Differential Social Organization, Collective Action, and Crime
Crime Law Soc Change DOI 10.1007/s10611-006-9045-1 Differential social organization, collective action, and crime Ross L. Matsueda # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006 Abstract This article elaborates and extends Sutherland’s[Principles of criminology (4th ed.), Lippincott, Philadelphia, Sutherland (1947)] concept of differential social organiza- tion, the sociological counterpart to his social psychological theory of differential association. Differential social organization contains a static structural component, which explains crime rates across groups, as well as a dynamic collective action component, which explains changes in crime rates over time. I argue that by drawing on George Herbert Mead’s[Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Mead (1934)] theories of symbolic interaction and social control, we can conceptualize organization in favor of, and against, crime as collective behavior. We can then integrate theoretical mechanisms of models of collective behavior, including social network ties, collective action frames, and threshold models of collective action. I illustrate the integrated theory using examples of social movements against crime, neighborhood collective efficacy, and the code of the street. Differential social organization, collective action, and crime The theory of differential association, along with the concept of white collar crime, was probably Edwin Sutherland’s greatest legacy. It is well known that the theory explains individual criminality with a social psychological process of learning crime within interaction with social groups. Criminal behavior, according to Sutherland [71], is the result of learning an excess of definitions favorable to crime. This is the differential association process. Less well known is Sutherland’s attempt to explain aggregate crime rates across groups and societies.
[Show full text]