Social Control 社交控制 Thus the individual's socialization and participation in group processes involve him in systems of social control. Insofar as the individual internalizes social codes and normative standards, he comes to accept them as right and develops a sense of obligation to observe and support them. Failure to do so provokes remorse and guilt and sets in operation reparative mechanisms which reinstitute the norms as valued and himself as one who respects and observes them. This is a form of social control which is personal and entirely internal. Social control may be exercised in more external and formal ways, however, by agents designated by the society for such purposes: police, courts, prisons, etc. Social systems also exercise control by corrective feedback which in less formal and more continuous ways lets the individual know that he is getting out of line and that persistence in his behavior will meet with disapproval or deprivation. One of the most effective forms of informal control is withdrawal from dealings with the offender. But social controls, of whatever kind, may not be effective. Negative sanctions and deprivations may serve only to further alienate the deviant and commit him further to the offensive course. The offender cannot be effectively outlawed nor isolated; he remains as a source of offense and outrage in the system. 因此，个体的社会化和对群体过程的参与使他参与到社会控制系统中。只要个体内化社会准则和规范标准，他就会接受它们，并发展出遵守和支持它们的义务感。如果不这样做，就会引起悔恨和内疚，并建立起有效的补救机制，使规范重新得到重视，使他自己重新成为尊重和遵守这些规范的人。这是一种个体的、完全内部的社会控制形式。但是，社会控制可以通过更外部和更正式的方式行使，由社会为此目的指定的代理人:警察、法院、监狱等等。社会系统还通过纠正性反馈来进行控制，这种反馈以不那么正式和更连续的方式让个体知道他正在越轨，坚持他的行为将会遭到反对或剥夺。非正式控制最有效的一种形式是不与冒犯者打交道。但是社会控制，不管是哪种，可能都不会有效。消极的制裁和剥夺可能只会进一步异化异化者者，使他进一步走上进攻性的道路。冒犯者不能被有效地取缔或孤立;他仍然是这个体系中冒犯和愤怒的源头。 The relation between processes of social exclusion and paranoid symptoms was studied by Lemert (1962) in patients whose difficulties seemed to arise in the job situation. Each case seemed to have suffered a severe loss or threat of loss which could not be compensated. The individual responds by declining to exercise inner personal control and by resisting the informal control attempted by others. He begins to intrude on subordinates and makes improper demands. He breaks the pattern of communication with equals, leaving them uncertain and insecure in their relations with him. He becomes insulting and arrogant and fails to show the expected tact and consideration for others. He assumes informal privileges which are marks of status that do not belong to him. His behavior becomes disruptive for his associates, undermining their sense of consensus regarding the definition and allotment of each one's social place. These concerns, after all, are important in that they determine patterns of work activity and contribute to each individual's assumptions about himself. Lemert(1962)研究了社会排斥过程与患者偏执症状之间的关系，这些患者似乎在工作环境中出现困难。每一病例似乎都遭受了严重的损失 或 无法补偿的损失威胁。个体的反应是拒绝行使内在的个人控制，并抵制他人试图进行的非正式控制。他开始侵扰下属，提出不适当的要求。他打破了与平等的人交流的模式，让他们在与他的关系中感到不确定和不安全。他变得傲慢无礼，没有表现出应有的机智和对他人的体贴。他享有一些非正式的特权，这些特权是不属于他的身份的标志。他的行为对他的同事们造成了破坏，破坏了他们对各自社会地位的定义和分配的共识感。毕竟，这些担忧很重要，因为它们决定了工作活动的模式，并促成了每个人对自己的假设。 The offender's co-workers respond by excluding mechanisms, avoiding him physically and excluding him from joint decision processes and activities. In face-to-face interaction they employ a humoring, pacifying, and noncommital style which damps the interaction but tries to give minimal cause for complaint. To cope with his disruptive maneuvers, they might spy on him in subtle ways, or share their reactions to his most recent move behind his back as it were, and in general reinforce the special solidarity that has formed around their response to his disruption. In his exclusion, the offender is deprived of corrective feedback and may find it necessary to reach violent levels to break through the wall that has been built around him. The others have formed a collusive net which defines the offender as deviant. Tact and secrecy, utilized in the interest of preserving social structure, can form the basis of a real excluding community which provides a counterpart of the paranoid community. The individual's disruptive reaction to loss can lead to a failure of control mechanisms which operate to exclude the patient and set the conditions for a paranoid response. The disruptive effect continues until the patient is hospitalized or until his reputation becomes established so that no one takes him seriously. This latter form of encapsulation is frequent in large organizations with the result that the system is redefined, the patient is effectively excluded and his disruptive effect neutralized, and his pathology is sustained. 冒犯者的同事的反应是排除机制，身体上避开他，将他排除在共同决策过程和活动之外。在面对面的交流中，他们采用一种幽默的、安抚的、不置可否的方式来抑制交流，但尽量减少抱怨的理由。为了应对他的破坏策略，他们可能会暗中监视他，或者在他的背后分享他们对他最近行动的反应，总体上加强了围绕他们对他破坏行为的反应而形成的特殊团结。在被排除在外的情况下，冒犯者被剥夺了纠正性反馈，并且可能会发现有必要达到暴力的程度，以打破在他周围建造的高墙。其他人组成了一个共谋网，将冒犯者定义为一类。为了维护社会结构的利益而运用机智和秘密，可以形成一个真正的排斥社区的基础，这种排斥社区提供了偏执社区的对等物。个体对失去的破坏性反应会导致控制机制的失败，这种机制会排除病人，并为偏执反应设定条件。这种破坏性的影响一直持续到病人住院，或者直到他的名声建立起来，以至于没有人把他当回事。后一种封装形式在大型组织中很常见，其结果是系统被重新定义，患者被有效地排除在外，他的破坏性影响被中和，他的病理得到维持。