Sociological Theory and Social Control Author(S): Morris Janowitz Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol

Home , Kimball Young, Macrosociology, Reinhard Bendix, Social control

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 [email protected].

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 Universityof Chicago

In theorigins of sociology, "social control"served as a centralconcept both for relatingsociology to social philosophyand for analyzing totalsocieties. In its classical sense,it referredto the capacityof a social groupto regulateitself. The conceptsupplied a basis forinte- grationof theoryand researchuntil the 1930s. While the traditional usage of social controlhas persisted,the termhas been redefinedto mean eithersocialization or social repression.Either the classical meaningmust be utilizedor a new termmust be developedto refer to thecapacity of social groupsto effectself-regulation if theoryand researchare to deal withmacrosociology under advanced industrialism.

In theemergence of sociologyas an intellectualdiscipline, the idea of social controlwas a centralconcept for analyzingsocial organizationand the developmentof industrialsociety. Originally, the termdealt witha generic aspect of societyand servedas a comprehensivebasis for a sociological examinationof the social order.In fact,it was one intellectualdevice for linkingsociological analysis to thehuman values and philosophicalorienta- tionsemployed by somepioneer sociologists interested in "social progress" and the reductionof irrationalityin social behavior.In the most funda- mentalterms, "social control"referred to the capacity of a society to 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 sociologicalframe of reference.Then I shall examinethe earlyusage and diffusionof the concept.Third, I shall examinethe efforts,starting in the 1930s, to transformits meaninginto the narrowernotion of the processesof developingconformity; in this connection,it is interestingto probe the reasons for this attemptto transformthe meaningof social control.Finally, I shall examinethe persistenceof the classicusage of the conceptby selectedsociologists during the periodsince 1945 and therebyassess its relevancefor contemporary

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

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control sociologyand foranalyzing the crisisof politicallegitimacy in advanced industrialsocieties with parliamentaryinstitutions. Because some sociologistshave come to definesocial controlas the social psychologyof conformity,sociological theory and analysis have suffered.This typeof thinkingcontributes to the difficultyof relatingthe sociologicalenterprise to othersocial sciencedisciplines as well as to social philosophyand to issues of professionalpractice and social policy.Either a new termhad to be inventedor the earliermeaning had to be recon- stituted.I have chosen to retracethe intellectualhistory and usage of social control,since I believethat the conceptin its originalmeaning can helpto integratebodies of empiricaldata withsociological theory, to codify researchfindings, and to handle questionsof social values in sociological analysis.Moreover, one of mycentral arguments is thata closeexamination of the intellectualhistory of the idea of social controlreveals that, despite the constrictionof its originalmeaning in some quarters,its broad and genericmeaning has had a strikinglypersistent vitality for the studyof thesocial order. In 1925, GeorgeHerbert Mead wrotein the InternationalJournal of Ethics that "social controldepends, then, upon the degreeto whichindi- vidualsin societyare able to assumeattitudes of otherswho are involved withthem in commonendeavors" (Mead 1925). He was merelyarticulat- ing, in his own conceptualterms, a widespreadorientation in American sociologythat had already been reflectedin the firstvolume of the AmericanJournal of Sociology in 1896. ThereGeorge Vincent, a sociologist who still feltat ease with the languageof social philosophy,offered the formulation:"Social controlis the art of combiningsocial forcesso as to give societyat least a trendtoward an ideal" (p. 490). Social controlhas servedand continuesto serveas a shorthandnotation for a complexset of viewsand viewpoints.It has been a "sensitizingconcept," in the termi- nologyof HerbertBlumer, or a "theoreticalorientation," in thatof Robert K. Merton. Moreover,social controlhas been directlylinked to the study of total societies.It has stood for a comprehensivefocus on the nation-stateand a concernwhich has come to be called "macrosociology."

INTELLECTUAL PARAMETERS The intellectualinvestment in the idea of social controlderives from a rejectionof economicself-interest theories. Social controlhas been an expressionof the outlook that held that the individualisticpursuit of economicself-interest can account for neithercollective social behavior nor the existenceof a social orderand does not supplyan adequate basis for the achievementof ethical goals. Much of the writingabout social controlmust be understoodas sociologists'efforts to accept the relevance

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology but at thesame timeto identifythe limitations of marginal-utilityanalysis. In formalterms, one can thinkof social organization,the subject matter of sociology,as the patternsof influencein a populationof social groups. Social control,therefore, is not to be conceivedas beingthe same as social organization;it is insteada perspectivewhich focuses on the capacityof a socialorganization to regulateitself; and thiscapacity generally implies a set of goals ratherthan a singlegoal. Social controlis a perspectivewhich, whilecommitted to rigoroushypothesis testing, requires the explicationof a value position. Social controlwas not originallyand subsequentlyhas not been neces- sarily the expressionof a conservativepolitical outlook. Many early Americansociologists who used the termwere religioussocialists; others wereadherents of a "progressive"view. It is moreto thepoint to emphasize that theseearly formulationsparallel sociologists'contemporary interests in "value maximization."While social controlinvolves the capacity of constituentgroups in a societyto behave in termsof theiracknowledged moraland collectivegoals, it does not implycultural relativism. The term has continuitybecause social controlcan be conceivedas restingon a value commitmentto at least to two elements:the reductionof coercion,al- thoughit recognizesthe irreducibleelements of coercionin a legitimate systemof authority,and the eliminationof human misery,although it recognizesthe persistenceof some degreeof inequality.One should also mentiona thirdelement: a commitmentto proceduresof redefiningsocietal goals in order to enhancethe role of rationality,although this may be consideredinherent in the firsttwo. The oppositeof social controlcan be thoughtof as coercivecontrol, that is, the social organizationof a societywhich rests predominantly and es- sentiallyon force-the threatand the use of force.Of course,even in the mostrepressive totalitarian nation-state the agents of repressionare limited in scope by some primitive,if unstable,set of norms.However, and more pertinentto theissue at hand,any social order,including a societywith a relativelyeffective system of social control,will requirean elementof coercion,but presumablya limitedone circumscribedby a systemof legiti- matenorms.2 Thereis no doubtthat early sociologists in theUnited States were vague about theirsocial goals and theirnotions of the "ideal." Frequently,the ideal theyoffered was no betterdefined than as thespontaneously emergent and spontaneouslyaccepted consensus. At times,they were no morespecific

2 Personal control is the psychologicaland personalitycounterpart of 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 psychological environmentand encompasses those psychological conditionsthat enhance rationality(Bettelheim and Janowitz 1964).

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control thanto assertthat the ideal referredto normsthat were rationally accepted and internationalizedin contrastwith the conditionsof coercivecontrols. Sociologistshave become much morespecific about the goals they wish to see maximizedand thereforefar more precise about the analysis of differentpatterns and mechanismsof social control. Obviously,there are a varietyof typesand mechanismsof social control. Each is the resultof particularantecedent variables and, in turn,each formhas a differentimpact on social behavior.The task of empiricalsocial researchis to investigatethe formsand consequencesof social control.In essence,this means answeringthe hypotheticalquestion, Which formsof social controlare most effective,that is, whichenable a social group to regulateitself in termsof a set of legitimatemoral principles and resultin the reductionof coercivecontrol?3 This perspectiveexplicitly negates the assertionthat social 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 social controlorganizes the cleavages, strains, and tensionsof any society- peasant,industrial, or advanced industrial.The problemis whetherthe processesof social controlare able to maintainthe social orderwhile trans- formationand social changetake place. There is no questionthat, from thispoint of view,there is a parallel betweensocial controland stability or repression.The argumentthat is relevanthere is just theopposite: social control,to theextent that it is effective,"motivates" social groups.All this seemspainfully obvious; but one purposeof a theoreticalorientation is to make the obviousinescapable. Explorationof theidea of social controlrequires one to recognizethat its emergencewas part of a continuingcritique of and responseto the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaftmodel. Under the influenceof philosophical pragmatismand the impactof empiricalresearch, the dichotomouscate- goriesof Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaftwere foundto be both oversimplified and inadequate(Tonnies 1887). I speak not onlyof FerdinandTonnies's expositionbut also of thestream of parallelor relatedwriters. These include Henry Maine (status and contract),1tmile Durkheim (mechanical and organic solidarity), Charles Horton Cooley (primary and secondary groups), Robert Redfield(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; Parsons 1951).

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 processes to reduce the distance from thesepreferred states." His theoreticalmodel is derivedfrom cybernetics (1968, p. 668).

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology

The convergingelements of these formulationshave had a powerful impacton sociologicaltheory and analysis.At the same time,there is a traditionof criticism of thewritings of Tonnies and thosewho have followed his formulationsthat is almost as long standingand enduringas the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaftmodel itself.Among the European sociologists who have dissentedfrom Tonnies's orientation are GeorgSimmel (1922), HermanSchmalenbach (1961), Theodor Geiger(1926, 1963), and Rene Koenig (1955). The accumulatedempirical evidence from anthropological and sociologicalsources with a historicalperspective indicates that peasant societiesare not whollyGemeinschaft entities, as T,unniesused the term. The inabilityof themodel to accountfor the varietyof solidarycollectivi- tiesthat emerge in advancedindustrial societies is equallynoteworthy. Much of the criticismof the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaftapproach is not an effortto rejectits centralconcern with societal transformation.4 Instead, it is an attemptto recastthe approachto makeit effectivelyapplicable to the analysisof the alternativehistorical paths by whichsocieties have be- comeurbanized and industrialized.It is difficult,if not impossible,to think of the emergenceof modernsociety in termsof an "evolutionary"trans- formationfrom "community" into "society"that is the resultof a limited numberof basic variablesand a linearmodel of social changeand societal transformation.Thus, the criticismhas had the consequenceof freeing the modelfrom its historicalmythography and refashioningits conceptual dimensionsand variablesinto testablehypotheses. As a result,the notionof social controlhas been formulatedand elaborated to providea moreadequate approachto problemsof social change and socialorder. Sociological theories of thesocial order thereby have come to rejectthe assertionthat the Gemeinschaftaspects of societalstructure are only residuesof some previousstage of social organizationwhile the Gesellschaftdimensions constitute the realityof industrialand urban society.Instead, social organizationencompasses, at any givenhistorical moment,essential and elaborated elementsof both Gemeinschaftand Gesellschaftin varyingscope, intensity, and consequence.The analysisof social controlis an analysisof the interplayof thosevariables which can be relatedto bothGemeinschaft and Gesellschaftattributes. Moreover, the conceptof social controlis directlylinked to the notionof voluntaristic action, to articulatedhuman purpose and 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-Gesellschaftin contemporaryresearch and emphasize the necessity of departing from the original mechanisticand linear model of change. He writes,"A relationshipthat begins as a Gesellschafttype may in time become increasinglycharacterized by Gemeinschaftrelationships among members" (1970, p. 107).

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control deterministicsociology which has cometo be inherentin the Gemeinschaft- Gesellschaftmodel. Social controlpresents a formatof influencebased on the notionof interactionand mutual (two-way) relationsamong social groups.To speak of mutualinfluence is hardlyto deny the elementsof inequalityand imbalancein social relations. Sociologistswho have used the conceptof social controlhave in effect beenfollowing the intellectual lead of AugusteComte, for whom the central problemof sociologicalanalysis was the impactof industrializationon the social orderand the consequencesof the resultingindividualism on the moralorder. Obviously, the classic writers,including Karl Marx, Rmile Durkheim,and Max Weber,addressed themselves to the issues Comte raised. One can translatemuch of the corpusof sociologicalwriting on macrosociologyinto the languageof the social controlframework, but to do so wouldobscure rather than clarify the issues involved. It is preferable to focus directlyon that distinctsociological stream which in varying degreemakes explicit use of the idea of social control.Though mainly an Americanstream, it is influencedby and in turnhas influencedEuropean thoughtand research.It presentsboth a unityand a continuingelaboration. First,the original writers and, in time,the subsequentones as well have manifesteda philosophicaloutlook concerned with the limits of rationality in pursuingsocial and moralaims. Their outlookhas reflectedpragmatism in the majorityof the writers,but forsome it also has includedaspects of phenomenology.An essentialelement of thisorientation has been the rejec- tionor, rather,the avoidanceof eitheridealism or materialism. Second, the adherentsof social controlhave been concernedwith informal,face-to-face relations as aspects of social structure.In contemporarylanguage, they have been preoccupiedwith the interfacebetween micro-and macroanalysis. Third,the styleof thesesociologists has been one of persistentconcern withempirical exploration of theirideas. They have beenself-critical about appropriateempirical techniques, continually in search of various types of documentationand data, and fullyaware of the complexitiesand elusive characterof proofin sociology. Thereforethere is a directline of intellectualcontinuity from the earliest effortsto formulatethe componentelements of social controlto its usage by contemporaryresearch sociologists aware of its intellectualbackground and theoreticalpurpose. The concepthardly implies that the subject matter of sociologyis the "adjustment"of men to existingsocial reality;on the contrary,since its earlyuse, the thrustof this streamof sociologicaldis- coursehas been to focuson effortsof men to realizetheir collective goals. The continuitybetween the earlywriters on social controland particular effortsin contemporaryresearch is manifestedin such worksas the pene- tratingresearch on juveniledelinquency by AlbertJ. Reiss, Jr. (1951).

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology

Conceptualizinghis operationalmeasures in termsof social control,he refersto it as "the abilityof social groupsor institutionsto make norms or ruleseffective." Likewise,there is a continuitybetween the early analysis of social controlthat includedthe study of social and political movements-the processesof revolution,protest, and institutionbuilding-as describedin the seminalstudy by LyfordEdwards (1927) and contemporaryinterest in collectivebehavior.5 Thus, the theoreticaland empiricaltasks of sociologistswho use the social controlorientation have been and continueto be to identifyand whereverpossible to quantifythe magnitudeof the variableswhich facilitate or hinderthe grouppursuit of collectivemoral goals. The pioneersociologists who thoughtin termsof social controlworked on specificempirical topics and in time applied theirefforts to a very broad rangeof topicsin the registerof social research.Initially they did tend to focuson macrosociologicalissues, such as law and the formation of legal codes,the emergence of publicopinion and collectivebehavior, and informaland mass media of communication,as well as "traditional"elements,such as customs,"mores," and religion.Louis Wirth,an articulate spokesmanfor this intellectualtradition, asserted the centralityof the processesof "persuasion,discussion, debate, education, negotiation, parlia- mentaryprocedure, diplomacy, bargaining, adjudication, contractual relations,and compromise."For him,these processes had to serveas themeans forarriving at a sufficientdegree of agreementto make the ongoinglife of a societypossible, despite differences in interests(1948, pp. 31-32). At thispoint, an importantcaveat mustbe entered.Much of the empirical and substantivewritings about social controldeals with normsand normativebehavior. Norms are often used as the indicatorsof social control-thedependent variables, so to speak. But social controldoes not reston an exclusivelynormative conception of elementsof social organization and society.As will be demonstrated,it did not do so originallyand cannotnow if it is to serve as a guide to empiricalresearch and to the codificationof researchfindings. On the contrary,the continuingrelevance of social controltheory reflects the factthat its assumptionsand variables incorporatethe ecological, technological, economic, and institutionaldimen- sionsof social organization.

EARLY USAGE OF SOCIAL CONTROL The term"social control"first figures prominently in the writingsof E. A. Ross, who was stronglyinfluenced by Gabriel Tarde, 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.

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control powerfulinsights into French society and deeplyinvolved in empiricalsocial research(Clark 1969). Tarde himselfdid not emphasizethe term,but he did presenta broadlyranging analysis of the complexprocesses required to producesocial agreementthrough mass persuasion.He was concerned withthe mechanismsrequired to generateeffective leadership and legisla- tionwhich would regulate social change. While workingat StanfordUniversity in 1894, Ross decided that the idea of social controlwas a "key that unlocksmany doors"; that is, it servedas a notionto bridgethe various institutions which concerned him.6 Again and again,he used the conceptto explainhow men"live closelyto- getherand associatetheir efforts with that degree of harmonywe see about us." Basically,Ross was concernedwith the social conditionsthat created harmony.Much of his writingconsisted of detailed descriptionsof the mechanismsof social control.While he was fullyaware of the coercive elementsin industrialsociety, he focusedon the devicesof persuasion,both interpersonaland institutional.He was impressedwith the extentto which persuasionas well as manipulationwas operative.His analysis encompassed the processesof face-to-faceinteraction and sociabilityand those of publicopinion and legal control.However, he was interestednot merely in devicesof persuasionbut also in a genericconception of societythat wouldexplain those devices which operate to "finda meansof guidingthe willor conscienceof theindividual members of society"(Ross 1901,p. 59). His usage of social controlbrought this term into the centerof sociological inquiry,but it remainedfor other sociologists to use the idea more rigor- ouslyand to enrichits intellectualrelevance. During the foundingperiod of sociologyin the United States, two majorfigures-Charles Horton Cooley and W. I. Thomas-gave centrality to social controland its relationto rationalcontrol in their writings. There were strongelements of convergencein their interests,but the differenceswere important.7Cooley was a moresystematic and coherent thinkerthan Ross, and his approachto social controlwas based on a thoughtful,normative orientation. He drovedirectly to his mainpreoccupa- tion, which reflectedthe pervasiveinfluence of pragmatismamong the sociologistsof 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 central importancein his analysis, his usage undoubtedlywas an influenceon Ross. In addition,see Borgatta and Meyer (1959). 7 William G. Sumnernever made 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

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology

His approach,of course,rests on an interactionalsocial philosophy which he helped to develop.Social controlwas essentialfor the growthof the selfthrough the processof interaction.Likewise, it restedto an important degreeon self-control.Cooley used the notionof theprimary group-face- to-facerelations-but he had fewconstructions for dealing with the internalizationof norms,although he assertedthat "individuality" was a crucial elementfor effective and meaningfulsocial control. However,he was a powerfulthinker because he struggledto relatehis interactionalapproach to the largersociety. Cooley's link withthe classic questionof social orderand his outlookon social controlunder conditions of industrializationare summarizedin his chapter,"Social Control in InternationalRelations." In his words,"A ripenationality is favorableto internationalorder for the same reasonsthat a ripeindividuality is favor- able to orderin a small group. It means that we have coherent,self- consciousand moreor less self-controlledelements out of whichto build our system[of nations]" (1920). Thomasapproached social controlfrom a differentbut relatedprinciple of pragmaticphilosophy. In his view,the essentialissue forboth sociologistsand personsin publicand social affairswas to increasethe importance and effectivenessof "rationalcontrol in social life." Open mindedly-and in a senseparadoxically-like many European sociologists, Thomas raised the questionof the impactof rationalthought in weakeningthe social fabricof society."We are less and less readyto let any social processgo on withoutour activeinterference and we feelmore and moredissatisfied with any active interferencebased upon a mere whimof an individualor a socialbody, or uponpreconceived philosophical, religious, or moralgenerali- zation" (Thomas and Znaniecki1918-20, 1:1; Janowitz1966, p. 37). Unlike Cooley,Thomas was trainedin classical literatureand history, and he developedan interestin the comparativesociological study of specificcultures and societies.He was fullyaware of the writingsof Tonnies,whose formulation he rejectedbecause of its simpleevolutionary bias, its failureto describeadequately either peasant societyor modern social organization,and particularlyits impliedhostility to individualfree- dom and creativity.Thomas offered no singleset of determinantcauses of social change,although he was clearlythe mostsystematic of the founding sociologistsconcerned with social control.Thomas had a comprehensive outlook towardthe dimensionsof social organizationand social control. He offereda highlydifferentiated orientation which sought to incorporate variablesreflecting ecology, economy, and technologyinto his analysisof social control.His orientation,of necessity,suffered because of eclecticism. sociological critique of utilitarianphilosophy. These themes were later emphasized in sociological analysis as part of the "theory of action."

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control He saw societyin institutionalterms as consistingof a set of irreducible social groups, from primary groups to complex bureaucraticstruc- tures.Social controldepended on effectivelinkage or articulationamong these elements;social disorganizationresulted from their disarticulation. WhileRoss was stimulatedby Tarde to proposethe term "social control," thewritings of GeorgSimmel were important ingredients in fashioningthe outlooksof W. I. Thomasand, later, Robert E. Park,both of whom pressed to developan empiricalbase for analysisof social controlin the urban metropolis.In his classic article,"The Mental Life of the Metropolis," Simmeldemonstrated his resistanceto the categoriesderived from the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaftmodel (1903). He was, rather,concerned with the changingand alternativebases of grouplife. He did not conceptualize individualityas inherentlyself-destructive or destructiveof social control. The analysisof individualityhad to includethe possibilitiesof formsof autonomyand personalfreedom (Levine 1971). Simmel'swritings did not expressany existingphilosophy of history. In fact,they articulated with the orientationof Americansociologists of the pragmaticpersuasion. In particular,Simmel did not concludethat the complexityof modern society and itsrange of group affiliations automatically impliedthe loss of individualityor that it was necessarilydisintegrative. His "Die Kreuzungsozialer Kreise," translatedby ReinhardBendix as "The Web of GroupAffiliations," argues the opposite.In effect,each new group to which a person becomes affiliated"circumscribes" him more exactlyand more unambiguously(Simmel 1955, pp. 140-41). In other words,as a personbecomes affiliated with a social group,he surrenders himselfto it. However,the larger the numberof groups to which the individualbelongs, the moreunlikely or improbableit will be that other personswill exhibitthe same combinationof groupaffiliations. Therefore, "the personalso regainshis individualitybecause his patternof partici- pationis unique." In essence,Simmel rejected the assertionthat partcipa- tion engenderedonly social constraintand conformityor, alternatively, individualityresulted only fromwithdrawal. He held that individuality was theresult of a patternof social participation and theoutcome of specific typesof social control. The centralthemes of Durkheim'swritings converge with the earlyfor- mulationof social controland are thusa relatedaspect of the intellectual historyof theconception. He did notuse theterm or an equivalentformula- tion.But his persistentsearch for the "determinationof moralfacts" is his versionof the problematicissue involvedin social control;this is perhaps mostclearly seen in Sociologieet philosophie(1924). Moreover,his empirical study,Suicide (1897), has come to supplythe link betweenhis work and thesubsequent generations of writersconcerned with social control. Obviously,one cannot overlookthe existenceof a body of literature

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology criticizingDurkheim for his failureto offeran effectiveanalysis of the internalizationof the normson which he rests his analysis. Likewise, Durkheim'sframework has not servedas a contributionto criticalevalua- tion of the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaftthemes in sociologybut has, in effect,been incorporatedinto this dominantperspective. While his work has been an importantstimulus to empiricalresearch, in contrastto the mainbody of wrtingon social controlas it has subsequentlyemerged, his orientationhas presenteda relativelyoverdeterministic frame of reference withonly limitedexploration of the voluntaristicelements in the "moral order."

DIFFUSION OF THE CONCEPT By 1920, the term"social control"had emergedin the United States as representinga centraltheoretical thrust by whichsociologists sought to integratetheir substantive and empiricalinterests. For the next 20 years, whilesociology was becominginstitutionalized as an academic discipline, the writingsof both RobertE. Park and RobertM. MacIver-although theywere extremely different thinkers-served to maintainthe notionthat social controlis a device for integratingdiverse elements of sociological analysis. Social controlwas used as the organizingtheme of the nationalcon- ventionof the AmericanSociological Association in 1917. There a wide rangeof empiricaltopics were explored, such as childwelfare, immigration, labor relations,and economicorganization. The papers presentedmade strikingefforts to be explicitin evaluatingthe effectivenessof elementsin the processof social control(Bedford 1918). In 1921, Robert E. Park and ErnestW. Burgessassessed the state of sociology,in Introductionto the Scienceof Sociology,by asserting:"All social problemsturn out to be problemsof social control" (p. 785). In contemporarylanguage, social controlis the outcome,in variousforms and content,of social organization.It is theconstruct which helps to relateand interrelatethe dependent variablesof empiricalresearch. Moreover, since theylinked social control to socialproblems, sociologists of thatperiod saw it as a vehiclefor joining sociologicalanalysis to issues of social policy and fordealing with issues of deviance. To understandthe fullconnotations of social controlin thatintellectual setting,one has only to turnto its referencesand cross-references.Social controlpointedly encompassed law and leadership,key elementsfor under- standinghow societyregulates itself. In the Park and Burgessvolume, the listof cross-referenceseven included the word "participation"; the explication of this cross-referencewas based on an analysisof the "immigrant problem"viewed as a problemin lack of participation(p. 766).

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control Sociologistsof thisperiod did not perceivesocial controlas a mechanism of conformity.Society did not and could not exist on the basis of conformitybut requiredactive elementsof collectiveproblem solving. Nor did the explicitphilosophical preferences of thesesociologists permit them to equate social controlwith conformity. Social controlraised the question of how societyregulated itself and changed.In reply,Park and Burgess postulateda sequenceor "naturalhistory" of collectivebehavior that was rootedin conflictand fromwhich few forms of social controlcould emerge. "Social controland themutual subordination of individualmembers to the communityhave theirorigin in conflict,assume definiteorganized forms in theprocess of accommodation,and are consolidatedand fixedin assim- ilation"(Park and Burgess1921, p. 785). As Ralph Turnerhas asserted,Park's explicationof social controldrew on analogiesfrom the competitiveprocesses of ecology,to whichhe added thoseforms of social communicationthat constrainedthe ecologicalpro- cesses (Turner1967). He posed a formulationof the underlyingprocesses of social controlthat fusedecological, institutional, and normativevari- ables. "Competitionand communication,although they perform divergent and uncoordinatedsocial functions,nevertheless in theactual lifeof society supplementand completeeach other.Competition seems to be theprinciple of individuationin the life of the personand of society-communication, on the otherhand, operatesprimarily as an integratingand socializing principle"(Park 1950, p. 43; 1952, pp. 240-62). He went on to argue thatthe initial consequence of new formsof communicationis to intensify competition.However, "in the long run," improvedcommunication can contribute"to humanizesocial relationsand to substitutea moral order forone that is fundamentallysymbiotic rather than social." In contrast,Robert M. MacIver's interestin politicaltheory and the roleof thestate led to his producingworks which brought the dimensionof coercion,especially legitimate force, into social controlin a fashionthat paralleledMax Weber'sorientation. For Maclver, an elementof coercion was involvedin social control;the problematic issues were the amountand the minimizationof coercion. Maclver acceptedthe idea thatsocial controlwas themodern equivalent of the classic issue of social order.Social controlmeant both elements: the institutionalmechanisms by which society regulatedindividual behavior and the "way in whichpatterned and standardizedbehavior in turnserves to maintainthe social organization"(MacIver and Page 1949, p. 137). One strikingavenue he investigatedwas social controlin 19th- centuryutopian communities in the UnitedStates. MacIver was searching forhypothetical equivalents of existingpatterns of social controland was particularlyinterested in the capacityof purposefullyconstructed utopian communitiesto adapt to social changeand to engagein collectiveproblem

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology solving.Reflecting his frameof reference,he concludedthat, because the social organizationof thesecommunities permitted very limited, or insufficient, individualization,they were incompletesocieties and therefore suffereda veryhigh rate of "mortality."9 During the 1920s and early 1930s, the term"social control"supplied an essentialbridge to the influentialwork of institutionaleconomists. In the United States, such economistsincluded ThorsteinVeblen, John Maurice Clark, Wesley C. Mitchell,and Walton H. Hamilton.10They believedthat the mechanismsof the marketplaceand competitionsupplied an essentialbut only partial basis for understandingeconomic behavior. Clark,in Social Controlof Business,presented the coreof the institutional economists'effort to make use of the sociologicalnotion of social control (1926). He was firmlycommitted to the centralityof effectiveutilization of marketmechanisms for allocating resources. However, it was clear to him that the basic structureof modernsociety does not rest in the com- petitiveeconomic process. Society requires a set of informaland formal normswhich highlight "cooperative" arrangements. In effect,he rejected thenotion of countervailingpower-of society-wideorganization as derived fromthe competitionof large-scaleor differenttypes of economicorgani- zations. Instead, he assertedthat the governmentalsystem-legislative and legal-supplies the frameworkfor the cooperativeelements of the moderneconomic system. Comparableto thelinkage of social controlwith economics was thework of "realist"scholars in law,politics, and psychology.The mostoutstanding writerin the sociologyof law was Roscoe Pound, whose 1942 studyof Social Control throughLaw anticipatedcontemporary approaches. In politicalscience, Charles E. Merriammade use of the social controlconcept in empiricalresearch into political and governmentalinstitutions (1936). Duringthis period, another vigorous intellectual current that fed the concernwith social controlderived from the writingsof Mary Parker Follett,the psychologistof administration.She was groping,with pro- foundinsight, toward a sociologicalformulation of administrativecontrol thatwould encompass the essentialelements of the social process,and she brokewith the viewof administrationas a systemof constraints."We get controlthrough effective integration. Authority should arise withinthe unifyingprocess. As everyliving process is 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 institutionaleconomists constituted a body of scholars with sociological in- terestwho produced,for more than two decades, importantresearch on industrialand economic organization.With the decline of the industrial school of economists,so- ciologistsunfortunately have failed to incorporatefully the topics of social control of economic and industriallife in their domain.

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control thatis, the authorityevolved by or involvedin the processitself, so social controlis generatedby the processitself. Or rather,the activityof self- creatingcoherence is the controllingactivity" (Follett 1941, p. 204; see also Pigors1935). By the 1930s, the Americansociologists' theoretical and empirical concernswith social controlhad begun to have a discernibleimpact on European thought.Karl Mannheim followedthe Americanliterature closely and served as a focal point of interpretation.In his elaborate treatise,Man and Societyin an Age of Reconstruction(1940), Mannheim made social controla centralpoint of departurefor his analysis.Interested in politicalsociology, he introducedand focusedattention on the role of parliamentaryinstitutions in theprocesses of social controlin an advanced industrialsociety. For him,freedom was a particulartype and quality of social control;it was requiredunder advanced industrialism if social plan- ningwere not to degenerateinto authoritarianrule. He believedthat the processesof social control,to be effective,had, in turn,to reston vigorous parliamentaryinstitutions. Under the influenceof Max Weber,he sought to analyze,in the broadestterms, the transformationof social structure and authorityrelations, and he highlightedthe shiftthat he saw toward indirectauthority with the concomitantprofound strains on social control. His workwas strikingin the extentto whichhe incorporatedthe detailed findingsof empiricalsociological research on Americansocial structure. In essence,Mannheim prepared the intellectualgroundwork for incorpo- ratingpolitical sociology and the analysisof mass societyinto the study of social control.

CONCEPTUAL CONTINUITY Although"social control"persisted as a coordinatingterm of referencein Americansociology through 1940, the constrictedand narrowmeaning of theterm was alreadycoming into force. The alternateformulation of social controlas a processof socializationleading to conformitywas beingpostu- lated by sociologistswho called themselvessocial psychologists.This trend becomesevident when one examines,not the theoreticaltreatises of the period,but thetitles of doctoraldissertations and journalarticles concerned withsocialization and theprocess of persuasion,interpersonal and mass. How does one accountfor this transformationor apparentshift? First,the fact that thereis a naturalhistory of sociologicalideas may afforda partialexplanation. Under the impact of empiricalresearch, broad conceptionsthat have servedas sourcesof stimulationbecome converted in timeinto morespecific and delimitedtopics of research.However con- vincingin itself,this is hardlyan adequate explanation.Review of the literatureand interviewswith figuresactive duringthis period do not

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology permitthe conclusionthat the diffusenessand shortcomingsof the idea of social control-and thereare many-accountfor the apparenttransforma- tion. It is necessaryto consideradditional factors. Second,the power analysis and modifiedversions of economicdetermin- ism derivedfrom the writingsof Karl Marx had the unanticipatedconse- quence of weakeninga concernwith the voluntaristicand purposeful processof modifying the social order. This occurredduring the Great Depres- sion and the New Deal, whichcreated ideological and politicalcurrents that impingedon sociologyin a fashioncomparable with the eventsof the 1960sand made theidea of social controlor any equivalentunpopular. The resultwas an oversimplifiedfocus on powerand powerrelations and on uncriticalacceptance of the notionof mass society.To speak of social controlwas perceivedas impedingthose social and economicchanges that membersof the sociologicalprofession considered essential. As a result,after the interruption in academiclife during World War II, the subjectmatter of social controlcame to reflectincreasingly the special- ized interestsof sociologistsconcerned with research on institutionsdealing withsocialization and resocialization,such as themental hospital or school."' The researchtopics coveredunder "social control,"at the nationaland regionalmeetings and in journal and monographpublications, show that the processesof social controlin theseterms were investigated in an ever- wideningrange of institutionalsettings. Paradoxically, the relevanceof theseempirical researches rested in theirfindings, which might well have been anticipated,concerning the limitationsof dominantleaders and organizationadministrators in enforcingnorms and thecapacity of informal groupsto modifynorms or participatein redirectinggoals. Even in the narrowinvestigation of the enforcementof norms,such sociologistsand social psychologistswere forcedto recognizethe requirementsof institu- tionallife and the societalorder. They soughtto deal with basic issues, relabeling"social control"as "social regulation"(Cummings 1968). The narrowdelimitation of social controlas the processof social conformity,although widely used in sociologicalresearch, did not and could not displacethe classicalusage of the concept.Since 1945 the latter,with its broad and fundamentalimport, 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.Without effectivereference to the previous literature, 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 controlprovides some 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 penetratingformulation by Litwak (1956, pp. 217-23).

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control withpersistence and vitalityin thewritings of certainsociologists. Clearly, the new relianceon biologicaland electronicanalogies has not completely displacedor renderedobsolete this traditional line of sociologicalthinking.'2 Any reviewof the continuityand vitalityof the idea of social control mustaccord an importantplace to the writingsand researchof Everett Hughesand his students.As thepost-World War II expansionof academic sociologywas starting,Hughes published his influentialessay "Institutions" (1946). For him,one centralissue of social controlwas the socialization and the organizationof occupational,especially professional,groups. Hughes's theoreticaland empiricalwritings stimulated a crucialbody of literatureanalyzing and assessingprocesses of regulationand self-regulation of skilledgroups in modernsociety.'3 Hughes drewon currentsin social anthropology.In particular,the research of specificBritish and Americansocial anthropologistsserved to reinforcethe interestof studentsof social controlin intensivefieldwork duringa periodwhen the emergingtrend in sociologywas towardsurvey researchmethodology. Anthropologists seeking to use the conceptof social controlto integratetheir ethnographic materials and maintainlinkages with the intellectualtraditions of sociologyby this approach included RaymondFirth (1951), S. F. Nadel (1953, 1957), J. S. Slotkin(1950), and Jack Goody(1957). The post-WorldWar II functionalistmaintained a concernwith and orientationtoward social control. Throughout the body of TalcottParsons's writing,there is a centralfocus on the essentialelements of a social order. His explicitinterest in the social controlconcept derived from his explication of 1EmileDurkheim. In The Structureof Social Action (1937), he assertedthat Durkheim"not only gainedgreat insight into the natureof social control,but also intothe role and importanceof moralconformity."'14 In The Social System(1951), the analysisof social controlfigures more prominentlyas a core elementin his explanationof the patterningof deviantbehavior. Parsons's writings have had a stronginfluence on the studiesof deviancemade by a varietyof empiricalresearch sociologists.15

12 For an interestingtreatise on 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 analysis seeks to assess the contributions-plustheir degree of convergence -of a variety of classical sociologists to the extension and reformulationof basic questions of the social order. Thus this volume is a key resource in the intellectual history of 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 societyemerged and 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

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology In thework of a numberof Parsons'sstudents, the issue of social control continueto be explicated.In Human Society,Kingsley Davis joined his conceptionof functionalismto the idea of social control."It is through them [social controls]that human societyregulates the behaviorof its membersin such ways that they performactivities fulfilling societal needs-even, sometimes,at the expenseof organicneeds" (1948, p. 52). He focusedon institutionalarrangements for regulationand controlby pointedlycomparing the mechanismsof social control in totalitarian societieswith those in the multipartystates of the West. Likewise,the social controlof sciencehas beenused to focusattention both on thecondi- tionsunder which science develops and on the social and politicalconse- quencesof scientificknowledge. Bernard Barber, in Scienceand the Social Order (1952), has probedthe directinvolvement of scientistsin wartime researchand the new orientationstoward their social responsibilitythat have emerged. The continuingimpact of theissues of socialorder was to be found,after 1945,among a groupof sociologistsconcerned with macrosociology. It was to be expectedthat ReinhardBendix and BennettBerger would display a strongconcern with these issues and theconditions under which social order is maintained.Following directly on Simmel'sformulations, they postulate alternativeconsequences of groupparticipation in a fashionthat converges withtraditional notions of social control.They emphasizethat social parti- cipationin its genericform produces more than "socializing"effects, the centralconcern of empiricalsociologists (Bendix and Berger1959). They also stress the potentialityof an alternativeset of outcomes,namely, "individualizing"effects, that requiresa carefuland richerlanguage of analysis.The individualizingeffects are not at all equated withpersonal anomiebut are at the rootof autonomy,creativity, and problemsolving- elementsconsistent with and to some degreeessential for a social order and effectivesocial control. In an alternativeway, Edward Shils has soughtto explicatethe dimen- sion of social order and social controlof a mass society (1962). The essentialtransformation of modernsociety rests not only in its industrial and technologicalbase but also in the effortto incorporatethe "mass of the population"into the society'scentral institutional and value systems as a resultof the social and politicalprocess of fundamentaldemocratiza- tion, to use Mannheim'sterminology (Mannheim 1940). Shils has tried to give a normativedimension to the ecologicalstructure of the nation- state withhis emphasison the "center"and the "periphery"(1961). The

narrowerand more constrictedview of social control,the followingexpositions deal with broad societal issues and therebyreflect earlier formulations:Clark and Gibbs (1965); Gibbs (forthcoming); and Stephenson (1973).

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control particularrelevance of Shils'swritings rests in his use of theword "civility" to characterizethe patterns of interactionand social relationsrequired for the reductionof coercionand manipulationin the social orderof mass society. It is interestingthat George Homans, beforehis acceptance of the "behavioral"assumption of conditioningpsychology, made use of "social control"in its traditionalmeaning. In this he was stimulatedby Mary ParkerFollett's writings. "Social controlis not a separatedepartment of grouplife-instead control,to a greateror lesser degree,is inherentin everydayrelationships between members of the group" (Homans 1951, p. 365). For him,interaction supplies the basis forempirical investigation of social controlin "at least two somewhatdifferent languages" (p. 94). Social controlcan be describedin termsof "distributionof goods,such as money,and intangiblegoods, such as the enjoymentof highsocial rank." BarringtonMoore, Jr., in a markedlydifferent style, concerned with the historicaltransformation of societies,poses the questiontraditionally associatedwith social controlin his essay on "Reflectionson Conformityin IndustrialSociety" (1958). He considershimself not a studentof the abstractprinciples of the humangroup but a sociologistof comparative sociopoliticalsystems. For him, social controlinvolves an elementof repression-consciousor unconscious.He feelsthat "in the matureman, we simplycall it self-control"(p. 193). Moore has thusapproached social controlfrom the reverseside, namely,how muchconformity does an advanced industrialsociety require? First, he is attractedto the idea that, in such a society,more of "this ancientvirtue" is required,not less. The societal contextfor self-controlderives from the fact that the practical problemis compoundedby a paradox."There may be less of theself-control now imposedby scarcity,"while "a widerrange of materialopportunities and temptationsmay require a strongerexercise of thiscapacity" (p. 193). Second,Moore, strangely enough, finds the primary need forconformity in the arena of culture,whether broadly defined (as by anthropologists) or narrowlydefined to includeonly certainappreciated cultural, artistic, and intellectualattainments. It is notthe arena of technologythat generates the need for conformitybut "the simple fact that the achievementsof humanculture require effort 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 thoughtfulsearch forthe requirementsof an advancedindustrial society able to regulateand controlitself.

16 AndrewHacker (1957) has restatedthe issues of contemporarypolitical elite theory in terms of social control (see also Cook 1957).

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology

CONTINUING EXPLICATION In summary,the idea of social controlhas been a central formulation in the originand developmentof sociologyas an intellectualdiscipline. Moreover,particular sociologists have not abandonedthe intellectualheri- tage and problematicissues associatedwith the idea, forthere can be no sociologywithout a concernfor the elementsof a socialorder. An inventory of contemporaryusage indicatesthat the effortsto substitutethe language of social systemsor of biologicaland cyberneticmodels do not sufficeto supplantolder conceptualizations.In fact, WilbertE. Moore has con- cluded,in his assessmentof "social structureand behavior,"that the "old- fashionedsociological term, social control,seems appropriateto revive," to handlethe combinationof externalcontrols and individualinternaliza- tion of the moralorder (1967, pp. 171-219). The particularterm is not theissue, of course.The issueis theanalytic formulation that highlights the preconditionsand variablesthat maximize the self-regulation of societyand takeinto consideration the realities of social constraints,whether they have theirorigins in ecological,economic, or normativefactors. Therefore,I would argue that the idea of social control-in its traditionalmeaning and contemporaryexplication-should serve as a powerful antidoteto the "crisisin sociology"outlook as exemplifiedby the writings of Alvin W. Gouldner,among others (Gouldner1970). No doubt some sociologistshave becomedisappointed with the capacity of theirsociological endeavorsto alterthe sociopolitical process. Others have becomepersonally fatiguedand discontentedwith the styleof life of the teacherin the uni- versitysetting, and as a resultthey have less zeal for theirintellectual tasks. A sociologistwho has enteredhis calling with a belief in the philosopher-kingassumption is certainto face a crisisat somepoint. The phrase "crisisin sociology"must mean that sociologyis progres- sivelymore and moreunable to explainand clarifysocial changein con- temporarysociety. There is no need to exaggeratethe maturity of sociology and the cumulativecharacter of its researchefforts. Nor is thereany need to overlookthe vast amountof marginalresearch. But the presentstate of sociologyis to be assessednot in termsof thewide range of its undertakings but, rather,by the vitalityof relevantstreams-even if theyare minority efforts.Therefore, while particular sociologists may experience a crisis,there is no basis forasserting that thereis a crisisin the intellectualdiscipline. Any"crisis" resides in thereal world. The advancedindustrial nations with parliamentaryinstitutions are experiencingcrises in theirability to regulate themselves,particularly in theirpolitical institutions. The intellectual Fragestellung(posing of the question)linked to the idea of social control constitutesa relevantstandpoint for assessing this crisis in political legitimacy.

100

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control The reemergenceof a focuson social controlin its traditionalsense (or relabeledvariously, for example,as "social regulation,"in contemporary language)has theadvantage of beingable to drawon increasedintellectual self-consciousnessamong sociologists. The followingpoints are essential, althoughan adequate explicationof them remainsbeyond the scope of thispaper and will be presentedin my largerstudy, "Social Controland Macrosociology." First, the social controlperspective, as it has developed,supplies an appropriatelevel of abstractionfor the studyof social organizationand social change.In fact,the social controlperspective stands in contrastto the post-WorldWar II trend,in whichmuch theorizing used a highlevel of generality.Originally, social controltheory was formulatedat a more concretelevel of abstraction.It requireda set of taxonomicand analytically differentiatedcategories as the basic elementsof analysis. Specifically, social controlscholars postulated that social stratificationand social class categorieswere insufficient for the analysis of social organizationand social change.There was an explicitconcern with institutions and institutional analysis.Under the rubric"institutions," sociologists investigated an end- less rangeof subjectsthat reflectedtheir personal tastes morethan a set of analyticunits and objectsof analysis.But fromthe verybeginning of theirempirical research, sociologists concerned with social controlhave been awareof the necessityof groupingtheir subject matters in a broader analyticalcategory system-but one which would not lose sight of the substantivereality. Thus, slowly,the varietyof researchon delinquentgangs, work teams, play groups,and the like became moreand moreexplicitly fused into the studyof primarygroups, reflecting the writingsof CharlesH. Cooley and W. I. Thomas. Under RobertF. Park's stimulus,the host of analysesof territorialunits and residentialpatterns merged into a commoninterest in communitystructures. Another core of thesesubject-matter concerns was the transformationof the studyof specificcorporate institutions into the analysisof bureaucraticorganizations, under the influenceof Max Weber and ChesterBarnard. From studyof a myriadof interestinginstitutions, thereemerged the perspective that such categoriesas primarygroups, communitystructures, and bureaucraticorganizations were essentialelements for convertingthe descriptionof social stratificationand socioeconomic class patternsinto effectiveanalysis of the "social system"or the nation- state. The randominvestigation of particularinstitutions that had fasci- nated the earliersociologists has givenway to a morepointed focus on the interrelationsbetween basic structural"entities." In the effortto avoid excessivereification or a flightinto empiricism, the style of theorizingabout social controldeveloped in the 1920s-and explicatedthereafter-appears

101

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology to be markedlyviable and appropriatefor the continuingtasks of sociologists. Second,the analysisof social controlcan be pressedwith more pointed concernfor causal sequencesin social changein particular,with a more explicitand adequate overviewof the articulationof "social structure" and politicalinstitutions. Sociological analysis is only slowlycoming to gripswith the crisisof politicallegitimacy that constitutesthe key problematicissue in advancedindustrial society, particularly in thosenations withmultiparty parliamentary institutions. The noteworthydefect of the earlyformulations of social controlwas a viewpointthat saw political institutionsas derivativefrom the social stratificationsystem, almost as if politicalinstitutions were thoughtto be epiphenomenal.The contributionof politicalsociology since the 1920shas only partiallyovercome this defect.As sociologistshave progressively soughtto articulatethe relationsbetween social structureand political institutions,they have emphasizedthe causal priorityof the elementsof social stratification.They have perceivedpolitics and "politicalconflict" as manifestationsof the underlyingsocial stratificationrather than aug- mentingtheir approach to politicswith an institutionalframework associated withthe idea of social control(Janowitz 1970). Sociologistshave been interestedin describingcommunity stratification, in the mode of Robert and Helen Lynd's Middletown(1929), or nationalstratification patterns, by meansof thenational survey sample, in orderto tracethe consequences of these hierarchiesfor politicalcontrol. In theirview, politicsis mass politicalparticipation, especially electoral behavior. The causal patternhas been fromunderlying ecological, economic, and occupationalstructures to social strata to a set of group interestswhich fashionmass political participation. Sociologistshave yet to explore adequately the implicationsof an institutionalapproach to the politicalprocess. No doubt the sociological traditioncontains examples of an institutionalperspective on politics,that is, theviewpoint that political institutions constitute an independentsource of societal change and an elementfor fashioningsocial structure.But sociologists,including those attached to the social controlperspective, have beenslow to implementthe comprehensive implications of suchan assertion. However,the riseand sociopoliticalconsequences of thewelfare state have movedthis intellectual agenda into prominence. The modermpolitical party and modernpolitical institutions penetrate all sectorsof society.It is necessaryto speak of theirdecisive consequences forsocial structure and to recognizethat the supremacy of modernpolitical institutionsdoes not insureeither their effectiveness or theirlegitimacy. As a result,trends in politicalbehavior, especially measures of electoralbe- havior,become key indicatorsof the effectivenessof social controlin

102

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control advancedindustrial societies with multiparty systems. The crisisin political legitimacyemerges thereby not as a sudden manifestationbut ratheras the outcomeof continuingsocial change.The cumulativeimpact of the technologicaland organizationaldevelopments associated with World War II can be takenas thethreshold to thenew historical era. WorldWar II not onlycreated the institutional base forthe welfare state but also contributed to the demandfor more extensive political participation.17 Aftera shortperiod of limitedadaptation following World War II, Westernparliamentary institutions have demonstratedtheir increased in- abilityto produce effectivemajorities and to create the conditionsfor authoritativedecision making. Therefore, the task of studentsof social controlis notonly to explainpatterns of personaldeviant behavior, such as suicide, criminality,and personal unhappiness,important though these may be. The core issue is to help accountfor the declineof parliamentary oppositionand the rise of unstableexecutive leadership. The gravedifficulties of parliamentarycontrol can be seenin thepatterns of masspolitical participation common to Westernnations. In the briefest terms,there have been a long-termincrease in theproportion of thepopula- tionwho declarethemselves unaffiliated with the major parties, an increase in shiftingof the electoralchoice fromone nationalelection to the next, and a declinein beliefin the effectivenessof thelegislative process. The changesin social stratificationresulting from technology, occupa- tionalstructure, patterns of urbanization,and economicresource allocation do not appear to have increasedor produceda highlyalienated or anomic electorate.On the contrary,the social stratificationpatterns result in a highlyfragmented electorate with a powerfuldegree of solidaritywithin the componentsocial elements.These groupingsincrease their demands for economicbenefits, especially governmental benefits. Thereby persons findthemselves, under an advancedindustrial society, with their own built- in competingself-interests that are not easily resolvedor aggregatedinto integratedand stable politicalpreferences. In the threedecades since the end of World War II, the structureof politicalparties in the advancednations, including the UnitedStates, has remainedrelatively unchanged. The descriptiveliterature on partyorgani- zation has not been effectivelyintegrated into macrosociologyand the analysisof social control.No doubt the partiesrequire vastly greater resources to performtheir political tasks, and the mobilizationof these resourcesparadoxically appears to make them less responsive.Nor has the influxof a new cadre of personnelacting for underrepresented groups alteredthe internalfunctioning of the major parties.The issue that the

17 For an analysis of the transformationof Great Britain into a welfare state under the impact of World War I and World War II, see especiallyArthur Marvick (1968).

103

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology social controlperspective must face is deep. The opportunityto express politicaldemands and to balance themby periodicnational elections be- comesless and less effectiveas a crucialelement in social control. During the second half of the 1960s, the strainof social change and politicalconstriction produced a markedescalation of parapoliticalmovements,outside the institutionalizedparties, that frequentlyused violent symbolismand elementsof violence.There has also been a strikingincrease in effortsto extendcivic participation into the managementof administra- tive agenciesof governmentand of voluntaryassociations. These later efforts,in part a responseto the impactof the parapoliticalmovements, have reflectedan implicitrecognition of thelimitations of periodicnational electionsas mechanismsof social and politicalcontrol, There can be no doubt that sociologicalliterature failed to anticipate the scope and intensityof thesesocial movements,although one can find penetratinganalyses of the highlevels of societalstrain and the constrictionof the processesof social controlthat an advancedindustrial society was producing.The sociologicalwritings about these agitationsoften followedthe classic model of thenatural history of social movements.Such writingswere perceptive in focusingon the impendingtransformation of thesesocial movements into "interest groups" and highlightedtheir built-in limitationsfor influencing patterns of social control. It was no profoundsociological discovery that the protestmovements of thisperiod would lead to increaseddiffuse political violence but hardlyto a revolutionor a "revolutionsituation." Nevertheless, their explosive char- acterrequires students of social controlto reexaminethe issue of violence and coercionin social change.In the sharpestterms, what is the relation- ship betweenreliance on violenceand coercionand the searchfor effective social controlin an advancedindustrial society? The questionmanifests itselfat everypoint in sociologicalanalysis where existing patterns of 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 importantoccasions, more effective social control. But to explicatethe "principlesof force"is anothermatter-that is to formulatepropositions of the conditionsunder which force produces posi- tivecontributions to social control.Sociologists have speculatedrepeatedly on thisissue; but how muchfurther has the analysisbeen pressedbeyond thehopeful aspirations of GeorgesSorel in Reflectionson Violence( 1914) ? The perspectiveof social controlis groundedin assumptionsabout interactionand mutualinfluences. Therefore it raises the persistentand vexa- tiousissue of theconsequences of forceand coercionfor those who initiate or manage theiruse-whether the goal be the maintenanceof a social

104

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control structureor its change.Perhaps the central proposition that can be explored is thatthe use of forceand coercionin thesearch for social controloperates withinprogressively narrower limits in relationsboth withinand between industrialsocieties.'8 This assertionobviously does not deny the extensive and diffusepatterns of violenceunder advanced industrialism;nor does it deny violence'sdecisive importance in particularcircumstances. But it does emphasizethe emergenceof a calculuswhich points to the expanded self-defeatingimplications for those who must rely extensivelyon force and coercionin theirefforts to achieve social controlin its traditional meaning.Such a calculusof forceand coercionreflects at least two trends. There has been an increasein the professedmoral sensibilitiesof the citizenry(which is compatiblewith political indifference under conditions of ineffectivepolitical institutions). Furthermore, the sheercomplexity of societal organizationhas made anticipatingthe consequencesof force- especiallygiven the expandedpower of force-muchmore difficult. In a period of weakened and ineffectivesocial controlin advanced industrialsocieties, continued conflict and disintegrationare alternative or even simultaneousoutcomes. Social disintegrationimplies a reduction in the abilityof a groupto controlthe behaviorof its membersand a decline in interactionand influence;social conflictimplies an increasein interactionbetween social groupson the basis of antagonisticmeans and goals. In evaluatingthe consequencesof persuasionand coercionwith respectto directsocial change,we mustconfront the problemof whether the existingcategories of politicalideology-the language of politicaldis- coursewhich dominates sociological analysis-are adequate foranalyzing social control. The alternativeoutcomes of the searchfor effective social controlcannot be analyzedadequately in termsof conventionalideological categories- radicalism,conservatism, or incrementalliberalism. There exists a mass of empiricaldata whichhighlight the conclusionthat thesecategories are limitedin describingmass opinionas well as the realitiesof institutional practice.Moreover, these categoriesof political analysis imply a final result,a resolution,and an end state,when in effectwe are dealingwith a continuousand continuingsocial process.But the macrosociologyand, as a result,the analysisof social controlare too oftendominated by a narrow formatfashioned by politicaldiscourse. Thereby the "resolution"or "outcome" of ineffectivesocial controldoes not necessarilyconform to the categoriesof politicalideology. It is necessaryat least to assumethat, for an advancedindustrial society, the alternativescould includesuch results as chronicand persistenttension and a varietyof patternsof stagnation. In conclusion,it is necessaryto returnto the point of departure.The

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

105

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 AmericanJournal of Sociology core elementin social controlis the idea of self-regulationof the group- whetherthe groupbe a face-to-faceprimary group or the nation-state.In essence,social controlis a perspectivetoward social organization-one which focuseson the outcome of regulativemechanisms. To use the languageof empiricalsocial research, it therebyidentifies a set of dependent variables applicable to the fullestrange of institutionalsettings. The empiricalcontent of social controldepends on the sociologist'sability to clarifyand explicatethe contentand criteriaof self-regulation. Althoughsome sociologistshave transformedthe contentof the term "social control"into that of social conformityand even social repression, the classical usage has persisted.The major advance in the intellectual historyof social controlhas been its linkagesto the politicalprocess and to the crisisof "politicallegitimacy." These linkagescan be accomplished, not by meansof a sociologicalreductionism, but by a recognitionof the boundariesof politicalinstitutions and the "supremacy"of politicsin an advancedindustrial society.

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,University of 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, Terry N. 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

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 SociologicalTheory and Social Control

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: Management Publication 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 AnthropologyInstitute 81 (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: Universityof Chicago Press. 1970. Political Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. . 1974. "Toward a Redefinitionof MilitaryStrategy in InternationalRelations." World Politics 26 (4): 473-508. Koenig, Rene. 1955. "Die BegriffeGemeinschaft und Gesellschaft bei Ferdinand Tonnies." Kolner Zeitschriftfur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie7:348-420. Landis, Paul H. 1939. Social Control: Social Organization in Process. New York: Lippincott. LaPiere, Richard T. 1954. A Theory of Social Control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Levine, Donald. 1971. Georg Simmel: On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. 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. Middletown in 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 Century of 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

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 AmericanTournal of 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: Universityof Chicago Press. 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

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