CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

download CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

of 32

Transcript of CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    1/32

    Notice warning concerning copyright restrictions

    The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United StatesCode) governs the making of photocopies or otherreproductions of copyrighted material.

    Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries andarchives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or otherreproduction.

    One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy orreproduction is not to be ``used for any purpose other thanprivate study, scholarship, or research. ''If a user makes arequest for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction forpurposes in excess of ``fair use,'' that user may be liable forcopyright infringement.

    This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept acopying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order wouldinvolve violation of copyright law.

    Copyright at UMD

    http://libguides.d.umn.edu/content.php?hs=a&pid=97624

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    2/32

    Criminological TheoryPast t PresentESSENTIAL READINGS

    FOURTH EDITION

    FRANCIS T CULLENUniversity o incinnati

    ROBERT AGNEWmory University

    New York Oxford

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    3/32

    Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University sobjective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.Oxford New YorkAuckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong KarachiKuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City NairobiNew Delhi Shanghai Taipei TorontoWith offices inArgentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal SingaporeSouth Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine VietnamCopyright 2011, 2006, 2000, 1995, 1991 by Oxford University Press, Inc.Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016http://www.oup.comOxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University PressAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,without the prior perniission of Oxford University Press.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataCriminological theory: past to present: essential readings / [edited andselected by] Francis T Cullen, Robert Agnew. - 4th edp cm.ISBN 978-0-19-538955-5 (pbk.)1 Criminology. 1 Cullen, Francis T II Agnew, Robert, 1953-HV6025.C852011364.01 dc22

    Printing number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2Printed in the United States of America

    2010006056

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    4/32

    P RT III

    The Chicago School: The City SocialDisorganization and Crime

    s the United States proceeded into the 20thcentury, individualistic theories of crime

    was widely read and accepted1939, HarvardE. A Hooton not only claimedthat criminals are orgal1ically inferior,so proposed that the elimination of crime

    of the

    (quoted in VoId and Bernard,6). Hooton's work may have been extreme,see Merton and Montagu,

    of thinking that

    is to incapacitate this dangerousass (see Herrnstein and Murray, 1994; compareal., 1997 and Gordon, 1994).Other social observers in the early part of the

    sprinkled with small, stable farming communinto a land dominated by crowded cities that centered around booming industries and wresidents were constantly in flux. For these sobservers, it defied common sense not to seethese vast changes were intimately implicatethe cause of crime. In fact, they claimed thaunderstanding of the origins and preventiocriminal conduct depended on a careful studhow the forces outsi e individuals prompted willingness to break the law.

    Social Disorganization in the CiPerhaps nowhere was social change more rand more dramatic than in the city of ChicWhen first incorporated in 1833, Chicago hpopulation of just over 4,000. By 1890,number had climbed to 1 million, and in juyears, the population had doubled to 2 mi(Palen, 1981). Sheer numbers, however, caponly part of the changes that were taking pLike other large cities, Chicago was the setplace for virtually every racial and etgroup, as African Americans traveled' toNorth in search of a better life and immigfrom Europe ended their journey in the wcity that butted up against Lake Michigan. Turban newcomers typically secured work atsettled in the shadows of factories erected ncenter of the city. Their lives were hard

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    5/32

    90 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crimeworked long hours in the factories and lived inovercrowded tenements dirtied by industrial pollution. Upton Sinclair captured the social reality ofthese inner-city neighborhoods in the title of hisbook, The Jungle 1905).In this context, it may not be surprising thatscholars at the University of Chicago believedthat the key to understanding crime lay not instudying the traits of individuals but in studyingthe traits of neighborhoods. Did it make a difference, they asked, if a child grew up in an innercity community that was characterized by poverty, a mixing together of diverse peoples Le.,heterogeneity ), and by people constantlymoving in and, when able, moving out Le., transiency )? And if so, might not the solution tocrime lay more in changing neighborhoods thanin changing people?This line of inquiry was developed most clearlyby Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942[Chapter 7 in this volume)), who worked at theInstitute for Social Research in Chicago and whowere deeply influenced by the thinking of sociologists at the University of Chicago. To explainhow cities such as Chicago develop, ErnestBurgess (1967[1925)) had theorized that urbanareas grow through a process of continual expansion from their inner core toward outer areas. Asthis growth process matures, we find cities thathave a central business or industrial area. Justoutside this area is the zone in transition. t ishere that impoverished newcomers settle,attracted by factory jobs and inexpensivehousing. In a series of concentric circles, threemore zones exist outside the inner city; Burgesscalled these the zone of workingmen's homes,the residential zone, and the commuters' zone.These areas are settled by people who haveadjusted to city life and have accumulated theresources to leave the zone in transition.Shaw and McKay believed that Burgess's theoryof the city might help direct their investigationsof juvenile delinquency. If Burgess was correct,then rates of delinquency should be higher inthe inner-city areas. In these locations, the

    intersection of persistent poverty, rapid potion growth, heterogeneity, and transiency bined to disrupt the core social institutiosociety such as the family; that is, these condcaused social disorganization They hypoththat delinquency would be higher in these munities and lower in neighborhoods thatmore affluent and stable Le., organized ).But how would they test these ideas? innovative and enormous effort in data collewhose results were published in JuDelinquency and Urban Areas (1942), ShawMcKay analyzed how measures of crime suyouths referred to the juvenile court, truancrecidivism-were distributed in the zonescity. By hand, they mapped the addresses odelinquent, which they then compiled to comrates of delinquency by census track and thcity zone. They discovered that over time, rcrime by area remained relatively the sregardless, that is, of which ethnic group rethere. This finding suggested that characteof the area, not of the individuals living in theregulated levels of delinquency. They also leas their theory predicted, that crime ratespronounced in the zone of transitionbecame progressively lower as one movedfrom the inner city toward the outer zonesfmding supported their contention that sociorganization was a major cause of delinq(Bursik and Grasmick, 1993: 30-31).Just how did social disorganization delinquency? Unfortunately, Shaw and Mdid not supply a refined discussion of this coin which they systematically explored the dsions of disorganization and how each oncriminogenic (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993)so, they broadly suggested that social disozation referred to the breakdown of the institutions in a community. In the innerthen, families would be disrupted, schools be marked by disorder, adult-run activitieyouths would be sparse, churches woupoorly attended, and political groups wouineffectual. When such a pervasive break

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    6/32

    occurred, adults would be unable to controlyouths or to stop competing forms of criminalorganization from emerging e.g., gangs, viceactivities). This combination was highly criminogenic. Freed from adult control, youths roamedthe streets, where they came into contact witholder juveniles who transmitted to them criminalvalues and skills see also Thrasher, 1927).Shaw and McKay gained many of their insightson the process by which youths become embeddedin delinquency from in-depth interviews- lifehistories - that they conducted with waywardadolescents see, e.g., Shaw, 1966 [1930]). In TheNatural History o a elinquent Career 1976[1931]), for example, Shaw compiled the story ofSidney Blotzman, who by age 16 had engaged innumerous crimes, including robbery and sexualassault. Shaw recorded that Sidney had begun hiscareer in delinquency by age 7, a career thatpersisted and grew more serious as he matured.Referring to Sidney's story, Shaw noted that due tohis associations with older delinquents and adultcriminals, the boy began to identify himself withthe criminal world and to embody in his ownphilosophy oflife the moral values which prevailedin the criminal groups with which he had contact(p.228).But why was Sidney exposed to these criminogenic influences? Here, Shaw reminds thereader that Sidney lived in one of the mostdeteriorated and disorganized sections of thecity (p. 229). In these communities, continued Shaw, the conventional traditions,neighborhood institutions, and public opinion,through which neighborhoods usually effect acontrol over the behavior [of the] child, werelargely disintegrated p. 229). The community, however, was not only disorganizedand thus ineffective as a unit of control ; inaddition, various forms of stealing and manyorganized delinquent and criminal gangs wereprevalent in the area p. 229). These criminalgroups competed for the lives, in effect, of thearea's children. These groups, observedShaw, exercised a powerful influence and

    Introductiontended to create a community spirit whnot only tolerated but actually fostered delquent and criminal practices p. 229).In Parts IV and VI, we will discuss two thretical traditions whose roots extend to the wof Shaw and McKay: differential associatisocial learning theory and control theory. Ththe work of Edwin Sutherland (Chapterdraws directly on Shaw and McKay's contentithat social areas have different mixes of crimiand conventional influences, and that the exsure to and learning of criminal values, mllinlyassociating with others in the same neighbhood, is a key source of crime. Sutherland ctures these ideas in his theory of differenassociation, which is an effort to systematthe inSights of Shaw and McKay and of otChicago School theorists (see, e.g., Thrash1927 work, The Gang). Similarly, early statemeof control theory, such as that by Reckless (19and that by Reiss 1951)-both of whom studat the University of Chicago-build directly frShaw and McKay's observations and helped tothe foundation for today's control theories.

    t is ironic that in contemporary criminolothese two traditions, which branched off frShaw and McKay, now are seen as rival theorof crime (compare Akers, 1998, and Matsue1988, with Costello, 1997, Gottfredson Hirschi, 1990, and Kornhauser, 1978). Althousome efforts have been made to integrate thtwo perspectives see Part XIV), most often adcates of learning and control theories see theselves as advancing incompatible perspectivonly one of which can be correct.

    Revitalizing Socialisorganization Theory

    Although Shaw and McKay's work was readsubsequent generations of criminologists, by 1960s their theory of social disorganization lost its appeal and its ability to direct researInstead, other theories, advocating new waysthinking and identifying new questions to

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    7/32

    92 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crimeanswered, ascended and captured scholars' attention (see Cole, 1975; Pfohl, 1985). Beginning inthe 1980s, however, Shaw and McKay's disorganization perspective earned renewed interest aninterest that has remained until this day.In part, criminologists reconsidered the value ofdisorganization theory because of a more generalinterest in the ecology of crime. This approachanalyzes how crime rates vary by eculogic l unitssuch as neighborhoods, cities, countries, states, ornations. (Recall that Shaw and McKay examinedhow delinquency rates varied by zones of the city.)This approach is often seen as being on themacro-level. In micro-level theories, the concernis with identifying how characteristics of individu ls e.g., personality, how much strain a personfeels) are related to their involvement in criminalbehavior. In macro-level theories, however, individuals and their traits are not studied; the concern isonly with how the characteristics of geographicalareas, such as whether they are disorganized, influence crime rates.In 1982, Judith and Peter Blau published anarticle that captured the attention of criminologists. Examining 125 of the largest metropolitanareas in the United States, they found that violence was more pronounced in urban areasmarked by socioec0It0mic inequality, especiallyby a wide gap in riches between AfricanAmericans and whites. Indeed, high rates ofcriminal violence, concluded the Blaus, areapparently the price of racial and economicinequalities (p. 126). This analysis showed theimportant inSights that a macro-level study coulduncover. t also was a reminder that governmental policies that increased inequality suchas those embraced in the administration ofPresident Reagan might make our streets lesssafe (see also Currie, 1985). At a time when individualistic theories were gaining in prominence(recall that Wilson and Herrnstein's Crime andHuman Nature was published in 1985), the Blaus'research spoke to the continuing relevance ofcommunity characteristics in understanding theroots of crime in America.

    Beyond the general interest in ecoloresearch (see Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Band Sampson, 1986; Reiss and Tonry, 1Robert Sampson was most responsible for sfically showing the relevance of using ShawMcKay's theory to illuminate crime in tosociety (see also Bursik, 1988; Pratt and Cu2005). Sampson (1986) argued that crimehigh in inner cities because the residentslost the capacity to exercise informal socialtrol. Especially in neighborhoods where families were broken, the adult resoneeded to supervise youths and involve thewholesome activities were depleted. Cofrom a broken home per se was not theissue, said Sampson. Rather, it was livingneighborhood where a high proportiofamilies were headed by a single parent thatated a context in which control could noexercised effectively. Like Shaw and McSampson stressed that independent of the of individuals, communities varied in their ccity to regulate conduct and suppress crimbehavior.

    With W. Byron Groves, Sampson (1extended this research. Using data fromBritish Crime Survey, the authors tested and McKay's idea that in communities maby poverty, heterogeneity, residential transiand family disruption, informal relationscontrols would be weakened and, as a rcrime would be high. Previously, empiricalof Shaw and McKay's perspective had only sured the structural antecedents or caussocial disorganization and then examwhether these factors were related to crimedo communities with more residential mohave higher rates of crime). These studies toogranted that the social condition in between structural factors (on the left side of the cchain) and illegal conduct (on the right sithe causal chain) was social disorganizatiolarge part, scholars did not measure social dganization directly because the existing datadid not contain information on the exte

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    8/32

    which community members were socially integrated and able to exercise social control overwayward conduct. Instead, they were able tocompile data on structural factors from the u.s.Census and data on crime rates from the FBI'sUniform Crime Reports. Meanwhile, they had nodirect measures of the black box that lay inbetween structural factors and crime rates.Again, they merely assumed that this blackbox was a weak or disorganized community.The special value of Sampson and Groves'sstudy was that the British Crime Survey includedquestions that could be combined to measurewhether community members were willing tosupervise rowdy teenagers, had friends locally,and participated in neighborhood voluntaryorganizations. The more these conditions werepresent, hypothesized Sampson and Groves, thegreater the level of social organization; the lessthese conditions were present, the greater thelevel of social disorganization. When Sampsonand Groves conducted their stat\stical analysis,they discovered that, to a large extent, the structural factors predicted their measures of socialdisorganization and, in turn, that weakly organized areas did indeed have higher crime rates. Inshort, their data lent support to Shaw andMcKay's conclusion that social disorganizationwas a significant cause of community rates ofcrime (see also Bursik and Grasmick, 1993;Sampson and Lauritsen, 1994).

    t is possible, of course, that other communityfactors, such as the presence of delinquent subcultures, could also intervene between structuralfactors such as poverty and transiency and crime(Veysey and Messner, 1999 . Still, subsequentresearch has replicated Sampson and Groves'sresearch with data drawn a decade later from theBritish Crime Survey, thus indicating thatSampson and Groves's results have proven to beconsistent over time (Lowenkamp et al., 2003; seealso Taylor, 2001). More generally, Sampson andGroves's article furnished persuasive evidence thatthe social disorganization perspective had a measure of validity and warranted further empirical

    ntroductioand theoretical investigation. Indeed, this agenerated considerable excitement and did to revitalize Shaw and McKay's theory. t waa theory tied to a particular historical juncpre-World War II America but could prinsights into community differences in ratcrime in contemporary times.

    Extending Socialisorganization Theory

    Theories of crime, however, are not sacred to be worshiped at the altar of criminologymatter how persuasive and elegantly stated, retical paradigms should be viewed as provisunderstandings of social reality-importawhat they allow us to see-but not sacrosanctchallenge is to illuminate how such works mbe reconsidered and their explanatory pimproved. In this regard, Robert Sampsonrecently engaged in two lines of inquiryhave extended Shaw and McKay's social disnization theory in noteworthy ways.First, in an important essay coauthoredWilliam Julius Wilson, he extends social disnization theory by placing it within the realitcontemporary America (see Chapter 8 inpart). Sampson and Wilson (1995) accepbasic thesis of disorganization theory thbreakdown of community controls, rootestructural conditions, is criminogenic. argue, however, that the Chicago schoolincorrect in seeing social disorganizationnatural part of the process by which grow. Instead, variations in disorganizacross communities are intimately linkeracial inequality (see Blau and Blau,Currie, 1985; Peterson et aI., 2006; Pfohl, 19Independent of their individual socioeconstatus, African Americans are much more likreside in neighborhoods where there is a concetion of severe poverty and widespread familyruption ( broken homes )-conditions that sdisorganization (Sampson and Bean, 2006; W2009 . Why is this so? According to Sampson

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    9/32

    94 P ART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and CrimeWilson, macrostructural factors some economic, some conscious political decisions-areresponsible for disproportionately consigningAfrican Americans to these inner-city neighborhoods. These factors include, for example, the lossof jobs due to the deindustrialization of theAmerican economy; the departure of middle-classblacks-who provided the social glue that helped tohold neighborhoods together to more affluentareas; policies that channeled blacks into dense,high-rise public housing; the lack of investment inkeeping up the housing stock in inner-city neighborhoods; and urban renewal that displacedAfrican Americans from their homes and disruptedtheir communities see Wilson, 1987, 1996,2009).Sampson and Wilson also rekindle the culturalside of social disorganization theory. Althoughtheir argument differs somewhat from Shaw andMcKay's, they follow these early Chicago theorists in proposing that structural conditions affectthe content of the culture in communities. ForSampson and Wilson, the near apartheid conditions in which many African Americans live (seeMassey and Denton, 1993) create intense socialisolation-defined as the lack of contact or ofsustained interaction with individuals and institutions that represent mainstream society (1995:51). In response, sultural values emerge that donot so much approve of violence and crime butrather define such actions as an unavoidable partoflife in the ghetto (see Anderson, Chapter 12 inPart IV; Sampson and Bean, 2006).

    In the end, state Sampson and Wilson (1995:53), the intersection of race, place, and povertygoes to the heart of our theoretical concerns withsociety and community organization. The resultis that race-based inequality in urban areas fosters the breakdown of the conventional institutions and cultural values needed to restraincriminal conduct. The cost of this inequality isborne most fully by African Americans, whomust live in communities where one in 21black males will be murdered in his lifetime(the rate for white males is 1 in 131) (Sampsonand Wilson, 1995: 36).

    Second, in conjunction with Stephen Raubush and Felton Earls, Robert Sampson (1attempts to further elaborate the social disonization approach in a study that examines of violence across 343 Chicago neighborh(see Chapter 9 in this part). These authors sthat concentrated disadvantage a combmeasure of a community's poverty, race andcomposition, and family disruption is relatneighborhood rates of VIolence, even controfor the characteristics of the people surveImportantly, they reveal that the effects ofcentrated disadvantage are r g e l y mediatedthat is, occur through the degree of colleefficacy in the neighborhood.But what is this concept of collective efficAs envisioned by Sampson and his coautcollective efficacy is a concept that includewillingness of community residents both to ecise informal control e.g., telling youths to down) and to trust and help one another. In athe concept of efficacy seems like the oppossocial disorganization (Taylor, 2001: 128). Inothing much would be new theoretically, becSampson et al. would merely be describingopposite end of the continuum that is, whorganized community looks like in contraa disorganized community. Clearly, there isretical overlap between the concepts of sdisorganization and collective efficacy, Sampson and his colleagues are also offsomething fresh. Although their ideas are roin social disorganization theory, they enrichperspective in two important ways.First, whereas Shaw and McKay largely sioned social organization as opposed to disnization) as the presence of control Sampson have added a second component: the notionneighbors mutually trust or support one an(Sampson et al., 1999: 635). Trust or social suis important because it provides a basis on wneighbors might expect others to collaboratethem to stand behind them when it becnecessary to exercise social support see Cullen, 1994-Chapter 46 in this volume). In

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    10/32

    empirically, trust and the willingness to engage ininformal control are highly intercorrelated. AsSampson et al. found, in reality, control and trustare coterminous; that is, you don't get one withoutthe other.

    Second, social disorganization is typicallyportrayed as a condition -as a state of beinginto which a person moves or is born. In thissense, it is a static factor, or something that moreor less constantly surrounds those in a neighborhood. In contrast, Sampson and his colleagues envision collective efficacy as a dynamicfactor. It is a resource that can be mobilizedwhen the need arises-such as when teenagersbecome unruly on a street corner or when drugdealers brazenly establish a crack house in theneighborhood.Collective efficacy thus is not simply beingorganized and having close social ties, but ratheris the process of activating or converting socialties to achieve desired outcomes (Sampson et al.,1999: 635, emphasis in the original): Communitieswith weak collective efficacy lack the closeness andtrust-sometimes called social capital -tomobilize as a group and rid their street of troublemakers and disorder (e.g., by personally confronting people, by forming crime watches, bypressuring politicians and the police to do something about the problems they face). In contrast,communities high on collective efficacy can amassa unified front to make life for the wayward in

    eferencesAkers, Ronald L 1998. Social Learning and Social

    Structure: General Theory o Crime andDeviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Blau, Judith R. and Peter M. Blau. 1982. The Cost ofInequality: Metropolitan Structure and ViolentCrime. merican SOciological Review 47: 114-129.

    Burgess, Ernest W. 1967 [originally published in 1925].The Growth of the City: n Introduction to a

    Research Project. In Robert E. Park and Ernest W.

    Introductiontheir neighborhood uncomfortable by watchthem closely, telling them to go elsewhere, annecessary, exerting political pressure and getthe police involved (Sampson, 2006).

    Although Sampson and his colleagues' rewritings offer important ideas and promise to gerate new lines of empirical research, their thinkand findings reinforce the essential truth of Sand McKay's theorizing: tpat is, that strong cmunities can act to quell disorder while comnities weakened by structural problems will be fesoil for the growth of crime. This general theoreorientation reminds us that individuals areislands free from outside influences, but ratherenmeshed in a web of social relations that incror decrease one's power to influence what transpin one's neighborhood. Those with the misfortof residing in isolated, impoverished, disorgancommunities have the double difficulty of bexposed to conditions that might permit their crinal involvement and of being less able to do athing about crime when it occurs around thThus, they are at risk ofbeing drawn into a crimlifestyle on the one hand and on the other of bunable to prevent the disorder and victimizathey witness, if not personally experience. vitality and efficacy of community life and relatias Shaw and McKay understood, matter greatly;is an inSight that must be included in any systemexplanation of the uneven distribution of crimAmerican society.

    Burgess (eds.), The City, pp. 47-62. ChicUniversity of Chicago Press.

    Bursik, Robert J., Jr. 1988. Social Disorganizaand Theories of Crime and DelinquenCriminology 26: 519-551.

    Bursik, Robert J., Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimenso Effective Community Control. New YLexington.

    Byrne, James M. and Robert J Sampson, eds. 1986.Social Ecology o Crime. New York: Springer-Ve

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    11/32

    96 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and CrimeCole, Stephen. 1975. The Growth of Scientific

    Knowledge: Theories of Crime as a Case Study.In Lewis A. Coser (ed.), The Idea of SocialStructure: Papers in Honor of Robert K Mertonpp. 175-220. New York: Harcourt BraceJovanovich.

    Costello, Barbara. 1997. On the Logical Adequacy ofCultural Deviance Theories. TheoreticalCriminology 1: 403-428.

    Cullen, Francis T. 1994. Social Support as anOrganizing Concept for Criminology: PresidentialAddress to the Academy of Criminal JusticeSciences. Justice Quartely 11: 527-559.

    Cullen, Francis T., Paul Gendreau, G. Roger Jarjoura,and John Paul Wright. 1997. Crime and the BellCurve: Lessons From Intelligent Criminology.Crime and Delinquency 43: 387-411.

    Currie, Elliott. 1985. Confronting Crime: AnAmerican Challenge. New York: Pantheon.

    Gordon, Diana R. 1994. The Return of he DangerousClasses Drug Prohibition and Policy Politics.New York: Norton.

    Gottfredson, Michael G. and Travis Hirschi. 1990. AGeneral Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

    Gould, Stephen Jay. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man.New York: Norton.Herrnstein, Richard J. and Charles Murray. 1994. The

    ell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure inAmerican Life. New York: The Free Press.

    Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner. 1978. Social Sources ofDelinquency: An Appraisal of Analytic Models.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Lindesmith, Alfred and Yale Levin. 1937. TheLombrosian Myth in Criminology. AmericanJournal of Sociology 42: 653-671.Lowenkamp, Christopher T., Francis T. Cullen, andTravis C. Pratt. 2003. Replicating Sampson andGroves's Test of Social Disorganization Theory:Revisiting a Criminological Classic. Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 40: 351-373.

    Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993.American Apartheid: Segregation and the Makingof the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

    Matsueda, Ross L 1988. The Current StatDifferntial Association Theory . CrimeDelinquency 34: 277-306.

    Merton, Robert K and M. F. Ashley Montagu. 1Crime and the Anthropologist. Amer

    Anthropologist42: 384-408.Palen, John J. 1981. The Urban World 3rd edi

    New York: McGraw-Hill.Peterson, Ruth D., Lauren J. Krivo, and Christo

    R. Browning. 2006. Segregation and Race/EtInequality in Crime: New Directions. In FraT. Cullen, John Paul Wright, and Kristie R. Ble(eds.), Taking Stock: The Status of CriminoloTheory Advances in Criminological ThVolume 15, pp. 169-187. New Brunswick,Transaction.Pfohl, Stephen J. 1985. Images ofDeviance and SControl: A Sociological History. New YMcGraw-Hill.

    Pratt, Travis C and Francis T. Cullen. 2Assessing Macro-Level Predictors and Theof Crime: A Meta-Analysis. In Michael T(ed.), Crime and Justice A Review of ReseVolume 32, pp. 373-450. Chicago: UniversiChicago Press.

    Reckless, Walter C. 1961. The Crime Problemedition. New York: Appleton-Century-CroftsReiss, Albert J., Jr. 1951. Delinquency as the Fa

    of Personal and Social Controls. AmerSociological Review 16: 196-207.

    Reiss, Albert J. Jr. and Michael Tonry (eds.), 1Communities and Crime. Chicago: UniversiChicago Press.

    Sampson, Robert J. 1986. Crime in Cities: Effects of Formal and Informal Social Contn Albert J. Reiss, Jr. and Michael Tonry (e

    Communities and Crime pp. 27l-311. ChicUniversity of Chicago Press.. 2006. Collective Efficacy Theory: LeLearned and Directions for Future Inquiry.Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wright, and KristBlevins (eds.), Taking Stock The StatuCriminological Theory-Advances in CriminoloTheory Volume 15, pp. 149-167. New BrunsNJ: Transaction.

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    12/32

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    13/32

    7 Juvenile Delinquency and Urban AreasClifford R Shaw and Henry D McKay

    Delinquency, observed Shaw and McKay in theirclassic book Juvenile Delinquency in UrbanAreas, has its roots in the dynamic life of thecommunity (1942: 435). Theories that focus onlyon personality or biological traits ignore thatyouths are surrounded by a community that theyinteract with over many years. These daily experiences, claimed Shaw and McKay, shape patterns ofbehavior.

    Not all communities, however, are the same.Surveying the urban landscape, Shaw and McKaynoted that in more affluent communities, the similarity ofattitudes and values as to social control isexpressed in institutions and voluntary associationsdesigned to perpetuate and protect these valuesp. 165). But in areas wracked by poverty and con

    stant social change, the conventional institutionsbecome weak and ; value system supportive ofcrime is nurtured. Shaw and McKay recognizedthat even in disorganized inner-city communities,parents and other adults try to inculcate childrenwith moral values. However, they must competeaganist a range of criminal influences-gangs,adult criminals, ongoing illegal enterprises-thatSimply are not present in organized communities.Further, these influences are difficult to uproot; oncedelinquent traditions take hold, they are transmitted from one generation to the next, typicallythrough interactions in neighborhood peer groups.

    One criticism of Shaw and McKay's theory isthat it paints too rosy a picture of communities

    outside the inner city. Although serious predcrimes are more pronounced in ghetto areas, quency is commonplace among youths in allmunities. It is possible that social disorganizand cultural values supportive of crime areevenly spread across communities than ShawMcKay anticipated.Finally, Shaw and McKay's perspectivimportant policy implications: If communitorganization is the main source of delinquthen the solution to crime is to organize conities. Toward this end, in the early 1930s took steps to put theory into practice by initthe Chicago Area Project, called the firstematic challenge to the dominance ofpsychand psychiatry in public and private programthe prevention and treatment of juvenile quency (Schlossman et al., 1984). The Pinvolved such activities as creating recreaprograms, sprucing up the physical appearof the neighborhood so as to reduce signs oorder, working with school or criminal jofficials to see how problem youths mighelped, and using community residents to cothe neighborhood's youngsters. The precise tiveness of the Chicago Area Project is not knalthough some evidence exists that it helpreduce delinquency (Schlossman et al., 1Regardless, the Project illuminates an insighhas relevance to today: Interventions wheththe police or by correctional officials that i

    Reprinted from Clifford R Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Copyright 1942 University o Chicago Press. Reprinted by permission o the University o Chicago Press.

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    14/32

    community dynamics will be limited in theirability to prevent the onset ofcriminal conduct.

    ReferenceSchlossman Steven Gail Zellman and RichardShavelson with Michael Sedlak and Jane Cobb.

    1984. Delinquency Prevention in South Chicago:A Fifty Year Assessment of the Chicago AreaProject. Santa Monica CA: RAND.

    t is clear from the data included in this volumethat there is a direct relationship between conditions existing in local communities ofAmerican cities and differential rates of delinquents and criminals. Communities with highrates have social and economic characteristicswhich differentiate them from communitieswith low rates. Delinquency-particularly groupdelinquency, which constitutes a preponderanceof all officially recorded offenses, committed byboys and young men has its roots in thedynamic life of the community.

    ... It may be observed, in the fIrst instance, thatthe variations in rates of officially recorded delinquents in communities of the city correspond veryclosely with variations in economic status. Thecommunities with the highest rates of delinquentsare occupied by those segments of the populationwhose position is most disadvantageous in relation to the distribution of economic, social, andcultural values. Of all the communities in the city,these have the fewest facilities for acquiring theeconomic goods indicative of status and success inour conventional culture. Residence in the community is in itself an indication of inferior status,from the standpoint of persons residing in themore prosperous areas. t is a handicap in securingemployment and in making satisfactory advancement in industry and the professions. Feweropportunities are provided for securing thetraining, education, and contacts which facilitateadvancement in the fIelds of business, industry,

    : Juvenile Delinquency nd Urban AreaThe communities with the lowest rate

    delinquents, on the other hand, occupy a tively high position in relation to the econoand social hierarchy of the city. Here the residare relatively much more secure; and adeqprovision is offered to young people for secuthe material possessions symbolic of successthe education, training, and personal conwhich facilitate their advancement in the contional careers they may pursue. . . .

    ifferential Systems o ValuesIn general, the more subtle differences betwtypes of communities in Chicago may be encpassed within the general proposition that inareas of low rates of delinquents there is moless uniformity, consistency, and universaliconventional values and attitudes with respechild care, conformity to law, and related mawhereas in the high-rate areas systems of cpeting and conflicting moral values have doped. Even though in the latter situaconventional traditions and institutions dominant, delinquency has developedpowerful competing way of life. t deriveimpelling force in the boy s life from thethat it provides a means of securing econogain, prestige, and other human satisfacand is embodied in delinquent groups and cinal organizations, many of which have influence, power, and prestige.

    In the areas of high economic status wherrates of delinquents are low there is in genesimilarity in the attitudes of the residents reference to conventional values, as has beenespecially those related to the welfare of chilThis is illustrated by the practical unanimiopinion as to the desirability of educationconstructive leisure-time activities and ofneed for a general health program. t is shtoo, in the subtle, yet easily recognizable, presexerted upon children to keep them engagconventional activities, and in the resist

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    15/32

    100 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crimethreatens the conventional values. t does notfollow that all the activities participated in bymembers of the community are lawful; but,since any unlawful pursuits are likely to be carriedout in other parts of the city, children living in thelow-rate communities are, on the whole, insulated from direct contact with these deviantforms of adult behavior.In the middle-class areas and the areas of higheconomic status, moreover, the similarity of attitudes and values as to social control is expressed ininstitutions and voluntary associations designed toperpetuate and protect these values. Among thesemay be included such organizations as the parentteachers associations, women s clubs, service clubs,churches, neighborhood centers, and the likeWhere these institutions represent dominantvalues, the child is exposed to, and participates ina significant way in one mode oflife only. While hemay have knowledge of alternatives, they are notintegral parts of he system in which he participates.

    n contrast, the areas of low economic status,where the rates of delinquents are high, are characterized by wide diversity in norms and standards of behavior. The moral values range fromthose that are strictly conventional to those indirect opposition to conventionality as symbolized by the family, the church, and other institu-ions common to our general society. The deviantvalues are symbolized by groups and institutionsranging from adult criminal gangs engaged intheft and the marketing of stolen goods, on theone hand, to quaSi-legitimate businesses and therackets through which partial or complete controlof legitimate business is sometimes exercised, onthe other. Thus, within the same community,theft may be defined as right and proper insome groups and as immoral, improper, andundesirable in others. n some groups wealthand prestige are secure(LlhrouglLacts-of skilland courage in the delinquent or criminalworld, while in neighboring groups any attemptto achieve distinction in this manner would resultin extreme disapprobation. Two conflicting systems of economic activity here present roughly

    equivalent opportunities for employment anpromotion. Evidence of success in the crimworld is indicated by the presence of adult cinals whose clothes and automobiles indunmistakably that they have prospered in chosen fields. The values missed and the grerisks incurred are not so clearly apparent toyoung.Children living in such communities exposed to a variety of contradictory standand forms of behavior rather than to a relaticonsistent and conventional pattern. More one type of moral institution and educationavailable to them. A boy may be familiar witexposed to, either the system of conventional aities or the system of criminal activities, or bSimilarly, he may participate in the activitiegroups which engage mainly in delinquent aities, those concerned with conventional pursor those which alternate between the two woHis attitudes and habits will be formed largeaccordance with the extent to which he participin and becomes identified with one or the oththese several types of groups.Conflicts of values necessarily arise when are brought in contact with so many forms ofduct not reconcilable with conventional moraliexpressed in church and school. A boy mafound guilty of delinquency in the court, wrepresents the values of the larger society, foact which has had at least tacit approval incommunity in which he lives t is percommon knowledge in the neighborhood public funds are embezzled and that favorsspecial consideration can be received from spublic officials through the payment of stipusums; the boys assume that all officials cainfluenced in this way They are familiar withlocation of llegal institutions in the communitywith the procedures through which such instions are opened and kept in operation; they kwhere stolen goods can be sold and the kindmerchandise for which there is a ready market;know what the rackets are; and they see inclothes, expensive cars, and other la

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    16/32

    expenditures the evidences of wealth among thosewho openly engage in illegal activities. All boys inthe city have some knowledge of hese activities; butin the inner-city areas they are known intimately, interms of personal relationships, while in other sec-tions they enter the child s experience throughmore impersonal forms of communication, suchas motion pictures, the newspaper, and the radio.

    Other types of evidence tending to support theexistence of diverse systems of values in variousareas are to be found in the data on delinquencyand crime. . [V] ariations by local areas in thenumber and rates of adult offenders were presented. When translated into its significance forchildren, the presence of a large number of adultcriminals in certain areas means that childrenthere are in contact with crime as a career andwith the criminal way of life, symbolized by organized crime. In this type of organization can beseen the delegation of authority, the division oflabor, the specialization of function, and all theother characteristics common to well-organizedbusiness institutions wherever found.

    Similarly, the delinquency data presented graphically on spot maps and rate maps in the preceding pages give plausibility to the existence of acoherent system of values supporting delinquentacts. In making these interpretations it should beremembered that delinquency is essentially groupbehavior. A study of boys brought into theJuvenile Court of Cook Country during the year1928 revealed that 81.8 percent of these boyscommitted the offenses for which they werebrought to court as members of groups. Andwhen the offenses were limited to stealing, it wasfound that 89 percent of all offenders were takento court as group or gang members. In manyadditional cases where the boy actually committedhis offense alone, the influence of companionswas, nevertheless, apparent. This point is illustrated in certain cases of boys charged withstealing from members of their own families,where the theft clearly reflects the influence andinstigation of companions, and in instances where

    7: Juvenile Delinquency and Urban reaincorrigibility reveal conflicting values, thothe family competing with those of the delingroup for his allegiance.The heavy concentration of delinquencertain areas means, therefore, that boys livthese areas are in contact not only with indivwho engage in proscribed activity but alsogroups which sanction such behavior andpressure upon their members to conform to standards. Examination of the distributionreveals that, in contrast with the areas of cotration of delinquents, there are many othermunities where the cases are so widely dispthat the chances of a boy s having intimate cwith other delinquents or with delinquent gare comparatively slight.The importance of tlre concentration ofquents is seen most clearly when the effviewed in a temporal perspective. The representing distribution of delinquents acessive periods indicate that, year after decade after decade, the same areas havecharacterized by these concentrations. means that delinquent boys in these areascontact not only with other delinquents whtheir contemporaries but also with older ders, who in turn had contact with delinqpreceding them, and so on back to the ehistory of the neighborhood. This contact mthat the traditions of delinquency can be antransmitted down through successive generof boys, in much the same way that languagother social forms are transmitted

    The way in which boys are inductedunconventional behavior has been reveallarge numbers of case studies of youths livareas where the rates of delinquents are Through the boy s own life-story the wide of contacts with other boys has been revThese stories indicate how at early ages thetook part with older boys in delinquent actiand how, as they themselves acquired experthey initiated others into the same pursuits. cases reveal also the steps through which

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    17/32

    102 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crimeorganization. Often at early ages boys engage inmalicious mischief and simple acts of stealing. Astheir careers develop, they become involved inmore serious offenses, and finally become skilledworkmen or specialists in some particular field ofcriminal activity. In each of these phases the boyis supported by the sanction and the approbationof the delinquent group to which he belongs . . .

    Taken together, these studies indicate that most delinquent acts are committed by boys in groups,that delinquent boys have frequent contact withother delinquents, that the techniques for specificoffenses are transmitted through delinquent grouporganization, and that in his officially proscribedactivity the boy is supported and sustained by thedelinquent group to which he belongs.

    ifferential Social OrganizationOther subtle differences among communities areto be found in the character of their local institutions, especially those specifically related to theproblem of social control. The family, in areas ofhigh rates of delinquents, is affected by the conflicting systems of values and the problems ofsurvival and conformity with which it is confronted. Family organization in high-rate areas isaffected in several diffqent ways by the divergentsystems of values encountered. In the first place, itmay be made practically impotent by the existinginterrelationships between the two systems.Ordinarily, the family is thought ofas representingconventional values and opposed to deviant formsof behavior. Opposition from families within thearea to illegal practices and institutions is lessened,however, by the fact that each system may becontributing in certain ways to the economicwell-being of many large family groups. Thus,even if a family represents conventional values,some member, relative, or friend may be gaininga livelihood through illegal or quasi-legal institutions a fact tending to neutralize the family sopposition to the criminal system.Another reason for the frequent ineffectivenessof the family in directing the boys activities along

    conventional lines is doubtless the allegiance wthe boys may feel they owe to delinquent grouboy is often so fully incorporated into the grouit exercises more control than does the family. Tespecially true in those neighborhoods whereof the parents are European-born. There theents attitudes and interests reflect an Old Wbackground, while their children are more Americanized and more sophisticated, assuin manycases the role ofinterpreter. In this situthe parental control isweakened, and the familbe ineffective in competing with play grouporganized gangs in which life though it minsecure, is undeniably colorful, stimulatingenticing.

    A third possible reason for ineffectivenessfamily is that many problems with which it isfronted in delinquency areas are new problemwhich there is no traditional solution. An exais the use of leisure time by children. This isproblem in the Old World or in rural Amecommunities, where children start to work early age and have a recognized part in the sof production. Hence, there are no time-hosolutions for difficulties which arise out of ththat children in the citygo to work at a later aghave much more leisure at their disposal. Iabsence of any accepted solution for this proharsh punishment may be administered; but often ineffective, serving only to alienate thedren still more from family and home.

    Other differences between high-rate andrate areas in Chicago are to be seen in the nof the existing community organization. Thand Znaniecki have analyzed the effectively nized community in terms of the presence ofopinion with regard to problems of cominterest, identical or at least consistent attwith reference to these problems, the abilreach approximate unanimity on the questihow a problem should be dealt with, and the to carry this solution into action through hanious co-operation.Such practical unanimity of opinion and

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    18/32

    rates of delinquents are low. But, in the high-rateareas, the very presence of conflicting systems ofvalues operates against such unanimity. Other fac-tors hindering the development of consistentlyeffective attitudes with reference to these problemsof public welfare are the poverty of these high-rateareas, the wide diversity of cultural backgroundsrepresented there, and the fact that the outwardmovement ofpopulation in a city like Chicago hasresulted in the organization of life in terms ofultimate residence. Even though frustrated in hisattempts to achieve economic security and to moveinto other areas, the immigrant, living in areas offIrst settlement, often has defmed his goals in termsof the better residential community into which hehopes some day to move. Accordingly, theimmediate problems of his present neighborhoodmay not be of great concern to himBriefly summarized, it is assumed that thedifferentiation of areas and the segregation ofpopulation within the city have resulted in widevariation of opportunities in the struggle for position within our social order. The groups in theareas oflowest economic status fInd themselves ata disadvantage in the struggle to achieve the goalsidealized in our civilization. These differences aretranslated into conduct through the generalstruggle for those economic symbols which signify a desirable position in the larger social order.Those persons who occupy a disadvantageousposition are involved in a conflict between thegoals assumed to be attainable in a free societyand those actually attainable for a large proportion of the population. t is understandable, then,that the economic position of persons living inthe areas ofleast opportunity should be translatedat times into unconventional conduct, in an effortto reconcile the idealized status and their practical prospects of attaining this status. Since, inour culture, status is determined largely in economic terms, the differences between contrastedareas in terms of economic status become themost important differences. Similarly, as mightbe expected, crimes against property are mostnumerous.

    : Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas The physical, economic, and social condiassociated with high rates of delinquents in communities occupied by white population in exaggerated form in most of the Negro areaall the population groups in the city, the Npeople occupy the most disadvantageous posin relation to the distribution of economic

    social values. Their efforts to achieve a more sfactory and advantageous position in the nomic and social life of the city are seriothwarted by many restrictions with respecresidence, employment, education, and sand cultural pursuits. These restrictions havetributed to the development of conditions wthe local community conducive to an unuslarge volume of delinquencyThe development of > divergent systemvalues requires a type of situation in which ttional conventional control is either weak or existent. t is a well-known fact that the growcities and the increase in devices for transption and communication have so acceleraterate of change in our society that the traditmeans of social control, effective in primsociety and in isolated rural communities, been weakened everywhere and rendered ecially ineffective in large cities. Moreover, thewith its anonymity, its emphasis on econrather than personal values, and its freedomtolerance, furnishes a favorable situation odevelopment of devices to improve one s stoutside of the conventionally accepted approved methods. This tendency is stimuby the fact that the wide range of secondary scontacts in modern life operates to multiplwishes of individuals. The automobile, mpicture, magazine and newspaper advertiSthe radio, and other means of communicflaunt luxury standards before all creatinhelping to create desires which often cannosatisfIed with the meager facilities availabfamilies in areas of low economic status.urge to satiSfy the wishes and desires so crehas helped to bring into existence and to petuate the existing system of criminal activitie

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    19/32

    104 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, nd Crimet is recognized that in a free society thestruggle to improve one's status in terms ofaccepted values is common to all persons in allsocial strata. And it is a well-known fact thatattempts are made by some persons in all economic classes to improve their positions by violating the rules and laws designed to regulateeconomic activity. However, it is assumed thatthese violations with reference to property aremost frequent where the prospect of thus enhancing one's social status outweighs the chances for

    iscussion uestions1 What does it mean to say that a community is socially disorganized ? Why iscrime less likely to occur in an organizedcommunity?2 Why do Shaw and McKay take special painsto point out that delinquency usually occursin groups? How do they believe that peer

    loss of position and prestige in the compstruggle. t is in this connection that the exof a system of values supporting criminalvior becomes important as a factor in sindividual life-patterns, since it is only such a system exists that the person tcriminal activity may acquire the materialso essential to status in our society andsame time increase, rather than lose, his pin the smaller group system of which become an integral part.

    groups in the inner city contribute causation of crime?3 Although written several decades agomight Shaw and McKay's theory hexplain the occurence of street violetoday's inner-city communities?4 Would Shaw and McKay favor efforts tcrime by getting tough and locking upoffenders, including juveniles, in prison

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    20/32

    8. A Theory o Race Crime and UrbanInequalityRobert J Sampson and William Julius Wilson

    on public policy areo attributing crime in the inner cities to the

    o community residents. If youthsvalues, respected the law, dressedway, and saw the value o schooling, sogoes, they would stay out ojobs, and achieve the AmericanMany criminologists reject such thinking notbecause it is simplistic, but also because itignores the harsh lives that inner-cityface-from birth through adulthood. f cul

    is to blame, then there is no need to payto the potential root causes o lawless

    such as poverty, inadequatecqre, disrupted families, schools in shambles,the depletion o economic opportunity as jobsto the suburbs and to other nations. The focusculture also masks the fact that many o theseconditions do not simply emerge naturallyare the result o political choices by electedwho do little or nothing about them. Inscholars see attributing crime to bad culturedangerous because it obscures the role o bad

    in causing criminal behavior.Although the position o structural criminologistsunderstandable, Sampson and Wilson suggest

    that ignoring the prevailing culture in urban arresults in an incomplete understandingo why crtakes place. They see culture not as the simple innalization o antisocial va(ues but as the acquisio cognitive landscapes. Consider the case olence. Inner-city residents do not espouse hurothers as a cherished value. But what i childgrow up in a community in which they witnbullet-ridden bodies lying in public spaces or perhsee older youths brandishing weapons? In this ctext, using lethal violence enters the mind apotential choice to be made and, in some circstances, as an unavoidable thing to do (such as wone's honor is challenged). In neighborhoods beo such experiences, however, youths are unlieven to consider pulling out a gun as a realoption to settle disputes. Such extreme violencnot seen, cannot be modeled, and just is not partheir congnitive landscape ; it is virtually incceivable. When it does occur, the violence ishocking and so unexpected that it becomes neworthy and is plastered all over the evening newSampson and Wilson understand, howethat a purely cultural explanation o inner-crime and violence has limited merit. Identifythe content o cultures that generate crime isimportant task. But, a complete explanation

    J Sampson and William Julius Wilson, Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and rban Inequalityd Inequality, edited by John Hagan and Ruth D. Peterson. Copyright 1990 by the Board of Trustees ofthe Le

    of Stanford University Press, www.sup.org.105

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    21/32

    106 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crimecriminal conduct must explain what initiallycauses and then sustains the influence ofcriminogenic cultures.In a somewhat complex analysis, Sampson andWilson single out a critical factor that underliesthe crime-inducing cognitive landscapes thatflourish in inner cities: social isolation or, intheir words, the lack of contact or of sustainedinteraction with individuals and institutions thatrepresent mainstream society. They observe thata peculiar reality of American society is theextreme racial segregation of African Americansresiding in many major cities (see also Massey andDenton, 1993; Peterson et al., 2006). In disadvantaged urban communities, youths live in segregated housing, attend schools in which virtuallyevery student is a minority, and rarely travel outside the boundaries of their immediate neighborhood. These youths are cut off from the kind ofdaily routines that kids in more affluent areaswitness, take for granted, and implicitly learnfrom. In many well-to-do suburbs, for example,youngsters see parents go off to nice jobs each day,the children are exposed to an array of enrichingcultural experiences (including taking lessons ),they summer at the country club and the beachhouse, they know that their friends are all going tocollege, and so on. The American Dream is notreally a dream but a cognitive expectation. Thisis not the case for many inner-city youths, whoselandscape is devoid of daily examples of how toparticipate in and profit from such conventionalsocial roles (Sampson and Bean, 2006).Finally, Sampson and Wilson do not view thissocial isolation as a bad choice made by inner-cityresidents but rather as the result ofpersisting racialinequality. Racial inequality is the product both ofconscious political decisions-such as permittingracial discrimination in home purchases and 'ghettoizing minorities in high-rise public housingerected in geographically isolated areas-and ofbroad macro-sociological changes-such as the massive movement of obs out of the inner city. In theend, these structural forces have isolated minoritiesin neighborhoods marked by extreme poverty and

    social disorganization, and they have effectiveloff residents from mainstream American societhis structural context, cultural values or coglandscapes conducive to crime emerge and areweakly rivaled by alternative ways of understanthe broader social world and the possibilities it(Wilson, 2009).eferences

    Massey, Douglas S and Nancy A Denton.American Apartheid: Segregation and the Mof the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: HaUniversity Press.

    Peterson, Ruth D., Lauren J Krivo, and ChristoR Browning. 2006. Segregation and REthnic Inequality in Crime: New DirectiIn Francis T Cullen, John Paul Wright,Kristie R Blevins. (eds.), Taking Stock:Status of Criminological Theory AdvanceCriminological Theory, Volume 15, pp.187. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Sampson, Robert J and Lydia Bean.Cultural Mechanisms and Killing Field

    Revised Theory of Community-Level RInequality. In Ruth D Peterson, LaurKrivo, and John Hagan (eds.), The MColors of Crime, pp. 8 36. New York: York University Press.

    Wilson, William Julius. 2009. More Than JustBeing Black and Poor in the Inner City. New YW W Norton.

    ur purpose in this chapter is to address othe central yet difficult issues facing criology race and violent crime

    [W]e advance in this chapter a theorestrategy that incorporates both structuralcultural arguments regarding race, crime,inequality in American cities. In contrapsychologically based relative deprivationories and the subculture of violence, we the race and crime linkage from contelenses that highlight the very different ecolo

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    22/32

    contexts that blacks and whites reside in -regardless of individual characteristics. Thebasic thesis is that macro-social patterns of residential inequality give rise to the social isolationand ecological concentration of the truly disadvantaged, which in turn leads to structural barriers and cultural adaptations that underminesocial organizations and hence the control ofcrime. This thesis is grounded in what is actually an old idea in criminology that has beenoverlooked in the race and crime debate----- -theimportance of communities.

    The ommunity Structure oRace and rimeUnlike the dominant tradition in criminologythat seeks to distinguish offenders from nonoffenders, the macrosocial or community level ofexplanation asks what it is about communitystructures and cultures that produces differentialrates of crime (Bursik, 1988; Byrne and Sampson,1986; Short, 1985). As such, the goal of macrolevel research is not to explain individual involvement in criminal behavior but to isolatecharacteristics of communities, cities, or evensocieties that lead to high rates of criminality(Byrne and Sampson, 1986; Short, 1985)

    The Ecological oncentration oRace and Social DislocationsHaving demonstrated the similarity of blackwhite variations by ecological context, we turnto the second logical question. To what extentare blacks as a group differentially exposed tocriminogenic structural conditions?The combination of urban poverty and familydisruption concentrated by race is particularlysevere In not one city over 100,000 in theUnited States do blacks live in ecological equalitywith whites when it comes to these basic features ofeconomic and family organization. Accordingly,racial differences in poverty and family disruptionare so strong that the worst urban contexts

    8: A Theory o Race Crime and Urban Inequality in which whites reside are considerably bthan the average context of black commun(Sampson, 1987: 354).Taken as a whole, these patterns underswhat W. J Wilson (1987) has labeled contration effects, that is, the effects of living neighborhood that is overwhelmingly impoished. These concentration effects, reflectedrange of outcomes from degree of labor foattachment to social deviance, are created byconstraints and opportunities that the residof inner-city neighborhoods face in termaccess to jobs and job networks, involvemin quality schools, availability of marriagepartners, and exposure to conventional models.

    The social transformation of the inner citrecent decades has resulted in an increased centration of the most disadvantaged segmenthe urban black population-especially pfemale-headed families with children. Wheone of every five poor blacks resided in ghor extreme poverty areas in 1970, by 1980 netwo out of every five did so (W. J Wilson e1988: 131). This change has been fueled by sevmacrostructural forces. In particular, uminorities have been vulnerable to structural nomic changes related to the deindustrializatiocentral cities (e.g., the shift from goods-produto service-producing industries; increasing poization of the labor market into low-wage high-wage sectors; and relocation of manuturing out of the inner city). The exodumiddle-and upper-income black families fthe inner city has also removed an imporsocial buffer that could potentially deflectfull impact of prolonged joblessness and intrial transformation. This thesis is based onassumption that the basic institutions of an (churches, schools, stores, recreational facilietc.) are more likely to remain viable if the cotheir support comes from more economicstable families in inner-city neighborhoods (WWilson, 1987: 56). The social milieu of increastratification among blacks differs significa

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    23/32

    108 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crimefrom the environment that existed in inner citiesin previous decades see also Hagedorn, 1988)

    In short, the foregOing discussion suggests thatmacrostructural factors-both historic and contemporary-have combined to concentrate urbanblack poverty and family disruption in the innercity. These factors include but are not limited toracial segregation, structural economic transformation and black male joblessness, class-linkedout-migration from the inner city, and housingdiscrimination. t is important to emphasize thatwhen segregation and concentrated poverty represent structural constraints embodied in publicpolicy and historical patterns of racial subjugation,notions that individual differences (or self-selection)explain community-level effects on violenceare considerably weakened (see Sampson andLauritsen, 1994)The consequences of these differential ecological distributions by race raise the substantively plausible hypothesis that correlations ofrace and crime may be systematically confounded with important differences in community contextsMore specifically, we posit that the mostimportant determinant of the relationshipbetween race and crime is the differential distribution of blacks in communities characterized by1) structur l social disorg niz tion and (2) cul-tur l social isolation both ofwhich stem from the

    concentration of poverty, family disruption, andresidential instabilityhe Structure of SocialDis)organization

    In their original formulation Shaw and McKayheld that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility led to the disruptionof community social organization, which in turnaccounted for variations in crime and delinquencyrates 1942; 1969). As recently extended byKornhauser (1978), Bursik (1988), and Sampsonand Groves (1989), the concept of social disorganization may be seen as the inability of a

    community structure to realize the comvalues of its residents and maintain effesocial controls. The structur l dismensiocommunity social disorganization refer to thevalence and interdependence of social netwoa community-both informal (e.g., the denSacquaintanceship; intergenerational kities; level of anonymity) and formal (e.g., nizational participation; institutional slity -and in the span of collective supervthat the community directs toward problems.This social-disorganization approachgrounded in what Kasarda and Janowitz (1329) call the systemic model, where the community is viewed as a complex systefriendship and kinship networks, and foand informal associational ties are rootefamily life and ongoing socialization proc(see also Sampson, 1991). From this view sorganization and social disorganization areas different ends of the same continuum otemic networks of community social controBursik (1988) notes, when formulated in thissocial disorganization is clearly separableonly from the processes that may lead to it poverty, residential mobility), but also fromdegree of criminal behavior that may be a rThis conceptualization also goes beyond thditional account of community as a strictlygraphical or spatial phenomenon by focusinthe social and organizational networks ofresidents (see Leighton, 1988).

    Evidence favoring social-disorganization tis available with respect both to its structuralcedents and to mediating processes . . . .Boiled down to its essentials, then, our thtical framework linking social-disorganiztheory with research on urban poverty andtical economy suggests that macrosocial fe.g., segregation, migration, housing discrim

    tion, structural transformation of the econinteract with local community-level factorsresidential turnover, concentrated poverty, fdisruption) to impede social organization. Th

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    24/32

    sOciological viewpoint, for it focuseson the proximate structural characteriss and mediating processes of community social

    Social Isolation andommunity ulture

    is priof communitiesives rise to what Kornhauser (1978: 75) termsultural disorganization-the attenuation of soci

    ues. Poverty, heterogeneity, anonand other structural features of urban commuion and obstruct the quest for common values,hereby fostering cultural diversity with respect toondelinquent values. For example, an important

    component of Shaw and McKay's theory was thatdisorganized communities spawned delinquentgangs with their own subcultures and norms perpetuated through cultural transmission.Despite their relative infrequency, ethnographic studies generally support the notionthat structurally disorganized communities areconducive to the emergence of cultural valuesystems and attitudes that seem to legitimate, orat least provide a basis of tolerance for, crime anddeviance[C]ommunity contexts seem to shape whatcan be termed cognitive landscapes or ecologicallystructured norms e.g., normative ecologies)regarding appropriate standards and expectations of conduct. That is, in structurally disorganized slum communities it appears that a systemof values emerges in which crime, disorder, anddrug use are less than fervently condemned andhence expected as part of everyday life. Theseecologically structured social perceptions andtolerances in turn appear to influence the

    8: A Theory o Race Crime and Urban Inequalitydeviant behavior (e.g., drug use by pregwomen)A renewed appreciation for the role of culadaptations is congruent with the notiosocial isolation-defined as the lack of conor of sustained interaction with individualsinstitutions that represent mainstream so(W. J Wilson, 1987: 60). According to thisof reasoning, the social isolation fostered byecological concentration of urban povdeprives residents not only of resources and ventional role models, but also of cullearning from mainstream social networksfacilitate social and economic advancemenmodern industrial society (W. J Wilson, 19Social isolation is specifically distinguished fthe culture of poverty by virtue of its focuadaptations to constraints and opportunrather than internalization of norms.As Ulf Hannerz noted in his seminal wSoulside it is thus possible to recognizeimportance of macrostructural constraints is, avoid the extreme notions of the culturpoverty or culture of violence, and yet seemerits of a more subtle kind of cultural anal(1969: 182). One could hypothesize a differeon the one hand, between a jobless family wmobility is impeded by the macrostructural straints in the economy and the larger societnonetheless lives in an area with a relativelyrate of poverty, and on the other hand, a jobfamily that lives in an inner-city ghetto neighhood that is influenced not only by these sconstraints but also by the behavior of otherless families in the neighborhood (Hannerz, 1184; W. J Wilson, 1991). The latter influenone of culture the extent to which individfollow their inclinations as they have been doped by learning or influence from other mbers of the community (Hannerz, 1969).Ghetto-specific practices such as an oemphasis on sexuality and macho values, ness, and public drinking are often denouby those who reside in inner-city ghetto ne

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    25/32

    llO PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and Crimemore frequently there than in middle-classsociety, largely because of social organizationalforces, the transmission of these modes of behavior by precept, as in role modeling, is more easilyfacilitated (Hannerz, 1969). For example, youngsters are more likely to see violence as a way oflifein inner-city ghetto neighborhoods. They aremore likely to witness violent acts, to be taught tobe violent by exhortation, and to have role modelswho do not adequately control their own violentimpulses or restrain their own anger. Accordingly,given the availability of and easy access to firearms,knives, and other weapons, adolescent experiments with macho behavior often have deadlyconsequences (Prothrow-Stith, 1991).The concept of social isolation captures thisprocess by implying that contact between groupsof different class and/or racial backgrounds eitheris lacking or has become increasingly intermittent, and that the nature of this contact enhanceseffects of living in a highly concentrated povertyarea. Unlike the concept of the culture ofviolences, then, social isolation does not meanthat ghetto-specific practices become internalized, take on a life of their own, and thereforecontinue to influence behavior no matter whatthe contextual environment. Rather, it suggeststhat reducing structurJll inequality would notonly decrease the frequency of these practices; itwould also make their transmission by preceptless efficient. So in this sense we advocate arenewed appreciation for the ecology of culture,but not the monolithic and hence noncontextualculture implied by the subculture of poverty andviolence.

    iscussionRejecting both the individualistic and materialist fallacies, we have attempted to delineate atheoretical strategy that incorporates both structural and cultural arguments regarding race,crime, and urban inequality in American cities.Drawing on insights from SOcial-disorganizationtheory and recent research on urban poverty, we

    believe this strategy provides new wathinking about race and crime. First andmost, our perspective views the link berace and crime through contextual lensehighlight the very different ecological coin which blacks and whites reSide-regardindividual characteristics. Second, we empthat crime rates among blacks nonethelesby ecological characteristics, just as they whites. Taken together, these facts sugpowerful role for community context in exprace and crime.Our community-level explanation also dfrom conventional wisdom. Rather thanbuting to acts of crime a purely economic mspringing from relative deprivation-an idual-level psychological concept we focthe mediating dimensions of community organization to understand variations in across areas. Morever, we acknowledge andspecify the macrosocial forces that contribthe social organization of local commuImplicit in this attempt is the incorporatthe political economy of place and the rurban inequality in generating racial diffein community structure. As Wacquant obAmerican urban poverty is preeminently apoverty .. rooted in the ghetto as a histospecific social form and mechanism of raciaination 1991: 36, emphasis in original)intersection of race, place, and poverty gthe heart of our theoretical concern with sand community organization.Furthermore, we incorporate culture intheory in the form of social isolation and gicallandscapes that shape perceptions antural patterns oflearning. This culture is noas ineVitably tied to race, but more to the vstructural contexts produced by residentimacroeconomic change, concentrated pofamily instability, and intervening pattesocial disorganization. Perhaps controvethen, we differ from the recent wave of stralist research on the culture of violence review see Sampson and Lauritsen 1994).

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    26/32

    nteresting methodological sleight of hand, schoof culture basedn the analysis of census data that provide nomeasures of culture whatsoever (see especiallylau and Blau 1982). We believe structural crimnologists have too quickly dismissed the role of

    as they interact withconcentrated poverty and social isolation. n ourmacrosocial patterns of residentialnequality give rise to the social isolation andconcentration of the truly disadvantaged, engendering cultural adaptations that undermine socialorganization.Finally, our conceptualization suggests that theroots of urban violence among today's 15- to 21-year-old cohort may stem from childhood socian that took place in the late 1970s and early1980s. Consider that this cohort was born1976 and spent its childhood

    Discussion Questio ns1 What is a cognitive landscape ? How mightsuch a landscape make crime more likely insome neighborhoods and less likely in otherneighborhoods?. What do Sampson and Wilson mean by theconcept of social isolation ? Describe whatlife might be like in an isolated inner-cityneighborhood. How would it differ from orbe similar to your life growing up? From yourlife now?3. Can you see any dangers in blaming individuals who live in inner-cities for their own

    problems, including crime? When you consider the broader social context that is

    8: A Theory ofRace Crime nd Urban Inequalityin the context of a rapidly changing urban enonment unlike that of any previous point in Uhistory. As documented in detail by W. J Wil(1987), the concentration of urban poverty other social dislocations began increasing shain about 1970 and continued unabated throthe decade and into the 1980s. As but example, the proportion of black famiheaded by women increased by over 50 percfrom 1970 to 1984 alone W. J Wilson 1987:Large increases were also seen in the ecologconcentration of ghetto poverty, racial segretion, population turnover, and joblessness. Thsocial dislocations were, by comparison, relativstable in earlier decades. Therefore, the logicour theoretical model suggests that the profochanges in the urban strUcture of minority comunities in the 1970s may hold the key to undstanding recent increases in violence

    implicated in the choice of crime, wmight fOCUSing exclUSively on bad individuseem to be a limited way of understandingcauses of crime in inner cities? That is,communities matter in the causation of crinal behavior?4. Let's say that you are attending an AmeriSociety of Criminology meeting, Sampson and Wilson are giving an addron their theory of crime. After their talk, task if there are any questions. You rise ask, Well, in light of your theory, wthree policies or interventions might undertaken to help solve crime in inner-

    neighborhoods? What do you think thanswer would be?

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    27/32

    9. Collective Efficacy and CrimeRobert J Sampson Stephen W. Raudenbush and Felton Earls

    Crime, including violent crime, is not evenly distributed in the United States. Some cities, forexample, are safer than others and, within urbanareas, some neighborhoods are safer than otherneighborhoods. s we have seen in Part III ofthis book, Shaw and McKay and their intellectualdescendants have confronted this daunting task ofexplaining why some places are more dangerousthan other places.

    One strategy for distinguishing communitieswith high and low crime rates has been to focuson structural characteristics. In general, thisapproach has involved listing conditions thatmight be undesirable-such as poverty, residentialinstability, and the prevalence of broken homes-and seeing if these factors might be related to highcrime rates (see also Pratt and Cullen, 2005).These structural antecedents, as they are sometimes called, are important to identify. But theyleave one question unanswered: In between theundesirable structural conditions and crime,what actually goes on to make people break thelaw at such a high rate?

    Robert Sampson, Stephen Raudenbush, andFelton Earls set out to solve this mystery. Theybased their research on data from a remarkablelongitudinal six-year survey recently concluded inChicago, Illinois (called the Project on HumanDevelopment in Chicago Neighborhoods). Intheir particular study, they relied on data collected

    in 1995 from 8,782 residents in 343 Chicago borhoods. This information allowed them two important things.

    First, because the project actually suindividuals (as opposed to using census inftion), Sampson et al. could control for charistics ofpeople that might potentially accocrime in a neighborhood. For example, it coargued that crime is higher in certain neighoods not because of some feature of the borhood, but because people who are prcommit crime have moved into and now in the neighborhood. This is called a comtional effect ; crime is high because indivwith criminal traits compose the area's potion. Second, Sampson and his colleaguestake the answers that individuals in each borhood gave to questions and aggregate0. e., total them up and take the average foneighborhood). In this way, they could measures for each neighborhood on how thdents, as a group or collective, differed froanother. This would allow them to assess wcalled the contextual effect of a communcrime. Collective efficacy, the key concSampson et al., was constructed in this wais a contextual effect in their theory. The aexamined whether, beyond the composeffects of individual traits, collective eexplained neighborhood differences in crim

    Excerpted with permission from Robert J Sampson, Stephen W. Raudenbush, nd Felton Earls, Neighborhoods andCrime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy, Science, 227, 5 August 1997. Copyright 1997 by the AmAssociation for the Advancement of Science.

    2

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    28/32

    Originally, Sampson et al. identified two separatecontextual factors-features of the neighborhoodthat they believed would explain what went onbetween the structural conditions, which they calledconcentrated disadvantage and crime rates.

    Drawn from Sampson's earlier work (see, e.g.,Sampson and Groves, 1989), one factor wasinformal social control or the willingness of neigh

    bors to intervene i they saw wrongdoing going on.The second factor was social cohesion and trust, orhow closely people in an area were tied to andsupported each other. When they undertook theirempirical analysis, however, Sampson et al. discovered that informal social control and social cohesionand trust were highly intercorrelated. This findingmeant that these two factors were not separate conditions but part of some broader underlyingconstruct.

    What might this construct be? Sampson andhis colleagues then invented the idea of collectiveefficacy. They hypothesized that when people in aneighborhood trusted and supportefj one another,they had a basis for binding together to controldisorderly and criminal behavior. This did notmean that people went about fighting crime on adaily basis. Rather, collective efficacy implied thatwhen distruptive conduct arose, the people in theseneighborhoods had the cohesiveness to act in aneffective way to solve the problem. Collective

    efficacy is thus a resource that is activated incrucial situations (see also Sampson, Morenoff,and Earls, 1999; Sampson and Raudenbush,1999).

    In contrast, when neighborhoods are racked byconcentrated disadvantage (e.g., poverty, distruptedfamilies), residential instability, and large populations of mmigrants, the residents often are less ableto forge close ties, to trust one another, and toexercise informal social control. Lacking collectiveefficacy, in short, causes disorder and crime toemerge and to spiral out of control. This is whatSampson et al. believed was occurring in Chicagoneighborhoods with high crime rates.

    Sampson et al. were able to show that spatialdifferences in collective efficacy even controlling

    9: Collective Efficacy and Crimestatistically for compositional effects-helpedaccount for neighborhood differences in crrates. In doing so, they provided important edence that collective efficacy might be the community-level condition that lies in betwstructural factors and crime rates (see aSampson, 2006).

    Still, more theorizing and research needs todone. Sampson et al. need to flesh out more clewhat they mean by collective efficacy: to definecomponents more systematically, to specify the cditions under which it is activated, and to descwhat precisely happens when collective efficacexerted. Furthermore, the true explanatory poof collective efficacy will not be known untisquares off against competing theories (e.g., sodisorganization, institutional-anomie, conflict)an empirical test. It seems likely, however, macro-level theorizing about crime rates willinfluenced by the model of collective efficacysome time to come.

    eferencesPratt, Travis C and Francis T. Cullen. 2005. Asses

    Macro-Level Predictors and Theories of CrimeMeta-Analysis. n Michael Tonry (ed.), CrimeJustice: A Review ofResearch, Volume 32 pp. 3450. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Sampson, Robert J. 2006. Collective Efficacy TheLessons Learned and Directions for FuInquiry. n Francis T. Cullen, John Paul Wriand Kristie R. Blevins (eds.), Taking Stock:Status of Criminological Theory-AdvancesCriminological Theory, Volume 15, pp. 149-1New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Sampson, Robert J. and W. Byron Groves. 1Community Structure and Crime: Testing So

    Disorganization Theory. American JournalSociology 94: 774-802.

    Sampson, Robert J. Jeffery D. Morenoff,Felton Earls. 1999. Beyond Social CapSpatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy Children. American Sociological Review633-660.

  • 8/12/2019 CULLEN AGNEW CRIMINOLOGIE

    29/32

    114 PART III: The Chicago School: The City, Social Disorganization, and CrimeSampson, Robert J and Stephen W. Raudenbush.

    1999. Systematic Social Observation in PublicSpaces: A New Look at Disorder in UrbanNeighborhoods. merican ournal o Sociology105: 603-651.Sampson, Robert J and Stephen W. Raudenbush, andFelton Earls. 1997. Neighborhoods and ViolentCrime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.Science 277 (August 15): 918-924.

    or most of this century, social scientists haveobserved marked variations in rates of criminal violence across neighborhoods of U.S. cities.Violence has been associated with the low socioeconomic status (SES) and residential instabilityof neighborhoods. Although the geographicalconcentration of violence and its connectionwith neighborhood composition are well established, the question remains: why? What is it, forexample, about the concentration of poverty thataccounts for its association with rates of violence?What are the social processes that might explainor mediate this relation? In this article, we reportresults from a study designed to address thesequestions about crime and communities.Our basic premise is that social and organizational characteristics of neighborhoods explainvariations in crime rates that are not solely attributable to the aggregated demographic characteristics of individuals. We propose that thedifferential ability of neighborhoods to realize thecommon values of residents and maintain