Systemic Model of Social Disorganization

Social Disorganization Theory and the Theoretical Development of the Systemic Version

Social disorganization theory was developed by Shaw and McKay in the early 1900s. They presented the central ideas of their theory in their book, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. The theory was an attempt to explain their findings about the patterns of delinquency across neighborhoods. Specifically, they found that neighborhoods with high levels of delinquency tended to remain high in delinquency across time, even after many of the original residents had moved to other neighborhoods, and the ethnicity of the neighborhood had completely changed. They also found that high rates of delinquency were associated with neighborhood characteristics of low socioeconomic status, residential instability, and ethnic heterogeneity. Their theory explained the relationship between these structural features of neighborhoods and rates of crime and delinquency in terms of neighborhood variation in levels of social disorganization.

Based largely on William Thomas and Florian Znaniecki's work, Shaw and McKay define social organization in terms of “the presence of social opinion with regard to problems of common interest, identical or at least consistent attitudes with reference to these problems, the ability to reach approximate unanimity on the question of how a problem should be dealt with, and the ability to carry this solution into action through harmonious co-operation” (p. 184). Ruth Rosner Kornhauser later re-articulated this in the definition of social disorganization most commonly used today: “social disorganization is the inability to realize common values” (p. 120). More specifically, in relation to the structural components of social disorganization, Kornhauser states, “social disorganization means the lack of articulation of social structure with common values. Structural disorganization is manifested in institutional inability to provide routes to valued goals, and in discontinuities in socialization and control, which further hinder the quest for and achievement of common values” (p. 120). Thus, social disorganization became viewed largely as a neighborhood's inability to provide informal social control of behavior inconsistent with values commonly held among residents. Informal social control has been predominantly conceptualized in two ways: as informal surveillance and direct intervention. Informal surveillance refers to keeping an eye on what's going on in the neighborhood; watching for, and being able to recognize, strangers in the neighborhood; and watching neighbors’ homes and property when they are away. Direct intervention refers to anything that residents themselves do to stop inappropriate behaviors. This can include socialization techniques, such as encouraging or rewarding appropriate behaviors or pointing out inappropriate behavior and reminding residents of neighborhood standards. But it also includes many other behaviors, such as questioning strangers, chastising children for misbehaving, gossiping among residents about inappropriate behavior, reporting to children's parents about their misbehavior, or administering other informal sanctions (or threats of informal sanctions) for inappropriate behavior.

...