FUNCTIONALISM AND MARXISM ARE VIEWED AS CONTENDING PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL CONTROL, WITH FUNCTIONALISM EMPHASIZING CONTROL THROUGH NORMATIVE CONSENSUS IN SOCIAL LIFE AND MARXISM FOCUSING ON ECONOMIC POWER STRUGGLES AS THE ESSENCE OF SOCIAL CONTROL DYNAMICS. IT IS NOTED THAT BOTH FUNCTIONALISTS AND MARXISTS HAVE LARGELY IGNORED THE RECENT REVIVAL OF DETERRENCE RESEARCH. SIX QUESTIONS ARE POSED, WHOSE ANSWERS IT IS BELIEVED WILL PROVIDE STEPS TOWARD A BROADER DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CONTROL. THE QUESTIONS CONSIDERED ARE: (1) WHAT IS THE FOREMOST ISSUE IN CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL CONTROL; (2) WHAT IS SUBJECT TO SOCIAL CONTROL (3) WHO CAN EXERCISE SOCIAL CONTROL; (4) WHO IS SUBJECT TO SOCIAL CONTROL; (5) WHAT ARE THE GOALS OR CONSEQUENCE OF ATTEMPTS AT SOCIAL CONTROL; AND (6) BY WHAT MEANS CAN SOCIAL CONTROL BE EXERCISED. THESE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED OF THE DETERRENCE DOCTRINE OF SOCIAL CONTROL AS WELL AS THE CONTENDING PERSPECTIVES OF FUNCTIONALISM AND MARXISM. THE PARSONIAN AND MALINOWSKIAN VARIETIES OF FUNCTIONALISM SUGGEST AN UNMANAGEABLY BROAD CONCEPTION OF SOCIAL CONTROL. AT THE OTHER EXTREME, A FOCUS OF SOCIAL CONTROL STUDIES ON EITHER THE DETERRENCE DOCTRINE OR THE MARXIST PERSPECTIVE WOULD BE UNREALISTICALLY NARROW. SOMETHING CAN BE SAID FOR FOCUSING SOCIAL CONTROL STUDIES ON ATTEMPTS AT THE PREVENTION OF DEVIANCE, BUT A CONVENTIONAL DEFINITION OF DEVIANCE WOULD PRECLUDE THE ANALYSIS OF REVOLUTIONARIES AS AGENTS OF SOCIAL CONTROL AND THE POSTULATED CONTROL EXERCISED BY A DOMINANT ECONOMIC CLASS OVER LEGAL OFFICIALS. A PARTICULAR DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CONTROL IS NOT ADVOCATED. THE STRATEGY OF THE PAPER IS TO DELAY AN ATTEMPT AT A FINAL DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CONTROL AND SIMPLY TAKE A STEP IN THAT DIRECTION BY EXAMINING PREVALENT BUT LIMITED EXISTING DEFINITIONS BY APPLYING TO THEM THE SIX BASIC CONCEPTUAL QUESTIONS INTRODUCED. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--RCB)