Social Control and Conformity - TCE Sociology (Tasmania) - Level 3
“Explain and evaluate the mechanisms of formal and informal social control”
Social control is the way society regulates behaviour so people conform to its norms. Informal social control works through everyday approval and disapproval from family, peers and the media. Formal social control works through written rules and official agencies such as the police, courts and prisons. Both rely on sanctions, the rewards and punishments that encourage conformity and discourage deviance.
What this dot point is asking
This dot point continues Module 1 by asking how society keeps people in line once they have been socialised. You need to explain the difference between formal and informal social control, the role of sanctions and the agencies that enforce conformity, and to evaluate whether social control serves everyone or mainly the powerful.
Why social order is a problem to be explained
Sociology begins with a puzzle: why is there order rather than chaos? Thomas Hobbes feared that without restraint life would be a war of all against all. Functionalists answer that order rests on value consensus produced by socialisation, backed up by social control when socialisation is not enough. Once we share the same norms, most control is invisible because we police ourselves.
Informal social control
Informal social control is the regulation of behaviour through unofficial social pressure. A disapproving look, gossip, teasing, exclusion from a friendship group or praise from a parent are all informal sanctions. They are powerful precisely because humans crave acceptance. The peer group, the family, the workplace and the media all exert this kind of pressure every day, rewarding conformity and shaming deviance without any official rules being written down.
A sanction is any social reaction that rewards or punishes behaviour. Positive sanctions (praise, prizes, promotion) reward conformity; negative sanctions (fines, ridicule, imprisonment) punish deviance. Sanctions can be formal (official) or informal (everyday).
Formal social control
Formal social control operates through explicit written rules enforced by official agencies. In Australia these include the law, the police, the courts and the prison and corrections system, as well as school rules and workplace codes of conduct. Formal control is used when informal control fails, and its sanctions are codified, from on the spot fines to imprisonment. Max Weber linked the rise of formal control to the growth of rational bureaucracy in modern states, where impersonal rules replace personal custom.
The main formal agencies in Australia are the police, the courts, the prison system and the law itself. The main informal agencies are the family, peers, religion, education and the media. Both sets of agencies work together: informal control handles most behaviour, with formal control as a backstop.
Functionalist evaluation
Functionalists see social control as necessary and broadly beneficial. Durkheim argued that punishing wrongdoers reaffirms shared values and strengthens social solidarity: when a court convicts an offender, the public outrage reminds everyone of the moral boundary. From this view, control benefits society as a whole by maintaining order and integrating individuals.
Conflict and interactionist evaluation
Marxists challenge this consensus picture. They argue that the agencies of social control protect the interests of the ruling class, enforcing laws that defend private property while ignoring the harms done by the powerful. From this view, control is not neutral but ideological. Interactionists add that control involves labelling: those who are policed and punished are often the powerless, so social control can amplify rather than reduce deviance through the self fulfilling prophecy.
How socialisation and control work together
Social control should not be read as separate from socialisation; it is its continuation. Socialisation internalises norms so that, for most people most of the time, conformity is automatic and self-policing, what sociologists call internal control. The conscience that Durkheim described as society inside us means we restrain ourselves without any external sanction. Informal and then formal control act as escalating backstops for the minority of cases where internalised norms fail. This layered model, from internalised conscience, to informal everyday pressure, to formal official sanction, explains why most behaviour is regulated invisibly and why visible policing handles only a small residue. It also explains conformity itself: people conform not mainly from fear of punishment but because the norms have become part of who they are.
A common extended-response task asks you to evaluate social control. Work through it in steps.
Step 1: Set out the consensus case
State the functionalist view (Durkheim): control reaffirms shared values, strengthens solidarity and maintains order that benefits everyone.
Step 2: Set out the conflict critique
Add the Marxist view that the agencies of control protect the ruling class and enforce laws that defend property while ignoring the harms of the powerful.
Step 3: Add the interactionist point
Bring in labelling: those policed and punished are often the powerless, so control can amplify deviance.
Step 4: Reach a judgement
Conclude that control maintains order benefiting society but is applied unequally, so the truth lies between the consensus and conflict positions.
Weaker answers reduce social control to law enforcement. In reality most control is informal and invisible, operating through socialisation and everyday social pressure long before any official agency is involved. Strong answers give both formal and informal examples and weigh them against each other.
This dot point links directly to the study of deviance: how a society defines, detects and punishes rule breaking reveals who holds power and whose norms count as the official norms of society.
Exam-style questions
Questions in the style of TASC exam questions on this dot point, each with a worked answer. They are written by ExamExplained unless tagged "Past paper"; the year shows the paper a question is modelled on.
Practice4 marksDistinguish between formal and informal social control, giving one example of each.Show worked answer →
A 4 mark short-answer response needs both types defined and one correct example each.
Formal social control. Regulation through explicit written rules enforced by official agencies. Example: the police, courts and prison system enforcing the law, or a fine for a driving offence.
Informal social control. Regulation through unofficial everyday social pressure. Example: a disapproving look, gossip, teasing or praise from family and peers.
The distinction. Formal control is codified and official; informal control is unwritten and everyday, and it handles most behaviour before any official agency is involved.
Markers reward both types defined and an example matched to the correct type. A common loss of marks is giving two formal examples or treating all control as policing.
Practice14 marksEvaluate the view that social control serves the interests of society as a whole rather than the powerful.Show worked answer →
A 14 mark extended response needs the consensus case, the conflict critique, and a judgement.
The consensus case. Functionalists (Durkheim) argue social control is necessary and broadly beneficial: punishing wrongdoers reaffirms shared values and strengthens solidarity through boundary maintenance, integrating individuals and maintaining order for everyone.
The conflict critique. Marxists argue the agencies of control protect the ruling class, enforcing laws that defend private property while ignoring the harms of the powerful, so control is ideological rather than neutral.
The interactionist addition. Labelling shows that those policed and punished are often the powerless, so control can amplify deviance through the self-fulfilling prophecy.
Judgement. A strong answer concludes that control does maintain order that benefits society but is also applied unequally, so it partly serves the powerful; the truth lies between the consensus and conflict positions. Markers reward both sides, named theorists and a balanced judgement rather than a one-sided answer.