A social institution is looked at in modern sociology as a social form that reproduces itself as government, family, or corporation. Turner says it is: “a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organizing relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment.” (Turner)
Given this definition it is easy to look at organized crime as a social institution. It has a hierarchy much like any corporation, and in fact probably closely resembles that of an international corporation such as McDonald’s. Those positions of varying power follow certain rules and values that the group has developed over time, and it remains a relatively stable organization most of the time, even surviving the occasional trip to prison for a member or two, while sustaining a culture that has rules and structures to follow within the group.
And if we look at the definition of organized crime by Abadinsky, you can see why it fits as a social institution: “Organized crime is a nonideological enterprise involving a number of persons in close social interaction, organized on a hierarchical basis, with at least three levels/ranks, for the purpose of securing profit and power by engaging in illegal and legal activities. Positions in the hierarchy and positions involving functional specialization may be assigned on the basis of kinship or friendship, or rationally assigned according to skill. The positions are not dependent on the individuals occupying them at any particular time. Permanency is assumed by the members who strive to keep the enterprise integral and active in pursuit of its goals. It eschews competition and strives for monopoly on an industry or territorial basis. There is a willingness to use violence and/or bribery to achieve ends or to maintain discipline. Membership is restricted, although nonmembers may be involved on a contingency basis. There are explicit rules, oral or written, which are enforced by sanctions that include murder.” (Abadinsky) In fact, change only a few words so the purpose is no longer illegal and doesn’t include murder and you could be describing any business in America, down to the fact that they would all love to have a monopoly and would prefer to work without competition forcing their prices down. And given the downsizing trends of the last decade, with people who were former employees being brought back for certain projects, and you even can continue to use the sentence “nonmembers may be involved on a contingency basis.”
True, the social norms of organized crime are not necessarily those of the rest of the world, since they involve illegal activities and even murder, but they are institutionalized and followed with their own rules and leadership to obey. The hierarchy is followed religiously, the executives control the underlings with threats of violence or with bribery, discipline is maintained, and even a “dress code” of sorts is enforced. In every way, shape or form they resemble a modern corporation – although they consider themselves a “family” – all the way down to a pay scale that allows the top levels to live in luxury and the “new employees” at the bottom of the organizational chart are barely able to survive.
Even gangs follow the same standards and fit into the mold of organized crime. The main gang has branches – similar to franchises – that in the Black Disciples pay a group called the “Board of Directors” approximately 20% of their profits from local drug sales in exchange for the exclusive area where they can sell drugs in a neighborhood. The head of that local franchise has three men who report to him: An enforcer to protect the gang members safety, a treasurer to track the amounts paid and received for the drugs and the sales records of the gang members, and a runner, who transports the large quantities of the drugs to the local franchise. Then the drug is broken into smaller packages and provided to the “foot soldiers”, the actual salespeople out on the street, for distribution. (Levitt and Dubner)
Their income comes not only from drug sales, but also from dues paid by those who want to join the gang someday and “taxes” paid by community businesses to prevent there from being trouble at their location. Even better, Levitt and Dubner noted: “Notwithstanding the leadership’s rhetoric about the family nature of the business, the gang’s wages were about as skewed as wages in corporate America.” Just as a corporation in the United States will talk about how they care about each other and want to treat the employees like family, the leadership wants to keep the most income for themselves and the bottom rung of the employment ladder will get minimum wage. Moreover, in the case of a gang, they will get less than minimum wage, since they are not following any laws, including employment laws.
Therefore, if a corporation in America is a social institution, both organized crime and gang crime – both closely following the guidelines set down by corporate America – are also social institutions.
REFERENCES
Abadinsky, Howard (1994), Organized Crime, 4th ed., Chicago.
Leviit, Steven and Stephen Dubner. (2005) Freakonomics. HarperCollins. New York.
Turner, Jonathan (1997), The Institutional Order, Longman. New York.