Sociological Theory and Social Control Author(s): Morris Janowitz Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Jul., 1975), pp. 82-108 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777055 . Accessed: 27/02/2014 07:28 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Sociology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.111.128.63 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:28:13 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sociological Theory and Social Control1 MorrisJanowitz University of Chicago In theoriginsofsociology, "socialcontrol"servedas a centralconcept both for relatingsociologyto social philosophyand for analyzing to the capacityof a totalsocieties.In its classicalsense,it referred social groupto regulateitself.The conceptsupplieda basis forintegrationof theoryand researchuntilthe 1930s.Whilethe traditional to usage of social controlhas persisted,the termhas been redefined mean eithersocializationor social repression.Either the classical meaningmustbe utilizedor a new termmustbe developedto refer self-regulation if theoryand to thecapacityof social groupsto effect underadvancedindustrialresearchare to deal withmacrosociology ism. discipline,theidea of social In theemergence ofsociologyas an intellectual controlwas a centralconceptfor analyzingsocial organizationand the thetermdealtwitha generic development of industrialsociety.Originally, basis for a sociological aspect of societyand servedas a comprehensive of the social order.In fact,it was one intellectualdevice for examination orientalinkingsociologicalanalysisto thehumanvaluesand philosophical in "social progress" interested tionsemployedby somepioneersociologists and the reductionof irrationality in social behavior.In the most fundamentalterms,"social control"referredto the capacity of a societyto regulateitself accordingto desired principlesand values. Sociological analysishas the task of exploringthe conditionsand variableslikely to make thisgoal attainable. In thispaper,I shall seek firstto set forththe intellectualparameters in order in the conceptof social controlas it was originallyformulated to serveas the basis fora broad sociologicalframeof reference. Then I shall examinethe earlyusage and diffusion of the concept.Third,I shall examinethe efforts, its meaninginto startingin the 1930s, to transform in this the narrowernotionof the processesof developingconformity; connection,it is interestingto probe the reasons for this attemptto transform themeaningof social control.Finally,I shall examinethe persistenceof the classicusage of the conceptby selectedsociologistsduring the periodsince 1945 and therebyassess its relevanceforcontemporary 1 This paper is a section of a larger study, "Macrosociology and Social Control." I am indebted to the Russell Sage Foundation, New York City, for a generous grant in support of this work. 82 AJS Volume 81 Number 1 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control sociologyand foranalyzingthe crisisof politicallegitimacyin advanced institutions. industrialsocietieswithparliamentary Because some sociologistshave come to definesocial controlas the sociologicaltheoryand analysis have social psychologyof conformity, of relatingthe contributes to the difficulty This typeof thinking suffered. to othersocial sciencedisciplinesas well as to social sociologicalenterprise practiceand social policy.Either philosophyand to issuesof professional a new termhad to be inventedor the earliermeaninghad to be reconstituted.I have chosen to retracethe intellectualhistoryand usage of social control,sinceI believethatthe conceptin its originalmeaningcan bodiesof empiricaldata withsociologicaltheory,to codify helpto integrate and to handlequestionsof social values in sociological researchfindings, is thata closeexamination analysis.Moreover,one ofmycentralarguments historyof theidea of social controlrevealsthat,despite of theintellectual the constriction of its originalmeaningin some quarters,its broad and persistentvitalityfor the studyof genericmeaninghas had a strikingly thesocial order. In 1925, GeorgeHerbertMead wrotein the InternationalJournalof Ethics that"social controldepends,then,upon the degreeto whichindividualsin societyare able to assumeattitudesof otherswho are involved withthemin commonendeavors"(Mead 1925). He was merelyarticulating, in his own conceptualterms,a widespreadorientationin American sociologythat had already been reflectedin the firstvolume of the AmericanJournalofSociologyin 1896.ThereGeorgeVincent,a sociologist who still feltat ease with the languageof social philosophy,offeredthe social forcesso as to formulation: "Social controlis the art of combining Social controlhas an 490). ideal" (p. toward a trend at least givesociety a complexset for to as a shorthand notation servedand continues serve a It has been "sensitizing concept,"in the termiof viewsand viewpoints. in thatof Robert orientation," nologyof HerbertBlumer,or a "theoretical has been directlylinked to the K. Merton. Moreover,social control focuson the studyof total societies.It has stood for a comprehensive and a concernwhichhas cometo be called "macrosociology." nation-state INTELLECTUAL PARAMETERS in the idea of social controlderivesfroma The intellectualinvestment of self-interest theories.Social controlhas been an economic rejection that the individualisticpursuitof outlook held that expressionof the for can account neithercollectivesocial behavior economicself-interest nor the existenceof a social orderand does not supplyan adequate basis for the achievementof ethicalgoals. Much of the writingabout social to accept the relevance controlmustbe understoodas sociologists'efforts 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology of marginal-utility butat thesame timeto identify thelimitations analysis. In formalterms,one can thinkof social organization, thesubjectmatter of sociology,as thepatternsof influencein a populationof social groups. Social control,therefore, is not to be conceivedas beingthe same as social organization;it is insteada perspectivewhichfocuseson the capacityof a socialorganization to regulateitself;and thiscapacitygenerallyimpliesa set of goals ratherthana singlegoal. Social controlis a perspective which, whilecommitted to rigoroushypothesis testing,requiresthe explicationof a value position. Social controlwas not originallyand subsequentlyhas not been necessarily the expressionof a conservativepolitical outlook. Many early Americansociologistswho used the termwerereligioussocialists;others wereadherents ofa "progressive" view.It is moreto thepointto emphasize that theseearly formulations parallelsociologists'contemporary interests in "value maximization."While social controlinvolvesthe capacity of constituent groupsin a societyto behavein termsof theiracknowledged moraland collectivegoals,it does not implyculturalrelativism. The term has continuity becausesocialcontrolcan be conceivedas restingon a value commitment to at least to two elements:the reductionof coercion,althoughit recognizesthe irreducibleelementsof coercionin a legitimate systemof authority,and the eliminationof human misery,althoughit recognizesthe persistenceof some degreeof inequality.One should also mentiona thirdelement:a commitment to procedures of redefining societal goals in orderto enhancethe role of rationality, althoughthis may be consideredinherentin the firsttwo. The oppositeof social controlcan be thoughtof as coercivecontrol,that is, the social organizationof a societywhichrestspredominantly and essentiallyon force-the threatand theuse of force.Of course,even in the mostrepressive totalitarian nation-state theagentsof repression are limited in scope by someprimitive, if unstable,set of norms.However,and more pertinent to theissue at hand,any social order,includinga societywitha relativelyeffective systemof social control,will requirean elementof coercion,butpresumably a limitedone circumscribed by a systemof legitimatenorms.2 Thereis no doubtthatearlysociologists in theUnitedStateswerevague about theirsocial goals and theirnotionsof the "ideal." Frequently,the ideal theyoffered was no betterdefinedthanas thespontaneously emergent and spontaneously acceptedconsensus.At times,theywereno morespecific 2 Personal control is the psychologicaland personalitycounterpartof social control. The formerfocuses on a person's capacity to channel his energiesand to satisfyhis needs while minimizingdisruption and damage to himself or others. It implies mastery over one's psychologicalenvironmentand encompasses those psychological conditionsthat enhance rationality(Bettelheimand Janowitz 1964). 84 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control thanto assertthattheideal referred to normsthatwererationallyaccepted and internationalized in contrastwiththe conditionsof coercivecontrols. Sociologistshave becomemuch morespecificabout the goals theywish to see maximizedand thereforefar morepreciseabout the analysisof different patternsand mechanisms of social control. Obviously,thereare a varietyof typesand mechanisms of social control. Each is the resultof particularantecedentvariablesand, in turn,each formhas a different impacton social behavior.The taskof empiricalsocial researchis to investigatethe formsand consequencesof social control.In essence,thismeansansweringthe hypothetical question,Whichformsof social controlare most effective, that is, whichenable a social groupto regulateitselfin termsof a set of legitimatemoralprinciplesand resultin the reductionof coercivecontrol?3 This perspective explicitlynegatesthe assertionthatsocial organization per se repressespersonality,social creativity,and collectiveproblem solving.In the simplestterms,social controlis not the achievementof collectivestability.The vital residueof the classical standpointis that socialcontrolorganizesthecleavages,strains,and tensionsof any societypeasant,industrial,or advanced industrial.The problemis whetherthe processesof socialcontrolare able to maintainthesocial orderwhiletransformation and social changetake place. There is no questionthat,from thispointof view,thereis a parallelbetweensocial controland stability or repression. The argument thatis relevanthereis just theopposite:social control,to theextentthatit is effective, "motivates"social groups.All this seemspainfullyobvious; but one purposeof a theoretical orientation is to make theobviousinescapable. Explorationof theidea of socialcontrolrequiresone to recognizethatits emergencewas part of a continuingcritiqueof and responseto the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft model. Under the influenceof philosophical pragmatism and the impactof empiricalresearch,the dichotomouscategoriesof Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft werefoundto be both oversimplified and inadequate(Tonnies 1887). I speak not onlyof FerdinandTonnies's exposition butalso of thestreamofparallelor relatedwriters. Theseinclude Henry Maine (status and contract),1tmileDurkheim(mechanicaland organic solidarity), Charles Horton Cooley (primary and secondary groups),RobertRedfield(folk cultureand urban culture),Louis Wirth (urbanismas a way of life), Ralph Linton (ascriptionand achievement), and Talcott Parsons (patternvariables) (Maine 1861; Durkheim1893; Cooley 1909; Redfield1947; Wirth1938; Linton1936; Parsons1951). 3 In the contemporaryperiod, Amitai Etzioni definescontrol in a fashion similar to the classic orientationfound in social control. "Control-the process of specifying preferredstates of affairsand revisingongoing processesto reduce the distance from thesepreferredstates." His theoreticalmodel is derivedfromcybernetics(1968, p. 668). 85 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology have had a powerful The convergingelementsof these formulations impacton sociologicaltheoryand analysis.At the same time,thereis a ofthewritings ofTonniesand thosewhohave followed tradition ofcriticism his formulations that is almost as long standingand enduringas the model itself.Amongthe Europeansociologists Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft are GeorgSimmel(1922), whohave dissentedfromTonnies'sorientation HermanSchmalenbach(1961), Theodor Geiger(1926, 1963), and Rene Koenig (1955). The accumulatedempiricalevidencefromanthropological indicatesthatpeasant and sociologicalsourceswitha historicalperspective entities,as T,unniesused the term. societiesare not whollyGemeinschaft The inabilityof themodelto accountforthevarietyof solidarycollectivitiesthatemergein advancedindustrialsocietiesis equallynoteworthy. approachis not Much of the criticism of the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft Instead, an effort to rejectits centralconcernwithsocietaltransformation.4 it is an attemptto recasttheapproachto makeit effectively applicableto theanalysisof the alternativehistoricalpathsby whichsocietieshave beto think if notimpossible, It is difficult, comeurbanizedand industrialized. of the emergenceof modernsocietyin termsof an "evolutionary"transinto"society"thatis the resultof a limited formation from"community" numberof basic variablesand a linearmodelof social changeand societal Thus, the criticismhas had the consequenceof freeing transformation. its conceptual and refashioning themodelfromits historicalmythography dimensions and variablesinto testablehypotheses. and elaboAs a result,thenotionof social controlhas been formulated change to problems of social ratedto providea moreadequate approach and socialorder.Sociologicaltheoriesof thesocialordertherebyhave come to rejecttheassertionthat the Gemeinschaft aspectsof societalstructure are only residuesof some previousstage of social organizationwhile the Gesellschaftdimensionsconstitutethe realityof industrialand urban society.Instead,social organizationencompasses,at any givenhistorical and moment,essentialand elaborated elementsof both Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft in varyingscope,intensity, and consequence.The analysisof social controlis an analysisof the interplayof thosevariableswhichcan attributes. Moreover,the and Gesellschaft be relatedto bothGemeinschaft conceptof social controlis directlylinkedto the notionof voluntaristic action, to articulatedhuman purposeand actions-that is, to various schemesof means and ends. Thereforeit is designedto avoid the over4 Robert A. Nisbet is representativeof those sociological theoristswho are aware of the centralityof the concepts of Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft in contemporaryresearch and emphasize the necessityof departing from the original mechanisticand linear model of change. He writes,"A relationshipthat begins as a Gesellschafttype may in time become increasinglycharacterizedby Gemeinschaftrelationshipsamong members" (1970, p. 107). 86 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control deterministic sociologywhichhas cometo be inherent in theGemeinschaftGesellschaft model.Social controlpresentsa formatof influence based on the notionof interactionand mutual (two-way) relationsamong social groups.To speak of mutualinfluenceis hardlyto deny the elementsof inequalityand imbalancein social relations. Sociologistswho have used the conceptof social controlhave in effect beenfollowing theintellectual lead of AugusteComte,forwhomthecentral problemof sociologicalanalysiswas the impactof industrialization on the social orderand the consequencesof the resultingindividualismon the moralorder.Obviously,the classic writers,includingKarl Marx, Rmile Durkheim,and Max Weber,addressedthemselvesto the issues Comte raised. One can translatemuchof the corpusof sociologicalwritingon macrosociology into the languageof the social controlframework, but to do so wouldobscureratherthanclarifytheissuesinvolved.It is preferable to focus directlyon that distinctsociologicalstreamwhich in varying degreemakesexplicituse of the idea of social control.Thoughmainlyan Americanstream,it is influenced by and in turnhas influenced European thoughtand research.It presentsbotha unityand a continuing elaboration. First,theoriginalwritersand,in time,thesubsequentones as well have manifested a philosophical outlookconcernedwiththelimitsof rationality in pursuingsocial and moralaims.Theiroutlookhas reflected pragmatism in themajorityof thewriters, but forsomeit also has includedaspectsof phenomenology. An essentialelementof thisorientation has beentherejectionor,rather,theavoidanceof eitheridealismor materialism. Second,the adherentsof social controlhave been concernedwith informal,face-to-face relationsas aspects of social structure.In contemporarylanguage,theyhave been preoccupiedwiththe interfacebetween micro-and macroanalysis. Third,the styleof thesesociologistshas been one of persistentconcern withempiricalexploration of theirideas. Theyhave beenself-critical about appropriateempiricaltechniques,continuallyin search of various types of documentation and data, and fullyawareof thecomplexities and elusive characterof proofin sociology. Therefore thereis a directlineofintellectual continuity fromtheearliest efforts to formulate the componentelementsof social controlto its usage by contemporary researchsociologistsawareof its intellectualbackground and theoretical purpose.The concepthardlyimpliesthatthesubjectmatter of sociologyis the "adjustment"of men to existingsocial reality;on the sinceits earlyuse, the thrustof thisstreamof sociologicaldiscontrary, coursehas been to focuson efforts of mento realizetheircollectivegoals. The continuity betweenthe earlywriterson social controland particular in contemporary efforts researchis manifested in such worksas the penetratingresearchon juveniledelinquencyby AlbertJ. Reiss, Jr. (1951). 87 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology his operationalmeasuresin termsof social control,he Conceptualizing refersto it as "the abilityof social groupsor institutions to make norms or ruleseffective." Likewise,there is a continuitybetweenthe early analysis of social controlthat includedthe study of social and political movements-the processesof revolution, protest,and institution building-as describedin interest the seminalstudyby LyfordEdwards (1927) and contemporary in collectivebehavior.5Thus, the theoreticaland empiricaltasks of sociologistswho use the social controlorientation have been and continueto be to identifyand whereverpossible to quantifythe magnitudeof the variableswhichfacilitateor hinderthe grouppursuitof collectivemoral goals. The pioneersociologistswho thoughtin termsof social controlworked on specificempiricaltopics and in time applied theireffortsto a very broad rangeof topicsin the registerof social research.Initiallytheydid tend to focuson macrosociological issues,such as law and the formation of legal codes,theemergence ofpublicopinionand collectivebehavior,and informaland mass media of communication, as well as "traditional"elements,such as customs,"mores,"and religion.Louis Wirth,an articulate spokesmanfor this intellectualtradition,assertedthe centralityof the processesof "persuasion,discussion,debate,education,negotiation, parliamentaryprocedure,diplomacy,bargaining, adjudication,contractualrelations,and compromise." For him,theseprocesseshad to serveas themeans forarrivingat a sufficient degreeof agreementto make the ongoinglife of a societypossible,despitedifferences in interests(1948, pp. 31-32). At thispoint,an important caveat mustbe entered.Much of theempirical and substantivewritingsabout social controldeals with normsand normativebehavior.Norms are often used as the indicatorsof social control-thedependentvariables,so to speak. But social controldoes not reston an exclusively normative conceptionof elementsof social organizationand society.As will be demonstrated, it did not do so originallyand cannotnow if it is to serveas a guide to empiricalresearchand to the codification of researchfindings. On thecontrary, the continuing relevance of social controltheoryreflects the factthatits assumptions and variables incorporate theecological,technological, economic,and institutional dimensionsof social organization. EARLY USAGE OF SOCIAL CONTROL The term"social control"firstfigures prominently in thewritings of E. A. Ross, who was stronglyinfluencedby GabrielTarde, a sociologistwith 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. 5 88 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control powerful insights intoFrenchsocietyand deeplyinvolvedin empiricalsocial research(Clark 1969). Tarde himselfdid not emphasizethe term,but he did presenta broadlyranginganalysisof the complexprocessesrequired to producesocial agreementthroughmass persuasion.He was concerned leadershipand legislawiththemechanismsrequiredto generateeffective tionwhichwouldregulatesocial change. While workingat StanfordUniversityin 1894, Ross decided that the idea of social controlwas a "key that unlocksmany doors"; that is, it whichconcernedhim.6 servedas a notionto bridgethevariousinstitutions Againand again,he used theconceptto explainhow men"live closelytowe see about withthatdegreeof harmony getherand associatetheirefforts us." Basically,Ross was concernedwiththe social conditionsthatcreated of the harmony.Much of his writingconsistedof detailed descriptions mechanismsof social control.While he was fullyaware of the coercive both elementsin industrialsociety,he focusedon thedevicesofpersuasion, He was impressedwiththeextentto which interpersonal and institutional. persuasionas well as manipulationwas operative.His analysis encominteractionand sociabilityand those passed the processesof face-to-face of publicopinionand legal control.However,he was interested not merely in devicesof persuasionbut also in a genericconceptionof societythat wouldexplainthosedeviceswhichoperateto "finda meansof guidingthe willor conscienceof theindividualmembers ofsociety"(Ross 1901,p. 59). His usageof social controlbroughtthistermintothecenterof sociological inquiry,but it remainedforothersociologiststo use the idea morerigorouslyand to enrichits intellectualrelevance. During the foundingperiod of sociologyin the United States, two majorfigures-CharlesHortonCooleyand W. I. Thomas-gave centrality to social controland its relationto rationalcontrolin theirwritings. There were strongelementsof convergencein theirinterests,but the Cooley was a moresystematicand coherent differences wereimportant.7 thinkerthan Ross, and his approachto social controlwas based on a He drovedirectlyto his mainpreoccupathoughtful, normative orientation. tion,which reflectedthe pervasiveinfluenceof pragmatismamong the sociologists of thatperiod.8 6 Ross (1936, p. 56) noted that Herbert Spencer had employed the word "control" in 1892 in his Principles of Sociology, vol. 2, pt. 4. While Spencer did not give it centralimportancein his analysis,his usage undoubtedlywas an influenceon Ross. In addition,see Borgatta and Meyer (1959). 7 William G. Sumnernevermade explicituse of the term"social control,"yet, because of the issues raised in his Folkways (1906), his name is linked to this concept.Sumner defined"folkways"as habits and customswhich serve as the basis for the "regulation and imperative"for succeedinggenerations. 8 In 1911, L. L. Bernard published his treatise on social control which contained a 89 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology His approach,of course,restson an interactional socialphilosophy which he helped to develop.Social controlwas essentialfor the growthof the selfthroughtheprocessof interaction. Likewise,it restedto an important degreeon self-control. Cooleyused thenotionof theprimarygroup-faceto-facerelations-buthe had fewconstructions fordealingwiththe internalizationof norms,althoughhe assertedthat"individuality" was a crucial elementforeffective and meaningful social control. However,he was a powerfulthinkerbecause he struggledto relatehis interactional approachto the largersociety.Cooley'slinkwiththe classic questionof social orderand his outlookon social controlunderconditions of industrialization are summarizedin his chapter,"Social Controlin International Relations."In his words,"A ripenationalityis favorableto international orderforthesame reasonsthata ripeindividuality is favorable to orderin a small group.It means that we have coherent,selfconsciousand moreor less self-controlled elementsout of whichto build our system[of nations]" (1920). Thomasapproachedsocial controlfroma different but relatedprinciple of pragmaticphilosophy.In his view,the essentialissue forbothsociologistsand personsin publicand socialaffairs was to increasetheimportance and effectiveness of "rationalcontrolin social life." Open mindedly-and in a senseparadoxically-likemanyEuropeansociologists, Thomas raised the questionof the impactof rationalthoughtin weakeningthe social fabricofsociety."We are less and less readyto let anysocialprocessgo on withoutouractiveinterference and we feelmoreand moredissatisfied with any active interference based upon a merewhimof an individualor a socialbody,or uponpreconceived philosophical, religious, or moralgeneralization" (Thomas and Znaniecki1918-20, 1:1; Janowitz1966,p. 37). Unlike Cooley,Thomas was trainedin classical literatureand history, and he developedan interestin the comparativesociologicalstudy of specificculturesand societies.He was fullyaware of the writingsof Tonnies,whoseformulation he rejectedbecauseof its simpleevolutionary bias, its failureto describeadequatelyeitherpeasant societyor modern social organization, and particularly its impliedhostilityto individualfreedomand creativity. Thomasoffered no singleset of determinant causes of socialchange,althoughhe was clearlythemostsystematic of the founding sociologistsconcernedwith social control.Thomas had a comprehensive outlooktowardthe dimensionsof social organizationand social control. He offered a highlydifferentiated orientation whichsoughtto incorporate variablesreflecting into his analysisof ecology,economy,and technology social control.His orientation, of necessity, suffered becauseof eclecticism. sociological critique of utilitarianphilosophy.These themes were later emphasized in sociological analysis as part of the "theoryof action." 90 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control He saw societyin institutional termsas consistingof a set of irreducible social groups, from primarygroups to complex bureaucraticstructures.Social controldependedon effective linkageor articulationamong theseelements;social disorganization resultedfromtheirdisarticulation. WhileRosswas stimulated by Tarde to proposetheterm"socialcontrol," in fashioning the thewritings of GeorgSimmelwereimportant ingredients outlooksofW. I. Thomasand,later,RobertE. Park,bothofwhompressed to developan empiricalbase foranalysisof social controlin the urban metropolis.In his classic article,"The Mental Life of the Metropolis," Simmeldemonstrated his resistanceto the categoriesderivedfromthe Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft model (1903). He was, rather,concernedwith thechangingand alternativebases of grouplife.He did not conceptualize individuality as inherently self-destructive or destructive of social control. The analysisof individuality had to includethe possibilitiesof formsof autonomyand personalfreedom(Levine 1971). Simmel'swritingsdid not expressany existingphilosophyof history. In fact,theyarticulatedwiththe orientation of Americansociologistsof thepragmaticpersuasion.In particular,Simmeldid not concludethatthe complexity ofmodernsocietyanditsrangeofgroupaffiliations automatically or that it was necessarilydisintegrative. impliedthe loss of individuality His "Die Kreuzungsozialer Kreise," translatedby ReinhardBendix as "The Web of GroupAffiliations," arguesthe opposite.In effect, each new him more group to which a person becomes affiliated"circumscribes" exactlyand moreunambiguously(Simmel 1955, pp. 140-41). In other words,as a personbecomesaffiliated with a social group,he surrenders himselfto it. However,the largerthe numberof groupsto which the individualbelongs,the moreunlikelyor improbableit will be that other personswill exhibitthe same combination of groupaffiliations. Therefore, "the personalso regainshis individuality because his patternof participationis unique." In essence,Simmelrejectedthe assertionthatpartcipation engenderedonly social constraintand conformity or, alternatively, individualityresultedonly fromwithdrawal.He held that individuality was theresultof a patternofsocialparticipation and theoutcomeofspecific typesof social control. The centralthemesof Durkheim'swritings convergewiththe earlyformulationof social controland are thusa relatedaspectof the intellectual historyoftheconception. He did notuse thetermor an equivalentformulation.But hispersistent searchforthe"determination of moralfacts"is his versionof theproblematic issue involvedin social control;thisis perhaps mostclearlyseenin Sociologieet philosophie(1924). Moreover,his empirical study,Suicide (1897), has come to supplythe link betweenhis work and thesubsequentgenerations ofwritersconcernedwithsocialcontrol. Obviously,one cannotoverlookthe existenceof a body of literature 91 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology criticizingDurkheimforhis failureto offeran effective analysisof the internalization of the normson which he rests his analysis. Likewise, Durkheim'sframework has not servedas a contribution to criticalevaluation of the Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft themesin sociologybut has, in into this dominantperspective.While his work effect,been incorporated has been an importantstimulusto empiricalresearch,in contrastto the mainbodyof wrtingon social controlas it has subsequently emerged,his orientation has presenteda relativelyoverdeterministic frameof reference withonlylimitedexplorationof the voluntaristic elementsin the "moral order." DIFFUSION OF THE CONCEPT By 1920, the term"social control"had emergedin the UnitedStates as representing a centraltheoreticalthrustby whichsociologistssoughtto integratetheirsubstantiveand empiricalinterests.For the next20 years, whilesociologywas becominginstitutionalized as an academicdiscipline, the writingsof both RobertE. Park and RobertM. MacIver-although theywereextremely different thinkers-served to maintainthenotionthat social controlis a device forintegrating diverseelementsof sociological analysis. Social controlwas used as the organizingthemeof the nationalconventionof the AmericanSociologicalAssociationin 1917. There a wide rangeof empiricaltopicswereexplored,suchas childwelfare,immigration, labor relations,and economicorganization.The papers presentedmade striking efforts to be explicitin evaluatingthe effectiveness of elementsin the processof social control(Bedford 1918). In 1921, RobertE. Park to and ErnestW. Burgessassessedthe state of sociology,in Introduction theScienceof Sociology,by asserting:"All social problemsturnout to be problemsof social control"(p. 785). In contemporary language,social controlis the outcome,in variousformsand content,of social organization.It is theconstruct whichhelpsto relateand interrelate thedependent variablesof empiricalresearch.Moreover,since theylinkedsocial control to socialproblems, sociologists of thatperiodsaw it as a vehicleforjoining sociologicalanalysisto issues of social policyand fordealingwithissues of deviance. To understand thefullconnotations of social controlin thatintellectual setting,one has only to turnto its references Social and cross-references. controlpointedlyencompassed law and leadership, keyelementsforunderstandinghowsocietyregulatesitself.In thePark and Burgessvolume,the listof cross-references evenincludedtheword"participation";theexplication of this cross-reference was based on an analysisof the "immigrant problem"viewedas a problemin lack of participation(p. 766). 92 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control Sociologistsof thisperioddid not perceivesocial controlas a mechanism of conformity. Societydid not and could not existon the basis of conformity but requiredactive elementsof collectiveproblemsolving.Nor did theexplicitphilosophicalpreferences of thesesociologistspermitthem to equate social controlwithconformity. Social controlraisedthequestion of how societyregulateditselfand changed.In reply,Park and Burgess postulateda sequenceor "naturalhistory"of collectivebehaviorthatwas rootedin conflict and fromwhichfewformsof social controlcouldemerge. "Social controland themutualsubordination of individualmembersto the community have theiroriginin conflict, assume definiteorganizedforms in theprocessof accommodation, and are consolidatedand fixedin assimilation"(Park and Burgess1921,p. 785). As Ralph Turnerhas asserted,Park's explicationof social controldrew on analogiesfromthecompetitive processesof ecology,to whichhe added thoseformsof social communication that constrainedthe ecologicalprocesses (Turner1967). He posed a formulation of theunderlying processes of social controlthat fusedecological,institutional, and normativevariables. "Competitionand communication, althoughtheyperform divergent and uncoordinated social functions, nevertheless in theactuallifeof society supplement and completeeach other.Competition seemsto be theprinciple of individuation in the lifeof the personand of society-communication, on the otherhand, operatesprimarilyas an integrating and socializing principle"(Park 1950, p. 43; 1952, pp. 240-62). He went on to argue thattheinitialconsequenceof new formsof communication is to intensify competition.However,"in the long run," improvedcommunication can contribute"to humanizesocial relationsand to substitutea moralorder forone thatis fundamentally symbioticratherthan social." In contrast,RobertM. MacIver's interestin politicaltheoryand the roleof thestateled to hisproducing workswhichbroughtthedimension of coercion,especiallylegitimateforce,into social controlin a fashionthat paralleledMax Weber'sorientation. For Maclver, an elementof coercion was involvedin socialcontrol;theproblematic issuesweretheamountand theminimization of coercion. Maclveracceptedtheidea thatsocial controlwas themodernequivalent of the classic issue of social order.Social controlmeantboth elements: the institutional mechanismsby which societyregulatedindividualbehavior and the "way in whichpatternedand standardizedbehaviorin turnservesto maintainthe social organization"(MacIver and Page 1949, p. 137). One strikingavenue he investigatedwas social controlin 19thcenturyutopiancommunities in the UnitedStates.MacIver was searching forhypothetical equivalentsof existingpatternsof social controland was in the capacityof purposefully particularly interested constructed utopian communities to adapt to social changeand to engagein collectiveproblem 93 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology solving.Reflecting his frameof reference, he concludedthat,because the social organization of thesecommunities permitted verylimited,or insufficient, individualization,they were incompletesocieties and therefore a veryhighrateof "mortality."9 suffered During the 1920s and early 1930s, the term"social control"supplied an essentialbridgeto the influential workof institutional economists.In the United States, such economistsincluded ThorsteinVeblen, John Maurice Clark, Wesley C. Mitchell,and Walton H. Hamilton.10They believedthatthemechanisms of themarketplace and competition supplied an essentialbut only partial basis forunderstanding economicbehavior. Clark,in Social ControlofBusiness,presentedthecoreof theinstitutional economists'effort to make use of the sociologicalnotionof social control (1926). He was firmly committed to the centrality of effective utilization of marketmechanismsforallocatingresources.However,it was clear to him that the basic structure of modernsocietydoes not restin the competitiveeconomicprocess.Societyrequiresa set of informaland formal In effect, normswhichhighlight"cooperative"arrangements. he rejected as derived thenotionof countervailing power-of society-wide organization fromthe competition of large-scaleor different typesof economicorganizations. Instead, he assertedthat the governmental system-legislative and legal-supplies the framework for the cooperativeelementsof the moderneconomicsystem. Comparableto thelinkageof socialcontrolwitheconomicswas thework of "realist"scholarsin law,politics,and psychology. The mostoutstanding writerin the sociologyof law was Roscoe Pound,whose 1942 studyof Social Control throughLaw anticipatedcontemporary approaches.In politicalscience,CharlesE. Merriammade use of the social controlconcept in empiricalresearchinto political and governmental institutions (1936). Duringthisperiod,anothervigorousintellectualcurrentthatfed the concernwithsocial controlderivedfromthe writings of Mary Parker Follett,the psychologistof administration. She was groping,with profoundinsight,towarda sociologicalformulation of administrative control thatwouldencompasstheessentialelementsof the social process,and she brokewiththeviewof administration as a systemof constraints. "We get controlthrougheffective integration. Authorityshould arise withinthe unifying process.As everylivingprocessis subject to its own authority, 9 Other sociologistswho pursued the analytic aspects of social control before 1940 include Kimball Young (1934), Paul Landis (1939), and L. L. Bernard (1937). 10These institutionaleconomistsconstituteda body of scholars with sociological interestwho produced,for more than two decades, importantresearchon industrialand economic organization.With the decline of the industrial school of economists,sociologistsunfortunatelyhave failed to incorporatefully the topics of social control of economic and industriallife in their domain. 94 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control evolvedby or involvedin theprocessitself,so social thatis, theauthority controlis generatedby the processitself.Or rather,the activityof selfactivity"(Follett 1941, p. 204; see creatingcoherenceis the controlling also Pigors1935). By the 1930s, the Americansociologists'theoreticaland empirical concernswith social controlhad begun to have a discernibleimpacton European thought.Karl Mannheim followedthe Americanliterature In his elaborate closely and servedas a focal point of interpretation. (1940), Mannheim treatise,Man and Societyin an Age of Reconstruction madesocialcontrola centralpointof departureforhis analysis.Interested in politicalsociology,he introducedand focusedattentionon the role of in theprocessesof social controlin an advanced institutions parliamentary industrialsociety.For him,freedomwas a particulartypeand qualityof if social plansocial control;it was requiredunderadvancedindustrialism rule.He believedthat the ningwerenot to degenerateinto authoritarian had, in turn,to reston vigorous processesof social control,to be effective, of Max Weber,he sought Underthe influence institutions. parliamentary of social structure to analyze,in the broadestterms,the transformation the shiftthat he saw toward and authorityrelations,and he highlighted profound strainson social control. withtheconcomitant indirectauthority the detailed in the extentto whichhe incorporated His workwas striking findingsof empiricalsociologicalresearchon Americansocial structure. for incorpoIn essence,Mannheimpreparedthe intellectualgroundwork ratingpoliticalsociologyand the analysisof mass societyinto the study of socialcontrol. CONCEPTUAL CONTINUITY in termof reference Although"social control"persistedas a coordinating and narrowmeaningof Americansociologythrough1940, the constricted of social thetermwas alreadycomingintoforce.The alternateformulation was beingpostucontrolas a processof socializationleadingto conformity This trend social psychologists. who called themselves lated by sociologists becomesevidentwhenone examines,not the theoreticaltreatisesof the and journalarticlesconcerned period,butthetitlesof doctoraldissertations and mass. interpersonal withsocializationand theprocessof persuasion, or apparentshift? How does one accountforthis transformation First,the factthat thereis a naturalhistoryof sociologicalideas may broad a partialexplanation.Undertheimpactof empiricalresearch, afford conceptionsthat have servedas sourcesof stimulationbecomeconverted in timeintomorespecificand delimitedtopicsof research.Howeverconvincingin itself,this is hardlyan adequate explanation.Review of the literatureand interviewswith figuresactive duringthis period do not 95 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology permittheconclusionthatthe diffuseness and shortcomings of the idea of social control-and thereare many-accountfortheapparenttransformation.It is necessaryto consideradditionalfactors. Second,thepoweranalysisand modifiedversionsof economicdeterminism derivedfromthewritings of Karl Marx had the unanticipated consequence of weakeninga concernwith the voluntaristicand purposeful processofmodifying thesocialorder.This occurredduringtheGreatDepression and the New Deal, whichcreatedideologicaland politicalcurrents that impingedon sociologyin a fashioncomparablewith the eventsof the 1960sand made theidea of socialcontrolor any equivalentunpopular. The resultwas an oversimplified focuson powerand powerrelationsand on uncriticalacceptanceof the notionof mass society.To speak of social controlwas perceivedas impedingthosesocial and economicchangesthat membersof the sociologicalprofession consideredessential. As a result,aftertheinterruption in academiclifeduringWorldWar II, thesubjectmatterof socialcontrolcame to reflectincreasingly thespecialized interests of sociologists concernedwithresearchon institutions dealing withsocializationand resocialization, suchas thementalhospitalor school."' The researchtopicscoveredunder"social control,"at the nationaland regionalmeetingsand in journal and monographpublications,show that in an evertheprocessesof social controlin thesetermswereinvestigated wideningrangeof institutional settings.Paradoxically,the relevanceof theseempiricalresearchesrestedin theirfindings, whichmightwell have been anticipated,concerningthe limitationsof dominantleaders and in enforcing organization administrators normsand thecapacityofinformal groupsto modifynormsor participatein redirecting goals. Even in the narrowinvestigation of the enforcement of norms,such sociologistsand social psychologists were forcedto recognizethe requirements of institutionallife and the societalorder.They soughtto deal withbasic issues, relabeling"social control"as "social regulation"(Cummings1968). The narrowdelimitation of social controlas the processof social conformity, althoughwidelyused in sociologicalresearch,did not and could not displacethe classicalusage of the concept.Since 1945 the latter,with its broad and fundamental import,has continuedto appear and reappear 11 Of course, it would be an error to conclude that the narrow social-psychological definitionof social control as conformitywas accepted by all social psychologistsof eitherthe psychologicalor the sociologicalpersuasion.A varietyof social psychologists concernedwith social values resisted.Withouteffectivereferenceto the previous 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 controlprovidessome safeguardagainst the concept of control by a superman,for either good or evil purposes. This is the fact that control is always a mutual affair" (p. 1). See also the penetratingformulationby Litwak (1956, pp. 217-23). 96 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control withpersistence and vitalityin thewritings of certainsociologists. Clearly, the new relianceon biologicaland electronicanalogieshas not completely obsoletethistraditional lineofsociologicalthinking.'2 displacedor rendered Any reviewof the continuity and vitalityof the idea of social control mustaccordan importantplace to the writingsand researchof Everett Hughesand his students.As thepost-WorldWar II expansionof academic sociologywas starting, Hughespublishedhis influential essay"Institutions" (1946). For him,one centralissue of social controlwas the socialization and the organizationof occupational,especially professional,groups. Hughes'stheoreticaland empiricalwritingsstimulateda crucialbody of literature analyzingand assessingprocessesof regulation and self-regulation of skilledgroupsin modernsociety.'3 In particular,the reHughes drewon currentsin social anthropology. servedto searchof specificBritishand Americansocial anthropologists reinforce the interestof studentsof social controlin intensivefieldwork duringa periodwhenthe emerging trendin sociologywas towardsurvey researchmethodology. Anthropologists seekingto use theconceptof social controlto integratetheirethnographic materialsand maintainlinkages with the intellectualtraditionsof sociologyby this approach included RaymondFirth (1951), S. F. Nadel (1953, 1957), J. S. Slotkin(1950), and JackGoody(1957). The post-WorldWar II functionalist maintaineda concernwith and orientation towardsocialcontrol.Throughout thebodyofTalcottParsons's writing, thereis a centralfocuson theessentialelementsof a social order. His explicitinterestin thesocial controlconceptderivedfromhis explication of 1EmileDurkheim.In The Structureof Social Action (1937), he assertedthat Durkheim"not onlygainedgreatinsightinto the natureof socialcontrol, butalso intotheroleand importance of moralconformity."'14 In The Social System(1951), the analysisof social controlfiguresmore prominently as a core elementin his explanationof the patterningof deviantbehavior.Parsons'swritingshave had a stronginfluenceon the studiesof deviancemade by a varietyof empiricalresearchsociologists.15 12 For an interesting treatiseon continuitiesin the use of the social control concept, see Richard T. LaPiere (1954). 13 Hughes's interestin social controlis to be found implicitlyin the works of Erving Goffman,Anselm Strauss,and Howard Becker. 14 Parsons's analysisseeks to assess the contributions-plustheirdegreeof convergence -of a variety of classical sociologiststo the extension and reformulationof basic questions of the social order. Thus this volume is a key resourcein the intellectual historyof sociology and the issues involved in social control. In a very compact fashion,Percy Cohen has reviewed these linkages,and his effortmakes possible the conclusion that "modern sociology" has, in effect,abandoned the older question of how societyemergedand concentrateson that of how the social order persists (1968, especiallychap. 2). 15 While a great deal of the writingand research on deviance came to reflectthe 97 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology In theworkof a numberof Parsons'sstudents,theissueof social control continueto be explicated.In Human Society,KingsleyDavis joined his conceptionof functionalism to the idea of social control."It is through them [social controls]that humansocietyregulatesthe behaviorof its membersin such ways that they performactivitiesfulfilling societal needs-even, sometimes, at the expenseof organicneeds" (1948, p. 52). He focusedon institutional arrangements for regulationand controlby pointedlycomparingthe mechanismsof social control in totalitarian societieswith those in the multiparty states of the West. Likewise,the socialcontrolof sciencehas beenused to focusattentionbothon theconditionsunderwhichsciencedevelopsand on the social and politicalconsequencesof scientific knowledge.BernardBarber,in Scienceand theSocial Order(1952), has probedthe directinvolvement of scientistsin wartime researchand the new orientations towardtheirsocial responsibility that have emerged. The continuing impactof theissuesof socialorderwas to be found,after 1945,amonga groupof sociologists concernedwithmacrosociology. It was to be expectedthatReinhardBendixand BennettBergerwoulddisplaya strongconcernwiththeseissuesand theconditions underwhichsocialorder is maintained.Followingdirectlyon Simmel'sformulations, theypostulate alternative in a fashionthatconverges consequencesof groupparticipation withtraditional notionsof social control.They emphasizethatsocialparticipationin its genericformproducesmorethan "socializing"effects, the centralconcernof empiricalsociologists(Bendix and Berger1959). They also stressthe potentialityof an alternativeset of outcomes,namely, "individualizing"effects, that requiresa carefuland richerlanguageof analysis.The individualizing effects are not at all equated withpersonal anomiebut are at therootof autonomy, creativity, and problemsolvingelementsconsistentwithand to some degreeessentialfor a social order and effective social control. In an alternative way,EdwardShilshas soughtto explicatethe dimension of social order and social controlof a mass society (1962). The essentialtransformation of modernsocietyrestsnot only in its industrial and technological base but also in the effort to incorporatethe "mass of the population"into the society'scentralinstitutional and value systems as a resultof the social and politicalprocessof fundamental democratization,to use Mannheim'sterminology (Mannheim1940). Shils has tried to give a normativedimensionto the ecologicalstructureof the nationstatewithhis emphasison the "center"and the "periphery"(1961). The narrowerand more constrictedview of social control,the followingexpositionsdeal with broad societal issues and therebyreflectearlier formulations:Clark and Gibbs (1965); Gibbs (forthcoming); and Stephenson (1973). 98 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control restsin his use of theword"civility" particularrelevanceof Shils'swritings interaction and social relationsrequiredfor the patterns of to characterize the reductionof coercionand manipulationin the social orderof mass society. that George Homans, beforehis acceptanceof the It is interesting made use of "social psychology, "behavioral"assumptionof conditioning control"in its traditionalmeaning.In this he was stimulatedby Mary of "Social controlis not a separatedepartment ParkerFollett'swritings. grouplife-instead control,to a greateror lesser degree,is inherentin betweenmembersof the group" (Homans 1951, everydayrelationships suppliesthe basis forempiricalinvestigation p. 365). For him,interaction languages" (p. 94). of social controlin "at least two somewhatdifferent of goods,such as Social controlcan be describedin termsof "distribution of highsocial rank." money,and intangiblegoods,such as the enjoyment style,concernedwiththe Moore,Jr.,in a markedlydifferent Barrington asof societies,poses the questiontraditionally historicaltransformation in on Conformity sociatedwithsocial controlin his essay on "Reflections IndustrialSociety" (1958). He considershimselfnot a studentof the abstractprinciplesof the humangroupbut a sociologistof comparative sociopoliticalsystems.For him, social controlinvolves an elementof or unconscious.He feelsthat "in the matureman, repression-conscious we simplycall it self-control" (p. 193). Moore has thusapproachedsocial does an adcontrolfromthe reverseside, namely,how muchconformity vancedindustrialsocietyrequire?First,he is attractedto the idea that, in such a society,moreof "this ancientvirtue"is required,not less. The derivesfromthe fact that the practical societalcontextforself-control by a paradox."Theremaybe lessof theself-control problemis compounded nowimposedby scarcity,"while"a widerrangeof materialopportunities and temptations exerciseof thiscapacity"(p. 193). mayrequirea stronger enough,findstheprimaryneed forconformity Second,Moore,strangely in the arena of culture,whetherbroadlydefined(as by anthropologists) or narrowlydefinedto includeonly certainappreciatedcultural,artistic, thatgenerates and intellectual It is notthearenaof technology attainments. but "the simple fact that the achievementsof the need forconformity and discipline,not only to create thembut humanculturerequireeffort merelyto appreciatethem" (p. 186).'6 This line of reasoningis not an expressionof sociological perversity;instead, it representsMoore's of an advancedindustrialsociety searchforthe requirements thoughtful able to regulateand controlitself. 16 AndrewHacker (1957) has restatedthe issues of contemporary politicalelite theory in termsof social control (see also Cook 1957). 99 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology CONTINUING EXPLICATION In summary,the idea of social controlhas been a centralformulation of sociologyas an intellectualdiscipline. in the originand development have not abandonedtheintellectualheriMoreover,particularsociologists issuesassociatedwiththe idea, fortherecan be no tage and problematic sociologywithouta concernfortheelementsof a socialorder.An inventory to substitutethe language usage indicatesthatthe efforts of contemporary modelsdo not sufficeto of social systemsor of biologicaland cybernetic In fact, WilbertE. Moore has consupplantolder conceptualizations. and behavior,"thatthe "oldof "social structure cluded,in his assessment fashionedsociologicalterm,social control,seems appropriateto revive," of externalcontrolsand individualinternalizato handlethe combination tionof the moralorder(1967, pp. 171-219). The particulartermis not the thathighlights theissue,ofcourse.The issueis theanalyticformulation of societyand and variablesthatmaximizetheself-regulation preconditions whether theyhave therealitiesof socialconstraints, takeintoconsideration theiroriginsin ecological,economic,or normativefactors. I would argue that the idea of social control-in its tradiTherefore, explication-shouldserveas a powerful tionalmeaningand contemporary by thewritings antidoteto the "crisisin sociology"outlookas exemplified of Alvin W. Gouldner,amongothers (Gouldner1970). No doubt some withthecapacityoftheirsociological havebecomedisappointed sociologists process.Othershave becomepersonally endeavorsto alterthesociopolitical withthe styleof life of the teacherin the unifatiguedand discontented versitysetting,and as a resulttheyhave less zeal for theirintellectual tasks. A sociologistwho has enteredhis calling with a belief in the assumptionis certainto face a crisisat somepoint. philosopher-king The phrase"crisisin sociology"mustmean that sociologyis progressivelymoreand moreunable to explainand clarifysocial changein conof sociology thematurity temporary society.Thereis no needto exaggerate and thecumulativecharacterof its researchefforts. Nor is thereany need to overlookthevast amountof marginalresearch.But thepresentstateof sociologyis to be assessednotin termsof thewiderangeof its undertakings but,rather,by the vitalityof relevantstreams-evenif theyare minority a crisis,there mayexperience efforts. whileparticularsociologists Therefore, is no basis forassertingthat thereis a crisisin the intellectualdiscipline. Any"crisis"residesin therealworld.The advancedindustrialnationswith crisesin theirabilityto reguare experiencing institutions parliamentary The intellectual in theirpoliticalinstitutions. particularly late themselves, Fragestellung(posingof the question)linkedto the idea of social control constitutesa relevantstandpointfor 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control of a focuson social controlin its traditionalsense (or The reemergence relabeledvariously,forexample,as "social regulation,"in contemporary language)has theadvantageofbeingable to drawon increasedintellectual amongsociologists.The followingpointsare essential, self-consciousness althoughan adequate explicationof themremainsbeyondthe scope of thispaper and will be presentedin my largerstudy,"Social Controland Macrosociology." First,the social controlperspective,as it has developed,suppliesan appropriatelevel of abstractionforthe studyof social organizationand social change.In fact,the social controlperspectivestandsin contrastto used a highlevel thepost-WorldWar II trend,in whichmuchtheorizing at a more of generality.Originally,social controltheorywas formulated and analytically It requireda set of taxonomic concretelevelofabstraction. categoriesas the basic elementsof analysis. Specifically, differentiated and social class social controlscholarspostulatedthatsocial stratification and social fortheanalysisof social organization wereinsufficient categories and institutional change.There was an explicitconcernwithinstitutions an endsociologistsinvestigated analysis.Underthe rubric"institutions," theirpersonaltastesmorethan a set less rangeof subjectsthat reflected of analyticunitsand objectsof analysis.But fromthe verybeginningof theirempiricalresearch,sociologistsconcernedwith social controlhave beenawareof thenecessityof groupingtheirsubjectmattersin a broader analyticalcategorysystem-but one whichwould not lose sightof the substantivereality. Thus, slowly,the varietyof researchon delinquentgangs,workteams, play groups,and thelike becamemoreand moreexplicitlyfusedinto the of CharlesH. Cooleyand the writings studyof primarygroups,reflecting W. I. Thomas.UnderRobertF. Park's stimulus,the host of analysesof patternsmergedintoa commoninterestin unitsand residential territorial concernswas Anothercore of thesesubject-matter structures. community into the of the studyof specificcorporateinstitutions the transformation underthe influenceof Max Weber analysisof bureaucraticorganizations, institutions, and ChesterBarnard.Fromstudyof a myriadof interesting thatsuchcategoriesas primarygroups,comthereemergedtheperspective wereessentialelements and bureaucraticorganizations munitystructures, and socioeconomic for convertingthe descriptionof social stratification analysisof the "social system"or the nationclass patternsinto effective that had fasciof particularinstitutions state. The randominvestigation has givenway to a morepointedfocuson the natedtheearliersociologists betweenbasic structural"entities."In the effortto avoid interrelations about intoempiricism, thestyleof theorizing or a flight excessivereification social controldevelopedin 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology tasksof socioloto be markedlyviable and appropriateforthe continuing gists. Second,theanalysisof social controlcan be pressedwithmorepointed concernforcausal sequencesin social changein particular,with a more explicitand adequate overviewof the articulationof "social structure" Sociologicalanalysisis only slowlycomingto and politicalinstitutions. gripswiththe crisisof politicallegitimacythat constitutesthe key probin thosenations lematicissue in advancedindustrialsociety,particularly institutions. parliamentary withmultiparty of social controlwas a defectof the earlyformulations The noteworthy viewpointthat saw political institutionsas derivativefromthe social were thoughtto be system,almostas if politicalinstitutions stratification of politicalsociologysincethe 1920shas The contribution epiphenomenal. only partiallyovercomethis defect.As sociologistshave progressively soughtto articulatethe relationsbetweensocial structureand political theyhave emphasizedthe causal priorityof the elementsof institutions, Theyhave perceivedpoliticsand "politicalconflict"as social stratification. ratherthan augof the underlyingsocial stratification manifestations associframework mentingtheirapproachto politicswithan institutional have been atedwiththeidea of socialcontrol(Janowitz1970). Sociologists in the mode of Robert stratification, interestedin describingcommunity patterns, and Helen Lynd's Middletown(1929), or nationalstratification by meansof thenationalsurveysample,in orderto tracetheconsequences of thesehierarchiesforpoliticalcontrol.In theirview, politicsis mass especiallyelectoralbehavior.The causal patternhas politicalparticipation, to economic,and occupationalstructures ecological, underlying from been political mass fashion which interests of group set to a social strata participation. Sociologistshave yet to explore adequately the implicationsof an approachto the politicalprocess.No doubt the sociological institutional on politics,that perspective traditioncontainsexamplesof an institutional source an independent constitute thatpoliticalinstitutions is, theviewpoint But structure. of societal change and an elementfor fashioningsocial have includingthoseattachedto thesocial controlperspective, sociologists, ofsuchan assertion. implications thecomprehensive beenslowto implement However,theriseand sociopoliticalconsequencesof thewelfarestatehave movedthisintellectualagenda intoprominence. penetrate politicalpartyand modernpoliticalinstitutions The moderm all sectorsof society.It is necessaryto speakof theirdecisiveconsequences of modernpolitical and to recognizethatthesupremacy forsocialstructure or theirlegitimacy. does not insureeithertheireffectiveness institutions As a result,trendsin politicalbehavior,especiallymeasuresof electoralbeof social controlin havior,become key indicatorsof the effectiveness 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control advancedindustrial societieswithmultiparty systems.The crisisin political legitimacyemergestherebynot as a suddenmanifestation but ratheras the outcomeof continuingsocial change.The cumulativeimpactof the associatedwithWorldWar and organizational technological developments II can be takenas thethreshold to thenewhistoricalera.WorldWar II not onlycreatedtheinstitutional base forthewelfarestatebut also contributed to the demandformoreextensivepoliticalparticipation.17 Aftera shortperiod of limitedadaptationfollowingWorld War II, Westernparliamentary institutions have demonstrated theirincreasedinabilityto produce effective majoritiesand to create the conditionsfor authoritative decisionmaking.Therefore,the task of studentsof social controlis notonlyto explainpatternsofpersonaldeviantbehavior,suchas suicide,criminality, and personalunhappiness,importantthoughthese maybe. The coreissue is to help accountforthe declineof parliamentary oppositionand the rise of unstableexecutiveleadership. The gravedifficulties ofparliamentary controlcan be seenin thepatterns of masspoliticalparticipation commonto Westernnations.In the briefest terms,therehavebeena long-term increasein theproportion of thepopulationwhodeclarethemselves unaffiliated withthemajorparties,an increase in shifting of the electoralchoice fromone nationalelectionto the next, and a declinein beliefin theeffectiveness of thelegislativeprocess. The changesin social stratification resultingfromtechnology, occupationalstructure, patternsof urbanization, and economicresourceallocation do not appear to have increasedor produceda highlyalienatedor anomic electorate.On the contrary,the social stratification patternsresultin a electoratewitha powerfuldegreeof solidaritywithin highlyfragmented the componentsocial elements.These groupingsincreasetheirdemands foreconomicbenefits,especiallygovernmental benefits.Therebypersons findthemselves, underan advancedindustrial society,withtheirownbuiltin competingself-interests that are not easily resolvedor aggregatedinto integratedand stable politicalpreferences. In the threedecades since the end of WorldWar II, the structureof politicalpartiesin the advancednations,includingthe UnitedStates,has remainedrelativelyunchanged.The descriptive literatureon partyorganization has not been effectively and the integratedinto macrosociology analysisof social control.No doubt the partiesrequirevastlygreaterresources to performtheirpolitical tasks, and the mobilizationof these resourcesparadoxicallyappears to make themless responsive.Nor has the influxof a new cadre of personnelactingforunderrepresented groups alteredthe internalfunctioning of the major parties.The issue that the 17 For an analysis of the transformation of Great Britain into a welfare state under the impact of World War I and World War II, see especiallyArthurMarvick (1968). 103 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology social controlperspectivemustface is deep. The opportunity to express politicaldemandsand to balance themby periodicnationalelectionsbecomesless and less effective as a crucialelementin social control. During the secondhalf of the 1960s, the strainof social changeand politicalconstriction produceda markedescalationof parapoliticalmovements,outsidethe institutionalized parties,that frequently used violent symbolism and elementsof violence.Therehas also beena striking increase in efforts to extendcivicparticipation into themanagement of administrative agenciesof government and of voluntaryassociations.These later in part a responseto the impactof the parapoliticalmovements, efforts, have reflected an implicitrecognition of thelimitations of periodicnational electionsas mechanisms of social and politicalcontrol, There can be no doubt that sociologicalliteraturefailed to anticipate the scope and intensity of thesesocial movements, althoughone can find penetrating analysesof the highlevelsof societalstrainand the constrictionof the processesof social controlthat an advancedindustrialsociety was producing.The sociologicalwritingsabout these agitationsoften followedtheclassicmodelof thenaturalhistoryof social movements. Such writingswereperceptivein focusingon the impendingtransformation of thesesocialmovements into"interestgroups"and highlighted theirbuilt-in limitations forinfluencing patternsof social control. It was no profoundsociologicaldiscoverythattheprotestmovements of thisperiodwouldlead to increaseddiffuse politicalviolencebut hardlyto a revolution or a "revolution situation."Nevertheless, theirexplosivecharacterrequiresstudentsof social controlto reexaminethe issue of violence and coercionin social change.In the sharpestterms,whatis the relationshipbetweenrelianceon violenceand coercionand the searchforeffective social controlin an advancedindustrialsociety?The questionmanifests itselfat everypointin sociologicalanalysiswhereexistingpatternsof social controlare ineffective. Historianshave made it clear that,regardlessof the vast and immeasurable amount of human miserywhich coercion and violence have produced,the threatand use of forcein the past have been essentialfor achieving, on specificand important occasions,moreeffective socialcontrol. But to explicatethe "principlesof force"is anothermatter-that is to formulate propositions of the conditionsunderwhichforceproducespositivecontributions to social control.Sociologistshave speculatedrepeatedly on thisissue; but how muchfurther has theanalysisbeen pressedbeyond thehopefulaspirations of GeorgesSorelin Reflections on Violence( 1914) ? The perspective of social controlis groundedin assumptions aboutinteractionand mutualinfluences. Thereforeit raisesthe persistentand vexatiousissueof theconsequencesof forceand coercionforthosewho 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 SociologicalTheoryand Social Control structure or itschange.Perhapsthecentralproposition thatcan be explored is thattheuse of forceand coercionin thesearchforsocialcontroloperates withinprogressively narrower limitsin relationsboth withinand between industrialsocieties.'8This assertionobviouslydoes not denythe extensive and diffusepatternsof violenceunderadvanced industrialism;nor does it denyviolence'sdecisiveimportancein particularcircumstances. But it does emphasizethe emergence of a calculuswhichpointsto the expanded self-defeating implicationsfor those who must rely extensivelyon force and coercionin theireffortsto achieve social controlin its traditional meaning.Such a calculusof forceand coercionreflects at least twotrends. There has been an increasein the professedmoral sensibilitiesof the citizenry(whichis compatiblewithpoliticalindifference underconditions of ineffective politicalinstitutions).Furthermore, the sheercomplexity of societalorganizationhas made anticipatingthe consequencesof forceespeciallygiventhe expandedpowerof force-muchmoredifficult. In a period of weakenedand ineffective social controlin advanced industrialsocieties,continuedconflictand disintegration are alternative or even simultaneousoutcomes.Social disintegration impliesa reduction in theabilityof a groupto controlthe behaviorof its membersand a decline in interactionand influence;social conflictimpliesan increasein interaction betweensocial groupson the basis of antagonisticmeansand goals. In evaluatingthe consequencesof persuasionand coercionwith respectto directsocial change,we mustconfront the problemof whether the existingcategoriesof politicalideology-thelanguageof politicaldiscoursewhichdominatessociologicalanalysis-are adequate foranalyzing social control. The alternative social controlcannot outcomesof thesearchforeffective be analyzedadequatelyin termsof conventionalideologicalcategoriesradicalism,conservatism, or incremental liberalism.There exists a mass of empiricaldata whichhighlight the conclusionthat thesecategoriesare in limited describingmass opinionas well as the realitiesof institutional practice.Moreover,these categoriesof political analysis imply a final result,a resolution, and an end state,whenin effect we are dealingwitha continuousand continuing social process.But the macrosociology and, as a result,theanalysisof socialcontrolare too oftendominatedby a narrow formatfashionedby politicaldiscourse.Therebythe "resolution"or "outcome" of ineffective social controldoes not necessarilyconformto the categoriesof politicalideology.It is necessaryat least to assumethat,for an advancedindustrialsociety,the alternatives could includesuch results as chronicand persistenttensionand a varietyof patternsof stagnation. In conclusion,it is necessaryto returnto the pointof departure.The 18 For this process in internationalrelations,see Morris Janowitz (1974). 105 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 AmericanJournalof Sociology core elementin social controlis the idea of self-regulation of the groupwhetherthegroupbe a face-to-face In primarygroupor the nation-state. social control is a social essence, perspectivetoward organization-one which focuseson the outcomeof regulativemechanisms.To use the languageof empiricalsocialresearch, a setof dependent it thereby identifies variables applicable to the fullestrange of institutionalsettings.The empiricalcontentof social controldependson the sociologist'sabilityto clarifyand explicatethe contentand criteriaof self-regulation. Althoughsome sociologistshave transformed the contentof the term "social control"into that of social conformity and even social repression, the classical usage has persisted.The major advance in the intellectual historyof social controlhas been its linkagesto the politicalprocessand to thecrisisof "politicallegitimacy."These linkagescan be accomplished, not by meansof a sociologicalreductionism, but by a recognition of the boundariesof politicalinstitutions and the "supremacy"of politicsin an advancedindustrialsociety. REFERENCES Barber, Bernard. 1952. Science and the Social Order. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Bedford,Scott E. W. 1918. Social Control. Publications of the American Sociological Society,vol. 12. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Bendix, Reinhard, and Bennett Berger. 1959. "Images of Society and Problems of Concept Formationin Sociology." Pp. 92-118 in Symposiumon Sociological Theory, edited by L. Gross. Evanston, Ill.: Row Peterson. Bernard, L. L. 1911. "The Transition to an Objective Standard of Social Control." Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Chicago. . 1937. Social Control. New York: Century. Bettelheim,Bruno, and Morris Janowitz. 1964. Social Change and Prejudice. New York: Free Press. Borgatta,Edgar F., and Henry J. Meyer. 1959. Social Control and the Foundation of Sociology. Boston: Beacon. Clark, Alexander,and Jack P. Gibbs. 1965. "Social Control: A Reformulation."Social Problems 12 (4): 398-414. Clark, John Maurice. 1926. Social Control of Business. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Clark,TerryN. 1969. Gabriel Tarde on Communicationand Social Influence.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Cohen, Percy. 1968. Modern Social Theory. London: Heineman. Cook, S. 1957. "Comment on Hacker's 'Liberal Democracy.'" American Political Science Review 51, no. 4 (December): 1027-39. Cooley, Charles Horton. 1909. Social Organization: A Study of the Larger Mind. New York: Scribner. . 1920. Social Process. New York: Scribner. Cummings,Elaine. 1968. Systems of Social Regulation. New York: Atherton. Davis, Kingsley. 1948. Human Society. New York: Macmillan. Durkheim,1tmile.1893. De la division du travail social. Paris: Alcan. 1897. Le suicide. Paris: Alcan. 1924. Sociologie et philosophie.Paris: Alcan. Edwards, Lyford. 1927. The Natural History of Revolution. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. 106 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 SociologicalTheoryand 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: ManagementPublication Trust. Geiger,Theodor. 1926. Die Masse und ihre Aktion: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der Revolutionen.Stuttgart:Enke. -% -.1963. Demokratie ohne Dogma; die GessellschaftZwischen Pathos und Nuchternheit.Vol. 5. Munich: Szczesny Verlag. Gibbs, Jack. Forthcoming."Conceptions of Social Control." In Social Control,edited by Peter K. Manning. New York: Free Press. Goody, Jack. 1957. "Fields of Social Control among the Lodagoba." Journal of the Royal AnthropologyInstitute81 (1): 75-104. Gouldner,Alvin. 1970. The Coming Crisis of WesternSociology. New York: Basic. Hacker, Andrew. 1957. "Liberal Democracy and Social Control." American Political Science Review 51, no. 4 (December): 1009-26. Homans, George. 1951. The Human Group. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Ihughes,Everett C. 1946. "Institutions."Pp. 225-67 in New Outline of the Principles of Sociology,edited by AlfredMcClung Lee. New York: Barnes & Noble. , ed. 1966. W. I. Thomas on Social Organization and Personality. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. 1970. Political Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. . 1974. "Toward a Redefinitionof MilitaryStrategyin InternationalRelations." World Politics 26 (4): 473-508. Koenig, Rene. 1955. "Die BegriffeGemeinschaftund Gesellschaft bei Ferdinand Tonnies." Kolner Zeitschriftfur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie7:348-420. Landis, Paul H. 1939. Social Control: Social Organizationin Process. New York: Lippincott. LaPiere, Richard T. 1954. A Theory of Social Control. New York: McGraw-Hill. Levine, Donald. 1971. Georg Simmel: On Individualityand Social Forms. Chicago: 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. Middletownin Transition.New York: Harcourt,Brace. MacIver, Robert M., and Charles Page. 1949. Society. London: Macmillan. Maine, Henry. 1861. AncientLaw. London: Murray. Mannheim, Karl. 1940. Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction.London: Kegan Paul. Marvick, Arthur.1968. Britain in the Centuryof Total War: War, Peace and Social Change, 1900-1967. Boston: Little, Brown. Mead, George Herbert. 1925. "The Genesis of Self and Social Control." International Journalof Ethics 35 (3): 251-89. Merriam,Charles E. 1936. The Role of Politics in Social Change. New York: New York UniversityPress. Moore, Barrington,Jr. 1958. "Reflections on Conformityin Industrial Society." In Political Power and Social Theory. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress. Moore, WilbertE. 1967. Order and Change. New York: Wiley. Nadel, S. F. 1953. "Social Control and Self-Regulation."Social Forces 31, no. 3 (March): 265-73. . 1957. The Theory of Social Structure.Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Nisbit, Robert A. 1970. An Introductionto the Study of Society. New York: Knopf. Park, Robert E. 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. . 1952. Human Communications.Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Park, Robert E., and Ernest W. Burgess. 1921. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. 107 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 AmericanTournalof Sociology Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structureof Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill. . 1951. The Social System. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. Pigors, Paul. 1935. Leadership or Domination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pound, Roscoe. 1942. Social Control throughLaw. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University 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: Universityof 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