Sociological Theory PDF

Sociological Theory and Social Control
Author(s): Morris Janowitz

Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Jul., 1975), pp. 82-108
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777055 .
Accessed: 27/02/2014 07:28
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Sociological Theory and Social Control1
MorrisJanowitz
University
of Chicago
In theoriginsofsociology, "socialcontrol"servedas a centralconcept

both for relatingsociologyto social philosophyand for analyzing
totalsocieties.In its classicalsense,it referredto the capacityof a
social groupto regulateitself.The conceptsupplieda basis forinte-
grationof theoryand researchuntilthe 1930s.Whilethe traditional
usage of social controlhas persisted,the termhas been redefined to
mean eithersocializationor social repression.Either the classical
meaningmustbe utilizedor a new termmustbe developedto refer
to thecapacityof social groupsto effect self-regulation
if theoryand
researchare to deal withmacrosociology underadvancedindustrial-
ism.
In theemergence ofsociologyas an intellectualdiscipline,theidea of social

controlwas a centralconceptfor analyzingsocial organizationand the
development of industrialsociety.Originally,thetermdealtwitha generic
aspect of societyand servedas a comprehensive basis for a sociological
examination of the social order.In fact,it was one intellectualdevice for
linkingsociologicalanalysisto thehumanvaluesand philosophical orienta-
tionsemployedby somepioneersociologists interestedin "social progress"
and the reductionof irrationality in social behavior.In the most funda-
mentalterms,"social control"referredto the capacity of a societyto
regulateitself accordingto desired principlesand values. Sociological
analysishas the task of exploringthe conditionsand variableslikely to
make thisgoal attainable.
In thispaper,I shall seek firstto set forththe intellectualparameters
in the conceptof social controlas it was originallyformulated in order
to serveas the basis fora broad sociologicalframeof reference. Then I
shall examinethe earlyusage and diffusion of the concept.Third,I shall
examinethe efforts, startingin the 1930s, to transform its meaninginto
the narrowernotionof the processesof developingconformity; in this
connection,it is interestingto probe the reasons for this attemptto
transform themeaningof social control.Finally,I shall examinethe per-
sistenceof the classicusage of the conceptby selectedsociologistsduring
the periodsince 1945 and therebyassess its relevanceforcontemporary
1 This paper is a section of a larger study, "Macrosociology and Social Control."

I am indebted to the Russell Sage Foundation, New York City, for a generous
grant in support of this work.
82 AJS Volume 81 Number 1

SociologicalTheoryand Social Control
sociologyand foranalyzingthe crisisof politicallegitimacyin advanced
industrialsocietieswithparliamentary institutions.
Because some sociologistshave come to definesocial controlas the
social psychologyof conformity, sociologicaltheoryand analysis have
suffered.This typeof thinking contributes to the difficulty of relatingthe
sociologicalenterprise to othersocial sciencedisciplinesas well as to social
philosophyand to issuesof professional practiceand social policy.Either
a new termhad to be inventedor the earliermeaninghad to be recon-
stituted.I have chosen to retracethe intellectualhistoryand usage of
social control,sinceI believethatthe conceptin its originalmeaningcan
helpto integrate bodiesof empiricaldata withsociologicaltheory,to codify
researchfindings, and to handlequestionsof social values in sociological
analysis.Moreover,one ofmycentralarguments is thata closeexamination
of theintellectual historyof theidea of social controlrevealsthat,despite
the constriction of its originalmeaningin some quarters,its broad and
genericmeaninghas had a strikingly persistentvitalityfor the studyof
thesocial order.
In 1925, GeorgeHerbertMead wrotein the InternationalJournalof
Ethics that"social controldepends,then,upon the degreeto whichindi-
vidualsin societyare able to assumeattitudesof otherswho are involved
withthemin commonendeavors"(Mead 1925). He was merelyarticulat-
ing, in his own conceptualterms,a widespreadorientationin American
sociologythat had already been reflectedin the firstvolume of the
AmericanJournalofSociologyin 1896.ThereGeorgeVincent,a sociologist
who still feltat ease with the languageof social philosophy,offeredthe
formulation: "Social controlis the art of combining social forcesso as to
givesociety at least a trend toward an ideal" (p. 490). Social controlhas
to
servedand continues serve as a shorthand notation for a complexset
of viewsand viewpoints. a
It has been "sensitizing concept,"in the termi-
nologyof HerbertBlumer,or a "theoretical orientation," in thatof Robert
K. Merton. Moreover,social control has been directlylinked to the
studyof total societies.It has stood for a comprehensive focuson the
nation-state and a concernwhichhas cometo be called "macrosociology."
INTELLECTUAL PARAMETERS
The intellectualinvestment in the idea of social controlderivesfroma

rejectionof economic self-interesttheories.Social controlhas been an
expressionof the outlook that held that the individualisticpursuitof
economicself-interest can account for neithercollectivesocial behavior
nor the existenceof a social orderand does not supplyan adequate basis
for the achievementof ethicalgoals. Much of the writingabout social
controlmustbe understoodas sociologists'efforts to accept the relevance
83

AmericanJournalof Sociology
butat thesame timeto identify thelimitations of marginal-utility

analysis.
In formalterms,one can thinkof social organization, thesubjectmatter
of sociology,as thepatternsof influencein a populationof social groups.
Social control,therefore, is not to be conceivedas beingthe same as social
organization;it is insteada perspectivewhichfocuseson the capacityof
a socialorganization to regulateitself;and thiscapacitygenerallyimpliesa
set of goals ratherthana singlegoal. Social controlis a perspective which,
whilecommitted to rigoroushypothesis testing,requiresthe explicationof
a value position.
Social controlwas not originallyand subsequentlyhas not been neces-
sarily the expressionof a conservativepolitical outlook. Many early
Americansociologistswho used the termwerereligioussocialists;others
wereadherents ofa "progressive" view.It is moreto thepointto emphasize
that theseearly formulations parallelsociologists'contemporary interests
in "value maximization."While social controlinvolvesthe capacity of
constituent groupsin a societyto behavein termsof theiracknowledged
moraland collectivegoals,it does not implyculturalrelativism. The term
has continuity becausesocialcontrolcan be conceivedas restingon a value
commitment to at least to two elements:the reductionof coercion,al-
thoughit recognizesthe irreducibleelementsof coercionin a legitimate
systemof authority,and the eliminationof human misery,althoughit
recognizesthe persistenceof some degreeof inequality.One should also
mentiona thirdelement:a commitment to procedures of redefining
societal
goals in orderto enhancethe role of rationality, althoughthis may be
consideredinherentin the firsttwo.
The oppositeof social controlcan be thoughtof as coercivecontrol,that
is, the social organizationof a societywhichrestspredominantly and es-
sentiallyon force-the threatand theuse of force.Of course,even in the
mostrepressive totalitariannation-state theagentsof repression are limited
in scope by someprimitive, if unstable,set of norms.However,and more
pertinent to theissue at hand,any social order,includinga societywitha
relativelyeffective systemof social control,will requirean elementof
coercion,butpresumably a limitedone circumscribed by a systemof legiti-
matenorms.2
Thereis no doubtthatearlysociologists in theUnitedStateswerevague
about theirsocial goals and theirnotionsof the "ideal." Frequently,the
ideal theyoffered was no betterdefinedthanas thespontaneously emergent
and spontaneously acceptedconsensus.At times,theywereno morespecific
2 Personal control is the psychologicaland personalitycounterpartof social control.

The formerfocuses on a person's capacity to channel his energiesand to satisfyhis
needs while minimizingdisruption and damage to himself or others. It implies
mastery over one's psychologicalenvironmentand encompasses those psychological
conditionsthat enhance rationality(Bettelheimand Janowitz 1964).
84

thanto assertthattheideal referred to normsthatwererationallyaccepted
and internationalized in contrastwiththe conditionsof coercivecontrols.
Sociologistshave becomemuch morespecificabout the goals theywish
to see maximizedand thereforefar morepreciseabout the analysisof
differentpatternsand mechanisms of social control.
Obviously,thereare a varietyof typesand mechanisms of social control.
Each is the resultof particularantecedentvariablesand, in turn,each
formhas a different impacton social behavior.The taskof empiricalsocial
researchis to investigatethe formsand consequencesof social control.In
essence,thismeansansweringthe hypothetical question,Whichformsof
social controlare most effective, that is, whichenable a social groupto
regulateitselfin termsof a set of legitimatemoralprinciplesand resultin
the reductionof coercivecontrol?3
This perspective explicitlynegatesthe assertionthatsocial organization
per se repressespersonality,social creativity,and collectiveproblem
solving.In the simplestterms,social controlis not the achievementof
collectivestability.The vital residueof the classical standpointis that
socialcontrolorganizesthecleavages,strains,and tensionsof any society-
peasant,industrial,or advanced industrial.The problemis whetherthe
processesof socialcontrolare able to maintainthesocial orderwhiletrans-
formation and social changetake place. There is no questionthat,from
thispointof view,thereis a parallelbetweensocial controland stability
or repression.The argument thatis relevanthereis just theopposite:social
control,to theextentthatit is effective, "motivates"social groups.All this
seemspainfullyobvious; but one purposeof a theoretical orientation is to
make theobviousinescapable.
Explorationof theidea of socialcontrolrequiresone to recognizethatits
emergencewas part of a continuingcritiqueof and responseto the
Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft model. Under the influenceof philosophical
pragmatism and the impactof empiricalresearch,the dichotomouscate-
goriesof Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft werefoundto be both oversimplified
and inadequate(Tonnies 1887). I speak not onlyof FerdinandTonnies's
exposition butalso of thestreamofparallelor relatedwriters. Theseinclude
Henry Maine (status and contract),1tmileDurkheim(mechanicaland
organic solidarity), Charles Horton Cooley (primary and secondary
groups),RobertRedfield(folk cultureand urban culture),Louis Wirth
(urbanismas a way of life), Ralph Linton (ascriptionand achievement),
and Talcott Parsons (patternvariables) (Maine 1861; Durkheim1893;
Cooley 1909; Redfield1947; Wirth1938; Linton1936; Parsons1951).
3 In the contemporaryperiod, Amitai Etzioni definescontrol in a fashion similar to

the classic orientationfound in social control. "Control-the process of specifying
preferredstates of affairsand revisingongoing processesto reduce the distance from
thesepreferredstates." His theoreticalmodel is derivedfromcybernetics(1968, p. 668).
85

The convergingelementsof these formulations have had a powerful

impacton sociologicaltheoryand analysis.At the same time,thereis a
tradition ofcriticism ofthewritings ofTonniesand thosewhohave followed
his formulations that is almost as long standingand enduringas the
Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft model itself.Amongthe Europeansociologists
whohave dissentedfromTonnies'sorientation are GeorgSimmel(1922),
HermanSchmalenbach(1961), Theodor Geiger(1926, 1963), and Rene
Koenig (1955). The accumulatedempiricalevidencefromanthropological
and sociologicalsourceswitha historicalperspective indicatesthatpeasant
societiesare not whollyGemeinschaft entities,as T,unniesused the term.
The inabilityof themodelto accountforthevarietyof solidarycollectivi-
tiesthatemergein advancedindustrialsocietiesis equallynoteworthy.
Much of the criticism of the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft approachis not
an effort to rejectits centralconcernwithsocietaltransformation.4 Instead,
it is an attemptto recasttheapproachto makeit effectively applicableto
theanalysisof the alternativehistoricalpathsby whichsocietieshave be-
comeurbanizedand industrialized. if notimpossible,
It is difficult, to think
of the emergenceof modernsocietyin termsof an "evolutionary"trans-
formation from"community" into"society"thatis the resultof a limited
numberof basic variablesand a linearmodelof social changeand societal
transformation. Thus, the criticismhas had the consequenceof freeing
themodelfromits historicalmythography and refashioning its conceptual
dimensions and variablesinto testablehypotheses.
As a result,thenotionof social controlhas been formulated and elabo-
ratedto providea moreadequate approach to problems of social change
and socialorder.Sociologicaltheoriesof thesocialordertherebyhave come
to rejecttheassertionthat the Gemeinschaft aspectsof societalstructure
are only residuesof some previousstage of social organizationwhile the
Gesellschaftdimensionsconstitutethe realityof industrialand urban
society.Instead,social organizationencompasses,at any givenhistorical
moment,essentialand elaborated elementsof both Gemeinschaft and
Gesellschaft in varyingscope,intensity, and consequence.The analysisof
social controlis an analysisof the interplayof thosevariableswhichcan
be relatedto bothGemeinschaft and Gesellschaft Moreover,the
attributes.
conceptof social controlis directlylinkedto the notionof voluntaristic
action, to articulatedhuman purposeand actions-that is, to various
schemesof means and ends. Thereforeit is designedto avoid the over-
4 Robert A. Nisbet is representativeof those sociological theoristswho are aware of

the centralityof the concepts of Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft in contemporaryresearch
and emphasize the necessityof departing from the original mechanisticand linear
model of change. He writes,"A relationshipthat begins as a Gesellschafttype may
in time become increasinglycharacterizedby Gemeinschaftrelationshipsamong mem-
bers" (1970, p. 107).
86

deterministic sociologywhichhas cometo be inherent in theGemeinschaft-
Gesellschaft model.Social controlpresentsa formatof influence based on
the notionof interactionand mutual (two-way) relationsamong social
groups.To speak of mutualinfluenceis hardlyto deny the elementsof
inequalityand imbalancein social relations.
Sociologistswho have used the conceptof social controlhave in effect
beenfollowing theintellectual lead of AugusteComte,forwhomthecentral
problemof sociologicalanalysiswas the impactof industrialization on the
social orderand the consequencesof the resultingindividualismon the
moralorder.Obviously,the classic writers,includingKarl Marx, Rmile
Durkheim,and Max Weber,addressedthemselvesto the issues Comte
raised. One can translatemuchof the corpusof sociologicalwritingon
macrosociology into the languageof the social controlframework, but to
do so wouldobscureratherthanclarifytheissuesinvolved.It is preferable
to focus directlyon that distinctsociologicalstreamwhich in varying
degreemakesexplicituse of the idea of social control.Thoughmainlyan
Americanstream,it is influenced by and in turnhas influenced European
thoughtand research.It presentsbotha unityand a continuing elaboration.
First,theoriginalwritersand,in time,thesubsequentones as well have
manifested a philosophical outlookconcernedwiththelimitsof rationality
in pursuingsocial and moralaims.Theiroutlookhas reflected pragmatism
in themajorityof thewriters, but forsomeit also has includedaspectsof
phenomenology. An essentialelementof thisorientation has beentherejec-
tionor,rather,theavoidanceof eitheridealismor materialism.
Second,the adherentsof social controlhave been concernedwith in-
formal,face-to-face relationsas aspects of social structure.In contem-
porarylanguage,theyhave been preoccupiedwiththe interfacebetween
micro-and macroanalysis.
Third,the styleof thesesociologistshas been one of persistentconcern
withempiricalexploration of theirideas. Theyhave beenself-critical
about
appropriateempiricaltechniques,continuallyin search of various types
of documentation and data, and fullyawareof thecomplexities and elusive
characterof proofin sociology.
Therefore thereis a directlineofintellectualcontinuity fromtheearliest
efforts to formulate the componentelementsof social controlto its usage
by contemporary researchsociologistsawareof its intellectualbackground
and theoretical purpose.The concepthardlyimpliesthatthesubjectmatter
of sociologyis the "adjustment"of men to existingsocial reality;on the
contrary, sinceits earlyuse, the thrustof thisstreamof sociologicaldis-
coursehas been to focuson efforts of mento realizetheircollectivegoals.
The continuity betweenthe earlywriterson social controland particular
efforts in contemporary researchis manifested in such worksas the pene-
tratingresearchon juveniledelinquencyby AlbertJ. Reiss, Jr. (1951).
87

Conceptualizing his operationalmeasuresin termsof social control,he

refersto it as "the abilityof social groupsor institutions to make norms
or ruleseffective."
Likewise,there is a continuitybetweenthe early analysis of social
controlthat includedthe study of social and political movements-the
processesof revolution, protest,and institution building-as describedin
the seminalstudyby LyfordEdwards (1927) and contemporary interest
in collectivebehavior.5Thus, the theoreticaland empiricaltasks of soci-
ologistswho use the social controlorientation have been and continueto
be to identifyand whereverpossible to quantifythe magnitudeof the
variableswhichfacilitateor hinderthe grouppursuitof collectivemoral
goals.
The pioneersociologistswho thoughtin termsof social controlworked
on specificempiricaltopics and in time applied theireffortsto a very
broad rangeof topicsin the registerof social research.Initiallytheydid
tend to focuson macrosociological issues,such as law and the formation
of legal codes,theemergence ofpublicopinionand collectivebehavior,and
informaland mass media of communication, as well as "traditional"ele-
ments,such as customs,"mores,"and religion.Louis Wirth,an articulate
spokesmanfor this intellectualtradition,assertedthe centralityof the
processesof "persuasion,discussion,debate,education,negotiation, parlia-
mentaryprocedure,diplomacy,bargaining, adjudication,contractualrela-
tions,and compromise." For him,theseprocesseshad to serveas themeans
forarrivingat a sufficient degreeof agreementto make the ongoinglife
of a societypossible,despitedifferences in interests(1948, pp. 31-32).
At thispoint,an important caveat mustbe entered.Much of theempiri-
cal and substantivewritingsabout social controldeals with normsand
normativebehavior.Norms are often used as the indicatorsof social
control-thedependentvariables,so to speak. But social controldoes not
reston an exclusively normative conceptionof elementsof social organiza-
tionand society.As will be demonstrated, it did not do so originallyand
cannotnow if it is to serveas a guide to empiricalresearchand to the
codification of researchfindings.On thecontrary, the continuingrelevance
of social controltheoryreflects the factthatits assumptions and variables
incorporate theecological,technological, economic,and institutional dimen-
sionsof social organization.
EARLY USAGE OF SOCIAL CONTROL

The term"social control"firstfigures
prominently
in thewritings
of E. A.
Ross, who was stronglyinfluencedby GabrielTarde, a sociologistwith
5 The Natural History of Revolution (1927) by Lyford Edwards was prepared in
collaborationwith Robert E. Park. It demonstratesthe mannerin which the empirical
study of revolutionwas related to the elaboration of the concept of social control.
88

powerful insightsintoFrenchsocietyand deeplyinvolvedin empiricalsocial
research(Clark 1969). Tarde himselfdid not emphasizethe term,but he
did presenta broadlyranginganalysisof the complexprocessesrequired
to producesocial agreementthroughmass persuasion.He was concerned
withthemechanismsrequiredto generateeffective leadershipand legisla-
tionwhichwouldregulatesocial change.
While workingat StanfordUniversityin 1894, Ross decided that the
idea of social controlwas a "key that unlocksmany doors"; that is, it
servedas a notionto bridgethevariousinstitutions whichconcernedhim.6
Againand again,he used theconceptto explainhow men"live closelyto-
getherand associatetheireffortswiththatdegreeof harmony we see about
us." Basically,Ross was concernedwiththe social conditionsthatcreated
harmony.Much of his writingconsistedof detailed descriptions of the
mechanismsof social control.While he was fullyaware of the coercive
elementsin industrialsociety,he focusedon thedevicesofpersuasion, both
interpersonal He was impressedwiththeextentto which
and institutional.
persuasionas well as manipulationwas operative.His analysis encom-
passed the processesof face-to-face interactionand sociabilityand those
of publicopinionand legal control.However,he was interested not merely
in devicesof persuasionbut also in a genericconceptionof societythat
wouldexplainthosedeviceswhichoperateto "finda meansof guidingthe
willor conscienceof theindividualmembers ofsociety"(Ross 1901,p. 59).
His usageof social controlbroughtthistermintothecenterof sociological
inquiry,but it remainedforothersociologiststo use the idea morerigor-
ouslyand to enrichits intellectualrelevance.
During the foundingperiod of sociologyin the United States, two
majorfigures-CharlesHortonCooleyand W. I. Thomas-gave centrality
to social controland its relationto rationalcontrolin theirwritings.
There were strongelementsof convergencein theirinterests,but the
differenceswereimportant.7 Cooley was a moresystematicand coherent
thinkerthan Ross, and his approachto social controlwas based on a
thoughtful,normative orientation.He drovedirectlyto his mainpreoccupa-
tion,which reflectedthe pervasiveinfluenceof pragmatismamong the
sociologists
of thatperiod.8
6 Ross (1936, p. 56) noted that Herbert Spencer had employed the word "control"
in 1892 in his Principles of Sociology, vol. 2, pt. 4. While Spencer did not give it
centralimportancein his analysis,his usage undoubtedlywas an influenceon Ross.
In addition,see Borgatta and Meyer (1959).
7 William G. Sumnernevermade explicituse of the term"social control,"yet, because
of the issues raised in his Folkways (1906), his name is linked to this concept.Sumner
defined"folkways"as habits and customswhich serve as the basis for the "regulation
and imperative"for succeedinggenerations.
8 In 1911, L. L. Bernard published his treatise on social control which contained a
89

His approach,of course,restson an interactional socialphilosophy which
he helped to develop.Social controlwas essentialfor the growthof the
selfthroughtheprocessof interaction. Likewise,it restedto an important
degreeon self-control. Cooleyused thenotionof theprimarygroup-face-
to-facerelations-buthe had fewconstructions fordealingwiththe inter-
nalizationof norms,althoughhe assertedthat"individuality" was a crucial
elementforeffective and meaningful social control.
However,he was a powerfulthinkerbecause he struggledto relatehis
interactional approachto the largersociety.Cooley'slinkwiththe classic
questionof social orderand his outlookon social controlunderconditions
of industrialization are summarizedin his chapter,"Social Controlin
International Relations."In his words,"A ripenationalityis favorableto
international orderforthesame reasonsthata ripeindividuality is favor-
able to orderin a small group.It means that we have coherent,self-
consciousand moreor less self-controlled elementsout of whichto build
our system[of nations]" (1920).
Thomasapproachedsocial controlfroma different but relatedprinciple
of pragmaticphilosophy.In his view,the essentialissue forbothsociolo-
gistsand personsin publicand socialaffairs was to increasetheimportance
and effectiveness of "rationalcontrolin social life." Open mindedly-and
in a senseparadoxically-likemanyEuropeansociologists, Thomas raised
the questionof the impactof rationalthoughtin weakeningthe social
fabricofsociety."We are less and less readyto let anysocialprocessgo on
withoutouractiveinterference and we feelmoreand moredissatisfied with
any active interference based upon a merewhimof an individualor a
socialbody,or uponpreconceived philosophical, or moralgenerali-
religious,
zation" (Thomas and Znaniecki1918-20, 1:1; Janowitz1966,p. 37).
Unlike Cooley,Thomas was trainedin classical literatureand history,
and he developedan interestin the comparativesociologicalstudy of
specificculturesand societies.He was fullyaware of the writingsof
Tonnies,whoseformulation he rejectedbecauseof its simpleevolutionary
bias, its failureto describeadequatelyeitherpeasant societyor modern
social organization,and particularlyits impliedhostilityto individualfree-
domand creativity. Thomasoffered no singleset of determinant causes of
socialchange,althoughhe was clearlythemostsystematic of the founding
sociologistsconcernedwith social control.Thomas had a comprehensive
outlooktowardthe dimensionsof social organizationand social control.
He offered a highlydifferentiatedorientation whichsoughtto incorporate
variablesreflecting ecology,economy,and technology into his analysisof
social control.His orientation,
of necessity,suffered becauseof eclecticism.
sociological critique of utilitarianphilosophy.These themes were later emphasized in

sociological analysis as part of the "theoryof action."
90

He saw societyin institutional termsas consistingof a set of irreducible
social groups, from primarygroups to complex bureaucraticstruc-
tures.Social controldependedon effective linkageor articulationamong
theseelements;social disorganization resultedfromtheirdisarticulation.
WhileRosswas stimulated by Tarde to proposetheterm"socialcontrol,"
thewritings of GeorgSimmelwereimportant ingredientsin fashioning the
outlooksofW. I. Thomasand,later,RobertE. Park,bothofwhompressed
to developan empiricalbase foranalysisof social controlin the urban
metropolis.In his classic article,"The Mental Life of the Metropolis,"
Simmeldemonstrated his resistanceto the categoriesderivedfromthe
Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft model (1903). He was, rather,concernedwith
thechangingand alternativebases of grouplife.He did not conceptualize
individualityas inherentlyself-destructive or destructiveof social control.
The analysisof individuality had to includethe possibilitiesof formsof
autonomyand personalfreedom(Levine 1971).
Simmel'swritingsdid not expressany existingphilosophyof history.
In fact,theyarticulatedwiththe orientation of Americansociologistsof
thepragmaticpersuasion.In particular,Simmeldid not concludethatthe
complexity ofmodernsocietyanditsrangeofgroupaffiliations automatically
impliedthe loss of individuality or that it was necessarilydisintegrative.
His "Die Kreuzungsozialer Kreise," translatedby ReinhardBendix as
"The Web of GroupAffiliations," arguesthe opposite.In effect, each new
group to which a person becomes affiliated"circumscribes" him more
exactlyand moreunambiguously(Simmel 1955, pp. 140-41). In other
words,as a personbecomesaffiliated with a social group,he surrenders
himselfto it. However,the largerthe numberof groupsto which the
individualbelongs,the moreunlikelyor improbableit will be that other
personswill exhibitthe same combination of groupaffiliations.Therefore,
"the personalso regainshis individuality because his patternof partici-
pationis unique." In essence,Simmelrejectedthe assertionthatpartcipa-
tion engenderedonly social constraintand conformity or, alternatively,
individualityresultedonly fromwithdrawal.He held that individuality
was theresultof a patternofsocialparticipation and theoutcomeofspecific
typesof social control.
The centralthemesof Durkheim'swritings convergewiththe earlyfor-
mulationof social controland are thusa relatedaspectof the intellectual
historyoftheconception. He did notuse thetermor an equivalentformula-
tion.But hispersistentsearchforthe"determination of moralfacts"is his
versionof theproblematic issue involvedin social control;thisis perhaps
mostclearlyseenin Sociologieet philosophie(1924). Moreover,his empiri-
cal study,Suicide (1897), has come to supplythe link betweenhis work
and thesubsequentgenerations ofwritersconcernedwithsocialcontrol.
Obviously,one cannotoverlookthe existenceof a body of literature
91

criticizingDurkheimforhis failureto offeran effective analysisof the

internalizationof the normson which he rests his analysis. Likewise,
Durkheim'sframework has not servedas a contribution
to criticalevalua-
tion of the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft themesin sociologybut has, in
effect,been incorporatedinto this dominantperspective.While his work
has been an importantstimulusto empiricalresearch,in contrastto the
mainbodyof wrtingon social controlas it has subsequently emerged,his
orientationhas presenteda relativelyoverdeterministic
frameof reference
withonlylimitedexplorationof the voluntaristic elementsin the "moral
order."
DIFFUSION OF THE CONCEPT
By 1920, the term"social control"had emergedin the UnitedStates as

representing a centraltheoreticalthrustby whichsociologistssoughtto
integratetheirsubstantiveand empiricalinterests.For the next20 years,
whilesociologywas becominginstitutionalized as an academicdiscipline,
the writingsof both RobertE. Park and RobertM. MacIver-although
theywereextremely differentthinkers-served to maintainthenotionthat
social controlis a device forintegrating diverseelementsof sociological
analysis.
Social controlwas used as the organizingthemeof the nationalcon-
ventionof the AmericanSociologicalAssociationin 1917. There a wide
rangeof empiricaltopicswereexplored,suchas childwelfare,immigration,
labor relations,and economicorganization.The papers presentedmade
striking effortsto be explicitin evaluatingthe effectiveness of elementsin
the processof social control(Bedford 1918). In 1921, RobertE. Park
and ErnestW. Burgessassessedthe state of sociology,in Introduction to
theScienceof Sociology,by asserting:"All social problemsturnout to be
problemsof social control"(p. 785). In contemporary language,social
controlis the outcome,in variousformsand content,of social organiza-
tion.It is theconstruct whichhelpsto relateand interrelate thedependent
variablesof empiricalresearch.Moreover,since theylinkedsocial control
to socialproblems, sociologistsof thatperiodsaw it as a vehicleforjoining
sociologicalanalysisto issues of social policyand fordealingwithissues
of deviance.
To understand thefullconnotations of social controlin thatintellectual
setting,one has only to turnto its references and cross-references.Social
controlpointedlyencompassed law and leadership,keyelementsforunder-
standinghowsocietyregulatesitself.In thePark and Burgessvolume,the
listof cross-referencesevenincludedtheword"participation";theexplica-
tion of this cross-referencewas based on an analysisof the "immigrant
problem"viewedas a problemin lack of participation(p. 766).
92

Sociologistsof thisperioddid not perceivesocial controlas a mechanism
of conformity. Societydid not and could not existon the basis of con-
formity but requiredactive elementsof collectiveproblemsolving.Nor
did theexplicitphilosophicalpreferences of thesesociologistspermitthem
to equate social controlwithconformity. Social controlraisedthequestion
of how societyregulateditselfand changed.In reply,Park and Burgess
postulateda sequenceor "naturalhistory"of collectivebehaviorthatwas
rootedin conflict and fromwhichfewformsof social controlcouldemerge.
"Social controland themutualsubordination of individualmembersto the
community have theiroriginin conflict, assume definiteorganizedforms
in theprocessof accommodation, and are consolidatedand fixedin assim-
ilation"(Park and Burgess1921,p. 785).
As Ralph Turnerhas asserted,Park's explicationof social controldrew
on analogiesfromthecompetitive processesof ecology,to whichhe added
thoseformsof social communication that constrainedthe ecologicalpro-
cesses (Turner1967). He posed a formulation of theunderlying processes
of social controlthat fusedecological,institutional, and normativevari-
ables. "Competitionand communication, althoughtheyperform divergent
and uncoordinated social functions,neverthelessin theactuallifeof society
supplement and completeeach other.Competition seemsto be theprinciple
of individuation in the lifeof the personand of society-communication,
on the otherhand, operatesprimarilyas an integrating and socializing
principle"(Park 1950, p. 43; 1952, pp. 240-62). He went on to argue
thattheinitialconsequenceof new formsof communication is to intensify
competition.However,"in the long run," improvedcommunication can
contribute"to humanizesocial relationsand to substitutea moralorder
forone thatis fundamentally symbioticratherthan social."
In contrast,RobertM. MacIver's interestin politicaltheoryand the
roleof thestateled to hisproducing workswhichbroughtthedimension of
coercion,especiallylegitimateforce,into social controlin a fashionthat
paralleledMax Weber'sorientation. For Maclver, an elementof coercion
was involvedin socialcontrol;theproblematic issuesweretheamountand
theminimization of coercion.
Maclveracceptedtheidea thatsocial controlwas themodernequivalent
of the classic issue of social order.Social controlmeantboth elements:
the institutional mechanismsby which societyregulatedindividualbe-
havior and the "way in whichpatternedand standardizedbehaviorin
turnservesto maintainthe social organization"(MacIver and Page 1949,
p. 137). One strikingavenue he investigatedwas social controlin 19th-
centuryutopiancommunities in the UnitedStates.MacIver was searching
forhypothetical equivalentsof existingpatternsof social controland was
particularly interested in the capacityof purposefully constructed utopian
communities to adapt to social changeand to engagein collectiveproblem
93

solving.Reflecting his frameof reference, he concludedthat,because the

social organizationof thesecommunities permitted verylimited,or insuffi-
cient, individualization,they were incompletesocieties and therefore
suffered a veryhighrateof "mortality."9
During the 1920s and early 1930s, the term"social control"supplied
an essentialbridgeto the influential workof institutional economists.In
the United States, such economistsincluded ThorsteinVeblen, John
Maurice Clark, Wesley C. Mitchell,and Walton H. Hamilton.10They
believedthatthemechanisms of themarketplace and competition supplied
an essentialbut only partial basis forunderstanding economicbehavior.
Clark,in Social ControlofBusiness,presentedthecoreof theinstitutional
economists'effort to make use of the sociologicalnotionof social control
(1926). He was firmly committed to the centralityof effective
utilization
of marketmechanismsforallocatingresources.However,it was clear to
him that the basic structure of modernsocietydoes not restin the com-
petitiveeconomicprocess.Societyrequiresa set of informaland formal
normswhichhighlight"cooperative"arrangements. In effect,he rejected
thenotionof countervailing power-of society-wide organizationas derived
fromthe competition of large-scaleor different
typesof economicorgani-
zations. Instead, he assertedthat the governmental system-legislative
and legal-supplies the framework for the cooperativeelementsof the
moderneconomicsystem.
Comparableto thelinkageof socialcontrolwitheconomicswas thework
of "realist"scholarsin law,politics,and psychology. The mostoutstanding
writerin the sociologyof law was Roscoe Pound,whose 1942 studyof
Social Control throughLaw anticipatedcontemporary approaches.In
politicalscience,CharlesE. Merriammade use of the social controlcon-
cept in empiricalresearchinto political and governmental institutions
(1936). Duringthisperiod,anothervigorousintellectualcurrentthatfed
the concernwithsocial controlderivedfromthe writings of Mary Parker
Follett,the psychologistof administration. She was groping,with pro-
foundinsight,towarda sociologicalformulation of administrative control
thatwouldencompasstheessentialelementsof the social process,and she
brokewiththeviewof administration as a systemof constraints."We get
controlthrougheffective integration.Authorityshould arise withinthe
unifying process.As everylivingprocessis subject to its own authority,
9 Other sociologistswho pursued the analytic aspects of social control before 1940
include Kimball Young (1934), Paul Landis (1939), and L. L. Bernard (1937).
10These institutionaleconomistsconstituteda body of scholars with sociological in-
terestwho produced,for more than two decades, importantresearchon industrialand
economic organization.With the decline of the industrial school of economists,so-
ciologistsunfortunatelyhave failed to incorporatefully the topics of social control
of economic and industriallife in their domain.
94

thatis, theauthority evolvedby or involvedin theprocessitself,so social
controlis generatedby the processitself.Or rather,the activityof self-
creatingcoherenceis the controlling activity"(Follett 1941, p. 204; see
also Pigors1935).
By the 1930s, the Americansociologists'theoreticaland empirical
concernswith social controlhad begun to have a discernibleimpacton
European thought.Karl Mannheim followedthe Americanliterature
closely and servedas a focal point of interpretation. In his elaborate
treatise,Man and Societyin an Age of Reconstruction (1940), Mannheim
madesocialcontrola centralpointof departureforhis analysis.Interested
in politicalsociology,he introducedand focusedattentionon the role of
parliamentary institutionsin theprocessesof social controlin an advanced
industrialsociety.For him,freedomwas a particulartypeand qualityof
social control;it was requiredunderadvancedindustrialism if social plan-
ningwerenot to degenerateinto authoritarian rule.He believedthat the
had, in turn,to reston vigorous
processesof social control,to be effective,
parliamentary institutions. Underthe influence of Max Weber,he sought
to analyze,in the broadestterms,the transformation of social structure
and authorityrelations,and he highlighted the shiftthat he saw toward
indirectauthority withtheconcomitant profound strainson social control.
His workwas striking in the extentto whichhe incorporated the detailed
findingsof empiricalsociologicalresearchon Americansocial structure.
In essence,Mannheimpreparedthe intellectualgroundwork for incorpo-
ratingpoliticalsociologyand the analysisof mass societyinto the study
of socialcontrol.
CONCEPTUAL CONTINUITY
Although"social control"persistedas a coordinating termof reference in

Americansociologythrough1940, the constricted and narrowmeaningof
thetermwas alreadycomingintoforce.The alternateformulation of social
controlas a processof socializationleadingto conformity was beingpostu-
who called themselves
lated by sociologists This trend
social psychologists.
becomesevidentwhenone examines,not the theoreticaltreatisesof the
period,butthetitlesof doctoraldissertationsand journalarticlesconcerned
withsocializationand theprocessof persuasion, interpersonaland mass.
How does one accountforthis transformation or apparentshift?
First,the factthat thereis a naturalhistoryof sociologicalideas may
afford a partialexplanation.Undertheimpactof empiricalresearch, broad
conceptionsthat have servedas sourcesof stimulationbecomeconverted
in timeintomorespecificand delimitedtopicsof research.Howevercon-
vincingin itself,this is hardlyan adequate explanation.Review of the
literatureand interviewswith figuresactive duringthis period do not
95

permittheconclusionthatthe diffuseness and shortcomings of the idea of

social control-and thereare many-accountfortheapparenttransforma-
tion.It is necessaryto consideradditionalfactors.
Second,thepoweranalysisand modifiedversionsof economicdetermin-
ism derivedfromthewritings of Karl Marx had the unanticipated conse-
quence of weakeninga concernwith the voluntaristicand purposeful
processofmodifying thesocialorder.This occurredduringtheGreatDepres-
sion and the New Deal, whichcreatedideologicaland politicalcurrents
that impingedon sociologyin a fashioncomparablewith the eventsof
the 1960sand made theidea of socialcontrolor any equivalentunpopular.
The resultwas an oversimplified focuson powerand powerrelationsand
on uncriticalacceptanceof the notionof mass society.To speak of social
controlwas perceivedas impedingthosesocial and economicchangesthat
membersof the sociologicalprofession consideredessential.
As a result,aftertheinterruption in academiclifeduringWorldWar II,
thesubjectmatterof socialcontrolcame to reflectincreasingly thespecial-
ized interests
of sociologists
concernedwithresearchon institutions dealing
withsocializationand resocialization,suchas thementalhospitalor school."'
The researchtopicscoveredunder"social control,"at the nationaland
regionalmeetingsand in journal and monographpublications,show that
theprocessesof social controlin thesetermswereinvestigated in an ever-
wideningrangeof institutional settings.Paradoxically,the relevanceof
theseempiricalresearchesrestedin theirfindings, whichmightwell have
been anticipated,concerningthe limitationsof dominantleaders and
organization administratorsin enforcing normsand thecapacityofinformal
groupsto modifynormsor participatein redirecting goals. Even in the
narrowinvestigation of the enforcement of norms,such sociologistsand
social psychologistswere forcedto recognizethe requirements of institu-
tionallife and the societalorder.They soughtto deal withbasic issues,
relabeling"social control"as "social regulation"(Cummings1968).
The narrowdelimitation of social controlas the processof social con-
formity, althoughwidelyused in sociologicalresearch,did not and could
not displacethe classicalusage of the concept.Since 1945 the latter,with
its broad and fundamental import,has continuedto appear and reappear
11 Of course, it would be an error to conclude that the narrow social-psychological
definitionof social control as conformitywas accepted by all social psychologistsof
eitherthe psychologicalor the sociologicalpersuasion.A varietyof social psychologists
concernedwith social values resisted.Withouteffectivereferenceto the previous liter-
ature, they came in time almost to reinventthe older conception of social control.
A thoughtfulexample of the countertrendis found in Scott and Scott (1971), who
boldly introduce their work with the assertion,"Even a purely objective attitude
toward the phenomenonof social controlprovidessome safeguardagainst the concept
of control by a superman,for either good or evil purposes. This is the fact that
control is always a mutual affair" (p. 1). See also the penetratingformulationby
Litwak (1956, pp. 217-23).
96

withpersistence and vitalityin thewritingsof certainsociologists.Clearly,
the new relianceon biologicaland electronicanalogieshas not completely
displacedor rendered obsoletethistraditionallineofsociologicalthinking.'2
Any reviewof the continuity and vitalityof the idea of social control
mustaccordan importantplace to the writingsand researchof Everett
Hughesand his students.As thepost-WorldWar II expansionof academic
sociologywas starting, Hughespublishedhis influential essay"Institutions"
(1946). For him,one centralissue of social controlwas the socialization
and the organizationof occupational,especially professional,groups.
Hughes'stheoreticaland empiricalwritingsstimulateda crucialbody of
literature
analyzingand assessingprocessesof regulation and self-regulation
of skilledgroupsin modernsociety.'3
Hughes drewon currentsin social anthropology. In particular,the re-
searchof specificBritishand Americansocial anthropologists servedto
reinforce the interestof studentsof social controlin intensivefieldwork
duringa periodwhenthe emerging trendin sociologywas towardsurvey
researchmethodology. Anthropologistsseekingto use theconceptof social
controlto integratetheirethnographic materialsand maintainlinkages
with the intellectualtraditionsof sociologyby this approach included
RaymondFirth (1951), S. F. Nadel (1953, 1957), J. S. Slotkin(1950),
and JackGoody(1957).
The post-WorldWar II functionalist maintaineda concernwith and
orientationtowardsocialcontrol.Throughout thebodyofTalcottParsons's
writing, thereis a centralfocuson theessentialelementsof a social order.
His explicitinterestin thesocial controlconceptderivedfromhis explica-
tion of 1EmileDurkheim.In The Structureof Social Action (1937), he
assertedthat Durkheim"not onlygainedgreatinsightinto the natureof
socialcontrol,butalso intotheroleand importance of moralconformity."'14
In The Social System(1951), the analysisof social controlfiguresmore
prominently as a core elementin his explanationof the patterningof
deviantbehavior.Parsons'swritingshave had a stronginfluenceon the
studiesof deviancemade by a varietyof empiricalresearchsociologists.15
12 For an interesting treatiseon continuitiesin the use of the social control concept,
see Richard T. LaPiere (1954).
13 Hughes's interestin social controlis to be found implicitlyin the works of Erving
Goffman,Anselm Strauss,and Howard Becker.
14 Parsons's analysisseeks to assess the contributions-plustheirdegreeof convergence
-of a variety of classical sociologiststo the extension and reformulationof basic
questions of the social order. Thus this volume is a key resourcein the intellectual
historyof sociology and the issues involved in social control. In a very compact
fashion,Percy Cohen has reviewed these linkages,and his effortmakes possible the
conclusion that "modern sociology" has, in effect,abandoned the older question of
how societyemergedand concentrateson that of how the social order persists (1968,
especiallychap. 2).
15 While a great deal of the writingand research on deviance came to reflectthe
97

In theworkof a numberof Parsons'sstudents,theissueof social control
continueto be explicated.In Human Society,KingsleyDavis joined his
conceptionof functionalism to the idea of social control."It is through
them [social controls]that humansocietyregulatesthe behaviorof its
membersin such ways that they performactivitiesfulfilling societal
needs-even, sometimes, at the expenseof organicneeds" (1948, p. 52).
He focusedon institutional arrangements for regulationand controlby
pointedlycomparingthe mechanismsof social control in totalitarian
societieswith those in the multiparty states of the West. Likewise,the
socialcontrolof sciencehas beenused to focusattentionbothon thecondi-
tionsunderwhichsciencedevelopsand on the social and politicalconse-
quencesof scientific knowledge.BernardBarber,in Scienceand theSocial
Order(1952), has probedthe directinvolvement of scientistsin wartime
researchand the new orientations towardtheirsocial responsibility that
have emerged.
The continuing impactof theissuesof socialorderwas to be found,after
1945,amonga groupof sociologists concernedwithmacrosociology. It was
to be expectedthatReinhardBendixand BennettBergerwoulddisplaya
strongconcernwiththeseissuesand theconditions underwhichsocialorder
is maintained.Followingdirectlyon Simmel'sformulations, theypostulate
alternative consequencesof groupparticipation in a fashionthatconverges
withtraditional notionsof social control.They emphasizethatsocialparti-
cipationin its genericformproducesmorethan "socializing"effects, the
centralconcernof empiricalsociologists(Bendix and Berger1959). They
also stressthe potentialityof an alternativeset of outcomes,namely,
"individualizing"effects, that requiresa carefuland richerlanguageof
analysis.The individualizing effectsare not at all equated withpersonal
anomiebut are at therootof autonomy, creativity,and problemsolving-
elementsconsistentwithand to some degreeessentialfor a social order
and effective social control.
In an alternative way,EdwardShilshas soughtto explicatethe dimen-
sion of social order and social controlof a mass society (1962). The
essentialtransformation of modernsocietyrestsnot only in its industrial
and technological base but also in the effort to incorporatethe "mass of
the population"into the society'scentralinstitutional and value systems
as a resultof the social and politicalprocessof fundamental democratiza-
tion,to use Mannheim'sterminology (Mannheim1940). Shils has tried
to give a normativedimensionto the ecologicalstructureof the nation-
statewithhis emphasison the "center"and the "periphery"(1961). The
narrowerand more constrictedview of social control,the followingexpositionsdeal
with broad societal issues and therebyreflectearlier formulations:Clark and Gibbs
(1965); Gibbs (forthcoming); and Stephenson (1973).
98

particularrelevanceof Shils'swritings restsin his use of theword"civility"
the
to characterize patterns of interactionand social relationsrequiredfor
the reductionof coercionand manipulationin the social orderof mass
society.
It is interestingthat George Homans, beforehis acceptanceof the
"behavioral"assumptionof conditioning psychology, made use of "social
control"in its traditionalmeaning.In this he was stimulatedby Mary
ParkerFollett'swritings. "Social controlis not a separatedepartment of
grouplife-instead control,to a greateror lesser degree,is inherentin
everydayrelationships betweenmembersof the group" (Homans 1951,
p. 365). For him,interaction suppliesthe basis forempiricalinvestigation
of social controlin "at least two somewhatdifferent languages" (p. 94).
Social controlcan be describedin termsof "distribution of goods,such as
money,and intangiblegoods,such as the enjoyment of highsocial rank."
Barrington Moore,Jr.,in a markedlydifferent style,concernedwiththe
historicaltransformation of societies,poses the questiontraditionally as-
sociatedwithsocial controlin his essay on "Reflections on Conformity in
IndustrialSociety" (1958). He considershimselfnot a studentof the
abstractprinciplesof the humangroupbut a sociologistof comparative
sociopoliticalsystems.For him, social controlinvolves an elementof
repression-conscious or unconscious.He feelsthat "in the matureman,
we simplycall it self-control" (p. 193). Moore has thusapproachedsocial
controlfromthe reverseside, namely,how muchconformity does an ad-
vancedindustrialsocietyrequire?First,he is attractedto the idea that,
in such a society,moreof "this ancientvirtue"is required,not less. The
societalcontextforself-control derivesfromthe fact that the practical
problemis compounded by a paradox."Theremaybe lessof theself-control
nowimposedby scarcity,"while"a widerrangeof materialopportunities
and temptations mayrequirea stronger exerciseof thiscapacity"(p. 193).
Second,Moore,strangely enough,findstheprimaryneed forconformity
in the arena of culture,whetherbroadlydefined(as by anthropologists)
or narrowlydefinedto includeonly certainappreciatedcultural,artistic,
and intellectual
attainments. It is notthearenaof technology thatgenerates
the need forconformity but "the simple fact that the achievementsof
humanculturerequireeffort and discipline,not only to create thembut
merelyto appreciatethem" (p. 186).'6 This line of reasoningis not an
expressionof sociological perversity;instead, it representsMoore's
thoughtful searchforthe requirements of an advancedindustrialsociety
able to regulateand controlitself.
politicalelite theory
16 AndrewHacker (1957) has restatedthe issues of contemporary
in termsof social control (see also Cook 1957).
99

CONTINUING EXPLICATION
In summary,the idea of social controlhas been a centralformulation

in the originand development of sociologyas an intellectualdiscipline.
Moreover,particularsociologists have not abandonedtheintellectualheri-
tage and problematic issuesassociatedwiththe idea, fortherecan be no
sociologywithouta concernfortheelementsof a socialorder.An inventory
of contemporary usage indicatesthatthe efforts to substitutethe language
of social systemsor of biologicaland cybernetic modelsdo not sufficeto
supplantolder conceptualizations. In fact, WilbertE. Moore has con-
cluded,in his assessment of "social structureand behavior,"thatthe "old-
fashionedsociologicalterm,social control,seems appropriateto revive,"
to handlethe combination of externalcontrolsand individualinternaliza-
tionof the moralorder(1967, pp. 171-219). The particulartermis not
theissue,ofcourse.The issueis theanalyticformulation thathighlights the
preconditions and variablesthatmaximizetheself-regulation of societyand
takeintoconsideration therealitiesof socialconstraints,whether theyhave
theiroriginsin ecological,economic,or normativefactors.
Therefore, I would argue that the idea of social control-in its tradi-
tionalmeaningand contemporary explication-shouldserveas a powerful
antidoteto the "crisisin sociology"outlookas exemplified by thewritings
of Alvin W. Gouldner,amongothers (Gouldner1970). No doubt some
sociologists havebecomedisappointed withthecapacityoftheirsociological
endeavorsto alterthesociopolitical process.Othershave becomepersonally
fatiguedand discontented withthe styleof life of the teacherin the uni-
versitysetting,and as a resulttheyhave less zeal for theirintellectual
tasks. A sociologistwho has enteredhis calling with a belief in the
philosopher-king assumptionis certainto face a crisisat somepoint.
The phrase"crisisin sociology"mustmean that sociologyis progres-
sivelymoreand moreunable to explainand clarifysocial changein con-
temporary society.Thereis no needto exaggerate thematurity of sociology
and thecumulativecharacterof its researchefforts. Nor is thereany need
to overlookthevast amountof marginalresearch.But thepresentstateof
sociologyis to be assessednotin termsof thewiderangeof its undertakings
but,rather,by the vitalityof relevantstreams-evenif theyare minority
efforts.Therefore, whileparticularsociologists mayexperience a crisis,there
is no basis forassertingthat thereis a crisisin the intellectualdiscipline.
Any"crisis"residesin therealworld.The advancedindustrialnationswith
parliamentary institutionsare experiencing crisesin theirabilityto regu-
late themselves, particularlyin theirpoliticalinstitutions.The intellectual
Fragestellung(posingof the question)linkedto the idea of social control
constitutesa relevantstandpointfor assessing this crisis in political
legitimacy.
100

The reemergence of a focuson social controlin its traditionalsense (or
relabeledvariously,forexample,as "social regulation,"in contemporary
language)has theadvantageofbeingable to drawon increasedintellectual
amongsociologists.The followingpointsare essential,
self-consciousness
althoughan adequate explicationof themremainsbeyondthe scope of
thispaper and will be presentedin my largerstudy,"Social Controland
Macrosociology."
First,the social controlperspective,as it has developed,suppliesan
appropriatelevel of abstractionforthe studyof social organizationand
social change.In fact,the social controlperspectivestandsin contrastto
thepost-WorldWar II trend,in whichmuchtheorizing used a highlevel
of generality.Originally,social controltheorywas formulated at a more
concretelevelofabstraction. It requireda set of taxonomicand analytically
differentiatedcategoriesas the basic elementsof analysis. Specifically,
social controlscholarspostulatedthatsocial stratificationand social class
categorieswereinsufficientfortheanalysisof social organization and social
change.There was an explicitconcernwithinstitutions and institutional
analysis.Underthe rubric"institutions," sociologistsinvestigatedan end-
less rangeof subjectsthat reflected theirpersonaltastesmorethan a set
of analyticunitsand objectsof analysis.But fromthe verybeginningof
theirempiricalresearch,sociologistsconcernedwith social controlhave
beenawareof thenecessityof groupingtheirsubjectmattersin a broader
analyticalcategorysystem-but one whichwould not lose sightof the
substantivereality.
Thus, slowly,the varietyof researchon delinquentgangs,workteams,
play groups,and thelike becamemoreand moreexplicitlyfusedinto the
studyof primarygroups,reflecting the writingsof CharlesH. Cooleyand
W. I. Thomas.UnderRobertF. Park's stimulus,the host of analysesof
unitsand residential
territorial patternsmergedintoa commoninterestin
community structures.Anothercore of thesesubject-matter concernswas
the transformation of the studyof specificcorporateinstitutions into the
analysisof bureaucraticorganizations, underthe influenceof Max Weber
and ChesterBarnard.Fromstudyof a myriadof interesting institutions,
thereemergedtheperspective thatsuchcategoriesas primarygroups,com-
munitystructures, and bureaucraticorganizations wereessentialelements
for convertingthe descriptionof social stratification and socioeconomic
class patternsinto effectiveanalysisof the "social system"or the nation-
state. The randominvestigation of particularinstitutionsthat had fasci-
natedtheearliersociologists has givenway to a morepointedfocuson the
interrelationsbetweenbasic structural"entities."In the effortto avoid
or a flight
excessivereification intoempiricism, thestyleof theorizingabout
social controldevelopedin the 1920s-and explicatedthereafter-appears
101

to be markedlyviable and appropriateforthe continuing tasksof sociolo-
gists.
Second,theanalysisof social controlcan be pressedwithmorepointed
concernforcausal sequencesin social changein particular,with a more
explicitand adequate overviewof the articulationof "social structure"
and politicalinstitutions. Sociologicalanalysisis only slowlycomingto
gripswiththe crisisof politicallegitimacythat constitutesthe key prob-
lematicissue in advancedindustrialsociety,particularly in thosenations
withmultiparty parliamentary institutions.
The noteworthy defectof the earlyformulations of social controlwas a
viewpointthat saw political institutionsas derivativefromthe social
stratificationsystem,almostas if politicalinstitutions were thoughtto be
epiphenomenal. The contribution of politicalsociologysincethe 1920shas
only partiallyovercomethis defect.As sociologistshave progressively
soughtto articulatethe relationsbetweensocial structureand political
institutions,theyhave emphasizedthe causal priorityof the elementsof
social stratification.Theyhave perceivedpoliticsand "politicalconflict"as
manifestations of the underlyingsocial stratification ratherthan aug-
mentingtheirapproachto politicswithan institutional framework associ-
atedwiththeidea of socialcontrol(Janowitz1970). Sociologists have been
interestedin describingcommunity in the mode of Robert
stratification,
and Helen Lynd's Middletown(1929), or nationalstratification patterns,
by meansof thenationalsurveysample,in orderto tracetheconsequences
of thesehierarchiesforpoliticalcontrol.In theirview, politicsis mass
politicalparticipation, especiallyelectoralbehavior.The causal patternhas
been from underlying ecological, economic,and occupationalstructures to
social strata to a set of group interestswhich fashion mass political
participation.
Sociologistshave yet to explore adequately the implicationsof an
institutionalapproachto the politicalprocess.No doubt the sociological
traditioncontainsexamplesof an institutional perspective on politics,that
is, theviewpoint thatpoliticalinstitutions constitute an independent source
of societal change and an elementfor fashioningsocial structure. But
includingthoseattachedto thesocial controlperspective,
sociologists, have
beenslowto implement thecomprehensive implications ofsuchan assertion.
However,theriseand sociopoliticalconsequencesof thewelfarestatehave
movedthisintellectualagenda intoprominence.
The moderm politicalpartyand modernpoliticalinstitutions penetrate
all sectorsof society.It is necessaryto speakof theirdecisiveconsequences
forsocialstructure and to recognizethatthesupremacy of modernpolitical
institutionsdoes not insureeithertheireffectiveness or theirlegitimacy.
As a result,trendsin politicalbehavior,especiallymeasuresof electoralbe-
havior,become key indicatorsof the effectiveness of social controlin
102

advancedindustrial societieswithmultiparty systems.The crisisin political
legitimacyemergestherebynot as a suddenmanifestation but ratheras
the outcomeof continuingsocial change.The cumulativeimpactof the
technologicaland organizational developments associatedwithWorldWar
II can be takenas thethreshold to thenewhistoricalera.WorldWar II not
onlycreatedtheinstitutional base forthewelfarestatebut also contributed
to the demandformoreextensivepoliticalparticipation.17
Aftera shortperiod of limitedadaptationfollowingWorld War II,
Westernparliamentary institutionshave demonstrated theirincreasedin-
abilityto produce effective majoritiesand to create the conditionsfor
authoritative decisionmaking.Therefore,the task of studentsof social
controlis notonlyto explainpatternsofpersonaldeviantbehavior,suchas
suicide,criminality, and personalunhappiness,importantthoughthese
maybe. The coreissue is to help accountforthe declineof parliamentary
oppositionand the rise of unstableexecutiveleadership.
The gravedifficulties
ofparliamentary controlcan be seenin thepatterns
of masspoliticalparticipation commonto Westernnations.In the briefest
terms,therehavebeena long-term increasein theproportion of thepopula-
tionwhodeclarethemselves unaffiliatedwiththemajorparties,an increase
in shifting of the electoralchoice fromone nationalelectionto the next,
and a declinein beliefin theeffectiveness of thelegislativeprocess.
The changesin social stratification resultingfromtechnology, occupa-
tionalstructure, patternsof urbanization, and economicresourceallocation
do not appear to have increasedor produceda highlyalienatedor anomic
electorate.On the contrary,the social stratification patternsresultin a
highlyfragmented electoratewitha powerfuldegreeof solidaritywithin
the componentsocial elements.These groupingsincreasetheirdemands
foreconomicbenefits,especiallygovernmental benefits.Therebypersons
findthemselves, underan advancedindustrial society,withtheirownbuilt-
in competingself-interests that are not easily resolvedor aggregatedinto
integratedand stable politicalpreferences.
In the threedecades since the end of WorldWar II, the structureof
politicalpartiesin the advancednations,includingthe UnitedStates,has
remainedrelativelyunchanged.The descriptive literatureon partyorgani-
zation has not been effectively integratedinto macrosociology and the
analysisof social control.No doubt the partiesrequirevastlygreaterre-
sources to performtheirpolitical tasks, and the mobilizationof these
resourcesparadoxicallyappears to make themless responsive.Nor has
the influxof a new cadre of personnelactingforunderrepresented groups
alteredthe internalfunctioning of the major parties.The issue that the
17 For an analysis of the transformation

of Great Britain into a welfare state under
the impact of World War I and World War II, see especiallyArthurMarvick (1968).
103

social controlperspectivemustface is deep. The opportunity to express

politicaldemandsand to balance themby periodicnationalelectionsbe-
comesless and less effective as a crucialelementin social control.
During the secondhalf of the 1960s, the strainof social changeand
politicalconstriction produceda markedescalationof parapoliticalmove-
ments,outsidethe institutionalized parties,that frequently used violent
symbolism and elementsof violence.Therehas also beena striking increase
in effortsto extendcivicparticipation into themanagement of administra-
tive agenciesof government and of voluntaryassociations.These later
efforts,in part a responseto the impactof the parapoliticalmovements,
have reflectedan implicitrecognition of thelimitations of periodicnational
electionsas mechanisms of social and politicalcontrol,
There can be no doubt that sociologicalliteraturefailed to anticipate
the scope and intensity of thesesocial movements, althoughone can find
penetrating analysesof the highlevelsof societalstrainand the constric-
tionof the processesof social controlthat an advancedindustrialsociety
was producing.The sociologicalwritingsabout these agitationsoften
followedtheclassicmodelof thenaturalhistoryof social movements. Such
writingswereperceptivein focusingon the impendingtransformation of
thesesocialmovements into"interestgroups"and highlighted theirbuilt-in
limitations forinfluencing patternsof social control.
It was no profoundsociologicaldiscoverythattheprotestmovements of
thisperiodwouldlead to increaseddiffuse politicalviolencebut hardlyto
a revolution or a "revolution situation."Nevertheless, theirexplosivechar-
acterrequiresstudentsof social controlto reexaminethe issue of violence
and coercionin social change.In the sharpestterms,whatis the relation-
shipbetweenrelianceon violenceand coercionand the searchforeffective
social controlin an advancedindustrialsociety?The questionmanifests
itselfat everypointin sociologicalanalysiswhereexistingpatternsof social
controlare ineffective.
Historianshave made it clear that,regardlessof the vast and immea-
surable amount of human miserywhich coercion and violence have
produced,the threatand use of forcein the past have been essentialfor
achieving, on specificand important occasions,moreeffective socialcontrol.
But to explicatethe "principlesof force"is anothermatter-that is to
formulate propositions of the conditionsunderwhichforceproducesposi-
tivecontributions to social control.Sociologistshave speculatedrepeatedly
on thisissue; but how muchfurther has theanalysisbeen pressedbeyond
thehopefulaspirations of GeorgesSorelin Reflections on Violence( 1914) ?
The perspective of social controlis groundedin assumptions aboutinter-
actionand mutualinfluences. Thereforeit raisesthe persistentand vexa-
tiousissueof theconsequencesof forceand coercionforthosewho initiate
or manage theiruse-whether the goal be the maintenanceof a social
104

structureor itschange.Perhapsthecentralproposition thatcan be explored
is thattheuse of forceand coercionin thesearchforsocialcontroloperates
withinprogressively narrower limitsin relationsboth withinand between
industrialsocieties.'8This assertionobviouslydoes not denythe extensive
and diffusepatternsof violenceunderadvanced industrialism;nor does
it denyviolence'sdecisiveimportancein particularcircumstances. But it
does emphasizethe emergence of a calculuswhichpointsto the expanded
self-defeatingimplicationsfor those who must rely extensivelyon force
and coercionin theireffortsto achieve social controlin its traditional
meaning.Such a calculusof forceand coercionreflects at least twotrends.
There has been an increasein the professedmoral sensibilitiesof the
citizenry(whichis compatiblewithpoliticalindifference underconditions
of ineffectivepoliticalinstitutions).Furthermore, the sheercomplexity of
societalorganizationhas made anticipatingthe consequencesof force-
especiallygiventhe expandedpowerof force-muchmoredifficult.
In a period of weakenedand ineffective social controlin advanced
industrialsocieties,continuedconflictand disintegration are alternative
or even simultaneousoutcomes.Social disintegration impliesa reduction
in theabilityof a groupto controlthe behaviorof its membersand a de-
cline in interactionand influence;social conflictimpliesan increasein
interaction betweensocial groupson the basis of antagonisticmeansand
goals. In evaluatingthe consequencesof persuasionand coercionwith
respectto directsocial change,we mustconfront the problemof whether
the existingcategoriesof politicalideology-thelanguageof politicaldis-
coursewhichdominatessociologicalanalysis-are adequate foranalyzing
social control.
The alternative outcomesof thesearchforeffective social controlcannot
be analyzedadequatelyin termsof conventionalideologicalcategories-
radicalism,conservatism, or incremental liberalism.There exists a mass
of empiricaldata whichhighlight the conclusionthat thesecategoriesare
in
limited describingmass opinionas well as the realitiesof institutional
practice.Moreover,these categoriesof political analysis imply a final
result,a resolution,and an end state,whenin effect we are dealingwitha
continuousand continuing social process.But the macrosociology and, as
a result,theanalysisof socialcontrolare too oftendominatedby a narrow
formatfashionedby politicaldiscourse.Therebythe "resolution"or "out-
come" of ineffective social controldoes not necessarilyconformto the
categoriesof politicalideology.It is necessaryat least to assumethat,for
an advancedindustrialsociety,the alternatives could includesuch results
as chronicand persistenttensionand a varietyof patternsof stagnation.
In conclusion,it is necessaryto returnto the pointof departure.The
18 For this process in internationalrelations,see Morris Janowitz (1974).
105

core elementin social controlis the idea of self-regulation of the group-
whetherthegroupbe a face-to-face primarygroupor the nation-state. In
essence, social controlis a perspectivetoward social organization-one
which focuseson the outcomeof regulativemechanisms.To use the
languageof empiricalsocialresearch, it therebyidentifiesa setof dependent
variables applicable to the fullestrange of institutionalsettings.The
empiricalcontentof social controldependson the sociologist'sabilityto
clarifyand explicatethe contentand criteriaof self-regulation.
Althoughsome sociologistshave transformed the contentof the term
"social control"into that of social conformity and even social repression,
the classical usage has persisted.The major advance in the intellectual
historyof social controlhas been its linkagesto the politicalprocessand
to thecrisisof "politicallegitimacy."These linkagescan be accomplished,
not by meansof a sociologicalreductionism, but by a recognition of the
boundariesof politicalinstitutions and the "supremacy"of politicsin an
advancedindustrialsociety.
REFERENCES
Barber, Bernard. 1952. Science and the Social Order. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Bedford,Scott E. W. 1918. Social Control. Publications of the American Sociological
Society,vol. 12. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Bendix, Reinhard, and Bennett Berger. 1959. "Images of Society and Problems of
Concept Formationin Sociology." Pp. 92-118 in Symposiumon Sociological Theory,
edited by L. Gross. Evanston, Ill.: Row Peterson.
Bernard, L. L. 1911. "The Transition to an Objective Standard of Social Control."
Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Chicago.
. 1937. Social Control. New York: Century.
Bettelheim,Bruno, and Morris Janowitz. 1964. Social Change and Prejudice. New
York: Free Press.
Borgatta,Edgar F., and Henry J. Meyer. 1959. Social Control and the Foundation of
Sociology. Boston: Beacon.
Clark, Alexander,and Jack P. Gibbs. 1965. "Social Control: A Reformulation."Social
Problems 12 (4): 398-414.
Clark, John Maurice. 1926. Social Control of Business. Chicago: Universityof Chicago
Press.
Clark,TerryN. 1969. Gabriel Tarde on Communicationand Social Influence.Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press.
Cohen, Percy. 1968. Modern Social Theory. London: Heineman.
Cook, S. 1957. "Comment on Hacker's 'Liberal Democracy.'" American Political
Science Review 51, no. 4 (December): 1027-39.
Cooley, Charles Horton. 1909. Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind.
New York: Scribner.
. 1920. Social Process. New York: Scribner.
Cummings,Elaine. 1968. Systems of Social Regulation. New York: Atherton.
Davis, Kingsley. 1948. Human Society. New York: Macmillan.
Durkheim,1tmile.1893. De la division du travail social. Paris: Alcan.
1897. Le suicide. Paris: Alcan.
1924. Sociologie et philosophie.Paris: Alcan.
Edwards, Lyford. 1927. The Natural History of Revolution. Chicago: Universityof
Chicago Press.
106

Etzioni, Amitai. 1968. The Active Society. New York: Free Press.
Firth,Raymond. 1951. Elements of Social Organization.London: C. A. Watts.
Follett,Mary Parker. 1941. In Dynamic Administration, edited by Henry C. Metcalf
and L. Urwick. London: ManagementPublication Trust.
Geiger,Theodor. 1926. Die Masse und ihre Aktion: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der
Revolutionen.Stuttgart:Enke.
-% -.1963. Demokratie ohne Dogma; die GessellschaftZwischen Pathos und
Nuchternheit.Vol. 5. Munich: Szczesny Verlag.
Gibbs, Jack. Forthcoming."Conceptions of Social Control." In Social Control,edited
by Peter K. Manning. New York: Free Press.
Goody, Jack. 1957. "Fields of Social Control among the Lodagoba." Journal of the
Royal AnthropologyInstitute81 (1): 75-104.
Gouldner,Alvin. 1970. The Coming Crisis of WesternSociology. New York: Basic.
Hacker, Andrew. 1957. "Liberal Democracy and Social Control." American Political
Science Review 51, no. 4 (December): 1009-26.
Homans, George. 1951. The Human Group. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ihughes,Everett C. 1946. "Institutions."Pp. 225-67 in New Outline of the Principles
of Sociology,edited by AlfredMcClung Lee. New York: Barnes & Noble.
, ed. 1966. W. I. Thomas on Social Organization and Personality. Chicago:
1970. Political Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage.
. 1974. "Toward a Redefinitionof MilitaryStrategyin InternationalRelations."
World Politics 26 (4): 473-508.
Koenig, Rene. 1955. "Die BegriffeGemeinschaftund Gesellschaft bei Ferdinand
Tonnies." Kolner Zeitschriftfur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie7:348-420.
Landis, Paul H. 1939. Social Control: Social Organizationin Process. New York:
Lippincott.
LaPiere, Richard T. 1954. A Theory of Social Control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Levine, Donald. 1971. Georg Simmel: On Individualityand Social Forms. Chicago:
Linton, Ralph. 1936. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton-Century.
Litwak, Eugene. 1956. "Three Ways in Which Law Acts as a Means of Social Control:
Punishment,Therapy and Education." Social Forces 34 (1): 2 17-33.
Lynd, Helen, and Robert Lynd. 1929. Middletown. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
. 1932. Middletownin Transition.New York: Harcourt,Brace.
MacIver, Robert M., and Charles Page. 1949. Society. London: Macmillan.
Maine, Henry. 1861. AncientLaw. London: Murray.
Mannheim, Karl. 1940. Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction.London:
Kegan Paul.
Marvick, Arthur.1968. Britain in the Centuryof Total War: War, Peace and Social
Change, 1900-1967. Boston: Little, Brown.
Mead, George Herbert. 1925. "The Genesis of Self and Social Control." International
Journalof Ethics 35 (3): 251-89.
Merriam,Charles E. 1936. The Role of Politics in Social Change. New York: New
York UniversityPress.
Moore, Barrington,Jr. 1958. "Reflections on Conformityin Industrial Society."
In Political Power and Social Theory. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.
Moore, WilbertE. 1967. Order and Change. New York: Wiley.
Nadel, S. F. 1953. "Social Control and Self-Regulation."Social Forces 31, no. 3
(March): 265-73.
. 1957. The Theory of Social Structure.Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Nisbit, Robert A. 1970. An Introductionto the Study of Society. New York: Knopf.
Park, Robert E. 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
. 1952. Human Communications.Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Park, Robert E., and Ernest W. Burgess. 1921. Introduction to the Science of
Sociology. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
107

AmericanTournalof Sociology
Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structureof Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
. 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Pigors, Paul. 1935. Leadership or Domination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Pound, Roscoe. 1942. Social Control throughLaw. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univer-
sity Press.
Redfield,Robert. 1947. "The Folk Society." AmericanJournal of Sociology 52, no. 4
(January): 293-308.
Reiss, Albert,Jr. 1951. "Delinquency as the Failure of Personal and Social Control."
AmericanSociological Review 16, no. 2 (April): 196-206.
Ross, E. A. 1901. Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Order. New York:
Macmillan.
. 1936. Seventy Years of It-an Autobiography.New York: Appleton-Century.
Schmalenbach,Herman. 1961. "The Sociological Categoryof Communion."Pp. 331-47
in Theories of Society,edited by Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils. Glencoe, Ill.:
Free Press.
Scott, Paul, and Sarah F. Scott. 1971. Social Control and Social Change. Chicago:
Shils, Edward. 1975. "Centre and Periphery." Pp. 1-16 in Center and Periphery.
Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
. 1962. "The Theory of Mass Society." Diogenes. No. 39, pp. 45-66.
Simmel,Georg. 1903. "Die Grosstadtund das Geistesleben."Die Grosstadt.Jahrbuch
der Gette-Stiftung. Vol. 9. Dresden: v. Zahn and Jaensch.
. 1922. "Die Kreuzung sozialer Kreise." Pp. 305-44 in Soziologie. Munich:
Duncker & Humbolt.
. 1955. Conflictand the Web of Group Affiliations.Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Slotkin,J. S. 1950. Social Anthropology.New York: Macmillan.
Sorel, Georges. 1914. Reflectionson Violence. New York: Huebsch.
Stephenson,Richard M. 1973. "Involvement in Deviance: An Example and Some
Theoretical Implications."Social Problems 21, no. 2 (Fall): 173-89.
Sumner,William G. 1906. Folkways. Boston: Ginn.
Thomas, W. I., and Florian Znaniecki. 1918-20. The Polish Peasant in Europe and
America. 5 vols. Boston: Badger.
T6nnies, Ferdinand. 1887. Gemeinschaftund Gesellschaft.Leipzig: Reisland.
Turner, Ralph H. 1967. On Social Control and Collective Behavior. Chicago: Uni-
versityof Chicago Press.
Vincent,George. 1896. "The Province of Sociology." American Journal of Sociology
1, no. 4 (January): 473-91.
Wirth,Louis. 1938. "Urbanism as a Way of Life." American Journal of Sociology
44 (July): 3-24.
. 1948. "Consensus and Mass Communications."American Sociological Review
13, no. 1 (February): 1-15.
Young, Kimball. 1934. IntroductorySociology. New York: AmericanBook.
108


Sociological Theory PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociological Theory PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociological Theory and Social Control

Author(s): Morris Janowitz

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

In theoriginsofsociology, "socialcontrol"servedas a centralconcept

In theemergence ofsociologyas an intellectualdiscipline,theidea of social

1 This paper is a section of a larger study, "Macrosociology and Social Control."

82 AJS Volume 81 Number 1

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

The intellectualinvestment in the idea of social controlderivesfroma

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

butat thesame timeto identify thelimitations of marginal-utility

2 Personal control is the psychologicaland personalitycounterpartof social control.

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

3 In the contemporaryperiod, Amitai Etzioni definescontrol in a fashion similar to

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

The convergingelementsof these formulations have had a powerful

4 Robert A. Nisbet is representativeof those sociological theoristswho are aware of

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

Conceptualizing his operationalmeasuresin termsof social control,he

EARLY USAGE OF SOCIAL CONTROL

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

sociological critique of utilitarianphilosophy.These themes were later emphasized in

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

criticizingDurkheimforhis failureto offeran effective analysisof the

DIFFUSION OF THE CONCEPT

By 1920, the term"social control"had emergedin the UnitedStates as

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

solving.Reflecting his frameof reference, he concludedthat,because the

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

Although"social control"persistedas a coordinating termof reference in

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

permittheconclusionthatthe diffuseness and shortcomings of the idea of

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

In summary,the idea of social controlhas been a centralformulation

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

17 For an analysis of the transformation

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

social controlperspectivemustface is deep. The opportunity to express

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

18 For this process in internationalrelations,see Morris Janowitz (1974).

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM

You might also like