Talk:Social control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Formal vs. informal rules[edit]

Tom Rushton, You added the following sentence: "These are usually enforced more regularly than informal social control and those that do not abide by these guidelines are usually punished directly". This does not strike me intuitively as a true statement and I wonder what authority you might find for it. It is a commonplace that formal rules are often ignored while informal rules are defined by their inforcement, i.e. an uninforced formal rule simply doesn't exist. Fred Bauder 11:28, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Links[edit]

There are two links on this page. One is not available and ultimately leads to a rather amateurish homepage. The other is available but contains no valuable content (for an encycl.) at all. Remove both? 134.106.199.96

Bias? Personal opinion?[edit]

This article is bursting to the seam with POV. It's mostly speculation, opinion, and conspiratorial. Someone neutralize this thing because this article's just got too much color for its own good.--NeantHumain 06:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

///////////

Ha Ha. Neanthuman, from looking at your profile, I would hazard that you yourself are the best evidence of what this article is talking about. I mean, jeez, you are a young, well educated, malleable, groupthink, rightwing democrat, pseudoLiberal, twentysomething. Egads, you are what destroyed the promise of the Internet. Talk about a creature of overclass propaganda. MeatPuppetry to the max!

Well, I sure hope someone has the time to stave off your destruction of this fine article, because it is nice to see a little truth here and there in this world.

--cryofan

Sorry Cryofan, this page is definitely biased, and you attacking someone with your opinion of their social or political background is not going to cover that up. I have marked this page (which is certainly not a "fine article" at this point) as it obviously needs serious alteration. -- Grandpafootsoldier 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

standard sociology[edit]

This article is pretty much standard introduction to sociology material. It could use a good edit to refer to some of the other theories of power and control in society (there are many).


129.10.79.81 18:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Judy Perrolle

standard sociology[edit]

This article is pretty much standard introduction to sociology material. It could use a good edit to refer to some of the other theories of power and control in society (there are many.) im new to this page and i would like to ask whether the writer of this article could not include more information on the overt and covert goals of social control?

Edmund Burke[edit]

The article should have a note on Edmund Burke's thoughts on this. -- 201.51.228.217 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Medias???[edit]

Media is already plural. "Several intellectual figures such as Noam Chomsky have argued on the existence of systematic bias in modern medias." And shouldn't it be "reasoned about..."? Argued on? --Christofurio 18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No mention of religion[edit]

Nice article but I am suprised that there is no mention of the first, best and most popular form of social control - religion. Waffle247 10:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You summed that up rather nicely! However, we can't include that information in the article because of what would happen if everyone found out what religion is REALLY about. Seriously though, there should be a giant wikipedia article devoted to this issue. Afterall, people tend to forget that this was one of the major reasons that the USA even exists today instead of being a possession or part of the U.K. [1] --Wisepiglet 11:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm.. yes well as I'm English I'll just say that I'm quite happy the USA isn't related to the UK anymore too. Waffle247 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No mention of 1984[edit]

Sorry, but said book is probably the most influential work ever to be written on this topic. Mention it. (69.29.26.85 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Neutrality check[edit]

I've had a look at this from the point of view of the article's sociological content. I've also read the comments above about bias. We need to remember that the subject is "social control." A question to be asked is: "if a society or agency is going to control people how can it do that?" The article illustrates some of the mechanisms of social control. Although not complete, it is a pretty fair intro to the field of social control. Edits since the tag was placed have removed the POV statements. I'm going to take the neutrality tag off the article. I will start adding sources. That should further improve the article and make its neutrality more transparent. Sunray 02:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do u think church and school are a institute of social control and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.126.33 (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Weight and Neutrality Issues at End[edit]

The article's end gives undue weight to marginalization and violates neutrality by expounding a pro-left POV thereabout: what should we do to balance its weight and neutralize its point-of-view?

Duxwing (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Duxwing: I think that the "Informal social control" section is incredibly poorly written. It doesn't adequately define the term and seems to give far too much weight to abuses of state power. I'm not sure what you mean by "pro-left POV." Perhaps you could elaborate on that. It seems to be from an anti-state POV and leaves out a great deal. There are a couple of ways to approach this. One approach might be to be bold and make some additions and changes. Another might be to list some of the problems here and collaborate on making changes. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Writing "pro-left POV," I was trying to concisely describe my perception that the article, like leftists, sympathizes with homeless people. Whatever the article's leaning happens to be, I agree we should neutralize it. The problems we have noticed, including yours:
  • POV
    • Anti-state
    • Pro-homeless
  • Too short

Anything else? Also, thanks for coming. :)

Duxwing (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I like your comments. NPOV is crucial. Homelessness is a good example of different approaches to social control taken by various jurisdictions. Up until the 1980s people whose behaviour was "deviant" or "abnormal" were placed in institutions. The de-institutionalization (initially of mental hospitals, later of various other kinds of institutions, except prisons) that began in the 1980s, created major changes in the urban landscape, as did the trends to privatization of public services and constraints on government spending on social services. Homelessness is, in part, a spin off from these changes. It could be used as an example, but it is only one of many phenomena that is influenced by formal social control policies. Social control is highly complex. We need to look for some good general sources. Sunray (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you suggested "good general sources" because you, like me, wanted more-diverse examples of social control: am I right? If we will get these sources, then where can we get them?
PS - Sorry for not having replied sooner! Duxwing (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)