SOCIAL
DISORGANIZATION
REVISED EDITION
MABEL A. ELLIOTT, Ph.D.
Associate professor of Sociology
University of Kansas
and
FRANCIS E. MERRILL, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Dartmouth College
HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS
New York London
SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
Copyright, 1934, 1941, by Harper & Brothers
Printed in the United States of America
All rights in this book are reserved.
No part of the book may be reproduced in any
manner whatsoever without written permission
except in the case of brief quotations embodied
in critical articles and reviews. For information
address Harper & Brothers
E-T
CONTENTS
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX
XX. |
Part II,. Individual Disorganization
THE CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL DISORGANIZATION
ADOLESCENCE
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENT
THE JUVENILE DELINQUENT (Continued)
THE ADULT OFFENDER
SEX OFFENDERS
SEX OFFENDERS (Continued)
PROSTITUTION
DRINK
MOBILITY
MIGRATION
MAN IN INDUSTRY
WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN INDUSTRY
UNEMPLOYMENT
UNEMPLOYMENT (Continued)
THE MENTALLY DEFICIENT
THE MENTALLY DERANGED
SUICIDE
|
61
83
103
125
152
195
214
242
276
299
328
356
384
425
455
478
505
545 |
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.
XXVII. |
Part III. Family Disorganization
THE CONCEPT OF FAMILY DISORGANIZATION
THE CHANGING FAMILY
THE ROMANTIC FALLACY
FAMILY TENSIONS
FAMILY DISORGANIZATION
FAMILY DISORGANIZATION (Continued)
AFTER DIVORCE
|
585
601
647
666
703
734
755 |
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.
XXXI.
XXXII.
XXXIII. |
Part IV. Community Disorganization
THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY DISORGANIZATION
ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF COMMUNITY DISORGANIZATION
THE SMALL TOWN
LEISURE
POLITICAL CORRUPTION
CRIME AND THE COMMUNITY
|
787
813
836
864
899
927 |
vii
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION
Seldom has there been in history a period presenting so many evidences of social disorganization as does the world of today. The contemporary social order is beset by disintegrating forces from within and by hostile intrusions from without. In large areas of Europe and Asia the recently existing social orders have been destroyed. The remaining areas of peaceful order have contracted to the western hemisphere.
The need is therefore imperative that all who value a democratic way of life become aware of the forces within a peaceful society that make for its disorganization. To identify and to control these forces are tasks essential to the defense and preservation of that democratic way of life. All who agree to this statement will find the new edition of Elliott and Merrill's Social Disorganization a valuable source of information and a dependable statement of principle.
This issue of a well-known book is no mere reprinting of material. It is a thoroughly revised treatment of the subject that brings the entire volume up to date by the addition of recent knowledge. Throughout the new work the authors have systematically used son nd sociological concepts to clarify and interpret a vast mass of factual material.
Finally, and by no means of least importance, the authors have added a critical and informative analysis of present world disorganization, as this greatest of all forms of disorganization expresses itself in revolution, fascism, and war.
The Editor is gratified that this important book is now added to the list of works in Harper's Social Science Series.
F. STUART CHAPIN
ix
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
American sociologists have traditionally presumed an interest in
the practical considerations of social welfare. Courses in "Social
Problems or "Social Pathology have been among the most popuLu offerings of academic sociology, yet there has seldom been any
attempt to integrate the subject matter within a scheme of systematic sociology. For the most part, the approach to the conglomerate topics listed under these Leadings has becn on a strictly
common-sense level. Little or no consideration Las been given to
the social processcs involved in these objective manifestations of
disordered social relationships.
Social Disorganization, as the name implies, is an attempt to
study these problems from the standpoint of thc social processes
which bring them about. It is in a sense a study of the genesis of
anti-social attitudes in the individual, the family, and the community, and of the conflict between these attitudes and those held
by the larger defining group. The specific manifestations of disorganization, whether they take the form of individual sex behavior,
tensions between husband and wife, or the failure to obey the laws
of a given community, are incidental to an underlying conflict of
attitudes.
The wide variety of problems of individual, family, and community disorganization considered below are related, as far as possible, to the sociological concepts which they exemplify. The
authors have attempted to integrate the most significant conclusions of contemporary sociology on these subjects. The disorganization of the homeless man, for instance, is not treated as an isolated phenomenon; rather, he is discussed as an unfortunate victim
of the larger process of human mobility. Divorce is not considered
simply as an alarming symptom of the decay of marriage; rather is
it treated as a significant index of a number of converging social
movements which have resulted in drastic changes in the structure
and function of the family. Political corruption is not held to be the result of the sinister machinations of a group of vicious and unprincipled politicians; rather is it viewed as a phase of disorganization
that is the natural result of certain social forces operating in the
community.
The authors have consciously avoided the use of the tenn, "social
pathology, and the biological implications of the organic nature of
society that such a concept embodies. We have spoken of a disorganized, rather than a pathological, individual, family, or cornmunity. We realize that this may seem merely to be substituting one norm for another, a standard of social organization for that of
social health. But the implications of this distinction go farther than
this. In recent years, students of the nature of society have gradually abandoned the quasi-biological organic concepts that were so
popular at the turn of the century. Society has been conceived in
terms peculiar to itself, rather than in terms of a hypothetical super-
organism. As must be apparent from any perusal of our book, we
believe that any fruitful study of time nature of social disorganization
must be based npon an analysis of social organization and social
processes.
In our exposition of the specific manifestations of social disorganization we hope to make some claim to logical arrangement. The
division of the subject matter into individual (or personal), family,
and community disorganization is the first step in this direction.
This order might, of course, be reversed with equal logic, inasmuch
as the disorganization of the individual and that of the community
are essentially but two aspects of the same whole. Each of the major
divisions is prefaced by a discussion of the conceptual nature of
the social processes involved in the particular type of disorganization under consideration. Similarly, this arrangement has been applied to the individual chapters wherever feasible. Each division is
concluded by a discussion of those types of acute disorganization
which represent the tragic dénouememmt of the particular crisis that
is under investigation. Thus suicide is presented as the final outcome of the process of individual disorganization, the last and
irrevocable step in a series of minor crises. Desertion and divorce
are the twin issues of family disorganization; personal demoralization following divorce is a possible aftermath. Revolution is eoiismdered as the violent breakdown of a traditional organization of
both the local and the national community. Thus we have attempted to develop a certain conceptual unity to problems that
have heretofore been considered in a somewhat random fashion.
While our book represents a conscious effort to reorganize the
approach to the academic study of social problems, we recognize
our wide debt to all previous contributions in the field from which
we have drawn so liberally for illustrative material. A survey of
European literature in the field indicates that the French have
made the most notable contribution. Since so little of the French
sociological theory is available in contemporary American publications, we are including a summary statement, "Social Disorganization in Contemporary French Thought, in the Appendix.
In the preparation of the manuscript we wish particularly to acknowledge our indebtedness to Professor Winnifred D. Lowranec
of the University of Kansas who read the proof, and to Mrs. Dorothy Grauerholz Wright who gave so much time and care to the
preparation of the index.
December, 1933 |
MABEL A. ELLIOTT
FRANCIS E. MERRILL |
xiii
PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION
The world has changed since the first edition of Social Disor- ganization was published in 1934. Economic problems then over- shadowed all other types of human maladjustments. Today the breakdown in the economic structure pales into comparative in- significance as we witness the vast upheaval of modern war raging in the Old World. Yet any penetrating analysis of the social scene must convince us that the major problems of economics, politics, and war are all fundamentally interrelated. These social disruptions confound and confuse men and we can expect neither the new watchwords of the Fascists nor the old lip service to democracy to save us from further devastation and disorganization. Only through some scientific understanding of the processes underlying these maladjustments can there be any hope for satisfactory readjustment. Naturally, we make no pretense to complete understanding, but times like these make patent the imperative need for sociological study and research in the various aspects of social problems.
Our point of view in this volume is essentially a ramification and an augmentation of our earlier book. In presenting this edition we hope to have improved, clarified, and brought up to date our anal- ysis of the nature of social disorganization. Retaining essentially the same sociological framework, we have sought to incorporate the most recent research and statistics available for the various topics covered. The book has been almost completely rewritten, but naturally some parts have been revised more than others, because of the differences in the nature of the material. The theoretical conceptual chapters have been rethought and, we hope, improved. A large body of recent research data has been incorporated in the chapters on "The Juvenile Delinquent" and "The Adult Offender." The treatment of illegitimacy under "Sex Offenders" has been greatly expanded and new material on venereal disease has been in- cluded. The repeal of the Prohibition Amendment has altered the analysis of "Drink." The trek of the dust-bowl "Okies" to California and the increase of transiency because of unemployment called for a detailed revision of "Mobility." The refugee problem has altered our conception of "Migration." State and federal legis- lation has mitigated some, but not all, of the more serious problems of industry. The Social Security Act has removed some of the haz- ards of unemployment. Advances in medical science have affected our understanding of mental derangement. Social research has made clear the importance of social as well as biological factors in mental disease and suicide. Social conditions and social legislation have had their impact upon family disorganization and the divorce rate. We have employed case studies throughout for illustrative purposes but have drawn our conclusions from statistical data.
In our revision of the section on "Community Disorganization,~~ we have placed greater stress on institutional disorganization and lack of community consensus. Case studies amplify our treatment of both urban and small-town disorganization. Housing is pre- sented in relation to ecological factors in community disorgani- zation. The monumental contribution made by Professor Arthur J. Todd and his co-workers in the Chicago Recreational Survey and other important research in leisure-time activities have been in- corporated in our chapter on "Leisure." The close interrelation between "Political Corruption" and "Crime and the Community" has been emphasized and illustrated with pertinent factual situa- tions.
Part V presents a new section, "World Disorganization," for no text dealing with social disorganization today can ignore the inti- mate relationship between the individual and the international situation. Revolution, Fascism, and War are treated as objective indexes to social disorganization on the one hand, and with special reference to their impact upon individuals, families, institutions, and communities on the other. The chapter, "Social Disorgani- zation in Contemporary French Thought," has been omitted.
In every sense of the word, these chapters represont the joint thinking of the authors who have both contributed to the best of their ability in integrating the material for the whole book. Mr. Merrill is, however, responsible for the chapter, "The Romantic Fallacy."
This book is possible only because of the wide field of research and scholarship from which we have drawn. In addition to our in- clusive debt to scholars in the field, we are personally indebted to the assistance given us by a number of research specialists. Leon E. Truesdell, Chief Statistician, and Philip M. Hauser, Assistant Chief Statistician of the United States Bureau of the Census, have suppbed us with important statistics relating to illegitimacy and divorce rates, and have drawn up special tables according to our instructions. We are deeply grateful to the Honorable Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor, to Miss Katherine Lenroot, Chief of the Children's Bureau, to Miss Mary Anderson, Chief of the Women's Bureau, and io Isador Lubin, Chief of the Division of Labor Statistics, all of the United States Department of Labor, and to their assistants for their invaluable aid in checking the material presented in the chapters on "Man in Industry," "Women and Children in Industry," and "Unemployment." We are also grate- ful for the important material which they supplied and loaned us. We also wish to thank Max Stern, of the Bureau of Information of the Social Security Board, for data with reference to the federal social security legislation, and Robert Thomas, of the Vocational Education Office, for data on vocational rehabilitation. The Rus- sian, Italian, and German Embassies in Washington supplied us with official statistics pertaining to marriage and divorce in their countries, and the research service of the Encyclopaedia Britannica compiled statistics for us on illegitimacy rates for other countries. The United States Public Health Service furnished us with data on venereal disease and with research on brucellosis, often mistaken for neurosis. The Federal Bureau of Investigation supplied special material with reference to crimes committed. Throughout we have endeavored to use primary source material wherever possible, and have found governmental documents to be by far the most valuable of such material. The document librarian of the University of Colorado, Mr. Reynard Swank, and his assistants were of immense help in locating such materials.
We are also grateful to Louisa Cooke Don-Carlos, Margaret Speelman, Ruby Marks, and Harvey E. Steiger for reading the proof, and to Jessie Hukill for assistance in making the index.
January 5, 1941 |
MABEL A. ELLIOTT
FRANCIS F. MERRILL |
3
PART I
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
A Dynamic Society.— Life is dynamic. Life is ceaseless, bewildering change and man, armed though he is with the experience of the past, can never be certain of the future. Even the immediate present is set in a constantly changing frame of reference which renders contemporary problems difficult to understand and even more difficult to solve. The individual, the family, the local community, the nation, and the world of nations are all involved in varying degrees in the process of social change which renders the old truths uncertain and the new truths transitory.
Social life often exhibits a paradoxical and confusing dualism of change and resistance to change. On the one hand, social change is a restless and dynamic process, but on the other hand, social controls tend to become fixed and formalized. In the daily process of living, men and women are obliged to face a continuous series of individual crises which necessitate new forms of response, new patterns of behavior, and new ways of thought. Sometimes they can meet and overcome these crises with the experiences and techniques handed down from the past. Often, however, problems arise for which previous experience offers no acceptable definition or solution. In a dynamic society governed by comparatively static social norms, a certain degree of maladjustment is inevitable. This maladjustment leads to social disorganization. Social stability is at best a relative matter.
The element of change in our society is by no means unique. Social change has taken place, first slowly, later rapidly, since the dawn of history. For centuries before the industrial revolution men were forced to adjust themselves to new situations in one way or another. The western world has survived several disruptions so intense that the very pillars of the social order seemed on the verge of collapse. We are not the first nation that has faced the necessity
4
of adapting to social changes or of perishing because of the inexorable course of events. Such revolutionary changes in the past, however, have occurred only after prolonged periods of social stability, when social norms were able to develop in comparative tranquillity. Present-day social change is perhaps more bitter and intense than man has yet had to face. Society is becoming increasingly dynamic.
Life in preliterate society, on the other hand, appears to be virtually static compared to that of the western world. Problems of unemployment, housing, family organization, or personal demoralization seem comparatively simple where there is no landlord, no rising school of feminism, and no system of social control apparently opposed to the natural desires of man. Yet even this stability is illusory. Every anthropologist knows that the "primitive" man is constantly adjusting to a social order which is changing rapidly because of the impact of foreign culture. New religions, new modes of living, new bases of conduct have been imposed upon preliterate man by missionaries, traders, and the United States Marines. Even Robinson Crusoe on his lonely island was doubtless beset daily by new problems and the necessity of defining new situations. Any concept of a completely static society must remain, therefore, as a pure abstraction. For purposes of practical consideration, life must be viewed as a moving equilibrium of social forces.
Out of the commonality of human experience, man has adopted habits of thinking which he has crystallized into institutions and systems of social control. By common consent the traditions, mores, laws, and institutions become the rules in the game of life. Existence takes on an "essential orderliness" and assumes a routinized aspect which the average individual seldom questions. When minor crises arise, he is generally able to meet them successfully because the group has worked out certain conventional procedures. Behavior falls into established grooves. When the socially accepted habits prove inadequate to the new situation, however, the old equilibrium may be destroyed. Then it is that the social structure tends to become disorganized. Within limits, however, these disorganizing forces must be recognized as a part of normal expectancy —a characteristic of the dynamics of social life.
The social structure is built up through the introduction of new elements. Where the process of social accumulation is slow, the
5
social organization may be very stable. With an increased complexity of society and an acceleration in its rate of growth, the relative stability of the social structure is threatened. Living requires greater and greater adjustments. The problems of our own society have thus grown so complex and bewildering that we are faced with an adjustment without precedent in human history. Change is taking place at an accelerated rate not only in the material aspects of our society, but also in the non-material aspects which define and give meaning to the whole. Society has become, to an extent never before approached, an unstable equilibrium of conflicting forces. The understanding and control of these forces is the problem of our age.
The problem of understanding this dynamic aspect of society may be approached from several points of view. Many explanations of social change have been offered since man first became aware of the impermanence of human institutions. Space does not permit a consideration of all these hypotheses. The dynamic aspect of society will be developed in terms of three related but essentially different analyses —the dialectical, the cultural, and the processual.1
The Dialectics of a Dynamic Society.— One of the most dramatic attempts to explain the organization and disorganization of a dynamic society was that made by Karl Marx and the disciples who have followed in his intellectual footsteps. The philosophy of Marx and the program of social action which is so closely related to it both rest upon an understanding of the forces of society which bring about social change. These social dynamics serve a definitely polemical purpose in the Marxian ideology. Both as a sociological explanation and a polemical instrument, this conception has been abundantly criticized by opponents and extravagantly lauded by partisans. We are not interested primarily either in the Utopian claims of the Marxists or in the bitter diatribes of their opponents. It is sufficient for our immediate purpose that Marx depicted with words of fire the dynamic nature of our industrial society.
The intellectual device which Marx used as a basis for his dynamic philosophy is known as the dialectic. This technique was developed and popularized in philosophical circles by the great
1 The best available summary of the various explanations of social dynamics is given in Newell L. Sims, The Problem of Social Change, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, 1939.
6
philosopher, Hegel. Marx inverted the Hegelian dialectic from an extremely idealistic philosophy to one based primarily upon the social and economic forces in a changing material world. The principle underlying the dialectic is, very briefly, that any social situation contains within itself the elements of its own contradiction and eventual destruction. It follows that all societies, no matter how well organized they may appear to be at any particular period in their history, are subject to disorganization from the contradictory forces which they maintain within themselves. An inevitable conflict arises sooner or later in any society between two contradictory sets of social institutions and class alignments. Out of this conflict, there evolves a new society with a new organization of social institutions and with another system of social relationships.
The dialectical process consists of three stages: (1) the thesis (any phenomenon at any stage of its development); (2) the antithesis (its logical opposite or pragmatic contradiction); (3) the synthesis (the new phenomenon which has emerged from the preceding period of disorganization). A given society may thus function in apparent calm and tranquillity for generations, only to suffer a sudden and apparently inexplicable collapse. Certain forces were present in the society beneath the surface which eventually led to its disorganization and the establishment of a new order. This new order will be drastically different from the society which it superseded, but it too will be a transitory phase. Eventually a third organization of society will appear which may continue for generations. Permanent social stability will, however, never be reached in the modern world. Social change never rests. The new synthesis becomes in its turn the basis for further social change.
In his analysis of social change, Marx applied the principle of the dialectic to the socio-economic system of production prevalent in any society and to the social institutions and class alignments which have evolved from this system. The techniques and methods of production are constantly changing in a modern industrial society. These changes in the physical structure go on at a more rapid rate than do the alterations in the institutional structure and the ideologies corresponding to the institutions. The ossification of the non-material elements in society gives rise to a rigid formalization of the social order. The "irreconcilable contradictions" between the various social institutions and patterns of behavior generate
7
numerous and bitter conflicts within the social organization. Men cling to their old ideas of family and property in the face of events which have drastically modified these social institutions. Attitudes and values which were applicable at one stage of the dialectical process have little or no relation to the new order of things. This disparity between the ideal and the actuality constitutes one of the most striking characteristics of a dynamic society. Social disorganization is the aftermath of such disparities.
While social disorganization in its various aspects is to be our major concern in this volume, any adequate understanding of its nature must depend upon an understanding of social organization itself. Social disorganization is the result of disturbed social relationships, and the normative aspects of human society become a pertinent matter in the discussion of such disturbances. If the student of social disorganization would understand the socially pathological, he should understand the socially normal, just as the physician should know the nature of health if he would understand the nature of disease. Since the term "social organization" subsumes the whole function and structure of society it must include man and all the ideas, knowledge, techniques, achievements, traditions, aspirations, fashions, folkways, mores, and institutions which have interpenetrated within an existent social order. Social organization is then that totality of human personalities and their conscious and unconscious attitudes, their crystallized and uncrystallized ideas and institutions which in complex interrelationship make up the framework of human existence. Cooley has defined social organization as "the total expression of conscious and subconscious tendency, the slow crystallization in many forms and colors of the life of the human spirit." Thus society must be considered from both its static and dynamic aspects. The dynamic forces are obviously the most disruptive.
Tangible evidences of the social disorganization brought about in a dynamic society will be considered in subsequent chapters. At this point we merely wish to suggest certain implications of the dialectical point of view to an understanding of social organization. In so doing we are holding no brief for the Marxian ideology or for any program of action based upon it. Marx was neither completely realistic nor consistent in his treatment of social change. To the extent that he has impressed upon subsequent thought the
8
dynamic nature of the social process, however, students of social disorganization are in his debt.2
The Social Processes of a Dynamic Society.— A second explanation of social dynamics has been built up about the concept of social processes as developed by the sociologists. Social organization is dynamic because it consists of certain processes of social interaction which are constantly in a state of unstable equilibrium. An understanding of social organization thus requires a knowledge of social interaction in terms of social processes.
Social processes have been defined by Park and Burgess as "the name for all changes which can be regarded as changes in the life of the group."3 Cooley similarly regarded social organization as "a complex of forms or processes each of which is living and growing by interaction with the others, the whole being so unified that what takes place in one part affects all the rest."4 The results of these complex social relationships have been viewed from a number of different standpoints, depending upon the particular process which the observer has considered basic. Some sociologists have believed conflict to be the fundamental social process; others have been equally certain that competition is the key to the enigma of social relationships; still others have held that the basic processes are association and dissociation.5 A more realistic approach to the problem of understanding the nature of social processes is to recognize that society is the product of a number of reciprocal and /interrelated processes. The most widely accepted classification of these processes has been made by Park and Burgess. Communication, conflict, competition, accommodation, and assimilation make up the dynamic organization of society in their system of sociology. Let us consider briefly the nature of these five social processes.
2 The analysis of Marx and Engels of the dialectical nature of social organization is found scattered through many of their more abstruse philosophical writings. For interpretations of the dialectical position cf. Sidney Hook, "Dialectical Materialism," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1933; Edmund Wilson, To The Finland Station, Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., New York, 1940; Henry B. Parkes, Marxism: An Autopsy, Houghton Muffin Company, Boston, 1939. 3 Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1924, p. 5'. 4 Charles Horton Cooley, Social Process, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1922, p. 28. 5 Leopold Von Wiese, Systematic Sociology, adapted by Howard Becker, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1932.
9
TIlE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 9
1. Communication.-Communication is l)asic to all social interaction and fundamental to all social organization. lndccd, as
John Dewey has pointed out, "society not only continues to exist by
transmission, by communication, but it may fairly be said to exist
in transmission, in communication. 6 Only in so far as the members
of a group or a society are in substantial communication with onc
another can we look for organized or effective functioning. Communication must, consist of more than the mere formal process of
transmitting and accepting verbal and non-verbal symbols if the
society is to be adequately organized. Communication in final
analysis involves commomi undcrstanding and common definition of
the situation-in short, consensus. Complete unanimity of attitudes
and values is seldom reached for any length of time in modern
society. Most communication is inevitably incomplete and fragmnentary. Symbols can never mean exactly the same thing to all
men who use them. NVords, phrases, and ideas arouse different
trains of thought in different persons. Emotions accompanying the
same word differ with different persons. Some degree of communication, however, must continue or the society will cease to exist.
2. Conflict-Communication between persons or groups may
tend to bring about social harmony. Under other circuirmstammces,
communication may result ii' conflict or competition. \Vhen the
opposition or struggle between persons or groups is conscious and
acrImonious, the process has been defined as conflict.7 Occasionally
conflicts may produce desirable social ends, but in general they are
destructive to the organization of the larger group. Such social conflicts as feuds, class struggles, and international wars are fundamentally disruptive amid tend to bring about the disorganization
of any society in which they are allowcd free play. Conflicts are
also active forces in the clmamigirmg equilibrium of a dynamic society.
3. Conipetitiozi.-When impersonal social forces are in opposition, the struggle is called competition. Where competition applies, the varions elements in society are interacting without any
conscious personal motivation. As Park and Burgess have expressed
it, competition is the process which "determines the distribution
of population territorially and vocationally. 8 The rural and urban
John Dewey, Democracy and Education, Tue Macmillan Company, New
York, 1916, p. 5.
Robert F. Park and Ernest \V. Burgess, op. cit., p. 574.
Ibid., p. soS.
10 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
population densities, the interaction l)etween the individuals within
thcse areas and l)etween the various areas themselves, the economic
interdependence between nations and classes-these and similar
elements in a dynamic society arc all determined by complex competitive processes.
4. Accommodation-Eventually men in conflict come to terms.
In a similar way, the great competitive and conflicting groups and
classes in society make certain mutual, if impermanent, adjustments
whereby they can carry on their various activities with a minimum
of friction. If the recently combative or competitive forces are
evenly matched, the exhaustion of both sides may come before any
cessation of hostilities takes place. In case of war, the victors generally dictate the conditions of the peace. If the interests of two
powerful groups are at stake, as in the ease of industrial disputes,
certain definite agreements may be niade in which both sides make
concessions. \Vhen the conflicting groups vary in power, subordination of the weaker often results. \Vhatever the type of accommodation, however, the permanent stability of the social structure is
affected. The resulting equilibrium may be relatively prolonged or
it may be only a prelude to further conflict. The dynamic forces
of society are still operative; even though their disorganizing effects
may not be superficially apparent.
5. Assimilation-The process of assimilation is, in a sense, an
unconscious adjustment to a changing social scene. ~Ihis is the
process whereby peoples of divergent cultures are absorbed into a
new cultural synthesis. Since it is impossible for persons to divest
themselves of their past experiences, these contacts bring about a
fusion of cultures. The various ethnic groups in America have each
contributed significant elcrneiits to the culture which they have
accepted and shared. Accommodation is often a conscious process
and may take place suddenly and deliberately. Assimilation, on
the other hand, is gradual and depends upon some degree of intimate communication between the members of the larger group.9
These basic social processes are never found in a pure or isolated
form. The elements all function simultaneously and reciprocally in
social organization. In the same dynamic society, political factions
may be in open conflict with one another for the spoils of office,
Mary P. Follett, Creative Experience, Longmans, Green and Co., New
York, 1924, particularly Chapter IX.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 11
eeonomie groups and institutions may be in competition, labor
unions and corporations may be in the process of working out certain accommodative compromises, amid the Poles, Italians, and
Scandinavians may be merging their common cultural values in the
reciprocal process of assimilation. The America in which these
processes are taking place simultaneously is a dynamic society.
Social Change in a Dynamic Soeiety.-The differential rate of
social change is a third explanation of the coniplex nature of modern social organization. The dynamic character of modern social
life may be regarded as the result of swift and often alarming alterations in our material and non-material culture. In earlier periods
when society was relatively static, social change was correspondingly
slow. The era of Washington has been said to resemble that of
Nero more than it does our own modem machine culture. The
impact of modern science and invention has altered our way of
life so completely that many of its most characteristic aspects would
be incomprehensible to the Father of our countryt'
Social change takes place whenever there is an introduction of
new cultural traits into any given society. This introduction may
take place by independent invention or by borrowing from other
eultures. If the process of cultural accumulation is slow, the society
is by definition comparatively stable. As the culture base increases
in size and complexity by the addition of new traits, the relative
stability of the society is seriously threatened. Living in a complex society requires more and more adaptability on the part of
individuals amid institutions. The material and non-material dcments of culture tend to become further and further out of adjustment. Modern economic organizations cannot function effectively
with our outworn legal structure. The mores become more and
more unsuited to new situations. The foundations of the social
structure totter as the inconsistencies between old social theories
and new social practices increase in nuniber and intensity.
The manner in which these social changes occur may be considered under the following catcgorics: (i ) Social techniques. The
productive techniques by which society carries on the business of
making a living are often the first elements to undergo a change.
This change takes place as the result of inventions within the cul
14) Cf. \Villiarn F. Ogburn, "Stationary and Changing Societies, American
Journal of Sociology, 42:1631 (July, 1936).
12 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
ture or borrowings from without. New machinery or improvements
upon the old are constantly taking place as man seeks to.better his
material circumstances. (2) Economic institutions. The economic
relationships and institutions growing out of the underlying technological processes are the next to follow in the course of social
change. Business grows larger as the cost of new machinery increases. New social classes arise about the different productive functions in an industrial society. (;) Social institutions. The institutions of the family, the school, the church, and the state are in
turn affected by the changes in the larger economic and social
world. The economic institutions with which man makes a living
color his relationships with all other social institutions. (~) Non-
material elements. the folkways, mores, myths, and ideologies
tend to persist long after the situations which were their original
ramon d'étre have undergone a complete change or have disappeared entirely. The differential rate of change among these various
elements in the social structure in turn gives rise to the phenomenon of cultural lag, i.e., the failure of all the related aspects of a
cultllrc complex to develop at the same rate. The manifold implications of cultural lag for social disorganization will be discussed
at length in time next chapter. Suffice it to mention briefly here the
steps whereby the dynamic aspects of society result from the process
of technological change.lr
The nature of social change may be further illustrated by a concrete example. Consider the long chain of events following the
"invention and popularization of the automobile: (1 ) Basic to
the invention of the automobile were such technological innovations as the internal-combustion engine and the use of rubber for
tires. These and hundreds of other technological changes had
reached such a state of development shortly before the turn of the
present century that the automobile appeared as the inevitable cultural outgrowth. (2) The rapid development of the automobile
industry brought concomitant economic changes in related industries. The tremendous impetus given the steel, rubber, and glass
industries by the manufacture of automobiles is a case in point.
it Cf. William F. Ogburn, Social Change, B. W. Huebsch, New YorX,
1922; Report of the Subconnnittec on technology, National Resources Cornmnittce, l'cchnological Trends and National Policy, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1937.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 13
The demand for labor in the automobile centers brought about
large-scale shifts in population to Detroit and other cities in the
same area. (~) The family, the church, the school, and the state
have undergone i;nportant changes in their institutional structure
and function as the result of the widespread use of the automobile.
I'he family has become more mobile, the church has perforce
come into competition with the automobile as a leisure time activity, and the local community has declined in importance as the
automobile has increased the shopping range of the rural population. (~) The mores, attitudes, and values which arc incorporated
in these basic institutions arc the last to change. Time lagbetwecn
the changing institutional practice and the social sanctions growing
out of this practice is the cause for much of the bewilderment and
uncertainty of modern society. Similarly, many other such changes
have had their impact upon the structure and function of institutions and the social relationships between individuals and groups
iii a dynamic society.
Social Conbol in a Dynamic Society.-Soeial change, from
whatever point of view it is considered, is basic to understanding
a dynamic society. One of the chief difficulties in bringing about
any permanent adjustment between the various elements in modern
society lies in the relative rigidity in the social controls which have
been erected. In the midst of changing techniques, economic processes, and institutional functions, men cling tenaciously to certain
folkways mores, attitudes, values, and ideologies. These controls
which the group imposes upon its menmbers impart a certain consistency and stability to human activities. At the same time, they
tend to render the task of adjustment to the changing world increasingly difficult. We may point out briefly the nature of these
controls?2
1. Folkways.-Students of sociology are so familiar with the importance of the folkways and mores in shaping individual and
group conduct that there is little need for elaborate discussion here.
Out of the random activities of the functioning organism, man has
evolved a mass of group habit patterns. These habitual forms of
behavior are handed down from one generation to the next and
come to possess a definite social value. They become the "folkCf. Bernhard J Stern, "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological
Innovatiom,' Technological Trends and National Policy, op. cit., pp. 39-66.
14 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
ways of the culture, So it is that the folkways become the only
acceptable ways of acting, whether it be a matter of eating peas
with a fork or conforming to certain forms of dress. Some of these
social habits may have developed out of the slow and laborious
process of trial and error and hence may possess considerable social
validity. On the other hand, they may he the fortuitous survivals
of purely accidental origins and as such possess no social validity
whatever. In either case, they become the arbiters of conduct and
serve as comparatively stable elements in a changing society.'3
2. The Mores-The mores possess a further social or ethical
sanction. They have been defined as "folkways with a philosophy
of social welfare attached and hence carry the implication of
greater importance to the well-being of the group.'4 Individuals
may violate certain of the folkways and still retain their status as
reputable members of the group. If their behavior runs consistently
counter to the mores, however, they are condemned and ostracized
by their fellows. The mores remain as the absolute standard to
which the individual must conform if he is to remain a respectable
member of the functioning group. The compulsive power of the
mores is strong in all societies and tends to approach the character
of absolute social norms which must be obeyed without question.
3. Laws.-Laws have been called crystallized mores. As such,
they are mores armed with the authority of the state, which may
compel subservience and inflict punishment when it sees fit.'5
Murder is not only a social taboo, an infraction against the mores,
it is also an infringement upon the laws of the land. Members
of the group punish the murderer through the authority which the
law provides. In order to be fully effective, a law must embody the
mores. If legal enactments nun counter to the mores of a large
pxoportion of the people, they may be virtually nullified by mass
non-observance. The prohibition amendment was enacted into
formal law contrary to the mores of a considerable minority of the
population. The social control exerted by this law was at best
random and chaotic.
4. Institutions.-Institutions are perhaps the most deeply in"William Graham Sumner, Folkways, Ginn and Company, Boston, 1906,
pp. 2-30.
14 Ibid., pp. 30-45.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 15
trenched of all the elements in our social organization. Sumner has
giyen the classic definition of an institution as "a concept plus a
structure. ~ Institutions represent values which have become incorporated into a social framework and hence constitute important
units in the total structure of a dynamic society. They also constitute elaborate control devices, whose essential rigidity renders difficult the task of maintaining any social equilibrium. The major
social institutions are generally conceded to be the family, the
church, the school, the state, and economic institutions. Religious
ideas incorporated into the framework of the church come to possess a definite rigidity. Educational ideas become embodied in
elaborate educational institutions which by their very nature tend
to develop a vested interest in a particular forni of training. The
conceptions of the patriarchal family have become so closely associated with the institutional mores of the family that any change
in the traditional pattern is considered a fundamental decline in
the family itself. The functions of the state are notoriously subject
to social ossification and hence arc difficult to alter when the social
situation changes.'7
Basic institutions are not only rigid in structure; they tend to
produce a group of advocates for the status quo on the grounds of
its "essential validity. The theories advanced are usually born out
of a reed for protecting existent social forms against doctrines
which threaten their continuance. Those who support obsolete
practices are firmly convinced of the absolute character of their
cherished institutions. Thus child welfare projects arc resisted
because they seem to undermine the prerogatives of the family.
Labor legislation is strenuously fought because it calls into question
the traditional right of the employer to hire and fire as he sees fit.'8
These and other similar attempts to justify firmly imbedded institutional values have been called "cultural compulsives. '9 They
~ For a discussion of the relationship of institutions to social problen~s,''
of. L. K. Frank, "Social Problems, American Journal of Sociology, 30:462-
473 (January, 1925).
For a stimulating discussioa of the myths which cnforce social stability
in the modern world ci Thurman N. Arnold, The Folklore of Capitalism,
Yale University Press, New Haven, 1937.
~ V. F. Calverton, "Modern Anthropology and the Theory of Cultural
Compulsives, The Making of Man, The Modern Library, New York, 1931.
16 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
grow out of vested interests in a culture and "represent the group
interest in its psychological form. Such compulsives must be
reckoned with in every society as forms of group rationalizations
which attempt to exonerate the society of serious maladjustments.
I'hese attitudes render society relatively impervious to change or
suitable adjustment to external modifications. Men ignore social
disorganization as long as their fundamental beliefs are not called
into question. The presence of these rigid elements in society is
responsible for the tenacity with which social change is resisted.
The maladjustments of a dynamic society are accentuated by this
resistance.20 At the same time, readjustment is also hampered by
the persistencc of out-moded institutions. This has been especially
true in the development of public welfare agencies.
Social Harmony and Social Dynamies.-Complete social harmony is manifestly impossible in a dynamic society'. A society in
which all persons unite in common definitions of all the important
situations has been reached only in the Utopias for which various
men of good will have cherished dreams through the ages. There
is no society in contemporary western civilization in which even
an approximation of social harmony is evident. The disharmonious
social elements, on the other hand, are appareiit in the divergent
ideologies and hostile class alignments of the surviving democracies.
These elements are also present, however much they are concealed,
in the totalitarian states, in which "social organization has ofteii
been imposed at the muzzle of a machine gun. Complete social
harmony implies a unanimity of opinion and a stability in techniques and behavior patterns which are inconceivable in a rapidly
changing society.
The nearest approximation to social harmony that ever existed
in western Europe disappeared some seven hundred years ago. The
harmony of the Middle Ages was marked by the relative absence of
social change. In the mediaeval community, where conduct was
defined by neighborhood opinion and by the church, considerable
consensus was undoubtedly present. Henry Adams has given us a
memorable picture of this social harmouy in his study of Mont St.
~ For a penetrating discussion of the problem of social control in a dynamic
society cf. Willard Wailer, "Social Problems and the Mores, American
Sociological Review, 1 :9zz-933 (Deceniber, 1936).
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 17
Mlichel and ChartresY' In mediaeval society any great disparity beween individual attitudes and social definitions was practically
ion-existent. Transgressing the mores was rare. The great majority
A persons accepted uncritically the duties and privileges of the
2on2nlunity and the church.
The cloistered harmony of the Middle Ages was rudely and pernanently dispelled by the profound changes which accompanied
die commercial and industrial revolutions. The discoveries of new
lands across the seas, the development of new trade routes and the
resulting stimulation of conmmerce, the revolutionary conceptions
Df the universe introduced by the great scientists of the Renamssammce
-all these have been discussed in a thousand histories, biographies,
novels, and essays. Suffice it to point out here the startling implications of this "brave new xvorld upon the relatively harmonious
social order of the Middle Ages. The social organization which
Thomas Aquinas and Dante had reverently conceived disappeared
completely, never to return.
The comparatively static culture of the Middle Ages has been
replaced by a dynamic equilibrium of constantly changing forces.
By their very nature, these forces can develop only an iniperfect
harmony. In the present society, institutional miictabolism is occurring at the most rapid rate the world has ever known. No longer
is there any essential harmony between the desires of the individual and those of the group or much less between the various
desires of conflicting groups. iii mediaeval society there was little
significant difference between individual and social interests. In
the highly individualized life of modern urban society, where every
man is motivated by basically individualistic ratter than communal
ends, this agreement seldom exists. One man can and often does
profit from another's misfortune. Social harmony is replaced by the
competition and conflict of hostile individuals, institutions, classes,
and nations.
[he modern world has thus become committed by the inexorable logic of events to a philosophy of social chamige. It is only
in the totalitarian states that.an attempt is being made to turn back
the clock and congeal society into a system of feudal amid "harmonious class relationships. In communities with a maximum of
21 Henry Adams, Mont St. Michel and Chartres, Houghton Muffin Corn
pany, Boston, 1904.
18 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
social harmony and a high degree of social organization, social
change takes place very slowly. Where men are motivated largely
by one common purpose and where the division of labor is not
highly specialized, there is little incentive to depart from traditional
techniques and practices. Complete harmony of interests and attitudes produces intellectual stagnation and the uncritical acceptancc
of existing social values. Disorganization is the price we must pay
for social change and social progress.
Social organization and disorganization are thus purely relative
concepts, dependent upon different degrees of disharmony of interests in a dynamic society. As modern society becomes increasingly
complex, as social change increases in rapidity, the stresses and
strains attendant upon social organization become more intense.
Unless these strains are abated or neutralized, we may expect a
cumulative increase in individual and social disorganization in the
future. The task of social reorganization, of bringing comparative
order out of social chaos, of introducing a new consensus into an
individualized society, becomes correspondingly greater.
Social Organization and Social Normality.-The study of social
organization and disorganization has been associated traditionally
with the concepts of normality and abnormality and with the inevitable value judgments which accompany these concepts. An
"organized society has been presumed to be normal and a disor&dnized society abnormal. This conception carries with it certain
ethical and moral implications whereby the "normal is conceived to be the ethical, while the "abnormal is conceived in
terms of immorality and undesirability. This moral dichotomy obscures to a considerable extent a realistic understanding of social
organization and disorganization. The existence of such value systems is recognized as an important factor in the organization of
society, but we should recognize at the same time the "natural
character of many activities which are condemned by moral judgments. The degree of social organization or disorganization in a
particular society is dependent in part upon the disparity in moml
definitions among the members. As Wirth points out, the concepts
of social organization and disorganization both have a normative
basis.22
~ Louis Wirth, "Ideological Aspects of Soda! Disorganization, American
Sociological Review, 5:472-482 (August, 1940).
TUE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 19
Social disorganization in modern society is in no sense an "abnormal phenomenon. Neither is it brought about by the sinister
machinations of vicious and immoral persons. Social disorganization
is rather the natural result of the breakdown iii social consensus
that has been taking place for centuries under the impact of an
increasing rate of social change. Those persons who consider social
organization to be the normal (i.e., usual) situation are thinking
in very much the same terms as those optimistic business men and
politicians who consider prosperity as normal and depressions as
abnormal states in the national economy. It is a human propensity
to consider those phenomena which we prefer as normal manifestations of a desirable social organization and those which we dislike
as the temporary maladjustments of that organization. Such interpretations make an understanding of individual, family, and cornmuriity disorganization extremely difficult and render effective
social reorganization unlikely.
In a situation in which the social structure is seriously maladjusted by the rapidity and disparity in the rate of social change,
the inevitable result is some degree of social disorganization. By
the very nature of the social process, depressions are as "normal
as prosperity, social disorganization is as "normal as social organization, and social change is more "normal than social stability.
It is difficult to reconcile our wishful thinking about social stability
and social order with the harsh reality of social change and social
instability. We must bring about this reconciliation between the
ideal and the actuality, however, if we are to adjust ourselves to a
dynamic society. In a time of world crisis, we must face the facts of
social change with insight and courage. Nostalgic mental excursions
into the past are more dangerous now than ever before.
mc task of understanding social phenomena is further complicated because such items do not admit of the same objective consideration as physical or biological data. Certain human attitudes
and activities, for example, arc the natural result of Certain combinations of circumstances over which the present generation has no
control. Such activities as prostitution, crime, and political corruption are the natural products of existing social patterns and biological drives. Crimes against property, for example, grow out of
the violation of the mores which sanction private ownership. Prosti.
20 SOCIAL DISORGANIZA'IION
tution is the inevitable concomitant of such social relationships as
monogamous marriage and the prc-marital sex taboos between men
and women of the same social class. Political corruption is the result
of the democratic process operating in a laissez faire economy
in which financial success is placed above political honesty. These
are, of course, only partial explanations of complex social problems.
The important consideration is that many of the activities which
are defined as prima fade evidence of a disorganized society are the
natural outgrowtbs of certain institutions and changes which are
an integral part of that societvY3
From the point of view of their natural sequence, thesc and
other indices of social disorganization might theoretically be con-
ceived in the samc impersonal terms as the phenomena of birth,
sickness, and death. Sickness is no longer considered evidence of
moral turpitude. Mental derangement is now in the process of
transition in popular folklore from being considered irrefutable
evidence of diabolical possession to bcing recognized as merely
another form of illness. In the distant future, crime nmv be viewed
in similarly impersonal terms as the natural rcsult of certain social
forces and not as evidcnce of deliberate moral depravity. The complicating factors which prevent arriving at a judicious and impartial
understanding of such activities as crime, prostitutioti, and political
corruption are the social definitions which accompany thcni. Tim
sanction of the group alone determines the acceptability of anx'
act or belief. The mores, as Sumner points out, can make anything
right. The definition of the situation, not the situation itself, is the
important eonsideration.24
Social definitions are themselves social products, growing directly out of the life of the group. The moral stability of the Middle
Ages was the natural result of a social order that was relatively
static and traditional. The breakdown of this stability was the
equally natural result of social changes which dissolved the traditional social ties and rendered more difficult the estal)lishment of
new ones. The definitions vital to oue period lose their vitality for
another age. The conditions which originally gave rise to the norms
23 Willard Wailer, op. cit. Cf. also L. K. Frank-, Society as the Paticnt,
American Journal of Sociology, 42:335-344 (Noveinhcr, 1936).
24 William I. Thomas, The Unadjusted Girl, little, Brown & Company,
Boston, 1923, pp. 4>~.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 21
have undergone such alterations as to be unrecognizable. The
norms themselves linger on, like vestigial remains of an age that
is gone forever75
Consensus and Social Organization.-Soeial organization is fundamentally a problem of consensus. \Vithont a general social agreement on basic issues, society cannot be said to exist. As \Virth
points out, " there is no society without an ethos, i.e., without
shared values, objectives, preferences, and the well-founded anticipation of the members that all the others recognize the rules of
the society and will abide by them. 26 V/hen men fail to concur
in their purposes, all the machine guns and police which a dictator
may am ass are impotent to maintain the status quo. As Do Tocqueyule indicated a hundred years ago, "A society can exist only when
a great number of men consider a great nnniber of things in the
same point of view; when they hold the same opinions upon many
suhjects, and when the same occurrences suggest the same thoughts
and impressions to their minds. 27 In short, a minimum of agreement must exist before collective action is possible. When men
begin to lose the fund of common understandings and expectations
which make up their consensus, social disorganization may ho said
to exist.
The concept of consensus may best be nnderstood in the simple
terms of its literal derivation-namely, as a process of "feeling together hy'the majority of the members of a given society upon the
important matters of their common life. Ibis substantial unanimity
of opinion is a product of a way of life where all persons are
enlisted in the search for a common goal, where men are animated
by a common purpose. Consensus is a spontaneous product and
cannot be enfotced by fiat or force. It is the intangible expression
of the inner life of a society which isas difficult to define as it is
important to understand if one is to grasp the essential element of
social organization. Without some fundamental unanimity in a
society, its physical organization is no more than a hollow shell.
Park and Burgess have expressed its crucial importance as follows:
25 For a significant analysis of the nature of conduct norms cf. l'horsten
Sellin. Culture Conflict and Crime, Social Science Research Council. New
York, 1938.
~ Louis Wirth, op. cit.
27 Alexis Dc Tocqneville, Democracy ITI America, New York, 1899, Vol. 1,
p. 398, quoted by Louis Wirtb, op. cit.
22 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
"Society is a complex of organized habits, sentiments, and social
attitudes-in short, consensus. 28
The essence of consensus lies neither in the slavish insistence
upon formal rules of etiquette nor in the performance of a series
of ceremonies grouped about the peripheral elements of group life.
Consensus is rather an expression of the common definition of
situations that are of vital importance to the society as a whole.
Such agreement takes the form of a general agreement npon such
matters as the nature, role, and iniportance of religion in society;
the duties of the family group toward its members and the obligations of the members toward the group itself; the nature of the
property relationships and the relative importance of these relationships as compared to other values in the society. It is further
concerned with the type of educational system in operation and
whether the emphasis of that system shall be upon an uncritical
preservation of the obsolete elements in the cultural heritage or
upon a eritical examination of these elements. Consensus applies
to the government of the society, the groups which this government serves, and its solicitude for the welfare of the mass of the
citizens. Finally, consensus involves a basic agreement with reference to the relationship of the individual to the group. lhose
societies which have spontaneously developed a high degree of
solicitude for the welfare of the group as a whole rather than for
the protection of the predatory activities of certain powerful individuals may be said to possess consensus in the fullest sense of the
term. When this common point of view does not exist, the
society is basically in a state of disorganization, even though the
beggars arc no longer seen on the streets and the trains all run
on time.
The phenomenon of consensus should also be considered from
a point of view which we have already suggested-namely, the
definition of the social situation. When the definitions of important social situations are essentially similar, when common understandings have grown up about th& basic social institutions and
relationships, consensus may be said to exist. The values of any
society are affirmed and created through the definitions which that
society places upon certain important and recurrent situations.
28 Robert F. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, op. cit., p. r6i; cf. also Horace
M. Kallen, "Consensus, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1933.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 23
Every marriage ceremony in the United States is a reaffirmation of
the acceptance of the conception of the monogamous family. Every
criminal apprehended and sent to prison is the redefinition of social
values with regard to crime. Every department store purchase is an
unconscious assent to the social norms related to private property.
The consensus of the group must continually strengthen and
reaffirm these and other values if the society is to remain in a state
of sound organization. For the groat majority of social acts must
have a social definition before they can be adjudged good or bad.
Juvenile delinquency, for example, mnist be constantly defined as
such by the group before it can be regarded as truly delinquent
conduct. The moral and ethical code of a society is thus in essence
a set of regulations and implicit taboos built up by generations of
persons who have learned to define the same situation in the same
way and have transmitted their definitions to their children. All the
manifold forms of group morality, whether immanent in the mores,
formally incorporated in the legal statutes, or inscribed in letters of
gold in holy books are basically nothing but "tIne generally accepted
definitions of the situation. 29 By affirming these definitions on
every appropriate occasion society maintains its basic consensus.
When all the niembers of a given society are in virtual agreement on the definitions of certain fundamental situations, that
society is harmonious and organized. When there is general disagreement concerning the social implications of particular activities
or creeds, the seeds of social disorganization have been sown. The
social agreement which produces consensus is highly relative, ranging all the way from the complete social cohesion of the isolated
primitive group to the stark conflict of interests within a nation in
the throes of revolution. Modern societies fall between these
extremes. Consensus is relatively strong in the small rural coinmunity and relatively weak in the large metropolitan area. Social
disorganization increases where there is no general agreement,
and individuals define the important interests of society in purely
individualistic terms. Consensus breaks down under the impact of
a new and pervasive individualism.ao
29 William I. flnooias, op. cit., PP. 42-43.
IC William 1. Thomas and Florian Znanieeki, The Polish Peasant in Europe
and America (two-volume edition), Alfred A. Knupf, Inc., New York, 1927,
Vol. II, p. 117.
24 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Arnold, Thurman W., The Folklore of Capitalism, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1937. A study of the prevailing myths in
the contemporary social order. The author examines some of the
social controls which operate in our dynamic society.
2. Cooley, Charles horton, Social Organization, Charles Scribners
Soiis, New York, 1909. The psychological forces that integrate
social institutions and bring about social organization are depicted
by one of the pioneers in the American sociological tradition.
~. Cooley, Charles Horton, SoCial Process, Charles Scribner's Soiis,
New York, 1922. The social organization is depicted as a dynamic
and impersonal social growth.
4. Kallen, Horace M., "Consensus, Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, The Macmillan Company, New York, 1933. A discussion
of certain of the basic implications of the concept of consensus by
a distinguished social philosopher.
ç National Resources Committee, Technological Trends arid National Policy, United States Government Printing Office, \Vashmgton, 1937. An illuminating discussion of the role of technology
in social change. The fundamental implications of technological
elIaiIges in a dynamic society are considered both in specific and
in general terms.
6. Oghurn, William Fielding, Social Change, B. NV. Huebseh, New
York, 1922. A penetrating discussion of the dynamics of social
organization in terms of the complex processes of social change.
7. Oghurn, Nvilliam Fielding, "Stationary and Changing Societies,
American Journal of Sociology, 42:16-31 (July, 1936). A cornparison of the structure of static and dynamic societies, with particular reference to the effects of social change upon the folkways,
mores, and basic social institutions.
8, Park, Robert F., and Burgess, Erncst NV., Introduction to the
Science of Sociology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1924.
This discussion of the organization of society has played an important role in the development of sociological thought in America.
9. President's Research Committee on Social Trends, Recent Social
Trends, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1933. The
report of a distinguished committee of social scientists on the
changes which took' place in American civilization during the first
three decades of this century. The dynamic nature of social
organization is illustrated with facts and figures.
io. Sims, Newell L., The Problem of Social Change, Thomas Y.
25
Crowell Company, New York, 1939. An extensive critical summary of the various theories of social change which have been
propounded from the time of the ancients to the present day.
11. Sumner, William Graham, Folkways, Ginn and Company, Boston, 1906. The classic discussion of the folkways and the mores
and their relation to the organization of society.
26
CHAPTER II
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
Dynamic Aspect of Social Disorganization.-Social disorganization is a relative term. There may be all degrees of social disorganization, just as there may be varying degrees of social solidarity.
Social organization and disorganization represent, in a sense, Tevcrse
aspects of the sanie functioning whole. When the forces of social
disorganization exceed those making for social stability, social problems arise. Social disorganization represents a breakdown in the
equilibrium of forces, a decay in the social structure, so that old
habits and forms of social control no longer function effectively.
The dynamic nature of social interaction insures a constant rearrangement of the constituents of society. The resultant social
change brings about the dissolution of certain institntional relationships and behavior patterns which are imbedded in the social
structure. This social upheaval which makes way for a new synthesis
may bring in its wake a considerable amount of disorganization.
Such confusion becomes particularly pronounced when the breakdown occurs more rapidly than the corresponding forces of
reorganization.'
The breakdown of the social equilibrinm may be considered from
several points of view, but in this text we shall discuss the phenomenon of social disorganization with reference to its manifestations in the person, the family, the community, and the world community. There are, of course, certain difficulties of logic and emphasis arising out of any schematic approach to the complex problem of social disorganization. The organic unity of society, in which
the individual and the group are but different aspects of the same
collective whole, makes any rigid division into constituent elements
impossible in any complete sense. Considered apart from the group,
1 Cf. Franklin H. Giddings, Studies in the Theory of Human Society, The
Macmillan Company, New York, 1922, p. 231. -
26
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 27
the individual is no more than a logical abstraction. As Coolev has
so eloquently pointed out, when we refer to thc individual and the
group, we are not considering two distinctive phenomena but the
same phenomenon from different angles.2 It is with such sociological reservations in mind that we present our discussion of the mdividnal, the family, the community, and the world aspects of
social disorganization.
The Complex Nature of Social Disorganization.-In order to
understand the full implications of a study of social disorganization,
we must kcep in mind the complex nature of all social phenomena.
Out of man's fruitless search for unique causes has come a recognition of the multiple factors which account for such characteristics
of modern society as the decline in the acceptance of revealed religion, the changing structure. of the family, the increasing impor.
tance of the central government, the "lowering standards of
morality, or other equally patent indices of a dynamic society.
These factors have all been regarded as singly responsible for social
disruptions and social disorganization. Like the alchemists of old,
reformers and would-be scientists have zealously sought for some
simple solution to the problems of human welfare.
Even today in the present world crisis, for example, there are
some persons who believe that all the disorganization of a dynamic
society has its beginning in original sin. Other earnest souls ascribe
the existence of such varied manifestations as crime, immorality,
political corruption, unemployment, and divorce to the decline of
the traditional controls of orthodox Christianity. Others would rely
upon a reconstruction of the fundamental economic institutions to
bring about the millennium. Still another group insists that the
basis of all human woes lies in the biological field. If we would only
eliminate the physically and mentally unfit, cry the eugenists, the
social organism would automatically undergo a complete and rapid
rejuvenation.
Each of these partisans ignores the selective nature of his interpretation. Imbued with the partial truth of his findings, each
searcher for the one and only cause of social ills fails to eompre2 Charles Horton Coolcy, Human Nature and the Social Order, Charles
Scribners Sons, New York, içoz, pp. i-:; cf. also Robert E. Park and
Ernest NV. Burgess, Introduction to the Science of Sociology, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1924, p. 24.
28 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
hend the complex ramifications of the problem as a whole. Such
reasoning is called the "partictilaristic fallacy. Any realistic social
understanding, on the other hand, must consider all the factors related to the particular manifestation of social disorganization which
is under investigation at the moment. An excellent instance of
reasoning on snch a faulty basis is evidenced in the research as to
the "causes of crime.
In 1876 Lombroso published his anthropological findings on
criminal man. In this study he asserted that the criminal was a distinct anthropological type, an atavistic being, marked by certain
definite stigmata, including low forehead, receding chin, peculiar
ears, etc.3 The idea gained widespread acceptance and was not suecessfullx- refuted until ~ when Charles A. Goring published his
comparative study of English prisoners and students at Cambridge
University. \Vith one gesture he completely upset the notion of
the born criminal. Goring advanced the theory, however, that men
were criminals because of the low grade of their intelligence.4 Goddard and many other psychologists seized upon this idea and produccd what seemed to be conclusive evidence that feeble-mindedness was the most significant cause of delinquent conduct.5 Soon,
however, the validity of this premise was questioned, and when
Dr. Herman M. Adler studied the prisoners in the Joliet Prison in
iqi8 he found that by and large they ranked higher in intelligence
than the men in the United States Army. Some students then
began to ascribe delinquency to nsental disorders,6 others held that
criminals were produced by faulty glandular functioning.7 In the
meantime, those who were making delinquent conduct their life
study began to suspect social factors. Some held broken homes to
For an English translation of Lombroso cf. Cesarc Lonibroso, Crime, Its
Caoses and Remedies, translated by Ilenry P. Morton, Little, Brown &
Company, Boston, .,qsi.
Charles A. Goring, The English Convict, his Majesty's Stationery Office,
London, 1913.
H. 1± Goddard, Jh Kaliik-ak Family, The Macmillan Company, New
York-, 9'9; Juvenile Delinquency, Dodd, Mead & Company, New York,
1921.
Cf., for example, Dr. I lixon's point of view that all criminals have dc
nientia praecox in French Strothcrs' articles in the World's Work, 48:275-286
(July, 1924); pp. 389-397 (August, 1924).
Cf. Max C. Sclilapp and Edward 1-I. Smith, The New Criminology.
Livcright Publishing Corporation. New York-, i~z8.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 29
he the most frequent precipitating cause.8 It was not until complete
case histories were made of a large number of individual delittqucnts
that the etiology of delinquency came to be ascribed to a jrixtaposition of multiple factors. This has been well established by the
work of Healy, Burt2 and others. Ihrough their research xve have
come finally to recognize that delinquents and criminals possess
practically the same individual characteristics as the non-delinquent
population. There is no evidence that anti-social behavior is due to
single selective factors. Instead, a complexity of unfortunate circumstances usually characterizes the heredity, background, and
training of the vast majority who are brought into conflict with the
law. A single untoward factor may be found in the background of
tIme most normal. Many of our best citizens have endured poverty,
broken homes, or ill health. Their total situation or background,
however, has not been entirely unfavorable. When, on the other
hand, we find a child handicapped on several counts by low mentality, poverty, a broken home, an immoral mother, and a bad
neighborhood, we can be fairly safe in predicting that lie is apt to
become a delinquent and a criminal.tm0
Social Processes and Social Disorganization.-As previously
stated, a dynamic society contains within itself the germs of its
own disorganization. This disorganization Th a highly complex
process, involving a number of interrelated factors. Just as the broad
social processes of communication, conflict, competition. acconiniodation, and assimilation are important contributory factors to
social dynamics, these same factors are important elements in
bringing about social disorganization.
Social process has been defined as "the mode in which a series of
Sophnnisha Breckinridge and Edith Abbott, The Delinqocnt Child and
the IJosne, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1912.
Cf., for example, William Healy arid Augusta I. Bronncr, Delinquents
and Criminals, Their Making and Unmaking. The Macmillan Company,
New York, tmqz6; and Cyril Burt, The Young Delinquent, D. Appleton-
Century Company, Inc., New York, 1923.
n Cf. V.p. J. lhomas and Dorothy S. Thomas, The Child in America,
Alfrcd A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1928, pp. 372-374, for a discussion of the
situational approach.
1tThe nature of social processes and their rclation to social disorganization
received considerable attention at a meeting of the American Sociological
Society. For a discussion of the conclusions cf. Emory S. Bogardus (editor),
Social Problems and Social Processes, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1933.
30 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
events involving a number of human beings occur. ta Park and
Burgess divide the social processes into four general categories:
(i) the historical (which does not specifically concern us here);
(2) the cultural; (~) the political; (~) the economic.'5 The failure
of these processes to function properly, or the failure of the individual to adapt himself to them, brings about maladjustment and
potential disorganization. Let us consider in some detail the implications of these processes as they affect social disorganization.
The Cultnral Processes.-The cultural processes are those which
"shape and define the social forms and the social patterns which
each preceding generation imposes upon its successors. '~ Seeondary processes in this general category include conflict and assimilation, whose pathological manifestations bring about social
disorganization. The prevalence of cultural conflict delays the participation of strangers in a common cultural life. Such conflict is
readily apparent in the case of the mobile or migratory person, who
often fails to adjust himself to a new cultural milieu. Cultural conflict may also be manifested in the disorganization of adolescents,
sex demoralization, and in certain phases of family disorganization.
Conflict between large groups, such as nations at war, may have
a certain unifying effect upon the internal structure of the combating groups. When the conflict is confined to members of the same
group, as in civil war, disorganization results. Religious conflict
between hostile denominations or sects is extremely detrimental to
community solidarity. Conflict between racial or nationalistic
groups results in isolation and segregation, the injurious effects of
which are readily apparent. Conflict between boys' gangs and the
police is both a cause and amm effect of juvenile delinquency. Conflict brings about a "confusion worse confounded of varying mores
which renders any stable life organization very difficult. Floyd N.
House comments on the pathological character of extended conflict
by emphasizing the extremely limited degree of its organizing
capacity. In the cases where conflict is internecine or intragroup,
energies which might be constructively expended are exhausted in
fruitless struggle.'5
12 Ibid., p. ix, Cf. also Earle F. Enhank, "Relationship of Social Processes,
op. cit., pp. lu-u;.
21 Robert F. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, op. cit., pp. 51-55.
Ulbid., p. 52.
"Floyd N. house, The Range of Social Theory, Henry llolt and Company,
Inc., New York, 1929, Chapter XXIII, "Conflict and Disorganization.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 31
The Political Processes.-Politics is the science of power relaIationships as embodied in various formal agencies of social control.
From another point of view, it is the study of certain phases of
subordination and superordination.'6 The interest of the political
scientists is not necessarily confined to the phenomena which arc
ordinarily considered political. Any institutionalized social orgaiuization may exhibit political relationships with any other. Churches,
schools, and business institutions may maintain political connections in much the same sense as sovereign states~. "The political
process . . . goes on within the limits of the mores and is carried
on by public discussion, legislation, and the adjudication of the
courts. '7
The pathological phases of the political process include such antisocial behavior as delinquency, crime, disorder, revolt, revolution,
and war. Corrupt political activity is an important example of such
malfunctioning. The community disorganization resulting from
political malfeasance cannot be attributed wholly to the evil desires
of wicked men. The system, the process itself, is at fault. There is
a basic flaw in the entire institutional structure. These phenomena
are all, in varying degrees, violations of the conventional codes of
behavior. The codes of behavior have resulted from group definitions of the social situation, which have become incorporated in a
formal institutioiual framework. The law is a convenient example.
Persons who violate socially sanctioned regulations are called eriminab. Their behavior has been arbitrarily categorized as anti-social.
Social disorder, revolt, and revolution and warfare are likewise departures from conventional behavior. Disorder is construed as disturbing the peace and the offender is haled into court on a statutory
charge. Revolt is an unsuccessful and abortive protest against the
political process. Its perpetrators are severely dealt with by the law.
Revolution is a final and successful denial of the existing political,
social, and moral structure. Such movements receive pragmatic
sanction in the form of recognition from other integrations of
political institutions. If we consider these revplutionary changes
from the standpoint of the old regime, we find that they are lawless
and highly disorganizing. In the eyes of the conservatives, social
control has temporarily broken down. For the solid bourgeoisie this
e Cf. Park and Burgess, op. cit., pp. 688-703, for a discussion of the sociology
of superordination and subordination.
"Thid p. 53.
32 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
is the supreme gesture of social demoralization. V/ar is the most
disruptive of all political processes for it involves a breakdown in
the peaceful equilibrium among nations. By armed force conflicting
national groups strive to impose their will on each other.
The Economic Processes.- Thc economic process, say Park
and Burgess, "is concerned with values that can be treated as comniodities. lS Competition is the primary social process operating in
the field of economic activity. Personal and social disorganization
may arise from an inability to compete with other persons because
of some physical or mental incapacity. On the other hand, it may
arise from an unwillingness to compete according to socially prescribed rules.
It has long been a source of pride to our political demagogues
and industrial leaders that our society is one of free economic competition. ~lhousands of speeches have been delivered, dozens of
books have been written extolling the virtues of "rugged American
individualism'' and its related characteristics. The results of unrestricted social and economic competition, however, are not always
so beneficent as these protagonists would have us believe. A large
share of our social anarchy might be laid directly at the door of
this unfortunate philosophy.
Modern society may be considered from tIme artificially simplified
standpoint of competition. Through competition, broadly speaking, the individual may become ecologically distributed over the
surface of the earth. Both social organization and social disorganization may be examined by the use of such ecological concepts and
techniques. Often, how-ever, the individual cannot or will not compete. We then have the following pathological manifestations:
the dependent . . - who is unable to compete; the defective
who is, if not unable, at least handicapped in his efforts to
compete. The criminal, on the other hand, . . . who is perhaps
unable, but at any rate refuses, to compete according to the rules
which society lays down. '9
At least two of these pathological aspects of competition, namely,
dependency and defectiveness, are comparatively recent residues of
the social processes. True, the poor, the lame, the halt, and the
blind have always been with us. But they did not present such an
" Ibid.
~ Ibid., p. ~6o.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZKI'ION 33
impersonal and at the same time such a serious problem until after
the industrial revohution. In primitive and prelitcrate societies there
has always- been competiUon between man and the impersonal
forces of nature or between hostile peoples. In times of war or
famine, villages starved together. there was seldom the spectacle of
a fexv living in plenty arid the rest dying of hunger. Individual competition, in the all-too-literal sense of "cut-throat, is a niodern pheiionlei)ori, one of the dubious blessings of our civilization. Men
are free, with negligible hindrance, to amass as much in the competitive process as their acumen or their luck permits. They were
also free, until recently, to starve as gracefully as they niight. Only
when they molest others in the process are they brought before
the bar of justice.20
Social scientists have both condemned and condoned the social
consequences of this failure to conipete. lhomas R. Malthus was
one of the first social scientists to concern himself seriously with
the disorganization brought about by uncontrolled competition.2'
l-Ierbert Spencer was a firm believer in the ultimate benefieeiiec of
unrestricted competition.22 A generation after Spencer, when the
miracles of evolution had failed to reveal themselves, Henry George
stated that society might amass great quantities of wealth through
the free play of competition. Poverty, how-ever, was produced at
even greater speed.23 \Villiam Graham Sumner was an ardent exponent of laissez faire in economic and social affairs. He maintained
that thme evil effects of competition would be progressively eliminated by natural forces.24 ~. A. Bonger held that a large part of
modern criminal behavior might be traced directly to the poverty of
the defeated competitor.25
We cannot make an exhaustive analysis of the social processes
here. Many other social processes, whose number and nature have
20Thid, ~
~ T. R. Malthus, An Essay on the Principlc of Population, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, London, 1803.
"Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Sociology, D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., New York, 1906, Vol. I, pp. 514-516.
" Henry George, Progrcs.s and I'overty, Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc.,
New York, 879.
24 Cf. William Grahani Sumncr, Folkways, Ginn and Company, Boston.
3906, pp. 164 if.
25 William A. Bonger, Criminality and Economic Conditions, Little, Browt.
& Company, Boston, 1916.
34 SOCIAL DISORGANflATION
by no means been universally accepted, have not been considered in
this brief discussion. In our subsequent discussion we do not attempt to impose a rigid classification upon the various manifestations of social disorganization. Criminal behavior, for example, is a
violation of formally codified rules of behavior. Th,ere are also elements of cultural conflict apparent in the criminal's revolt against
the mores. Finally, crime is definitely related to economic status, to
the failure to compete according to approved definitions.
So it is with other specific manifestations of personal, family,
community, and international disorganization. In some instances,
they can be clearly analyzed in the light of the failure of one social
process or a number of interrelated processes to function properly.
We must continually bear in mind, however, that schematic analyses are always partial. they are valid only in so far as they offer
greater understanding of the complex whole from which they have
been derived.
Cultural Lag and Social Disorganization.-In addition to the
disorganization arising from the processes of social interaction, the
rigidity of institutions and mores also produces disruptions. In
every society, the non-material aspects of culture tend to become
so highly institutionalized that it is very difficult to change the
rigid social systen~s set up by past geiierations. The social institutions which lend stability to society in many instances also contribute to social disorganization by their fixed nature and resistance
to desirable change. To survive, an institution must be elastic
enough to ndjust to changing social needs. Yet many social
anachronisms persist until they eventually break down under the
weight of their own inertia and augment the very disorder which
they arc presumed to prevent. The formalism of the creeds and
myths of certain institutions may thus not only lead to the disorganization of the institutions then,selves but also contribute to the
disorganization of the society in which they operate. In Coolcy's
terms, this process is "the decay of a body already dead. 20
In the gradual process of social change in any society new culture traits are constantly being added to the culture base. The
addition of new material objects alters the habits and life schemes
20 Charles Horton Cooley, Social Organization, Charles Sedhner's Sons, New
York, 1927, p. 349.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 35
of members of the group. These in turn disrupt old values, for
material traits incorporate the attitudes and values of the group.
Modification of material culture inevitably modifies habits of
thinking and acting. Modern technology thus alters economic
society and disrupts established economic theories. The "value
of a man can no longer be measured by his wages. A man can no
longer be condemned as lazy and incompetent because he is unemployed. Even so, established social habits and ideas tend to
take on a hallowed character and many people continue to place
personal blame on those thrown out of work. In every society there
is a similar reluctance to discard outworn institutions and outmoded ideas. This failure to adjust social habits to meet human
needs produces unrest and social disorganization. Wherever cultural changes are relatively rapid, the social structure is continually
disturbed by the conflict between the old and established way of
life and the dynamic demands of the new situation. Social disorganization is part of the price of social change.
The failure of non-material culture to keep abreast· of material
culture accounts for part of the disruption. Nothing changes so
slowly as an idea. Once-accepted notions are invested with sacred
connotations. Men will shed their blood to protect their belief in
what is right, whether such beliefs involve religious ideas, political
philosophies, or economic theories. Material culture changes with
less opposition because the advantages of new inventions are more
easily recognized. An electric refrigerator possesses definite improvements over the old ice-box. Automatic heat eliminates much of the
drudgery imposed by the old-fashidned furnace. The automobile
and telephone make possible communication for purposes of both
bnsiness and pleasure. The advantages of changes in governmental
policy, in religious ideas, or in the relative position of women are
not so clearly demonstrable. Buying the latest type of automobile
may be a pleasant adventure, and its mechanical advantages over
older models and the horse and buggy are obvious. A new type of
political philosophy, however, disrupts beliefs which are deeply
tinged with emotion. This partially accounts for the willingness to
accept new material cultural traits and the reluctance to change
ideas and non-material culture. This disparity in the rate of change
between material culture and non-material culture in itself pro-
36 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
duces disruptions. The disparity in such changes we designate as
cultural lag.''27
The changes in our material c{ilture in turn include the necessity
for readjustmcnts in our non-material culture. Modern means of
communication and transportation have so altered the factor of
distance that new problems of social control have arisen. A stronger
central government is necessary when social interaction takes place
over so wide an area as in modern society. "States rights diminish
in importance when instantaneous contact with Washington is
possible. With airplanes winging their way over the oceans, relationships between and within nations must inevitably change. Isolation policies lose their significance when we live in a closely interrelated world. Complete neutrality becomes virtually impossible
when national interests are at stake in a world society. Similarly,
scientific achievements in agriculture and industrial processes have
altered our economic structure. Monetary values formerly depend:
cut upon scarcity are no longer valid in an economy of abundance.
Inevitable alterations in economic practices and policies must follow such increases in food supply and manufactured goods. But
apparently such changes never conic without thcdisrnptions which
make us painfully conscious of the necessity for modifications of
a non-material sort. Social attitudes in the field of economics, politics, the family, religion, education, social welfare, and recreation
have all experienced the impact of changes in our material culture.
But such changes in attitudes come slowly. We are always in a
sense "governed by dead nmn's bones. How to hold fast to that
which is good and at the same time discard that which is outworn
is the niost difficult problem confronting any generation. It is an
especially urgent problem in our rapidly changing world.
The Nature of Social Attitudes.-Sociial disorganization may
thus result from machine production. Social disruption may also
he related to conflicting attitudes and values. Whenever new patterns of behavior disavow old accepted norms, some form of conflict and disorganization results. Since the terms "attitudes and
"values are so basic to our sociological frame of reference, an
examination of thc meaning attached to these concepts is pertinent here.
The concept of attitudes has been defined with varying degrees
27 William F. Ogbnrn made the classic statement of this hypothesis in his
book, Social Change, P. NV. Ilnehsch, New York, 1922, pp. 199-280.
TIlE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 37'
of objectivity and inclusiveness, from a relatively simple tendency
to actY8 to the whole complex of "a man's inclinations and feelings, prejudices or bias, preconceived notions, ideas, fears, threats,
and convictions about any specific object. 29 Thomas has been particularly instrumental in formulating a conception of attitudes to
serve as a logical framework for social psychology. The essential
characteristic in his concept of social attitudes is the actual or potential activity of some individual or group toward a social fact in
their milieu. The nature of the attitude can be roughly measured
1w the character of the overt activity which it calls forth. "By attitude we understand a process of individual consciousness which
determines real or possible activity of the individual in the social
world20
Attitudes are not isolated concepts, existing without reference to
specific objects. The tendency to act must he directed toward some
end or social value. There is thus a functional reciprocity between
attitude and value, as Thomas and Znaniecki point out. The social
value is for them the object of the activity, the end result of the
tcndcncy to respond. Any material or non-material phenomenon
may become a value when an activity or tendency to activity is
(lirected toward it. "The social value is thus opposed to the natural
thing which - . - is treated as valueless; when the natural thing
assumes a meaning, it becomes thereby a social value. These meanings may be many and varied, since any given social fact may he
the object of a multiplicity of real or potential actsY' Fans has also
indicated this dual nature of attitude and value, and the intimate
and logical interrelationship between the twoA2
2~ By an attitude we mean a definite state or quality of consciousness, Involving a tendency to act in a characteristic way whenever an object or occasion
which stinlulates it is presented. R. Ni. Maelver, Society, Its Structure and
Changes, Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., New York, 1931, p. 44.
~ b.. L. h'hurstone, Attitudes Can Be Measured, American Journal of
Sociology, 33:531 (January, 1928).
~ William I. Thomas and Florian Znanieeki, The Polish Peasant in Europe
and America, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1927. Vol. I, p. 2_.
1Tlhid., p.21.
~ Ellswortl, Paris, "Attitudes and Behavior, American Journal of Sociology,
34:278 (September, 1928). See also Kimbahl Young (editor), Social Attitudes,
hhcnry I-bIt and Company, Inc., New York, ig;i; and Florian Znaniecki, The
Laws of Social Psychology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, a~aç; I-badlcv
Cantrih, "General and Specific Attitudes, Psychological Monographs, XLII.
No. 5, Psychological Review Co., Princeton, 1932.
38 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
The Nature of Social Vahyes..-Iluman values, in one form or
another, have been a chief concern of philosophers from Periclean
Athens to the present. We do not wish to beeomc.involved in any
complex metaphysical tangle here. However, we niay compare
briefly the conceptions of the philosophers on this important point
with those of the sociologists.
Ralph Barton Perry, in his General Theory of Value,33 has defined a value as "any object of any interest. This definition corresponds almost exactly to that of Thomas. A value is thus some
object of interest, which has acquired its value not from any intrinsic quality but because it is the end on object toward which
activity is directed. Dewey holds substantially to this idea,34 as do
many of the pragmatic and relativistic schools of philosophers.
There is, however, another and totally different concept of value,
held by another group of nietaphysicians. To them a value is not
the object itself, but the feeling that one has toward the object.
Dewitt H. Parker, in his book, Human Valucs,a5 holds to this interpretation. He defines a value as "the experience known as fiilfillment of desire, or satisfaction. The value, in the last analysis,
cxists always in the mind of the individual, never in the world of
objective phenomena. Social objects may possess value, but they
are riot in themselves values. Although we may designate certain
social facts as having value, this quality is always implicit in our
own mental processes, not in the thing itself. In Parker's words,
"Things do not really have value; they only borrow value from
the satisfactions corresponding. aG From this standpoint, values
obviously belong to the inner life. The measure of satisfaction, not
the object itself, is the real value. Bouglé has suggested the definition of value as "a permanent possibility of satisfactions. ~~ Here
again the important clement is the judgment, the feeling that we
have for a particular object, rather than the object itself.38
~ Longrnans, Green and Co., New York, 1926, Chapter V.
~ John Dewey, The Quest for Certainty, Minton, Balch & Co., Inc., New
York, 1929.
~ Dewitt H. Parker, Human Values, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1931.
8Thid., pp. zo-ai,
"R. MI. Sellars, Pouglé's Evolution of Values, Henry IIoIt and Company,
Inc., New York, 19:6, p. i9.
~s Cf. also Frederick F. Lumley, Principles of Sociology, McGraw-I Iill Book
Company, Inc., New York, 19:8, Chapter XXIV.
THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 39
According to Cooley, human values are essentiallt thrccfold in
character and involve "an organism, a situation, and an object.
Values are classified on the basis of the objects about which the
value-feeling has evolved. Stocks, clothes, men, and institutions may
possess value but are not in themselves values. He further distinguislses between "human nature and institntional values. The
former are those which have grown up about primary group relationships and hence are universal in human nature. They are
values to all men at all times-love of a home, children, a bit of
property. Institutional valucs, on the other hand, are those identified with a particular institutional structure. they are relatively
transitory and their existence is measured by the life of the institution which generates them. Human and institutional values do not
always harmonize. Out of their conflict much social disorganization
arises.39
These theories of value are very closely related to the sociologist's
definition of attitude, which, as a tendency to act, a feeling toward
some particular object, is essentially an inner state of mind. The
latter concept of value, as a personal and individual feeling of satisfaction, is undoubtedly metaphysically valid. However, for our purpose, the concept of a social value as the objective counterpart of
an attitude is more practical from a methodological standpoint. It is
more capable of measurement and verification; the choice, therefore, is one of expediency and ease of reference rather than of strict
logic. We slaall thus define values as social objects which have a
meaning for us, which we consider important in our life schemes;
and attitudes are the way we feel about these values, and our tendency to act in a particular overt way with reference to them.
With the meaning of attitude and value clearly in mind, our
next concern is with their relation to social disorganization. Thomas
describes the process in terms of the decreasing influence of well-
established codes of behavior upon individuals and groups.40 This
decreasing influence of "existing social rules of behavior is in turn
brought about by the growth of definitely anti-social attitudes. Our
interest lies, with Thomas, in "the appearance of such attitudes as
impair the efficiency of existing rules of behavior and thus lead to
~ Charles Horton Cooley, Social Process, Charles Scribner's Sons, New
York, 1922, pp. 234-288.
~Thumas and Znaniecki, op. cit., Vol. II, p. ti:8.
40 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
the decay of social institutions. 4' A knowledge of the origin and
genesis of these social attitudes and their attendant values is essetltial to an understanding of social disorganization. The decline in
the influence of the group, as manifested by the superficial indices
of social disorganization-vice, crime, delinquency, divorce, etc.-
are of interest primarily to the social technician-the case worker.
The sociologist is fundamentally concerned with understanding
the iiature and evolution of the attitudes that bring about the
more obvious manifestations.~2
Disparity in Social Valnes and Social Disorganization.-An effective social organization implies a basic harmony between individual attitudes and social values and depends upon common
acceptance of a similar definition of the situation. When this definition breaks down, when there is no longer any social consensus,
when individuals define the major interests of the group in selfish
rather than in social tern~s, sonIc form of social disorganization is
inevitable. Part of social disorganization and failure in group consensus is, however, the result of confusion rather than duplicity.
In the years since the first World V/ar, many persons have pointed
out the implications of this confusion in our social thinking.
These warnings have ranged from the metaphysical forebodings of
Oswald Spengler to the platitudinous profundities of Henry Ford.
Sociologists have analyzed the collapse in social consensus from
many diverse points of view. They all agree that the basic difficulty
with modern society is a fundamental lack of universally accepted
definitions in economics, politics, social welfare, and international
policies.
The consensus which characterized former societies has irretrievably vanished. This decline has been a slow and gradual process, which has taken centuries to reach its logical conclusions in the
moral anarchy of our war-torn world. Opinions as to the role of
man in relation to the rest of the universe changed inevitably with
"Ibid., p. 1131.
42 In this connection, Somhart has indicated the task of the sociologist as
primarily one of "understanding,' of acquiring knowledge "from within outward. Werner Somhart, Sociologic, p. 13, quoted in Leopold von \Vicse, systematic Sociology, adapted by Howard Becker, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Ncw
York, 1932, p. 52. See also Macher, op. cit., for a discussion of thc necessarily
qualitative nature of ninny of our sociological generalizations; also Maclver, "Is
Sociology a Natural Science? Proceedings of thc American Sociological Society,
2$:2ç-35 (NIay, 1931).
TI-IF CONCEPT OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION 41
the discoveries of physical science during the Renaissance, and have
altered continuously with the subsequent increase in scientific
knowledge. Traditional norms of a stable society have also changed,
and the individual has become more and more confused as lie has
songht for some answer to life's complexities. New ideologies are
themselves the result of man's constant quest for certainties which
can give him a sense of stability in a chaotic world. From bitter
experience he has learned that these certainties are difficult to find
and even more difficult to retain against competing philosophies
once lie has accepted theni.43
lhe unanimity which characterized the New England town
meeting ~vhen concerned with important social niatters has disappeared. It can never be regained so long as we have a world of discordant behavior patterns and clashing ideologies. Tile changes in
the material aspects of American culture with the evolution of tile
industrial order have brought about maladjustments which will
probably never be completely eliminated. The accepted social
values of a democratic society received further blows during the
prolonged economic depression, as divergent interests of the various
classes came into sharp focus. Class alignments have developed as
the various groups clashed in their definitions of such significant
social concerns as relief, taxation, and regulation of business. Reorganizing society thus entails the forging of a new consensus in the
midst of conflicting interests and points of view. This task challenges the social, technological, and intellectual resources at our
conunand.
Social disorganization and the concomitant confusion and disorganization of the individual arc but two aspects of the same phenomenon. We shall discuss personal disorganization in detail in
Chapter lii. We must point out here, however, that most people
are accustomed to thinking of personal disorganization in terms
· solely of abnormal, perverse, or maladjusted individuals. Actually,
such individuals are an index to the processes of disorganization
within the larger group. For a variety of reasons, individuals who
offend the mores cannot adjust themselves to the demands of the
group. Sometimes group definitions are too rigid. Contradictions
~ Lawrcnce K. Frank, "Society as the Patient, Aincrica,i Journal of Sociology, 42:335-344 (November, 1936); cf. also Thurman MI. Arnold, The
Folklore of Capitalism, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1937.
42 SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION
within the group make conformity to all rules difficult, if not well-
nigh impossible, to weak and handicapped individuals.
Coiifusion in social values is indicated by the clash between
rival ideologies. In the struggle between fascisni and democracy
honest men shed their blood because of the disparity in their
political ideologies. To the Fascists, democracy is an outmoded
political form of the nineteenth century. Those upholding the
democratic way of life believe it is the last hope of western civilization. Within our own body politic, major disputes in political
philosophy hamper the effective solution of internal problems. the
regulation of business is held by the New Deal to be a necessary
measure of control over economic production. Industrialists regard
this as a menace to profits arid to the safety of invested capital.
Those interested in improving public health demand some form
of state or socialized medicine. The medical profession, motivated
by a desire to promote the financial rewards of its members, has
strenuously opposed such developments. Welfare workers insist on
the validity of government relief programs. Industrialists object
to the burden of taxes which relief programs impose.
This wide variety of social definitions and disparities in social
values will probably increase as society becomes more complex and
more dynamic, unless some control of the expression of ideas is
imposed. The man on t
