From Ken Hacker
In response to Rick Marten's post of May 1, 92:
This was an excellent catalyst/disturbance for elaborating the linkages
of social influence and control (always personal). I was a bit shocked to
see that you were referring to "social control." As I recall, earlier on
this hotline, social scientists were broadsided for suggesting such a
concept. I myself admitted that social control is an oxymoron, that in a
technical sense, control is only within individuals, i.e. perceptual.
Thus, I suggested with others than "social influence" is what some of us
really are getting at. But your statements about LA rioting bring up
some political issues about CSG which cannot be swept away with
platitudes about individual perception being individual perception. If we
tell people to work or live in poverty, what kind of effects to we have
on their behaviors. You frame it as giving them options. I think that is
a key formulation. The option giver cannot control the receiver, but can
strongly influence and reduce the choices of the receiver.
Some key political issues are a) Is the giving or restraining of options
a form of power which affects control processes in such a way as to
favor the giver/restrainer? b) How is the work/live in poverty option
different from Powers' famous give money or die example? In both cases the
person can CHOOSE. c) Are we confusing choice of behavioral options with
freedom of creating one's paths of action?
I suggest that Powers is totally correct in stating that control is only
(technically) in the realm of individual perception, but that control is
heavily affected by social influence.
To fully describe and explain control, therefore, it is necessary to
explain where the essential variables and references levels of individuals
meet the norms, rules, and constraints of culture.
Thank you for an inspiring note, Rick. Ken Hacker
Kenneth L. Hacker, Ph.D.
Dept. of Communication Studies
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003