Abstract
Social structure theory points out that the socioeconomic structure of the
places where a person resides influences their probability of them engaging in
criminal acts. The theory suggests that people in lower class areas are more
likely to engage in crime due to their inability to acquire social or monetary
success in a legit way. The social structure theory has three tenets that helps
in understanding crime. These include cultural conflict, strain, and social
disorganization theories. The social disorganization theory state that slum
residents infringe the law because they reside in areas with a broken social
control system. These are disorganized areas characterized by differing values
and temporary populations, which have a high probability of producing criminality.
The strain theory perceives crime as resulting from frustrations and anger that
individual’s face due to their inability to accomplish legit economic and
social goals. The scarce means to meet their needs leads to crime. Cultural
conflicting theory suggests that the lower class areas have unique value system
that has approved behaviors such as defying authority. These behaviors
exacerbate to become part of criminal acts. Therefore, the social structure
theory enhances our understanding of the causes of crime and how we can correct
them to prevent occurrences in future.
Introduction
There are a number of theories which criminologist applies to determine the
origin of crime provided that crime is a global issue. These theories have been
applied to evaluate criminal events for many years. One of the most common
theories used to examine crime and criminal events is the social structure
theory. This theory discusses reasons why crime is more prevalent in some areas
compared to others. The social structure places emphases on lack of education,
disorganization of family, poverty, absence of marketable skills, and income
inequality as the fundamental causes of crime. Social structure theory plays an
important role in criminal justice system. The
criminal justice system can be
applied in the criminal justice system to trace the roots of crime to issues in
our society. Through this, the theorists suggest there is need to regulate the
social structure of society to minimize crime. To reduce crime, the society and
the justice system should first understand why it occurs. Although some
offenders may suffer from psychological and biological defects that result in
committing crime, most criminals do not. Most of the criminal behaviors are
facilitated by the breakdown of the norms of society (Akers, 2017, pp.14 -16).
Social structure theory
The concept of social structure is core in most social sciences. The social
structure theory states that the socioeconomics condition of a place has a
direct impact on the crime rate in that particular place. The social structure
theorists suggest that individuals living in poverty are more likely to engage
in crime as opposed to the rich. The reason is because poor individuals will
require achieving economic success and the means to achieve it is through
crime. In addition, people in lower class level are characterized by high level
of unemployment, high levels of drug use and addition, and lack of education
resources, which exposes them to socially approved behaviors such as crime to
meet their economic and social success (Barton, Valasik & Brault, 2021, pp.
138).
There is a strong correlation between poverty and crime. According to
Barton, Valasik, and Brault (2021, pp. 140), approximately 45 millions of
Americans are living in poverty. These two issues seem to occur from poor solid
infrastructure in the economy to support the less privileged in society. Social
structure theories use a sociological approach to research studies on deviance
and crime. The aim of social structures is to regulate and socialize people so
as to adapt to the dominant norms of society, while punishing some behaviors
and rewarding others. The intervention strategies are formulated based on the
causes of crime. The social programs established based on social structure seek
to promote opportunities for success through socially acceptable means.
Major types of Social
Structure Theories
The social structure theory consists of three major types including culture
conflict theory, strain theory, and social disorganization theory. According to
Stinson (2020, pp. 73), the social disorganization theory, people living in
slums have a high probability of engaging in activities that violate the law
because they already have a broken social control system. It focuses on breakdown
of institutions such as employment, schools, and family in neighborhoods. The
theory demonstrates that disorganized areas are flawed by conflicting values,
which have an effect of generating crime. According to Stinson (2020, pp. 77),
social structure guides the behavior of people. People develop behaviors,
attitudes, and perceptions from their areas in the social structure and act
based on those behaviors. The elements of social structure work together to
improve social order by organizing, guiding, and limiting human behaviors.
The strain theory points out that the cause of crime results from the anger,
which develops from the failure to achieve success. The society places
pressures on people to achieve legitimate economic and social success. However,
these individuals lacks the means or ability to accomplish the socially
accepted goals, which results in strain, which in turn could prompt a person to
engage in criminal activities to achieve the desired goals. These strains could
result in development of negative emotions such as frustrations and anger,
which might pressure a person to commit crime. Some people may use crime as a
means to reduce the negative emotions or escape from the strain. For instance,
if a person experiences unemployment for a long time, they may resort to engage
in criminal activities such as drug dealing or theft as a means for economic
success. In addition, a person making 50 thousand a year will not be able to
accomplish their dreams such as a secondary education or a buying a new car
thereby establishing a more gap to their inability to accomplish their goals
(Stinson, 2020, pp. 78-81). Therefore, the strain theory has helped to explain
reasons why criminal acts are conducted at one place and not others.
The cultural conflicting theory suggests that various behaviors have been
approved in lower class areas. Examples of the approved behaviors in lower
class areas include defying authority, never showing fear, and being tough. The
theorist believe that lower class individuals’ perceptions and fear that they
have limited opportunities for success lead to acts of crime to satisfy their
needs (Stinson, 2020, pp.82).
The social structure theories demonstrate that individuals share same social
structure and beliefs. However, these beliefs and social structure are created
different through the organization of the social structure. All the three
tenets of social structure theory are comparable in the sense that they involve
individuals, groups, and societal expectations. They all explain how
individuals or groups connect to what is acceptable to society. According to
Stinson (2020, pp. 87-90), the social disorganization theory, the disorganized
or lower class areas makes the environment conducive to criminal behavior.
Environment also plays a role in the strain theory whereby the measures of
success by society encourage criminal behavior. However, the culture conflict
theory is different from the two because it does not focus on environmental
factor but concentrates on the idea of mainstream society.
Criticisms of the social
structure theory
The opponents to the social structure theory argue that the theory is not
conclusive because it only places emphasis on few elements, which are highly
hypothetical such as socioeconomic ways as a cause of crime. They indicate that
the theory should provide several reasons that cause crime because a person can
commit crime in numerous ways. For instance, a person may be influenced by the
pressure of their peers to choose the suitable method for executing crime.
Similarly, it is crucial to indicate that not all people are prompted by
poverty to engage in criminal acts. The opponents argue that, adoption of such
a mode of analysis would mean that all people living in poverty should be
criminals. There are people who are poor but have strong values and thus they
use other legit means to achieve their goals and satisfy their needs (Siegel
& Ziembo-Vogl, 2010, pp. 13). Therefore, the opponents suggest that the
explanations about the origin of crime as explained by the social structural
theory is outdated.
Importance of the social
structure theory
Although there are opponents to these theories suggesting that they have
many flaws, it is evident that play a significant role in discussing people’s
views towards it and the use of resources. Modification of the structural
theory will add new elements such as homelessness and develop a standard
structured theory, which will be utilized to adequately explain the causes of
crime (Wacquant, 2019, pp. 39-41).
The American dream is guided by the dreams of prosperity and freedom. This
means that various individuals find psychological, economic, and cultural
motivation in the dream. Most believe that dream can be accomplished through
establishing the right culture. The society finds it challenging to differ from
the dream because it demonstrates that they have the ability to achieve the
dream. This helps to keep the society safe from any kind of crime because
everybody is focused on ensuring that they accomplish the dream. However, it
does not mean that no challenges exist in efforts to achieve the dream. These
frustrations are handled before they worsen to other forms of crime (Nicholson
& Higgins, 2017, pp. 12-13). Similarly, there are instances where people
engage in crime. This offers an explanation on why different people have
difficulty living while they have expectations on the dream. The strain theory
has demonstrated that achieving the American dream is fundamentally a focus in
the belief that it can be accomplished. The structure of a society or area may
hinder people from recognizing their dreams, which have an impact of causing
individuals to resort to illegal means of achieving their goals. Deviant
subcultures in disorganized areas such as gang groups may use crime. Theorists
have observed that small groups may disengage from society and create their own
meaning and values about life. These groups may commit crimes to meet their
needs, which cause harm to the whole society (Nicholson & Higgins, 2017,
pp. 18-19).
The criminal tactics among youths from poor areas are because of the
existing social norms in those areas. Their viewpoint towards life derives
feelings of low self-esteem, which could be adopted from youths in other lower
social class areas, whose only source of livelihood is crime. According to
theorists, criminal tendencies have been utilized as a resolution to the
imaginary results. The gangs believe that the benefits of crime are the major
answer to their problems. These individuals use violence to retaliate because
they believe that the upper class individuals contribute to the poverty status
of those in lower social class. This means that the people living in lower
class areas have a more reason to engage in crime. It is evident that 95% of
the wealth is owned by 1% of the population, which creates a huge gap between
the less privileged and the privileged in society (Wacquant, 2019, pp. 49-53).
The social structure theory has made it easy to create a link between the
economic status of an individual and the reasons for a particular type of
behavior. Findings reveal that people who are detached from the society
or family have a high likelihood of engaging in crimes. Committing crimes is
not a choice to some people because they need to survive. The use of criminal
means to achieve basic needs is inevitable. Sometimes the gangs are willing to
stop engaging in criminal acts as long as they are provided adequate support
from society. It is crucial for the society to reach out to individuals living
in poverty to minimize the gap between the poor and rich.
Connolly et al. (2021, pp. 15-16) points out that the society can put in
place measures that will help reduce the rates of crime. First is to include
the less privileged individuals when structuring communities. The society
should establish a clear framework, which is based on ensuring every member in
the community thrives. The aim of establishing a structural functioning is not
to avoid crime completely, but to get rid of any crime that may a repetitive
component.
Conclusion
The need to control crime has resulted to the need to determine the causes
of crimes. The social structure theories have been found to be persuasive in
explaining reasons why crimes are committed. The aim of social structure
theories is to alleviate the social conditions that generate crime. The theory
has suggested that people living in poor areas are prone to crime. The society
provides people of different social groups with differing means of achieving
the societal goals. However, most of the people in lower class level have
blocked opportunities due to socioeconomic status or class location. As a
result, these individuals are not able to accomplish their goals through
legitimate means. However, it is important for the social structure theory to focus
on other causes of crime, because the idea that the socioeconomic aspect is the
only cause of crime makes the theory inconclusive as suggested by the
opponents. The three subtypes of social structure theory that has been
identified include culture conflict theory, strain theory, and social
disorganization. They offer explanation on the reasons why criminal behaviors
occur in in our society. Therefore, through understanding the various ways in
which crime occurs will help in ensuring appropriate approaches are formulated
to deal with the causes of crime.
References
Akers, R. L. (2017).
Social learning and social structure: A
general theory of crime and deviance. New York: Routledge.
Retrieved >
http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/401D/Readings/Akers.pdf
Barton, M. S., Valasik, M. A., & Brault, E. (2021). Disorder or
disadvantage: investigating the tension between neighborhood social structure
and the physical environment on local violence.
Criminal
justice review,
46(2), 134-155. Retrieved>
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016821996798
Connolly, E. J., Said Al-Ghamdi, M., Nezar Kobeisy, A., Alqurashi, F. H.,
Schwartz, J. A., & Beaver, K. M. (2021). Neighborhood exposure to violence
and delinquency in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: a partial test of social
structure and social learning theory.
Journal of
interpersonal violence,
36(15-16),
NP8747-NP8772. Retrieved>
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31046548/
Nicholson, J., & Higgins, G. E. (2017). Social structure social learning
theory: Preventing crime and violence. In
Preventing crime and
violence (pp. 11-20). Springer, Cham. Retrieved>
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-44124-5_2
Siegel, L. J., & Ziembo-Vogl, J. M. (2010).
Criminology:
Theories, patterns, and typologies. Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Retrieved>
https://silo.pub/criminology-theories-patterns-and-typologies-tenth-edition.html
Stinson, P. M. (2020). 4. Social Structure Theories. In
Criminology
Explains Police Violence (pp. 73-90). University of California
Press. Retrieved>
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/social-structure-theories-criminology-seventh-edition-p-184-219
Wacquant, L. J. (2019). Making class: The middle class (es) in social theory
and social structure. In
Bringing class back In (pp.
39-64). Routledge. Retrieved>
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429033612-4/making-class-middle-class-es-social-theory-social-structure-l%C3%B6ic-wacquant
