Robert Sampsons Criminology Theory of Collective Efficacy - Literature review Example

A Critical Examination of Robert Sampson’s Criminology Theory of Collective Efficacy Outline Introduction Review of Related Literature Conclusion Introduction In the exploration of the meaning of the word crime, it would basically yield a straightforward and a literal response that it is anything that is against the law. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the more wide – ranging social processes which would facilitate to provide meaning to crime, it had turned out to be evident that there was certainly much more to just simply suggesting that a crime was something written in opposition to the law. Studying a criminal act in all its aspect as well as making a distinction of what a crime is was deemed important in every society. This was for the reason that it had enabled people to reflect on the challenges and dangers it presented to people as well as on how people would deal with such unwanted behavior. Crimes in any form were meant to give way to such disorder and disorganization in the society. In this manner, according to Comack and Brickey (1991), society had formulated its own law on having a definite social basis which both functioned to shape and to be shaped by its particular society. Likewise, our society had its own basis on what to consider a criminal behavior. This was in order to uphold a social control. Meanwhile, there were perspectives which had claimed that a criminal conduct was brought about by individuals alone. One among the advocate of this view was Travis Hirschi. However, Robert Sampson, his student, was not interested in perceiving crime at a micro – level (focusing alone on individual characteristics, attitudes and behaviors) point of view but was more captivated at looking at this concept at a macro – level (focusing on characteristics, attitudes and behaviors outside the individual like neighborhood) perspective since crime had used to affect the whole society to the greatest extent (Lilly, Ball and Cullen, 2006). Given this interest, Sampson had developed his own criminology theory of collective efficacy which basically suggested that neighborhood had the capacity to reduce crime through realizing their common values and triggering informal social control (Sampson, 2006). In this regard, the goal of this paper was to critically examine Robert Sampson’s criminology theory of collective efficacy. First, this paper would present an overview of collective efficacy theory. Second, its strengths would be presented. Third, the criticisms on collective efficacy would be provided. In this manner, this would allow to review critically the said theoretical approach to crime. Review of Related Literature This section would first present an overview of the existing literatures related to the topic on criminology theory of collective efficacy. This review aimed at providing a cursory outlook on how to critically examine Robert Sampson’s collective efficacy theory. The books and articles reviewed might not be a representative of the complete array of the information regarding collective efficacy theory on crime. The expediency of these literatures was to understand at a sociological point of view the topic under study. For such a long time, the approach to studying crime had focused on social disorganization. Though because of its various empirical and theoretical limitations together with the much broader structural roots of crime in our society, during the 1970s, individualistic approaches to crime had re – emerged and caused the reduce importance of social – level conceptual frameworks of crime (Bursik, 1988). Nevertheless, such individualistic theories had its own shortcomings for the reason that it could not provide an inference at a macro – level scale to the society. In this regard, instead of focusing on the sort – of – people that would account for crime, the focus had shifted to the sort – of – places explanation. Thus, social disorganization or what was referred to the community’s incapacity to realize shared goals and values, was somewhat renewed. One among the units of society, neighborhood, had structural aspects which produced social disorganization. According to Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1969), the characteristics of neighborhood such as poverty, residential mobility, ethnic heterogeneity, immigration concentration and weak social network reduced the unit’s ability to recognize the common goals and to regulate the people’s conduct in the public sphere. Given the lack of social control, crime was more likely to take its place in such communities of this sort. This theoretical framework which was proposed by Shaw and McKay was further developed through the efforts of Sampson and others. Sampson (1988) had started studying on the capacity of the community to carry out informal control as well as their shared ability for social action. In this regard, Sampson had developed his own criminology theory of collective efficacy. The term ‘collective efficacy’ was first coined by Albert Bandura (1995). However, Sampson’s conception of collective efficacy was not the same as Bandura’s conception. For Sampson, collective efficacy theory or the collective capacity of communities was a form of social cohesion through the capacity of the neighborhood to realize shared values and goals and to organize informal social control (Sampson, 2006). This was such an activated process which had aimed to obtain an anticipated outcome (Sampson et al., 1997). In this theory, he suggested that collective efficacy could thrive in social ties but could be not enough to exercise social control (Sampson, 2002). Moreover, it was suggested that this concept had played a significant mediating process which accounted in the relationship of neighborhood structures and behavioral impacts. This was for the reason that it was a notion grounded on the joint measure of informal social control, social cohesion as well as trust among the neighborhood in a community. Moreover, the lack of inadequate social networks in a neighborhood as caused by poverty, heterogeneity, and others, was indeed a social concern for the reason that for the point of view of social disorganization, crime was a symptom of lack of collective efficacy. This was supported by Taylor’s (2001) research study on crime. He figured out that those neighborhoods who have little to even no records of criminal acts in their community was characterized by residents who used to perceive together and to share common values of what was right and wrong, who used to have strong ties based on proximity, who used to have above the average levels of involvement in the neighborhood programs in their community, and who used to have informal social control. On the one hand, collective efficacy as an approach to criminology was observed to be advantageous. Indeed, it could give an account on the possibility of shaping crime. Its first strength could be witnessed in the efficient operationalization of concept in order to evaluate how wide – ranging this theory could explain how the social unit of neighborhood could possibly solve issues in the community. This was evident in its indicators (Raudenbush and Sampson, 1999). Another strong point was that it had permitted studies to move outside and further than the strong ties because it was not reliant on the incidence of strong interpersonal connections alone (Sampson, 2002). It was also the case that collective efficacy could also be a significant variable in predicting the neighborhood disorder (Raudenbush and Sampson, 1999). Many had illustrated the effects of the said disorder in ways of different sorts. In 1982, Willson and Kelling used collective efficacy as a variable of lessening social control which was an indication of rise of crime. In 1986, Skogan was able to foresee the upshots of neighborhood situations on crime. And in 2001, Taylor had suggested through the collective efficacy the boosting of fear of crime as well as crime. Nevertheless, the association of disorder and crime was still a questionable concern for some though Raudenbush and Sampson (1999) argued that both disorder and crime were consequences of collective efficacy. Some of the strengths of collective efficacy were stated. Nonetheless, it also had its weaknesses. One among its limitations was observed in a qualitative study made by Wickes in her “Generation Action and Responding to Local Issues: Collective Efficacy in Context” in 2010. Through the conduct of in – depth interviews in two collectively effective communities located in Brisbane, Australia. According to Wickes (2010), collective efficacy theory was not able to clarify how even with the non – existence of strong ties and relationships in the community, collective identity was able to preserve and uphold. Through the interviews, what was perceived was that the community’s shared identity was mainly imagined and regarded because of the shared as well as the symbolic illustrations of the community life. It was the case that the newsletters, the presentation of physical space as well as the assumed socio – economic position of the co – residents had enabled the community to have a sense of social cohesion. This also served as a symbol to their collective values. The case of Redwood Estate had highlighted that the local newsletters had functioned to develop the community’s shared identity. In addition to that, by means of the Redwood branding as well as aesthetics, the developer of Redwood had created and also maintained their common identity. Likewise, majority of the residents had considered that they lived together with like – minded individuals in their community. Though, it was the case that these people had presupposed that their common values were from the symbolic representation of their community. Meanwhile, without the presence of developers, collective identity was achieved through representations of success via newsletters and community functions as well. Meanwhile, it was the case that many social disorganization studies had worked on the assumption that the neighborhood crime rates were influenced by social ties and social control. Regardless of the acceptance given to the informal social control in its relation to shaping criminal behaviors in the neighborhood, the function of social ties was not given that much emphasis. One among the major concerns was that social ties might come in form of different sorts. Thus, it only had gone to show that it was reasonable to consider that distinct kinds of relations used to change its potential for allowing social control. It could be supposed that a simple relationship between friends or leisure relationship between neighbors would lessen the likelihood of occurrence of crime, thus no need for that much crime control while the case was different from much bigger and much more complex ties in the society. It was also that it was limited in only solely focusing among law – abiding residents. This was observed in a study among law – abiding residents in a Black neighborhood in Chicago by Pattillo (1998). In the ethnographic study, it was found out that some among the residents used to assist informal supervision of neighborhood youth while the others destabilized efforts shown by neighborhood to combat crime due to their community was composed of mixtures of law – abiding residents, gang members as well as drug dealers. It only showed that social ties could assist social organization or social disorganization depending on the classes of people in the neighborhood. Moreover, social ties were claimed to be significant because of its resource potential, part of the concept of social capital. Thus, the processes involved allowed the possibility of facilitating social control. In addition to that, the two combined concepts of social capital and informal social control appeared to have its particular limitations. CONCLUSION The aim of this paper was to evaluate critically the criminology theory of collective efficacy as conceptualized by Robert Sampson. After presenting the theory of collective efficacy, its strengths and weaknesses, I could say that despite the theory’s capacity to be an indication of occurrence of crime, this approach to criminology had its own limitations. Given that the individualistic approaches to crimes could not give social explanations to crime, collective efficacy theory had stemmed out. Indeed, it was the case that this theory had claimed that the lack of collective efficacy or the inability of a community to realize their common and shared values and goals in order to organize an informal social control would result to crime. Robert Sampson’s collective efficacy theory was somewhat effective in providing an approach that would explain incidence of crime in a community, especially in neighborhood cases. However, it was that the case that his theoretical approach to crime had its own sets of limitations. The two concepts that shaped his collective efficacy was social capital and informal social control. Nonetheless, it was the case that social capital, through social ties, was not really put great emphasis in his theory. Thus, both appeared to have its particular limitations within the theory. Like any other social disorganization theory, Sampson was not able to put great emphasis on the importance of social ties. Social ties might possibly come from different forms. It was plausible enough to regard the distinct kinds of relations used to change its potential for permitting social control to take place. It was simply imagined that the simple relationship like neighborhood, which was not much complicated, would reduce the possibility of taking place of crime while for the other, it was the otherwise. This was how simple the principle of his idea was. Another shortcoming of his theory was that it was not able to give explanation on how collective identity was maintained despite the lack of strong ties and social relationships. One more limitation of this theory was that it could not make assumptions about individuals alone. Doing so might just put them at risk. Also, this approach could not further give explanation to all the crimes of different sorts. I could say, Sampson’s decision to further study this approach to crime was correct because it was able to explain the other variation of crime and disorder in a community. However, what I could say was that in the examination of Sampson’s theory, it was still in need of further consideration. Collective efficacy must still be explored and developed as a concept to possibly give an all – encompassing account to different types of crime. References: Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing communities. New York: Cambridge University Press. Comack, E., and S. Brickey. (1991). The Social basis of law: critical readings in the sociology of law. 2nd ed. Halifax: Garamond Press Lilly, J.R., Cullen, F.T, and Ball, A.R. (2006). Criminal theory: context and consequences. Sage Publications, Inc. Sampson, R.J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766–779. Sampson, R.J. (2002). Transcending tradition: New directions in community research, Chicago style. Criminology, 40 (2), 213–230. Sampson, R.J. (2006). Collective efficacy theory: Lessons learned and directions for future inquiry. In F.T. Cullen, J.P. Wright, & K. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (Advances in Criminological Theory), Vol. 15, 149–167. Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Skogan, W. (1986). Fear of crime and neighborhood change. In Albert Reiss and Michael Tonry (Eds.), Crime and Justice, Vol. 8, 203-29. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Taylor, R.B. (2001). Breaking away from broken windows. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly 211:29-38. Read More