17 Chapter 5 – Social Disorganization and Differential Association

Introduction 

This chapter examines sociological approaches to the study of crime. Sociological theories of crime help us understand why some drug use is stigmatized while other use is not, why crime is over- and under-represented across social groups, and what alternatives may exist to the individualistic punishment models that have dominated the criminal justice system since the 19th century. Many of the theories we cover in this chapter were developed by white, male scholars who held particularly Western assumptions about the nature of crime and punishment. However, by examining crime in the context of social dynamics, we create new avenues for addressing crime in a diverse society.

Understanding crime requires us to understand society. In an increasingly diverse world, particularly in metropolitan regions such as New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, our definitions of crime are often rooted in our social and cultural norms. French sociologist Émile Durkheim was one of the first to explain that crime is not simply an individual pathology or moral failing; it is a normal, even necessary, component of society. According to Durkheim, crime helps establish the moral boundaries of communities and is integral to the process of social regulation.

Durkheim’s insight challenges older biological theories of crime, such as Cesare Lombroso’s atavistic explanations, which incorrectly claimed that criminals were biologically inferior or evolutionarily stunted. Such ideas laid the groundwork for harmful practices like the eugenics movement in Canada, where Indigenous women were among those forcibly sterilized. Durkheim, in contrast, saw crime as socially constructed, defined not by biology but by the collective conscience of a society.

Imagine, Durkheim said, a perfect monastery where everyone behaves impeccably. Even there, the smallest violations, like skipping prayer or showing pride, would be treated as scandalous. Thus, crime exists wherever norms exist; it is relative, but it is also essential for reinforcing shared values.

Crime and Social Norms

The United States, like many modern nation-states, is incredibly diverse, with regions such as New Orleans, Louisiana, reflecting a special combination of cultures, histories, and social norms. Scholars have explored how this diversity influences the criminal justice system, particularly in the American South, where historical legacies of racial segregation, economic disparity, and law enforcement practices shape contemporary crime patterns.

One of the earliest scholars to examine the connection between social diversity and criminal justice systems was the French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858/1917). Durkheim was critical of the atavistic explanations proposed by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso and questioned the notion that crime was solely the result of biological determinism (Durkheim, 1893/2014). This critique was significant, especially as early 20th-century eugenicists attempted to control crime through forced sterilization and discriminatory social policies, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, including Black and Indigenous populations in Louisiana (Schoen, 2005).

Durkheim viewed crime as an inevitable and necessary part of any society. He famously illustrated this idea by suggesting that a community of saints would still label minor transgressions as deviant (Durkheim, 1895/1982). Crime serves to delineate moral boundaries and reinforce communal values. While norms  differ from society to society, they provide individuals with a framework for social cohesion. He introduced the concept of anomie, a normlessness that arises when social bonds weaken or rapid change disrupts stable norms. During moments of social upheaval, like the collapse of the USSR or the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of suicide and substance use tend to rise, especially in communities experiencing disconnection and cultural dislocation.

This perspective aligns with contemporary crime studies in Louisiana, where social norms social norms and legal definitions of criminal behavior have evolved. For example, the decriminalization of marijuana possession in New Orleans reflects shifting public attitudes toward drug offenses, influenced by broader national trends advocating for criminal justice reform. However, disparities in arrests and sentencing remain, highlighting the tension between evolving norms and systemic inequalities in law enforcement practices (ACLU Louisiana, 2021). Durkheim’s framework helps us understand the lasting impact of colonial policies in Canada, such as the residential school system. Designed to assimilate Indigenous children forcibly, these schools dismantled traditional social structures and caused intergenerational trauma. Indigenous youth today continue to face elevated suicide rates, not solely because of psychological trauma, but due to cultural disintegration and imposed colonial systems of control. Durkheim’s work suggests a solution: by restoring cultural traditions and reinforcing community bonds, we can reduce the sense of anomie and promote collective healing.

Durkheim’s work laid the foundation for modern criminology, influencing social integration and deviance theories. His book Suicide remains relevant, particularly in understanding contemporary crises, such as the high suicide rates among formerly incarcerated individuals in Louisiana. In his groundbreaking study, Suicide (1897), Durkheim explored how social integration and regulation impact mental health. He introduced the concept of disrupting stable norms. Research indicates that social isolation and limited economic opportunities contribute to these alarming trends, reinforcing Durkheim’s assertion that social integration is a crucial determinant of well-being (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2020).

Crime is not merely an individual act but a reflection of broader social dynamics. Louisiana’s historical and contemporary crime patterns exemplify Durkheim’s argument that crime and social norms are inextricably linked, constantly shifting in response. Understanding these patterns can facilitate the creation of fair policies that tackle systemic inequalities and promote social unity and social cohesion.

The Chicago School and Social Disorganization

In the early 20th century, sociologists at the University of Chicago turned their attention to how urban environments shape crime. These scholars, including Robert Park and Ernest Burgess, viewed cities like living organisms, where change and adaptation occur in specific geographic zones. Their Concentric Zone Model suggested that crime clustered in transitional neighborhoods marked by residential turnover, poverty, and ethnic diversity.

Frederic Thrasher studied over 1,300 youth gangs and found that they emerged in these interstitial zone spaces between organized neighborhoods where social institutions were weak. Similarly, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay demonstrated that high crime rates persisted in certain urban areas regardless of the ethnic groups living there. The problem wasn’t the people; it was social disorganization.

While critics argue that “disorganization” can reflect outsiders’ biases ignoring the internal cohesion within these communities, the theory still holds empirical support. Sociologist Robert Sampson later validated aspects of the theory, showing that lower levels of collective efficacy (community trust and mutual engagement) correspond with higher crime rates.

While the Chicago School’s concentric zone model was influential, its applicability to all cities is limited. Louisiana, with its distinct historical, economic, and cultural landscape, presents unique crime patterns that diverge from the Chicago model. Cities such as New Orleans and Baton Rouge exhibit high crime rates, but their urban structures differ significantly from Chicago’s.

New Orleans, for example, has struggled with crime, particularly violent crime, in specific neighborhoods. Unlike Chicago’s rigid concentric zones, New Orleans’ geography, characterized by its levee system, historical districts, and tourism-driven economy, creates distinct crime pockets rather than a uniform pattern of social disorganization. Neighborhoods such as Central City and parts of the Ninth Ward have historically seen higher crime rates due to economic disadvantage, housing instability, and limited social services, echoing the Chicago School’s findings on social disorganization.

Similarly, Baton Rouge has experienced waves of violent crime, particularly in areas with high poverty rates and limited economic mobility. The city’s crime distribution aligns with some Chicago School principles, as areas with high residential turnover and economic struggles tend to have higher crime rates. However, Baton Rouge’s urban sprawl and suburban expansion challenge the concentric zone model. Crime is not solely confined to inner-city neighborhoods; suburban parishes such as East Baton Rouge have also seen increases in criminal activity due to population shifts and economic disparities.

Despite the limitations of the Chicago School model, its core ideas remain relevant. Social disorganization theory helps explain why certain Louisiana neighborhoods experience persistent crime. Sampson and Groves (1989) found empirical support for Shaw and McKay’s theory by measuring degrees of social disorganization and their correlation with crime rates, a framework that continues to inform criminological research in Louisiana. However, contemporary criminologists must account for regional differences, historical factors such as segregation and Hurricane Katrina’s displacement effects, and the role of modern policing strategies.

In conclusion, while the Chicago School laid the groundwork for understanding the spatial distribution of crime, Louisiana’s unique urban structure, economic conditions, and historical factors necessitate a localized approach to crime analysis. By integrating social disorganization theory with contemporary data, researchers can better understand and address crime patterns in Louisiana’s cities.

The Chicago School and Crime in Louisiana

In the late 1800s, few cities in North America were as diverse and rapidly expanding as Chicago. Successive waves of immigration from Europe fueled its growth, swelling the population from 299,000 in 1870 to 1,698,600 by 1900, making it the fastest-growing city in the world at the time (Cumbler, 2005). This rapid urbanization and demographic shift provided a unique opportunity for scholars to examine crime through a sociological lens, leading to what became known as the Chicago School of criminology.

The Chicago School took a macro-level ecological approach to studying crime. Led by Robert Park and Ernest Burgess, researchers ventured into the city to observe the dynamics of crime and delinquency firsthand. In their seminal work The City, Park et al. (1925/1967) noted that crime was not evenly distributed but concentrated in specific neighborhoods. They proposed a model akin to the rings of a tree, with each concentric zone representing a different urban area. Certain zones experienced greater social disorganization due to the transitional nature of these areas, where new immigrant communities moved in while older ones moved out. Crime, while undesirable, was seen as a natural byproduct of a developing city, where disorganization led to eventual reorganization (Park et al., 1925/1967).

Frederic Thrasher (1936/2013) expanded on this perspective in The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago, documenting how gangs thrived in interstitial areas zones between stable, organized neighborhoods. According to Thrasher, these gangs primarily existed in deteriorating neighborhoods marked by industrial zones and shifting populations, often bordering the city’s central business district.

Perhaps the most influential work from this school was Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942). They argued that crime stemmed from social disorganization found in transitional zones, characterized by residential instability, ethnic diversity, and low socioeconomic status (Sampson & Groves, 1989). By analyzing court records over decades, they demonstrated that crime rates were linked to these disorganized zones rather than the ethnicity of the residents. Once a group moved to a more stable neighborhood, their crime rates declined (Lilly et al., 2019). Shaw also pioneered the use of life histories in criminology, as seen in The Jack-Roller (Shaw, 1966), a semi-autobiographical account of juvenile delinquency.

Differential Association Theory

In the early 1930s, Jerome Michael and Mortimer J. Adler (1933) published a report titled Crime, Law, and Social Science that examined the state of knowledge in criminology and criminal justice. The conclusions from this report suggested that criminological research was futile and reflected the poor theoretical development and research methods at the time (Michael & Adler, 1933). Partially in response to this critique, Edwin H. Sutherland argued that the field needed a sociological approach to theory that could be empirically tested and explain known correlates of crime (i.e., gender, race, and socioeconomic status). For instance, a meaningful theory of crime needed to be able to explain why offending is concentrated in adolescence and young adulthood and declines subsequently thereafter. Now recognized as one of the most important criminologists of the 20th century, Sutherland (1947) developed differential association theory. Sutherland aimed to establish an individual-level sociological theory of crime that refuted claims that criminality was inherited. Instead, Sutherland explored the role of the immediate social environment, which was often discounted in broader macro-level theories, and suggested that behavior was primarily learned within small group settings. Importantly, Sutherland (1947) sought to articulate a formal theory by presenting propositions that could be used to explain how individuals come to engage in crime. In his Principles of Criminology textbook, Sutherland articulated the following nine propositions:

1. Criminal behavior is learned. Stated differently, people are not born criminals. Experience and social interactions inform whether individuals engage in crime.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other people in the process of communication. This communication is inclusive of both direct and indirect forms of expression.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. The important and key people in your social life are where such learning processes occur.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated and sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. The learning process involves both instruction on how to commit crimes and why they might be committed.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. Definitions encompass an individual’s attitude toward the law. Attitudes towards the legality of crimes, deviance, or antisocial behavior can vary.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. The balance of exposure to definitions favorable or unfavorable to the law is the primary determinant of whether an individual will engage in crime. If exposed to more definitions that are unfavorable to the law, individuals will be more likely to engage in crime.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Not all associations (or interactions) are created equally how often one interacts with a peer, how much time one spends with a peer, how long someone has known a peer, and how much prestige we attach to certain peers determine the strength of a particular association.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Learning is a process not specific to crime but to all behavior. Thus, the mechanisms through which we learn how to behave at work or in our families are the same as the general mechanisms that impact how we learn about crime.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. Behaviors can have the same end goal; however, the means to obtain it can vary. Selling drugs or working at a retail store may both reflect the need to earn money; thus, we cannot separate delinquent or non-delinquent acts by different goals. Other factors (e.g. the balance of definitions one is exposed to) determine whether a person engages in specific behavior (Sutherland & Cressey, 1978, pp. 80-83)

The primary component of the theory is the role of differential association . Individuals have a vast array of social contacts and “intimate personal groups” with whom they interact. Not all peers/associates have the same level of influence. Consider your own social world, whom do you spend the most time with, trust more, and look to regularly for help? These individuals comprise your intimate personal group that facilitates the definitions you might have regarding deviant or prosocial behavior. For instance, an individual whose friends are crucial to them and that they have known for multiple years would be anticipated to have a greater degree of influence on an individual’s behavior than that of a new acquaintance from class or work. Overall, research demonstrates that affiliation with delinquent peers can explain the initiation, persistence, frequency, type of offending, and desistance (Elliott & Menard, 1996; Fergusson & Horwood, 1996; Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Thomas, 2015; Warr, 1993, 1998).

The effect of affiliation with deviant peers on criminal outcomes is attributable in part to how these sources of social influence inform the degree of definitions favorable/unfavorable towards the law. Although Sutherland (1947) did not operationalize the concept of definitions at the time, it is generally understood that definitions reflect the attitudes favorable to crime that enable individuals to approve or rationalize behavior across situations (Akers, 1998).