Download Chapter 5 Social Control, Social Order, Social Mobility and Social

Chapter 5
Social Control, Social Order, Social Mobility and Social Change
Sasanka Perera
Learning Outcomes
1. Explain in sociological terms what is meant by the concepts social control, social order,
social mobility and social change.
2. Understand how these concepts are used in the sociological understandings and analysis of
society.
Introduction
This chapter will explore four closely related concepts used by sociologists in attempting to
understand society that are nevertheless not necessarily mutually interdependent. These are
social control, social order, social mobility and social change. A basic examination of society
through these concepts would allow us to understand how societies function in the long run, how
they maintain stability, how they are structured in order to maintain that stability and how
societies change over time and the manner in which individuals move from one position to
another within society. Like with regard to any concept, the idea here is also that these concepts
would offer us an abstract view of society.
Social Control
Let us first focus on social control and attempt to understand what it means and what aspects of
society it would allow us to explore. A fundamental understanding of what is meant by social
control is offered by the two following definitions:
• the enforcement of conformity by society upon its members, either by law or by social
pressure (Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged [v 1.1]);
• control exerted (actively or passively) by group action (Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com
Unabridged [v 1.1]).
• A process whereby a group or a society secures its members’ conformity to norms (Vander
Zanden 1979: 625).
According to these definitions, social control is the enforcement of conformity or accepted norms
of behaviour on the basis of certain socially accepted principles exerted upon the society or a
specific group. This exertion may be mandated by law or brought upon by the exertion of social
pressure. In most cases, for social pressure to work, there must be recognition by the society or a
group that this control is necessary for the maintenance of order and stability amongst
themselves. Therefore, at the simplest level, social control can best be understood as a process.
When understanding social control, we have to pay attention to another related concept:
conformity. In fact, the goal of social control is to ensure conformity. In other words, conformity
refers to the pressure brought upon members of society to abide by rules. Social control agencies
such as law and order apparatus in formal societies or specific group practices in less formal
societies or settings can ensure that people pay attention to rules and social norms. The violation
1
of these rules or social expectations may be considered in a negative light under most
circumstances and would be called deviant behaviour.
Let us now look at some specific examples that would explain how social control mechanisms
work in actual situations to enforce conformity. The process of socialisation informs us
throughout our lives that certain practices and behaviours are wrong. These might include
somewhat obvious examples like robbery, violence against other people, rape, selfishness etc.
That is, we are informed that these things are unacceptable because they would threaten the longterm survival of the society. As such, it is important to make sure that these kinds of things do
not happen in society. The process of bringing people to accept that goal is the production of
conformity. When we adhere to the legal and social norms of our country, we are conforming to
the law as well as social expectations. Depending on different situations, a number of social
control mechanisms work simultaneously to produce conformity.
Social control mechanisms or agencies can be formal as well as informal. When it comes to
formal legal expectations, agencies such as the police and courts of law are directly involved in
enforcing social control, and through that ensure conformity. In preindustrial societies such as
bands, when groups did not have a social hierarchy or clearly defined leaders, social control had
to be enforced through more informal means. In such situations, a person who did not conform to
societal expectations might be shunned by others as part of a collective decision. This is usually
undertaken when the band feels that the action of the particular individual concerned would be
harmful for the survival of the band as a group. In semi arid areas of the Kalahari Desert, the
jungles in the Amazon region or other similar places where these kinds of bands lived, the
inability to get the support of other people could in practical terms mean the death of an
individual. Such informal social control mechanisms have been described by anthropologists
who have documented societies such as the Dobe !Kung in Southern Africa and the Yanamamo
in Brazil. In these circumstances, people would not want such pressures brought upon them and
the possibility of such action works informally as a social control mechanism. On the other hand,
informal social control mechanisms can also operate in contemporary and less traditional
societies and social groups. For instance, in our own society as well as in specific work
environments, gossip functions as a social control mechanism to ensure that individuals do not
deviate from anticipated normative behaviours. When they do, gossip tends to mark them out as
deviants, trouble makers etc. In that context, neighbours and co-workers might avoid dealing
with such people.
However, in less ideal situations, social control mechanisms might be used to ensure conformity
within small groups for the wrong reasons. For example, in schools or universities, students who
do well in their studies or have a more creative sense of fashion might be shunned by others in
much the same way it was done in band level societies described above. Again the idea would be
to ensure conformity- to make sure that they act more like the others in the group. However, in
this situation social control is not exerted for the survival of the group; it might be motivated
more by issues such as jealousy or the belief that the specific individuals marked out would bring
too much attention on themselves. In such situations, it is possible that social control would work
to diminish creative and individualist tendencies among individuals.
The idea of sanctions is also important when talking about social control. The basic attempt in
enforcing sanctions or threatening to enforce sanctions in any situation is to control groups,
individuals or entire countries. In other words, sanctions can be used to ensure conformity to
2
accepted norms or rules. Sanctions can be either formal or informal. The United Nations (UN)
has the power to enforce sanctions on countries whose governments have violated international
norms. At different times, the UN has enforced sanctions on countries such as Iran, Iraq and
South Korea. On all occasions, the idea was to ensure that these countries behaved in an
internationally accepted manner with regards to different issues. This is an example of formal
sanctions. Sanctions can also be imposed informally. For example, a school bully may not get
any help in his homework from fellow students because there might be an informal agreement
that he should not be helped due to his intemperate behaviour. There is no legal basis for such
sanctions, but would nevertheless be quite effective in specific circumstances.
Social Order
At the most basic level, social order refers to a set of inter-linked and inter-dependent social
structures, social institutions and social practices which plays a significant role in maintaining a
particular way of life or society. In other words, ideally social order is a relatively stable system
of social institutions, pattern of interactions and customs that play a collective role which
constantly reproduces knowledge, conditions, norms and expectations necessary for its own
existence and long term survival. The institutions and practices linked together in this way that
produce social order remain relatively constant over time. In the simplest sense, we can argue
that a well-functioning society functions that way because of its social order.
There must be agreement and consensus between and among various institutions in society for a
society to work in this manner. This cannot be mandated by law but necessarily become part of
each society’s reality due to consistent practice. In other words, at any given moment, intuitions
like class (or caste in pre-colonial Sri Lanka), marriage, kinship, law and order need to work
cohesively to make a society functional– that is to work well. In certain situations, like in
conditions of long term civil war or natural disasters the stress exerted upon social institutions
might end up disrupting its social order and thereby creating what might be called dysfunctional
situations.
Among a number of approaches, there are two important explanations of social order. One
explanation is associated with French sociologist Émile Durkheim while the other is associated
with the German philosopher, Karl Marx. Durkheim’s ideas can also be understood in
association with the ideas of American sociologist Talcott Parsons and the Functionalist School
of thought. Functionalists in general focused on how shared norms, institutions and values
played a role in creating a system that helped maintain stability and cohesion in society. At a
very basic level, this was their idea of how social order was achieved. According to Durkheim,
the idea of solidarity in society was the foundation of social order (Durkheim 1933). Parsons on
the other hand, emphasized the significance of a prior moral consensus in society as a necessary
pre-condition for social order (Parsons 1937, 1951, 1971). Due to the central importance which
Parsons attributed to the idea of a shared body of norms and values in achieving social order, he
has been criticized for over-emphasizing the value of consensus, and for neglecting conflict and
change in his sociological analyses of society.
Marx on the other hand, opted to focus on inequalities in material wealth and political power in
capitalist societies. For him, the distribution of political as well as social resources is the basis of
conflict between different social classes (Marx and Engels 1955). This leads to class struggle. In
contrast to Parsons, his ideas suggest that there is no moral consensus and that social order is
3
always maintained with much effort. It results from the competition between different social
classes within which the powerful constrain weaker groups, and cohesion is sustained through
economic compulsion, as well as political and legal coercion.
Social Mobility
In general, social mobility refers to the processes through which people move across various
social strata or levels over time. The following basic definitions would explain what social
mobility means in sociological terms:
• The movement of individuals or groups from one social level (stratum) to another
(Vander Zanden 1979: 279).
• The way individuals or groups move from one status or class position to another,
either higher (upward social mobility) or lower (downward social mobility), within
the social hierarchy. It is typically measured in terms of movement across a range of
pre-existing positions which enjoy unequal access to material and cultural goods.
Sociologists have pointed out that there are at least two basic reasons for social mobility to occur
within a society. First, societies change over time irrespective of the fact that change is slow or
rapid. In the context of this change the demands made of people by society also changes. For
example, as a result changes that occur in a society, those who have received high positions
might not have the competence to fulfil the obligations associated with their position in the new
circumstances (Vander Zanden 1979: 279). This may require people from lower social strata to
enter into higher social strata because they may have better skills. Second, when social change
takes place and demands for new skills and talents occur, opportunities might open up for people
from previously lower social strata to compete with others in supplying these skills. With their
competence, they might be able to enter new social strata. All this points to the fact that groups
within any society are never static; they have opportunities to move across different strata in
society or from one hierarchical position to another. But as the second definition above indicates,
social mobility can be upward as well as downward. Usually downward social mobility occurs
when the economic fortunes of a particular groups or individual dwindles according to changing
conditions in society and provides for deterioration of their social positions or status as well.
Let us for a moment focus our attention on upward social mobility. As already noted this refers
to the ability of a person or group to move from a lower social position to a higher one within the
existing social hierarchy due to changing socio-historical and political circumstances. For
example, if we look at Sri Lankan history in the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial periods
we can see very clearly the conditions under which both upward and downward social mobility
took place in specific historical conditions. In ancient Sri Lanka, prior to the advent of European
colonialism the society was based on caste system and not a class system as is today. The caste
system was a relatively inflexible system of social hierarchy, unlike the class system which is in
place today which is relatively more flexible. Under the caste system, a person’s position in
society was ascribed or decided by birth. Therefore, a person who is born into a certain caste
position always remained in that position across generations and over time irrespective of their
skills and achievements. Under certain circumstances, however the King had the power to
change a person’s ascribed social position even under the caste system.
But today, the manner in which social mobility works has changed considerably because of the
weakening of the caste system and the emergence of the class system. People are always born
4
into a particular class position depending on parental and family positions. However, class
positions that are technically ascribed at birth can easily change over generations or even in a
person’s own lifetime depending on changing personal fortunes. On the contrary, the most
important feature in the class system is its ability to allow individuals, families or groups to
move to higher social positions from lower ones through various kinds of achievements. This
may happen through education, marriage, or occupation. Entire social groups may become
mobile by using the resources they have amassed to enhance their positions. It is under such
circumstances that some castes that occupied relatively low positions in the Sri Lankan caste
hierarchy have moved to much higher class positions dismantling their traditional positions
under the caste system. This has taken place mostly through education, success in business and
the resultant improvements in economic and social positions. Even in contemporary society, we
can see individuals moving from one social position to another in one’s own lifetime through
business, education and politics.
In societies where democracy is relatively more successful, social mobility might encourage
entrepreneurism and creativity and may lead to the establishment of a fairer society. This is
because in such societies individuals will have better chances to achieve their potential.
However, the mere ability for an individual to leave circumstances of poverty and become rich
does not necessarily indicate that there is social mobility in his or her society. Even societies
with low or nonexistent social mobility afford free individuals opportunities to initiate enterprise
and amass wealth, but wealth sometimes fails to "buy" entry into higher social classes.
Therefore, even in our society, there might be more affluent people who might be considered
‘not in our class’ by many others who might not be that rich. For them, to achieve both wealth
and status it may sometimes take a generation or so.
Under ideal circumstances, a society with a well-functioning system of social mobility and
adequate opportunities for individuals is called a meritocracy. Social mobility can be
differentiated between intra-generational mobility and inter-generational mobility. Usually
mobility functions on one of two levels: horizontal mobility and vertical mobility. Horizontal
mobility refers to the movement of a person from one social position to another within the same
rank. For example, a middle class person might become richer over time through business and he
might be able to acquire more expensive goods like a car or more fashionable clothes that would
mark his transition to another social position. But despite this, his overall class position might
not change because whatever change that has taken place, has occurred within the existing rank
which in this case is his class position. Vertical mobility refers to the movement of a person from
one social position to another of a different rank. For instance, let’s take the same example as
above. After considerable time and after acquiring more social skills and practices such as
learning English, acquiring membership in exclusive clubs and moving into expensive
neighbourhoods, the same person might be able to move to a higher class position. This has
happened often in Sri Lanka with regard to people who have excelled in education and business.
Social Change
In general as well as in sociological terms, social change refers to changes that take place in
societies over time or at a specific moment. Social change can be positive as well as negative in
terms of its impact on society. Social change can be introduced as part of a planned process in
order to introduce necessary changes in the behavior patterns of a particular population or as a
5
result of changing historical and political changes over time. The Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia
defines social change in the following ways:
• change in social structure: the nature, the social institutions, the social behavior or the
social relations of a society, community of people, and so on.
• When behaviour pattern changes in large numbers and is visible and sustained, it
results in a social change.
• any event or action that affects a group of individuals that have shared values or
characteristics.
• acts of advocacy for the cause of changing society in a normative way [subjective]
(Wikipedia 2009).
All the parameters of the definition above refers to the kind of social change that can take place
in a society as well as the means and the results of social change. There are a number of theories
that attempt to explain social change. In general, factors in social change can be understood
under three main headings: economic, political and cultural. This means that under most
circumstances, social change tends to occur due to changes in economic, political or cultural
conditions of a given society.
Classical Evolutionary Theory suggested that human societies evolve from simple to complex
structures in a progression of definitive stages, and that all societies need to go through these
stages to achieve higher stages of development. Though inferential at the end of the 19th century
and well up to the 1930s, evolutionary theories are no longer reckoned with any degree of
seriousness in sociology. Karl Marx is perhaps the best known theorist of social change. He
suggested that societies as well as forms of social organization are mostly determined by
economic factors, and in particular due to the impact of industrial capitalism. Marx believed that
a fundamental mover of social change would emanate from the contradictions in the modes of
production and their ownership and competition over these resources. He theorized that societies
would change as a result of conflicts emerging among different groups in their quest to control
modes of production. For him, ‘revolution’ was the ultimate process of radical social change.
Let us now discuss in some detail what social change actually means in real terms. What is
referred to as social change in the definition above can take place in many domains or areas in
society. That is, change can occur in the culture, life styles, demographic patterns, politics, and
institutions. In any society in the world, culture is an area that is constantly subject to change
even though people often believe that aspects of culture such as traditions, practices and foods
remain static or unchanged over time. Rather than based on reality, this perception comes from
people’s emotional attachment to what they believe is their culture or cultural traditions.
Anthropologists, Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere in their well-known book,
Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka argue that many aspects of
contemporary Buddhist marriage ritual such as the recitation of Jayamangala Gatha were
innovated in the colonial period under the impact of both colonialism and Christian ritual
practices (Gombrich and Obeyesekere 1990). This example shows that certain significant
changes in Sri Lankan cultural practices took place in the specific conditions introduced by
colonialism. We can also generally agree that significant changes have occurred in our society as
a result of education. Again, education in the present form was an introduction in the colonial
period even though many post-independent regimes have added new dimensions to the local
education system which has led to further changes in the way people think and act.
6
Clearly we know quite well that the society that exists today is neither the society of the
Anuradhapura period nor that of the Kandyan period. Our present society is the result of both
centuries of change as well as the result of more recent change. At the moment, mass media and
technology impacts significant changes with regard to the lifestyles and attitudes of youth. Even
though no serious studies exist in Sri Lanka, on the basis of studies from other parts of the world
we can assume that the introduction of mobile phones has radically changed the way people
establish and continue social relations. On the other hand, mass media, particularly television has
made significant impacts on people’s sense of fashion and how they use language. The present
practices of liberally mixing Sinhala or Tamil with English has been directly introduced by the
trends promoted by television and radio channels since the 1990s.
What we have discussed so far are examples of social change over somewhat long or specific
historical periods of time. Such changes have taken place as a result of larger changes in society
that have ranged from colonialism to the advent of new religious practices on one hand and
globalization and technology on the other. But social change can also result from planned
initiatives undertaken for the specific purposes of introducing changes. Under many
circumstances, the declared goal of development initiatives around the world is to introduce
planned social change. If we take the well-known Mahaweli Development Scheme in Sri Lanka,
it had numerous goals that were located within the notion of social change. For instance, it
attempted to shift farmers from the overcrowded wet zone areas to less populated dry zone areas
in order to ease the demographic pressures on the wet zone. It also wanted to introduce radical
changes to agricultural practices as well as increase the agricultural output through this exercise.
While some of these goals have been met, unanticipated consequences of this planned change
have also now come to light.
While the term social change is usually associated with changes that are beneficial to society, it
may also refer to negative side-effects or consequences that undermine or destroy existing ways
of life to the detriment of society. One of the negative consequences of the Mahaweli
Development Scheme that came to light in the 1980s was that the rate of suicide in the new
settlements was significantly higher than the national average. One reason for this might have
been the inability of the settlers to bank on kinship networks in times of stress in their new
localities in the period immediately preceding re-settlement. On the other hand, long periods of
war and famine in Somalia have disrupted many of its social and political networks to such an
extent that the country is now extremely unstable both in political and social terms. It is mostly
dependent on foreign aid, and all this is the net result of devastating changes that took place in
the context of both war and famine. Similarly, over twenty five years of war in Sri Lanka has
also created new trends the consequences of which are already visible. We have in our society
many young people who have been physically handicapped as a result of war, and we do not
have any serious plans on how to deal with this situation. We have trained a large number of
young men in the craft of war. This includes both military personnel as well as guerillas. A
question that might be posed in this context is: since the war has now come to an end, what do
we do with such a large number of combatants who do not have any other skills? Here, negative
social change in the form of war has opened up a serious challenge for our society that we are
not yet ready to deal with.
So far in this chapter, we have briefly attempted to define and explore what is meant by the four
concepts, social control, social order, social mobility and social change. As noted at the outset,
7
the idea of concept in sociology is to get an abstract understanding of how certain situations can
best be explained in sociological terms. While such concepts may be able to explain phenomena
across the world, their usefulness depends on their ability to be used across societies and
cultures. In other words, these concepts must be understood as general concepts. However, it is
entirely possible that in certain specific situations such general concepts might not be able to
explain some social practices that may go beyond the scope of these concepts. It is in such
situations that sociologists would have to undertake rigorous research to explain those
phenomena and to fine-tune existing concepts and theoretical approaches.
Points to Think about
•
•
•
If you are asked to write an assignment on how social control works in actual form in your
society, can you observe and describe how social control functions in your school or within
your family?
If you are asked to describe how social change occurs, what are the examples you can draw
from the domains of culture, politics and education?
If you are asked to compile how a specific situation of social mobility has taken place, what
would be your example? Can you outline this example as a case study?
Model Questions
1. Explain what is meant by social control, and provide a descriptive explanation of how social
control works in actual situations by referring to examples from your own society.
2. Social order can be understood as a ‘system.’ Do you agree with this statement? Explain your
answer with examples.
3. After explaining what is meant by social order, provide the main points of the major
approaches that have attempted to explain social order.
4. In sociological terms, what is meant by social mobility? Explain how social mobility operates
by drawing examples from Sri Lanka.
5. Social change can be understood as a ‘negative’ process. Critically evaluate the merits of this
statement by referring to what you have read on social change as well as examples from Sri
Lanka that you are familiar with.
Key words
Social Control
Social Order
Social Mobility
Social Change
Recommended Readings
Giddens, A 1993, Introduction to Sociology, 2nd edn, W.W Norton & Co Inc., London. (Chapter
7, Pages 239- 244 & Chapter 20, Pages 649- 672).
Vander Zanden, JW 1979, Sociology, John Wiley and Sons, New York (Chapter 5, Pages 149178 & Chapter 8, Pages 279- 282).
8
References
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House,
Inc.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social control (accessed: March 10, 2009).
Dictionary.com. WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social control (accessed: March 10, 2009).
Durkheim E 1933, The Division of Labour in Society, Macmillan, New York.
Gombrich R & Obeyesekere G 1990, Buddhism Transformed: Religious Change in Sri Lanka,
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Marx K & Engels F 1955, The Communist Manifesto, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.
Parsons T 1937, The Structure of Social Action, McGraw Hill, New York.
Parsons T 1951, Towards a General Theory of Action, Harper and Row, New York.
Parsons T 1971, The System of Modern Societies, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
Stateuniversity.com http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/20887/socialmobility.html">social mobility</a> (accessed: March 13, 2009).
Vander Zanden JW 1979, Sociology, 4th edn, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change (accessed: March 14, 2009).
9