Social Control: Surveillance, Censorship and Sanctions


Social control largely refers to the administrative or societal practices and mechanisms that normalize both personal and group performance. In fact, social control leads to compliance and conformity to the guidelines of any societal group, state, or society. Societal control transpires at all the echelons of the social order. For example, individuals socialize to respect their parenthoods purely for the reason that they are parentages in the family unit. The peer factions also familiarize with the informal customs like dressing styles that administer the conduct of group affiliates. Similarly, the Campuses institute values that the scholars ought to preserve.

However, in many bureaucratic establishments the employees encounter official methods of regulations and rules. Thus, the management of every single society lays down the laws and put into effect the societal standards. This effect might empower groups or individuals not to depart from the societal standards and expectancies.

The compliance or conformity to the societal expectations and values are palpable under the influence of both official and informal methods of control. Several groups accept and respect the rudimentary societal customs. Individuals do conform to the commands of the law, adhere to the daily guidelines at workplace, and move to the rearmost when folks come in. An actual procedure of socialization to the fundamental values of culture is reflected in such comportments. Lots of societal control mechanisms are believed to be culturally diverse. The statement is true supposed the control appliances are employed to avert the commencement of anomie or turmoil.

A number of philosophers therefore assert that the forms of social control may be regarded as a rule. Sociologists identify two basic forms of social controls. This paper examines the means, sanctions, censorship, as well as the surveillance of societal control.

Societal control

There are diverse mechanisms of control that can be used to educate, encourage, or force the outsiders and group members to abide by the societal prospects and customs. Equally, this might enable them not depart from such standards and anticipations. These may encompass both official and informal methods of control. Initially, the informal societal control may be instigated by internalization of standards and principles through a procedure of socialization. This procedure is rendered to individuals with inborn societal potentialities. The non-group members or group members with wide raging natural potentialities are steered to improve the definite performance and values of any group. Conversely, there is an official method of societal control. The peripheral authorizations prescribed by the government thwarts the formation of anomie or chaos in every social order. Hence, a number of philosophers for instance Durkheim Émile mentions formal social control as a decree (Ross, 2009).

The mechanisms of social control differ in respect to the character and purpose of factions under enquiry. The sociologists ascertain two elementary practices of social controls. In other words, the techniques of control eradicate the unwanted qualities besides inspiring individuals or groups. Categorically, the eventual and ancient means of societal control was physical fierceness. In an unrestrained society of youngsters, it remains the main challenge. Nevertheless, the definitive argument is ferocity in the graciously run social orders of the contemporary republics. There is lack of proper co-existence of nations devoid of the police influence or its correspondence in the equipped capacity.

The entire societies possess diverse mechanisms of upholding control and order in their particular positions. Groups and individuals observe the societal standards via a system of social establishments (Herbert & Beckett, 2009). These include commercial organizations, state, education, village, caste, kin groups, and family.


The methods for putting into effect the guidelines are recognized as sanctions. Sanctions may be negative or positive with both categories playing an imperative starring role in societal control. Actually, the essential objective of social mechanism is to conserve the social order. It marks the procedure of performances and practices that group and members of the public can establish in their everyday survival. Moreover, the sociologists categorize sanctions as informal and official. As an administrator, an individual must consider social control as a mandate and guide. For instance, once an employee infringes the workplace norm, the executive mediates through administering the guidelines.

The societal sanctions are capable of influencing individuals at every instance of survival. The sanctions might isolate individuals or groups from their associates, subject them to mockery, and deprive them of the accessible freedom and sustenance. Fascinatingly, sanctions may deny individuals or groups the gift of life in the long run. The ethics and regulations of the society may create an intricate rationalization for every sanction (Beckett & Herbert, 2010).

Conversely, a good number of groups or individuals will ascertain if they are cast-off through reprimand due to their nonconformity to social order. As argued by several researchers, groups or persons are positioned in the societal time and space. As a result, the society remains a historic unit that spreads temporally further than every person’s life history. A society therefore survives and antedates all people and groups. It will continue to survive after the collapse of any group or persons in the same way it appeared beforehand our existence. At all the times it is expected that organizations, groups, and individuals should act appropriately.

Failure of an appropriate act might lead to punishment via sanction. This encompasses formal sanctions like fines or jail sentences and informal sanctions like ridicule and fear. The encounter to an operative social control is the conflicting information established by individuals or groups in regards to their behavior (Beckett & Herbert, 2010). Hence, groups or persons in an association might be emboldened fairly unlike in the performance patterns of the administration or state that elaborately define the conventional conducts.

Positive sanctions

The optimistic sanctions are regarded as the prizes set for conforming to the customs. For working hard in an organization, changing the rank of an individual at the place of work demarcates a positive endorsement. Under the social control, promotion, rewards, an affirmation of appreciation, or a beam denotes a positive sanction. Consequently, the distinct outcomes on the restrictive effects of positive sanctions might replicate the variation and mutual benefit amid informal and formal mechanisms of societal control. The positive sanctions impart an individual or group manifestation of agreement and remuneration for compliance to the norms.

Mutually, the specific and general notions of sanctions advocate for the coercion of persons or groups to the social standards. The rewards enable them to distinguish that the advantages of conformity overshadow the penalty costs of negative sanctions. Moreover, the salience of such advantages relies on the personal admittance to the social rewards and quality of acquaintances to such prizes (Herbert & Beckett, 2009). The accessibility of rewards differs with different groups and individuals reflecting on the disparity between monetary conditions and labor.

Negative sanctions

The adverse sanctions come in form of retributions for being irreverent to the set group standards. As an example, austere punishment or confinement is a negative sanction for disorderly conduct at school. In this regard, punishments, somatic threat, condemnation, and frown are good examples of negative sanctions. Different societies differ in determining the conducts to be exposed to the official social rheostat. Similarly, they differ in defining the extent of austerity of sanctions. Singapore deals with serious crimes especially severely. For instance, death punishment is compulsory for homicide, drug peddling, and offenses related to handguns. In essence, negative sanctions are an expression of dissatisfaction for nonconformity with the set norms. Japan for example has generated an exceptional prison for irresponsible motorists. Whereas certain drivers are jailed for vehicular murder, the other motorists serve custodial terms for escaping after causing accidents while drunk-driving (Ross, 2009).

Informal sanctions

The sanctions employed to disparage desecration while emboldening compliance and conformity of societal standards are approved by means of informal social mechanisms. This does not indicate that an individual or groups that evade social order will go unpunished. As an alternative, such like group or individual will undergo informal sanctions. It is evident that informal sanctions appear in a head-on social communication. Perhaps, wearing a backward handspring during any presentation or use of vulgar language in the church might pull judgmental stares and unwritten rebukes. However, constructive behaviors such as assisting the elderly persons in their dealings will possibly receive optimistic casual reactions like congratulations or a smile. Individuals or groups use informal societal control calmly to put norms into effect (Ross, 2009). Rising the eyebrow, smiling, amusement, and mockery best illustrates the informal societal control.

In several cultures of states like US and Canada, the solitary and mutual contentious sample of informal societal control is the maternal usage of physical reprimand. Grownups frequently view striking out, hitting, or spanking kids as the necessary and proper method of preserving control. However, the experts of child growth hold that physical penance is unsuitable since it educates youngsters to resolve their tribulations through fierceness. The pediatric specialists currently consider that corporeal forms of punishment are detrimental and inspire their clients to employ friendly mechanisms of self-restraint (Beckett & Herbert, 2010). At times informal approaches of societal control are no longer suitable to administer compliant behavior or conformity.

Formal sanctions

The authorizations utilized when disparaging defilement and encouraging compliance and conventionality of social values are sanctioned by means of prescribed social apparatuses. The formal sanctions are means that officially distinguish and administer norm defilements. A student may face expulsion in case he/she infringes the code of conduct at every learning institution. Equally, unsuitable communication to managers at workplace could lead to discharge of an employee just like criminal injustice leads to imprisonment terms (Beckett & Herbert, 2010). On the contrary, an official award would be given to any combatant who protects a life.

In the above instances, formal social rheostat is done by the mediators akin to movie theatre executives, military officials, proprietors, school administrators, general practitioners, and police officers. The prescribed sanction is therefore a manifestation of appreciation or dissatisfaction through the support of policies, rules, and inscribed laws. The form of sanction specifies the circumstances in which individuals or groups ought to be punished or rewarded. Moreover, formal sanctions specify the techniques for administering punishments and assigning rewards.

Formal sanction can function as the only hope while socializing given that the informal sanctions cannot produce the anticipated conducts. In Canada for instance, a more progressive and important mechanism of formal societal control is jailing individuals. A single person is condemned to prison terms for every forty three wrongdoings that transpire. Out of this, an excessively tall number are First Nations individuals cater for nearly 8-10% of the central correctional organizations’ populace. Additionally, it is a superior fraction of the general population in the territorial and provincial establishments (Beckett & Herbert, 2010). Hence, the operational alterations in several societies specifically the extraordinary crime groups will always make it problematic for inhabitants to exercise social rheostat. Scholars maintain that efficiency of the formal based sanctions is expected to be destabilized due to such changes.


Suppression is a mechanism of averting information from reaching an audience by the agents who filters the conveyed info through the internet, television, literatures, movies, and media channels. The censors remove or block any materials that are thought to be unsuitable or threatening. In this framework, censors may include public opinion, neighborhood, and the family. Actually, public opinion is molded through the unfounded information, fact sheet, statutes, motion pictures, TV set, radio, and broadsheets. In remote dwellings, radio has turn out to be the significant channels of relaying information.

Persons or groups in distant sites express their opinions on the theme through gossip as they cannot have admittance to newspapers or TV. Contemporarily, lots of villages have access to the televisions. In modeling the public opinion, visual and print media remains the leading character in the cities. Amongst the learned peers, newsprint sways a number of opinions despite the fact that TV has gradually grown ascendance above the broadsheet due to a more potent audio visual means (Ross, 2009).

On the other hand, the rapports in the neighborhood societies are informal and intimate given that the groups or individuals fit in to a similar social order or relations group. The connections remain resilient even further than the immediate localities. However, the interactions amid the urban setting neighborhoods are formal. The rapports are even fragile in the large metropolises as compared to the rural settings and are discernible by irregular communications (Herbert & Beckett, 2009). As a result, the village environs accomplish its function as a channel of societal control since it is a passionate contributor to the day-to-day undertakings of the kinsfolk.

Family remains the utmost significant censor of social control since it is the immediate learning environ for every individual. The family outlines behavior of individuals as it mingles them into the customs, traditions, values, and norms. Correspondingly, family is a paradigm to groups or individuals that acquire attitudes, manners, and etiquette. For instance, families provide eminence to the individuals and groups. The manifestation is evident in the way of life, interests, and attitudes of group members or individuals. Yet, the predominance of nuclear family is instigated by the scarcity of space, limited revenue, and industrial development in the metropolises.

As opposed to communism that is paramount in the village, the family focus intensifies ascension on uniqueness. The family social role is supplemented by the other ancillary establishments like media, age group, play area, and tutorial room. Therefore, any group or individual develops the societal status from private accomplishment as against the rural areas where social status is derived partially from the family (Herbert & Beckett, 2009).


Surveillance demarcates an approach of societal control that comprises of checking the movements, actions, dialogs, and relations of wrongdoers. Likewise, surveillance aids in catching the transgressors, prevent people or groups from violating norms, and ensure that the society is secure from the offenders. Under the law, aspects like customs, mores, and folkways are put in place to control group or personal conducts. Presently, the standards of living, morals, diversification of service terms, division of labor, independence, and enormous diversity have described the societies. This has altered the atmosphere of the societal order and folkways or customs are not enough to control the populaces (Ross, 2009). Through expressing the corporate laws that are supported by political, administrative, and legal mechanism of nations, the governments are in a pole position to inevitably control deviance.

Besides the law, education is a significant supports of the societal order. Edification imparts the values of integration, tolerance, cooperation, and discipline to groups or individuals thus organize them for social existence. In fact, edification conveys information to individuals or groups on how to maintain social order via social inputs and officially designed courses in universities, colleges, and schools. For example, focus was laid on metaphysics, beliefs, and spiritual scriptures in the prehistoric India. However, the control measures changed due to more demands on decision-making skills and information by the social growth (Herbert & Beckett, 2009).

Ultimately, the state plays an important role in surveillance. According to the sociologist, state is accountable for implementing collective jurisdiction inside the local precincts to mainly conserve safety and order. Through the government policies, the state is capable of doing this by a mechanism of law that is accepted as possessing an autonomous power and supported by force. To ensure proper surveillance, the state aspires to offer unemployment grants, adulthood allowance, medical cover, and training to the society (Ross, 2009). The state gives a wide berth to coercion as an informal surveillance agency. Though, the state may be enforced to arbitrate in a forced way or informally in particular functions such as currency, distant relations, security, along with conservation of order and law. Hence, the state has emerged as one of the essential mediators of surveillance in relation to social control in the contemporary societies.


The study lays that group or individual manners are controlled by the state, society, predominant traditions and customs, as well as families. Any democracy with uncontrolled liberty tends to suffer from malady and demise of social order. The mechanisms of social control vary in reverence to atmosphere and tenacity of the faction under investigation. The religion, customs, mores, and folkways are appliances that informally sustain social control. Presently, the state plays a starring role in preserving social order since is functions via the government agents in diverse echelons. Social control is impacted by the public opinion, neighborhood, and family engagements. Whereas the ensuing heterogeneity of societal atmosphere and development license the support of regulations supported by the state agencies, family mores and conducts suffice in order to uphold public control in the rustic expanses.


Beckett, K & Herbert, S. (2010). Penal boundaries: Banishment and the expansion of punishment. Law and Social Inquiry, 35(1), 1-38. Web.

Herbert, S & Beckett, K. (2009). Zoning out disorder: Assessing contemporary practices of urban social control. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 47(1), 1-25. Web.

Ross, A. (2009). Social control: Control a survey of the foundations of order. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Web.