Going to talk about three areas of work that revise and extend the classic social disorganization model
Context
Social Control Model of Social Disorganization
Systemic Model of Social Disorganization
Peterson & Krivo (2010)
Going to talk about three areas of work that revise and extend the classic social disorganization model
Social disorganization out of favor
Generally out of favor through 60s and 70s due to issues with tautology, difficulty applying it, inability to explain crime in some contexts; critiques from those finding highly organized social systems in poor and crime ridden neighborhoods
Social disorganization out of favor
Generally out of favor through 60s and 70s due to issues with tautology, difficulty applying it, inability to explain crime in some contexts; critiques from those finding highly organized social systems in poor and crime ridden neighborhoods
Subcultural and strain models grew in popularity; so-so to weak support but persistently used to explain deficiencies in social disorg models while staying away from inherent criminality models that came before
Social disorganization out of favor
Individual models of crime
Resistance to social control
Generally out of favor through 60s and 70s due to issues with tautology, difficulty applying it, inability to explain crime in some contexts; critiques from those finding highly organized social systems in poor and crime ridden neighborhoods
Subcultural and strain models grew in popularity; so-so to weak support but persistently used to explain deficiencies in social disorg models while staying away from inherent criminality models that came before
Evidence against monolithic value systems; ideological resistance to enforcement of conformity--belief in embracing differences in values
Social disorganization out of favor
Individual models of crime
Resistance to social control
Resistance to natural / ecological model of development
Generally out of favor through 60s and 70s due to issues with tautology, difficulty applying it, inability to explain crime in some contexts; critiques from those finding highly organized social systems in poor and crime ridden neighborhoods
Subcultural and strain models grew in popularity; so-so to weak support but persistently used to explain deficiencies in social disorg models while staying away from inherent criminality models that came before
Evidence against monolithic value systems; ideological resistance to enforcement of conformity--belief in embracing differences in values
Layout and organization of cities is not natural, market-based, or product of residents but product of capitalist production and external political forces.
Logan & Molotch state neighborhood inequality persists because it profits the growth machine in collusion with public officials and businesses
Delinquents have conventional norms, just occupy disadvantaged position
Partly Hirschi's argument--delinquents and delinquent groups generally espouse conventional values but are weakly bound to them.
Disadvantaged position makes costs for delinquent low and gains relatively high
No evidence for delinquent subcultures
Delinquent subculture incompatible with social disorganization
Delinquents have conventional norms, just occupy disadvantaged position
Partly Hirschi's argument--delinquents and delinquent groups generally espouse conventional values but are weakly bound to them.
Disadvantaged position makes costs for delinquent low and gains relatively high
Kornhauser basically says social disorganization's key idea is incompatible with deviant subculture. Delinquency can't be caused be an autonomous delinquent subculture if it is also caused by absence of controls. Control argument says if you removed everyone from community and replaced with new people, you'd have high delinquency due to institutions being gone. But subculture argument says you'd have no delinquency.
Her argument: Disorganization precedes and causes any apparent subculture and it is not self-sustaining--it is a symptom of controls. This is essentially using Hirschi's argument about control vs subcultural theories.
For Kornhauser, lack of controls makes delinquents and precedes any delinquent grouping.
Kornhauser does permit that disorganization may produce cultural attenuation: Disconnection between values and practical reality
No evidence for delinquent subcultures
Delinquent subculture incompatible with social disorganization
Recast social disorganization as pure social control model
Delinquents have conventional norms, just occupy disadvantaged position
Partly Hirschi's argument--delinquents and delinquent groups generally espouse conventional values but are weakly bound to them.
Disadvantaged position makes costs for delinquent low and gains relatively high
Kornhauser basically says social disorganization's key idea is incompatible with deviant subculture. Delinquency can't be caused be an autonomous delinquent subculture if it is also caused by absence of controls. Control argument says if you removed everyone from community and replaced with new people, you'd have high delinquency due to institutions being gone. But subculture argument says you'd have no delinquency.
Her argument: Disorganization precedes and causes any apparent subculture and it is not self-sustaining--it is a symptom of controls. This is essentially using Hirschi's argument about control vs subcultural theories.
For Kornhauser, lack of controls makes delinquents and precedes any delinquent grouping.
Kornhauser does permit that disorganization may produce cultural attenuation: Disconnection between values and practical reality
No evidence for delinquent subcultures
Delinquent subculture incompatible with social disorganization
Recast social disorganization as pure social control model
Disorganization impedes internal and external controls
Delinquents have conventional norms, just occupy disadvantaged position
Partly Hirschi's argument--delinquents and delinquent groups generally espouse conventional values but are weakly bound to them.
Disadvantaged position makes costs for delinquent low and gains relatively high
Kornhauser basically says social disorganization's key idea is incompatible with deviant subculture. Delinquency can't be caused be an autonomous delinquent subculture if it is also caused by absence of controls. Control argument says if you removed everyone from community and replaced with new people, you'd have high delinquency due to institutions being gone. But subculture argument says you'd have no delinquency.
Her argument: Disorganization precedes and causes any apparent subculture and it is not self-sustaining--it is a symptom of controls. This is essentially using Hirschi's argument about control vs subcultural theories.
For Kornhauser, lack of controls makes delinquents and precedes any delinquent grouping.
Kornhauser does permit that disorganization may produce cultural attenuation: Disconnection between values and practical reality
Enforcement of role obligations includes things like requirements of work, school, etc.
Kornhauser's approach is linked closely to Hirschi. There is a dominant set of cultural values, socialization is part of social control.
Social disorganization negatively impacts every element of bonds
This is a very simple looking model because it is just a macro control model. The control model is very simple! Social disorganization is just controls or bonds.
You can also make this a multilevel model.
The manner in which social disorganization impacts crime goes through controls on individuals.
Key critiques for Kornhauser's model are the same as for Hirschi's control model. Also criticized for misunderstanding and misrepresenting cultural transmission element of Shaw & McKay (as well as differential association and social learning crime theories)
Problem: Shaw & McKay's real model never tested
Problem: Shaw & McKay's real model never tested
Social disorganization as:
Based on Shaw & McKay--but also Kornhauser--focus is on controlling youth.
Friends proxy for recognizing strangers and ability to engage in guardianship.
Voluntary orgs are problem solving capacity and institutional capacity; we'll get to role of orgs in systemic model shortly
Important thing is these all come before crime and delinquency. This eliminates tautologies.
Problem: Shaw & McKay's real model never tested
Social disorganization as:
Social disorganization caused by usual three factors
Based on Shaw & McKay--but also Kornhauser--focus is on controlling youth.
Friends proxy for recognizing strangers and ability to engage in guardianship.
Voluntary orgs are problem solving capacity and institutional capacity; we'll get to role of orgs in systemic model shortly
Important thing is these all come before crime and delinquency. This eliminates tautologies.
Socieconomic disadvantage, residential instability, ethnic/racial heterogeneity
These have been mostly stable since Shaw & McKay
Problem: Shaw & McKay's real model never tested
Social disorganization as:
Social disorganization caused by usual three factors
No subcultural component--this is a control model
Based on Shaw & McKay--but also Kornhauser--focus is on controlling youth.
Friends proxy for recognizing strangers and ability to engage in guardianship.
Voluntary orgs are problem solving capacity and institutional capacity; we'll get to role of orgs in systemic model shortly
Important thing is these all come before crime and delinquency. This eliminates tautologies.
Socieconomic disadvantage, residential instability, ethnic/racial heterogeneity
These have been mostly stable since Shaw & McKay
They mention youth delinquency may link to adult criminal careers but aren't studying it
This is fundamentally a version of Kornhauser's model
So core Shaw & McKay model is tested here but it completely leaves out the rich delinquent tradition component
I am not familiar with any modern social disorganization work which uses a delinquent tradition model at the lower level--might be out there
Problem: Shaw & McKay's real model never tested
Social disorganization as:
Social disorganization caused by usual three factors
No subcultural component--this is a control model
Helped revitalize social disorganization theory
Based on Shaw & McKay--but also Kornhauser--focus is on controlling youth.
Friends proxy for recognizing strangers and ability to engage in guardianship.
Voluntary orgs are problem solving capacity and institutional capacity; we'll get to role of orgs in systemic model shortly
Important thing is these all come before crime and delinquency. This eliminates tautologies.
Socieconomic disadvantage, residential instability, ethnic/racial heterogeneity
These have been mostly stable since Shaw & McKay
They mention youth delinquency may link to adult criminal careers but aren't studying it
This is fundamentally a version of Kornhauser's model
So core Shaw & McKay model is tested here but it completely leaves out the rich delinquent tradition component
I am not familiar with any modern social disorganization work which uses a delinquent tradition model at the lower level--might be out there
This paper was a major landmark bringing social disorganization back, especially in combination with important work from Bursik. Set stage for major work on neighborhoods over next three decades.
A parallel vein of research on social control in communities was occurring at same time
What makes people invested in their neighborhood?
This is urban sociology work emerging from foundation in Chicago school, particularly Park & Burgess (of concentric zone fame)
Interested in using survey data to adjudicate between different models of people's relationship to urban space
Basically Wirth said population size and density makes people less attached to place, but Park and Burgess said that isn't it--it is time spent there and connections formed
What makes people invested in their neighborhood?
The systemic model:
The local community is viewed as a complex system of friendship and kinship networks and formal and informal associational ties rooted in family life and on-going socialization process.
This is urban sociology work emerging from foundation in Chicago school, particularly Park & Burgess (of concentric zone fame)
Interested in using survey data to adjudicate between different models of people's relationship to urban space
Basically Wirth said population size and density makes people less attached to place, but Park and Burgess said that isn't it--it is time spent there and connections formed
The idea is communities are an interlocking system. Because they're based on ties, communities functon best when ties are many and stable.
What makes people invested in their neighborhood?
The systemic model:
The local community is viewed as a complex system of friendship and kinship networks and formal and informal associational ties rooted in family life and on-going socialization process.
Janowitz:
This is urban sociology work emerging from foundation in Chicago school, particularly Park & Burgess (of concentric zone fame)
Interested in using survey data to adjudicate between different models of people's relationship to urban space
Basically Wirth said population size and density makes people less attached to place, but Park and Burgess said that isn't it--it is time spent there and connections formed
The idea is communities are an interlocking system. Because they're based on ties, communities functon best when ties are many and stable.
Related to this, Janowitz was revitalizing classic social control theory
Gist is social control is not coercive--it is about groups regulating themselves to accomplish shared goals; imagine how mostly consensual rules of, say, classroom behavior facilitate learning.
This means moral component not vital: Consider the group, consider its goals. There may be a moral investment in the idea of learning or classroom but the rules are pragmatic not moral in nature.
Note it is also not socialization in the common sense--social control is group and goal specific.
Hunter elaborated the connection between the system of ties in communities and social control.
Integration of systemic community model with social control
Three levels of networks for social control
Private: Family and friends
Hunter elaborated the connection between the system of ties in communities and social control.
Sentimental relationships
Integration of systemic community model with social control
Three levels of networks for social control
Private: Family and friends
Parochial: Stores, schools, churches, voluntary orgs.
Hunter elaborated the connection between the system of ties in communities and social control.
Sentimental relationships
Relationships among neighbors without sentimental attachment
Integration of systemic community model with social control
Three levels of networks for social control
Private: Family and friends
Parochial: Stores, schools, churches, voluntary orgs.
Public: Outside agencies and organizations
Hunter elaborated the connection between the system of ties in communities and social control.
Sentimental relationships
Relationships among neighbors without sentimental attachment
Key element here is the ability to secure goods and services from outside agencies, such as getting the police to intervene or city to enforce something like zoning.
Integration of systemic community model with social control
Three levels of networks for social control
Private: Family and friends
Parochial: Stores, schools, churches, voluntary orgs.
Public: Outside agencies and organizations
Hunter elaborated the connection between the system of ties in communities and social control.
Sentimental relationships
Relationships among neighbors without sentimental attachment
Key element here is the ability to secure goods and services from outside agencies, such as getting the police to intervene or city to enforce something like zoning.
Each level of social control deals with a different sphere of life and they have some overlap.
Higher crime may be result of weakness in some level but more likely to be due to disconnect or failure to coordinate.
For instance, community expects the government to regulate incivilities in public space but the government sees this as outside their bounds.
Must negotiate a solution that addresses it.
Bursik & Grasmick (1993) Neighborhoods and Crime: Integrate systemic model with social disorganization.
In preceding articles and then the book, the authors wove together the threads into a cohesive model of systemic social disorganization
Bursik & Grasmick (1993) Neighborhoods and Crime: Integrate systemic model with social disorganization.
Internal and external network connections are key
In preceding articles and then the book, the authors wove together the threads into a cohesive model of systemic social disorganization
Bursik & Grasmick say Shaw & McKay were too focused on immediate family socialization and social control to neglect of institutions and connections between them.
Also, importantly, ability to coordinate efforts locally and pull resources from outside
Neighborhoods may be in political competition for scarce resources; may be hierarchy on ability to make demands.
Bursik & Grasmick (1993) Neighborhoods and Crime: Integrate systemic model with social disorganization.
Internal and external network connections are key
Bursik assumption: Residents share goal of freedom from threat of crime.
In preceding articles and then the book, the authors wove together the threads into a cohesive model of systemic social disorganization
Bursik & Grasmick say Shaw & McKay were too focused on immediate family socialization and social control to neglect of institutions and connections between them.
Also, importantly, ability to coordinate efforts locally and pull resources from outside
Neighborhoods may be in political competition for scarce resources; may be hierarchy on ability to make demands.
This is taking Janowitz's conception of social control
Not about morality--about maintaining shared goal of basic safety; slight relaxation of Hirschi and Kornhauser universal morality argument; still underlying assumption of mostly universal motivation
Bursik & Grasmick (1993) Neighborhoods and Crime: Integrate systemic model with social disorganization.
Internal and external network connections are key
Bursik assumption: Residents share goal of freedom from threat of crime.
Fear of crime may produce withdrawal--reducing social control
In preceding articles and then the book, the authors wove together the threads into a cohesive model of systemic social disorganization
Bursik & Grasmick say Shaw & McKay were too focused on immediate family socialization and social control to neglect of institutions and connections between them.
Also, importantly, ability to coordinate efforts locally and pull resources from outside
Neighborhoods may be in political competition for scarce resources; may be hierarchy on ability to make demands.
This is taking Janowitz's conception of social control
Not about morality--about maintaining shared goal of basic safety; slight relaxation of Hirschi and Kornhauser universal morality argument; still underlying assumption of mostly universal motivation
This is a novel component: Acknowledgement of feedback effects. Crime may be result of social control, but crime may also reduce social control by making people afraid.
We'll return to this when we talk about Broken Windows
Adapted from Bursik & Grasmick (1993:39)
Wow, huge model!
Still simplified: Omits some feedback paths like crime destabilizing neighborhoods
Support for the systemic model
There is general support for the systemic model; social structures mediate effects of socioeconomic structure
There's also good evidence for feedback processes: crime and fear of crime negatively impact social control and its antecedents
Support for the systemic model
Lingering issues
There is general support for the systemic model; social structures mediate effects of socioeconomic structure
There's also good evidence for feedback processes: crime and fear of crime negatively impact social control and its antecedents
Systemic model can't explain certain categories of neighborhoods
There are urban neighborhoods characterized by both high crime and pervasive dense networks and active organizations
There are also urban neighborhoods with very few ties, few organizations, and basically no crime
There are also neighborhoods with no evidence of exercised social control but little or no crime
The full systemic model is also difficult to operationalize: It has three levels of networks to measure and capturing actual social control behavior is difficult. Hard to also capture socialization.
America's racial macro-context
Only going to touch on this for a bit--still a lot to read.
So far they've set up the context: America has pervasive segregation which results in racial structuring of living conditions.
Key concept here is race doesn't cause these conditions--these conditions are a result of racialized policies and behaviors.
A key idea in Massey & Denton's work is nothing will be able to address socioeconomic problems of minority groups in US without dealing directly with discrimination and prejudice in housing markets.
America's racial macro-context
Segregation as a defining structural variable
Only going to touch on this for a bit--still a lot to read.
So far they've set up the context: America has pervasive segregation which results in racial structuring of living conditions.
Key concept here is race doesn't cause these conditions--these conditions are a result of racialized policies and behaviors.
A key idea in Massey & Denton's work is nothing will be able to address socioeconomic problems of minority groups in US without dealing directly with discrimination and prejudice in housing markets.
In their social disorganization model, one can imagine segregation as being a key factor which precedes the rest of the social disorganization model.
Racial composition conditions all structural variables. It also conditions later ones as racial composition alters how, for instance, agents of social control respond (or don't)
Peterson & Krivo do not have ability to measure the social structures with mediate the effect of segregation and socioeconomic factors on crime--one can imagine any of the forms of social disorganization model as working here.
Sampson, Robert J., and William J. Wilson. 1994. “Race, Crime and Urban Inequality.” In Crime and Inequality. Edited by J. Hagan and R. Peterson. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Sampson, Robert J. 2006. “Social Ecology and Collective Efficacy Theory.” In The Essential Criminology Reader. Edited by S. Henry and M.M. Lanier. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Things to pay attention to:
Sampson & Wilson (1994):
Sampson (2006)
Context
Social Control Model of Social Disorganization
Systemic Model of Social Disorganization
Peterson & Krivo (2010)
Going to talk about three areas of work that revise and extend the classic social disorganization model
Keyboard shortcuts
↑, ←, Pg Up, k | Go to previous slide |
↓, →, Pg Dn, Space, j | Go to next slide |
Home | Go to first slide |
End | Go to last slide |
Number + Return | Go to specific slide |
b / m / f | Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode |
c | Clone slideshow |
p | Toggle presenter mode |
t | Restart the presentation timer |
?, h | Toggle this help |
Esc | Back to slideshow |