informal social control:

peter blau and stanley milgram

1) BLAU: in social exchange, we seek our own ADVANTAGE and/or CONTROL of a relationship

--exchange of goods, services, favors, is undertaken to achieve maximum benefit at minimal cost

--the logic of diminishing returns applies

--being in an advantageous position allows one to charge a higher price

2) examples: 1) panhandling

2) flirtation

3) the framework: A supplies rewards to B; what is B's response?

a) offer something 'A' needs in return

b) look for alternative suppliers (exit)

c) try coercion, or form a coalition with other recipients (voice protest)

d) try to do without (emotionally disinvest)

e) acquiesce (express loyalty/obedience)

4) the outcome: games of exchange --> create asymmetries of power --> a stratified social system --> which in turn maintains these asymmetries

---------------------------------------------------------

5) MILGRAM: "If person X tells person Y to hurt another person Z, under what conditions will Y carry out (or refuse) the command?"

X -------- Y

|

|

|

Z

6) factors affecting obedience:

--a) proximity of person issuing command

--b) proximity of person being punished

(& clarity of their response)

--c) legitimacy of person issuing the commands

7) manifestation of anxiety/tension itself a technique of social control

8) control theory: control will be greatest over those who:

--have more personal attachments

--have more investment in their future, or current status

--are involved in more groups

--have internalized norms to a greater degree

--adolscence as a time when control typically diminishes and deviance increases

9) hechter and kanazawa: social control in japan hangs on three criteria:

1) dependence

2) visibility

3) extensiveness