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 industrial- ism. 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 per- sistenceof 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 83 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). 84 This content