what is a major criticism of social disorganization theory
Social disorganization theory Robert J. Bursik Jr’s scholarly works played an important role in the revival of Social Disorganization Theory following its fall in popularity during the 1960s.[3] One of the main criticisms of Shaw and McKay’s theory was that it suggested, in certain area’s delinquency rates remained high regardless of the ethnicity group that lived there.[4] Researchers during this period felt that it was unlikely that crime patterns remained stable even though there were constant changes in population without these areas. Bursik’s work helped negate some of the criticisms associated with Shaw and McKay’s work; Bursik showed that it was possible and likely to have stable crime patterns within an area that showed constant population change. Specifically Bursik points out that “development of primary relationships that result in informal structures of social control is less likely when local networks are in continual state of flux.”[5] In the example of Chicago, as immigrants continue to come in, the population already there leave soon as it’s financially feasible, which in return makes it difficult for any stable form of social control to take place.
Elite theory Elite theory opposes pluralism, a tradition that assumes that all individuals, or at least the multitude of social groups, have equal power and balance each other out in contributing to democratic political outcomes representing the emergent, aggregate will of society. Elite theory argues either that democracy is a utopian folly, as it is traditionally viewed in the conservative Italian tradition, or that democracy is not realizable within capitalism, as is the view of the more Marxist-compatible contemporary elite theory permutation.