Download Chicago School - WordPress.com

1
Robert Tyburski
Chicago School
In the 1950s a group of sociologists from the University of Chicago formed what later
became known the “Chicago School”. The group had a scientific and very rigorous view of the
social relations and considered large densely populated cities as a “social laboratory”. Chicago
school greatly contributed to the urban sociology and maintained that social institutions and
physical environment predetermine individuals’ behavior. The study is very specific, although
it’s various modifications where applied elsewhere a bit outside of context. To better understand
the main beliefs of the school, you have to keep in mind the time and location where the school
operated. Back in those times, American cities where rapidly growing, as people migrated from
rural areas to cities in a search of work and better opportunities. Chicago was the final
destination of many of the travelers, and as a result the city’s population rapidly grew giving it a
status of a major metropolitan area. The rapid urbanization and industrialization posed new
threats to American city’s well-being as the crime rate grew. The Chicago school noticed the
connection between the problems of overcrowded cities and the movement of societal structures
and the aggression of individuals conduct.
In this paper, I will first look at main views of the Chicago school that formed the origin
of their theories of criminology and then look at the theories themselves.
Delinquency is noticeably high in the areas of the city, where there is a conflict of moral
norms and values. In these areas delinquency has become a traditional way of life, as it is
observed as the easiest and sometimes the only possible way to get economic gains and a more
2
well-known status in a corrupted society. Criminal organizations are very strong and relatively
prosperous in terms of “living conditions” as compared to other urban population, therefore it is
a very tough decision for the young people to join these groups or otherwise turn away from a
normal way of life. In fact, things as they are today have a long record by now, therefore these
perceptions are already deeply rooted in this part of society and can be considered values in their
own ways.
In the parts of the city with a low rate of delinquency, opposite values seem to be normal
to us. Just as a boy from the ghetto sees no other way but to join the criminal groups and gangs,
residents of the more stable parts of the city stick to conventional norms and values. The fact is
reflected in the parent’s desire to educate their children and provide them with a healthy lifestyle.
Parents also provide for various programs that would support conventional values such as sports
teams and resist outside pressure and risks against the conventional values. While not all the
residents of this part of the city lead a law obedient way of life, most of the acts of criminality
are conducted in low rate communities and far away from the children, and then are isolated
from the adults’ deviant forms of conduct and protected from a threat of engaging in criminal
activity (Shaw & McKay, 1942).
There is a striking similarity in the people’s attitude to the means of social control in the parts of
the city with higher economic status. There are plenty of various organizations and forms of
social participation like churches, service clubs, and teacher-parents organizations. Children may
have no other choice but to participate in these and other organizations, and as a result lessen
their contacts with and information of criminal conduct (Macionis & Plummer 2005).
In economically underdeveloped parts of the city, there is no common stance on and
understanding of normal ways of conduct. Although there is a weakened presence of normal
3
values, symbolized by social structures like family and, for some, church, deviant forms of
conduct are at the center of attention. Unconventional values have, on their part, their
institutions: gangs, groups of organized criminals, and illegitimate business groups, whose
activities include theft and drive-by shootings.
Here you can see a contradiction in views of members of a single society. As a result, the very
same activity is seen differently by these groups. For example, the only possible way to get an
economic profit for the residents of a ghetto would be to engage in criminal activity, while for
the residents of economically stable parts of the city they set up and run their own legitimate
business. These two methods of economic activity provide equivalent career opportunities for the
young individuals. Young children who can see the symbols of wealth of adult criminals (luxury
cars and expensive clothes) get a clear message: Deviant conduct will help them to achieve the
same level of prosperity.
Children living in underdeveloped parts of the city sometimes witness rather, very opposite
norms and values, ranging from unattractive normal forms of conduct to the luxury lifestyle of
criminals. However, there is no absolute dominance of either set of norms or institutions. You
could say children have an ability to choose the institutions to affiliate with and this choice will
influence or, in fact, predetermine the way of their future actions as well as habits and attitudes.
In case there is strong influence of and participation in both sets of institutions, children will be
exposed to conflicting values (Jensen, Encyclopedia of Criminology).
Young children will have to make series of tough decisions and separate the differences
between the conventional norms of conduct, set up by the school and family, and unconventional
actions demonstrated by criminal groups. This conflict is better shown, when a child faces anger
in public or even gets sent to prison for an act that was sanctioned or otherwise was considered
4
right by the members of the community where he lives or was raised. Do juvenile delinquents
move on to become adult criminals or do they mature into law-abiding citizens ( Winfree &
Abadinsky, 2010) ?
A study of the criminality rate by the different locations for the adults has revealed a
strong level of exposed children to the adult’s ways or actions. In fact, children in some parts of
the city have an unrestricted access to different techniques and tools of conducting illegal actions
or otherwise breaking the law.
There is an agreement for the most part among the specialists of the Chicago school as to the
existence of a complete system of values that supports or in some way encourages criminal
behavior. However, here they speak of belligerency as a group phenomenon. According to the
study of the cases brought before the Juvenile Court of Cook County in the first part of 20th
century, the majority of crimes were committed by a group. 89 percent of all the offenders
convicted of a theft were acting as a group. In rare cases where a boy committed the actual crime
alone, he was influenced by the group and encouraged to take the action. This means that the
boys living in these parts of the city are not only witnessing criminal activities but also are being
forced or approved by criminal groups to commit crimes themselves. Sometimes, for the sake of
social inclusion, an individual will have to steal or use a gun. In other communities, where
instances of crimes are rare and geographically dispersed, young individuals neither are exposed
to nor pressured by the criminal groups (Park & Burgess, 1921).
The geographical mapping of most frequent scenes of crime shows that the same sections of the
city show high numbers of crimes year after year. This means that the deviant culture and values
pass on from generation to generation through direct contact between the older and younger
populations of the low income parts of the city. Like normal social institutions preserve, enrich,
5
and transmit conventional values, the gangs ensure that their own culture is protected (Lotz,
2005).
Various case studies support this assumption, many young offenders have revealed that
some time at the beginning of their criminal career they were taken to the scene of the crime by
older friends who shared with them their “invaluable” experience. And these boys, on their part,
did the same with other young boys after getting enough experience and a reputation in the gang.
Now, since I have talked about all the main views of the Chicago school, there two main
theories in Criminal Justice, which have included these ideas.
One theory is Social Disorganization Theory. The theory stresses the differences in the
levels of economic fortune and social well being between the inner city (low income sections)
and other parts of the city. The theory believes that social and economic difficulties dramatically
damage institutions, which are supposed to protect and inflict conventional values and ways of
conduct. With the breakdown of these social institutions, criminal groups further destabilize and
disorganize the society. Deviant conduct becomes “legitimate” and approved actions of conduct
as opposed to the conventional norms (Menna, 2009).
Differential Association Theory is another theory that tries to explain criminology
developed by the Chicago school. This theory accentuates the conflict of values between two
groups of the community members. Both groups try to impose their own values and counter
opposite ones. These groups have a completely different stance on all aspects of life, up until the
6
possibility of committing crime. The criminal groups, for example, fully endorse and allow styles
of conduct that are prohibited by conventional social institutions (Menna, 2009).
A final theory is Social Learning Theory; this theory builds upon the idea of the ability of
the gangs and other criminal groups to pass on their values to new generations. Social Learning
Theory also explains how a young boy chooses the career of a criminal having witnessed how his
parents, friends, or relatives get financial gains by committing a crime (Menna, 2009).
Although it is quite specific, meaning its main focus is primarily designed to explain
delinquency in Chicago in the 1950s, main beliefs and theories of the Chicago School were
widely applied in many other locations and circumstances. These theories do not attempt to all
together explain all the aspects of the belligerent conduct, but rather offer an alternative
explanation of its causes. Chicago School has for the first time in US history expressed an idea
that criminals are not being born but they are made by a society. According to the Chicago
school, people in low income areas are just following a trend by engaging in crime, just like any
other person would have done if they had lived in such a community.
7
References
*Shaw, Clifford R. and McKay, Henry D. An Ecological Analysis of Chicago. Juvenile
Delinquency and Urban Areas. University of Chicago Press, 1942.
*Jensen, Gary F. Social Disorganization Theory. Encyclopedia of Criminology.
*Winfree Jr, L.T, and Abadinsky, Howard. (2010). Understanding Crime: Essentials of
Criminological Theory. California: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
*Lotz, R. Youth crime: A modern synthesis in America. Upper Saddle River. Pearson
Education, 2005
*Macionis. J and Ken Plummer. Sociology a global introduction. Education ltd
Edinburgh gate Harlow, 2005.
*Menna, William. An Overview of Chicago School Theories of Criminology, 2009.
http://www.helium.com/items/865770-an-overview-of-the-chicago-school-theories-ofcriminology
*Park, Robert and Burgess, Ernest. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. University
of Chicago Press, 1921.
8