Deviant Behavior can be define as an action that violate societal norms or

expectations which may include formal societal rules or more formal societal
expectations and laws.
Deviant behavior has been analyzed and interpreted by various scholars, each offering
unique perspectives and theories.
Deviant behaviors, or deviant acts in society refer to behaviors that violate social
norms and expectations. Deviance can be something as small as dressing in gothic
clothing or something as serious as burning someone's house down. Each society has
formal laws and rules, and informal social norms in place that aim to deter people
from committing deviant acts.
Émile Durkheim: Durkheim viewed deviance as a normal and necessary part
of society. He believed that it serves several functions, such as reinforcing social
norms and promoting social cohesion. In his work "The Division of Labor in
Society," he discussed how deviance can lead to social change and adaptation.
Robert K. Merton: Merton developed the Strain Theory, which posits that
deviance arises when there is a disjunction between societal goals and the means
available to achieve them. He identified five modes of individual adaptation to this
strain: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. Each mode reflects
different responses to societal pressures.
Howard S. Becker: Becker is known for his Labeling Theory, which suggests
that deviance is not inherent in an act but is instead a result of societal labeling. Once
individuals are labeled as deviant, they may adopt that identity and engage in further
deviant behavior. His book "Outsiders" explores how labeling affects individuals and
their social interactions.
Travis Hirschi: Hirschi introduced Social Control Theory, which emphasizes
the role of social bonds in preventing deviant behavior. He argued that strong
attachments to family, school, and community deter individuals from engaging in
deviance. According to Hirschi, when these bonds are weak, the likelihood of deviant
behavior increases.
Edwin Sutherland: Sutherland is known for his concept of Differential
Association Theory, which posits that deviance is learned through interactions with
others. He argued that individuals learn deviant behavior from those with whom they
associate, and this learning includes the techniques, motives, and rationalizations for
deviance.

1
 These scholars provide a comprehensive understanding of deviant behavior
through various lenses, including social structures, individual motivations, and the
impact of societal labels.In summary, Deviant behavior are behavior that goes against
and violate the norms,rules and expectations of the society or community while on the
other hand socially acceptable behavior refers to the actions that are generally viewed
as being appropriate to engage in when in the presence of other people.

TYPES OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

There are two main types of deviant behavior: formal and informal deviant
behavior. Formal deviant behavior refers to actions that violate formal laws, whereas
informal deviant behavior refers to actions that violate social norms. Both formal and
informal deviant behavior can result in negative consequences. For example, formal
deviant behavior can result in legal fines and arrest and informal deviant behavior can
result in being stigmatized and ostracized by society.

SOCIAL CONTROL: THEORY, MECHANISMS, AND REGULATORY

BODIES
INTRODUCTION
Social control represents one of the foundational concepts in criminology,
sociology, and related disciplines that study human behavior. At its core, social
control encompasses the various mechanisms, strategies, and systems that societies
employ to ensure conformity to norms, values, and laws. It serves as the adhesive that
holds the social fabric together, preventing chaos and establishing order through the
regulation of behavior. The concept has evolved significantly over time, from early
theoretical frameworks to sophisticated modern understandings that acknowledge the
complex interplay between formal institutions and informal social processes.
In criminological study, social control holds particular significance as it
directly relates to questions of crime, deviance, and social order. Criminologists are
concerned with understanding not only why people commit crimes but also why most
people, most of the time, comply with social norms and laws. This dual focus makes
social control theory central to criminological inquiry. The theory examines both why
individuals conform to social expectations and what happens when these mechanisms
of conformity fail, leading to deviant or criminal behavior.

2
 This analysis will explore the multifaceted nature of social control through a
criminological lens, examining its theoretical foundations, historical development,
and contemporary applications. We will investigate the distinction between formal
and informal mechanisms of control, the regulatory bodies that enforce them, and the
complex relationships between these different forms of social regulation. Throughout,
we will consider how these concepts apply to real-world issues of crime, deviance,
and social order, and evaluate their implications for criminal justice policy and
practice.

THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL CONTROL

Early Conceptions and Development
The concept of social control has deep historical roots, though its systematic
study is relatively recent. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, sociologists began
to formalize theories about how societies maintain order. Edward A. Ross, often
credited with popularizing the term "social control" in his 1901 book by the same
name, defined it as the capacity of a society to regulate itself according to desired
principles and values. For Ross, social control was fundamentally about how societies
achieve self-regulation without constant external coercion.
Émile Durkheim, another foundational figure, contributed significantly to our
understanding of social control through his work on social solidarity and collective
conscience. Durkheim proposed that in pre-modern societies, social control operated
primarily through what he called "mechanical solidarity" – shared beliefs and
sentiments that created strong social bonds. As societies industrialized and became
more complex, this shifted toward "organic solidarity," where interdependence based
on specialized roles and functions became more important. Durkheim's insights
highlighted how social control mechanisms evolve alongside social development.

The Chicago School and Social Disorganization

The Chicago School of sociology, particularly through the work of scholars
like Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and later Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay,
developed influential perspectives on social control in urban settings. Their social
disorganization theory proposed that crime and deviance resulted not from individual
pathology but from weakened social controls in certain communities. They observed
that in areas characterized by poverty, residential mobility, ethnic heterogeneity, and

3
family disruption, traditional institutions of social control (like family, school, and
community) lost their effectiveness.
This approach marked an important shift in criminological thinking, moving
away from purely individualistic explanations of crime toward recognizing the social
and ecological contexts in which crime occurs. It suggested that strengthening
community-based social controls could be more effective in reducing crime than
focusing solely on punishing individuals.

Control Theory in Modern Criminology

In the mid-20th century, control theory became more explicitly formulated in
criminology through the work of scholars like Walter Reckless, who developed
containment theory, and Ivan Nye, who identified different forms of social control.
However, it was Travis Hirschi's social bond theory, introduced in his 1969 book
"Causes of Delinquency," that provided the most influential modern formulation of
control theory.
Hirschi proposed that delinquency results when an individual's bond to society
is weak or broken. This bond consists of four key elements:

i. Attachment to others (particularly parents, teachers, and peers)

ii. Commitmen to conventional lines of action (education, career)
iii. Involvement in conventional activities (leaving little time for deviance)
iv. Belief in the moral validity of social rules

Unlike strain theories or differential association theories that sought to explain

why people commit crimes, Hirschi's control theory asked why people conform to
social norms. His answer was that strong social bonds create stakes in conformity that
most people are unwilling to risk by engaging in deviant behavior.
Later, in 1990, Hirschi collaborated with Michael Gottfredson to develop self-
control theory, which shifted focus from social bonds to individual differences in self-
control developed early in life. This theory proposed that criminal and analogous
behaviors result from low self-control combined with opportunity.

4
Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives
More recent theoretical developments have expanded and refined our
understanding of social control. John Braithwaite's reintegrative shaming theory
differentiates between stigmatizing shaming, which increases crime by pushing
offenders toward criminal subcultures, and reintegrative shaming, which can
strengthen social bonds and reduce reoffending.
Robert Sampson and John Laub's age-graded theory of informal social control
highlights how social bonds change throughout the life course, explaining why many
juvenile delinquents eventually desist from crime as they form new bonds through
marriage, employment, or military service.
Additionally, feminist criminologists have critically examined how social
control operates differently for women and men, noting that informal social controls
often exert stronger influences on women's behavior through mechanisms of gender
socialization and surveillance.

Formal Social Control: Mechanisms and Regulatory Bodies

Formal social control refers to the official, institutionalized mechanisms
through which societies regulate behavior. These mechanisms are typically codified in
law, enforced by designated authorities, and backed by explicit sanctions. Formal
social control is characterized by its deliberate, organized nature and its reliance on
established procedures for addressing deviance.

The Criminal Justice System

The most visible institution of formal social control is the criminal justice
system, which encompasses law enforcement, courts, and corrections. This system
represents society's official response to behavior defined as criminal, and it operates
through a complex network of agencies and procedures.

Law Enforcement Agencies

Police organizations serve as the front line of formal social control, tasked
with maintaining public order, preventing crime, and apprehending those who violate
the law. The structure and function of law enforcement varies considerably across and
within societies:

5
 1) National Police Forces: Countries like France (National Police and
Gendarmerie) and Italy (Carabinieri) maintain centralized national police
forces with broad jurisdictional authority.

2) Federal Law Enforcement: In federal systems like the United States, agencies
such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) enforce federal laws.

3) State and Local Police: Regional and municipal police departments handle
most day-to-day law enforcement in many countries, operating with varying
degrees of autonomy and under different regulatory frameworks.

The effectiveness of law enforcement as a mechanism of social control

depends on multiple factors, including resources, training, community relations, and
perceived legitimacy. Criminological research has increasingly emphasized that
procedural justice—the perceived fairness of police practices—significantly
influences public compliance with the law and cooperation with police.

The Court System

Courts represent the adjudicative component of formal social control,
determining guilt or innocence and imposing sanctions on those found guilty. The
court system typically includes:

i. Trial Courts: Where most criminal cases are initially heard and resolved
ii. Appellate Courts: Which review lower court decisions for legal errors
iii. Specialized Courts: Such as juvenile courts, drug courts, mental health
courts, and domestic violence courts, which address particular categories of
offenses or offenders

The court process involves multiple actors, including judges, prosecutors,

defense attorneys, probation officers, and various court personnel. Each plays a
specific role in the administration of justice, and their collective actions shape how
formal social control operates in practice.

6
 In recent decades, alternatives to traditional court processing have emerged,
including diversion programs, restorative justice approaches, and problem-solving
courts. These innovations reflect evolving perspectives on the goals of formal social
control, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration alongside traditional aims of
deterrence and retribution.

Regulatory Agencies and Administrative Bodies

Beyond the criminal justice system, numerous regulatory agencies exercise
formal social control through administrative oversight and enforcement. These
include:
Legal and Judicial Framework
The legal system itself constitutes a fundamental institution of formal social
control. Laws codify social norms, define prohibited behaviors, and establish
procedures for addressing violations. The criminalization process—through which
certain behaviors come to be defined as crimes—reflects societal values and power
relationships.
Criminologists have increasingly examined the social constructive nature of
criminal law, noting that definitions of crime are not merely objective responses to
harmful behavior but are shaped by cultural values, political interests, and historical
contingencies. This perspective highlights the need to examine not only how laws are
enforced but also how they are created and whose interests they serve.
The judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting laws, setting precedents, and
establishing constitutional boundaries on the exercise of state power. Judicial
decisions shape the operation of formal social control by defining the limits of police
authority, procedural requirements, sentencing parameters, and protections for
individual rights.

Education and Schools

Educational institutions represent another crucial domain of informal social
control, functioning not only as settings for academic learning but also as
environments where children and adolescents are socialized into broader societal
norms and values.

7
School Bonding and Attachment
Travis Hirschi's social bond theory emphasizes the importance of attachment
to school as a protective factor against delinquency. Students who feel connected to
their schools, value educational achievement, and develop positive relationships with
teachers are more likely to conform to school rules and broader social norms.
Conversely, academic failure, negative school experiences, and weak school
attachment increase the risk of delinquent behavior.
Criminological research has consistently supported these propositions,
showing that school bonding serves as an important mediating factor between
individual risk factors and delinquent outcomes. This underscores the significance of
creating positive, supportive school environments that foster attachment and
commitment.

School Climate and Discipline

The organizational characteristics of schools, including their disciplinary
practices, influence their effectiveness as agents of informal control. Schools with
clear, consistently enforced rules, fair disciplinary procedures, and positive climates
tend to experience lower rates of behavioral problems and violence. In contrast,
schools characterized by arbitrary enforcement, excessively punitive approaches, or
chaotic environments may inadvertently contribute to problem behaviors.
Critical criminological perspectives have raised concerns about the "school-to-
prison pipeline," suggesting that increasingly punitive and formal approaches to
school discipline may undermine schools' traditional role in informal social control by
criminalizing behaviors previously handled through educational interventions. This
represents an important example of the potential tensions between formal and
informal control mechanisms.

Peer Influence in Educational Settings

Schools serve as primary contexts for peer interaction, making them important
settings for peer-based informal control. While peer influence is often discussed in
terms of negative peer pressure, prosocial peer groups can exert powerful positive
influences, reinforcing conventional norms and discouraging deviant behavior.
Criminological research on peer influences highlights the bidirectional
relationship between individual characteristics and peer selection—adolescents tend

8
to select peers similar to themselves, but peer groups also influence individual
behavior. Schools can harness positive peer influence through cooperative learning
structures, peer mentoring programs, and activities that promote prosocial norms.

Cultural and Demographic Variations

The relationship between formal and informal controls varies across cultural
contexts and demographic groups. In some communities, particularly those with
histories of negative experiences with law enforcement, informal control networks
may operate independently from, or even in opposition to, formal systems.
Understanding these variations requires attending to histories of institutional
discrimination, cultural differences in approaches to conflict resolution, and varying
levels of trust in governmental authorities. Effective social control strategies must be
culturally responsive and attentive to community-specific dynamics rather than
assuming universal acceptance of formal control institutions.

Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Social Control

The nature and operation of social control mechanisms continue to evolve in
response to social, technological, and cultural changes. Several contemporary issues
present particular challenges for traditional approaches to maintaining social order:

Globalization and Transnational Crime

Globalization has created new challenges for social control by facilitating
criminal activities that transcend national boundaries while control mechanisms
remain largely organized at the national level. Transnational crimes include:

i. Human trafficking and smuggling

ii. Drug trafficking across international borders
iii. Cybercrime targeting victims in multiple countries
iv. Money laundering through international financial networks
v. Environmental crimes with cross-border impacts
vi. Terrorism with international networks and targets

These challenges have prompted the development of new institutions and practices for
international cooperation in law enforcement, including:

9
 i. International organizations like Interpol facilitating information sharing
and coordination
ii. Bilateral and multilateral treaties addressing specific forms of transnational
crime
iii. Regional enforcement entities like Europol
iv. International courts and tribunals addressing crimes against humanity and
war crimes

From a criminological perspective, these developments represent attempts to

create formal control mechanisms at the transnational level in contexts where
traditional nation-state authority and informal community controls are insufficient.
The effectiveness of these efforts varies considerably across different types of crime
and regional contexts.

Technological Change and New Forms of Deviance

Rapid technological advancement has transformed both the landscape of
criminal opportunities and the mechanisms available for social control:

Cybercrime and Online Deviance

Digital technologies have enabled new forms of criminal and deviant
behavior, including:

i. Computer hacking and unauthorized access

ii. Online fraud and identity theft
iii. Digital piracy and intellectual property violations
iv. Harassment, stalking, and bullying in online environments
v. Production and distribution of illegal content through digital channels
vi. Cryptocurrency-facilitated illegal transactions

These behaviors present distinctive challenges for social control, operating in

environments where traditional territorial jurisdiction is unclear, anonymity is often
possible, evidence may be ephemeral, and technological complexity may exceed
enforcement capabilities.

10
Digital Surveillance and Social Control
Simultaneously, technology has dramatically expanded surveillance
capabilities, creating new possibilities for both formal and informal social control:

i. Automated monitoring systems tracking online activities

ii. Facial recognition and biometric identification technologies
iii. Predictive algorithms attempting to identify potential criminal activity
iv. Location tracking through mobile devices
v. Internet of Things devices creating new data collection points
vi. Social media monitoring by both governmental and private entities

These technologies raise profound questions about privacy, civil liberties, and
the appropriate balance between security and individual freedom. Criminological
perspectives on these developments emphasize the need for transparency,
accountability, and proportionality in the application of these powerful new control
mechanisms.

Social Inequality and Differential Social Control

A critical criminological concern involves the relationship between social inequality

and the distribution of social control:

Disparate Impacts in Criminal Justice

Extensive research documents disparities in how formal social control
operates across different racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. These disparities
appear at multiple points in the criminal justice process:

i. Differences in policing practices and enforcement priorities across

neighborhoods
ii. Disparities in arrest rates for similar behaviors
iii. Inequalities in pretrial detention and bail outcomes
iv. Differences in charging and plea bargaining practices
v. Sentencing disparities for similar offenses
vi. Variations in parole and community supervision experiences

11
 While the specific causes of these disparities are complex and contested, their
existence raises important questions about equality, justice, and the legitimacy of
formal control institutions. Addressing these concerns requires comprehensive
approaches that examine structural inequalities, institutional practices, and individual
decision-making throughout the criminal justice system.

Informal Social Control and Privilege

Informal social control also operates differently across social groups, often in
ways that interact with formal mechanisms:

i. Privileged individuals may have access to informal interventions (e.g.,

mental health treatment, private rehabilitation programs) that divert them
from formal processing
ii. Communities with greater resources may develop more effective informal
networks that reduce reliance on formal controls
iii. Cultural capital and social connections may facilitate favorable treatment
within formal systems

These differences highlight the importance of examining social control

holistically, considering how formal and informal mechanisms interact across
different social contexts and population groups.

Mass Incarceration and Its Consequences

The dramatic growth in incarceration rates in many countries, particularly the
United States, represents one of the most significant developments in formal social
control in recent decades:

Scale and Distribution

In the United States, the incarcerated population increased from approximately
300,000 in the early 1970s to more than 2.3 million by the 2010s, with millions more
under community supervision. This growth has disproportionately affected racial
minorities and economically disadvantaged communities.

12
 The massive expansion of the carceral system raises fundamental questions
about the appropriate role of incarceration in social control, including concerns about
effectiveness, proportionality, fiscal sustainability, and social justice.

Collateral Consequences
Research increasingly highlights the extensive collateral consequences of mass
incarceration, including:

i. Disruption of family relationships and parenting

ii. Economic marginalization through employment barriers for those with
criminal records
iii. Political disenfranchisement through felon voting restrictions
iv. Neighborhood destabilization in communities with high incarceration rates
v. Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage to children of incarcerated
parents

These consequences may actually undermine informal social control

mechanisms by weakening families, reducing economic stability, and damaging
community cohesion, potentially resulting in increased rather than decreased crime
over the long term.

Reform Movements
Recognition of these issues has fueled diverse reform movements seeking to
reduce reliance on incarceration while maintaining public safety:

i. Sentencing reforms reducing penalties for nonviolent offenses

ii. Diversion programs providing alternatives to incarceration
iii. Reentry initiatives supporting successful community integration after
incarceration
iv. Justice reinvestment approaches redirecting resources from incarceration to
community-based prevention and intervention

13
 These reforms reflect shifting perspectives on the appropriate balance between
formal and informal mechanisms of social control, and between retributive and
rehabilitative approaches to addressing crime.

Policy Implications and Future Directions

Understanding the complex dynamics of social control has important
implications for criminal justice policy and practice. Several key principles emerge
from criminological perspectives on effective approaches to maintaining social order:

Balanced and Integrated Approaches

Effective social control requires thoughtful integration of formal and informal
mechanisms rather than overreliance on either. This suggests several policy
directions:

i. Reserving formal criminal justice interventions for behaviors that clearly

warrant them, while developing alternative responses for problems that
might be better addressed through other means
ii. Investing in family support programs, educational initiatives, and
community development as preventive approaches that strengthen informal
controls
iii. Designing formal interventions that preserve and reinforce rather than
disrupt positive family and community relationships
iv. Promoting procedural justice and legitimacy in formal control institutions
to enhance their alignment with informal normative systems

These approaches reflect recognition that neither pure reliance on formal

punishment nor exclusive emphasis on informal processes is likely to provide optimal
social control in complex modern societies.

Evidence-Based Practices
Criminological research increasingly emphasizes the importance of evidence-
based approaches to social control, evaluating interventions based on their
demonstrated effectiveness rather than ideological preferences or political appeal:

14
 i. Rigorous evaluation of both prevention and intervention programs
ii. Development of risk and needs assessment tools to guide decision-making
iii. Implementation of programs with demonstrated effectiveness
iv. Continuous monitoring and adjustment based on outcome data

This orientation represents a shift away from policies driven primarily by

retributive impulses or political considerations toward approaches grounded in
empirical evidence about what actually works to reduce crime and strengthen social
cohesion.

Community Engagement and Empowerment

Effective social control ultimately depends on active community participation
and ownership, suggesting the importance of:

i. Meaningful community input into criminal justice policies and practices

ii. Co-production of public safety through collaborative relationships between
formal agencies and community institutions
iii. Investment in community capacity-building to strengthen informal control
networks
iv. Recognition and support for indigenous and community-based approaches
to conflict resolution and norm enforcement

These principles acknowledge that while formal institutions play essential

roles in maintaining social order, sustainable solutions to crime and disorder require
engaging the communities most directly affected as active partners rather than passive
recipients of professional services.

Addressing Root Causes

Criminological perspectives increasingly emphasize the importance of
addressing the underlying social conditions that contribute to crime and weakened
informal controls:
i. Economic policies that reduce inequality and expand legitimate
opportunities

15
 ii. Educational reforms that strengthen school attachment and achievement
iii. Housing policies that promote neighborhood stability and reduce
segregation
While these approaches require substantial investment and may yield results
only over longer timeframes, they address the fundamental social conditions that
shape both formal and informal control dynamics.

CONCLUSION

Social control represents a fundamental aspect of all human societies,

operating through complex interactions between formal institutions and informal
social processes. Criminological perspectives on social control illuminate not only
why people violate norms and laws but also why most people conform most of the
time, highlighting the crucial roles of socialization, social bonds, community
relationships, and institutional legitimacy in maintaining social order.
Contemporary challenges—including globalization, technological change,
social inequality, and mass incarceration—have transformed both the landscape of
deviance and the mechanisms available for its control. Addressing these challenges
effectively requires integrated approaches that balance formal

16