Religion, Morality and Social Control

Religion, morality, and social control have been inexorably linked for centuries. Sacred mandates such as
the biblical Ten Commandments, the pacasila (five precepts) of Buddhism, and the Nine Beliefs of
Hinduism were used and are still used to guide appropriate conduct and organize proper societies.
Each includes moral guidelines that adherents are expected to observe. Moreover, the broader
literature in which they are found outline systems of social control that are designed to discourage
adherents from stepping outside moral boundaries. In fact, some have argued that morality and social
control are derived fundamentally from religion. Dominant religious bodies in many societies define
correct behavior, codify conduct, and establish social control systems designed to enforce systems of
behaviors. This may occur even if government sanctioned social control mechanisms do not consider a
behavior as improper. Moreover, although the direct influence of religious organizations on social life
has waned in most modern societies, remnants of their moral guidelines and control functions remain.
Priming religious concepts and religion has been shown to increase prejudice (Preston & Ritter, 2013),
violent behavior (Ginges, Hansen, & Norenzayan, 2009), and covert racial prejudice to out-groups, even
when controlling for pre-existing religiousness (Johnson, Rowatt, & LaBouff, 2010). These effects of out-
group hostility or prejudices are not confined to Christian denominations, as similar findings have been
found for Buddhists (Ramsay, Pang, Shen, & Rowatt, 2014), Muslims (Koopmans, 2014), and Hindus
(Hunsberger, 1996). Therefore, it could be expected that people with religious social affiliations would
be less progressive than their non-religious counterparts, based on their strong loyalties to their group
and animosity towards other groups. However, similar to the religious, non-religious social affiliations
have been shown to promote binding moral virtues, such as placing importance of allegiance to ones
social group (Gillespie, Mitchell, Johnson, Dawson, & Beech, 2013). Therefore, any social affiliation may
enhance binding moral values or even specific binding sub-foundations (e.g., In-group).

Several of the founders of the social and behavioral sciences had a keen interest in morality. It may be
said that this interest was fundamental since one of the founders of sociology, mile Drkheim (1973
[1925]), sought to establish a discipline by focusing on how morality was a reflection of the nature and
organization of a society. Sigmund Freud (1989 [1930]) discussed how ignoble human desires, if left
unchecked, would lead to annihilation, so laws guiding moral sensibilities fostered early in life were
needed to quell to establish what is acceptable and unacceptable. Some conflict theorists contend that
powerful groups disproportionately define morality in most societies. Social movement theorists suggest
that shared interests among group members galvanize definitions of acceptable vs. unacceptable
actions. However, many social movements are animated by a shared sense of morality that precedes
group formation.

Morality is also influenced by culture and gives rise to worldviews and meaning structures that result in
self-identification and salience. Moral meanings affect (1) group solidarity; (2) judgments and even
condemnation of outsiders; and (3) narratives designed to explain ones life and identity (Haidt, 2007;
Hitlin and Vaisey, 2010). These narratives and associated worldviews support group formation and are
encouraged by group membership. For example, conservative and liberal worldviews are centered on
different models of moral meanings (Lakoff, 2002). When generalized moral judgments are classified
into five domains (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/ respect, and
purity/sanctity), liberals tend to endorse harm/ care and fairness/reciprocity. Yet conservatives tend to
weigh each of these equally. This attention to how morality is cognitively organized and used helps
explain the many recalcitrant political, social, and economic disputes in the United States (Graham et al.,
2009).

The term social control has had a similar conceptual life course as the term morality. Early definitions
focused on pre-modern groups and held that social control consisted of shared norms and practices
designed to penalize deviants (Horwitz, 1990). A more general definition expressed that social control
entails social relationships, processes, and intentional actions that sustain social conformity, thus
regulating deviant behavior (Liska, 1992). This includes relationships, processes, and actions that take
place in families, the workplace, schools, and religious and legal institutions (from police to prisons).
Moreover, it may include any number of actions, including mild verbal correction, humiliation,
ostracism, banishment, fines, beatings, incarceration, and execution. Subsequently, researchers tended
to address other topics, such as (1) different types of control, such as external vs internal or formal vs
informal; (2) distinct forms of social control organizations; (3) whether social control was
disproportionately established and unduly influenced by elite members of society; and (4) the
differential impact of social control agencies on people distinguished by class, race/ethnicity, and
gender. The emphasis on external vs internal and formal vs informal control led to numerous studies of
adolescent and adult deviance, in particular criminal behaviors, sexual deviance (a rapidly changing
concept), self-destructive behaviors, and mental health problems. Some scholars distinguished between
internal forces, such as personal beliefs and values, and external forces, such as parental discipline. A
recent type of internal control that has gained significant attention in studies of crime and delinquency
involves self-control. Individuals lacking self-control tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as
opposed to mental), risk taking, [and] shortsighted (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 90). Its advocates
maintain that a parsimonious explanation of deviant behavior is low self-control, which heightens the
risk of inappropriate conduct when opportunities are present. Whereas this is a highly individualistic
form of internal control, others have examined informal and external mechanisms of control by family
members, teachers, and peer groups, and formal mechanisms of control by the police, the courts, or the
mental health system.

HOOKUPS AND CASUAL SEX

Hookup is the term that youth use to refer to casual sexual encounters. Hookups often begin in a social
setting, such as a party, during which two students meet and something sexual happens between them
that night. Those hooking up are usually not strangers, and they do not necessarily have an interest in
further contact or a romantic relationship when they have these mostly consensual encounters.
Hookups can involve a range of sexual behaviors: from kissing or making out on a party dance floor to
touching, oral sex, or intercourse in private settings. The term has become widespread among students
across public and private universities in the United States (Glenn and Marquardt, 2001; England et al.,
2008). Hookups involve premarital sexual behavior of some sort, not always intercourse. Formerly a
taboo, intercourse before marriage has become largely accepted in many affluent societies. Highly
religious subgroups teach that it is morally wrong, and their members often delay sex longer than
others, but often end up having sex before marriage despite their belief against it (Regnerus, 2007).
Hookup Culture and Gender Inequality

Researchers have identified a gendered double standard in hookup culture, under which women are
judged more harshly than men for casual sex or for having what is perceived as too many partners. Men
do not face the same risks to their reputations as women (Sprecher et al., 1987; Crawford and Popp,
2003; Bogle, 2008; Kreager and Staff, 2009). They may even earn the distinction of player or stud for
hooking up, especially within male peer groups. A woman who has many hookups is more likely to be
known as a slut or whore, pejorative terms that may render her less attractive as a longer term
partner, or girlfriend.