Social Disorganization Theory: the Formulation of Crime - Term Paper Example

? Social Disorganization Theory The Wild White family, showcased in the documentary film “The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia,” embraced certain levels of learning exemplified by shoot-outs, robberies, gas-huffing, drug dealing, ill popping, murders, tap dancing and other crime-related ploys. Remarkably, these actions gave them prominence in the society. The uncanny nature of this family, which makes the family name “White” ironic makes their case a source of interest in the sociological context. Some important concerns involve the interest to understand why this family behaves the way they do, and why almost all of the members conduct themselves in a similar way or pattern. For this purpose, the work at hand presents one of the most important theories of crime, and directly relates it to the legendary White Family based on the information from the documentary film. Social Disorganization Theory One popular and influential theory of crime is the Social disorganization theory, as embraced by Shaw and McKay (1969). This theory rejects the notion of individualism, and instead explores the possibility that the social environment, or context external to the environment, must be the other cause – beyond the soul, mind and biological make up of a person – to take part in the crime. This theory, therefore, assumes that a person’s physical and social environment influences the choices of behavior that a person manifests (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2011). This extends the thought that the emanation of crime or manifestation of a criminal behavior must be outside the context of individual factors. Shaw and McKay found that the following conditions led to susceptibility to generate social disorganization. These include factors and observations such as: residential instability, high racial and ethnic heterogeneity, high poverty level, and the positive correlation of social disorganization between crime and delinquency (Maddan & Walker, 2010; Jeffery, 1977). However, it was on the latter observation that Shaw and McKay (1969) were unable to successfully measure the effects of social disorganization on crime and delinquency that prevents it from fully accepted. For this reason, the empirical status of the theory remains open to various relevant research studies, and in need of even more profound observations of cases to substantially support the theory in general. To support this theory further in line with its stated limitation, one can take the special case of the White family. The White family might be considered a perfect breed of outlaw that preserves something that is trying to preserve its genetics from generation to generation. However, another interesting aspect about this family is that they have also retained ability to tap dance that was remarkably passed on from their forefather. This relates to defending the theory of social disorganization assuming that the environment has influential force on the individual’s behavior. Though this might not be directly related to the theory of social disorganization, but in this case, parents have substantial influence on molding their children’s cultural background and showing them great things of interest to learn in the future. As a result, the Whites retain their remarkable talent in every generation to tap dance as depicted in the documentary film. While this might sound like a good side of the Whites, the dark side substantially prevails and it cannot be eliminated from the minds of the people in West Virginia that this family are outlaws. If this is based on the point of view of the social disorganization theory, it must consider the issues of corruption, poverty and eventually the prevailing cultural background as potential explanations (Corbin, 1981). Somehow, the film showcased this point, and it was made evident by a White who happened to find his fortune in California and built a family there. He became free from the actual exposure to the prevailing reputation of the Whites in West Virginia. As observed, this family was less violent than those in West Virginia as far as the level of aggressiveness to commit crime is concerned. This depicts the probable positive influence of environment on the human behavior in the external context. This branch of the family tree still had the same genetics, but they were outside of their family’s influence and reputation, and displayed less criminal activity. The Whites have a place in West Virginia, but sadly it was a dwelling driven by poverty, implying further the lack of potential education that hinders the knowledge to proliferate good in the family line. Education is one thing that is lacking from the lives of Whites and was clearly depicted in the documentary film. Additionally, high poverty level, according to Shaw and McKay, is another contributing factor that in the theory that helps result in further crime and delinquency. With merely the introduction of poverty in the documentary film, according to the theory, the Whites are therefore more vulnerable to commit crimes and other related behaviors. In addition, the stories of the forefathers of the Whites are passed on from generation to generation. The society in West Virginia is not blind to this, but in fact, they know well the track records of the Whites and how it is easy for this family to commit crimes of all sorts. However, people from West Virginia based on the past, as shown in the documentary film, might have an unconscious affinity for crime, resulting in giving the family’s crimes notoriety. They have such excitement when the Whites are killed, or just killed somebody, or committed a crime that it gives the Whites attention, which could be construed as support. In other words, a cultural heritage of crime surfaces in West Virginia and the Whites may have unconsciously set the trend for this. The above point might nullify the basic claim of social disorganization theory for as long as the high racial and ethnic heterogeneity may result to social disorganization leading to crimes and delinquent behaviors. When it comes to crimes, the society in West Virginia does not exist as a culturally heterogeneous entity, but with fundamental understanding of the racial and ethnic identity. This is still a form of cultural cohesion, which is basically the reason why the society must have substantial acceptance or understanding the way Whites conducted themselves. However, this is still part of cultural consideration which may still involve the concept of social disorganization theory. The prevailing cultural background according to Corbin (1981) is one of the issues leading to social disorganization. Theoretically speaking, this factor is what sets the entire West Virginia to have such high unconscious level of affinity for crime especially when the Whites are involved. There seems to be a high appreciation or acceptance of crime in West Virginia and people are unconscious of the fact that such high acceptance for the value of crimes led them to create a society where there is a high form of social disorganization at some certain point. For this reason, the social disorganization theory may still apply to the case by which there is presence of cultural heterogeneity for as long as the involvement of actual cultural background that may potentially affect behaviors or crime causation is generally present. It is substantially clear that perhaps the most qualified factors from the theory that are evident from the documentary film are poverty and the lack of education. Although there can be other relevant external factors that lead to criminal behaviors, poverty is clearly evident and may allow an understanding of why the Whites behave the way they do. With the lack of education and money to pay for it, the Whites were solely investing in their talents, particularly in tap dancing, in places where they were vulnerable to allow themselves to commit crimes. Poverty was passed on from generation to generation, just as tap dancing was alive from generation to generation. This is a fundamental point that one must be able to consider in the most critical way possible. Defending the Social Disorganization Theory So far, the work at hand has presented social disorganization theory to explain the prevailing case of the White family in West Virginia, a clan that has gained infamy not because of great contributions to society, but for crimes and other deviant behaviors. The social disorganization theory is a powerful theory because of its rejection of individualism, which may potentially include biological and more scientific approaches in understanding the human biological and behavioral connections. It promotes, as stated earlier, that the environment influences human behavior strongly. There is a truth concerning this, if we only based it on the White’s scenario, by which the Whites have immersed themselves. Crimes and delinquent behaviors must have a substantial relationship with social disorganization. Although Shaw and McKay failed to provide more elaborate empirical evidence concerning this point, it does not mean that the theory can be nullified to investigate crimes and criminal behaviors. Instead, the social disorganization theory requires more exploration for this matter, but as based on the case of the Whites, there is a strong point to consider at a certain probabilistic level that the environment is a factor that pushes one to commit crimes and be influenced by it. In the case of the Whites, poverty seems to be the prevailing trend in their family line, but this might be an intuitive response, so it is important to explore further what the literature has to tell about the social disorganization theory. Based on the assessment of social disorganization theory, one may be confined within the issue of measurement problems when employing it. There are three common measurement problems concerning this theory. These include the idea that the theory has independent measures of social disorganization; it commits an ecological fallacy because what is true for the group may not be true for the individual; and finally the associated difficulty in terms of obtaining, compiling and analyzing the micro-level information are all serious problems (Winfree & Abadinsky, 2013). However, some research studies confirmed the predictions of the social disorganization theory, and this is especially relevant in the reports concerning social control of adolescent delinquency (Crockett & Silbereisen, 2000). In addition, social disorganization theory has gained substantial reputation in the area of family management and child development (Revenson, D’Augelli & French, 2002). Furthermore, in areas of deviance and social control, social disorganization theory has created a remarkable impact, making it a classical theory in the American tradition of crime control (Inderbitzin, Bates, & Gainey, 2012). Clearly, there is no substantial problem when it comes to the stated assumptions of the social disorganization theory, as far as the applications of this theory are evident. In fact, we have employed so far how one of these assumptions might have eventually influenced the Whites’ criminal behaviors. However, the problem may be found in how one might define an actual social disorganization. It is in reformulating its definition by which sociologists will be able to define concrete factors or variables that will be able to produce a more quantitative approach in defining or even predicting social disorganizations pertaining to crime and delinquent behaviors. In addition, social disorganization may not be the perfect theory to understand and explain the entire issue about crime and human criminal behavior, but absolutely contributes important ideas as far as the external context of the environment has a significant contribution to the creation of crime. Based on some research studies, the environment and crime have proven to have a positive relationship (Dahlback, 2012). This means that the kind of environment where people are confined has a remarkable contribution to their actual behaviors. This is one of the reasons why it has become so hard to debunk the idea of social disorganization theory, as primarily a significant ecological theory that will allow meaningful understanding of the actual formulation of crime. However, the role of the social environment might be one of the least understood areas of crime causation (Weisburd, Bernasco, & Bruinsma, 2009). It is this reason that the social disorganization theory is a significant theory that can help explain crime causation, despite the necessary enhancements and additional research studies that might be able to prove the validity of its claims. Conclusion In a nutshell, the work at hand has determined the essential point that the social disorganization theory of crime has the ability to provide help in understanding the bizarre case of the Whites in West Virginia. Furthermore, for as long as the context of external environment is concerned, the social disorganization theory complements with the issues linked to social environment and crime. It is clear that the social disorganization theory has limitations, but these cannot eliminate its importance, because the theory is also widely used in many areas in social research studies. This highlights the fact that no single theory can fully explain a single case linked to the production of crime. Social disorganization theory is therefore a work in progress and it is hoped that creating a more sophisticated variant of its kind in the future will help to further explain crime. This explains the point why social disorganization theory has continuously been criticized and even some people have continued to use them to able to justify the formulation of crime by means of understanding the factors external to the environment. Factors external to the environment as stated and as based on the social disorganization theory may continue to affect human behavior and lead to criminal or delinquent behaviors. The justification of this might be significantly observed in some particular cases just as in the case of the Whites presented at the work at hand. Thus, one way to justify the social disorganization theory is to employ some cases that may be able to meet its assumptions and major claims. References Corbin, D. A. (1981). Life, work, and rebellion in the coal fields: The Southern West Virginia miners 1880-1922. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Crockett, L. J., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2000). Negotiating adolescence in times of social change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dahlback, O. (2012). Environment and crime among residents in urban areas of study of districts in Stockholm. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Inderbitzin, M., Bates, K. A., & Gainey, R. (2012). Deviance and social control: A sociological perspective. New York, NY: SAGE. Jeffery, C. R. (1977). Crime prevention through environmental design (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, California: SAGE Publications Inc. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory: Context and consequences (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Maddan, S., & Walker, J. T. (2010). Criminology and criminal justice: Theory, research methods, and statistics. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. McKay, H. D & Shaw, C. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. New York: Harper. Revenson, T. A., D’Augelli, A. R., & French, S. E. (2002). Ecological research to promote social change: Methodological advances from community psychology. London: Springer. Weisburd, D., Bernasco, W., & Bruinsma, G. (2009). Putting crime in its place: Units of analysis in geographic criminology. New York, NY: Springer. Winfree, L. T., & Abadinsky, H. (2009). Understanding crime: Essentials of criminological theory. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Read More