Transcript Social Structure I

Emile Durkheim
The “Chicago School”
Social Disorganization
SOCIAL STRUCTURE I
EMILE DURKHEIM (LATE 1858-1917)
French Scientist
 Suicide
 Humans nature: selfish and insatiable

 Effective
Societies able to “cap” desires
 Socialization
 Special

& Social Ties
concern with “Industrial Prosperity”
Coined the Term “Anomie”:
 Institutionalized
norms lose ability to control
human behavior and human needs
DURKHIEM’S LEGACY
Rapidly Changing
Society
“Industrial Prosperity”
Anomie
(Norms are Weakened)
The Anomie/Strain Tradition
(Next Week)
Human Nature as
Insatiable; must
therefore cap or control
Social Ties Important
The Social Disorganization
and “Informal Control”
Tradition (Today)
MEANWHILE, BACK IN AMERICA

“Social Pathologists” (1900-1930)
 Cities
as “bad” and “corrupting”
 Immigrants as amoral and inferior

Chicago School (1930s)
 University
of Chicago (Sociologists)
 Tie to Durkheim: City/Societal Growth
 Worry
over lack of integration (and control)
PARK & BURGESS (1925)
How does a city growth and develop?
 Concentric
Zones in Chicago
Industrial zone
Zone in transition
Residential zones
SHAW AND MCKAY

Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas 1942.
Mapped addresses of delinquents (court records)
 Zone in transition stable and high delinquency
rates over many years

 Implications
of these findings:
1. Stable, despite multiple waves of immigrants!!
2. Only certain areas of the city Something about
this area causes delinquency
SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION

What were the characteristics of the zone in
transition that may cause high delinquency
rates?





Population Heterogeneity
Population Turnover
Physical Decay
Poverty/Inequality
Why might these ecological characteristics lead to high
crime rates?
EXPLAINING HIGH CRIME IN THE ZONE OF TRANSITION
1. Social Control
 Little
community “cohesion,” therefore, weak community
institutions and lack of control

Borrowed from Durkheim here: humans need to be controlled or
deviance and crime will result.
2. Cultural Transmission of Values
 Once
crime becomes rooted in a neighborhood,
delinquent values are passed trough generations of
delinquents
SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 1960-1980

Fell out of favor in sociology in 1950s
 Individual

theories gained popularity
Criticisms of Social Disorganization




Use of “Official Data” (Police bias?)
Are these neighborhoods really “disorganized?”
Cannot measure “intervening variables”
“Chicago Specific” (not all cities grow in rings)
MODERN S.D. THEORY

Interest rekindled in the 1980s
Continues today with “ecological studies”
 Reborn as a pure social control theory (left behind
“transmission of values”)


Addressing criticism
 “Concentric
rings” not necessary, it is simply a
neighborhood level theory
 Ecological characteristics do affect a
neighborhoods level of informal control
SAMPSON AND GROVES (1989)
Using British Crime Survey Data (BCS)
ECOLOGICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
•Population turnover
•Poverty / inequality
•Divorce rates
•Single parents
SOCIAL CONTROL
•Street supervision
•Friendship networks
•Participation in
organizations
SAMPSON (1997)

Replicated results in Chicago
 Areas
with “concentrated disadvantage,” (poverty,
race, age composition, family disruption) lack
“collective efficacy”
 Willingness
to exercise control (tell kids to quiet down)
 Willingness to trust or help each other
 Lack
of collective efficacy increases crime rates
SAMPSON FRIENDS (1997-PRESENT) VERSION
Data from the Project on Human
Development in Chicago Neighborhoods
Concentrated
Disadvantage
(Ecological)
•Population turnover
•Poverty / inequality
•Race composition
•Family disruption
•Physical decay
Collective
Efficacy
• Willingness to
supervise/confront
in neighborhood
• Mutual trust and
willingness to help
neighbors
CRIME
• Homicide
• Violence as
“problem”
• Victimization
REVIEW OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION

Macro (Neighborhood) level theory
 Explains
why certain neighborhoods have high
crime rates

Theory of “Places,” and not “People”
 Not
all people who live there are “crime prone,” in
fact most are law-abiding
 Not simply a result of “bad people” moving into
certain neighborhoods
RETURN OF THE “CULTURAL TRANSMISSION”

William J. Wilson (Concentrated Poverty)


The “Underclass” or “Truly Disadvantaged”
Cultural Isolation no contact with “mainstream”
individuals/institutions
Little respect for “life”
 Hyper materialism, violence as “normative”
 Some believe recent “crime drop” reflect move away from these
values


Elijah Anderson


Code of the Streets
Disrespect and fear of disrespect at heart of code
BEYOND “INFORMAL” CONTROLS

Robert Bursik
 Residents
of the zone in transition lack “political
capital”
 Inadequate access to public services
RACIAL DISPARITIES (VICTIMS AND OFFENDERS)

Chicago Examples
 1st
half of 2012, 201 of the 259 homicide victims in
Chicago were Black
 78%
of victims, roughly 32% of city population
 70%
of Black males without a high school
education spend time in prison

Rob Sampson: “Racial Invariance Hypothesis”
 Next
slides
SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION, RACE, AND SERIOUS CRIME

William Julius Wilson and Robert Sampson
 Blacks
constitute large proportion of the current
members of the “Zone in Transition.”
 Public
Policy made matters worse (high rise “projects” of
the 1950s-60s)
 Why
do African Americans not “move out” like prior
ZIT residents (immigrants)?
 Housing
Segregation
 Loss of Manufacturing Jobs
 The irony of “Black Flight”
SAMPSON AND WILSON II

Clarify the “cultural component”
 Issue
of “disrespect” rooted in legacy of racism and
despair (e.g., based on reality).
 Idea of “cognitive landscape”
 When
violence is a regular part of reality, it seems more
“normal” as a response.
SAMPSON (2013): ASC PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS

Reiterates the idea of stability
 Chicago
neighborhoods largely retain “pecking
order” over time.

Perception matters
 Reputations
are “sticky”
 Perception of disorder are related to past and to
race
POLICY IMPLICATIONS?

Build neighborhood “collective efficacy”


How do you do this?
Sampson (2012) – increase the density of nonprofit
organizations  create web of “routine activities” that build
friendship networks


Address ecological characteristics that ruin collective
efficacy


More diversity = better
Family disruption, concentrated poverty, residential mobility
Community Policing Movement
FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS

Technology
 Less
or more “community?”
 Direct applications for neighborhoods

Geography
 “Inner

city” may no longer be accurate
New generations of immigrants
 Africa
 Mexico
FEATURE PRESENTATION + GROUP WORK

Connect video clip
to Social Disorg.



Ecological factors?
Social control?
Cognitive
landscape?