Social Disorganization Theory AND Anomie and Strain Theory
Social Disorganization Theory AND Anomie and Strain Theory
Name:
Institution:
Instructor:
Date of submission:
Introduction
Criminologists, in additional with other social scientists, they have tried to negate what reasons people are against the social and group norms regarding their criminal behaviours. Therefore, the sociologists have developed some social structures theories which help to connect behaviour’s patterns to social- economic control, as well as other factors such as the social environment. An organized crime is one which guided and tends to follow a particular pattern. However, with an organized crime it implies that the social disorganization exists in that community. Social disorganization theory of crime can be defined as issues that cover or surround the neighbourhood crime and how areas with particular demographic features tend to have crime rates. Essentially, the poorer areas are the one that has been affected as the proportions of the single-parent households are high thus the high residential turnover has more street crime. Clifford X and Henry W McKay the pioneer of social disorganization postulated that a disorganized community is mainly characterized by poverty, residential mobility and ethnic heterogeneity weakens social stability. For instance, youths who are from disadvantaged neighbourhoods major participate in a subculture, this approves of delinquency and also acquired criminality in the social and as well cultural setting.
Moreover, other theories that are related to crime is the anomie and strain theory. Some crimes committed by citizens may be due to social structures with is the society that amounts the pressure. Robert Merton was the pioneer of the theory. He never presented the two theories clearly in his seminal explorations majorly on the social-structure and anomie paradigm, which is stress theory and anomie theory. Anomie theory can be categories into two levels; the macro side of anomie which is the inability of the society to put or set limits on goals and as well as regulate individual conduct. The other category is the control theory. The strain theory is associated with frustrations that as well can be as the result of not achieving the set goals in life.
Social Disorganization Theory
In the social disorganization theory, it is evident that men are mostly likely to be offenders. Male are involved in all factors, in the society that is anything they do concerns the society. In social disorganization, the behaviour can be influenced by; make-up of the community, this structural formation or build-up of the community, cultural background of an individual as well is behaviour. A crime is committed according the individual’s social environment. The experience of the offender may be of that which poorly brought up. Many people especially the youths would want to be rich very fast, so the desire for wealth and success can drive them to commit crimes in the society so that they obtain wealth. In the context of crime being committed in the society than the Social structural theories applies. One can ask him/herself what the origin of the crime is. The origin of crime is associated with many factors in the society. Most of these factors are the social condition which individuals are exposed to. The situation could include the following; poverty, deprivation, frustration, lack of opportunity and deviant values this all conditions impacts to crime in the society.
The other theory under social disorganization is the social process theories which state that crime is as a resulted from various interactions that occur between people and the social environment. Therefore, an inappropriate or faulty social process results to crime. In general this theory tries to suggested that crime committed with individuals interact with the social environment, this suggest that when the social environment is in a way that it is not constructive than a few individuals may be forced to commit a crime. Consequently the social conflict theories as well hold in this theory. This theory majorly is concerned with this distribution of wealth and power in the society. The difference in class in the society can propagate individuals to indulge in crime. This crime is geared with dominant groups in the society sees law as a mechanism of social control that they are able to coerce others into compliance. Thus, it may make other individuals feel inferior and thus commit crime of revenge.
Social structural theories
This theory has differences in the social condition which creates; imbalance, discord and chaos in the society eventually due its disadvantages an individual commit crime. The following are differences of the social environment;
•Poor – rich
•Drop out of high school – university education
•Cities – suburban areas
•High paying jobs – employment benefits
However, this suggests that the difference between the rich and the poor contributes to crime. They have not may want to own wealth as the haves, but the only way to possess it will be through stealing from the wealthy. The other differences namely above are as well reasons as to why an individual could commit the crime.
In addition, the social structural theories are attributed by variation in economic and social condition that causes social disadvantages. In society more so the cities, the this social disadvantages has contributed to individuals indulging in crime
•Poverty
•Lack of educational opportunities
•Limited employment opportunities
•Deteriorating suburbs/housing
•Dysfunctional family conditions
•Conflicting value systems
Social structural theories direct attention to environmental forces driving individuals towards crime Individuals is a product of their social environment and the conditions that limit and impose restrictions on opportunities, experiences, choices, and ways of thinking.
Shaw and McKay studied about the local crime and delinquency, in respect to the social problems which plagued in Chicago and its suburbs. Social disorganization theory aims to expound the bigger ratio of the crime that occurred in several Chicago neighbourhoods. The pioneers realised that the high crime rates were persistence in the set Chicago neighbourhoods for a very long period though there as transformation in the racial and ethnic comprising of these communities. Social ills are used to ‘expound’ crime in different areas that are within the study of organized crime many of the theories that are used to explain how the organized crime functions are related direct to the social environment and how it is related to the individuals and as well as groups within the crime. Disorganisation can be related to overcrowding, increased transience, co-location of business-retail with residential and lack of community cohesion that makes the social structure to begin to collapse.
Social disorganization can as well be a result of rules and regulation set aside by the society being ignored by its members. In this situation organized crime and its disregard of the normal actions of members within the society where it exists.
“Organized crime may be described more as criminal cooperation with the “legitimate” world than organization or individuals engaged in criminal activities. Conspiracy is an accurate description of organized crime activity. Co-conspirators are the people who demand the goods and services provided by organized crime.” (Mallory, 2007)
As postulated by the bodies of recent research and studies that came prior, social disorganization theory continues to control in explaining the results of neighbourhood characteristics- especially, poverty, ethnic, heterogeneity and as well as residential mobility-on the rate of crime. Forecasting on the future, it possible that social disorganization theory will continue to be applicable to different types of crime committed and will continue to help on criminologists and social scientists while doing their analysis of criminal behaviour.
Anomie and Strain Theory
As suggested by Robert Merton in “Social structure and anomie” (Am. Soc.Rv.), condition in social structures create set of situations in individual and criminal will be the response. We can then define anomie as a state of normless and confusion within a person/individual. This state results from a discrepancy between cultural norms that defines success and appropriate avenues or means to achieve such goals that eventually leads to stress
Robert Agnew developed a theory that he gave it the name strain theory. The general theory by Robert developed from the output of Durkheim and Merton which was is the theory of anomie. There are two way to measure stress. First it is through subjective approach, whereby a researcher directly asks an individual whether he likes the way things are done or not. Secondly is the objective view approach, in which the researcher asks the person, caused strains which are pre-determined?
In this theory, there are different types of strains that may cause person to participate in crime. They include; failure to achieve goals that are positive, positive stimuli are lost, and presentation of the negative stimuli.
General strain theory has tried and specified the factors that enhance the like hood that a person will cope with the stress by committing crime. When an individual has the low tolerance for stress, poor coping skills and resources, few conventional social supports thus crime becomes a likely outcome.
Case Study
In the case study, the offender- Mr Shepherd is arraigned in court and charged of the offence he has committed. He causes harm on the body of his girlfriend with whom they have known each other for a long period. The may cause for the crime that Mr Shepherd committed was stress. He pleads guiltily by giving evidence by his past life and its subsequent impact upon his performance that is he has been damaged by death of persons of importance to him. In this case we conclude that the offender was under doing stress and strain, the offender use crime and delinquency to cope with such stress, therefore, leading him to beat Ms Dutton. In the context of socially disorganized theory, we find that the relative to the offender is murdered which mean that the society is rotten. The offender-Shepherd was under frustration over what had happened in his past life thus it was not his willing to commit that crime but due to negative forces.
The victim-Ms Dutton was one who was confused on what action to wake while being inflicted pain on her body by the offender. Thus this was only because she was weak. It is evident that the victim was from an organized society whereby when she got an opportunity to inform the police on the matter she rushed to do so. “It is at this time she informed Shepherd she had an appointment with the office and entered the office area. She then explained to a staff member that she required someone to contact the Aboriginal Health Service so that she could get away from the offender and receive medical treatment for her injuries. The call is made and a short time later she was collected in the rear lane. While it was occurring Shepherd left Centre link” however the victim was in support of the law, this clearly seen when the offender took her to the police station a record a statement then followed him in 413 William Street.
The offender is found guilty of committing domestic violence. Social disorganization attributes domestic violence. Some social factors such as frustration could have affected Mr Shepherd. As stated in the judgment the offender wanted to insert a tube into the Virginia of Ms Dutton, this is sexual harassment and shows what a society is made up. In this situation as we know anomie as a state of normless and state of confusion, than the offender was suffering from it when he needed to do that action. The verdict issued by the judge gives the offender by reducing the sentence by twelve per cent, thus this implies that the society knows of the critical situation the offender is undergoing of being traumatized. This situation in this society can cause an individual to indulge in crime.
Strength and weakness of the theories
The two theories have there have their weakness and as well their strengths pertaining crime committed. Although strain/anomie theory continues to play a major role in sociological theorization of crime it also has some limitations. It fails to address the of race gender, the amount of crime action that is ’non-utilitarian’ in addition the theory fails to talk on youth crimes that are often for social status instead of material acquisition. In the case study the crime committed was supposed to be categorized under the youth crime but it was under domestic violence. For the social disorganization it fails to account for the crime in affluent communities such as fraud, identity theft, an embezzlement of funds
On the another hand, the social disorganization theory portrays itself to be strong as is it talks about every aspect of crime that concerns society in addition to that of the neighbourhood. It explains how crime caused in a disorder organization of the society. Moreover the anomie/strain theory though some time conflicts with the social disorganization but tries to explain how the effects of stress and frustration would lead to crime.
References
TIBBETTS, S. G., & HEMMENS, C. (2010). Criminological theory: a text/reader. Los Angeles, SAGE.
THORNBERRY, T. P. (2004). Developmental theories of crime and delinquency. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction.
VITO, G. F., & MAAHS, J. R. (2012). Criminology: theory, research, and policy. Sudbury, Mass, Jones & Bartlett Learning.
FARIS, R. E. L. (1955). Social disorganization. New York, Ronald Press Co.
BRIGGS, S. (2013). Criminology for dummies. Hoboken, N.J., John Wiley & Sons. HYPERLINK “http://rbdigital.oneclickdigital.com” http://rbdigital.oneclickdigital.com.
EINSTADTER, W. J., & HENRY, S. (2006). Criminological theory: an analysis of its underlying assumptions. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield.
AKERS, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure a general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick [N.J.], Transaction Publishers. HYPERLINK “http://site.ebrary.com/id/10451562” http://site.ebrary.com/id/10451562.
IADICOLA, P., & SHUPE, A. (2003). Violence, inequality, and human freedom. Lanham [u.a.], Rowman & Littlefield.
WINFREE, L. T., & ABADINSKY, H. (2010). Understanding crime: essentials of criminological theory. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
SIEGEL, L. J. (2012). Criminology. Belmont, Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
MILLER, S. L. (2005). Victims as offenders: the paradox of women’s violence in relationships. New Brunswick, N.J. [u.a.], Rutgers Univ. Press.
CULLEN, F. T., WRIGHT, J. P., & BLEVINS, K. R. (2006). Taking stock the status of criminological theory. New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction Publishers. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10363106.
