ve been advanced by social scientists such as Buchanan and Monderman to explain social order and they include; the modernist approach and flexible approach (Taylor et al. 2009).
Social disorder is the direct opposite of social order. In other words, it is, as noted earlier, a situation such as an act or a process that the society considers disruptive of its normal way of life. Social disorder is usually in contravention of the normal beliefs in a society and it usually attracts attention and calls of actions to counter it. Taylor et al. (2009) gives an example of the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 that was passed by the United Kingdom’s parliament in reaction to several incidents of severe injuries inflicted by aggressive dogs mostly on children. The social order, which is the normal way life in the United Kingdom is that dogs live with people in that society in a friendly way without biting. But when the same dogs turn against their masters, then the normal way of life is disrupted and this is the social disorder. This prompts the government to act by passing a law that aims at preventing such future acts that amount to social disorder.
From the above example, social disorder is an undesirable situation. This is a direct opposite of social order. For these reasons, the latter is acceptable by the society as compared to the former. Contemporary United Kingdom considers various behaviours as disorderly and they include drunkenness, violence, littering, sale and use of illegal drugs, use of threatening behaviour, crimes, shouting in public, hooting in a quiet residential area at night, just to mention but a few. These disorderly behaviours are indicative of social disorder and a clear indication that social disorder is not necessarily what other people do not entertain. To explain social disorder, various social scientists have come up with various theories such as moral panic, policing the crisis and media effects research approaches. The foregoing discussion