Social Control 11

8/14/2019 Social Control 11

1/13

1

Overview

All societies impose social control on their citizens to

some degree. They monitor and regulate behaviorformally and informally. This is one of the mostimportant prerogatives of political leaders. In additionto exerting their political will, they strongly influence oractually manage the mechanisms of social control.Inlarge-scale societies, the most visible mechanismsare laws, courts, and police. However, law and thelegal bureaucracy that administers it is only one aspectof social control and is usually the least effective one.As you will see in the next section of this tutorial,small-

scale societiesmaintain social control without thecomplex legal institutions with which we are familiar. However, this does notmean that they are without laws.Key to understanding a culture's system of social control is understandingthe social norms upon which it is based. These are the commonly heldconceptions of appropriate and expected behavior in a society. Norms canand do change over time. In tradition-bound societies, such as those of manyconservative Arab nations, norms generally change very slowly. In large,multi-ethnic societies such as the United States and Canada, norms change

rapidly. Subsequently, what was acceptable earlier in one's life is often nottoday. If one portion of a society has not changed its norms but another has,there likely will be conflict. The modern term "political correctness" is, in asense, a product of such a conflict. It has been used by those who do notwish to accept the changing norms of others.

Often a society's norms change but the laws relating to them have a longdelay in catching up. This was the case withanti-miscegenation lawsin theU.S. southern states. Over the last 30-40 years, it has become progressivelymore socially acceptable for people of different "races" to date and even

marry. However, the law prohibiting this was not struck off of the law books inAlabama until 2000. This was despite the fact that it had not been enforcedby the police since the mid 20th century.Sometimes the laws change before the norms do for large sections of asociety. This was the case with the civil rights acts of the U.S. Congressduring the 1960's. These acts called for the legal enforcement of "racial"

Policeman in a modernnation state--a commontool used for social control
http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#large-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#large-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#large-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#anti-miscegenationhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#anti-miscegenationhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#anti-miscegenationhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#anti-miscegenationhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#small-scale_societyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#large-scale_society


2/13


3/13

3

traditions. However, small culturally homogenous communities in the U.S.typically are like Japan in having low crime rates. People often do not botherlocking the doors of their houses and do not fear walking the streets alone atnight. In these communities, most people have grown up together andweresocializedin essentially the same way. Subsequently, they share the

same norms. This is very different from large American cities in which peoplehave come from many different societies and have internalized differentnorms. This is reflected in differing expectations and attitudes about thesociety's rules.All societies have laws to deal with the inevitable disputes that arise.However, laws and their focus vary significantly from culture to culture. Thepatterns of this variation are described in the next section of this tutorial.

LawSocial control entails rules of behavior that should be followed by themembers of a society. Some of the rules of conduct fall into the realm of goodmanners as the culture defines them. As such they describe behavior that issocially desirable but not necessarily compulsory. Other rules of conduct are

not optional and are enforced by laws. In complex, large-scale societies, lawsare usually written down formally so that they can be known clearly toeveryone. This is not the case with laws in small-scale societies such asthose of foragers, pastoralists, and horticulturalists. Their laws commonly aremuch more informal, being rarely written down. Since they are part of theevolving oral tradition that is familiar to members of these societies, there isno need to explain them to anyone. However, people visiting from othersocieties are not likely to know what the laws are until there is a dispute.How laws come about varies. In small-scale societies, they usually evolve

over time and are part of the cultural tradition. These are referred toas common laws. In large-scale societies, many laws derive from oldcommon laws that are now formalized by being written down in penal codes.Other laws in these complex societies do not evolve organically but arecreated by enactment in legislatures or by rulers. These may or may not becodifications of existing social norms. Those laws that parallel the existingnorms usually are more likely to be accepted and followed without coercion.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#socializationhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#socializationhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#socializationhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#socialization


4/13

4

It is not uncommon for some laws to be confusing because they areinconsistent or open to interpretation in different situations. Murder laws in theUnited States provide an example. Killing another individual is considered tobe a serious crime except when it is done in self-defense or in battle during awar. When it is defined as a crime, there can be mitigating circumstances that

lessen the seriousness of the crime. U.S. state legal codes commonly make adistinction between murder in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree. In addition therecan be 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter. The age and mental state of thekiller are often also extenuating circumstances. Some states consideradvising or aiding in suicide as being a crime. Killing certain classes ofpeople, such as law enforcement officers, often calls for a harsher sentenceas does murder with a gun in the act of committing another crime. The killingof a pregnant woman is considered murder, but the simultaneous killing of herunborn child is not necessarily murder. This is because American societytoday is divided on the understanding of when human life legally begins.

Crimes and disputes are rarely simple matters in any society. Laws may beopen to interpretation, and there often is a difference of opinion about theevidence. Even when guilt is established, there can be a difference of opinionabout the appropriate punishment or terms of settlement. Because theseissues are open to differing conclusions, most societies settle legal cases bythe agreement of the entire community or a representative sample of it. Jurysystems around the world usually are based on this idea. The assumption ismade that jurors will come to an understanding that would be acceptable to a

"reasonable man." In most societies in the past, the "reasonable man" wasthought to be just that, a man. Women and children were not thought to bereasonable, nor were uneducated poor men. Subsequently, they wereexcluded from being jurors and judges. This is still the situation in some of themore traditional societies of the Middle East and some other regions.Law is by no means the only method for controlling the behavior of deviantindividuals. People who violate norms can be subjected to gossip, publicridicule, social ostracism, insults, and even threats of physical harm by othermembers of their community. These kinds of informal negative

sanctions are very effective in small-scale societies. In larger societies, thismethod also works effectively in small towns and sub-groups of cities, such asa family, work group, church, or club.

In some societies, social control involves the threat of supernaturalpunishment from the gods or ancestral spirits for deviation from the norm.Since it is assumed that crimes against other people in these societies arelikely to be punished whether they are publicly known or not, this belief in


5/13

5

divine retribution provides a powerful tool for getting people to behaveproperly. The possibility that others could use witchcraft against deviantindividuals also is a common effective coercive mechanism for bringingpeople into line, especially in small-scale non-western societies.Some societies emphasize the use of positive sanctions to reward appropriatebehavior rather than negative ones to punish those who do not conform to thesocial norms. Common positive sanctions include praise and grantinghonors or awards. Simply receiving the esteem of one's peers is oftensufficient motivation for people to be model citizens. Examples of effectivepositive sanctions in the United States include such things as militarypromotions, ticker-tape parades, and receiving good grades in school. Inorder to be effective, a positive sanction does not need to offer an immediatereward. It can be a supernatural reward following death. The Judeo-Christianand Moslem belief that entry into heaven must be earned by a life of goodbehavior is an example. Similarly, the Hindu and Buddhist belief that a goodlife results in being reborn at a higher level of existence is a promise of afuture supernatural reward.Some norms in every society usually can be ignored without fear ofpunishment. Being a loner or dressing oddly are examples of such minordeviations from the norms in North America today. Individuals who do thesethings may be labeled strange, eccentric, or independent but rarely criminal.Which of these alternative labels is applied may depend on who the deviantindividual happens to be. One's gender, ethnicity, age, wealth, and socialclass are likely to be important factors. Strange behavior by rich, well dressedpeople is likely to be considered eccentric, while the same behavior by poorpeople living on the street is more likely to be defined as criminal. This isespecially true if the deviant individuals are strangers and members of asubculture that is stereotyped as being "trouble makers." Consistently oddbehavior by a homeless woman on the street is likely to cause others toquestion her mental health and seek assistance for her, while the samebehavior by a homeless man may be seen as a potential danger to societyand get him arrested for creating a public disturbance.


6/13

6

Is either of these mencommitting a crime orare they only acting

oddly? How do youthink a policemanwould interpret thesesituations?

What Is A Crime?A crime is a deviation from the social norm that is of such magnitude as to gobeyond what would be considered bad manners or odd behavior. Societiesrespond to such exceptionally deviant actions by creating laws to curb andsometimes punish them. There is no universal agreement between thesocieties of the world about what constitutes criminal behavior or how itshould be dealt with. Sufficientethnographicdata have been collected overthe last century to show that societies with different kinds of economies haveradically different sorts of laws and legal concerns. Some activities that aredefined as serious crimes in foraging societies are often not thought of ascriminal at all in large-scale agricultural ones. The reverse is also true. The

way these two dissimilar kinds of societies deal with crime is radically differentas well. In order to understand these differences, it is necessary to examinetheir concepts of what constitutes crime and their approaches to dealing withit.

Legal Concerns Among Foragers andHorticulturalists

In societies that havepedestrian foragingor

simplehorticulturalsubsistence bases, property protectinglaws are rare. This is due to the fact that land and otherimportant economic resources are usually not scarce.Population densities are generally very low and they typicallyhave ausufructownership concept. Land, water, and otherimportant resources are either "owned" by the community asa whole or they are freely shared. Reciprocal gift
http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#ethnographyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#ethnographyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#ethnographyhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#pedestrian_foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#pedestrian_foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#pedestrian_foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#horticulturalistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#horticulturalistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#horticulturalistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#usufructhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#usufructhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#reciprocityhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#reciprocityhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#usufructhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#horticulturalistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#pedestrian_foragershttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#ethnography


7/13

7

giving assures that everyone has about the same amount of food and wealth.In these kinds of societies, the major focus of law usually is on the failure ofan individual or family to freely share food and water with others who need it.In addition, they are concerned about the disruption caused by disputes over

mates. The Ju/'hoansi people of Namibia and Botswana provide a goodexample of this. As a result of his long-term study of the the Ju/'hoansi,Richard Lee observed that they perceive themselves as being a peacefulpeople, but that they actually have a relatively high murder rate. The mostcommon cause of murder for them has been competition between two menover the same woman.

Among the Ju/'hoansiand other small-scale societies,disputes and crimes within the community were most oftensettled informally. They did not have police, courts, judges,or prisons. If a settlement could not be arrived atpeacefully by the members of the families involved, the restof the community expressed its strong disapproval bypublicly talking about the "bad behavior" and shunning theindividuals involved. In a small community, being the targetof gossip and ostracism is an extremely serious penalty. If

this fails to resolve the situation, the adults of the community come togetherand openly discuss it. From their perspective, the most important thing is tofind a solution that will reduce tension and return the community to reciprocity

rather than "punish" the wrong doers. Among the Inuit people of Alaska,

Northern Canada, and Greenland, quarrels that are difficult to settle wereusually resolved by a "song duel" between the disputants in the presence ofthe entire community. This would occur, for instance, if two men both wantedto marry the same woman and neither would concede. They took turnssinging and drumming mocking songs for hours until one of them gave up orthe audience decided that one of the men was a better song composer andsinger. Guilt or innocence was not at issue. If the individual who was theloser in this competition did not accept the decision or did not makesatisfactory amends, the community had little alternative. It could banish him,which would essentially be a death sentence. It could murder him. As a last

resort, the families of the disputants and their allies could separate and formtwo new communities.In small-scale societies, crimes are almost always understood as being familymatters. Crimes are against individuals rather than the society. They arematters for the families that are affected to settle. The society becomesinvolved when a settlement cannot be reached. Payment for a crime rather
http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/sounds/Inuit.mp3http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/sounds/Ju_hoansi.mp3


8/13

8

than punishment usually is the primary goal. There is a weregeld , or"blood money", concept operating in the settlement. This is the idea that amaterial value can be set for every thing, every animal, and every humanbeing. If someone burns down your house, he must pay you the worth of thehouse. Similarly, if he kills your dog or your child, negotiations will determinetheir worth and, subsequently, what he owes you. Once the weregeldpayment has been made, the killer is judged by society as having satisfactorilysettled the matter. The "crime" is expunged and everyone goes on with theirown business. Failure to pay the agreed upon amount of weregeld meansthat the case has not been settled and the wronged party is expected by thecommunity to seek revenge by killing the person who killed his familymember.In the United States and other western nations, legal systems make adistinction between crimes against the state and crimes against individuals.The latter are referred to as torts. They are settled in civil cases rather thancriminal ones. Torts include any damage or injury done willfully or negligentlythat harms another individual. Weregeld was eliminated long ago as anacceptable punishment in crimes against the state but has survived as aresolution of tort cases. In 1995, the former football player O. J. Simpson wasfound innocent of murder in a Los Angeles criminal court decision but wasfound guilty of the same crime two years later in a civil case brought by someof the family members of the two murder victims. Simpson was ordered topay the family members over $30 million in compensatory damages. While it

was not called weregeld, that is what it is in reality. Weregeld is stillconsidered to be an acceptable resolution for murder cases in sometraditional Moslem nations.

Legal Concerns In Advanced Horticultural,Pastoral, and Rich Fishing Societies

Families and sometimes individuals own land and have considerable amountsof personal property in many advanced horticultural,pastoral, and rich, settled

fishing societies. These societies have in common an emphasis on veryproductive specializedsubsistence bases. Because they have, in a sense,put all of their eggs in one basket, they are concerned about other peopletaking their farmland, water sources, herd animals, fishing grounds, surplusfood, or other resources that are economically critical to their way of life. It isnot surprising that they have the beginnings of property protecting laws. Withthe exception of pastoralists, the population densities in these societies are
http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#pastoralistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#pastoralistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#pastoralistshttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#subsistence_basehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#subsistence_basehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#subsistence_basehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/sounds/weregeld.mp3http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#subsistence_basehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#pastoralists


9/13

9

higher than among pedestrian foragers and simple horticulturalists. Due topopulation pressure, the important economic resources are realisticallyviewed as being finite and, subsequently, in need of protecting. In the case ofpastoralists, the key resource is not land but the animals that they herd. Theywould be easy targets for theft if they were not constantly protected.The traditional pastoralist way of life is by its nature migratory. Whenpastoralists have disputes with their neighbors, they can move to a new areato avoid it. This option is usually not available to sedentary fishermen whomake their living along rivers and bays and farmers in areas where it is nolonger possible to practiceshifting agriculture. When personal conflicts occurwith their neighbors, they must stay and deal with them. Since these societiesusually do not have police and judges to step in to arbitrate or prosecutecriminals, the usual method for dealing with disputes and crimes within thecommunity is to use gossip, public ridicule, and social ostracism. If this fails tobring relief,witchcraftis often the next solution. Because it is possible to castspells or employ other forms of magic in secret, it can be used to get revengewithout being found out. The fact that anyone potentially can use it at anytime to harm a neighbor makes the threat of witchcraft a useful tool forkeeping people from committing crimes or taking advantage of each other.The belief that witchcraft actually works and the fear that it might be usedagainst you is often enough to prevent deviation from the social norms.Another common method for dealing with crime within these societies is toshift the blame to people in other communities or even other societies. By

accusing outsiders rather than a neighbor, the local community is not forced todeal with a potentially divisive conflict. This can be a safe way out of a tensesituation. Community unity is maintained.

Legal Concerns In Large-scale SocietiesIn large-scale advanced agricultural and industrial nations, social control ismore difficult because their populations are larger, more dense, and usuallymore diverse culturally, socially, and economically. The entire populationrarely shares the same norms and those that are shared are not equally wellinternalized by everyone. Subsequently, informal controls on behavior suchas gossip and ostracism are not as effective except within families and small,close-knit sub-groups. Laws have to become formalized and specialinstitutions are created to enforce them. Typically, these are police, courts,lawyers, and jails. Property protecting laws are very important in these large-scale societies.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#shifting_agriculturehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#shifting_agriculturehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#shifting_agriculturehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#witchcrafthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#witchcrafthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#witchcrafthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#witchcrafthttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#shifting_agriculture


10/13

10

WarfareArmed conflict is common among humans. It occurs both between and within

societies. Many behavioral scientists are convinced that people are by natureaggressive animals. From this perspective, fighting is natural for us. Themajority of other primate species are relatively peaceful. Among the primates,it may only be humans and chimpanzees (our nearest living relatives) whocarry outgenocide. Violent physical fighting is primarily a male activity amonghumans and chimpanzees. Adult male chimpanzees also spend much of theirwaking time involved in politics. They intimidate, scheme, and form short-termalliances with other males to be able to move up the dominance hierarchy.The rewards are the same as for human politicians--gaining more access towhat their society values, whether it be food, sex, land, or simply control over

others.

A comparison of the variations of fighting in different kinds of human societiesaround the world shows that it does not always take the form of what wecommonly think of as warfare. It is useful in understanding armed conflict todivide it into three categories--feuding, raiding, and warfare. However, it isimportant to keep in mind that they are not always clearly distinct in everysociety.

Feuding

Feuding is prolonged hostility and occasional physical fighting betweenindividuals and their supporters rather than whole societies. It is a universalform of human aggression that mostly occurs between members of the samesociety, though it can occur between people from separate societies as well.It is caused by a desire for revenge for a perceived prior wrong. Usually, bothsides in feuds believe that they have been wronged and seek to settle thescore. Inherent in feuds is a failure in communication between the feudingparties and the belief that there needs to be "an eye for an eye." Without

adequate retribution, there is minimally a loss of face for the families involved.Sometimes the need for retribution involves more than just the living. Amongthe Dani people of Papua New Guinea, the spirit of a person killed in a feudwill not rest until he or she is revenged by living relatives killing someone inthe enemy group.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#genocidehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#genocidehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#genocidehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#genocide


11/13

11

In many societies, feuding results in an endlesscycle of reciprocal killings. There are feudsbetween families in the Balkans, Corsica, and Sicilythat have been going on for hundreds of years."Vendetta" is now a common English word for a

lasting blood feud of this sort. The word "vendetta"comes from 19th century Italian and ultimately theLatin word "vindicta" meaning "vengeance".Shakespeare's play "Romeo and Juliet" is thetragic story of young lovers from prominent familiesin Verona Italy who had a bitter blood feud between them. The most famousblood feud in North America was between the Hatfield and McCoy familiesalong the Kentucky and West Virginia border. It began sometime in the1870's or somewhat earlier. The original trigger apparently was a disputeover a pig. During the next several decades, dozens of people from bothfamilies were murdered. By the 1920's, police intervention had reduced theviolence, but the Hatfield and McCoy families did not officially end their feuduntil 2003 when their descendants signed a formal peace agreement.

RaidingRaiding consists of surprise predatory attacksdirected against other communities orsocieties. Revenge may or may not be amotive. The primary objective of raiding usuallyis to plunder and then to escape unharmed withthe stolen goods. In some societies, the goal isalso to kill men in the target community as wellas kidnap women and children. Raiding is amore organized form of aggression thanfeuding. Violent encounters are often the resultof opportunistic meetings in the case offeuding. In contrast, raids are planned inadvance. Another difference is that raids occurin a finite time period. They are rarelysustained activities like feuds.Raiding is common among pastoral societies, especially in East Africa. It is aquick and efficient way for young men to start a herd or add additional animalsto a herd. It also has the benefit of keeping young men trained for protectingtheir family's' cattle. The horse riding bison hunting tribes of the North

Regions of Europe whereVendettas have been common


12/13

12

American Great Plains also regularly raided each other for essentially thesame reasons. They stole horses, women, and children. In both the Africancattle herding societies and the North American bison hunting ones, boyswere encouraged to be brave and aggressive. They also gave high status tothose men who succeeded in raids. Men in some small-scale farming

societies, such as the Yanomamand other lowland forest people of SouthAmerica, raided each other's settlements when population pressure forcedcompetition for scarce resources. It is not surprising that these peoples alsoprized aggressive, violent behavior among men.

WarfareThe term warfare is used here to refer to a larger scale and more sustainedform of fighting than feuding and raiding. It involves organized combat usually

between clearly recognizable armies. A significant portion of a society'spopulation takes part in combat or support activities, often for years. Soldiersare trained and equipped for combat.Warfare as defined here is not universal. It mostly occurs between large-scale farming or industrial societies. They are the only kinds of societies thatcan afford to have large numbers of men not be involved in food productionfor prolonged periods of time. Warfare has been virtually absent amongsmall-scale societies, especially pedestrian foragers. This may be due to twofactors. They rarely have large enough surpluses to support soldiers who

must train and fight rather than produce food. Most adult males are neededyear round for subsistence activities. In addition, the population sizesofbandandtriballevel societies are generally too small to create armies.This does not mean that they are always peaceful and never fight with theirneighbors. However, when they do fight, it is rare for there to be manyfatalities. They usually cannot afford the loss of more than a few men. Itwould be too great an economic blow for the society. Subsequently, whencasualties mount up, they often break off combat and go home. In contrast,large-scale agricultural societies with thousands or even millions of peopleessentially have surplus men who they can afford to lose without it seriouslyaffecting their economies. The larger the population is, the more this holdstrue. Given these realities, it should not be a surprise that the first evidence oflarge-scale warfare was not until about 5,500-4,500 years ago whenchiefdoms were growing in power and evolving into the first ancient states. Asthese states grew larger and more powerful through military conquests, theyevolved into the well known early civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, India,China, Mesoamerica, and Western South America.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#bandhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#bandhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#bandhttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#tribehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#tribehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#tribehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#tribehttp://anthro.palomar.edu/control/glossary.htm#band


13/13

13

The reasons why societies have gone to war are varied and often complex.Revenge has usually been a key factor. In many cases, there has been adesire to gain or control more land and other resources. At other times, thegoal was simply the conquest or even outright destruction of another people.Many wars have been motivated by religious or political ideals. It is likely that

all societies have gone to war believing that they were morally justified andthat the gods were on their side. There is one final common trait found amongearly states that were beginning to wage wars of conquest againstneighboring states. That was considerable population pressure and a growingscarcity of land, water, or other essential resources.

Modern large-scale mechanized warfare in Iraq

Social Control 11

Documents

Transcript of Social Control 11