Final Gangs Paper December 12, 2007 The two theories that I believe best characterize inner-city gangs and gang violence are the Social Disorganization/Ecology and Labeling Theories. No single theory can fully explain any social phenomenon, so I chose these two theories because they approach gangs and criminality with completely different perspectives and focus on differing aspects of development and maintenance of criminal activity in the form of gangs. The Social Disorganization Theory is one of the oldest and most widely-accepted theories relating to delinquency and criminal activity. Social Ecology Theory is connected with the social disorganization theory, and focuses on the distribution of crime in terms of geographic or spatial areas. Its basis lies in cartography--mapmaking--which was used to plot locations of criminal activity. The Chicago School of sociology based much of its criminology theory on this premise of the geographic distribution of crime. With the city of Chicago as their laboratory, researchers noted varied delinquency and crime rates throughout different areas and neighborhoods. Areas with other social problems, like unemployment, low education levels, single-parent families and so on, often had the highest rates of delinquent and criminal activities. The common sociological premise that society comes first and individuals rise from it holds true in this situation: the high crime rates persisted over long periods of time in the same areas, regardless of who lived there (Stark, 1987). This idea takes blame from the individuals in gangs and places it on society and her "bad neighborhoods". Another facet of the social disorganization theory is the concentric zone model. This model described five zones of the city: the central business district, zone in
transition, zone of workingmen's homes, residential zone, and commuter zone (Shaw, 1942). Political and economic forces move outwards from the central business district to generate growth in the city; this growth occurs in circles or concentric waves. Studies showed that crime rates were highest in the first three zones, regardless of who lived there. Social problems like unemployment, infant mortality, poverty, and mental illness were also found to be more prevalent in these zones. Immigration, industrialization, and urbanization lead to a dismantling of residents' sense of community because their local institutions are weak. However, it is crucial to understand how these zones develop and realize such a concentration of social problems is not inevitable or natural. Rather, urban planners, politicians, and other such powerful groups in cities take actions which create and maintain these zones. Once an environment becomes characterized by criminality and other social problems, a subculture develops in place of the traditional societal values. This subculture will remain for extensive time periods regardless of the inhabitants of the area. In his 1927 book The Gang, Frederic Thrasher explains that gangs develop in a city's most impoverished areas. He cites factors such as "the disintegration of family life, inefficiency of schools, formalism and externality of religion, corruption and indifference in local politics, low wages and monotony in occupational activities; unemployment; and lack of opportunity for wholesome recreation" as responsible for the development of gangs (Thrasher, 1927:228-231). Combined with conditions of impoverished neighborhoods such as deteriorating houses and poor sanitation, residents feel as if they live in a disorganized and decaying area. Thus, the gang "offers a substitute for what society fails to give; and it provides a relief from suppression and distasteful behavior".
Based upon Thrasher's ideas, Sullivan studied three neighborhoods in Brooklyn in 1989. He found that the highest crime rates were associated with the highest percentage of single-parent families, the highest rate of school dropouts, the highest poverty level, the highest rate of renter-occupied housing, and the highest unemployment (Sullivan, 1989:21-27). After many studies had been conducted in different cities, they all had similar findings with regards to social problems, like poverty and so forth, and their relation to crime. It seems fair to say, then, that socioeconomic variables like poverty and unemployment factor into the development and maintenance of gangs. The sociocultural factors, such as loose community ties and single-parent families, are also relevant for gang development. In addition, certain sociopolitical factors keep these neighborhoods or zones the same, which perpetuates the cycle of crime and poverty. A second, and ultimately very different, theory about gangs is the Labeling Perspective. This theory, also called the societal reaction perspective, addresses crime in a fundamentally different manner. The core of Labeling theory lies with "three interrelated processes: 1) how and why certain behaviors are defined as criminal or deviant, 2) the response to crime or deviance on the part of authorities, and 3) the effects of such definitions and official reactions on the person or persons so labeled" (Schur, 1971). Becker explains: "Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, by and applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders" (Becker, 1963:8-9). An underlying concept for the labeling perspective is recognizing that crime and deviance are perpetuated by the criminal justice system with its laws and resulting
definitions of criminals and crime. Furthermore, in attempting to curtail gang-violence and criminal activity, the justice system actually sustains these behaviors. Quinney proposed a theory about crime and criminal justice known as the social reality of crime. As such, he described six propositions. The first, "crime is a definition of human conduct that is created by authorized agents in a politically organized society" (Quinney, 1970:15-25). Crime, like any societal element or fact, did not merely come into existence on its own: individuals made the word and gave it meaning. Over time, the concept of crime became reified and was seen as something in itself and separate from its creators. Thus, an unquestioning acceptance of the concept of crime exists today. His second proposition, "criminal definitions describe behaviors that conflict with the interests of the segments of society that have the power to shape public policy" (Quinney, 1970:15-25). Those in power take advantage of the reified nature of crime and use it to make legislature that will favor their ambitions and secure their way of life. The next proposition, "criminal definitions are applied by the segments of society that have the power to shape the enforcement and administration of criminal law" (Quinney, 1970:15-25). Simply, the creators of crime are also the punishers, thereby ensuring the persistence of their definition of crime. The state deems "criminal" that which it considers a threat to its own order and power. Fourth, "behavior patterns are structured in segmentally organized society in relation to criminal definitions, and within this context persons engage in actions that have relative probabilities of being defined as criminal" (Quinney, 1970:15-25). Society created the concept of crime: patterns of behavior are neither criminal nor non-criminal; they are evaluated by those in power as a precursor to
them taking on any meaning or legal characteristics. Laws reflect the current interests of society and political leaders, thereby changing when the interests change. Further, Quinney states, "conceptions of crime are constructed and diffused in the segments of society by various mean of communication", and finally, " the social reality of crime is constructed by the formulation and application of criminal definitions, the development of behavior patterns related to criminal definitions, and the construction of criminal conceptions" (Quinney, 1970:15-25). Definitions of crime and criminal behavior patterns are formulated by the powerful members of society and these definitions represent their personal values. As a result, segments of society not represented in the development, application, and construction of said definitions will be more likely to display behavior patterns that are considered criminal. Primary deviance expresses criminal acts which are not considered to be typical of one's character. They result in only marginal implications, if any. Such acts stay primary deviance so long as "one can rationalize or otherwise deal with the behavior and still maintain an acceptable self-image and an image acceptable to others" (Lemert, 1951). Conversely, secondary deviance occurs when this rationalizing can no longer occur and instead criminal acts are viewed as indicative of one's behavior and true self. Further, secondary deviance is defined as such: "when a person begins to employ his deviant behavior or a role based upon it as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the over and covert problems created by the consequent societal reaction to him" (Lemert, 1951:76). As good theories should, the Social Disorganization and Labeling theories cause individuals to examine and critique society instead of accepting its phenomena at face-
value. Thus, we come to the important realization that crime is in fact something society created and also perpetuates. To eradicate such an ingrained societal element would mean a reconstruction of the society itself. The development of gangs and crime is inevitable; it can be predicted by certain sociocultural, sociopolitical, and socioeconomic factors in accordance with social disorganization theory; and is manifested through the intricate social workings described in the labeling perspective.
Works Cited Becker, H.S. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press. Lemert, E. 1951. Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Quinney, R. 1970. The Social Reality of Crime. Boston: Little, Brown. Schur, E. 1971. Labeling Deviant Behavior. New York: Harper and Row. Shaw, C. and H. D. McKay .1942. Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stark, R. 1987. "Deviant Places: A Theory of the Ecology of Crime." Criminology 25: 893-909. Sullivan, M. L. 1989. Getting Paid: Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Thrasher, E. 1927. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.