Theory evaluation of control theory

Theoryevaluation of control theory

Theoryevaluation of control theory

Synopsisof Hirschi argument

TravisHirschi gives an interesting argument that economics has an influenceon determining human behavior. He, therefore, makes his argumentusing the following premises. The first premise that is establishedfrom the theory is that people are normally motivated by money aswell as the likelihood that they could make a profit from a givenventure (Carver &amp Scheier, 2012). The second premise of Hirschiis that the actions of human beings are individualistic andcalculated. The aspect means that people will always organize theproduction, consumption, and distribution of goods and services insuch a way that they are able to either use or generate money in theend (Changing minds, 2016). Such a process goes a long way toinfluence the growth of the economy in such a way that it is able tosustain populations that depend on it. People are also able toformulate actions that are bound to create more economic activitiesin such a way that it will also enhance their growth in the end. Thetheory is, therefore, different from others in that it is highlycalculative. It, therefore, does not accept the existence of otheractions that may not prove why some things tend to be the ways theyare.

Theone factor that helps to develop the theory is that all human actionsare built on the aspect of control. The term means that people applylots of reason in various actions that they take part in, therefore,getting the ability to carry out actions that are not only sound butalso consistent with views held by a large number of other people(McCarthy &amp Chaudhary, 2014). In such a case, there is bound tobe a situation where people will take part in activities that will beof great benefit for other individuals. The theory also holds theview that all social activities have a rational bearing no matter howmuch rational they appear.

Therational choice theory also avers that individuals normally play therole of ensuring that they take actions that are consistent with itsprovisions and tenets. As such, they will, therefore, apply amethodological action in their endeavors as they go about theirduties to create outcomes that are not only reliable but also strong,and able to lead them to a desirable direction. It is such processesthat normally push people to change their social behavior and,instead, develop strategies that will see them turn out to beincoherent with actions of other people who exist in the society(Weed &amp Smith-Lovin, 2016). In the end, where the change appearsto be sensible, it could also influence other people to join anddevelop a change in their lives and their activities so that they mayencompass the whole aspect of being able to be in lines with viewsthat are held by other people in the society. There is also a chancethat social change could also lead to strengthening of socialinstitutions in such a way that they are able to drive the behaviorof people in a certain direction.

FormalReconstruction of the argument of Hirschi

Peopleare controlled by money. Such individuals will always apply reasonwhile making a decision or before they take a given action. It isalso established that control is applicable even in the mostnon-conformance environments. The aspect of control is important forhuman survival and normal activities. Therefore, control choicetheory is good at influencing human behavior.

Responseto the argument of Hirschi

WhileHirschi appears to put across a sensible argument in a veryarticulate way, the views that he puts across are neither valid norsound. They lack validity because while Hirschi states that rationalchoice theory is based on individual action, he contradicts himselfin stating that the theory has the good effect of enabling a givenperson taking part in activities. These are activities that will endup being of benefit to others. Such assertions beg the question ofwhy one needs to be concerned with the development of other peoplewhen he is able to carry out duties that are able to benefit himalone (Weed &amp Smith-Lovin, 2016). In such a case, it would beatlogic for the given individual to go out of his way to take part inactions that will not of good use to him but, rather, benefit otherpeople instead. The argument, therefore, appears to be quiteinconsistent with normal activities of people around the world. Theneed to be of value to one another is quite compelling and, there maybe no need to aim to benefit oneself alone.

Theargument is also not sound because it fails to explain why peoplefollow social norms. This statement was given by a classmate whoindicated that “People will always be social to one another”during an interview. Since people are guided by personal gains thatthey may get from a given activity, then it does not provide theexplanation why people may come together for a given course. In thenatural world, it is normal to find people coming together and takingpart in activities that are geared towards a common course. Suchoccurrences show that it is the inherent nature of human beings totake part in activities that enable them to associate with oneanother. In such a way, they help to feed their inner psychologicalneeds that are based on being able to gain control of their emotionalself as well as having the ability to give back to the society aswell as being of value to other people (Cornish, &amp Clarke, 2014).They are also able to find the purpose for existence as they get toshare the experience that they have had in life as well as being ableto gain information from other people, who could be of great essenceto them, given the fact that all people have something that they mayshare with others.

Argumentfor non-control

Muchas the term sounds ambiguous and people would less likely wish to beassociated with it, it is quite true that people apply it to theirnormal activities. It is such cases that make people take part inrisky behavior that has no assurance of good returns in the end. Thefirst premise that may be applied to this argument is that all humanbeings are not the same and will, therefore, not apply the sameapproach to different situations that they may come into contactwith. It is such uniqueness that completes the entire pattern ofhuman beings and enables them to play an input in the lives of oneanother (Weed &amp Smith-Lovin, 2016). They are, therefore able tobe of benefit to one another in a major way. They are also able tomotivate one another into taking actions that are bound to help otherpeople. Humanity is majorly built on values and therefore, there isthe actual need of sustaining the values created in such a way thatthey may be applied by more people so that to ensure that they can bepropagated and survive for longer periods.

Thesecond premise for my argument is that it is non-control that willalways make change for the world. Most of the developments that areseen in the world a result of great input and sacrifice that are doneby people as well as the risk that people put in their activities.Scientists, for example, will, therefore, go ahead implementing ideasthat they have, even when other people do not feel that the viewsthey hold are likely to have any good outcomes (Weed &ampSmith-Lovin, 2016). In such a way, these people are bound to developinventions and innovations that could be of great impact to the worldand create a transformation and revolution that may benefit mostpeople. Quite clearly, history has proven that most of thediscoveries that are made around the world are a result of aresilient effort that people have normally put in their work, so asto ensure that they achieve a goal that they are after. In such away, they go out of their way to carry out actions that are way outof what is normally done, which pushes them to become successful.

Anothergood representation of the premise is the case where people take partin active participation of carrying out various economic activities.In the said situations, such people face the real danger of losingmoney through the specific business ventures that they invest in.While it is true that not all people who take part in such venturesnormally succeed, it is, however, evident that some of them end upmaking huge returns from investments that they make. Where control isused, people are bound to analyze situations intently and establishwhether the actions they take are bound to bring in good results inthe end. Non-control, however, drives people to take actions thatlack reason, but end up causing better outcomes in the end. Wherepeople move to areas that are not clear to them, they are also ableto develop skills and prowess that may see those achieving goodresults in the end.

Thetwo premises, therefore, go ahead to confirm that non-control isquite important to lives and success of human beings (Åström,2012). Such people will end up lacking the show of individuality asthey will be interested in seeing other people benefiting inactivities that they take part in. Such a case is among the thingsthat will always make people happy.

FormalConstruction of My argument

Severaltenets may be identified. One of them is that, f people have come upwith major successes in life out of being not being controlled, thennon-control is good. Where there is a lack of individuality is there,then people are able to associate with one another, thereby beingable to be of benefit to one another. Non-control is common.Therefore, people do not need to take calculative moves to carry outtheir activities. People are social beings People are motivated bysomething more than just money

Conclusion

Inconclusion, it is evident that the control theory has its benefits aswell as flipsides. It is able to influence people to change some oftheir behavior, which may go a long way to effect a positive state ofthe world in general. It also has its flipside in that it acts withthe assumption that people think in the same way and will, therefore,respond to some actions in identical ways, which is not always thecase.

References

Åström,K. J. (2012).&nbspIntroductionto stochastic control theory.Courier Corporation.Cornish, D. B., &amp Clarke, R. V. (Eds.).(2014).&nbspThereasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending.Transaction Publishers.

Carver,C. S., &amp Scheier, M. F. (2012).&nbspAttentionand self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior.Springer Science &amp Business Media.

Changingminds (2016). Controltheoryhttp://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/control.htm

Cornish,D. B., &amp Clarke, R.V (Eds.). (2014). The reasoning criminal:Rational perspectives on offending. Transaction Publishers,

Weed,E. A., &amp Smith-Lovin, L. (2016). Theory in Sociology of Emotions.In&nbspHandbookof Contemporary Sociological Theory&nbsp(pp.411-433). Springer International Publishing.