The Social Control System performs some of the most important functions of all. A social control system can almost be equated with a society's culture, it shapes who they are, where they have been and where they are going. It is here where they learn to be honest, hard-working, considerate people. One learns about obedience, respect for others, and responsibility to perform his/her social and civic duties.

     Our social control system ties us together so that we can predict how the stranger next to us will respond to his environment. For example, we know that the people entering the restaurant behind us will not jump in front of us to try to get service before us, and if they do, we are infuriated because they have "broken the unwritten rules". We know that the person in the booth next to us will not pick his nose, belch or fart, even if he needs to, because that would be "rude and inconsiderate" and if he does we are insulted. We can expect that everyone in public areas will be clothed and will not be "having sex on the tables" because that would be "indecent."

     The major tenets have always been family and religion. But there are now other things which could be considered components: schools, media, peers and community organizations (like Scouts, "midnight basketball," etc).

     The next time you get to "people watch," observe what total strangers talk about when they want to try to "get to know each other better." This will immediately identify the bonds which tie us all together. You would see that politics, religion and income are taboo topics unless the goal is to get the other person angry - that is because these things help define who we are as an individual, they distinguish and separate us from everyone else who do not have the same qualities. Now after we discover the other person has the same politics, religion and/or income, the two will have much common ground. But what if the other person is the exact opposite on all of these things? You would not initiate a conversation with a total stranger by saying something like "those Republicans have really gone off the deep end"...because what if that person is a Republican?

     The conversation would usually start out with the most universal common ground, the weather. Everyone is affected by the weather regardless of status. Then perhaps some comments based upon their current surroundings (because their current surroundings is something they have in common). For example, if the two meet in a mall, they might comment on the quality of merchandise at the near-by shop. Then possibly asking what the other person does for a living, because everyone but the extreme income castes work (and the filthy rich and the destitute are separated from the rest of society either by choice or by force). If they haven't found common ground by this point, watch how quickly the conversation turns to "popular culture"..."Did you catch that game last night?", "Did you see the Olympics last night?", "Did you hear about X on the evening news last night?", "Have you seen that new movie?"...etc.

     There are far too few things which tie EVERYONE together. Our popular culture is one of those things. Our national identity is another, "we are all Americans"...unfortunately, that does not extend beyond US borders. Things have changed much since Tocqueville warned of equality and democracy stripping away individuality. The conformity of the 1950's has been overcome to the point that the US is one of the most diverse nations in the world. Americans no longer hold the same religious beliefs nor do we share the entrepreneurial spirit of our forefathers (big business crushed that a long time ago). We may all still long for material wealth, but have found satisfaction in other things (such as career and family) since income strata have long lost their fluidity.

     The first warning, thus, is this: our society is on the verge of collapse if we do not strengthen the bonds which tie everyone together. Many people don't think twice about killing someone else because "they are not us". The rise of gangs show the desperate need of youth to feel as though they "belong to something greater than themselves". We tend to take an isolationist view of foreign affairs, the death and destruction in another country is not our concern, it's none of our business, after all, they are not us.

     Religious institutions openly wage political war on those who are not within its influence. They may mistakenly believe that a common religious belief will restore the bonds between people, but that is oppression which belongs more in a communist regime, not a democratic one. Society tried that once, it is a period of history known as the Dark Ages...the zealots need to rethink their actions. It was the empowering of the common man which brought the world "out of darkness" during the Renaissance.

     It was only by overthrowing the monarchy and the religious leaders and placing both under the authority of a legislating body that humankind advanced more in a few centuries than they had in millennia. To those who seek to force everyone to live under the same religious dogma, I suggest this: Freedom is the true expression of Love, if you are of a Christian persuasion, why else would God give humanity a free will and then choose to die rather than take that free will away?

     But we are now stuck with the ultimate question: how do we strengthen the bonds between individuals without destroying individuality?

     That leads to the second warning: in strengthening and creating new bonds between individuals, the bonds must be of a nature which protect individuality. For example, citizens of the US can take great pride in being "American", and the cost of sharing this label with everyone around themselves is minimal, because at the heart of the term is diversity, freedom and democracy.

     "Family" used to be a term which embodied love, devotion, and responsibility, though the religious have bastardized the term into an oppressive one. By excluding all situations but man+woman+2.3 kids as being a "family," they are turning their back on a millinnia of tradition, and indeed, on the Bible as well. Don't they realize that when Paul says that a man will leave his mother and cling to his wife, that this was meant almost in an insulting manner, essentially calling such men "momma's boys"? Marriage was a necessary evil for those people who were too weak to control their lusts. And just how many spouses and children did Christ have? Aren't Christians supposed to emulate Him? Christ talks about how belief in Him would split up families, turning them against each other. The Catholic church used to perform gay marriages in the past and then quietly stopped doing it under pressure from the bigoted. So, do you religious leaders want to talk about real Christian Family Values or do you insist on conforming yourself to this world? Yeah...that's what I thought.

     One's freedom of religion ends where it imposes upon the rights of others.

     Okay, I've calmed down now. Sorry, it must be those "hot buttons"...let's continue.

     Summarizing, the goals of an ideal social control system are overwhelming. [1] First, they build positive personal character qualities into the citizens: honesty, loyalty, respect, responsibility, and obedience to proper authorities. Or, as mentioned elsewhere, socializing people to control themselves. [2] Second, they install informal codes of conduct: respecting others' person and property, teaching what behavior is and isn't appropriate in public, etc. [3] Thirdly, the system provide a support structure, one where the individual can feel part of a greater whole, one where the individual does not feel isolated from everyone else. A society desperately needs outstanding individuals in order to progress, but progress is made only when implemented by the collective. These ties must be all-inclusive, for criminal behavior results when one has no bonds to others which restrict his behavior.

     Let me know if I left anything out.