SOCIOLOGY 170

SUMMARY OF CHICAGO SHAW/MCKAY and Chicago School

The Chicago School researchers challenged the positivists, who argued
that various factors ACT UPON people, by suggesting that crime may be
at least in part the result of ENVIRONMENTAL influences.  This may
seem like common sense, but at that time, this was a RADICALLY NEW
idea.

Shaw and McKay defined crime as LEGAL VIOLATIONS, and they did TWO
THINGS:

    a) THey look at where crime occured---the argued if crime was
peculiar to specific ETHNIC GROUPS (a common belief at that time, as
it is for many people today)--then as these groups moved out of the
areas, crime rates should increase in those areas into which these
groups moved.  The looked at crime rates (from police records) and
found that crime rates remained relatively the same in geographic
areas and did not increase as groups moved into other areas

     b) THey then looked at the ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND CONDITIONS
of neighborhoods in which crime was high, and found that these
neighborhoods shared something in common. . .  they were
"disintegrating" (in their view), and were SOCIALLY DISORGANIZED.

From this they concluded that SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION (explain
this--ie, reduction in values & social glue, etc) was a primary factor
in the genesis of criminal behavior.

This term -- SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION--became a "THEORY" of crime, and
was the FIRST major break from previous theories of criminlogy in that
it shifted the focus of crime FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TO SOCIAL FACTORS.

Some specific theories associated with the Chicago School include:

I.  SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION

II.  DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION:  (associated with Edwin Sutherland) This is
essentially a "LEARNING THEORY," and holds that criminal behavior is
learned from others.  In this view, behaviors are learned in
INTERACTION with intimate personal groups.

Learning includes techniques of committing the crime, and the specific
directin of motives, drives, rationalizations for the behaviors,and
attitudes.  (Explain what this all means)

This view suggests that people do not "DRIFT" into criminal behaviors
(as does Matza's "DRIFT" theory), or that people necessarily make
RATIONAL JUDGEMENTS about whether to commit crime or not.  Sutherland
argued that crime is TRANSMITTED in particular cultures (in which
persons interact with others) and that is why the theory is also
called CULTURAL TRANSMISSION THEORY.

BUT---Sutherland looked primarily at kids. . .would this hold if we
looked at adult criminals?  (identify a few examples, eg, white collar
crime, etc)----

Sutherland is trying to get away from view that delinquency/crime is
cused by a) emotional security, b) broken homes, etc. . .

Key "variables" here include 
     a) duration of contact 
     b) intensity of contact 
     c) frequency of contact 
     d) priority (or importance) of interaction.

Differential Organization attempts to explain the existnce of crime
norms whereas differential association seeks to understand their
transmission. . .key here is organization/structural as opposed to
individual behavior.

Return to JT's homepage