I.
Introduction
To
understand the concept of control, it
is useful to associate it with at least seven other concepts, themselves associated with
the automobile: ignition (connected to the fuel-gauge), 'view' (or vision), gear (forward and reverse), steering, accelerator (connected to the speedometer)) and brakes. The ignition must be 'turned on', directly or remotely (or virtually), or even the sufficiently fuelled automobile will not start; and ‘turning
it off’ stops all activity. The gear must be engaged and the accelerator stepped on, or the ‘turned on’ vehicle will only ‘idle’, even with properly functioning wheels and 'shocks'. Without
the steering wheel and a clear view, we know the moving vehicle will soon go where we don’t want it to! Without the
brakes, we are at the mercy of momentum and gradient. However, for a stationary
vehicle, shorn of all velocity, the main control device is the 'system' of brakes, not the
steering wheel.
A side
question: Is society as we know it a perpetual state of ignition or not, in
motion or stationary, or all of these in various ways and contexts?
Among the
earliest sociological conversations about social-control is the pre-20th
century article by Edward Alsworth Ross (1896: 513-535).Ross (1896: 519) saw
social-control as follows:
“By social control … I mean that ascendancy over the aims and
acts of the individual which is exercised on behalf of the group. It is a sway
that is not casual or incidental, but is purposive and at its inception
conscious. It is kept up partly by definite organs, formally constituted and
supported by the will of society, and partly by informal spontaneous agencies
that, consciously or unconsciously, serve the social interest and function
under constant supervision from above.”
He added that even though both social control and social coordination are
designed “to make certain rules or standards prevail”, they do not mean the
same thing. Thus:
“An ordinance requiring street cars to stop at the further
crossing or directing passing teamsters to turn to the right, coordinates
rather than controls. Control harmonizes clashing activities by checking some
and stimulating others. Coordination combines activities already harmonious in
respect of their ends” (Ross, 1896: 519).
In her book
titled Textbook on Criminology [this is the latest edition], Williams (1997: 370) observes that
the central assumption, or the starting point, of social control
theorists of the last thirty years or so is that “every individual is born free
to break the law. It is criminality which is natural, and conformity needs
explanation.” That is to say, the central tendency of human agency is “law
breaking” or deviation (deviance) from, not compliance (conformity) with, norms
or conventions.
Of course
Williams is aware that this perspective is in direct opposition to what one may
call the standard approach to criminality and deviance, whereby it is “assumed
that conformity is normal or natural, and criminality is abnormal” (Williams,
1997: 370). Based on this standard approach, the reasoning that emerges is that
“there is no justification for individuals to break the law unless something abnormal
is present” in the individual actor (in the form of biological or personal
defects) or in the wider society (Williams, 1997: 370).
For those
who subscribe to this standard approach – those who think that
deviance/criminality is abnormal – the charged question they would pose to those who think that it is normal is this: If deviance or criminality is “normal” and if
“conformity needs explanation”, then “why don’t we all break the law?”
(Williams, 1997: 370). The answer to the above question, given by those who see
deviance/criminality as the normal state of affairs, is this: We don’t all
break the law because of the “power” of conformity
– conformity which society instills in its members’ behaviors through effective socialization and/or direct social control. In the absence of
these ‘twin’ pillars, it is reasonable to expect deviance or criminal behavior
to take root or express itself from a very early age.
But that is
exactly the answer that the proponents of the standard view, who see “deviance
as abnormal”, would give! Our social and generally sociable nature as humans
leads us in the direction of conformity. Furthermore, the longer and more
consistently we interact with others with the same mindset, the more likely it
will be for us, most of us, to stay the course.
Why or how
so? Because conformity projects a society’s or community’s array of dos and don’ts onto the observed behaviors of its members, even when such
dos and don’ts cannot be seen to be naturally
rooted in “human nature”. Thus, walking is a natural human habit, and so are
eating and sleeping. But the prohibition against walking naked in the street is
a cultural prohibition, not naturally occurring abstention – though the naturalist
might ask why not, since we are all born with no clothing. We sleep on the bed,
and not under it. We expel the usual bodily wastes in privacy – unless such
privacy cannot be had when there is absolutely no more time to wait.
Williams (1997:
370) illustrates the point about conformity with two illuminating examples:
“… there is nothing natural about driving [on] one side of
the road, and yet motorists do keep to the required side. It is not natural to
buy rather than take food when one sees it, and yet in our society most people
buy rather than take. There is clearly nothing natural about conformity, as
most of our formative years are spent learning what is permitted behaviour and
what is not, and often why the difference exists”.
Socialization processes and agencies, operating throughout
our lives, are key to the continuation of conformity – and social control. Williams
(1997: 371) emphasizes, however, that “…conformity is always seen as fragile,
as something which might be broken at any time if the reason for conformity is
weakened, lost or momentarily broken.”
Socialization
refers, to a large extent, to the internalization
of norms; and there is a tortured link between
Social Control and the Internalization of Norms. As Cohen (1979: 91) sees
it:
“The individual internalizes the norms of a culture as a
result of a successful socialization process. When internalization occurs, the
individual does not have to stop and think about what is right or wrong, proper
or improper. The person follows the norm almost as a matter of reflex, and
whether or not the person is being observed by others, he or she will continue
to manifest ‘proper’ behavior as a result of the internalization of the norms.
An individual is motivated towards adherence of established norms because of
inner controls, such as conscience [MY (Feb 19, 2009): or ethics/morality,
religious beliefs, professional knowledge, training, past experience,
profit-maximization, etc], rather than a fear of discovery by others that he or
she has engaged in improper behavior. Through the process of internalization of
norms, most necessary social controls are exercised internally by each of us.”
These internalized norms are what Pierre Bourdieu refers to as habitus; and from this we can see
clearly that habitus (habit) is not
only the product of socialization but, more importantly in the present conversation,
the internalized instrument of social control]. Cohen (1979: 91) adds the
important observation that: “Most of the behavior of an overwhelming majority
of the population is in conformity with the behavior expected of us.
Individuals know it is inherently wrong to murder, steal, cheat, and abuse
others. These acts are contrary to our standards of morality and to the values
we have learned…”
.
A norm is
“...a standard or rule, regulating
behaviour in a social setting. [As a concept, a norm represents the widely
shared idea in Sociology] that social life, as an ordered and continuous
process, is dependent upon shared expectations and obligations” (Jary and Jary,
1999: 453). Thus, add Jary and Jary, Parsons concept of normative order is
central to the idea of the social system – which underscores the view that
norms are related to socialization, social roles and even social control; and,
moreover, operate at all levels of society (ibid.).
A social
norm, on the other hand, is:
“A rule or standard of
behavior defined by the shared expectations of two or more people regarding
what behavior is to be considered socially acceptable. Social norms provide guidelines
to the range of behavior appropriate and applicable to particular social situations”
(Theodorson and Theodorson (1969: 276-7)
The authors add
that “…one’s role obligations in a social group are defined by that group’s
social norms. Social norms are studied by observing overt behavior (what people
do), as well as by observing what people say their norms are.” Moreover, many
sociologists see the following as examples of normative structure based on shared
expectations of behaviour: society, social institutions, social roles, and
moral systems (Theodorson and Theodorson, 1969: 277). However, the reader is
cautioned to note that what people say and do are often at variance. This
commonly observed phenomenon has given rise to the sarcastic remark: “Do as I
say, not as I do.”
A clustering
of norms is the basis for the conceptualization of normative integration. By normative integration, sociologists typically
have in mind a coherent set of mutually reinforcing norms that is comprehensive
or large enough to address all the main contingencies – or ‘cover all the main bases’ – pertaining to an extended or
sustainable social group. It is, in other words:
“The interrelationship of the social norms of a group into a consistent
pattern so organized that there are relatively few seriously conflicting social
or psychological expectations or obligations on the members that stem directly
from the norms of the group. Normative integration within a social group is a
function of its members’ values”( Theodorson and Theodorson, 1969: 277).
There are
two kinds of norms, prescribing and proscribing, but Cohen prefers the terms: ‘proscribed’
and ‘prescribed’. Thus, to nevertheless use Cohen’s words, prescribing norms
specify “those things that an individual should do”, while proscribing norms
point to things “that an individual must not do” (Cohen, 1979: 91).
II. Levels of Control (of day-to-day or ‘Extreme’ Human
Behaviour)
The control of
day-to-day or ‘extreme’ behavior operates at two broad levels in society: Self and Social. These can be further analyzed as follows:
1. Self-Control:
Self control
refers to “physical actions and emotional states”, as well as the use of
symbols of all kinds that are peculiar to the individual actor, and which
anchor the actor’s response to sudden judgment situations or more long-term
pressures toward deviant acts of commission or even omission. Self control is internally energized control of overt
or covert behaviour, and/or of verbal or other symbolic utterances or
projections or broadcasts – reflected in, for example, toilet “behaviour”
(adherence to appropriate forms of which, in adults, are taken as a given),
personal hygiene, personal grooming, personal manners, aversion to foul
language, avoidance of minor or grand taboos of all kinds, and other personalized
or ‘socialized’ do’s and don’ts. All this starts (must start) very early in
life; and reflects the “choices” that the individual “makes” and the
opportunities he/she misses – out of the array of possibilities he/she
periodically or habitually comes upon.
To
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990),
the core explanation for criminal (or deviant) behaviour is the “absence of
self-control.” Self-control is a deliberate – or, so to speak, ‘reasoned’ – and
internally driven behaviour control technique or capability that the individual
typically
learns, particularly within
the orbit of the family, in the formative years of life. This is a capability
which is thereafter, in their view, “highly resistant to change.”
Prof. Ariely (2011) observes that scientists are
only now beginning “to realize how central self-control is to many important
life outcomes.” Yet how exactly does self-control come into the social control,
or ‘life outcomes’, equation, and how does it work? Despite their impact on
such outcomes, he argues, socio-economic status (SES) and IQ are not easily
manipulated for the desired social control effects, since they are “highly
resistant to intervention.” We cannot be sure that the resources we invest in
them will invariably, or in a timely way, effect the change we intend in the
behaviors of target actors. So we must resort to or devise – and have indeed
resorted to or devised – an alternative option: Self-control. Click here for more
of
Ariely’s thinking:
And yet, as Ariely notes, when you think about
the dynamics of the modern world, every cross-current – from marketing/advertising
to retail and professional services – “is essentially designed to challenge
every grain of our self-control.” In this fast-paced and super-hyped world, so
to speak, retailers and marketers and hustlers and agents and “such like” tempt
us in every way and at every turn to buy or commit ourselves now and not later
– to leap and possibly think all at once.
Ariely (2011) cites a study which, having
controlled for the effects of SES and IQ, sought to determine the role of
self-control in people’s lives. The study ‘revealed’, inter alia, that:
“Individuals with low
self-control experienced negative outcomes [in health, wealth and public
safety], with greater rates of health issues like sexually transmitted
infections, substance dependence, financial problems including poor credit and
lack of savings, single-parent child-rearing, and even crime.”
Ariely then asks what the source of “the
mysterious force of self-control” might be, and why there are differences among
people in the ability to activate effective self-control. And he wonders:
“…are the [people] who are better at self
control able to control and actively reduce how tempted they are by the
immediate rewards in their environment, or are they just better at coming up
with ways to distract themselves and this way avoid acting on their temptation?”
He has no concrete answer to that question, but thinks
that it “may very well be the latter.” He adds that this would be good if it
were so. Why” “…because it is probably much easier to teach people tricks to
deal with self-control issues than to train them with a zen-like ability to
avoid experiencing temptation when it is very close to our faces.”
Low
self-control predisposes one to deviant tendencies or behaviour, but does not
necessarily lead to actual deviant behaviour.
For it to do so, there must be “opportunity” for such behavior (Williams, 1997:
373, citing Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990). Certainly, such opportunity can be
reduced, minimized or eliminated by reinforcing self-control as such, or by the interplay of self-control
and social control, or through social control alone.
Self-control
has two overlapping pillars: (1) Self-Concept
and, (2) Personal or Individual
Control. Both are internal to
the individual, and understanding them helps us to better understand the
broader concept of elf-control.
1.1. Self-Concept:
Concerning self-concept, Saul McLeod (2008) starts off by noting that “To be aware of oneself is to
have a concept of oneself.” To be aware of oneself, thus, is not
only to perceive that one is but also
to have a sense of who’s the one who is.
This should usually include the realization that one is not, in the place one
is, alone – but with another or others in
a surrounding. Citing Lewis (1990), McLeod points out that self-concept has
two components: (a) the existential self, and, (b) the categorical self.
The
existential self is in fact the self characterized in the above lines. It represents the most
elementary awareness of one’s existence. It refers to the individual – an
infant to start with – being aware that he/she exists and is alive as a
separate and distinct entity or human being, standing apart from any other.
This awareness of self as a separate identity, is at the core of the
individual’s capacity to distinguish between “me” and “not me”, and to know
that “I” am “me” and not, for example, the ‘other” whom the infant will soon
enough come to know as mummy or daddy or sister or brother.
To have self-concept is to be self-conscious. Only a
‘fully’ conscious mind can be fully self-conscious, but this capacity grows
with age, though it is frequently lost in some to the influence of alcohol,
other drugs and certain diseases or illnesses. Thus, for an infant: to be
self-conscious, and therefore to have self-concept, is to know, for example,
that the feeling of discomfort or contentment that I am feeling right now is not
only a true feeling but my own feeling as well, and not another’s. It is to
know that the sense of fear or exhilaration that I am enduring or having is my sense; or that the unfamiliar faces
all around are indeed unfamiliar to me and around me; or that the playful other who’s alone with me right here is
playing with none other than me – and that it is I who’s experiencing all this
playfulness in return.
McLeod characterizes the categorical self as follows: “Having realized that he or she exists as a separate
experiencing being, the child next becomes aware that he or she is also an
object in the world. Just as other objects including people have properties
that can be experienced (big, small, red, smooth and so on) so the child is
becoming aware of him or her self as an object which can be experienced and
which has properties. The self too can be put into categories such as age,
gender, size or skill.”
The Mosby’s Medical Dictionary (2009) defines
self-concept as “the
composite of ideas, feelings, and attitudes that a person has about his or her
own identity, worth, capabilities, and limitations. Such factors as the values
and opinions of others, especially in the formative years of early childhood,
play an important part in the development of the self-concept.”
On the other hand, the American Heritage Medical Dictionary (2007) sees it as “An individual's assessment of
his or her status on a single trait or on many human dimensions using societal
or personal norms as criteria” (for both definitions, click here).
These definitions certainly allude to self-concept as more consciously grasped
later in life.
David Demo
(1992: 309) argues that self-concept is not static, but changes over time: “…the content
and structure of self concept change with each stage of self-development, and
with each stage there is evidence of both stability and malleability from one
context to another.” It is, in other words, “situationally variable” (Demo,
1992: 306). He insists that:
“to understand self-concept we must conceptualize it as a
moving baseline with fluctuations across situations…and life stages. This
involves recognizing that the self-concept is simultaneously a complex
structure and a process, that it is stable, but that it is also dynamic” (Demo,
1992: 304).
Reckless
(1967, 1973) suggests that self-concept is an internal quality in the
individual, and (in Williams’ words) argues that “those individuals with a
strong and favourable self-concept were [are] best insulated against the drives
and pulls towards criminality. A favourable self-concept might be illustrated
by saying that the individuals view themselves in a positive way: as having
values to live up to; as being law-abiding; and as having an idea of being of
use and value to society and those in it” (Williams, 1997: 372).
Self-concept is thus the springboard of self-esteem, the latter trending high or
low in tandem with the former.
1.2. Personal or
Individual Control:
Reiss (1951)
sees ‘personal control’ as meaning “how well the juvenile [MY: the individual] manages to resist using
socially unacceptable methods to reach
his goals” (Williams, 1997: 371). Note that this definition is “based in the
psychological diagnosis of the development of the super-ego, and therefore
indicates a Freudian basis” (Williams, 1997: 371). The conforming individual –
the one with high personal control – thus has “a healthy super-ego” (Williams,
1997: 371). Personal-control thus drives the individual’s life-choices – that is, the kinds of choices, short-term and
long-term, that the individual makes in the course of his/her life.
Nowadays, a common
feature of business school curriculum is self/personal control, relabeled SELF-MANAGEMENT (see UNISA’s Centre for Business Management). Self-Management encompasses: Time management, Grooming, Interpersonal
Relations, Discipline,
2. Social Control:
Social
control, which is EXTERNAL to the individual, refers to society’s strategy or
means or capacity to secure orderly processes (of social change and/or continuity),
within and to some extent around it,
through the behaviors and interactions of its members -- in whole or in
certain specified contexts.
To most
sociologists, Williams (1997: 370) notes, social control “includes all the
social processes which militate for [MY: which promote] conformity, from infant
socialization, through school and job to the public and state control systems
such as the police, the courts and the punishment systems.”
In other
words, social control refers to “the ability of social groups or institutions
to make norms or rules effective. Conformity resulting from social controls
tends to involve submission to the rules and norms of society”(Williams, 1997:
371). Note that “submission” implies that a level of self/personal control is
required for self-control to work.
In the same
vein, Bruce Cohen (1979: 90) points
out that “Social control is really an extension of the socialization process.”
In other words, through “the process of socialization, the person learns what
behavior is acceptable in various situations and learns to differentiate
between proper and improper behavior patterns”(Cohen, 1979: 90).
Thus, social
control “refers to the means and methods that are used to order or induce a
person to conform to the expectations of a particular group or the larger
society. If social control is effectively exerted, the individual’s behavior
will be consistent with the type of behavior expected. Social control is
mutually exerted; we influence the behavior of others, and in turn they
influence our behavior”(Cohen, 1979: 90).
However, the
argument that social control is “the means by which a group keeps its members
behaving in mutually expected ways” (Cohen, 1979: 93) is true only if by
“mutually expected ways” we mean that the members are seen to behave according
to the values and norms upheld by the collective
conscience – that is to say, by the conventional (and non-conventional)
society . Those who defy conventions
(the collective conscience) are treated by those who don’t (its subscribers) as
unconventional and therefore as deviants [we will define deviance in a moment].
Social
control, according to Cohen, thus refers to:
(a) all
manner of “tools” (principles, values, norms, strategies,
instruments/technologies and institutions) which conventional society utilizes
in order to secure the conformity of its members with its conventions; and,
(b) the
attainment of the goals, as well as the consequences, of such effort.
Taking into
account the fact that deviants do exist, other sociologists (and I) would
rather argue that social control operates to deny deviants a say or role in
molding “the expected ways of behaving” – that is, it operates to keep them out
of the circle of consensus circumscribed by the relevant aspect(s) of the collective
conscience -- and to demand simply that they conform to (or return to the
“fold” of) the values and norms that make up the collective conscience. What is the
device by which we distinguish the wishes of conventional society from those of
deviants? It is collective conscience.
”The theory of social control…is the analysis of those
processes… which tend to counteract… deviant tendencies… Every social system
has, in addition to the obvious rewards for conformative [behavior] and
punishments for deviant behavior, a complex system of unplanned and largely
unconscious mechanisms which serve to counteract deviant tendencies.” [We will
see the limitations of this conception in a moment]
Thus,
clearly, social control has been seen as both intentional/purposive/deliberate/conscious
(that is, some preventive or reactive action that we choose to take) and unconscious/unintentional/
(accidental?) (rooted in the collective conscience). But Gibbs (1985:
765) argues, wrongly I think, that in this definition Parsons denies the
relevance of intentional social control or suggests that it does not exist. He
does not.
Intention is an important concept in
social control. Without
the notion of intention, Gibbs (1985: 765) rightly notes, “the distinction
between successful and unsuccessful social control is lost.” And if it is lost,
he adds, we cannot even attempt to answer these two important questions:
(a)
“Why
are some means of social control employed more than others?”
(b)
“Does
social control counteract deviant tendencies?”
Gibbs (1985:
765) observes that one advantage of the foregoing view of social control – the intention perspective – is that it helps
to answer the question: “What is social about
social control?” Two characteristics of social control make it social: (a) it
“has a normative quality” [unlike bank robbery, for example, which we may label
“counter-normative”; and (b) it is
“distinct from everyday interaction” – such as “hailing a cab”(Gibbs, 1985:
765).
There are,
in Gibbs’ view, two intractable difficulties with the idea of social control as
counteraction of deviance. These are:
(a)
The
conception risks being tautological – that is, if we see social control as the
counteraction of deviance, and deviance as the absence or failure of social
control, then we have explained nothing (Gibbs, 1985: 765).
(b)
It
ignores the occurrence of certain large-scale “manipulations” of non-deviant or
normal human behavior – such as through media advertising and ideologically-charged
political campaigns; for example, those of the Nazi party against the Weimar
Republic (Gibbs, 1985: 765).
Based on the
foregoing, Gibbs (1985: 765) suggests an alternative to the
counteraction-of-deviance definition of social control: The Third-Party Conception of Social Control. Before he gets to that,
however, he points out that social control is indeed possible without the
intervention of a third party; and proceeds to set aside such control as tangential
to his main interest: showing how third-party control, properly conceived, operates.
III.
The Conception of Social Control
without a Third-Party:
Gibbs
(1985:765) starts by giving the following definition of [Third Party] social
control:
“Social control is an attempt by one or more individuals (the
first party in either case) to manipulate the behavior of one or more other
individuals (the second party in either case) through still another individual
or individuals (the third party in either case) by means other than a chain of
command or requests.”
I have
difficulty with this restriction to “an attempt” as opposed to the ‘real deal’.
I would prefer to have a definition that stresses actual as opposed to attempted
manipulation. From his view of social
control, Gibbs (1985: 766) excludes two elements of control behavior, on the
grounds, which I disagree with, that they are “conspicuous in everyday interaction,
especially in bureaucratic or military social units”, namely:
n Proximate
Control: That is, “control without a third party” [Examples: Customer requests
(asks for) an item at a shop or customer desk or elsewhere; or “a mother
physically restrains her child” (Gibbs, 1985: 765-766)]. This exclusion would
be acceptable only if we acknowledged that proximate control is already
accommodated in (indeed is integral to) the counteraction-of-deviance approach
– to which the third-party approach is a gap-filling alternative [MY]
n Sequential
Control: This refers to orders/controls executed in a sequence – that is,
executed through a “chain of command;” for example from A through B to C
[Example, “when X orders Y to order Z” (Gibbs, 1985: 766)]. [MY: March 3, 2009]But
the problem with excluding “chain of command”, and therefore sequential
control, from the definition of third-party control is that it contradicts the
foundational notion of third-party, as Gibbs himself has presented it, and
therefore severely reduces the value of his definition as an (as the)
alternative to Parsons’ counteraction-of-deviance approach – in the context of
which “chain of command” is in fact an unavoidable concept.
Gibbs’ examples
open the way to inserting or at least considering an additional way in which
one may argue that control without a third party operates; what Smith (1993) calls
the ‘relations of ruling’:
n The ‘relations of ruling’
element/approach, which extends the conversation beyond what we have seen so
far, focuses on “social domination”, and, as noted, has been introduced by Dorothy Smith
(1993) Her notion of relations of ruling is encapsulated in the emotive word patriarchy,
and the phrase “male power”. It
refers to culturally and historically deep-rooted inequality in power
relations between men and women. This inequality is reflected in a world in
which women have been “in various ways silenced [and] deprived of the authority
to speak"; a world in which women have “participated unknowingly” – their experience
lacking a “voice” and “indeed a language”. How did this come about? It happened
because, as women have come to discover, they “had taken from the cultural and intellectual world created by men the
terms, themes, conceptions of the subject and subjectivity, of feeling,
emotion, goals, relations, and an object world assembled in textually mediated
discourses and from the standpoint of men occupying the apparatuses of ruling.
[Women]…understand this organization of power as ‘patriarchy’, a term that [identifies]
both the personal and public relations of male power.”
The ruling apparatuses she refers to are “those institutions
of administration, management, and professional authority, and of intellectual
and cultural discourses, which organize, regulate, lead and direct,
contemporary capitalist societies”. The power relations – the “forms of communication
and action” – entailed therein “are distinctively mediated by texts” (Smith,
1993: 2).
In the view of Applerouth and Edles (2007: 322), Smith uses
the term “Relations of Ruling” to underscore the fact that social domination
operates, not (as I may add) strictly through third parties of any kind, and
not only through the usual matrices of bureaucratic management, formal
organization and the media, but also through texts, such as: medical
records, census reports, psychiatric evaluations, employment files (Applerouth
and Edles, 2007: 322). These texts -- ’the complex of discourses, scientific,
technical, and cultural’ – do in fact “intersect, interpenetrate, and
coordinate” the matrices. Moreover, “behind and within the ‘apparently neutral
and impersonal rationality of the ruling apparatus’ is concealed a ‘male
subtext.’ Women are ‘excluded from the practices of power within textually
mediated relations of ruling’” (Applerouth and Edles, 2007: 322). As an example
of scholarly discourse and practice, sociology does not escape this charge
(Applerouth and Edles, 2007: 322; Smith, 1993: 2).
IV.
Gibb’s Conception of Third-Party
Social Control:
Gibbs (1985)
identifies the following five types of social control associated with his
notion of third-party control:
(a)
Referential Social Control: This is witnessed at the micro and
macro levels of society; for example when, at the micro level, a child tells a
sister or brother: “Give me back my candy or I will tell Mother.” Here, as
Gibbs (1985: 766) describes it, “The first party (the child in this instance)
attempts to manipulate the behavior of the second party (the sibling) by making
reference to a third party (the mother)”.
(b)
Allegative Social Control: To use the above example of
siblings and their mother, this kind of social control occurs when the ‘offended’
child, instead of issuing the threat, reports the sibling directly to mother,
who then acts against the ‘offending’ child. Court cases offer
frequently-occurring examples: The plaintiff (first party) makes allegations
about the defendant (second party) before a judge or jury (third party) in the
hope that the allegations are persuasive enough for the judge/jury to pass judgment
in favor of the plaintiff (Gibbs, 1985: 766).
(c)
Vicarious Social Control: Here, the organizing principles are
deterrence or inducement. When the court punishes an offender, would-be
offenders are deterred; and when an employer awards an employee for hard work, fellow
employees may see the reason to improve their work habits (Gibbs, 1985: 766).
(d)
Modulative Social Control: Gibbs (1985: 766) gives this
example comes from advertising: “when an advertiser (first party) pays a
celebrity (third party) to extol some product on television, the advertiser
assumes that the celebrity has some influence over consumers (second party).”
Gibbs (ibid) also notes in this case that law can be used to reduce the
influence of ‘agitators’ or to promote class/caste interests through selective
legal prohibitions or proscriptions.
V.
Why is Social Control Important as a
Mode of Practice?
To start
with, let us reiterate a point already made, that social control refers to the
process by which members of a society come to conform to, or not deviate from,
the prevailing or dominant norms – prevailing or dominant as long as we remember
that within the orbit/domain of a counter-culture (or sub-culture), these norms
will in fact be counter-norms (or sub-norms)]
VI.
Formal and Informal Social Control:
- Informal control mechanisms are distinct from
formal ones because, to put it simply, they are not anchored on formally-bureaucratically
or institutionally constructed rules, procedures, expectations and/or
sanctions. Examples of informal
social control techniques: Informal Group Rejection or Ostracism (or
Shunning); Gossip; Laughter; Public Naming, Jeering/Ridicule/Scolding or Disowning;
Demonstration, or the threat of any of these, the activation of One’s
Conscience (see, for example, Cohen, 1979: 90, 92, 97).
VII.
QUESTION: Why is self (personal)
control crucial to social control?
ANSWER: The decision/failure to comply with
social norms rests with the ‘individual’ in the first place. That is, it is a
function of self-control. Social control serves to facilitate such decision
and/or to respond to, or preempt/prevent, such failure. It is the individual
who ‘decides’ or fails to conform. It
is society that rewards such decision or seeks to punish or preempt/prevent or
reverse such failure (see, also, Cohen, 1979: 91).
Self-control
facilitates social control by providing internal restraints to deviation.
Restraining oneself from violating social control measures ensures the
voluntary enforcement of those measures; that is to say, facilitates the
unproblematic application/success of the measures. Social control is nevertheless
a necessary and valuable option (society’s Plan B) because self control often
fails. Social control stands on two feet: (a) voluntary compliance
(self-control); and, (b) enforcement.
When
enforcement entities/agents are weak, the lack of self-control creates room for
a downward spiral toward the “breakdown of law-and-order,” as we saw during
Kenya’s post-election violence of 2007/8. Other examples from Kenya are the
periodic outbreaks of Mungiki
violence, and chaos in the matatu transport
sub-sector.
When
self-control accommodates or mirrors social control – that is, when social
control signals lock into “kindred
spirits” lodged in self-control – their combined effect on the individual’s
behavior is more assuredly unproblematic and seamless; in a word, ‘socially’
desirable.Voluntary
compliance with social control measures, due to self-control, obviates (rids us
of) the need and cost of enforcement and sanctions.
When self
control and social values and norms match – that is, are in harmony – social
control inevitably reigns. Without self-control, it is virtually impossible to
even imagine that informal social control can effectively operate. Likewise, in
the absence of self-control, it is nearly impossible for social control
(informal or formal) to operate effectively without
sanctions (positive or negative). It is not
possible to socially control the behaviour of an individual who lacks the
requisite amount of self-control, except by means of effective formalized social control measures.
VIII.
Conclusion
There is no
doubt in my mind that self-control has its roots in an instinct which all
living species must surely have – the instinct to survive against all danger;
danger arising from predators of all kinds, or simply from natural events. So
it is not a uniquely human trait. However, as we understand it today,
self-control in humans is a particularly valuable example of soft-culture at
work. I have tried to sketch in these notes how self-control and social-control
interconnect and mutually reinforce each other – and how social processes and
society in general are shaped by the multiple ways in which the interfaces
between the two do or may play out. In all of this, of course, the matrix of
Time and Space is the arena in which all unfolds. There is not one but many
matrices. Millions of individual actors are nowadays caught up – and in a
globalizing world increasingly so – in more than one matrix, and even many
such.
I will say
more about all of this at a later date.
Read more on self control and related themes here:
As paraphrased by Williams (1997: 373), Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) view self-control as: “a subjective state whereby one individual is more [less?] vulnerable to temptations of the moment than is another. It is an assessment of how restrained each individual feels about his or her actions” [if you cannot access the hard copy of Williams' book, read this ; to access some reviews of the book, click here.
To read more on the theory of crime click here .
|
Prof. Mauri Yambo
[Lecture notes for CSO 103: Introduction to Comparative Sociology (Graduate students in the Theory Course may find aspects of these notes useful). Online Version 1, January-April 2012 Semester].
Posts
University of Nairobi
