South University Online Social Disorganization Discussion

Chapter 8 of Snipes: Vold’s Theoretical Criminology: discusses social disorganization from a variety of perspectives. Begin by defining social disorganization. Then, discuss the factors that are found in a socially-disorganized neighborhood as evidenced by peer-reviewed research conducted as well as personal experience with neighborhoods in your area that would be considered socially disorganized according to your definition.

Peer Response #1

Social disorganization is the opposite of social organization. It is the lack of consensus, solidarity, and a state of disequilibrium among the society members. In other words, it could be regarded as the decrease in existing behavior rules influence upon individual members of the society. It exists when there the social system, institutions, and relationships broken when there exist no general agreement and the significant society interests are defined in individualistic terms. Subsequently, this is contrary to Philippians 2:2, which articulates that “Make my joy complete by being of the same mind…and intent on one purpose.” (New American Bible, 2020). This leads to the existence of unfunctional institutions due to a lack of balance and adjustment. While social organization foster means through which unity and cohesion are maintained in the society through effective control of the members, social disorganization fosters the weakening of the solidarity and control in groups leading to disintegration and conflicts among the members of the society.

According to studies, there exist several factors found in socially disorganized neighborhoods. Economic deprivation or economic status is a factor considered to be evident in a society marked by social disorganization. In such societies, there are decreased levels of organizational participation as well as community involvement. For instance, in a community marked by two classes, there is a low possibility that the two classes will come together in search of solutions affecting the community. Family disruption is another factor, given that most people spend much of their considerable time in search of capital to sustain their families, finding no time to exert control over their kids through supervising and correcting them (Snipes, 2019). The neglect of their parental duties is likely to lead to increased delinquency among their children and a lack of forum to solve their consequent challenges. For example, children are likely to associate themselves with unwanted behavior when they are not looked after.

Moreover, higher ethnic heterogeneity or racial diversity as another factor tends to increase isolation feelings, which fosters alienation due to mistrust among society members. According to Lowenkamp, Cullen & Pratt (2003), members of such neighborhoods tend not to develop or build strong bonds between them. On the other hand, areas and neighborhoods that are densely populated due to residents moving in and out frequently marked by increased crime rates. This follows that there exist reduced responsibility feelings for the area. Therefore, the presence of such characteristics is likely to foster more breakdowns concerning informal social control and a rise in crime and delinquent behaviors. The last factor is urbanization, regarded as a community urban environmental makeup given its association with loose social control in relation to the suburban areas (Snipes, 2019). A good example is people living in an urban area who, in most cases, are individualistic and do not want to take part in any community events.

When it comes to individual experiences with neighborhoods that could be considered socially disorganized, I have witnessed increased crime among my fellow youths. This stems from the fact that their families might have separated while they were young, leading to their indulgence in delinquent behaviors. A perfect example is a former friend who was forced to engage in drugs and violent crimes following the separation of his parents, which led to his neglection. Besides, unemployment among most people in the community is a factor of social disorganization. This translates to a low economic status that sidelines them in taking part in community issues. Like Butcher (2015) postulates, negative social relationships in communities fosters delinquent behaviors.

Peer Response #2:

Social disorganization infers that individuals’ decision-making abilities are impacted by the physical and social environment they inhabit; this causes one to wonder if known offenders were relocated, would it have prevented participation in criminal activity (Snipes, 2019). The centerpiece of the Social disorganization theory revolves around location as its crucial element. In principle, locality should provide us with meaningful information that enables our understanding of additional necessary elements of criminal behavior. Theorists have noted that physical dilapidation and poverty seem to be a constant of high-crime localities (Short, 1997). The premise of disorganization suggests that illicit behavior is not due to the individual but more so due to the abnormal conditions faced by ordinary individuals. Factors leading to criminal behavior are often looked at as primarily being the fault of the offender, and the environment is not typically taken into account (Snipes, 2019). Providing a link between locality and behavior is significant to obtaining information on why crimes are committed.

Physical dilapidation is displayed through an area that fails to keep its conditions up to standards and can often be tied to poverty. When you place an individual in badly ravaged situations, it bears a certain level of concern for health and safety; combining these factors with poverty ensures that it will be difficult to change these conditions. Poverty is a lead factor of offenders seeking to commit illicit behavior (Cook et al., 2012). “Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich” (King James Bible, 2021/1769, Proverbs 28:6).

Overall, disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to breed offenders due to a lack of opportunity and resources. Every day individuals are driven towards criminal behavior due to trying to compensate and obtain what they currently lack. While it may seem that illicit behavior is not the natural reaction of a rational person, it must be taken into account that the location presents challenges that can be labeled as irrational or not up to par. When a sensible person is surrounded by crime and poverty, it takes the place of the norm rather than how society operates outside of their environment.

Personal experiences are integral to explaining theories and adding quite a bit of reputability. The social disorganization theory possesses merit in the heart of the most focused on element, which happens to be locality. Presenting an idea without actual real-life examples makes it harder to comprehend. Luckily, in this particular instance, I have a situation that I can reference.

Considering that the social disorganization theory suggests that location is vital to whether an individual chooses to commit illicit acts, it leads me to think of my childhood growing up. I remember living in neighborhoods where it was the norm to hear gunshots all night or be at school with your friends one day, and the next, you find out that they were killed. Many of the parents in our neighborhood relied upon using the address of friends or family members that lived in safer areas so that their children could go to a better school. Physical dilapidation was the norm as you could drive throughout the area and see buildings that were on the verge of collapsing, graffiti-covered walls, and boarded-up windows. Poverty was also significantly prevalent amongst the families in our locality. Many of the parents in our neighborhood were unemployed and on drugs; this led to the children often having to fend for themselves and being unattended. While their parents were off intoxicated, my friends would commit illegal acts to eat that day or help with the bills. Many started as good students and weren’t what you would typically identify as a potential offender. Circumstances surrounding the location where they grew up led them to commit crimes, neglect school, and take on the responsibilities that would not typically be delegated to minors. The majority of the children I grew up with fell into the cycle of criminal behavior, some have even been killed. In my mind, personal experiences have shown that locality truly is important in whether or not an individual will become an offender.