• Some of the types of 

social control are as follows:

• Direct and Indirect Control

• Karl Mannheim is of the view that control may be direct as well as indirect.
Direct control is that, which is exercised by the primary groups like family,
peer groups, who praise or condemn the behavior of an individual. Indirect
control is exercised by the secondary groups like traditions, customs,
institutions.
 • 2. Positive and Negative Means

• There are two types of means according to K Mannheim One is positive means which exists in
form of praise, prizes, fame and respect. Another mean is negative, which found in the shape of
criticism, punishment and shames.

• 3. Conscious and Unconscious Control

• He has classified it on the basis of conscious and unconscious. Conscious social control is
developed in the real sense by the society (law), while unconscious is followed by the individuals
but have no attention towards it and adopt unconsciously i.e. customs and traditions.  
 • 4. Real and Artificial Control

• Artificial social control imposes by an individual on himself without the force of society. It is
also called self-control.

• While real control is enforced by the society on individuals and they are bound to follow these
rules due to fear of punishment.
 • Marxist Approaches to Social Control

• Unlike the three consensus approaches above, Marxists tend to see social control as being
consciously or unconsciously ‘engineered’ by the capitalist class and the state.

• In terms of ‘conformity producing’ approaches – Marxists see the norms and values of education
as working to produce a docile and passive workforce – .

• The media is also seen as an important agent of social control – processes such as agenda setting
and gatekeeping mean the elite’s view of the world is presented as normal, thus producing
ideological control.
 • Interactionist Approaches to Social Control

• The labelling perspective sees social control and deviance as having an ironic relationship.

• The more the agencies of social control try to prevent deviance, by labelling and policing certain
behaviors as deviant, then the more deviance will be created.

• A lot of research from the interactionist perspective has focused on how it is certain types of
people (rather than behaviours) who tend to get labelled as deviant, and thus are more likely to
become deviant.
DEVIANCE AND CRIME
• The study of crime and deviance involves a number of contributing disciplines, not
all of which we will be required to consider; statistics, psychology, biology to
name but a few, and of course the largest contributor sociology.

• The study of social deviance is the study of the violation of cultural norms in
either formal or informal contexts. Social deviance is a phenomenon that has
existed in all societies with norms. Sociological theories of deviance are those that
use social context and social pressures to explain deviance.
• According to sociologist William Graham Sumner (1840–1910), 

• deviance is a violation of established contextual, cultural, or social norms, whether

folkways, mores, or codified law (1906)

• Folkways are norms based on everyday cultural customs concerning practical matters like
how to hold a fork, what type of clothes are appropriate for different situations, or how to
greet someone politely. 

• Mores are more serious moral injunctions or taboos that are broadly recognized in a
society, like the incest taboo. Codified laws are norms that are specified in explicit codes
and enforced by government bodies.

• A crime is therefore an act of deviance that breaks not only a norm, but a law as well.
• The point is that the question, “What is deviant behavior?” cannot be answered in a
straightforward manner. No act or person is intrinsically deviant. This follows from two key
insights of the  sociological approach to deviance (which distinguish it from moral and
legalistic approaches).

• If the rules change, the nature of deviant also changes. As rules and norms vary across
cultures and time, it makes sense that notions of deviance also change.

• Fifty years ago, public schools in Canada had strict dress codes that, among other often
banned.

• In Pakistan : we have different dressing codes now

• Whether an act is deviant or not depends on society’s definition of that act. Acts are not
deviant in themselves.

• The second sociological insight is that deviance is not (biological or psychological)

attribute of individuals, nor of the acts themselves, but a product of social processes.
The norms themselves, or the social contexts that determine which acts are deviant or
not, are continually defined and redefined through ongoing social processes —
political, legal, cultural, etc.

• One way in which certain activities or people come to be understood and defined as
deviant is through the intervention of moral entrepreneurs.
 Theoretical perspectives on deviance
Why does deviance occur?

How does it affect a society?

Since the early days of sociology, scholars have developed theories attempting to explain what
deviance and crime mean to society. These theories can be grouped according to the three major
sociological paradigms:

functionalism, symbolic interactionism, and conflict theory.

• Functionalism

Sociologists who follow the functionalist approach are concerned with how the different elements of a
society contribute to the whole. They view deviance as a key component of a functioning society.
 Understanding Durkheim's Division of Labor

French philosopher  (or De la Division du Travail Social) debuted in Emile Durkheim's book The

Division of Labor in Society93. It was his first major published work and the one in which he introduced
the concept of anomie or the breakdown of the influence of social norms on individuals within a society.

At the time, The Division of Labor in Society was influential in advancing sociological theories and

thought. Today, it is highly revered for its forward-thinking perspective by some and deeply scrutinized by
others.

Durkheim believed that society exerted a powerful force on individuals. According to Durkheim,

people's norms, beliefs, and values make up a collective consciousness, or a shared way of understanding
and behaving in the world. The collective consciousness binds individuals together and creates social
integration.
 How the Division of Labor Benefits Society

Durkheim discusses how the division of labor—the establishment of specified jobs for certain
people—benefits society because it increases the reproductive capacity of a process and the skill
set of the workers.

It also creates a feeling of solidarity among people who share those jobs. But, Durkheim says,
the division of labor goes beyond economic interests: In the process, it also establishes social and
moral order within a society. "The division of labor can be effectuated only among members
of an already constituted society," he argues.

To Durkheim, the division of labor is in direct proportion with the dynamic or moral density of a
society. This is defined as a combination of the concentration of people and the amount of
socialization of a group or society.
 Dynamic Density
Density can occur in three ways:
 through an increase in the spatial concentration of people

 through the growth of towns

 through an increase in the number and efficacy of the means of communication

When one or more of these things happen, says Durkheim, labor begins to become divided and jobs become
more specialized. At the same time, because tasks grow more complex, the struggle for meaningful
existence becomes more strenuous.

A major theme of the book is the difference between developing and advanced civilizations and how they
perceive social solidarity. Another focus is how each type of society defines the role of law in resolving
breaches in that social solidarity.
 Social Solidarity
Durkheim argues that two kinds of social solidarity exist: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity.

Mechanical solidarity connects the individual to society without any intermediary. That is, society is
organized collectively and all members of the group share the same set of tasks and core beliefs. What binds
the individual to society is what Durkheim calls the "collective consciousness ," sometimes translated as
"conscience collective," meaning a shared belief system.

With regard to organic solidarity, on the other hand, society is more complex—a system of different
functions united by definite relationships. Each individual must have a distinct job or task and a personality
that is their own.
Framing individuals as men, Durkheim argued that individuality grows as parts of society
grow more complex. Thus, society becomes more efficient at moving in sync, yet at the
same time, each of its parts has more movements that are distinctly individual.
According to Durkheim, the more primitive a society is, the more it is characterized by
mechanical solidarity and sameness. The members of an agrarian society, for
example, are more likely to resemble each other and share the same beliefs and morals
than the members of a highly sophisticated technology- and information-driven society.

As societies become more advanced and civilized, the individual members of those
societies become more distinguishable from one another. People are managers or
laborers, philosophers or farmers. Solidarity becomes more organic as societies
develop their divisions of labor.
 The Role of Law in Preserving Social Solidarity:

For Durkheim, the laws of a society are the most visible symbol of social solidarity and the
organization of social life in its most precise and stable form.

Law plays a part in a society that is analogous to the nervous system in organisms. The
nervous system regulates various bodily functions so they work together in harmony.
Likewise, the legal system regulates all parts of society so that they work together
effectively.

Two types of law are present in human societies and each corresponds with a type of social
solidarity: repressive law (moral) and restitutive law (organic).
 Repressive Law

Repressive law is related to the center of common consciousness" and everyone participates
in judging and punishing the perpetrator. The severity of a crime is not measured necessarily
by the damage incurred to an individual victim, but rather gauged as the damage caused to
the society or social order as a whole. Punishments for crimes against the collective are
typically harsh. Repressive law, says Durkheim, is practiced in mechanical forms of society.
 Restitutive Law

The second type of law is restitutive law, which does focus on the victim when there is a
crime since there are no commonly shared beliefs about what damages society. Restitutive
law corresponds to the organic state of society and is made possible by more specialized
bodies of society such as courts and lawyers.
 Law and Societal Development:

Repressive law and restitutory law are directly correlated with the degree of a
society’s development. Durkheim believed that repressive law is common in
primitive or mechanical societies where sanctions for crimes are typically
made and agreed upon by the whole community. In these "lower" societies,
crimes against the individual do occur, but in terms of seriousness, those are
placed on the lower end of the penal ladder.
Crimes against the community take priority in mechanical societies, according
to Durkheim, because the evolution of the collective consciousness is
widespread and strong while the division of labor has not yet happened. When
division of labor is present and collective consciousness is all but absent, the
opposite is true. The more a society becomes civilized and the division of
labor is introduced, the more restitutory law takes place.
 • Historial Context
• Pre-industrial social groups comprised family and neighbors, but as the Industrial Revolution
continued, people found new cohorts within their jobs and created new social groups with co-workers.

• Dividing society into small labor-defined groups required an increasingly centralized authority to
regulate relations between the different groups, said Durkheim. As a visible extension of that state,
law codes needed to evolve as well to maintain the orderly operation of social relations by conciliation
and civil law rather than penal sanctions.

• Durkheim based his discussion of organic solidarity on a dispute he had with Herbert Spencer, who
claimed that industrial solidarity is spontaneous and that there is no need for a coercive body to create
or maintain it. Spencer believed that social harmony is simply established by itself—Durkheim
strongly disagreed. Much of this book involves Durkheim arguing with Spencer’s stance and pleading
his own views on the topic.
 • The Concept of Rationalization:

• In sociology, the term rationalization was coined by Max Weber, a German sociologist, jurist, and
economist. Rationalization (or rationalisation) is the replacement of traditions, values, and
emotions as motivators for behavior in society with concepts based on rationality and
reason

• Rationality in Weber's work refers to a unique type of social action, a particular relationship
between ideas and action, rather than to a general process in the development of ideas.

• He used the idea of bureaucracy as an example of rationalization, where officials make

imperative decisions concerning a state. Therefore, Weber thought of rationalization as the use of
knowledge to achieve a desirable consequence.
 • Bureaucracy

• Weber's focus on the trend of rationalization led him to concern himself with the operation and expansion of large-scale
enterprises in both the public and private sectors of modern societies.  Bureaucracy can be considered to be a particular
case of rationalization, or rationalization applied to human organization. Bureaucratic coordination of human action,
Weber believed, is the distinctive mark of modern social structures. In order to study these organizations, both
historically and in contemporary society, Weber developed the characteristics of an ideal-type bureaucracy:

• Hierarchy of authority 

• Impersonality 

• Written rules of conduct 

• Promotion based on achievement 

• Specialized division of labor

• Efficiency 
• Explicitly state duties responsibilities, standardized procedures and conduct of office holders.  Offices are
highly specialized . Appointments to these offices are made according to specialized qualifications rather
than ascribed criteria.  All of these ideal characteristics have one goal, to promote the efficient attainment of
the organization's goals.

• The bureaucratic coordination of the action of large numbers of people has become the dominant structural
feature of modern societies.  It is only through this organizational device that large-scale planning and
coordination, both for the modern state and the modern economy, become possible.  The consequences of
the growth in the power and scope of these organizations is key in understanding our world.
• Authority

• Weber's discussion of authority relations also provides insight into what is happening in the modern world.  On what basis do
men and women claim authority over others? Why do men and women give obedience to authority figures?  Again, he uses the
ideal type to begin to address these questions. Weber distinguished three main types of authority

• Traditional Authority,  

• Power

• Charismatic 

• Rational-legal Authority 

• Charismatic 

• Rational legal authority is anchored in impersonal rules that have been legally established. This type of authority (which
parallels the growth of zweckrational) has come to characterize social relations in modern societies. Traditional authority often
dominates pre-modern societies.  It is based on the belief in the sanctity of tradition, of "the eternal yesterday“. Because of the
shift in human motivation, it is often difficult for modern students to conceive of the hold that tradition has  in pre-modern
societies.