The concentric circles of social control

The theory hypothesis guesswork that is usually called something like the 'concentric circles of social control' has been spooking around in sociological thinking for more than sixty years now. As with many sociological propositions, it seems reasonable, possibly illuminating – just as long as one doesn't look too closely.

The concept can be stated simply: no socialised individual is free, but is subject to various agents or instances of 'social control' which guide and regulate the individual's behaviour. The agents are said to differ in the power they yield over the individual.

We can draw a diagram which illustrates the distribution of this power: with the individual at the centre we just draw some concentric circles. The inner ones closest to the subject represent family, parents, siblings etc. and are the most powerful, exerting the most effect on the individual. As we move outwards, the circles we draw gradually become less powerful, they represent more distant social relationships ranging from friends, through acquaintences until we reach the institutional organs of social control: teachers, official agencies, the police, criminal courts and so on.

I am not going to insult your intelligence by giving you a diagram with concentric circles – because it leads to a false sense of empirical rigour. Some textbooks go to the lengths of labelling the circles 'Parents', 'Friends'... and so on, but like so many sociological speculations it is better if we are not too specific.

We might nod sagely at the proposition that a good telling off from your Mum will carry more force than anything a copper or a judge will say to you. Perhaps. The corollary is that, if the individual goes off the rails, according to this scheme it is always the poor parents' fault.

I got to thinking about this old sociological chestnut a few days ago, when I stumbled across a video clip from July 2015 in which Florida Judge Mindy Glazer reminds the lowlife appearing before her, Arthur Booth, who is appearing on charges involving burglary and a police vehicle pursuit, that they attended the same middle school all those years ago.

Up until that moment Booth had been detached from the process taking place on a distant circle of social control – he's down in the dock in his prison orange jump suit, avoiding eye-contact.

As soon as Judge Glazer points out to him that they were once school friends, rubbing it in by saying what a great person he was then, he breaks down wailing and sobbing: 'Oh my goodness!' She gives him the full inner-circle Mum-treatment, except for the traditional clip round the ear:

I always wondered what happened to you, Sir. He was the nicest kid in middle school. He was the best kid in middle school, I used to play football with him, all the kids looked up to him. And look what has happened. I’m so sorry to see you there. Mr Booth, I hope you are able to change your ways. Good luck to you. What's sad is how old we have become. Good luck to you, Sir. I hope you are able to come out of this OK and… just lead a lawful life.

Mindy Glazer and Arthur Booth were in the same class but their subsequent life trajectories could not have be more different. The sociologist would say that at that moment the court hearing had moved from an outer circle event into an inner circle event. Whether we think that Booth's performative wailing is genuine or not, his body language and wailing suggests that the sudden change from an outer circle to an inner circle social control experience has hit home.

Despite her eulogy to the young man she once knew, Judge Glazer set his bond at $43'000.

It may have been an inner circle event for Booth, but it didn't do any good. After this emotional encounter, he did not rejoin the path of rightousness but developed an extensive criminal career. In fact, nearly ten years later, in August 2024, he appeared before Judge Glazer again, once again for his speciality, burglary. On this occasion she said, 'I want to say Hi to Arthur. Wish it wasn’t like this...Hope things work out for you', then recused herself and let another judge deal with him, sensing also that nothing more that she could say would cause Booth to 'lead a lawful life'.

The moral being that, even the purported power of an inner circle of social control may have no effect on a career lowlife.