Clarifying Control in Criminology: A Proposal for Six Interacting Controls of Crime

For over 40 years, criminologists have tried to distinguish between formal and informal social control. While formal control is synonymous with the state, informal social control remains elusive. Informal social control’s vagueness has three sources. First, there is no template guiding the definition of controls. Second, informal social control is too broadly defined and yet the formal–informal dichotomy does not account for all types of control. Third, the formal–informal dichotomy does not address how controls interact. We address the sources of vagueness by increasing clarity in three ways. First, we propose six elements that all definitions of control must meet. Second, we use these elements to define six types of control: state, place management, organization, intimate, self, and stranger. These six types give greater specificity than the formal–informal dichotomy, while preserving key ideas in the original. Third, we show how these six controls can interact. The result is a set of controls, with clear definitions, that criminologists can study scientifically.