https://www.brocku.

ca/MeadProject/Thomas/Thomas_1918/
Thomas_1918c.htmlSOCIAL PATHOLOGY:
In the late 19th and early 20th century sociologists grouped together under the heading
of social pathology those human actions which ran contrary to ideals of residential
stability, property ownership, sobriety, thrift, habituation to work, small business
enterprise, sexual discretion, family solidarity, neighborliness and discipline of the will.
In effect social problems were considered to be any forms of behavior violating the
mores from which these ideals were projected.

The concept of disorganization was developed by Thomas and Zananiecki in their

famous book 'The Polish Peasant in Europe and America'. According to them the term
social disorganization refers to the decrease in the influence of the existing social rules
of behavior upon individual members. As a result of this there develops individuation
and lack of cohesion in society. It was explained by them as a process which will
automatically and inevitably create social problems.

INDIVIDUAL DISORGANIZATION:
Individual disorganization represents the behavior of the individual which deviates
from the social norms. It results in social disapproval which may express itself in a wide
variety of degree. The individual may also react in different ways. Social reality presents
an endless confusion of social disapproval from time to time. It may be mild or violent.
Accordingly individuals respond either positively or negatively to social disapproval.
The most visible aspect of personal disorganization in complex societies is that in which
there is mild social disapproval to which the individual responds positively. This kind
of personal disorganization does not deeply disturb the social order.
The second aspect of social disorganization is that in which there is violent social
disapproval and yet the individual responds positively. In the third aspect in which the
individual's response to social disapproval is subjective the person retreats into an
individually defined inner world. His innovations lose their social character. He
becomes enmeshed in the development of mechanisms which further isolate him from

the normal influences of group life. This type of personal disorganization results in
psychosis through which the individual tries to escape from the web of social relations
and in suicide.

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION:
Emile Durkheim considers social disorganization as a state of disequilibrium and a lack
of social solidarity or consensus among the members of a society. Ogburn and Nimkoff
said that when the harmonious relationship between the various parts of culture is
disturbed, social disorganization ensues. Social disorganization implies some
breakdown in the organization of society. It is a relative phenomenon. Social
Organization and Social Disorganization is the dual aspects of the whole functioning of
society. In the words of Elliott and Merrill social disorganization represents a
breakdown in the equilibrium of forces, decay in the social structure so that old habits
and forms of social control no longer function effectively.
Social organization consists of the coordination of individual responses as a
consequence of the operation of conventionalized patterns of consensus and control.
Any change in the cultural context which impedes or destroys the functioning of the
patterns of coordination which constitute the social order represents social
disorganization. By social disorganization we means such serious maladjustment
between the various elements in the total cultural configuration as to endanger the
various elements in the total cultural configuration as to endanger the survival of the
group or as seriously to interfere with the satisfaction of the fundamental desires of its
members with the result that social cohesion is destroyed.

It can be understood only after an analysis of what social organization consists. Social
organization is not something static. In one sense it is a hypothesis an ideal construct. It
stresses the unchanging patterns of culture as against the changing aspects. The process
of change is always found in every society.
According to Elliott and Merril social disorganization are the totality of human
personalities and conscious and unconscious attitudes, their crystallized and

uncrystallized ideas and institutions which in complex interrelationships make up the

framework of human existences. Social organization refers to the way people relate
themselves to one another. It also refers to the way in which person and groups making
up a society are somehow held together. Social organization and social structure are
interchangeable concepts both referring to any interrelated system of role and statuses.
The concept social organization has two meanings- first what social organization
consists of and secondly what is the stage when we say that there is social organization
in society as opposed to disorganization. This stage has to be defined in reference to
some objectives set by society. In this sense social organization may be conceived when
human actions are not contrary to the ideals laid down by society and society is
progressing towards particular goals set by it. These ideals may be with regard to
residential stability, property ownership, business enterprise, religious discipline.
Social Disorganization is the normal consequence of social change as well as the natural
condition to social change. The terms social problems and social disorganization are
closely related. When social problems arise to the extent that the smooth functioning of
the society is threatened, social disorganization is in existence. According to Elliott and
Merrill social disorganization represents a breakdown in the equilibrium of forces,
decay in the social structure so that old habits and forms of social control no longer
function effectively. Whereas social organization consists of the coordination of
individual responses as a consequence of the operation of conventionalized patterns of
consensus and control and change in the cultural context which impedes or destroys the
functioning of the patterns of coordination which constitute the social order represents
social disorganization.

CAUSES OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION:

According to MacIver and Page five main factors such as psychological, biological,
physical, technological and culture bring about social change. When the changes
brought about these factors in the social structure are so disturbing that the present
institution and other means of social control are no longer able to control them by
adjusting themselves to the new situations there arise social disorganization. Factors of
social disorganization at a particular period are so interrelated that it is difficult to find
which factor is predominant.

Elliott and Merrill observe that in order to understand the full implications of a study of
social disorganization we must keep in mind the complex nature of all social
phenomena. Out of man's fruitless search for unique causes has come 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 importance of the central government, and the lowering standards of
morality. Others would rely on a reconstructuction of the fundamental economic
institutions to bring about the changes. Still another group insists that the basis of all
human woe lies in the biological field. Each of these groups however ignore the selective
nature of the interpretation while on the other hand any realistic social understanding
must consider all the factors related to the particular manifestation of social
disorganization which is under investigation.
Elliott and Merrill has ascribed the four main causes for the disorganization The social processes under the three main heads-cultural, political and economic
Cultural Lag
Conflicting Attitudes and Values
Social Crises
Sorokin is of the opinion that disorganization is mainly due to cultural degeneration of
values in various spheres such as art, science, philosophy, religion, law and politics. In
brief change from the idealistic and ideational culture to sensate culture is the main
cause of social disorganization.
According to Karl Mannheim unplanned capitalism and policy of laissez faire are
responsible for social disintegration in the present age which Bertrand Russell observes
that the lack of adjustment in institutions based on authority in the past is responsible
for the present social disorganization.
G.R. Madan has listed a few factors responsible for disorganization.

 Psychological Factors: The cause of social disorganization is to be found in the

human psychology itself. Psychological factors contribute to disorganization in two
ways: (i). Failure to maintain proper communication among fellow beings.
(ii). Failure to modify or change one's attitudes in tune with demands of time.

Cultural Lag: Cultural Lag the concept used by W.E. Ogburn refers to the
imbalance in the rate and speed of change between the material cultural and nonmaterial culture. Objects of material culture such as mode of housing, means of
transport and communication, types of dresses, patterns of ornaments, technical and
mechanical devices, instruments change very quickly. But ideas, beliefs, attitudes,
taste, philosophies, habits, ideologies, institutional structures and such other aspects
of non-material culture change slowly and gradually. Hence a gap or a lag arises
between the material and non-material culture. This lag referred to as cultural lag
invites the process of disorganization to set in.

Physical or Geographic Factors: The maladjustment of man and his culture

to certain extraordinary physical or geographic conditions or situations may cause
disorganization in society. This is especially true in the case of natural calamities
such as storms, cyclones, hurricanes, famines, floods, epidemics etc which upset the
social balance and bring in social disorganization.

Biological Factors: Population explosion or extreme scarcity of population the

instances of racial intermixture, defective hereditary traits and such other biological
factors may also cause disorganizing effects upon society.

Ecological Factor: Social disorganization is related to environment in terms of

regions and neighborhoods.

Social Problems leading to Social Disorganization: Social problems

and forces such as a revolution, social upheaval, a class struggle, a financial or
economic crisis, a war between nations, mental illness, and political corruption
threaten the welfare of the society.

 Degeneration of Values: Social Values is often regarded as the sustaining

forces of society. They contribute to the strength and stability of social order. But due
to rapid social change new values come up and some of the old values decline. At
the same time people are not in a position to reject the old completely and accept the
new altogether. Hence conflict between the old and the new is the inevitable result of
which leads to the social disorganization.

Disintegration and Confusion of Roles: Members of society are expected

to perform certain definite roles in accordance with their placements in society. Due
to profound social changes these expectations also undergo change. Consequently
people are confused with regard to their new roles.

Political Subservience: Political subordination of a country will result in social

disorganization. The subordinate country is not permitted to develop its economy
and institutions independently and is made as a means to serve the interest of the
dominant country.

Conflict of Goals and Means: Conflict of goals and means for achieving them
may also cause disorganization. Most of the individuals share the dominant goals of
the society and act accordingly. But lacking the means for achieving the goals by
legitimate means some may resort to illegitimate and illegal means resulting in vice,
crime and other expression of social disorganization.

Decline of Social Control: The declining control of religion, morals, customs,

traditions and other institutions on the behavior of men has also enhanced the
process of disorganization. There is an increase in interpersonal conflicts, crimes,
tensions, divorce, delinquency, mental derangement etc. According to Thomas and
Zananiecki the very decrease of the influence of existing rule of behavior upon the
individual members of the group itself indicates social disorganization.

Extreme Divisions of Labor: According to Durkheim social disorganization is

often brought about by extreme division of labour. In normal course according to
him division of labor leads to social solidarity may become disturbed.

 Disruptive Social Change:

Society undergoes change mainly due to the

operation of physical, biological, technological and cultural factors. Sudden and

radical social changes may disrupt the stability and the organization of the society.
The result is social disorganization.

APPROACHES
TO
DISORGANIZATION:

THE

STUDY

OF

SOCIAL

The earliest approach to the study of social disorganization is that of the social
problems. The problems were discussed without any particular sociological frame of
reference both the facts and suggested reform programmes being taken from the fields
in which the problems were found. Each problem was considered in complete isolation
from others. It was assumed that society could progress if it would attack the maladjustment which delayed human advancement. Thus the social problems were the
diseases of society which threatened the welfare of the group.
This is not a scientific approach because social problems in one period of history are not
so considered in another. Besides some of the so called social problems are not generally
accepted as such. Therefore this approach is called evangelistic one. For all its
imperfections and inadequacies the social problem approach contributed to the
understanding of social disorganization paving the way for a more scientific analysis.
The second approach to the study of social disorganization is the bio-psychological. It is
the result of the development of the sciences; biology and psychology. The beginnings
of this approach can be traced in the formulation of racial theories by Gobineau. He and
his followers declared the theory that the decay of all societies is the result of racial
intermixing. This is because that the races are not equal in capacity. The eugenists were
of the view that there are biological differences not only between races but between
individuals within the same race. Therefore society would take drastic steps to prevent
conception among the mentally unfit. This is only way open to solve social problems
and for the prevention of social disorganization. This approach helps us to know that
the disorganization of society is the direct result of deficiencies in the biological makeup passed on from generation through heredity.

The third approach is geographical. Geographical factors such as land, water, rainfall,
climate and soil decide the superiority of a given culture or the backwardness of people.
The forms of social disorganization which are explained in terms of geographical factors
are crime, cultural retardation, illiteracy, suicide, divorce and insanity. Geography
imposes limitation to man's ingenuity but it does not determine the patterns of social
adjustment.

The fourth approach to the study of social disorganization is cultural because it explains
social problems in terms of cultural processes. Thus the different forms of socialorganization show institutional malfunctioning.
The fifth approach is the cultural lag frame of reference. The term cultural lag explained
by Ogburn is based upon the distinction between material and non-material culture.
Rapid changes takes place in the material culture whereas slow changes in non-material
culture. Changes in material culture necessitate related changes in non-material culture.
According to this school the disorganization of the modern family is the result of a lag
in the continued functioning of and failure to develop suitable substitutes for the old
folkways and mores governing family relations.
Cultural anthropologists attempt to broaden the concept cultural lag to include lack of
harmonious functioning between two associated cultural traits. Thomas and Zananiecki
in their Polish Peasant talk of the cultural approach. This may be called the culture
conflict approach. According to them the social disorganization of the immigrant
community is the result of conflict between the cultures of the old and the new worlds
in which the control of the primary group breaks down.

THE NATURE OF SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION:

The philosophically organic approach postulates the interdependence of culture and
human nature. It must be included in the formulation of the nature of the social and
personal disorganization. Human nature reflects culture in the responses of the
individual mechanism. Culture includes those responses which are common to the
group and which are passed from generation to generation.

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION IN A SIMPLE SOCIETY:

The social change, social disorganization and personal disorganization have their
genesis in the variant behavior of the individuals. In simple societies, however
deviations in behavior are minimum. Therefore there is a little awareness of their
existence by the group. New coordination is made both for the society and for the
individual with a minimum of stress and strain.

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION IN A COMPLEX SOCIETY:

The functioning of three important factors is commonly held responsible for
spontaneous variations in behaviour. They are the specialized functioning inherent in
complex society. The family as a culture defining agency and cultural participation
outside the particular social order. The result is the emergence of a wide variety of
various response patterns out of which develops disorganization both in society and
individual. Some innovations find ready acceptance because they are related to those
aspect of culture which are found outside institutional pattern.
Innovations in mores, ideas and beliefs often meet with social disapproval because they
vary from the accepted pattern. In simple society people revamp the discordant
elements to the degree that their variance is no longer apparent. Innovations which
meet with organized resistance tend to result in marked social disorganization. All
positive response to social disapproval does not result in attempts to explain the variant
behavior in terms of the welfare of the group.
Social disorganization is the inevitable result until such time as the new behavior
pattern loses group support or becomes incorporated into the social order. When
however social disapproval of variations is met negatively by retreat into a world of
fantasy there is no corresponding social disorganization except to the extent to which
the individual becomes a threat to the safety of society and its members. This point of
view does not deny the causative role of social organization in the production of
personal disorganization.
All social change involves some social disorganization. It is important to think of social
disorganization related to those aspects of social change which result in the disturbance

and revamping of social institutions and of the patterns of interrelationship between

them. In the same way the social responses of the individual are always in flux. But only
when changes take place in the individual's pattern of adjustment to social situations
which arouse social disapproval that one may speak of personal disorganization.

INDIVIDUAL
DISORGANIZATION
DISORGANIZATION:

AND

SOCIAL

Social disorganization consists of the co-ordination of individual responses as a result of

the operation of consensus and control. Personal organization refers to the coordination
and integration of the attitude systems within the personality. A change in the cultural
context which destroys the functioning of coordination that constitutes the social order
represents social disorganization. Similarly any variant behavior which disturbs the
integration of the attitude systems within the personality represents personal
disorganization.

The concept of Social Disorganization as we shall use it refers primarily to institutions

and only secondarily to men. Just as group-organization embodied in socially
systematized schemes of behavior imposed as rules upon individuals never exactly
coincides with individual life-organization consisting in personally systematized
schemes of behavior, so social disorganization never exactly corresponds to individual
disorganization. Even if we imagined a group lacking all internal differentiation, i.e., a
group in which every member would accept all the socially sanctioned and none but the
socially sanctioned rules of behavior as schemes of his own conduct, still every member
would systematize these schemes differently in his personal evolution, would make a

different life-organization out of them, because neither his temperament nor his lifehistory would be exactly the same as those of other members. As a matter of fact, such a
uniform group is a pure fiction; even in the least differentiated groups we find socially
sanctioned rules of behavior which explicitly apply only to certain classes of individuals
and are not supposed to be used by others in organizing their conduct, and we find
individuals who in organizing their conduct use some personal schemes of their own
invention besides the traditionally sanctioned social rules. Moreover, the progress of
social differentiation is accompanied by a growth of special institutions, consisting
essentially in a systematic organization of a certain number of socially selected schemes
for the permanent achievement of certain results. This institutional organization and the
life-organization of any of the individuals through whose activity the institution is
socially realized partly overlap, but one individual cannot fully realize in his life the
whole systematic organization of the institution since the latter always implies the
collaboration of many, and on the other hand each individual has many interests which
have to be organized outside of this particular institution.
There is, of course, a certain reciprocal dependence between social organization and
individual life-organization. We shall discuss in Part IV the influence which social
organization exercises upon the individual; we shall see in this and in the following
volumes how the life-organization of individual members of a group, particularly of
leading members, influences social organization. But the nature of this reciprocal
influence in each particular case is a problem to be studied, not a dogma to be accepted
in advance.
These points must be kept in mind if we are to understand the question of social
disorganization. We can define the latter briefly as a decrease of the influence of existing
social rules of behavior upon individual members of the group. This decrease may present
innumerable degrees, ranging from a single break of some particular rule by one
individual up to a general decay of all the institutions of the group. Now, social
disorganization in this sense has no unequivocal connection whatever with individual
disorganization, which consists in a decrease of the individual's ability to organize his
whole life for the efficient, progressive and continuous realization of his fundamental
interests. An individual who breaks some or even most of the social rules prevailing in
his group may indeed do this because he is losing the minimum capacity of lifeorganization required by social conformism; but he may also reject the schemes of

behavior imposed by his milieu because they hinder him in reaching a more efficient
and more comprehensive life-organization. On the other hand also, the social
organization of a group may be very permanent and strong in the sense that no
opposition is manifested to the existing rules and institutions; and yet, this lack of
opposition may be simply the result of the narrowness of the interests of the groupmembers and may be accompanied by a very rudimentary; mechanical and inefficient
life-organization of each member individually. Of course, a strong group organization
may be also the product of a conscious moral effort of its members and thus correspond
to a very high degree of life-organization of each of them individually. It is therefore
impossible to conclude from social as to individual organization or disorganization, or
vice versa. In other words, social organization is not coextensive with individual
morality, nor does social disorganization correspond to individual demoralization.
Social disorganization is not an exceptional phenomenon limited to certain periods or
certain societies; some of it is found always and everywhere, since always and
everywhere there are individual cases of breaking social rules, cases which exercise
some disorganizing influence on group institutions and, if not counteracted, are apt to
multiply and to lead to a complete decay of the latter. But during periods of social
stability this continuous incipient disorganization is continuously neutralized by such
activities of the group as reinforce with the help of social sanctions the power of existing
rules. The stability of group institutions is thus simply a dynamic equilibrium of
processes of disorganization and reorganization. This equilibrium is disturbed when
processes of disorganization can no longer be checked by any attempts to reinforce the
existing rules. A period of prevalent disorganization follows, which may lead to a
complete dissolution of the group. More usually, however, it is counteracted and
stopped before it reaches this limit by a new process of reorganization which in this case
does not consist in a mere reinforcement of the decaying organization, but in a
production of new schemes of behavior and new institutions better adapted to the
changed demands of the group; we call this production of new schemes and institutions
social reconstruction. Social reconstruction is possible only because, and in so far as,
during the period of social disorganization a part at least of the members of the group
have not become individually disorganized, but, on the contrary, have been working
toward a new and more efficient personal life-organization and have expressed a part at

least of the constructive tendencies implied in their individual activities in an effort to

produce new social institutions.
In studying the process of social disorganization we must, of course, in accordance with
the chief aim of all science, try to explain it causally, i. e., to analyze its concrete
complexity into simple facts which could be subordinated to more or less general laws
of causally determined becoming. We have seen in our first volume (Methodological
Note) that in the field of social reality a causal fact contains three components, i. e., an
effect, whether individual or social, always has a composite cause, containing both an
individual (subjective) and a social (objective) element. We have called the subjective
socio-psychological elements of social reality attitudes and the objective, social elements
which impose themselves upon the individual as given and provoke his reaction social
values. If we want to explain causally the appearance of an attitude, we must remember
that it is never produced by an external influence alone, but by an external influence
plus a definite tendency or predisposition, in other words, by a social value acting upon
or, more exactly, appealing to some preexisting attitude. If we want to explain causally
the appearance of a social value-a scheme of behavior, an institution, a material productwe cannot do it by merely going back to some subjective, psychological phenomenon of
"will" or "feeling" or "reflection," but we must take into account as part of the real cause
the preexisting objective, social data which in combination with a subjective tendency
gave rise to this effect; in other words, we must explain a social value by an attitude
acting upon or influenced by some preexisting social value.
As long as we are concerned with disorganization alone, leaving provisionally aside the
following process of reconstruction, the phenomenon which we want to explain is
evidently the appearance of such attitudes as impair the efficiency of existing rules of
behavior and thus lead to the decay of social institutions. Every social rule is the
expression of a definite combination of certain attitudes; if instead of these attitudes
some others appear, the influence of the rule is disturbed. There may be thus several
different ways in which a rule can lose its efficiency, and still more numerous ways in
which an institution, which always involves several regulating schemes, can fall into
decay. The causal explanation of any particular case of social disorganization demands
thus that we find, first of all, what are the particular attitudes whose appearance
manifests itself socially in the loss of influence of the existing social rules, and then try
to determine the causes of these attitudes. Our tendency should be, of course, to analyze

the apparent diversity and complexity of particular social processes into a limited
number of more or less general causal facts, and this tendency can be realized in the
study of disorganization if we find that the decay of different rules existing in a given
society is the objective manifestation of similar attitudes, that, in other words, many
given, apparently different phenomena of disorganization can be causally explained in
the same way. We cannot reach any laws of social disorganization, i. e., we cannot find
causes which always and everywhere produce social disorganization; we can only hope
to determine laws of socio-psychological becoming, i. e., find causes which always and
everywhere produce certain definite attitudes, and these causes will explain also social
disorganization in all those cases in which it will be found that the attitudes produced
by them are the real background of social disorganization, that the decay of given rules
or institutions is merely the objective, superficial manifestation of the appearance of
these attitudes. Our task is the same as that of the physicist or chemist who does not
attempt to find laws of the multiform changes which happen in the sensual appearance
of our material environment, but searches for laws of the more fundamental and general
processes which are supposed to underlie those directly observable changes, and
explains the latter causally only in so far as it can be shown that they are the superficial
manifestations of certain deeper, causally explicable effects.