Build neighborhood “collective efficacy” –How do you do this? Address ecological characteristics that ruin collective efficacy –Family disruption, concentrated poverty, residential mobility Moving to Opportunity Program in Baltimore Randomly moved 200 families from high poverty to low poverty—then track the children Community Policing Movement